Who Killed Jesus?

A tweet I read today stated, “There once was a man named Pilate who caved to prevent a riot He had Jesus killed.” We sang a song in worship yesterday, a verse of which states, “Light of the world by darkness slain.” Did Pilate kill Jesus? Did the darkness? Maybe we all did.

Let’s clear this up. Pilate did not have Jesus killed; he released him to the Jews and allowed them to crucify Jesus. The Jews did not do the actual crucifying. Roman soldiers took care of that for them. (Matt. 27:27-37) But, the Roman soldiers did nothing more than nail Jesus to the Cross. They didn’t kill him. Not them, not the Jews, not Pilate.

Did we humans collectively kill Jesus? He died in our place, so, one might reason, we killed him. But, did we? No, Jesus went to the cross because of our sin, but we didn’t kill him. We, like the Romans and Jews, sent Jesus to the cross to be crucified, but, we didn’t kill him.

What about the darkness, did it slay the Light of the world? Was darkness and the power of darkness so great they could kill the Lord of all creation? While one might argue the Devil orchestrated the crucifixion, or the events leading up to it (he didn’t, God did), he didn’t kill Jesus.

So, who killed Jesus? No one. He was not slain, killed, or murdered. If someone or some power had killed him, that person/power would have been greater than Jesus. Jesus, then, would not be Lord. The Son, on the cross, in death, and in the resurrection never lost control; he was always Lord, always in charge.

You see, Jesus decided when he would die. Matthew stated, “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.” (Matt. 27:50) John declared, “Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” (John 19:30; see vvs. 31-33)

Jesus wasn’t killed, slain, or murdered. He chose to stop living, because he had accomplished what he came to do: he satisfied the just demand of God for a perfect sacrifice for the sins of all mankind.

The Exalted Jesus said to John, “Do not be afraid; . . . I have the keys of Hades and of Death.” (Rev. 1:17-18) He willingly chose to die, enter the abode of the dead, and, by the power of the Father (Rom. 8:11), he was resurrected. The keys he holds means he has power over Hades and death. They never had power over him.

No one killed Jesus; no one could. (Matt. 17:23; mark 9:31; 10:34; and Luke 18:33 all say similarly, "they will kill Him." "They" were the Jews, who were the ones who chose to crucify Jesus. These verses, though, must be understood in light of Matt. 27:50, and John 19:30.)

Was Jesus Forsaken?

On his blog, “The Exchange,” (go here) Ed Stetzer posted an article by Eric Mason, Pastor of Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia, PA. Mason wrote about Jesus’ cry on the Cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Taking a traditional approach, Mason stated, “In some way, no scholar has satisfactorily explained: God forsook Jesus.” Mason’s position is an interpretation of the words of Jesus. We can understand what Jesus said in another way.

I find the theological implications of saying God forsook Jesus to be profound in the extreme. For instance, what is meant by the phrase “God turned his back” on Jesus. Is the phrase metaphorical? Does God really have a back? If he does, then one must believe God has a physical presence. How, then, can he be omnipresent if he is physical? Obviously, such observations border on the absurd. In order to be omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, God cannot be limited by physical restraints. So, in truth, to speak of God’s back is to speak metaphorically.

Scripture addresses God’s backside in two other texts: Exodus 33:23, and Isaiah 38:17. In the Exodus passage, God told Moses he would pass by Moses and show his backside, “but my face shall not be seen.” God either took physical form in order for Moses to see him, or, he simply allowed Moses to see his non-physical essence. If that was the case, Moses in truth did not see something physical. Either way, Moses was able to see what no other human being has ever seen, or will see until eternity. (see Ex. 33:11, 20, 23; Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:10)

The second text, Isa. 38:17, is the prophet’s confession of the greatness of God’s forgiveness: “for you have cast all my sins behind Your back.” Note, God had not turned his back on Isaiah, but he had cast the prophet’s sin behind his back. What is behind God’s back: a void, nothingness. Such would have been Jesus’ fate if the Father had turned his back on the Son: Jesus would have been relegated to a state of nothingness, to the void, to a place of non-existence. How could he have endured if such had been his state?

What might be a better way, and a less theologically confusing way, to understand the words of Jesus? On the Cross, Jesus took upon himself the full weight of the sins of all mankind. Now, the question is, what does sin do to the sinner? Paul wrote to the Colossians, “because of your evil deeds, you were alienated and hostile in your mind.” (my paraphrase) To be alienated is to be estranged, to be isolated. Our sin isolates or disconnects us from God. But, does our sin alienate God from us? Most assuredly not. If our sin causes God to be isolated or disconnected from us, why would he, indeed how could he have sent his Son to die on our behalf? We are God’s creation; he cares for us, he loves us to the extent he sent his Son to die in our place.

Each of the Synoptic Gospels records the following: “This is/You are My beloved Son, in whom/in You I am well-pleased.” If God forsook Jesus on the Cross, he in essence would have been disowning his Son. What would have made him change his mind about the one in whom he was well-pleased? God the Father sent God the Son to the Cross, and the Son was obedient to the point of death. In his High Priestly prayer, Jesus prayed, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that the Son may glorify You.” Where were both the Father and the Son to be glorified? On the Cross. Even in Jesus taking our sin upon himself, the Father was glorified, and his grace and love were expressed.

The most telling argument against the “God turned his back on Jesus” position is the absence of such a formulation in Scripture. None of the Gospels say God turned his back on Jesus. All we have are the words of Jesus according to Mark and Matthew. All we can do is interpret Jesus’ words. In interpreting them, we should be guided by the consistent witness of Scripture to the character and work of God. I cannot resolve in my mind the conflicts between what the Bible tells us about God and the idea God turned his back on Jesus, especially in the moment of his greatest need. Does not God, by His Spirit, in the moment of our greatest awareness of our own sin, come to us in his kindness and grace, and offer to us his love, mercy and forgiveness?

Jesus’ cry on the Cross resonates with me, especially when I, as a disobedient child of God, have a sense of alienation and unworthiness. If Jesus knew that sense of alienation and isolation, then, he who “was tempted in that which He has suffered, he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” God has never deserted or forsaken any of his children. (Heb. 13:5-6) When I am tempted to believe he has deserted me and withdrawn his love for me, I am reminded of Jesus’ struggle on the Cross. He was not forsaken, and neither will I be.

