matt privett writes

about the Bible/theology, politics, sports, and anything else which interests him

[mattprivettwrites]

What MLS should be doing

Originally written on Feb 6, 2017.

Now to things that matter.

As you may have heard, Major League Soccer is in the expansion business. Not only are Atlanta United, Minnesota United, and Los Angeles FC coming aboard (and the Miami Beckhams joining somewhere in the wild blue yonder), but MLS has announced plans to expand from 24 to 28 in the next few years. Last week the league received bids from twelve cities vying for one of the expansion franchises.

This post isn’t so much about which cities should get those franchises — although St. Louis, Sacramento, Charlotte, and either Cincinnati or Detroit make the most sense to me. No, this post is about what MLS should look like once expansion happens.

Currently MLS divides its teams into two conferences, Eastern and Western, with regular season schedules weighted toward intra-conference games. The team with the most points at the end of the season gets the Supporters’ Shield, while top teams from each conference compete in playoffs to win the MLS Cup.

Now the problems with this are obvious and fundamental, at least to me (and I’m the one writing this). The Supporters’ Shield is irreparably tainted with unbalanced schedules, and with soccer being a sport historically emphasizing accomplishment over the whole of a season, the crap shoot that is the MLS Cup playoffs becomes the league’s way of Americanizing the most popular sport in the world.

So if MLS wants to expand to 28, I say make plans to eventually get that number to 32. Not immediately. The product is about to be diluted with expansion and you don’t want to shock the system that much. But eventually, get to 32.

Then bust it up.

Divide the leagues in half, MLS and MLS2, sixteen teams apiece.

The regular season for each league would consist of thirty games, home-and-homes with each other team in the league.

The winner of MLS would claim the Supporters’ Shield, and it would mean something because every team in the top domestic league played the same schedule.

The bottom three teams in MLS would be relegated to MLS2. As for MLS2, the top two teams would automatically get promoted and teams 3–6 would do a playoff similar to what the English League Championship does.

All thirty-two teams of MLS and MLS2 would compete in a MLS Cup tournament to be held throughout the year, culminating right after the conclusion of the regular season.  The winner would be guaranteed a spot in the CONCACAF Champions League, and perhaps the promotion/relegation system could include a provision that the winner be guaranteed safety from relegation or automatically promoted, raising the stakes of the tournament beyond its English parallel, the EFL Cup.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Open Cup would remain in place for teams in the States, including teams from MLS, USL, NASL, and whatever else U.S. Soccer deems fit. Our version of the FA Cup.

I know MLS is still growing, trying to gain respectability as a major sports league in North America. The good news for them is that plenty of cities are itching to get in on a sport which has grown and continues to grow by leaps and bounds in this country. As a result, expansion fees have skyrocketed. Thus, if I’m Don Garber this is the time for a bold move. I have to think this setup would be more attractive to sports television networks. Of course, they would prefer MLS to MLS2, but in the era of streaming all kinds of possibilities open up.

Anyway, just one man’s thoughts. What do you think about this idea? What would you change?

[mattprivettwrites]

[mattprivettwrites]

The best songs of the 1970s

“What started out as a joke has turned into a disaster!” - Stu Nahan, Rocky IV

So my employment has me in my car a lot, which means I’m listening to the radio a lot. If I’m not listening to a podcast or baseball game through my phone I also have SiriusXM, which of course has a plethora of musical options. I gravitate to the 70s and 80s channels because, well, of course I do.

Something else about me you may or may not know is that I love ranking things. I have a Note on my phone I’m regularly accessing that is nothing but different types of rankings. 

Thus, you can imagine my excitement when the 70s on 7 station announced a listener-voted Top 700 Songs of the 70s countdown over Labor Day weekend. It was a fun listen. They went through it twice over the four day weekend, and I was laboring much so I heard much.

It prompted me to think: What are my top seventy songs of the 70s? Surely I wasn’t going to come up with a top 700. After all, some in that list were real stinkers. But seventy? No problem. And indeed, it wasn’t hard to come up with that many songs. The hard part was narrowing it down. And once I did, there were still so many songs on my list I had enough for more lists, so I expanded it to 140, then 210, and... well...

I’m about to give you the authoritative list of the 350 best songs of the 1970s. I originally put out a Top 70 list on Facebook a few weeks ago. Much that of that list remains the same, with a few changes. But now there is much more. I’ve divided these into five “volumes” of seventy songs. They are my picks, but I welcome your feedback, because what’s a good set of rankings without debate and discussion.

Vol. 1 (1–70)

Chicago - “25 or 6 to 4”

Billy Joel - “Scenes from an Italian Restaurant”

The Doobie Brothers - “What a Fool Believes”

Queen - “Bohemian Rhapsody”

Boston - “More Than a Feeling”

Elton John & Kiki Dee - “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart”

Gerry Rafferty - “Baker Street”

ABBA - “Waterloo”

Don McLean - “American Pie”

The Eagles - “Take It to the Limit”

Fleetwood Mac - “The Chain”

Lynyrd Skynyrd - “Free Bird”

Billy Joel - “Until the Night”

Looking Glass - “Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl)”

Stevie Wonder - “Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours”

Elton John - “Philadelphia Freedom”

The Bee Gees - “Stayin’ Alive”

The Knack - “My Sharona”

Derek & The Dominos - “Layla”

Chicago - “Just You ’N’ Me”

The Emotions - “Best of My Love”

Jefferson Starship - “Miracles”

Aerosmith - “Dream On”

Joe Cocker - “You Are So Beautiful”

The Who - “Won’t Get Fooled Again”

Carly Simon - “You’re So Vain”

Electric Light Orchestra - “Livin’ Thing”

The Rolling Stones - “Beast of Burden”

Queen - “We Will Rock You / We Are the Champions”

Billy Joel - “My Life”

Journey - “Lights”

Toto - “Hold the Line”

Michael Jackson - “Don’t Stop ’til You Get Enough”

Pilot - “Magic”

Bruce Springsteen - “Born to Run”

Led Zeppelin - “Stairway to Heaven”

Styx - “Babe”

Stevie Wonder - “Sir Duke”

Orleans - “Still the One”

Samantha Sang - “Emotion”

Foreigner - “Feels Like the First Time”

ABBA - “Dancing Queen”

The Four Seasons - “December, 1963 (Oh What a Night)”

Marvin Gaye - “Trouble Man”

The Spinners - “Rubberband Man”

Kansas - “Carry On Wayward Son”

The Jackson 5 - “I Want You Back”

Chicago - “If You Leave Me Now”

Bill Withers - “Ain’t No Sunshine”

Earth, Wind, & Fire - “Shining Star”

Olivia Newton-John & John Travolta - “You’re the One That I Want”

Yvonne Ellman - “If I Can’t Have You”

Fleetwood Mac - “Don’t Stop”

Billy Joel - “Just the Way You Are”

The Eagles - “I Can’t Tell You Why”

Free - “All Right Now”

Kenny Rogers - “The Gambler”

The Bee Gees - “Night Fever”

Player - “Baby Come Back”

The Ides of March - “Vehicle”

David Bowie - “Starman”

The Five Stairsteps - “O-O-H Child”

Carole King - “I Feel the Earth Move”

Elton John - “My Father’s Gun”

Jefferson Starship - “Jane”

Stevie Wonder - “Higher Ground”

Electric Light Orchestra - “Mr. Blue Sky”

Seals & Croft - “Summer Breeze”

The Temptations - “Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone”

Chicago - “Old Days”

——

Vol. 2 (71–140)

The Who - “Baba O’Riley”

The Eagles - “Hotel California”

Billy Joel - “Prelude/Angry Young Man”

Aerosmith - “Walk This Way”

The Four Seasons - “Who Loves You”

Gerry Rafferty - “Right Down the Line”

Chicago - “Make Me Smile”

The Bee Gees - “Too Much Heaven”

Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - “Old Time Rock and Roll”

Elton John - “Your Song”

Earth, Wind, & Fire - “September”

Queen - “Somebody to Love”

Paul McCartney & Wings - “Live and Let Die”

The Village People - “Y.M.C.A.”

James Taylor - “Fire and Rain”

Led Zeppelin - “Whole Lotta Love”

The Spinners - “Could It Be I’m Falling in Love”

Three Dog Night - “Joy to the World”

Jim Croce - “I Got a Name”

Billy Joel - “Stiletto”

The Jackson 5 - “ABC”

Styx - “Come Sail Away”

Dobie Gray - “Drift Away”

Ozark Mountain Daredevils - “Jackie Blue”

Stevie Wonder - “I Wish”

Credence Clearwater Revival - “Up Around the Bend”

The Hollies - “Long Cool Woman (In a Black Dress)”

Daryl Hall & John Oates - “Rich Girl”

Elton John - “Saturday Night’s Alright (For Fighting)”

KISS - “Rock and Roll All Nite”

Fleetwood Mac - “Go Your Own Way”

Carl Douglas - “Kung Fu Fighting”

Steve Miller Band - “Jet Airliner”

Chicago - “Saturday in the Park”

Led Zeppelin - “Immigrant Song”

The Beatles - “Let It Be”

Three Dog Night - “An Old Fashioned Love Song”

Bad Company - “Can’t Get Enough”

Grand Funk Railroad - “We’re an American Band”

The Bee Gees - “More Than a Woman”

The Charlie Daniels Band - “The Devil Went Down to Georgia”

The Doobie Brothers - “Listen to the Music” 

Black Sabbath - “Iron Man”

Chic - “Good Times”

Billy Joel - “Movin’ Out (Anthony’s Song)”

Harry Chapin - “Cat’s in the Cradle”

The Bay City Rollers - “Saturday Night”

Elton John - Bennie and the Jets”

K.C. & The Sunshine Band - “That’s the Way (I Like It)”

Lynyrd Skynyrd - “Sweet Home Alabama”

Carole King - “It’s Too Late”

The O’Jays - “Love Train”

Billy Joel - “Piano Man”

Foreigner - “Double Vision”

Chicago - “Feelin’ Stronger Every Day”

Peaches & Herb - “Reunited”

Deep Purple - “Smoke on the Water”

Wild Cherry - “Play That Funky Music”

Marvin Gaye - “I Want You”

Orleans - “Dance With Me”

Earth, Wind, & Fire - “After the Love Has Gone”

Van Halen - “Ain’t Talkin’ Bout Love”

Paul McCartney & Wings - “My Love”

Little River Band - “Lonesome Loser”

Stevie Wonder - “Isn’t She Lovely?”

