The Rest of the Old Old Story

I got an email from a friend. He was trying to post something like it as a comment on my leukemia blog, but computer problems prevented it. I’m glad. His "comment" captures the imagination, stirs the heart, and thrills the spirit. I got his permission to print it here.

So, from Jeremiah Briggs:

The dragonfly story brought tears to my eyes (linked from my leukemia blog).

I wish, oh, how I wish people could see the scriptures in the light of a loving Creator who is trying deserately to redeem His creation from the darkness of self-ruin. The God of heaven and earth desires relationship over rules. How many there are, who see the Bible as a self-help book and not a wonderful book about a mystical realm with an all-powerful and wise King and his quest to redeem his subjects from the tyranny of a usurper!

It’s full of art, music, and poetry and with mythological creatures that are more real than we are. It is like Arthur Spiderwick’s Field Guide; it’s very dangerous in the hands of the wrong people.

The people who wrote it didn’t take a Christian writer’s seminar. They simply had an encounter with the One who loves them. The outcome of their writing is a picture painted in the heart of the reader that is unique to that person. It is like reading Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and then seeing the movie. Somehow the screen version lacks the ability to match the image that the writer has created in each one of us.

Perhaps thats why I’ve never tried to illustrate Tom Bombadil; I don’t think I can for one, and two, I don’t want to disturb the image in the hearts of others.

Though I’ve attempted numerous times to do illustrations from the Biblical narrative, my art is never from a literal perspective, which I find distastful because most attempts I’ve personally viewed are a very weak cup of coffee at best and at worst… well, I’ll avoid being disreapectful to those who have labored so hard to capture the unimaginable.

Michael the archangel throws down the devil
by Jeremiah Briggs, used with permission

It’s like they are trying to catch the wind. I make only a feeble attempt to interpret the image which is within me. For as the author said, "We must have eyes to see and ears to hear." Our hearts and spirits say "amen" to the message and perceive the image it renders.

I’ve tried many times to do an image based on the scripture, "In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the LORD … " I think, after reading your post and the dragonfly post, I may have the composition I’m wanting, but as usual it, like others in the past, will reflect the Hidden Realm where what we see and what is really there are two entirely different things.

I get so caught up in correcting what I see as obvious error that sometimes I forget to make clear what I’m supporting. I believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ really is good news.

I attack all sorts of doctrines. Often, if not always, it is not because I think they are wrong. Most or all of the time I am simply arguing that they are too important to us.

Faith Alone

There is one important thing, and that is Jesus Christ. There is one important act, and that is faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, and those two things–faith and obedience–are interchangeable.

I don’t have to appeal to Greek to prove that. You know it’s true in English.

Let’s assume you’ve just told me that you’ve become a Hoganite. You have become a believer in Hulk Hogan. Then you hero gets on TV and says that if you want to be a real man, you will stand outside in mid-winter, in the snow, in public, and in daylight in only your All-Star Wresting, speedo-style trunks for four hours. You, rightly thinking that this is idiotic, decide not to do it.

I would have to commend your wisdom. However, I would also add, “You’re not much of a believer in Hulk Hogan now, are you?”

I am against being “not much of a believer” in Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, if you were to go out, shiver in the cold for twenty minutes, then race inside, unable to bear it any more, then I would again commend your wisdom in giving up and coming inside. But I would comment that though you’re loony, you are apparently a real, actual, true Hoganite.

I am for, with, in support of, given to, a servant of, and a prayer for real, actual, true Christians–people who occasionally fail miserably, but who avidly, joyfully, and humbly pursue everything Jesus Christ has called them to.

The One True Church

Everything else I say is just to help those avid, joyful, humble Christians know that they don’t have to pretend other people are Christians. They can love them, witness to them, and serve them. Then they can leave work and from hospital visits and dinners with the not-much-of-a-believers and devote their meetings and fellowship and life to other avid, joyful, and humble Christians who are their only true family.

And those avid, joyful, humble, and failing Christians, together, leaning on Jesus Christ are the one, true, and only church, the pillar and support of the truth.

And God can be trusted to be their God, and Jesus can be trusted to be their King, and the Holy Spirit can be trusted to be their teacher, and the Triune God, Two proceeding from One, can and will lead them into everything they need far better than any seminary graduate or any confident interpreter of Scripture.

We are in danger of deception when we seek to follow God alone (Heb. 3:13), but when avid, joyful, and humble Christians live as family to one another, feeling free to keep their fellowship with other avid, joyful, and humble Christians, then they can know everything that matters and their zeal, joy, and humility will not only spread, but will be backed powerfully by God.