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 5

“But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (1 Corinthians 12:7)

Given the context of the above verse, no doubt Paul was saying the manifestation of the Spirit in the lives of believers is spiritual gifts. Looking at a following verse, v. 12, simply reinforces that point. “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” Obviously, every believer is endowed with at least one spiritual gift, a charisma.

What about the word translated “the common good”? At first glance, one might think Paul used the same word Luke did in Acts 2:44 and 4:32: koinos. The word means common, as in they “had all things in common.” (Acts 2:32). Paul did not use that word. His term was sumpherō, meaning to bring together, to be profitable. So, then, we can conclude the following. Spiritual gifts, the manifestation of the Spirit, are given by the Spirit to whom he chooses. All the asking in the world will not result in one’s receiving any spiritual gift if the Holy Spirit chooses not to endow that believer with the requested gift. His choice is for the benefit of the Body, not the individual to whom a gift is given.

Quite frankly, I think many things go into the Spirit’s decision about what gift is to be given to which believer. For instance, one’s personality might not be what is required of one who is to be a prophet (a forth-teller, a proclaimer of God’s will, must be confidently bold). Now, one might argue if the Spirit chose to give some believer the gift of prophecy, he could instantly change his personality to suit the gift. Does that ordinarily happen? Most often, no. The Spirit takes us where we are and leads us to become who he wants us to be.

Paul told the Romans, just before outlining in Chapter 12 his list of spiritual endowments, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” If one is to proclaim to the church God’s will, he must first be transformed through the process of mind renewal. He must learn to think of himself, his world and the Lord in a new way. “Go on being transformed,” Paul said. We must be involved willingly and consciously in what the Spirit is doing in our lives.

One of the issues in the Corinthian church was the abuse of gifts. Apparently, a number of individuals were using their gifts as a means to gain status, significance and power. Paul was not very tolerant of the abuses. Why? The Apostle said what he said because the fundamental purpose of gifts, the common good, the benefit of others, the bringing together of the Body, was being perverted. Gifts are not meant to enhance a believer’s life; gifts are meant to enhance the life of the Body of Christ.

Part of the problem with the modern conception of “tongues,” or languages, as Paul called them, is the personal nature of the experience. Paul showed clearly the inadequacy of speaking in a language if no one understood what was being said. The “common good” was not being served; only the individual benefitted. On that count, Paul stated, one’s spirit prayed, (he did not say the spirit of the person understood), but the mind was unfruitful, or did not benefit. No one was profited, according to Paul; neither the individual nor the church.

If we apply the “common good” standard to any gift, we will find the expression of a spiritual gift takes on an entirely different context than in worship or in personal prayer time. For the Corinthians, as with many today, the main focus of gifts is the public worship event. Some gifts are appropriate for worship and other gatherings of the Body of Christ. Others have no place in worship at all. For instance, for the gift of languages to be useful, the gift should be employed in ministry and mission activities with those who speak another language.

We want to believe the gift of languages will be received just as the disciples received it on the Day of Pentecost. Most of the time, with the gift of languages, one will be enabled to learn a language he thought he would never be able to speak. The endowment of a believer with a spiritual gift is not always a miraculous event. Some only learn over time what gift they have and how to use it.

Those who choose to have a private prayer language obviously are served by the experience. We, though, are not to understand a private prayer language as the gift of languages. Neither should we understand ecstatic “tongues” as the gift of languages. Spiritual gifts are resources for ministry. Without them, we would be ill-equipped to do what we are called to do as believers: the work of ministry, the building up of the Body of Christ.

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 4

I just read an article entitled, “A Biblical Basis for Speaking in Tongues in Private.” Basically, in the article, the author was attempting to show the position of the International Mission Board (SBC) regarding private prayer languages to be in error. Further, to prove his point, he attempted to prove the biblical legitimacy of private prayer languages.

He had one presupposition upon which he based his argument: tongues, as in unintelligible speech, is the correct way to translate and understand the Greek word glossā in all instances of its appearance in the NT when referring to speech. As argued in the second post in this series, Luke understood glossā as language only. Therein lies the difficulty with interpretations of the author of the above article.

The author made three points to buttress his argument for the legitimacy of speaking in tongues in private. The first was his interpretation of Mark 16:17. Two observations must be made. First, if the author accepts verse 17, does he also accept 16 and 18. In v. 16, the text says, “he who has believed and been baptized shall be saved.” Is baptism a prerequisite for, or a result of salvation? The text says baptism is a prerequisite. How about verse 18? Does the writer adhere to the implications of the picking up of serpents and drinking poison?

Second, most Bible translations with any kind of notes provide the following information: Mark 16:9-20 is not considered to be an authentic part of the original document. On the website www.biblicalarcheology.org, Dr. James Tabor was quoted. He wrote, “The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: ‘Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.’” Most likely, this passage does not give us the words of Jesus. Thus, he did not endorse “speaking in tongues.” Eusebius lived from AD 260/265 to 339/340; Jerome from 347 to 420.

The author’s second argument was based on Acts 2:1-13. In that story, Luke said, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.” (1:4) In verse 8, we find, “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?” What the author of the above article failed to point out was Luke’s use of different terms in those two verses. In v. 4, he used glossā; in v. 8, he used the word dialektos. These words are synonyms. The term dialektos cannot mean tongue; only dialect or language. Thus, we are required to translate glossā as language. In neither Luke nor Acts does Luke ever use glossā, when referring to speech, as tongue, or unintelligible speech.

The writer further stated, “I can assure you that their speaking in tongues was not limited to that occasion only.” Upon what biblical authority or text does the author base that conclusion? Indeed, no scriptural evidence can be found for such an assertion. As well, the “wonderful works of God,” addressed in the preceding post, refers to the proclamation of what God had done in Christ.

Lastly, the writer said Paul affirmed the use of tongues as an act of private devotion. Again, this subject was addressed in the third post in this series, but let’s look at it again. First Corinthians 14:14 is a conditional sentence in which Paul set up a hypothetical situation. The point of that verse and what follows is to show the inadequacy of “praying in a tongue.” Clearly, Paul was referring to the unintelligible speaking of the Corinthians. We must recognize how Paul dealt with that phenomenon: he called it language. Further, he said if he did pray in that manner, his mind would be unfruitful. Instead, he said, he would pray with his spirit and his mind, thus, being able to understand what he was saying. Additionally, he said he would rather speak 5 intelligible words than 10,000 unintelligible ones.