Steely Dan - “Reelin’ in the Years”

Cheap Trick - “Surrender”

The Sugarhill Gang - “Rapper’s Delight”

Maxine Nightingale - “Right Back Where We Started From”

The Who - “Who Are You”

——

Vol. 3 (141–210)

Gloria Gaynor - “I Will Survive”

Led Zeppelin - “Kashmir”

Chicago - “Baby, What a Big Surprise”

Sister Sledge - “We Are Family”

Jackson Browne - “Running on Empty”

Olivia Newton John - “Hopelessly Devoted to You”

Vicki Sue Robinson - “Turn the Beat Around”

Billy Joel - “Big Shot”

Starland Vocal Band - “Afternoon Delight”

Rupert Holmes - “Escape (The Piña Colada Song)”

Queen - “Don’t Stop Me Now”

Andrea True Connection - “More More More”

The Guess Who - “American Woman”

The Doobie Brothers - “Black Water”

Paul McCartney & Wings - “Band on the Run”

Stevie Wonder - “Superstition”

Elton John - “Someone Saved My Life Tonight”

James Taylor - “Your Smiling Face”

The Rolling Stones - “Miss You”

Chicago - “Beginnings”

Bachman-Turner Overdrive - “Let It Ride”

Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - “We’ve Got Tonight”

Styx - “Lady”

Three Dog Night - “Mama Told Me (Not to Come)”

Journey - “Lovin’, Touchin’, Squeezin’”

Foreigner - “Cold As Ice”

10cc - “I’m Not in Love”

Credence Clearwater Revival - “Have You Ever Seen the Rain”

K.C. & The Sunshine Band - “Get Down Tonight”

Billy Joel - “Summer Highland Falls”

The Delfonics - “Didn’t I (Blow Your Mind This Time)”

Electric Light Orchestra - “Don’t Bring Me Down”

The Bee Gees - “How Deep Is Your Love”

Ike & Tina Turner - “Proud Mary”

Elton John - “Levon”

The Doobie Brothers - “Long Train Runnin’”

Seals & Croft - “Diamond Girl”

Redbone - “Come and Get Your Love”

Kenny Loggins - “This Is It”

Manfred Mann’s Earth Band - “Blinded By the Light”

Roberta Flack - “Killing Me Softly With His Song”

Paul McCartney & Wings - “With a Little Luck”

The Bellamy Brothers - “Let Your Love Flow”

The Carpenters - “Superstar”

Blue Oyster Cult - “(Don’t Fear) The Reaper”

Stevie Wonder - “You Are the Sunshine of My Life”

Eddie Money - “Baby Hold On”

Ted Nugent - “Cat Scratch Fever”

The Eagles - “Best of My Love”

The Four Tops - “Ain’t No Woman (Like the One I’ve Got)”

Chicago - “Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

Chairmen of the Board - “Give Me Just a Little More Time”

The Cars - “Just What I Needed”

Queen - “You’re My Best Friend”

Thelma Houston - “Don’t Leave Me This Way”

Heart - “Barracuda”

Isaac Hayes - “Theme from Shaft”

Daryl Hall & John Oates - “She’s Gone”

Rod Stewart - “You’re in My Heart (The Final Acclaim)”

Billy Joel - “She’s Got a Way”

The Hues Corporation - “Rock the Boat”

Steve Miller Band - “Fly Like an Eagle”

Thin Lizzy - “Jailbreak”

Supertramp - “Give a Little Bit”

Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes - “If You Don’t Know Me By Now”

America - “Sister Golden Hair”

Pure Prairie League - “Amie”

The Temptations - “Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me)”

Prince - “I Wanna Be Your Lover”

Van Halen - “Eruption / You Really Got Me”

——

Vol. 4 (211–280)

Led Zeppelin - “When the Levee Breaks”

The Clash - “London Calling”

Chicago - “(I’ve Been) Searchin’ So Long”

KISS - “Detroit Rock City”

Bobby Womack - “Across 110th Street”

Bad Company - “Feel Like Makin’ Love”

Billy Joel - “I’ve Loved These Days”

Jim Croce - “Bad, Bad Leroy Brown”

Aerosmith - “Sweet Emotion”

Ace - “How Long”

James Taylor - “How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You)”

The Chi-Lites - “Oh Girl”

Frank Mills - “Music Box Dancer”

Amii Stewart - “Knock on Wood”

ABBA - “Take a Chance on Me”

Grand Funk Railroad - “Some Kind of Wonderful”

Elton John - “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds”

Fleetwood Mac - “Dreams”

The Sweet - “Fox on the Run”

Herb Alpert - “Rise”

The Eagles - “The Long Run”

K.C. & The Sunshine Band - “Boogie Shoes”

Marvin Gaye - “What’s Going On”

Todd Rundgren - “Hello, It’s Me”

Black Sabbath - “Paranoid”

Paul McCartney - “Maybe I’m Amazed”

The Rolling Stones - “It’s Only Rock and Roll (But I Like It)”

Boston - “Don’t Look Back”

Billy Joel - “Streetlife Serenader”

Journey - “Wheel in the Sky”

Poco - “Crazy Love”

Blondie - “Heart of Glass”

James Gang - “Funk #49”

Kansas - “Dust in the Wind”

Kenny Loggins & Stevie Nicks - “Whenever I Call You ‘Friend’”

Steely Dan - “Do It Again”

Natalie Cole “This Will Be (An Everlasting Love)”

Billy Preston - “Outa-Space”

Boz Skaggs - “Lido Shuffle”

Leo Sayer - “You Make Me Feel Like Dancing”

Alicia Bridges - “I Love the Nightlife (Disco ‘Round)”

10cc - “The Things We Do For Love”

America - “Ventura Highway”

Smokey Robinson & The Miracles - “Tears of a Clown”

Donna Summer - “Hot Stuff”

Edgar Winter Group - “Free Ride”

Chicago - “Wishing You Were Here”

The Jackson 5 - “The Love You Save”

Carly Simon - “Nobody Does It Better”

Parliament - “Flashlight”

T. Rex - “Bang a Gong (Get It On)”

Ohio Players - “Love Rollercoaster”

Chuck Mangione - “Feels So Good”

Jackson Browne - “Doctor My Eyes”

The Eagles - “Take It Easy”

The Ramones - “Blitzkrieg Bop”

Seals & Croft - “Get Closer”

Queen - “Killer Queen”

Carol Douglas - “Doctor’s Orders”

Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - “Her Strut”

Billy Joel - “Vienna”

Average White Band - “Pick Up the Pieces”

James Taylor - “Handy Man”

Thin Lizzy - “The Boys Are Back in Town”

Walter Murphy - “A Fifth of Beethoven”

Three Dog Night - “Shambala”

The Three Degrees - “When Will I See You Again”

Jim Croce - “You Don’t Mess Around With Jim”

The Commodores - “Machine Gun”

Led Zeppelin - “The Song Remains the Same”

——

Vol. 5 (281–350)

Bachman-Turner Overdrive - “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet”

Billy Joel - “Miami 2017 (I’ve Seen The Lights Go Out On Broadway)”

Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - “Still the Same”

Al Green - “Let’s Stay Together”

ABBA - “S.O.S.”

The Cars - “Let’s Go”

Ted Nugent - “Stranglehold”

Elton John - “Rocket Man (I Think It’s Going To Be A Long Long Time)”

Styx - “Renegade”

Eddie Rabbitt - “Every Which Way But Loose”

Alice Cooper - “No More Mr. Nice Guy”

Daryl Hall & John Oates - “Sara Smile”

Chicago - “Lowdown”

Love Unlimited Orchestra - “Love’s Theme”

Rod Stewart - “Maggie May”

Paul Simon - “Slip, Slidin’ Away”

Robert Palmer - “Bad Case of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor)”

MFSB - “The Sound of Philadelphia”

Ambrosia - “How Much I Feel”

Electric Light Orchestra - “Evil Woman”

Bruce Springsteen - “Thunder Road”

ZZ Top - “La Grange”

Gino Vannelli - “I Just Wanna Stop”

Gilbert O’Sullivan - “Alone Again (Naturally)”

Fleetwood Mac - “Say You Love Me”

The Doobie Brothers - “Rockin’ Down the Highway”

Golden Earring - “Radar Love”

Ram Jam - “Black Betty”

The Eagles - “One of These Nights”

Meco - “Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band”

Billy Joel - “Honesty”

The Bee Gees - “Tragedy”

Queen - “Stone Cold Crazy”

Chic - “Everybody Dance”

Bread - “Everything I Own”

Olivia Newton John - “A Little More Love”

The Trammps - “Disco Inferno”

Neil Sedaka - “Laughter in the Rain”

Marvin Gaye - “Got to Give It Up”

B.J. Thomas - “Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head”

The Village People - “In the Navy”

King Harvest - “Dancing in the Moonlight”

Ohio Players - “Fire”

Nicolette Larson - “Lotta Love”

Main Ingredient - “Everybody Plays the Fool”

Barry White - “Can’t Get Enough of Your Love, Babe”

The Kinks - “Everybody’s A Star”

Michael Jackson - “Ben”

Elton John - “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road”

Dionne Warwick & The Spinners - “Then Came You”

Nazareth - “Love Hurts”

Eric Carmen - “All By Myself”

Foreigner - “Hot Blooded”

Bobby Caldwell - “What You Won’t Do For Love”

Foghat - “Slow Ride”

Andy Kim - “Rock Me Gently”

Cheryl Lynn - “Got to Be Real”

Captain & Tennille - “Love Will Keep Us Together”

The Miracles - “Love Machine”

Blondie - “One Way or Another”

Elvin Bishop - “Fooled Around and Fell in Love”

Leo Sayer - “When I Need You”

Little River Band - “Reminiscing”

Hudson Brothers - “So You Are A Star”

Exile - “Kiss You All Over”

Mountain - “Mississippi Queen”

Heat Wave - “Groove Line”

Sugarloaf - “Don’t Call Us (We’ll Call You)”

Hot Butter - “Popcorn”

ABBA - “Mamma Mia”

[mattprivettwrites]

Is it really necessary to affirm the virgin birth?

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on December 17, 2010, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

___________________________________________

Every year there seems to be a survey with conflicting information with regards to what a majority of Americans believe about this or that pertaining to the Christmas story, and in particular the virgin conception of Jesus Christ. One survey will say most Americans affirm it, another will say most Americans deny it. I’m inclined to think the latter is more than likely true.

I think there is little debate, really, that the virgin birth of Jesus is in great doubt amongst the majority of Americans and the world. And that is to be expected. That should not shock us one bit. Men love the darkness rather than the light. There is a lot of useless huffing and puffing some Christians get caught up in this time of year over stuff like “Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays,” and that’s not even an important debate. The virgin conception is much more important, yet still, no believer in Jesus Christ should be surprised when the world doubts the truth. It takes an act of God, the new birth, to get us to love the truth. We shouldn’t expect unbelievers to really believe in the virgin conception.

But must we believers really believe it, either? After all, it sounds absurd based on what we know about science and the reproductive system and how babies are born into the world.

One pastor and author who has gained some popularity over the last few years, especially among those in my generation and younger, is Rob Bell. He encourages those who read his books to challenge and question Christian doctrine and he says that verses in the Bible “aren’t first and foremost timeless truths.”

Regarding the virgin birth of Jesus, Bell says that if we were to take the virgin birth away and instead, tomorrow, learn that “Jesus had a real, earthly biological father named Larry [not McCord, by the way], and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of religious cults that were hugely popular at the time,” we would essentially not lose any significant part of our faith because our faith is not about truths, but more about how we live.

Don’t want you to overlook that… that the Christian faith is more about how we live than it is about truth. That’s why, to Bell, the virgin birth is of little consequence.

I believe the virgin birth is something we must believe in, and it’s because of teachers like Rob Bell and many others like him that I believe this question merits our attention, even if we all agree beforehand that the virgin birth of Jesus as revealed in Scripture is 100% true. Because when this doctrine, the virgin birth, falls and when we allow the world to redefine something the Scriptures could not be more clear about, it completely redefines Jesus for us.

We find the accounts of Jesus’ birth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Neither of these men was likely gullible or dumb. Remember that Matthew was a tax collector before Jesus called him out of that. Luke, meanwhile, was a physician. Luke, in particular, would have known that virgins don’t have babies. And the fact that these two men weren’t stupid, but wrote these Gospels under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and included the virgin birth in their account of Jesus Christ, lends credence to the truthfulness of their claims.

Luke wasn’t merely a doctor, but his Gospel is a testimony to that fact that he was a good reporter and historian. In the first four verses of Luke he reveals that he investigated everything carefully. He spoke to eyewitnesses. He probably spoke to Mary herself about the birth of Jesus. How else would he have had such detail about Mary and her visit to Elizabeth and her prayer? So this wasn’t a myth that was concocted.

Matthew’s Gospel, in particular, reads like an apologetic, a defense, against the most popular Jewish claims of the day against Jesus Christ. Writing around 25-30 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, we find in the Gospel of Matthew reference after reference to the Old Testament to prove who Jesus is. Matthew is the one who makes reference to the conspiracy of the chief priests after the resurrection to say that the disciples stole the body. His account of the resurrection disproves their conspiracy. And likewise, his account of the virgin birth disproves the popular idea in Jesus’ day that His mother conceived Him illegitimately.