I’m mixing my blogs today.

On my Leukemia blog, “Thrilled to Death,” I’m writing about setting our eyes on Jesus. That requires some comments about hearing God, which goes better here. You’ll understand the short teaching you’re reading here, but if you want it in context, read today’s leukemia blog as well.

In fact, the teaching there is way more important than the teaching here, at least today. But the sidelight needs to go here, so here it is:

The general context is that I believe God has said that leukemia is not going to kill me.

So here goes:

I have some doubts about whether God really said I won’t die. A follower of Christ should always have a healthy question about whether he’s really heard God or whether he’s heard some whispering spirit or is simply deceiving himself. That’s where the body of Christ comes in. That’s where you set your opinions, and often even your hearing of God, down on “the pillar and support of the truth.” (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, see 1 Timothy 3:15.)

The body of Christ doesn’t think I’m going to die, either.

Note: By body of Christ, I don’t mean ask a bunch of people who are bound by modern traditions to agree that God always wants to heal people. They’re just going to tell you doctrine they’ve interpreted from the Bible; they’re not going to be able to listen to the Anointing which is true and not a lie, so they’re certainly not going to be able to tell you what it’s saying.

At that point, my doubts don’t matter. At that point, my job is to obey God. I am to both do and say what he’s saying.

Really? Does that work?

It’s worked for me for 29 years solid. I’m a church historian, amateur though I may be. It’s worked for the saints of God for 2,000 years.

Today I read the following on Facebook:

Apostles are those sent ones who had seen the risen Christ. If one has not seen the risen Christ they are not Apostles.

Ignoring the grammar mistakes, let me complain about a real problem in supposedly Bible-believing churches. (I say “supposedly” because I see more that’s-what-we’ve-always-believed-believing than Bible-believing going on in those churches.)

The belief in the above quote comes from Acts 1:21-22, where Peter is leading the eleven apostles in picking a successor for Judas, who, as you know, had committed suicide. Peter says that the replacement for Judas needs to be someone who had been with them the whole time they’d been with Jesus, from the baptism of John to the day he was taken up into heaven. And that person would be a witness with them of the resurrection.

So, does that mean that for anyone to be called an apostle, he must have seen the risen Christ?

Possibly.

If you know that Barnabas and Paul are called apostles (Acts 14:14), and are thus aware that the 12 were not the only apostles, then it only takes a moment’s thought to realize that there’s more than one interpretation of Acts 1:21-22. It might mean that anyone who is called an apostle has to have seen the risen Lord, but it also might mean that the twelve, being a special group of people, can only include people who had been with Christ from the beginning to the end.

In fact, why the focus on seeing Christ risen? Doesn’t Acts 1:21-22 give a much greater requirement than that, a requirement that even the apostle Paul does not meet? Doesn’t it say that the replacement for Judas must have been with Christ from the baptism of John to the ascension?

Nonetheless, this person on Facebook gives his opinion about apostles as though it carries some sort of divine authority.

He’s not the only one, of course. It’s my experience that most Protestants don’t believe there are apostles today, and the reason they give is that an apostle must have seen the risen Lord.

Why do they believe this?

Because that’s what they were told.

What I said above is undoubtedly true. There are at least two interpretations of Acts 1:21-22, and there is nothing to indicate the common Protestant belief is a likely interpretation.

Nonetheless, if you point that out, those Protestants who believe apostles must have seen the risen Lord will argue vehemently that they are standing on Scripture. Of course, they’re not standing on Scripture. They’re standing on tradition, and it’s not even an ancient tradition. It belongs only to the Protestants, so it’s less than 500 years old.

Roman Catholics and Orthodox would argue that the apostolic office was passed on to the bishops in the churches. Their authority went from apostle to bishop to the next bishop, etc. They call it apostolic succession.

While I believe that both the Roman Catholics and Orthodox lost their apostolic succession long ago, their argument is based on a justifiable, ancient tradition, that can honestly be argued to have come from the apostles.

The Protestant tradition is just someone’s possible, but not likely, interpretation of Scripture that’s spread around the Protestant churches by word of mouth.

AI Wits

I want to coin a new term: AI Wits.

That sounds like a nice name, right? AI usually stands for artificial intelligence, and wit indicates good reasoning skills.

But really, it’s short for Anything I Want Is True.