As stated in the last post, those who use a private prayer language must derive some benefit from it. We also must realize that practice is not endorsed, encouraged or commanded in Scripture. A private prayer language is without a clear biblical warrant.

Let me say again what I said earlier: I might be wrong. The question for me, though, is why do we believers not all desire to pray in such a manner? If a private prayer language is a biblical work of the Holy Spirit, why has he not convicted us all of the legitimate necessity of such a practice?

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 3

Paul said to the Corinthians, AFor if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.@ What was Paul saying? Was he suggesting we all should aspire to having a prayer language? Let me clear at the outset. Those who use a prayer language surely must derive a benefit form the practice. But, let=s also be clear on another point, Paul was not endorsing, suggesting, or commanding the use of a prayer language.

To get the sense of what Paul was saying requires an understanding of conditional sentences in the Greek language. A conditional sentence is an Aif, . . . then@ formulation. The Greek language has four conditional sentences. Each is used in specific circumstances. In 1 Cor. 14:14, Paul used a third class conditional sentence, generally used for hypothetical situations. He was not saying, necessarily, he prayed in a Atongue,@ he simply proposed that hypothetical circumstance to prove a point. The point was, praying in a Atongue@ means his spirit would have been praying, but his mind would have been unfruitful; he would not have understood what he was praying.

He went on to say the following: AI will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.@ Paul=s praying in the spirit was the same as his praying with his mind. He said he would pray with both and sing with both, meaning, what he prayed and what he sang he would have understood. Again, Paul was arguing against the practice of ecstatic speech. He did not say to not pray in that manner, but he surely did not say he prayed in Atongues.@ What about the comment AI thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all@?

No doubt, Paul spoke several languages. At the very least, he spoke and wrote in Greek (his native language, probably, since he was born and reared in Tarsus); he spoke in Hebrew, and, we can assume, he spoke in Aramaic (close to Hebrew). Since he was so well traveled, we might, with some justification, assume he spoke to some extent in the regional dialects and languages of the places he visited. From my point of view, I must take that position as opposed to believing Paul was declaring he spoke in “tongues,” ecstatic speech, in the manner of the Corinthians. Why would he have argued so forcefully and convincingly against a practice in which himself engaged? Paul did not contradict himself.

In the second article I mentioned, the author argued for the position all the tongues references in Acts were proof of tongues as a prayer language. Let=s look at those accounts. First, in Acts 2 (see preceding article), the disciples were given the ability to speak in languages by the Spirit (as he gave them utterance, or, the ability to speak). What about the content of what they said, Aspeaking of the mighty deeds of God@? In Acts, what were the Amighty deeds of God@? We should look no further than the sermon of Peter. In speaking of Jesus, he said he was Aa man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.@ Further, he declared, Abut God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.@ What other Amighty deeds@ of God would the speakers have declared?

What do we do with the case of Cornelius and his household?  AFor they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.@ (10:46) What were the tongues? Given the makeup of a Roman household, we know Cornelius=s biological family was included, as soldiers who lived in his house, as well as his slaves. Many of those were from the far-flung reaches of the Roman Empire. Surely, in the excitement of the moment, each spoke in his native language. Luke understood the word glÇssa only as language, (see preceding article), not as ecstatic speech. The same is true of the disciples of John the Baptist Paul met in Ephesus. When the Spirit came upon them, they, too, spoke in their native language.

The gift of languages is legitimate and still practiced to this day by those so endowed by the Holy Spirit. We simply need to get away from using the word Atongues@ as a translation of glÇssa. We are not served well in our understanding of the gift by that word. Remember, when Paul referred to the gift, he used the plural; when what one person did was in question, he used the singular. So, if one has the gift of languages, when he speaks, he speaks in a language, not languages. Are all who “speak in tongues” using the same “tongue,” or does each speak in his own “tongue.” Let’s be clear about our terms.

Is the idea of a prayer language legitimate? For those who practice it, yes. Is the concept truly biblical? I do not think so. But, I might be wrong. Consider the following. My wife Pat and I have 8 grandchildren. They range in age from 10 years old to 2 months. In addition to the 2 month old, we have another who is 9 months old. Neither she nor the 2 months old can talk. I love neither of them any less than the other 6, but we cannot engage in legitimate conversation as we do with the other six. For me, one of the more frustrating things about being a grandparent is understanding a grandchild when they are just beginning to learn to speak coherently. Their parents know their baby words; most of the time, I don=t. I want to know what they are saying, so we can have a fruitful conversation. Surely, God wants the same in his relationship with his children.

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 2

Let=s now look at Atongues.@ A good starting point would be a quick look at the doctrine of subsequence (or, the baptism in the Holy Spirit). That school of theological thought says all believers should, at least once, speak in tongues. If subsequence is a legitimate, biblical position, we all (1) should seek the baptism, and once it is received, (2) should speak in tongues. No other view can be held if the doctrine is biblical. Should we all speak in tongues? Further, if, as one writer proposed (articles referenced in previous post), tongues is in essence a prayer language, can and should we not all aspire to glossolalia? What do we do about the Agift of tongues@?

Our problems arise with the King James Version of the Bible. The translators of the KJV did the church a great disservice when they used the word tongues, and added the word Adivers@ (1 Cor. 12:10) and unknown (14:2, et al.). Those two words (divers and unknown) were not in the original text; they were supplied by the KJV translators for theological reasons. Those who translated the KJV worked from the presupposition the Atongues@ in Corinth were something other than a human language.

Let me insert an observation, at this point, on the inspiration of Scripture. Most of us Southern Baptists believe the words of Paul: all Scripture is inspired by God. Now, given that truth, we can extrapolate the following. If the Spirit inspired one writer to use a particular word, in this case glÇssa, then, when he inspired another writer to use the same word in another context, the meaning of the word must be understood to be the same in both settings.