So God used Matthew and Luke, two men who would’ve had to have been sharp to do what they did, to communicate the divine truth of the virgin birth.

Let’s consider Luke 1:26-27:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Two times in verse 27 Luke makes reference to the fact that this woman is a virgin. At this point in the story the fact that she is a virgin is the singular most important thing about her to the story. Mary is the favored one, and the Lord is with her, according to verse 28, but there is nothing inherent in Mary that makes her special to carry out the birth of the Savior. God chose her, and at this point that fact that she is a virgin is what stands out in the story.

Over the next several verses the angel Gabriel tells her that she will conceive and bear a son and name Him Jesus, and He will be called the Son of the Most High. The angel is literally telling Mary that her Son will be the Son of God, that He will be the One who will reign forever. So there will obviously be a very supernatural element to His birth.

Mary’s response is the obvious one in verse 34.

Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”

Again, we see that fact that she was a virgin stressed here. It serves to emphasize to the reader the uniqueness of what was going on here, and so the angel answers her in verses 35-37:

The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called dthe Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Just for good measure, to give Mary confidence in the truthfulness of the word of God, God had given evidence of His supernatural power to bring life into the world through Mary’s relative Elizabeth. She was old and barren but now she was pregnant. So if God could do that through Elizabeth, someone Mary was obviously close to, He could conceive a child in a virgin’s womb. Nothing is impossible with God.

Matthew’s account also makes much of Mary’s virginity. In Matthew 1:18-25 he makes it clear that before Mary and Joseph, to whom she was betrothed already, before they came together, before they ever had intercourse, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Matthew includes the important fact that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son, and he called His name Jesus.

The accounts of Matthew and Luke are reputable enough in their own right to make clear to us that Jesus was born of a virgin, but consider for a moment the lack of any record of repudiation on the part of the apostles and the early church. There is no record of any apostle or any other early church father rebuking the Gospels of Matthew and Luke for including such an outrageous idea, of a virgin giving birth.

Surely the apostle John, who lived longer than any of the apostles, would have said something about it. Surely Paul, who was close to Luke, would have said something about it. Surely this would have been a huge fight within the early church into the second century. The earliest disputes over whether the virgin birth was real don’t happen until late in the second century and into the third centuries, and even then those questioning the doctrine are on the fringe.

Paul, for his part, may have made an implicit reference to the virgin birth in Galatians 4:4 when he writes, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” Two things about this verse:

First, the word translated “born” there does not merely mean “born” in the way we think of it, but it carries the weight of “coming forth.” It expresses the idea that Jesus didn’t come into existence when He was conceived in Mary, but this was the way in which came forth, from a woman.

Second, Paul makes no reference to a human father. He was born of, or came forth from, a woman, not a woman and a man. Why no reference to an earthly father from Paul? It would seem he believed there was no earthly father.

So the New Testament evidence and the early church evidence sides overwhelmingly with the virgin birth, but as if that isn’t enough, the Old Testament shows that the virgin birth wasn’t just some new idea the early church came up with to make more out of Jesus than there really was.

The most familiar Old Testament reference to the virgin birth is, of course, Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”

Now, in the context of Isaiah’s prophecy this was directed at King Ahaz to show him that the kingly line of David would remain even in the midst of foreign threats. And there is some question as to whether the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 ought to be translated instead “woman” or “maiden.”

However, one of the big time rules of interpreting the word of God is that the best way to interpret the word of God is with the word of God, and thankfully, God has not left us in a state of confusion on this verse because Matthew has given us the correct interpretation in his Spirit-inspired Gospel. In Matthew 1:23 he quotes Isaiah 7:14 with the word “virgin,” and he translates Immanuel to mean “God with us.” So Matthew’s interpretation makes clear that in the Old Testament God promised a virgin birth.

There is another, lesser known, more obscure, reference to the virgin birth in Jeremiah 31. And this chapter is, of course, one of the main chapters that teaches us about the new covenant God is making with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In this chapter God is talking about how He is going to turn Israel’s destitution and sorrow into joy and triumph. And we read this in verse 22.

How long will you go here and there, O faithless daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth —A woman will encompass a man.

In other words, a woman on her own shall develop a man. This is the new things the LORD is creating in the earth. And this is a Messianic text. In fact, if you look down to verse 27 and to verse 31 and following, that is where the LORD is declaring the new covenant.

And it is, of course, Jesus Christ, who ushers in the new covenant. Luke 22:20, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus says, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” In 2 Corinthians 3:6 we are servants of a new covenant when we are servants of Jesus Christ. The writer of Hebrews is speaking of Jesus in chapters 8 and 9. In Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24 he refers to Jesus as “the mediator of a new covenant.”

In short, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the early church testify to the promise, the fulfilling, and the truthfulness of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Still, there are those who are not Christians, and even some who claim to be Christians, who think this doctrine is not important.

So what is at stake if we lose the virgin birth?

If we lose the virgin birth then the story of Jesus changes greatly. As one writer put it, “We would have a sexually promiscuous young woman lying about God’s miraculous hand in the birth of her son, raising that son to declare he was God, and then joining his religion. But if Mary is nothing more than a sinful con artist then neither she nor her son Jesus should be trusted.” 

The first implication if the virgin birth is untrue is that Mary, at the very least, engaged in sexual immorality with somebody, if not Joseph. That would make Jesus an illegitimate child and would make Mary and Joseph flat out liars. It would also mean that the angels did not visit Mary and Joseph, and even if they did in some way they lied in what they said. It means that the Holy Spirit did not conceive in Mary’s womb, so that throws out the idea of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. His deity is out the window. That would mean that he was born of the seed of a man, and the seed of man carries with it the guilt of Adam. Jesus Christ would have been conceived in iniquity, just like David says in Psalm 51. He would have been born a sinner and thus He could not have been our Savior.

We need a Savior who is sinless, but if Joseph or someone else was Jesus’ earthly father than Jesus would have been born a sinner in need of a Savior. Nothing divine about Him.And if there is no Son of God, if there is no perfectly righteous Savior, then the cross was nothing more than a blasphemer rightly being put to death. And that means there is no perfect righteousness credited to those who trust in Him, and there is no forgiveness of sins, because the Lamb who was slain was not without His own blemishes… if there was no virgin birth.

Some, throughout the history of the church, have denied the virgin birth by asserting that Jesus was not literally human, but rather a divine apparition or something like that who merely appeared human. Well, just as no virgin birth eliminates the deity of Christ, to eliminate the virgin birth on with that type of argument eliminates the humanity of Christ. And if Christ is not fully human, then we do not have a great high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses, tempted in every way we are tempted, yet without sin.

Jesus must be fully God and fully man or He cannot be the propitiation, the wrath-absorber, for our sins, and He cannot be the Mediator between God and man.There must be a virgin birth or Christianity is the biggest joke in the history of the world. Our faith is futile without the virgin birth because, in addition to all of the other problems we have if there is no virgin birth, we lose the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures as well. And if we lose that we can’t trust anything we read in the Bible, can we?

I thank God and praise Him for the virgin birth. I praise Him for the timeless truths of Scripture that define what Christianity is and is not. I grieve for those who teach that Christianity isn’t primarily about truths but about a way of life, and I grieve for those who buy into that lie. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. God has revealed Himself through His Word. It’s true that Jesus changes the way of life for someone who trusts in Him, but if that changed life isn’t grounded in the timeless truths of the word of God, such as the virgin birth of our Savior, then you will eventually not follow Jesus as the way, but you’ll go your own way. And there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. The truth, however, sets you free.

So cling tightly to the truth of God’s word. If this is the way God has chosen to reveal Himself, then this is the way for us to defend our faith and everything essential to it, including the virgin birth.

[mattprivettwrites]

I lost 101.2 pounds in four months. Here’s how.

In late February I joined a private Facebook group of men dedicating themselves to lose weight and/or get in better shape. The group was designed to last through March and we checked in every Sunday with our weights. On March 1, then, I weighed in... at 328.4 pounds. 

I’ve struggled with my weight for years. Gaining, losing, then gaining more, then losing, then gaining more.

I kept telling myself it’s time to get serious and get this weight off and get healthier once and for all, but it was the invitation to that Facebook group which spurred my decision to finally get going (again). So on March 1 I weighed in at 328.4. Today, July 1, exactly four months later, I weighed in at 227.2. 

Yesterday was when I crossed the 100 pound mark, and I was so happy I posted a picture of me in a 2X shirt. I was wearing it comfortably, whereas four months ago 4X shirts were getting iffy. Anyway, the response by people on Facebook was so cool. Not only were there lots of congratulations, but a surprising number of people asked how I’ve done it. I typed out a little something in a Facebook comment, but thought I would expand upon it here.

Let’s get the exercise part of it out of the way first because it’s the simplest part. I walk... A LOT. I’m usually walking my neighborhood within 20–30 minutes of waking up, and usually walk for just under two hours. Then, after lunch I usually walk again for a little over an hour. I’m able to do this because my work is in the evenings. I know not everyone can do that. I usually get in over 25,000 steps a day, and more often close to 30,000 or more by the time I get home and go to bed. I know I won’t be able to maintain this pace permanently, but hopefully I won’t need to, once I transition from weight loss mode to maintain weight mode. For now, it’s what I’m able to do. My Fitbit is great, constant accountability.

Equally important to exercise it what I put into my body. At my worst I’m drinking sugary soft drinks like no one’s business and snacking with the best (or worst) of them. I’ve had to undergo a lifestyle change to do this. Right now I’m staying under 1500 calories, usually closer to 1200.

In the morning I drink a 30g, 160 calorie Premier Protein shake. You can find these at Walmart or other grocery stores and they come in several flavors. I think Caramel is my favorite, but my wife has discovered the Café Latte. That’s it, though. That’s my breakfast. I drink it and go on my walk, then, when I get home I usually drink a Lipton Diet Green Tea, and usually have another for lunch or in the afternoon. 

Speaking of lunch, because I’m usually working in the evenings this has become my *big* meal of the day, and one of the things that has made this journey a lot easier is that it hasn’t cost me foods I love. For example, more often that not I’m usually eating something for lunch that I’ve grilled in the past few days. The past three days I’ve eaten cheeseburgers (without a bun). I add carrots, a boiled egg, and/or a cheese stick, and that’s lunch.

I don’t snack in the afternoons. Usually I have another bottle of water or another drink.

Dinner is usually while I work and usually looks like the picture above. A half sandwich (bologna or salami, usually) on wheat bread, carrots, turkey pepperoni, a boiled egg, and usually the one soft drink of the day (always diet, right now Wild Cherry Diet Pepsi). No snacking after dinner. I’ll drink water or maybe another diet soft drink. Also, if I’m feeling hungry I’ll eat ice, as it tricks my brain into thinking I’m eating something, when really I’m just taking in water.

Aside from that breakfast protein shake, all of my *eating* is done between 12 and 8 at the latest, so you could say I'm partially fasting too.

I should add I don't take any special weight loss supplements or anything, but I do take several vitamins, given my limited diet -- a daily multivitamin, Super B Complex, C, D, and magnesium -- to make sure I'm getting what I need. Sometimes I crave *good* food, but mostly I'm past that. I've had a few slices of birthday cake here and there. Cheeseburgers are just about my favorite food in the world and I’ve already talked about that. Mostly, though, I've been incredibly disciplined with this new lifestyle with regard to food and had great support from my wife and children. No one is more surprised than I am that I've stuck to it so well. When I get to where I want to be weight-wise I'll make adjustments to maintain, rather than keep losing, but this is working very well for me. I can't believe I've averaged 25 pounds a month since March. That's insane. It's definitely not for everyone, but I feel so much better. The hard part will be keeping it off once I slow down. Many of you probably know I lost weight similarly, though not as quickly, in the second half of 2018, but by June 2019, for a variety of reasons, I gained it all back and then some. That ain't happening again. I haven't been under 200 since high school but that's going to change. Advice from a non-expert for those wanting to lose weight: Make sure you get protein. Limit your carbs. Try to get your sugar from unprocessed foods (i.e., fruit, not candy). And exercise. I just walk the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing fancy. If you have more questions or want more non-expert advice, send me a private message. Thanks for your encouragement. I'm not nearly done yet.