It seems to be the approach that most “Bible-believers” have to believing the Bible. If it can possibly, by any stretch of the imagination or twist of a word, be interpreted in the way I want it to be interpreted, then it must be so.

I’m not picking on a specific group of people, by the way. I’m talking about me and you. If we don’t work at learning from God, we’re going to learn from what we prefer.

By the way, when you start learning from God, expect to be grilled a lot by your peers.

It even happened to Peter (Acts 11:1ff).

You really need to read the previous post so you’re caught up on why I’m telling you a story from the Book of Enoch and claiming it’s Biblical and historical.

(But don’t tell anyone I told you because the stuff I wrote yesterday is a family secret, stuffed away in the cellar, and we’re all supposed to pretend it’s not there.)

First …

Demons Are Not Fallen Angels

The fallen angels from Genesis 6? The sons of God? According to Jude 6 and 1 Pet 3:19, they’re in eternal chains, awaiting the day of judgment. They’re out.

The third of the angels that fell in the beginning with the devil? Have you ever looked at where that modern idea comes from?

The only place that discusses such a fall of angels is Revelation 12. Do we really think Revelation 12 happened before the creation of mankind? Why? Is Revelation 11 about pre-history? Is Revelation 13 about pre-history? What in that chapter makes us claim that it happened before mankind was created??? That’s just bizarre.

Worse, we’re making a plausible but far less than certain interpretation by saying that the third of the stars thrown to the earth by the dragon are angels rebelling against God. He does have some angels, but they are not necessarily fallen angels from God. The Greek word angelos means messenger. We’re leaving it untranslated when we render it as angel.

And, yes, there are several places in the New Testament where angelos is used of messengers who are not heavenly beings. (7 of them; Matt. 11:10 is one, and Luke 7:24 is another.)

Anyway, the fallen angel theory doesn’t have much to support it.

The Book of Enoch Story Which Early Christians Believed

Early Christians believed the story that was in the Book of Enoch (which was quoted by Jude and reference by Jude concerning Genesis 6, but we’re not supposed to tell you that because it’s a buried in the attic family secret).

Anyway, that story says that God was very angry with those angels who didn’t guard their origin and who went to earth and took wives. They had children who were giants, or Nephilim, in Hebrew.

The giants were also judged because they were destroying the world.

Their judgment wasn’t the same as their angelic fathers, who were reserved in eternal chains for the day of judgment (Jude 6 and the Book of Enoch). Instead, God killed them, and he cursed their spirits to wander the earth forever.

Those are the demons.

Justin Martyr, for example, comments:

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons. (Dialogue with Trypho 5)

So now we have the testimony of the Book of Enoch, which seems backed up by the Epistle of Jude, which was obviously believed by Justin Martyr.

What about elsewhere in Scripture?

Well, my Scriptural argument would include "Legion," the 2,000 demons that were in the demoniac in Mark 5. Have you ever wondered why those demons didn’t want to leave the country? Or why they would ask if they could enter pigs?

If demons are spirits of the judged Nephilim, then they may still be attached to the areas they lived in when they were alive. If the curse of wandering the earth as a disembodied spirit is really a curse, then they may long to live in bodies through possession. Matthew 12:43 does mention that when a demon is cast out, it wanders through dry places and can’t find rest.

Interesting, huh?

One more of the questions that was asked of John Lennox today (June 18; I’m scheduling these posts 2 days apart) was who the Nephilim were.

Nephilim is the Hebrew word translated "giants" in Genesis 6:4. These Nephilim were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Weird passage. How do we interpret it?

John Lennox mentioned that the Nephilim are addressed in the New Testament, and then he quoted Jude 6:

And the angels, who did not guard their origins, but left their dwelling place, he has reserved in eternal chains under darkness for the judgment day.

I completely agree that Jude 6 is a reference to the Nephilim of Genesis 6.

I get wildly frustrated when I hear someone like John Lennox say that and then stop.

HELLO! JUDE IS REFERENCING THE BOOK OF ENOCH! HE’S SAYING WAY MORE THAN THAT THE "SONS OF GOD" ARE ANGELS AND THAT THE NEPHILIM ARE CHILDREN OF ANGELS!

Sorry for shouting, but let’s let all our brothers and sisters in on a secret that’s hidden away in the cellar.

There’s a Book of Enoch, and Jude quotes it!

Yes, that’s right. When Jude says Enoch prophesied about the judgment on ungodly men doing ungodly deeds in an ungodly way, he’s quoting the Book of Enoch. Depending on the version you read, the verse he’s quoting is either the last verse of chapter one (1:9) or the first verse of chapter two.