For instance, Luke used glÇssa in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; and 19:6. We can know exactly what Luke meant in his use of that word because of his use of a synonym. In 2:6 and 8, Luke used the term dialektos, dialkect or language. He wrote, Aeach one of them was hearing them speak in his own language (dialektos) . . . how is it that we each hear them in our own language (dialektos) to which we were born?@ One other example underscores Luke=s understanding of his terms. In 20:40, as Paul began his defense to the Jews in the Temple, Luke stated, Ahe spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect (dialektos).@ One would be hard-pressed to defend translating glÇssa in Acts with any term other than language.

So, then, what about 1 Corinthians. Paul said, ASo also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages (phon‘, sound, language) in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language (phon‘), I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.@ (14:9-11) A more literal translation of verse nine is instructive. AIf, with a language, you do not give an easily understandable word, how will they know/understand what you are saying? You will be speaking into the air.@

Obviously, what the Corinthians were doing was engaging in some kind of ecstatic speech. What Paul wanted them to know was, (1) only clearly understandable speech has purpose, and (2) the gift of Atongues@ was, in fact, the gift of a human language, not the gift of ecstatic gibberish. How can we say that? In their seeking for spiritual things, the Corinthians were to Aseek to abound for the edification of the church.@ (14:18) Further, if one wished to speak in a Atongue,@ he must refrain from doing so unless one was present who could Ainterpret@ what he was saying. The demand was for one who could translate, not give the gist of what the tongue speaker was saying. Indeed, Paul declared the one who spoke in a tongue should pray for the ability to interpret his own speaking. Far from endorsing ecstatic speaking in Corinth, Paul argued strongly for an understanding of the gift of language, not tongues. Paul put the whole argument in terms of language (phon‘ and glÇssa). Those two words are synonyms; nowhere does phon‘ mean Atongues;@ its meaning is either sound or language.@

To better understand Paul=s comments in 1 Corinthians 14, look at the text in the following manner. Let=s say the first century Roman world had English as its lingua franca. Further, let=s say we all spoke Greek as our everyday language. So, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he would have never used the word Atongues@ for what the Corinthians were doing; he would have used the word language. He would have used only language in his letter (unless, of course, he was referring to the human organ). In the same way, when we would translate his English into our Greek, we would use the word glÇssa for his word language.

On the other hand, some might argue, as the above referenced author did, Atongues@ is a Aprayer language.@ So is the gift of Atongues@ intended as a prayer language?

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 1

Two articles addressing different aspects of the Atongues@ debate recently arrived in my email inbox. The authors= views provoked several responses regarding the nature and function of the gift of Atongues.@ In the first article I read, the writer was responding to the cessationist-continuationist argument (Did some of the Amiraculous@ gifts cease after the apostolic era, or have they continued into the present day? By the way, are not all spiritual gifts miraculous to some extent?) That author, in his article, supported the concept of continuation of all gifts. He did focus more on the so-called gift of tongues than any of the other dramatic gifts.

Now, the thrust of the writer=s position, from my perspective, is valid: all the gifts continue to this day. On the other hand, as will be shown later, my view of one of the gifts is not the same as the writer of the article on cessationism vs. continuationism. Nonetheless, arguing some or all of the gifts have ceased strikes at the heart of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The author rightly stated, Anot a single clear verse of Scripture . . . teaches that the workings of the Spirit would alter or cease.@ Yet, in a kind of conflicted way, he said Awe should see today exactly what was seen in NT days.@

If the work of the Holy Spirit has neither been altered nor changed, then we must be seeing and experiencing today what believers in the NT era saw and experienced. The above referenced author seems to take a view others often express: we believers can hinder the work of God. He stated, AThe question is whether the changes from that era to this are what God wants or are evidence that we have in some way quenched the Spirit.@ I have two responses to that statement and the belief we can hinder God=s work. Is God sovereign? If so, he gets what he wants in spite of what we do or do not do. Further, based on Paul=s statements to the Philippians (1:6 and 2:13), God is the one who started a good work in us, he is working in us still, and will complete his work. The concept of quenching the Spirit requires more space than we can give in this article, so we’ll not go there.

Second, is God the author of change, or is he the victim of change? The Lord said through Isaiah, ARemember this, and be assured; recall it to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, >My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure=@ Unless the Lord has changed his mind and methods, He still is in control of all things and will accomplish his purpose. Even Israel in her rebellion could not hinder God.

So, the Holy Spirit, being the third person of the Trinity, is bringing to completion in the lives of all true believers the good work God has started. Jesus said, AMy Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.@ The author of article on cessationism quoted Paul, who said to the Corinthians, ABut to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. . . . But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.@ (12:7, 11) The Holy Spirit gives gifts (how he workds) to whom he chooses, as well as giving the gift he decides each believer should have. The Spirit has been working in the church and in the lives of individual believers since Pentecost. He still gives gifts Afor the common good.@

The gift(s) with which the Spirit endows a particular believer are for the Body, not the individual. Let me restate that comment: no gift is intended for the personal benefit of the individual believer. Each and every gift is for the common good of the whole Body of Christ. We find our place of ministry by virtue of the gift(s) we have received. As individuals, we are not told to seek any particular gift. But, you might ask, what about 1 Cor. 12:31 and 14:1? Let=s look at those verses. In v. 31, the verb translated Aearnestly desire@ is a second person plural. In the Southern idiom, we would say, AY=all seek the greater gifts.@ How about 14:1? AY=all pursue love, and y=all seek the spiritual things.@ (Paul did not use the word charisma in 14:1, but pneumatika. Based on his use elsewhere of that word, we must understand the term to mean spiritual things, not spiritual gifts.)

The Body, wherever manifested, should, as a corporate entity, seek to have the greater spiritual gifts revealed through it. In 14:1, Paul appears to have suggested prophecy (forth-telling, not foretelling) was one of, if not the most important gift (see 12:28-29). Why should we seek to have the greater gifts manifested in our local bodies of believers? The greater gifts (see also Romans 12:4-8, and Ephesians 4:11-13) lend themselves to the building up of the Body of Christ more than the less significant gifts (cf. 1 Cor. 12:22-25). Further, the function of gifts is the building up of the Body of Christ, the equipping of the Body (and its individual members) for ministry. Gifts are not meant to enhance the individual.

The Spirit has been doing just that, equipping the saints for the work of ministry, through engifted members of the church since Pentecost, and continues doing so to this day.