[mattprivettwrites]

The indispensable doctrine

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on January 15, 2015, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

___________________________________________

Outside of the church, Muslims are killing people, American taxpayers are giving over a half-billion dollars a year to Planned Parenthood so they can murder babies, and judges nationwide are giving a middle finger to God and Christians by forcing “same-sex marriage” down our throats, and there is so much more I could say.

Inside of the (professing) church, Joel Osteen still has clean teeth and is making his millions peddling fortune cookie wisdom, Christian bookstores are bowing the knee to the dollar by peddling his heresy and the unbiblical and antibiblical teachers of others, the largest Southern Baptist Church in the world is led by a man who has redefined the Ten Commandments as promises, and oh, there is here also so much more I could say.

Why is all of this happening? Why are there so many problems both inside and outside of churches? Why is the world the way it is?

The easy answer, of course, is sin. And it’s the correct answer, too. Rebellion against God. A dissatisfaction with His provision and His command and a lust for the idol of self, the idol of more, the idol of my way.

But let’s dig a little deeper. Where does sin come from? Well, not so ironically, the same place we find out what sin is.

The first sin of man, resulting in the fall of man, occurred in the Garden of Eden. You know the story, but you should read it again anyway to be reminded. God told Adam, He “commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die'” (Gen 2:16-17, emphasis mine).

So God spoke.

Then this happened: “[The serpent] said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.”‘ The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:1b-6).

God spoke. And man disobeyed.

Man wanted more. Man departed from the word of God. Man wasn’t satisfied with what God had said, so man did what he wanted to do. As a result, hell broke loose on earth.

If only we would learn.

We are all, because of what happened in Eden, born sinners who sin. We are all born dead — spiritually dead, that is. Conceived in iniquity (Ps 51:5). Dead in our trespasses and sins, sons of disobedience, children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). Our hearts are all, by nature, more deceitful than all else and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). We are sinners who sin.

We are sinners who do the exact thing Adam did in Eden. God has spoken, but so what!

All sin is, at its core, an abandonment, an ignorance, a rejection, a rebellion, a refusal, an abdication, an amendment to, a dissatisfaction with… the word of God. God has spoken, and we say “So what!” or “And…” or “But!”

That is why [the introduction is over now] of all the doctrines Christians must believe and need to believe and should believe, sola scriptura is the indispensable doctrine.

Sola scriptura, you might know, is Latin for scripture alone. It originated out of the Protestant Reformation, along with faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone as the pillars of a defection away from the bastardization of the church by Rome, who taught that while God’s word might be authoritative, so was the word of man as decreed through Popes and Church Councils.

Martin Luther was the gasoline poured upon already simmering embers of discontent with the Roman Catholic Church when, on October 31, 1517, he nailed his 95 Theses of protest on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, hoping for the reformation of Rome. When the powers that be would have none of it, the only choice Luther and any true Christian had was to wipe the dust off their feet and depart. As a result Luther was pursued, both by those who wanted to hear more from him and by those who wanted to shut him up by whatever means necessary.

A fateful day came at the Diet of Worms in 1521, presided over by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. Luther was asked if he recanted his writings, which castigated Rome and affirmed, by and large, what those still protesting Rome continue to affirm as biblical truth. Luther responded with famous words,

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen. (emphasis mine)

The world, represented by the Roman Catholic Church in that room, rejected Luther. And the world still does. Hence Muslims killing people, abortions costing $400 while adoptions cost $40,000, and the like.

But tragically, and more and more, the professing church seems to be turning its back on Luther — at least his words at Worms — and thus, turning its back on the word of God.

Sola scriptura is the indispensable doctrine, because when you try to add anything to or subtract anything from the word of God — contained in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments — you are following in the footsteps of the first man and first woman.

Today many professing Christians are not really Christians at all, because they’ve been convinced they’re safe by pastors and teachers who derive their authority not from the word of God, but by whatever works.

Today many professing Christians are in grave danger because they trust Christian bookstores to sell books and other materials that are in line with and help explain the word of God. Meanwhile, they are buying books which claim to speak for God instead.

Today many professing Christians will do anything and everything to feel spiritual or be inspired or feel holy or that they are hearing from God — except read their Bible.

Sola scriptura is the indispensable doctrine. It’s the most foundational thing to understand. We have to know it and believe it and acknowledge it, because everything else we believe come from it… the word of God… the Bible. The Bible has to be that important. If it’s not we start believing the wrong things, doing the wrong things, and setting ourselves up for shipwreck.

As I understand the Bible, there are four things about the Bible we all need to know.

The inspiration of Scripture (the one the scholar rejects)

The Bible is inspired by God. Let me repeat that. It is inspired by God. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God might be adequate, equipped for every good work.” That word for inspired (the Greek theopnuestos) literally means breathed out. These verses are telling us the words of Scripture are breathed out of God’s mouth, so to speak. They are from Him. The Bible in inspired by God and it teaches us, it reproves us (that means it tells us when we’re wrong), it corrects us (teaching us how to be right), and it trains us for righteousness (so that we won’t be wrong next time). That’s what the Bible does, and that’s because God is righteous and the Bible, the Scriptures, are His word.

Or how about 2 Peter 1:20-21? “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible wasn’t just written by men. The Holy Spirit gave them the words. The Bible is inspired, breathed out, by God.

The inerrancy of Scripture (the one the skeptic rejects)

The Bible is inerrant. Meaning without error, completely truthful and completely trustworthy.

If we believe the Bible, as it was inspired by God, has any errors, then what does that say about God? It would mean we don’t believe God is completely truthful. It would mean we don’t believe He is powerful enough to give us His word so that, now thousands of years after He gave it to us, we can still trust it. What does that Bible say about itself?

How about Psalm 119:89? “Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.” Paul is talking about the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 when he writes, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” What that is saying is that God has given us His word in a way that we can know it, and we can’t know it if there are errors.

Now I know that one of the favorite hobbies of some is to say, “The Bible is full of contradictions.” To which I say, “First of all, show me and let’s talk about these so-called contradictions. Second of all, you’re wrong. And through diligent reading and studying of God’s word I’ll show you you’re wrong.”

God is truth. Jesus said He is the truth. His Spirit is the Spirit of truth. And as Jesus said in John 17:17, the word of God is truth, by which we are sanctified (made holy). The Bible is inerrant.

The authority of Scripture (the one the sinner rejects)

The Bible is authoritative. We all have authorities. For students, teachers and school administrators are their authority. For children, fathers and mothers are their authority. For citizens (and I suppose even illegal aliens), the officials we elect to government offices and law enforcement are authorities.

But ultimately God is the One in charge. God is our King. Jesus is our King… But Jesus isn’t on the earth reigning as King right now, is He? So how do we know what He, our authority, wants of us? He has given us His word, the Scriptures, which in Psalm 19 is referred to as the law of the LORD, the commandments of the LORD, and the judgments of the LORD.

What does it say about what we think of God if we believe His word to be inspired and inerrant, and yet we reject it as authoritative? It means we are rejecting God as our King, much the same way the Israelites did in 1 Samuel 8. Do you remember what happened to them? God gave them Saul, who was an epic failure. And Israel’s history would be one of many kings who did not consider God’s word authoritative, and brought disaster upon themselves and the people.

The Bible is authoritative. Not you. Not what you want. The Bible is authoritative, which is why Jesus repeatedly taught by telling people, “It is written…” Paul quoted the Old Testament. Peter did, too.

Many people can write things about God. We can have confessions and statements of faith, catechisms… but ultimately all of them have to be in line with what the Bible says, because the Bible, the word of God, is the only word that is authoritative. God is in charge through His word.

The sufficiency of Scripture (the one the professing Christian rejects)

The Bible is sufficient. Sufficient. Sufficient. Sufficient. What that means is that what God has given us in the Bible is enough. It’s enough.

If our Christian bookstores had nothing but the Bible in them that would be enough. The word of God is enough.

We don’t have to go looking for more from God, like signs and wonders and prophecies or visions or voices in our head or devotional books that claim to be what Jesus told somebody, because what God has given us in the Bible is enough.

The Bible tells us all we need to know about creation, all we need to know about the commandments, all we need to know about our own sin, all we need to know about our one and only Savior, Jesus. Read again toPsalm 19:7-9: “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.” God tells us… the Bible is enough.

Jesus Himself said, to Satan no less, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). He was quoting Deuteronomy 6, by the way.

A lot of people have a lot of ideas about how Christians should be, how families should be, how churches should be. But what matters is God’s word. Is what you believe what the Bible says, or do you rely on the Bible plus something else? Or do you maybe conveniently edit out in your practice parts of the Bible you don’t like quite as much. The Bible is sufficient. The Bible is enough. God has spoken. His word is what we need.(1)

Sola scriptura, of all the five solas, really was the foundation of the Protestant Reformation. By going back to the word of God — affirming that the Bible is God’s word (inspired), that it (unlike the opinions of men) is without error, that it is authoritative, and it is sufficient — Christians left the Roman Catholic Church, and now here we are today.

Then again, where are we today?

Rome certainly hasn’t repented, and yet Protestantism’s protests are decreasing, the willful ignorance of professing Christians is increasing, and many are shaking hands with a spiritual harlot, the one the Reformers called “antichrist.” Where is sola Scriptura?

It’s from the Scriptures we realize that the most important thing, period, is the glory of God, so we do all things to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria). It’s from the Scriptures we realize we are saved by Christ alone — His perfect life without sin and His death on the cross where He bore our sins, and His resurrection by which we are given eternal life (solus Christus). We’ll talk later on this semester about sola gratia, grace alone. Unlike what the Catholic Church teaches, Christians are saved by grace alone — God giving us what we do not deserve. We learn that from the Scriptures. And also sola fide, faith alone. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not in the things we do, but by believing in Jesus and what He has done. It’s only through the Bible we learn this.

That’s why sola Scriptura is the indispensable doctrine. No matter how many times and how many different ways I repeat it in this post, I cannot tell you how important it is to realize how important the Bible is. It’s inspired by God. I’m not, but the Bible is. It’s inerrant. I’m not perfect, but the Bible is. It’s authoritative. I’m not in charge, but God is, and I find out what God wants from the Bible. And it’s sufficient. I’m not enough, but God is, and He gives me all I need to know in His word, the Bible, the Scriptures.

Sola scriptura. It is the indispensable doctrine. We can’t do without it. When we treat the Bible correctly, everything else we must believe will come.

Father, may Your church repent where it has decided Your word is not enough, and turn back to the Bible. Your word is truth. May we be sanctified by Your truth. May sinners hear Your truth and be made alive by the Holy Spirit. And may Your Son Jesus Christ be glorified as a result. Amen.

———-

(1) Let me be clear that my belief in the sufficiency of Scripture is not my way of saying we shouldn’t read Christian books and stuff like that. I’m not that guy. But I will say that our acceptance or rejection of any “Christian book and stuff like that” should be predicated upon a bedrock commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture. If what we read does not meet that standard, it should be discarded with yesterday’s trash.

[mattprivettwrites]

What was the Word up to before He became flesh?

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on December 9, 2010, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

________________________________________

The prologue of the Gospel of John should be well known to us because these eighteen verses tell us so much about the Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:1-18:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'”

For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Jesus is the Word who the apostle John is writing of here, and one of the reasons this passage is so important is that in it we pretty much get an explicit declaration of both Jesus’ deity, the fact that He is fully God, and His humanity, the fact that He was also fully man.