You know what else? The Book of Enoch is in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

You know what else? It’s obvious that the Book of Enoch was read by many in the early church.

You know what’s even more important? The Book of Enoch is quoted as containing Enoch’s words in a letter that you consider inspired by God and infallible!

I, on the other hand, being a student of church history, know that I can question whether the Epistle of Jude is really inspired and ought to be in our New Testament. Most of the early churches did, and to this day the Nestorian congregations, now known as the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East, who were excommunicated back in the 5th century over issues that Christians only pretend to understand, do not have Jude in their Bibles. In fact, they don’t have Revelation, either. Nor second or third John.

Shh. Don’t tell anyone. We have some things that we like to keep secret.

Okay, draw closer here so I can whisper.

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag

You know what’s really cool? The Book of Enoch has a neat story about why there are demons.

We think they’re fallen angels today. But, those angels that fell in Genesis 6 are kept in eternal chains awaiting judgment.

Oh, oh. I have to make this wait for the next post. I just realized that you might believe the modern myth that Satan caused one-third of the angels to rebel in the beginning.

That’s not true. Do you even know where that myth comes from?

I’ll explain all that next post. I don’t want to make this one too long.

I just got back from a question and answer session with John Lennox at the Creation Conference here in Birmingham. Among the many questions he was asked, there was a question about Romans 5:12:

Therefore, just as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, so death passed to all men because all sinned.

First, as an aside, let me point out that death passes to all men because all sin, not because they’re guilty of Adam’s sin. Let’s dump that version of original sin.

With that aside, the point of the question asked to John Lennox, and the one that’s been asked to me, and the one that all young earth creationists bring up, is that if evolution is true, then there had to have been death before Adam. How can there be death before Adam if death, by sin, entered the world through the one man, Adam?

John Lennox’ answer was that Romans 5:12 is only talking about human death. There could have been animal death before Adam–and there certainly was plant death because they were given for food even in Genesis one–just not human death.

My answer is, "Why in the world are y’all asking such a question?"

According to Ephesians 2, we’re already dead in our trespasses and sins. Romans 5:12 isn’t talking about physical death. It’s talking about spiritual death.

The same is true back in Genesis. I’m not the first person to bring up the point that the punishment for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was, "In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Yet Adam didn’t die for 930 years after eating of the fruit.

Yes, some Christians say that God meant that Adam would begin to die, or become susceptible to death, in the day that he ate of the tree. But at least as many say that Genesis 2:17 threatens a spiritual death, a separation from God, not a physical death, and that spiritual death did happen in the day that he ate of it.

Of course, I think that the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth that is not historical, and so it is not meant to be literally accurate in its details. I can’t get technical about "in the day," but I do think God included that story in the Scripture because it tells us something from the Spirit of God—yes, I believe Scripture is inspired. Man sinned, man died spiritually, and men today are separated from God by the death that is in their spirits through sin.

Thus, I don’t think Romans 5:12 has anything to do with death before Adam. It has to do with the rebellion of the first created man—And like all Christians, I believe that there was a first man or men into whose nostrils God breathed the breath of life, even if those men were formed from the dust of the ground over millions of years rather than in a one-day marathon of pottery by God–and all his descendants.

It’s not just Romans 5 that’s talking about spiritual death. It’s Romans 5, 6, 7, and 8. In Romans 8:12-13, we’re told that it’s those who live according to the flesh who will die, while those who put to death the deeds of the body through the Spirit will live. Is that really physical death in those two verses? Those who live spiritually will never die physically, only those who live according to the flesh?

I don’t think so, and neither do any of you.

I wrote an email tonight that I just have to put on this blog. There are things I really like saying, and this is one of them.

I wrote the email in response to the following question:

What are the implications concerning Old Earth vs. New Earth? What is all the arguing really about?

To me? One thing. Is our faith based on a real God who gives us a real Spirit, and are we following a being, Jesus Christ the Son of God, who really is the Truth?

If we are, then we can pursue truth. We can look at scientific evidence honestly, knowing that our God is Creator no matter what we find in the scientific evidence.

Or, is our faith based upon stories we read in a book? Sure, I agree the Bible is inspired. But I don’t believe in Jesus because of the Bible. I believe the Bible because I believe in Jesus.

Jesus is God. The Bible has some of the things–not even a very large portion of the things–God has said. I don’t believe God wants us to have faith in a book. It’s not even a book, anyway. It’s letters, poetry, and a few short books–many writings. We didn’t collect them into one until much later.