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 5

“And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Colossians 2:11-12

How odd I should be able to sit in a chair and type on a computer keyboard with my fingers. I still have a flesh and blood body, even though my body, “by the circumcision of Christ,” has been removed. I remember as well my baptism in Black Jack pond in 1956. I do not remember dying, yet I did; I do not remember being resurrected, yet I was. So, are circumcision and baptism only symbolical? I was baptized, but did not die (except when under water, I breathed throughout the whole experience). I have a flesh and blood body, yet that body has been removed.

Here, then, is the paradox and the truth: I did die, and my body was “cut” away. Not in this “real world,” but in the ultimately real world of the heavenly places. Interestingly, by the way, while Ephesians and Colossians share several key terms and concepts, the word translated “heavenly places” does not occur in Colossians. Yet, the concept is present in that letter. Circumcision and baptism are two “heavenly places” realities.

Circumcision was for Israel a literal act with great symbolical value. Circumcision was a physical mark communicating a greater truth: Israel had been set apart and reserved for God alone. Circumcision was a mark of God’s ownership. Just so for believers as well. In the heavenly places, the “powers and authorities” see our circumcision as the mark of God’s ownership. We are his, and we have been set apart for the Lord and for him alone. The “powers and authorities” know they can neither touch or possess a believer. They know believers have been “rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”

Baptism is a ritual of Judaism as well as being a symbolical act of obedience for believers. Basically, baptism was and remains a ritual washing for Jews. If a Gentile converts to Judaism, as a final act in the process, he will undergo baptism as both a cleansing act and as an act of transformation. He enters the water a Gentile, and exits the baptismal pool as a Jew. For followers of Jesus, baptism speaks to our being washed clean from our sins, and also tells of our transformation. In the drama of baptism, we symbolize our death in Christ to self, and our resurrection to new life in Him.

In the realm of the heavenly places, the powers and authorities see the reality of both circumcision and baptism. They see, by the manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God, the removal of the body of flesh, and the death, burial and resurrection of the believer to new life in Christ. The power and authorities have no choice but to honor what God has done.

What the powers and authorities try to do in this world is convince believers they can come under their control. This is a scheme of the devil: he wishes to convince believers he has more authority and power than he actually does. He wants the followers of Jesus to believe he is not defeated. If we grant him more power than he in fact has, he can temporally defeat us. Yet, he knows the defeat will not last. He is aware of the ultimate reality of our salvation, protection and preservation. He also knows he himself is defeated and all his works have been destroyed. The devil knows the true, ultimate reality of the victory of the Cross. He, as the demons, knows the truth about God. And he, just as the demons, “shudder” at the truth.

Peter made an interesting statement about our salvation. He said, “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” (1 Peter 1:18-19) What was the point Peter was making? He was declaring how final and absolute redemption in Christ is. If God had only purchased our salvation with gold and silver, someone could amass a greater fortune and buy us back from God. Our salvation, if based on temporal things, would then be temporary. God instead bought us out of slavery to sin with the “precious blood” of Christ. That purchase price was eternal and of the greatest value. No price of greater value could be or can be paid. Our salvation is absolute.

With that absolute and irreversible salvation comes total and absolute protection and preservation. No power in the universe can overcome the work of God. What is your ultimate reality?

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 4

“He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.”
Ephesians 1:20-22

“[God has] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,”
Ephesians 2:5-6

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12

What is your ultimate reality? What you perceive as reality determines the decisions you make. For many, this world is the ultimate reality. We live and then we die; that’s all there is. For others, this world is a transitory place, where we live for a while, die and come back in some other form (reincarnation). For believers, this world and the lives we live in it are real, but they are not the ultimate reality. What we do here is preparation for our life in eternity. We prepare for eternity with God by being saved by grace. We prepare for eternity apart from God by rejecting the Gospel. Our decisions in this life have eternal consequence. What we decide is real and binding. Our real decisions in this real world have implications for a real eternity.

Yet, this world is not the ultimate reality. We do not base our daily decisions on the realities of this life, but on the realities of the spiritual realm. In Ephesians, Paul used the word “heavenly places” five times (1.3, 20; 2.6; 3.10; 6.12). In each case, Paul was emphasizing significant spiritual truths. He was also pointing the Ephesian believers to the ultimate reality. He told them God had “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” He declared Jesus was “seated at [God’s] right hand in the heavenly places.” Paul further said God had raised up believers “with Him (Jesus), and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” He said the “manifold wisdom of God,” revealed in the mystery of the Gospel, would “be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” Lastly, he declared our struggle as believers is “against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

What does all this mean? Simply stated, the ultimate reality for believers is the “heavenly places.” We are to have a “world view,” or a perspective on life rooted in eternal truths, not temporal ones. When Israel was told to go into the Promised Land, they rebelled (see Numbers 13); they refused to enter the land because what they “saw” made them afraid. The Lord had told them he had already given them the land, they only had to fight to take it; God would give them the victory. Yet, based on the report of the faithless, ten spies, they refused to obey God. Their reality was based in what they saw, not the truth.

We live too much of our lives based on what we see and not on the truth. We pray for God to bless us. Yet, Paul said we had already been “blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” If we have already been blessed, why ask God to do again what he has already done? Why do we cower in fear before a defeated enemy who is already “in subjection under the feet” of Jesus? Why do we treat the church disrespectfully when God is showing his “manifold wisdom” through the church to the “rulers and authorities in the heavenly places”? Why do we have such poor self-concepts as believers when we are “seated with Him in the heavenly places”?

In some earlier posts on this blog, I have argued against the possibility of believers being possessed or oppressed by demons. If I, as a believer, am seated with Jesus in the heavenly places, then, to be possessed or oppressed would mean the devil has the power to ascend to the Throne of Jesus and overpower him. My safety and security in this life and in eternity is rooted in Jesus and the reality of his completed work on the Cross. As Paul told the Colossians, we believers “are complete in Him.” We are not safe because of our faith or our fight, but because of Jesus and what he has done for us. He is the ultimate reality.

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 3

“He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.”
Ephesians 1:20-22

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12

An elderly woman told me once when asked how she was doing, “I’m as weak as dirty dish water.” Now what was she saying? What comparison was she making? Did she view herself as having no more value than dirty dishwater? No. She was telling me she had no strength left. Just as dishwater loses its strength after all the dirty dishes have been washed, so this woman, at the end of her days, felt she had little strength left for living.