Verse 14 includes the words, “And the Word became flesh.” And it’s those words I want to use as our springboard to the discussion of the question, “What was the Word up to before He became flesh?” When we think of the Lord Jesus Christ we usually think of Him in one of two eras: 1) Either the time of His earthly life and ministry, or 2) the day of the LORD, the time of His return and when His kingdom is fully manifest.

But we must not forsake that little word “became” in verse 14. We must not forget that Jesus Christ did not come into being when the Child was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. The Word BECAME flesh, which shows that the Word existed prior to becoming flesh. Indeed, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, is just as eternal as the Father and the Spirit: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”

The fact that Jesus became flesh is foundational to the gospel, and thus it SHOULD be paramount in our hearts and minds, especially when we consider the Greek text from which we get our English “became” carries the weight of Jesus willingly leaving the glory He had to become a man. It was an act of humility for Him to do that, so that He could finish the work of redemption. But Mary’s womb is not where the Person and Work of the Second Person of the Trinity began. Let’s, then, consider Jesus before Bethlehem, Jesus in the Old Testament, or what you might call the work of the Preincarnate Christ.

Scripture could not be more clear that Jesus did not come into existence at a point in time, but is eternal. In John 8 Jesus as much as says it Himself when He was talking with the Jesus and they said, “Surely you are not greater than our father Abraham, who died?” Jesus essentially answers their question, “Yes, I Am greater than Abraham” when He says that Abraham longed to see His day, and then He goes one better in verse 58 and says, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am,” which to the Jews was unmistakable. Jesus was saying that He is YHWH. He is the one true eternal God.

But that’s the New Testament. What about the Old Testament? Micah 5:2 is one of the well known prophecies of the Christ who was to come. Micah writes, “But as for you Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.” When we see that verse quoted in Matthew’s Gospel it is to show that Bethlehem, the city of David, was the prophesied birthplace of the promised Messiah. But the last sentence of the verse reveal the glorious truth that the Messiah, though born at a point in time in Bethlehem, has always been. Jesus’ goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity… or “from everlasting,” which A.R. Fausset asserts is the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable. Jesus Christ is eternal, which means He has always existed.

Another familiar Messianic prophecy is Isaiah 9:6: “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” The term “Eternal Father” used to puzzle me since this was always referenced as a prophecy of Jesus, who is the Son. But I got some clarity when I began to read that probably the most literal rendering of that phrase isn’t “Eternal Father,” but “Father of Eternity,” and that way I believe better illustrates Jesus’ role in everything proceeding forth from Him, of Him being the Creator. Because that is exactly what Jesus Christ is: Creator. All three members of the Trinity were undoubtedly active in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2, for examples, tells us that the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. But the Bible tells us that Jesus played a very active role.

Back to the New Testament, again, John 1:3, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” Or consider Colossians 1:16-17:

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

What these verses clearly teach is that Jesus is the Creator, so that’s one thing the Word was up to before becoming flesh… but also He holds everything together. God hasn’t created the world and left it to itself, like the old Deists believed. If He were to not hold it all together we would cease to be. He is even now holding it all together.

In it only in these last days, as Hebrews 1:2 says, that God “has spoken to us through His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.” Among the God-head it was the Second Person of the Trinity who took on the role of Savior and Redeemer, a role He accepted in the plan of God in eternity past, but in time and space worked out in the flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. But as we see, He was active in creation and in holding it all together before the beginning.

Before He became flesh the Word was also One in fellowship with the Father. In John 10:30 Jesus declares Himself to be equal with the Father. “I and the Father are One,” He says, and in essence He’s saying that whatever is true of One is true of the Other. No one has seen God (the Father) at anytime, but the Son has come to explain Him. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17:5, He asks the Father, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” Paul writes in Philippians 2:6 that Christ Jesus “existed in the form of God,” but “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” So very plainly we see that Jesus Christ in form, in nature, in eternality, is every bit as God, every bit as eternal, as the Father.

It is in function where the Three in One differentiate themselves, and in the New Testament, in verses I’ve already read, one of the roles of Christ in the flesh is that He explains to us the Father.

He is the physical representation of the Father to us. Colossians 1:15 says, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” And I believe that, in addition to His active role in creation and in holding all things together, and in fellowshipping with the Father and the Spirit, before the Word became flesh Jesus was also manifesting deity.

There are what theologians call “theophanies” in the Old Testament, incidents where God manifests Himself to His creation. One of the ways in which He did this are the “angel of the LORD” passages found throughout the Old Testament. Sometimes when we see the word “angel” in the Bible it does literally mean an “angel” like Gabriel or Michael. But we need not get hung up on the word because it can and does also mean “messenger.”

There are several times in the Old Testament where I believe the Word who would become flesh serves as the Messenger of God, the Messenger of YHWH, and manifests deity to His creation.

He speaks as God. He identifies Himself with God. He claims to exercise the prerogatives of God. There are times where He shows Himself to be both distinct from YHWH, as His representative, and identified with YHWH, having the same nature and essence. This is a picture of Christ being the image of the invisible God, the exact representation of the Father, yet He Himself being fully God. This is Jesus in the Old Testament with the name Jesus.

Let’s just very quickly survey of some of the “Angel of the LORD” appearances.

Genesis 16:7-14

Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, awhere have you come from and where are you going?” And she said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.” Then the angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority.” Moreover, the aangel of the LORD said to her, “I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.” The angel of the LORD said to her further,

“Behold, you are with child, And you will bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because athe LORD has given heed to your affliction. He will be a awild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers.” Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are God who sees”; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?” Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.

The first time we see the “Angel of the LORD” is in Genesis 16. Sarai had treated her maid Hagar harshly after Sarai, who was barren, had given Hagar to Abraham to that he would have an heir. Hagar conceived and Sarai got angry and Hagar fled and we pick up in verse 7. Notice the angel, or messenger, says, “I will multiply your descendants.” That’s something God does, as He had promised to Abram in Genesis 12. Notice, too, how Hagar responds, “Then she called the named of the LORD who spoke to her, ‘You are a God who sees,’; for she said, ‘Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?’” So surely this Egyptian maidservant didn’t believe she was speaking to a mere Messenger, but to God Himself.

Genesis 22:11-18

But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”  He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now aI know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”  Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son. Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, “In the mount of the LORD ait will be provided.”

Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

In Genesis 22 we read the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. And just as Abraham is about the take the knife to him, the Angel of the LORD stops Him. In verse 12 the messenger says Abraham hasn’t withheld his son “from Me.” And then beginning in verse 15 the angel messenger identifies Himself as the LORD. “By Myself I have sworn.” So the Angel identifies Himself as the One who blesses, the One whose voice is to be obeyed.

Genesis 31:11-13

“Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Lift up now your eyes and see that all the male goats which are mating are striped, speckled, and mottled; for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me; now arise, leave this land, and return to the land of your birth.’”

In Genesis 31 Jacob was telling his wives, Leah and Rachel, that they were about the leave Laban, after recounting to them how Laban had treated him but how God had continued to bless him. So it’s the angel of the LORD talking to Jacob in a dream, but it’s the same angel of the LORD identifying Himself as the God of Bethel, which is the place Jacob had previously made a pillar to God, back in chapter 28.

Exodus 3:1-6

Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.  The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.” When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

This is undoubtedly the most famous biblical example of the angel of the LORD. What we have here is the angel of the LORD not appearing as an “angel” as we think of angels, but being made known through a burning bush. It could not be more clear there that this was no created being manifesting divine qualities, but it was God Himself, I believe, the Second Person of the Trinity, a physical manifestation of deity. Moses was afraid to look at God. There is no indication in the text of Moses being incorrect in believing that it was God Himself, in this case the Preincarnate Christ.

Other Examples

Numbers 22:22-38

Numbers 22 is where we read the story of Balaam and the donkey. Verse 22 says, “But God was angry because he (Balaam) was going (to prophesy against Israel), and the angel of the LORD too his stand in the way of an adversary against him.” And the donkey stops because she sees the angel of the LORD standing in the way. Balaam strikes the donkey, but the donkey is more afraid of God than Balaam and the donkey lies down and then the LORD opens the donkey’s mouth, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

What I’ve always found funny about this story is verse 29, Balaam’s response to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me!” It doesn’t strike Balaam immediately that it’s utterly absurd he’s talking to his donkey in the first place?

Anyway, finally the LORD opens Balaam’s eyes and he see the angel of the LORD standing in the way with sword drawn. The angel tells Balaam he’s only going to speak what what He tells him to speak. And in verse 38 Balaam acknowledges that his encounter was with God, no mere angelic being.

Judges

There is a trio of these angel of the LORD appearances in the book of Judges. The first is in Judges 2:1-4, where the angel of the LORD is the One who brought Israel out of Egypt. He is the One Israel has not obeyed. And He is the One who will not drive out Israel’s enemies as a result. In Judges 6 Israel is being oppressed by Midianites and in verse 11 we read of the angel of the LORD sitting under an oak tree and encountering Gideon. In verse 14 we read, “The LORD looked at him and said…” with no angel reference. It happens again in verse 16. So the writer of this section of Judges was clearly equating the angel with YHWH. It’s in Judges 13 that we read about the angel of the LORD coming to visit Manoah and his barren wife. The angel, the messenger, promises they will have a son. He would be a Nazirite to God from birth. No haircuts. No strong drink. It’s Samson, of course. In verse 6 the wife explains to Manoah the angel as a “man of God” who came to her. Later he’s described as an angel again when He visits the wife a second time and Manoah meets Him. And by the end of the visit Manoah and his wife know that they had seen God.

1 Chronicles 21

King David has fallen under the discipline of the Lord because he had a census taken, so God gave David a choice of three years famine, three months of being destroyed by enemies, or three days of the sword of the LORD. David chose the sword of the LORD, “for His mercies are very great,” he said in verse 13. And in the following verses the angel of the LORD brings judgment upon Israel for David’s disobedience. Verse 16 describes David as lifting up his eyes and seeing the angel of the LORD standing between earth and heaven, with his sword drawn. The story ends with the angel of the LORD bringing judgment, but also bringing mercy, and David fearing God.

1 Kings 19

In 1 Kings 19, right after Elijah called fire down from heaven he fled for his life from Jezebel, and in verses 5-7 it is the angel of the LORD who comes to him who comes to him and comforts him and touches him and gives him food and drink that strengthened him for forty days and forty nights.

This is no exhaustive look at the various e angel of the LORD passages but what we find is that, in the Old Testament He takes on several forms, including fire and man. He is a messenger, delivering the Father’s decrees, He is Guider and Protector, showing the way and preserving those who follow. He is the Instrument of judgment upon Israel, rebuking them for disobedience as the One who ultimately judges them. He is the One who promises a better future, a sure hope. And He is the One who is the Agent of refreshment, bringing renewal to those who are oppressed by the effects of sin.

He sounds an awful lot like Jesus Christ.

And that’s without even mentioning times when Christ appears in the Old Testament not described as the angel of the LORD. He wrestles Jacob in Genesis 32 and changing His name to Israel, giving the deceiver a new identity, just as we are giving a new identity in Christ. Jacob knew he had seen God face to face. And in Daniel 3 tells us of the fourth man in the furnace, one like a son of the gods, about whom Nebuchadnezzar said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who has sent His angel…”

And I bring all of this up just for your edification, as a reminder, to help us keep in mind that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Eternal Trinity, and He was quite active before He was born. The Word did a lot before He became flesh. Yet, at the same time, He saved His best work for when He did become flesh.