In the same way, when a writer uses a metaphor or employs hyperbole, he is emphasizing some greater truth or reality. Authors employ these literary techniques as a part of a larger, literal narrative. A true story is told, but at points, the author emphasizes some fact or truth by using a metaphor or hyperbole. In John 15, Jesus used the metaphor of the vineyard, the husbandman, the vine and the branches to emphasize the importance of being productive disciples. Just as branches on a grapevine produce fruit, so we, as followers of Jesus, produce “fruit” only as we are in a dynamic relationship with Jesus.

Paul used the metaphor of armor (based on the armor of a Roman soldier) to communicate several larger truths. Earlier, we pointed out the paradoxes involved in this metaphor (can you put on and take off your salvation?). I think another paradox is found in the identity of the enemy and the struggle we face daily. The verses above illustrate this seeming contradiction. We fight a defeated enemy, plain and simple.

We might better understand this paradox by looking at the story of Achan (Joshua 7). God had placed all the material wealth of Nineveh (except for what he excluded) under a ban. When God destroyed Nineveh, the Israelites were to destroy and burn everything in the city. Achan disobeyed God and took the beautiful mantel of Shinar and some silver and gold. God knew what Achan had done and “his anger . . . burned against the sons of Israel.” When Israel went up against the city of Ai, the army of Israel was defeated.

God had given the Promised Land to Israel. Yet, in order to possess the land, they had to fight for it. Victory was assured, as long as God’s people were obedient to him. At Ai, they were defeated because Israel had sinned (notice how one man’s sin affected the whole nation) and transgressed. The sin and transgression was Achan’s taking things under the ban and keeping them in the midst of the camp. When God made that fact clear to Joshua, he said, “I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy the things under the ban from your midst.” Victory came when Achan admitted what he had done and he and all his house along with what he had taken from Nineveh were destroyed.

Here is the paradox: we already have victory over the devil. Yet, at times, we are overcome. We suffer defeat, not due to the power of Satan and his demons, but because we have sin in our lives. Just as God demanded obedience in all things from Israel, so he does of you and me as modern day followers of Jesus. Our enemy is in subjection under the feet of Jesus. Our victory today results from the same source as Israel’s victories as she fought to take possession of the Promised Land. We have victory in Christ and in him alone. As was true with Israel, so the truth is for us: if we tolerate sin, we suffer defeat. An obedient believer, though, cannot be overcome.

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 2

“Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”
Ephesians 6.13

“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5

Jesus made two interesting statements in the Sermon on the Mount: “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; . . . If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you.” Was the Lord advocating self-mutilation? Or, was he using hyperbole to make a point? We know our problems go deeper than a physical eye or a hand. Indeed, one cannot rid himself of a vision problem simply by gouging out only one eye. Jesus was saying we must do whatever is necessary to rid ourselves of sinful behavior. Remember, Jesus told the Pharisees, “for the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.” We must go to the root of the problem, not just where the problem is manifested.

For believers, dealing with the issues of life is a matter of great consequence. We contend with our problems and circumstances on the basis of truth. We recognize the truth about ourselves and our situations, and we come to terms with the truth about the resources available to us as followers of Jesus. We cannot be effective by either ignoring reality or creating a false reality.

The very heart of our problem is sin. James declared, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” (Jam. 1.14-16) The problem is not outside of us, but deep within. Our desires are our greatest enemy.

Now we must be clear on one issue: the devil. He is real and he is the enemy of God and the enemy of God’s people. Paul made plain the issue: we must stand against the “schemes of the devil.” The schemes of the devil are the strategies he has put in place to frustrate believers and make them ineffective in their service to God. Basically, Satan has put in place a variety of seemingly believable and attractive options for achieving one’s goals.

Consider Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the wilderness. Three times, the devil offered to Jesus alternatives the Lord might use to accomplish his goals: turn stones into bread; test God by leaping from the pinnacle of the Temple; and, acknowledging the devil’s power. Jesus answered each temptation by quoting Scripture. He resisted the devil, and the devil “left” him. Jesus won. The devil lost.

These same kinds of solutions exist today. We can chose to do things outside the biblical model, or we can be true to Scripture in all our decisions. We can resist and stand against the devil. We fail to win when we do not resist and stand against Satan in the strength of the Lord. The Lord exposed the devil’s lie of being powerful. As Jesus said, Satan “was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The devil is incapable of saying anything truthful. None of his threats of being powerful or false, but alluring schemes are to be believed.

Neither the devil nor any of his demons have any power at all over believers. Jesus came to “destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3.8) Not only that, Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities.” (Col. 2.15) These “rulers and authorities” are “in subjection under his feet.” (Eph. 1.22) Those “rulers and authorities,” by the way, are what we struggle against. (Eph. 6.12) Not only can we stand against these rulers and authorities, whatever and whoever they might be, but we can do so in the knowledge “in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.” (Rom. 8.37) The only power the devil or a demon might have in a believer’s life is the authority a follower of Jesus grants to them.

Let us all remember, “God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.” We are not to be intimidated by anything; neither the devil nor our sinful desires. In the power of God, in the knowledge of his love for us, and by exercising self-discipline in all things, we will be more than conquerors.

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 1

“Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”
Ephesians 6.13

“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5

In responding to some comments on a blog-post about demon-possession, I was struck by some paradoxes in the Spiritual Armor text in Ephesians 6. In thinking about this passage, some literary techniques employed by most of the inspired writers of the biblical texts came to mind: metaphor, hyperbole, euphemism, simile and symbol, among others. I began to wonder to what degree did Paul use metaphor in talking about Spiritual Armor.

Clearly, Paul based his comments on Isaiah 59.17: “He put on righteousness like a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing and wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle.” The question is, does God actually wear armor, or was Isaiah using a simile (comparing two dissimilar things in a phrase introduced with like or as) to say something important about the Lord? Earlier, Isaiah described his vision of the Lord in the Temple in part by saying, “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.” Was the train of God’s robe (Does God “wear” a robe?) literally filling the Temple? Just as Isaiah was saying something about the power of the Lord in 59.17, he was declaring in 6.1 the reality of God’s presence in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Lord’s presence completely filled the Temple.

Now, Paul was a skillful writer. He used rabbinic methods of argument; he employed aspects of Greek rhetoric; and, he used metaphors, hyperbole and analogy. For instance, Colossians 3.5 is hyperbole: kill, or put to death. Can one actually put to death an emotion? How do we slay a sensual desire? If, though, Paul was simply over-stating his case, he in fact was saying do whatever is necessary to do away with destructive desires in one’s life. As for analogy, in Colossians 3.7, Paul said, “you used to walk in these ways.” Many times in Scripture, “to walk” is analogous to “living one’s life” (see Gen. 5.24; Eph. 2.2)

In deciding to what point, if any, Paul was using analogy in Ephesians 6.14-17, we must look first at some obvious paradoxes in that text. The first is, how do you put on the armor? A similar paradox is found in Colossians 3.8-10, Paul spoke twice of “taking off” (as a garment) the practices of the old self and “putting on” (as a garment) the new self. What are the dynamics of taking off and putting on? Nonetheless, we are to “wrap ourselves” with the armor of God and “clothe” ourselves with the new self.

The second paradox is in the actual parts of the armor. Of those, righteousness, faith and salvation are the most important concepts to consider. Here’s the paradox: if we can put something on, can we take it off? If you can “put on” the helmet of salvation, can you take that helmet off? The implication is stunning. If you can both put it on and take it off, then, one can both claim and disavow his salvation. Faith and righteousness are tied together. Paul told the Romans, “therefore, since we have been justified through faith.” (Rom. 5.1) To be justified is to be declared righteous. Paul made that point when he quoted Genesis 15.6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 43). So, by faith, one is declared righteous. We must then ask, can one lay down the very faith through which righteousness was credited? Further, if one lays down his righteousness, he then takes back his sin, thus, nullifying the Cross. Considering what Paul said to the Colossians, if one does not put on the new man, does he remain “clothed” in the old self? If, though, as Paul told the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 5.17, “therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come,” can we undo what Christ has done?

We must not run the risk of over-literalizing the armor and new self metaphors. If we do, we are faced with the dilemma of “putting on” and “taking off.” Rather, we should look to the deeper truth Paul was declaring. Salvation, faith and righteousness are ours through what Christ did on the Cross. Since they are ours, granted to us by God, then we should take maximum advantage of these realities. To the Greeks, the head was the source of life. Christ, through his saving act, protects and preserves our lives. Righteousness is as a breastplate, protecting our hearts, the center of our being. In the depth of our being, we are sinless, having had all our sin forgiven. Faith extinguishes the fiery darts of the evil one, his lies. Is faith in our faith how the lies are extinguished. No. Our fundamental trust in God and the truth of his Word is now the lies are exposed for what they are.

No one has to “put on” their salvation every morning. Neither can we take it off. So, once the armor is on, we can never take it off. If you could take it off, say at the end of the day, what would happen to you when you were sleeping?

Demon Possession, Pt. 3

“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matt. 12.28-29) Profound implications accompany this remarkable declaration by Jesus. With this statement, Jesus announced his authority and power to take anyone he wished from the “house,” or kingdom (see Col. 1.13) of Satan. Was the Lord saying he could only cast out demons, or was he saying he could save anyone he chose to save? Obviously, the later was the essence of his announcement.

We read this declaration and see in it a kind of hypothetical statement: “if I cast out demons.” Jesus was not speaking hypothetically; he was not suggesting he might be able to cast out demons. The argument with the Pharisees stemmed from the fact Jesus had just freed a blind and mute man from demon possession, and healed him of his blindness and muteness. Jesus was referring to the actual, not the possible. In the Greek text, verse 28 is a conditional statement, an if, . . . then proposition. If one thing was true, casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then another was true, the kingdom of God had come.

We can better understand the force of Jesus’ comment by reading the verse in an appropriate way: “But since I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Jesus was declaring what was. He was casting out demons by the Spirit of God and the kingdom of God had come. Jesus had no “ifs” in his mind. He knew the truth and declared it to the Pharisees. They knew, as did Jesus, only the Messiah would come in the power of the Spirit (see Isa. 11.1-10; 42.1-4; 61.1-3). Here, then, was a crisis point for the Pharisees and Israel. Would they accept Jesus as the Messiah or reject him? Their response is a fact of history.

The second part of the declaration of Jesus had to do with the victory of God over the Devil. Jesus said, “or how else can anyone enter the strong man’s (Satan) house (kingdom) and carry off his property (the lost), unless he first binds (overcomes) the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” Compare that statement with the declaration of Paul to the Colossians: “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Co. 1.13-14) In other words, when a person confesses Jesus and trusts in him and his work on the Cross, his sins are forgiven and he is rescued or delivered out of the kingdom of darkness, the kingdom of Satan, and transferred to the Kingdom of Jesus, the beloved Son.

An important fact has to be understood at this point. A connection between sin and sickness existed in the minds of the Jews. Sickness was the result of sin. For instance, when Jesus encountered a blind man as he was leaving the Temple (John 9.1ff), his disciples asked him a question. They asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” On the one hand, the question is odd. How could a man sin so he himself would be born blind; a somewhat contradictory observation. Could a man sin before he was born?

More importantly, though, the question went to the heart of the Jewish understanding of sickness and sin. Sickness always resulted from sin. In this story, the issue of sin came to the fore in the final statement Jesus made to the Pharisees. They asked him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains,” He completely turned around the issue of sin and sickness. The sin of the Pharisees was their knowing the truth, but not acknowledging it. If they had not understood, they would have had not sin. Their claim to be able to “see” the truth compounded their sin.

In Mark 2.1-12, the sin and sickness debate is illustrated more clearly. A paralytic was brought to Jesus by his friends, who opened the roof of a house and lowered the man down to Jesus. Jesus’ first comment to him was, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Jesus, knowing the response of the religious authorities who were present, asked a pointed question in response to their unbelief. “‘Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, “Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ he said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.’”

Jesus painted the scribes into a corner. If they said Jesus’ healing the man was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also forgive sins. If they said forgiving the man’s sins was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also heal. If you do one, you can do the other. They had no answer. Jesus answered the question for them: he healed the man. Thus, he was declaring he had the authority to make the first statement he had made, “your sins are forgiven.”