It is worth noting that the angel of the LORD does not appear in the New Testament. The Second Person of Trinity has at that point taken on the form of a man. He has added humanity to His deity. Yet, His preincarnate acts foreshadow His earthly ministry…As the God-man He was the Father’s messenger… As the God-man He guided His disciples and protected them… As the God-man He pronounced judgment on the nation of Israel when they rejected Him, and He will judge the living and the dead according to 2 Timothy 4:1… And as the God-man He is the ultimate Agent of refreshment, the Savior who gives new life to sinners who are dead in their trespasses and sins, the One who raises us up out of the depths by His grace and gives us His peace.

Why is this important? Well, “Who do men say that I am?” is the question Jesus asks, and most of them, if not in word, then definitely in deed, deny that He is the Son of God.

We must affirm an eternal Jesus Christ, because if there is no eternal Christ, there is no eternal Trinity. He is not fully God, and that makes Him a liar, and that makes the Bible something we can’t trust, and that means our faith is lost because we have no biblical Christ, no Savior, no hope, and we are to be most pitied among men. Praise God that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is the One who was, is, and is to come.

I hope this quick study has been helpful to refresh your memories to the fact that Jesus Christ really is God, and He always has been and He always will be. His story doesn’t begin in Bethlehem. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.

[mattprivettwrites]

David the Trinitarian: A nugget of biblical awesomeness from Psalm 8

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on August 23, 2013, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

________________________________________

I have been teaching on the doctrine of God on Wednesday nights at my church and last night our topic has been “God Is Creator and Sustainer.” It’s been a good time, a fruitful study, a kind of bird’s eye view of what Scripture teaches us about God. I had employed Psalm 8:1-4 into my lesson to show how God as Creator and Sustainer of all things still cares for every thing, including each and every person.

So I went about reading the text in the Bible study and something caught my eye. I hadn’t looked into the Hebrew or gone deep into this particular passage in my study because, again, this study is a bird’s eye view of the things of God. In just a plain reading of my NASB, I saw language in the English that indicated something deeper potentially going on in the Hebrew — an indication of plurality within the Godhead.

Now I know the discussion of David writing about multiple persons of the Godhead is nothing new; however, almost all of said discussion I’ve been familiar with in the past has revolved around Psalm 110, the Scripture most often quoted in Scripture, for it features the following notable passage in verses 1-2:

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”

A survey of how this verse is used in the New Testament shows how important it is in the Old Testament because it shows plurality in the Godhead, and specifically that Jesus is the Son of God and equal with the Father. YHWH was speaking to the Lord here promising Him He would rule. God was promising the Lord something. Jesus appeals to this text, as does Peter in his sermon on Pentecost. And just reading it you can see why it would be appealed to.

But Psalm 8 is normally not spoken of as Old Testament proof and Davidic belief in the Trinity, or at the very least plurality. Yet this is what I read last night. See if you catch what I saw in verse 1 in English (NASB):

O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens!

Do you see it? If not, here it is in English… LORD appears in the English to be singular, and Lord in English appears in the English to be singular. Name is singular. But then wouldn’t it make sense grammatically to say “Who has displayed”? It doesn’t, though, it says Who have, which denotes a plural subject. Why the change in tenses?

The first LORD is in all caps, which is the indication in many English translations (including the NASB) that the word in the Hebrew is the tetragrammaton, the covenant name of God, YHWH. In the Hebrew text it is in singular.

However, did you catch where I send Lord “appears… to be singular.” It isn’t. The second Lord, the English translation of the Hebrew word transliterated adonai, is in the plural in Psalm 8:1. So David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, referred to singular YHWH as plural Lord, and thus they (the plurality Lord) have displayed the splendor of YHWH above the heavens.

So not only do you have more than one person denoted in Lord in Psalm 8:1 (implying Trinity), you also see unity in the singular YHWH. Trinity in unity.

It just goes to show you that God inspired every jot and tittle of His word, and we should be diligent to rightly divide it (2 Tim 2:15), or else we’ll miss everything He has already revealed to us.

[mattprivettwrites]

New Jerusalem: New words to an old tune

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on November 15, 2011, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

_______________________________________

As I prepared last year to preach the final Sunday of the year, December 26, I stumbled across some stuff at Desiring God related to the text I would be preaching – Romans 16:25-27. John Piper had finished preaching through Romans a few years earlier and I found the transcript of his sermon on this text helpful. However, what really drew my attention was a hymn he had written, inspired by those verses, to the tune of “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing.” A little inspired, I took the two verses he penned and added two of my own. You can see the lyrics here.

Since then I have wanted to do more of that. I don’t consider myself talented enough to write my own music, but I have put new lyrics to the tune of one other old hymn. The product is below. It’s not a finished product, so if you have any suggestions I’ll be happy to hear them. If you want to use this in your church, by all means, do it. I only ask that you not plagiarize. Give due credit. In fact, you can just cut and paste what is below. I hope you are edified.

New Jerusalem Lyrics by Matt Privett, to the tune of “Come, Thou Fount”

Holy city, sent from heaven / Gift from God, His glory shown. In its great, surpassing brilliance / Like its Maker on the throne. This is our eternal city / This is our eternal land. In this place of peace we’ll praise Him / in the New Jerusalem.

There’s no temple in this city / for the Lord’s the dwelling place. For all sinners who’ve come needy / through the gospel of His grace. Jesus Christ has shed His own blood / Son of God the spotless Lamb. We’ll partake of His Passover / in the New Jerusalem.

Sin is absent in this city / Sin’s abolished through His power Holy judgment upon Satan / And all sinners who will cower Only justice, love, and mercy / From the lips of gloried man. Ceaseless praise of the Almighty / in the New Jerusalem.

He’s the Alpha and Omega / The beginning and the end Jesus left His place of glory / Became man and conquered sin. Always God He’ll ever be God / Sovereign Lord who knows no end. Trust in Him and you’ll be living / in the New Jerusalem.

[mattprivettwrites]

God Alone Is Wise: A hymn of reflection upon Romans 16:25–27

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on December 26, 2010, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

_______________________________________

This morning I preached from Romans 16:25–27 a sermon titled “A Benediction Upon 2010.” The focus of the sermon was on the glory of God which has been manifested in the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This past week in preparation for this sermon I read through some of the sermons John Piper has preached on this text (They are available via transcript, audio, and video at desiringGod.org). At the end of one of them was a reference to a song he wrote, to the tune of “Hark the Herald Angels Sing,” entitled “God Alone Is Wise,” to go along with his sermon.

I enjoyed it greatly. The glory of God displayed in the gospel of Jesus Christ ought to inspire us to worship Him with the creativity He gave us. To that end, I took the two verses he wrote and added two of my own (the third and fourth below).

I hope you enjoy it and that it causes God to receive the glory, honor, and praise due His name. You have my permission to use my verses as long as they are not edited for content and that credit is given. The first two verses must be used in accordance with the permissions granted by Desiring God Ministries.

God Alone Is Wise (to the tune of “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”)

God alone is full of wisdom, God alone knows every end, God alone plans every pathway, More than we can comprehend. Infinite! His wisdom soars, High above our peace and wars, Grasping all the mysteries, Governing the galaxies. Infinite! Our God is wise! Let our boast in Him arise!

Wise! He saves the lowly sinner. Wise! He keeps his covenant. Wise! His ways at Calvary Silence ev’ry argument. By His blood and righteousness Jew and Gentile He will bless. None shall boast in any man, All shall marvel at His plan. Infinite! Our God is wise! Let our boast in Him arise.

God, establish us in wisdom, By Your gospel we will stand. Wise! Your plan hidden through history, Manifest in the God Man. Prophets spoke to veiled eyes, Pointing forw’d to Jesus Christ. Good news of the eternal God, We proclaim trav’ling this sod. Infinite! Our God is wise! Let our boast in Him arise.

Now to God be all the glory, Unto Him be all the praise. God has shown that He is worthy Through His Christ Whom He has raised. Come lay prostrate at His throne, He is God and He alone. What off’ring now can we make? The obedience of faith. Infinite! Our God is wise! Let our boast in Him arise.

First two verses by John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org. Reprinted with permission. Second two verses by Matt Privett. © Matt Privett. Website: themattrix.com.

[mattprivettwrites]

Re-entering the Dark Ages by our own volition: On the widespread access to and neglect of the word of God

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on August 15, 2013, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

_______________________________________

Just a few short years ago the cliche was that every house in America seemed to have a Bible on the coffee table in their family room, but it was collecting dust for want of being used. Yet, as technology advances and the culture moves from a sort of respect-from-a-distance of Christianity to outright hostility for the faith, the Bible has been replaced by a remote control for each device contributing to our entertainment. Meanwhile, denominational leaders, pastors like me, and church members look out at empty pews, study membership rolls with myriad “inactives,” and wonder how the tide can be turned. We would all do better to realize how we got to this point.

Hint: One has something to do with the other.

Perhaps in previous generations this wasn’t the case, but today it can hardly be denied that a massive majority of people in America and the world at large do not have the worldview espoused by biblical Christianity. This is the necessarily result in a person who does not esteem God and His word rightly, which is where most people are. And that is ironic, because…

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN THE WORD OF GOD WAS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO MORE PEOPLE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

Now I have several versions of the Bible in print in my possession. I’m a pastor so that is hardly a surprise. But even if I had no copies of the Bible in print I would be able to do my job just fine. Open your web browser and go to Bible Gateway and you’ll be able to access numerous translations for free. There’s even a sight for the Greek Bible, which I’ve used more than once.

There are Bible programs like Accordance and BibleWorks which I’ve used, and others like Logos that provide the user with too many tools for Bible study to list right here.

As technology has gotten smaller and mobile, access to the Scriptures has become easy. I’ve got the Bible Gateway app on both my iPhone and iPad, and before that I used YouVersion. Some of those study programs for the computer also come in mobile versions.

Bottom line: It’s just never been easier to get your eyes on the word of God, to go back and say nothing of the wide availability of print versions of the Bible, many of which you can get for free.

In more formats than ever, in more languages than ever, people can access the wonderful words of life, which is great news, but also sad, because…

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN THE WORD OF GOD WAS MORE FORSAKEN BY MORE PEOPLE WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

When I was a kid I remember loving carrying my own Bible to church and even highlighting and underlining passages. Now I realize just how much grace God was showing me. Almost everyone had their own Bible, and if you didn’t there were Bibles readily available in the pews for you to use.

What a cultural shift we have seen. As a pastor I’m continually amazed by how many people don’t show up with a Bible and never bother picking one up when I tell them to turn to such and such a passage. Now sure, some use their iPads or iPhones as their Bibles. I’m absolutely fine with that. But a great many don’t even bother.

Maybe the churches themselves, in how they “present” the worship service, are partly to blame. More than one has taken the Bibles out of the pews and put it up on a PowerPoint type projection. I understand the thought behind projecting it, but I think it’s had an overall negative effect on the church. People don’t pick up the Bible and actually turn the pages. People don’t carry Bibles in and thus, when they might be struck by another verse somewhere else, they lack the ability to read it. Overall, there has just been an element of personal and corporate worship that has faded, or is greatly fading, away. And what’s happening in the church meetings themselves is just a microcosm of the bigger picture, where people just aren’t reading and studying the Bible.

Of course, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9). We aren’t the first batch of “God’s people” to neglect His word. By the time Josiah became king when he was a mere eight years old, Judah had endured 77 years or so of evil rule from Manasseh and Amon. And really, who knows how long before that they’d really been forsaking the Scriptures (to say nothing of the northern kingdom)?

This is how bad it got. When Josiah sent Shaphan on an errand to tell Hilkiah the high priest to count the money brought into the temple, Hilkiah then came to Shaphan and said, “I have found the book of the law in the house of YHWH” (2 Kgs 22:8). It surely is a great thing that the Scriptures, presumably the Pentateuch and perhaps more, was found. However, the question the reader should be asking is, “Why was it lost in the first place?!?”

Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom 3:2) and in this instance it appears they had not merely abandoned the teaching, but the book and the words themselves for a period of several years, perhaps several decades. Now thanks be to God that Josiah rejoiced at the finding of the Scriptures and lead the way in repenting from this sin (2 Kgs 23:1-27), so much so that it would be said “Before him there was no king like him who turned to YHWH with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him” (2 Kgs 23:25), but Israel proved to be a disobedient cautionary tale. Yet, if history is any guide, people have long failed to learn from their bad example (1 Cor 10:6).

From around the middle of the first millennium after Christ and for the next thousand or so years, what became the Roman Catholic Church, for all intents and purposes, took the Scriptures away from the people so that they were devoid of the Spirit-breathed revelation of God about Himself and His redemptive plan in Christ.

As a result, while there was always a remnant, the gospel was lost to the vast majority of the people who looked to the “Church” for the truth. A false gospel of faith plus works prevailed, with a sprinkling in of indulgences, increasing devotion to Mary, papal controversies and schisms, and a heavy dash of superstition.

Thanks be to God for the Protestant Reformation, which simmered under the surface for a couple hundred years but really got going in 1517 and onward behind courageous men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and others. Sola Scriptura became the first of the five solas of the Reformation. The Bible was, if not recovered, rediscovered and once again treasured, once again distributed to the people.

Nevertheless, today, almost 500 years after Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses” to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, our society, led by many who profess to know and love God, have re-entered the Dark Ages by their own volition. Never has there been a time when the Bible was so available, but “God’s people” were so biblically illiterate.

So-called pastors, shepherds of the flocks of God, do their people no favors with false gospels, prosperity theology, and watered down, entertainment and purpose-driven preaching, but every individual Christian is ultimately responsible before God. It’s His word and many of those who claim to be His people are forsaking it to their own peril, which leads us to one more point…

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD TO BE SATURATED WITH THE WORD OF GOD THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.” – Matt 24:42

“Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.” – Luke 12:37

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” – 1 Cor 16:13

“With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,” – Eph 6:18

“Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” – 1 Pet 5:8

This is but a sampling of the verses just in the New Testament in which believers are instructed to be on the alert, or be aware, or be watchful. Peter gives us one reason why in that last verse. The devil is seeking to devour us. But wait, there’s more…

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.” – 2 Pet 2:1

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron.” – 1 Tim 4:1-2

“But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.” – 2 Tim 3:1-5

Guess what? We live in these times. When T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer are seen by a large number of people as qualified preachers and teachers of God’s word, we’re living in a spiritual desert full of “springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved” (2 Pet 2:17). And that’s just the prosperity preachers. Personally, the Steven Furticks, Perry Nobles, and James McDonalds are much more troublesome, to say nothing of the litany of story-telling, morality-espousing, Bible-lite preachers filling so many old-school and new-school pulpits each Sunday. Yes, we are living in these times.

So what do we do about it? We “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3).

How? “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).

Word of truth? What’s that? “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

So then what we do? “Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Tit 1:9).

My what means? “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season [that is, whether the preacher feels like it or the listener likes that word or not]; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. . . . be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim 4:2, 5).

So, as I believe it’s transparent, one cannot be a faithful Christian and forsake the word of God. Yet, it happens, it’s happening, and all signs point to it continuing to happen.

Let it not be said of you. This is God’s revelation of Himself, and if you are trusting in Him for everything [such as your salvation], then how can you not treasure His word? Do not live in your own version of the Dark Ages. God sent Jesus into the world that Light might shine out of the darkness. So treasure the word, love the word, read the word, study the word, memorizing the word. Pursue and live the truth to the glory of God.

[mattprivettwrites]

True saving faith is far more than your intellectual knowledge of the words of Christ. It is far more than a mental assent. It is far more than subscribing to a doctrinal statement. It is far more than having theological agreement. it is far more than emotional sympathies, more than warm feelings. It is more than religious impressions, more than a verbal confession. True saving faith goes all the way to laying hold of the words of Christ with a volitional commitment of one’s life to Christ, and to keep these words and to follow these words and to live by these words for the rest of your life.

Steve Lawson, “Hell’s Hotbed of Hatred” (John 8:48-59)

[mattprivettwrites]

Satan’s favorite people are unsaved church members, deceived just enough to think they’ve got their ticket to heaven, just “sanctified” enough in their conduct to deceive others, just worldly enough to make sure their local church stays bogged down in the mud.

Me (09/24/2013)

[mattprivettwrites]

To preserve many people alive: The beginnings of the Joseph story and how it points us to Christ

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on January 12, 2017, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

_______________________________________

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” — Joseph, Gen 50:20

The careful student of God’s word should always be careful not to assign typology or symbolism to things in Scripture which don’t specifically infer typology or symbolism is at play. In other words, we shouldn’t take just any story from Scripture and say it’s a picture of Jesus in this or that way.

The story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 has often lent itself such typology or symbolism by some interpreters of Scripture, even when no Scripture in either Old or New Testaments says Joseph is a type of Christ. This has often led to reading into the text of Genesis (eisegesis) more than is actually there, and at the same time missing the point of what is actually there — getting out of the text what the author intended (exegesis).

That said, those words from the last chapter of Genesis, spoken by Joseph, hover over all this first book of the Bible says about his life. Apart from the account of his birth in chapter 30, the story of Joseph really begins in earnest in chapter 37, and while we must be careful about types and symbols, there are definitely some things we learn right away about Joseph which tell us not only about him and his family, but through New Testament lenses we can see how they point us to what God has done for all whom He saves in His Son.

First, Jacob’s preferential love of Joseph is an imperfect picture of God’s sovereign, electing love for all whom He will ever save. Jacob’s favoritism of Joseph was borne of the fact he was the long sought, firstborn son of his favored wife, Rachel. Here the polygamy of Jacob creates problems (every time there is polygamy mentioned among people in Scripture some sort of problem arises). Jacob loved Rachel most and it caused problems with Leah (not to mention the lesser maid/wives, Bilhah and Zilpah). In Genesis 37 Jacob loved Joseph most and it caused problems with the sons of Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah.

The giving of the varicolored tunic, sometimes called the coat of many colors, but more accurately a distinctive, sleeve coat, only exacerbated the problems already existing between Joseph and his brothers. Sure, it was a sign of the love of his father, but what it represented was all the more odious to the ten older brothers. The giving of the coat probably signified the transferring of the birthright to Joseph, taken away from Reuben, the firstborn son of Jacob by Leah. Reuben had intercourse with Jacob’s wife, Bilhah, in 35:22. If Jacob were to take the birthright away from him, it follows that the firstborn son of his next wife, Rachel, would get that birthright, that position of preeminence, and Joseph did (although he was eleventh in birth order).

So Jacob’s preferential love for Joseph was genuine but wrought with problems and unintended consequences. Still, it points us to God setting His love on a specific people from before the foundation of the world, predestining them to be sons by adoption (Eph 1:4–5).

Second, in Genesis 37 we see the faithfulness of Joseph to his father in such a way that mirrors the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 16:26) those who have been saved by God’s sovereign love. In James 2 we are told taught through the rhetorical devices of Jesus’ brother that loving God with all your heart, mind, and strength shows itself in loving your neighbor as yourself. In other words, real faith in Jesus shows itself in works.

Well, the faith of Joseph in God is show in his faithfulness to his earthly father. When Joseph saw the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah not doing well on the job, he knew it hurt his father’s interests and so he brought a bad report about them to Jacob, even when he had to know it would hurt his relationship with his brothers. Faithfulness to his father meant putting his father’s interests first. Likewise, those whose Father is God will seek His interests — first, foremost, and always.

Later on, when the ten older brothers are pasturing their flocks in Shechem, Jacob (the father) sends his son (Joseph) on a mission to see how they are doing and bring back a report to him. Again, let’s be careful not to read more into this than what is there, but again we see Joseph go, in obedience to his father, to see to his father’s interests. It meant going alone… to Shechem (a place last seen as very hostile to the son of promise, Jacob, and his family), but Joseph went, and ended up going to Dothan when he found out his brothers were there. Joseph was faithful to his father.

Third, we see in Joseph how the electing love of the father and resultant faithfulness to the father creates problems with the world. Jacob favored Joseph (again, imperfectly). Joseph loved his father and was faithful to him. That produced friction with brothers who floundered on the job. It caused enmity from brothers when Joseph made known dreams he had which pointed to a future in which his brothers, and even his father, his whole family, would be subservient to him.

Then, in Dothan, where the brothers were far from home and far removed from the restraining hand of their father, their sinful hearts accelerated and intensified in treacherous action against their brother. Reuben’s admonition to spare his life and subsequent plan to restore him to Jacob, and also Judah saying not to kill him but sell him into slavery notwithstanding, the brothers hated Joseph to the point of death.

Just as friendship with the world is hostility with God (Jas 4:4), we see both in Jesus and here in Joseph that friendship with God is hostility with the world. The previous and future actions of Joseph’s brothers show that probably not all of them trusted in the God of their father yet, or at the very least, their faith was a very immature faith. So when the one who was faithful acted in accordance with that faithfulness, they hated it and acted out against him.

They wanted to put an end to his dreams. There is no way they would allow those dreams to come to pass. They would not bow down to Joseph, so they through him down into a pit, ultimately selling him into slavery to Ishmaelites.

Likewise, Jesus, who was the favored, beloved Son of His Father, was absolutely faithful to His Father’s interests. That faithfulness caused innumerable problems with His brethren according to the flesh, the Jews. One of them outright betrayed Him.

Just as Joseph’s brother’s treachery before their father, comforting him in the “death” of Joseph even as they were responsible for it, many Jews continued to play a religious game before God, an utterly hypocritical game (as many professing Christians continue to do today).

Jesus, like Joseph, was carried off out of sight. Jesus to a tomb, Joseph to slavery. But both would show up again… to preserve many people alive. Through Joseph the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — those God would ultimately constitute as a nation — were being saved, to say nothing of the fact God preserved Egypt through famine through Joseph, and not just Egypt, but outsiders, like Canaanites, like Jacob’s family, who were brought in (perhaps a picture of Gentiles being brought into salvation via the gospel).

Through Jesus, of course, God would preserve many people alive, saving all who will ever repent of their sins and entrust themselves to Christ.

So while should be careful not to say Joseph was a type of Christ or even a symbol of Christ, and while we should be careful not to read in what isn’t there, when we take the text of Genesis 37 on its face, with fuller revelation now than Jacob and Joseph had then, we can see  glaring similarities in what God did through Jacob’s favorite son and what God would later do through His own only begotten Son.

[mattprivettwrites]

Can I trust my Bible?: Pitting Genesis 10-11 against Luke 3:36

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on August 31, 2015, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

_______________________________________

Have you every heard someone allege there are errors in the Bible, therefore it should not be trusted? And have you ever heard someone state one of those alleged errors and not know how to respond to it?

Well, we can trust the Bible we have. For that matter, we must trust the Bible we have, for it is indeed the inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient word of God. 

However, at the same time, we need to know how to answer the objections of unbelievers and biblical skeptics. The text of Genesis 10 and 11 opens the door to one such objection. This article addresses how believers should deal with it.

This is what Genesis 10:24 says in the New American Standard Bible – 1995 Update (hereafter NASB):

Arpachshad became the father of Shelah; and Shelah became the father of Eber.

And this is what Genesis 11:12-13 says in the NASB:

Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah; and Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Shelah, and he had other sons and daughters.

That seems straightforward enough… until you compare it with Luke 3:36. The third chapter of Luke includes a lengthy genealogy tracing Jesus’ lineage as the Son of David all the way back past Abraham to Adam. This is what Luke 3:35–36 says in the NASB — where we pick up the genealogy in progress:

the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, (bold emphasis added)

Our Luke texts add a name between Arpachshad and Shelah — Cainan — which is missing from Genesis 10 and 11. So why is that? And does it mean there is a mistake in the Bible?

Well, no. Not really. You see, what we believe about the inspiration of Scripture and the inerrancy of Scripture is that God is the author and the Bible is truth, without any mixture of error.

Now, no translation of Scripture is perfect. Almost every professing Christian would agree with that statement (save for some who have an over-exalted view of the King James Version). The translation I’ve quoted from above — the New American Standard Bible — is, in my humble opinion, the most accurate English translation as it relates to the original languages, but it isn’t perfect either. The word of God, however, is. 

The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is the God-inspired word. The Westminster Confession of Faith agrees, stating “the Word of God as written in Hebrew and Greek was immediately inspired by God.” It adds, “This relates to the autographs of the ‘holy men of God’ while under the Divine afflatus or inbreathing. (2 Pet 1:21).”

There are legitimate issues which lead to translation difference — even when the translators are seeking to give the reader the most literal reading possible (many translators do not have that aim). For example, the original parchments the writers of Scripture use do not exist anymore, and if they did we would never know for sure if they really were the originals. Those originals, though, were copied again and again and again. And sometimes when you make copies you make mistakes. Scribal errors, additions, and subtractions have produced what are called textual variants, and you probably see evidence of this in your Bible via footnotes. But this is not cause for doubting whether or not we have the word of God. In fact, additional manuscript discoveries over the centuries — particularly in the last two centuries — have lead scholars (not to a more confusing view of what the Bible says, but) to have more confidence than ever in what the Bible says. We absolutely do have the word of God.

On the issue of Genesis 10 and 11, then, and whether they are missing something we see in Luke 3, this is a great example of one of these conflicts that can be worked out. In this case there seem to be two main possibilities. First, that the name Cainan found in Luke 3 was part of the original Hebrew of Genesis, but scribes mistakenly missed it when copying scrolls. Or second, that Cainan was not original to Luke’s Greek in 3:36, but later added by a scribe as a mistaken addition.

Let me explain why I am firmly in camp number two — that Cainan doesn’t belong in Luke 3:36. There are good reasons why this is the case.

First, the scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures were meticulous in how they went about their job, absolutely minimizing mistakes. There was a much more uniform and careful process of doing this amongst the nation of Israel than later with New Testament manuscripts all over Europe, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Middle East. It is highly unlikely those Hebrew scribes would have mistakenly omitted Cainan from Genesis.

Second, other ancient versions of the Old Testament do not have the name Cainan in it. The Samaritans only believed the first five books of our Bible were Scripture, and their version of Genesis is missing Cainan. The same can be said for the Vulgate, the Latin translation produced by Jerome in AD 405. Significantly, he refused to use the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, because of many errors it had compared with the Hebrew. He insisted on translated his Latin from the original Hebrew, and so the Vulgate omits Cainan.

Third, however, and the most compelling reason in my opinion, is that Cainan’s name isn’t just missing from the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11. It’s also missing from 1 Chronicles 1, and it is that much more unlikely the Hebrew scribes would have missed it in both cases.

So how, then, can the presence of Cainan in our Luke 3:36 be explained? Well, look at Luke 3:36 again in the NASB, with the very next verse, 37, added on:

the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

When I am reading the Scriptures publicly it is not uncommon for me to mistakenly skip a line and then go back and fix it. It is, therefore, not difficult in the least to imagine a scribe copying the text of Luke and, his eyes betraying him, putting two Cainans in Luke 3 — where only one belonged.

Wherever you come down, there is no doctrine at risk of being compromised by this issue. However, if we believe the Scriptures to be God’s word, inspired by His Holy Spirit, who used the pens and personalities of men, then we need to be prepared to answer questions such as these — to make a defense to anyone who asks for the hope that is within us (1 Pet 3:15). So even though the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11 and 1 Chronicles 1 are at odds with our English translations of Luke 3, that isn’t reason for us to doubt the word of God.

Just a little bit of study backs up our confidence in the Scriptures as the inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient word of God. We can trust the Bible.

[mattprivettwrites]

Jewels amidst dung: The heights and depths of a flyover chapter, Genesis 38

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on January 27, 2017, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

_______________________________________

The thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis is one of those which, if you’re on a “read the Bible in a year” plan, you’re probably tempted to skip, or at least read in fast-forward. It’s a chapter in which the word God is not found, and the name of God is mentioned only twice (both times in terms of stark judgment), and contains such vile behavior the reader might even question why it’s in the Bible and/or what kind of spiritual or practical benefit it might have.

Such treatment of any passage of Scripture, though, betrays a conviction the Bible is inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient for everything pertaining to life and godliness. It contradicts anyone who believes Paul was right and truthful when He said “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). The task of the pastor-teacher and the student of Scripture (which should be everyone) should be to mine the depths of any passage to find the precious jewels, trusting that the Lord would not have spoken it in His word in vain.

Just what are the jewels, then, from a chapter like Genesis 38? Well, they are found in the midst of much dung, much sin. But just as 1 Corinthians 10:6 teaches us that episodes of the Old Testament happened, in part, as examples for us, “so that we would not crave evil things as they [Israel] also craved,” we find in Genesis 38 some bad examples to avoid.

Beware the sin of Er

Er was the firstborn son of Judah, who took a Canaanite woman, the daughter of a man named Shua, for a wife. That the wife is not named may indicate she did not share the faith of Judah; that is, although Judah was by no means perfect, she didn’t even have nominal fear of YHWH.

The time came for Er, probably in his late teens, to marry, so Judah took a wife for him, Tamar. But then, all of the sudden we are told in Genesis 38:7, “But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of YHWH, so YHWH took his life.” That it says he was evil and not simply that he did evil may indicate a lifelong pattern of depravity, for as long as the Lord allowed him to live. In any event, he was so evil God took him out, took his life.

Er was obviously a man who did not love God at all. He was an unbeliever, and apparently a vile unbeliever at that. We are told nothing of his specific sins but what we do have is communicated in such a way as to indicate outlandish rebellion against the God of his father, Judah. The lesson, then, is that rebellion against God will get you judgment from God.

The short report on Er’s life and death stands as a warning to all who read it: rebel against God, do evil in the sight of YHWH, at your own peril — because there will be peril.

Beware the sin of Onan

Er’s death left his wife, Tamar, a childless widow, and this became a problem because as the wife of Judah’s firstborn she had a right to be the mother of the heir. In the Law of Moses which would come later we see the remedy to this type of situation codified by levirate marriage, which comes into play in the book of Ruth, where Boaz acts as her kinsman redeemer.

Clearly, the culture Judah lived in also demanded some form of levirate marriage. We know there were other near eastern codes, such as Hammurabi, in existence. It’s also possible God had instructed the family of Jacob in this way, and it’s just not revealed in Scripture. Nevertheless, it wasn’t questioned why Judah gave Tamar to his second son, Onan. He had a duty to raise up offspring for his brother, so levirate marriage was in place even before Moses.

Except Onan, when he went in to Tamar, “wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother” (Gen 38:9). Without going into analysis about the action itself, Onan was willing to get the sexual gratification out of such an arrangement, without fulfilling his familial responsibility, not unlike the plethora of deadbeat dads and women who seek abortions today.

Onan was willing to use what was essentially a religious exercise to gratify his fleshly desires, and many people do the same today. Under the guise of faith and faithfulness they use religious practices to please themselves (in many other ways than sexual). The end result, of course, is that this was “displeasing in the sight of YHWH; so He took his life also” (Gen 38:10); therefore, we are warned not to use religion, not use the church, to satisfy our own fleshly/worldly desires.

Beware the sin of Tamar

While Tamar is not criticized in Scripture, it’s clear she isn’t blameless in her behavior. To be clear, she is treated unfairly by Judah. After the death of Onan, Judah does not give her to his third son, Shelah. He says it’s because he is too young, which he may have been at the time, but the real reason is that he doesn’t want Shelah to die like his brothers (Gen 38:11). Thus, Judah sends Tamar back to her father’s house to wait for Shelah to grow up.

Except he grows up and…. nothing. So “after a considerable time,” when Tamar realizes Judah isn’t going to give her to Shelah, she hears Judah is going to Timnah, so she takes off her widow’s garments and adorns herself with a veil to pose as a temple prostitute, and well, Judah goes in to her, and Tamar conceives.

Tamar uses deception willingly and engages in sexual immorality with her father-in-law willingly. Yes, it is to fulfill her right to be mother of an heir within the covenant family, which she no doubt had learned about from Judah and/or Er. Nevertheless, while Scripture doesn’t condemn her and this is clearly a case of God using evil for His good purposes, her behavior isn’t to be celebrated nor emulated. Those in Christ today should not sin or excuse sin in order to bring about what might be thought of as a good result, but we should obey Jesus in all respects and leave what happens up to the sovereign hand of God.

Beware the sin of Judah

Judah is really guilty of multiple sins in chapter 38, but they are summed up in the opening verse where we are told he “departed from his brothers.” Considering his brothers were no wonderful men this may not seem like a big thing, but the reality is he was departing from the household of his father, as if in the aftermath of selling his brother into slavery he went through a spiritual crisis which led to many other sins.

First, Judah takes a Canaanite wife who apparently has no use for his God and apparently had more spiritual influence over his sons than he did.

Second, as just noted, it’s obvious he didn’t lead his sons to become men who feared and worshiped YHWH.

Third, his abandonment of Tamar led her to a point of desperation at which point she resorted to sin.

Fourth, he went in to Tamar thinking she was a temple prostitute. No matter how it turned out, that sexual immorality cannot be excused.

Fifth and finally, his quickness to put her to death for her sexual immorality made him a hypocrite.

However, it can be said that when pregnant Tamar revealed the seal, the cord, and the staff to Judah, he was quick to recognize they were his seal, his cord, his staff, and his child. He did not take Tamar as a wife but clearly set out to care for her and the child to come. His statement, “She is more righteous than I” is his Nathan-to-David “You are the man” moment (Gen 38:26; c.f. 2 Sam 12:7), and like David about 800 or so years later, here Judah is humbled and repentant, and this really does seem to be a turning point in his life, as he assumes a mantle of leadership among his brothers after the previous failures of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi. And of course, through Judah would come Jesus.

Pointing us to Christ

Speaking of Jesus, it can hardly be argued through New Testament eyes that one of the reasons the Holy Spirit ordained this sordid episode to be recorded in His word in the first place is that it has to do with the line through which the Messiah would come.

Tamar gave birth to twins, and one Perez would go to have Hezron, who had Ram, who had Amminidab, who had Nahshon, who had Salmon, who had… Boaz. So the end result of the Tamar’s failed levirate marriage God used for good to bring about the levirate marriage of Boaz and Ruth, whose son was Obed, who was the father of Jesse, who was the father of David (Ruth 4:18–22).

Jesus, of course, was the Son of David, a descendant of the king, of the tribe of Judah. Genesis 38, then, is a chapter full of dung. But if we take the time to read it and dig our way through it, we find that even in a chapter like this there are precious jewels, both theological and practical, to mine — pointing us to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[mattprivettwrites]

The godly man not only loves that God should reign over others, but that he should reign over him too, and that with an uncontrollable power.  He is heartily willing that God should be a sovereign King over him.  He had rather be ruled by God and have God for his King, that be in all respects at his own disposal.  We are not our own; we 'are bought with a price' (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).  And the believer had rather have it so than otherwise; he had rather be God’s than his own.  He had rather that God should have an entire right to him, body and soul, than have a right to himself.  He loves to have God for a lawgiver, had rather that God should give him laws than not.  He loves to have God dispose of him in his providence.  He can delight in thinking that he is in the hands of God; that is the language of his soul, which proceeds from the soul with delight and pleasure:  'Lord, I am in thy hands; deal with me as seemeth thee good.'

Jonathan Edwards