A connection must now be made between the forgiveness of sin and demon possession. We begin with the Cross. When Jesus died on the Cross as the perfect sacrifice, he did so to effect the final, total forgiveness of the sins of all persons. When John the Baptist saw Jesus, as accounted in John 1.29-36, He twice declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” All the sins of all people of all time were forgiven on the Cross. Paul wrote, “for the death that He died, He died to sin once for all.” Jesus’ death on the Cross was a one-time death for all the sins of all people.

When a person confesses his sin and trusts Christ for salvation, he is accepting the already completed forgiveness of sin. What God offers to anyone who would believe is redemption, the forgiveness of sin. He can offer forgiveness because forgiveness was made available through the death of Jesus. All one is required to do to obtain forgiveness is confess his sin, which is take responsibility for what he has done.

Paul made an important statement to the Romans. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (trusts), to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1.16) How powerful is the gospel? Anyone who believes can be saved, regardless of their condition. Nothing is required of a person beyond his trust in the Gospel. And, by the way, Jesus is the Gospel. We do not believe in something about Jesus, we believe in who Jesus is. We trust in him. Surely, in believing in him we believe in what he did on the Cross. Yet, at the deepest level, we believe Jesus; we trust him. If we trust him, we have no difficulty believing in the efficaciousness of what he accomplished on the Cross.

To illustrate the importance of trusting Jesus, we look to the story in Acts 19.11-20 and the account there of the Seven sons of Sceva. These men were Jewish exorcists and wanted to appropriate the power they saw being expressed through the ministry of Paul. When they tried to cast evil spirits out of the possessed, they would say, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” One evil spirit answered them and said, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” The possessed man then attacked all seven of the men, overpowered them and chased them out of town, “naked and wounded.” The sons of Sceva (a Jewish chief priest) were not believers. They falsely believed the name of Jesus was some kind of magical incantation. They were mistaken.

This story, along with many others in Acts, served to show how God was insuring the integrity and credibility of the Gospel. The Lord did not want anyone preaching anything but the pure Gospel. Apollos and the Ephesian disciples (18.14 - 19.7) did not understand the whole Gospel. They had been baptized with the baptism of John, not with Jesus’ baptism. Even baptism was important to the integrity of the Gospel. One had to be baptized with understanding. Likewise, the “name of Jesus” could not be appropriated by anyone as a tool to further one’s own power and prestige.

By the way, look again at what the evil spirit said to the sons of Sceva: “I recognize Jesus.” The evil spirit knew who Jesus was. James made a similar statement in his letter. “You believe that God is one, You do well; the demons also believe and shudder.” No clouds of doubt obscured any demon’s view or understanding of who Jesus actually was. In Mark 1.21-28, the story is told of Jesus casting an evil spirit out of a man. As Jesus taught, the evil spirit in the man cried out, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are–the Holy One of God.” While we are casual in our understanding of Jesus, demons “tremble” at the knowledge. So, as with the sons of Sceva, demons recognize not only Jesus, they also “know about Paul” as well as any who has trusted Jesus for salvation.

At this point, let’s ask a hypothetical question. Suppose a person is in fact demon possessed. Can this person be saved? Must the person first be freed from demon possession before he can be saved, or is the Gospel enough? Paul said the Gospel, the good news of Jesus, was the power of God to save any who trusted. What do we do with one who might be demon possessed?

We must understand the completeness of the victory of Jesus over the Devil to answer this question. In Ephesians 4.8, and in Colossians 2.15, similar statements are made one can understand only by knowing a little history of the Roman Empire. Victorious Roman generals were granted a triumph in honor of their great victories. Pompey the Great was given three triumphs, the third the greatest of all.

Pompey’s eastern victories earned him his third triumph. On his 45th birthday, in 61 BC, he rode the triumphal chariot as a magnificent god-king. He was accompanied by a gigantic portrait head of himself, studded with pearls. His third triumph exceeded all others; an unprecedented two days were scheduled for its procession and games. Spoils, prisoners, army and banners depicting battle scenes were found all along the triumphal route between the Campus Martius and the Capitoline temple of Jupiter. To conclude, he gave an immense triumphal banquet and money to the people of Rome, and promised them a new theater.”

What does a Roman triumph have to do with the passages in Ephesians and Colossians? In both, the Triumph of Jesus was being described. Note some of the things described. In Ephesians, Jesus “led captive a host of captives.” In a triumph, kings and great generals who had been defeated in battle were led in chains behind the chariot of the triumphant general as his procession made its way through the streets of Rome. Also, Ephesians says Jesus “gave gifts to men.” Pompey gave the city of Rome a new theater. In Colossians, Paul wrote when “[God] had disarmed the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him [Jesus].” Not only did Jesus win the final victory, but in doing so, he took away all the weapons the enemies of God had at their disposal. The only thing the Devil has left to use against people is the lie.

Since Jesus won an absolute and final victory through the Cross, who or what can stand against him? No one and no thing. Satan has no power or authority to use against Jesus. The Gospel of Jesus, then, is the most powerful truth in the universe. Through the Gospel, people are set free. Even if, and if is a big word, someone is demon possessed, only the Gospel can set him free. But, if the victory of the Cross was final, complete and absolute, then with what power can Satan hold anyone when that person is confronted with Jesus. If one is demon possessed, the name of Jesus on the lips of a believer and the presence of the Resurrected Lord in the heart of a believer is all the power required to free one from demon possession. Demons tremble, shudder and flee at the presence of Jesus.

Yet, since the Cross was the final blow with which Satan was eternally defeated and disarmed, how can he possess anyone. He cannot possess or oppress anyone, believer or unbeliever alike. The problem of mankind is not demon possession; the problem we all face is our sin. One is not set free by having a demon cast from him, he is set free when his sin is forgiven. Once freed by the Gospel, no believer can ever be under the oppression of Satan or a demon. Paul declared, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 4.17) Whether we know or understand our freedom is beside the point; freedom is guaranteed by the Spirit of the Lord, not the degree of our spiritual, theological or intellectual abilities.

Human beings are not demon possessed, they are sin possessed. James said, “but each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” The Cross solved the sin problem of man. Trust in Christ makes forgiveness for the person who trusts a reality. The Gospel is the power of God to save anyone who trusts.