Jesus didn’t leave us a book. He left us apostles, and he left us a church that the apostles’ writings say is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

When the church was being deceived, what did the apostles tell them to do? Paul told them to talk to each other, speaking the truth to one another … in love (Eph. 4:13-16). John told them that together (he used a plural “you” consistently) they would be taught by “the anointing” (1 Jn. 2:26-27).

The Roman Catholic Church wants us to believe that they are the church Paul speaks of that is the pillar and support of the truth. That’s false. The church that the Scriptures know about is the local church. You, your husband, and those who will follow Christ with you. The apostles say that together you, the church in your town, can seek God and be led by him into truth as you follow the anointing and speak the truth in love to one another.

Those whose faith is in the book, rather than in God, end up having to defend the book. We who place our faith in God find that God can defend himself! Rather than defending him, we depend on him to defend us!

I believe it is for this reason that Jesus, the Word of God, didn’t give us a book to be the Word of God. Yes, the Bible is the Word of God, but it’s only a small portion of the Word of God. Surely we don’t believe God’s words are limited to a thousand pages in all of history! Surely we don’t believe he’s been sitting around silent for 2,000 years! I believe he likes us, and he likes to talk to us and guide us.

“I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with my eye” (Ps. 32:8).

“As many as are led by the Spirit, these are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

(Caveat: I’m not talking about me being led by the Spirit. I’m talking about us, the local church, being led by the Spirit. Here, locally, we follow God together, and I let my brothers and sisters speak to me from the Scriptures and from their own revelation to keep me from being deceived. We test the Spirits by the Scriptures. God won’t say something different–at least not significantly different, though there may be some minor cultural things–to us than he did to the apostles.)

Ok, one more thing. We have to look at the flip side of this. What did Jesus think of those who put all their trust in “the Book”:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you will find life, but these are they which testify of me! Yet you refuse to come to me so that you may have life” (Jn. 5:39-40).

Beware of modern Pharisees, who tell you that if the Scriptures turn out to be allegorical in some places, or to have scientific errors in another, then you can’t believe the Gospel. That’s ludicrous!

We can believe the Gospel because of its power! Jesus sent the apostles out to be witnesses of the resurrection, so that people would gather together and come to him. He is able to teach his people. Yes, he used the apostles to do some of that teaching, but do you notice in Acts how quickly Paul was willing to leave towns in which he had preached? In Acts 14, we read about him returning to some of those towns, in which he’d spent sometimes only three weeks or so, and appointing elders.

Who trained those elders? I would argue that it was the Spirit of God in the church.

The Scriptures are profitable for instruction in righteousness. They are profitable for correction, reproof, and rebuke. You will notice that all those things concern behavior a lot more than they concern theology. That’s because the point of the Scriptures is to thoroughly equip us for good works, not to make theologians out of us (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

In Titus 2:1, Paul tells Titus to teach “sound doctrine.” Look at the rest of the chapter some time and see what Paul considered to be sound doctrine.

Doesn’t sound much like a modern statement of faith, does it?

Christians desperately need to return to being practical, holy people. On the last day, Jesus doesn’t have a quiz about theology–not even about the atonement. He tells us about whether we fed him when he was hungry, clothed him when he was naked, or visited him when he was sick or in prison.

You want a real shocker? Look in the Book of Acts and find one place where an apostle told a lost person that Jesus died for their sins.

You’ll find where they told the lost that Jesus died. They had to. They were witnesses of the resurrection. You can’t witness of a resurrection if you don’t mention a death.

You’ll find where they said that Jesus forgives sins, but you will never find them tying the two together.

That’s not because it’s false. It is very true and very important that Jesus died for our sins. It’s all over the letters … to the church.

The lost, however, don’t need to know that to be saved.

We’re so confused into thinking that Jesus saves us because of what we know! That’s so unscriptural! He saves us because we want to repent of our sin–in fact, of our whole pointless lives–and follow him! He saves all his followers, which is what having faith in a person means.

We have to talk about “real” faith because we think faith means having faith in some facts about Jesus. If we realized that faith is in a (divine) person, Jesus Christ, and not in some things that he did, then we wouldn’t have to talk about “real” faith. Everyone already knows that you can’t claim to have faith in a person and ignore what he says.

Again, don’t miss what’s in Acts. The apostles never told the lost that Jesus died for their sins. They explained the atonement later, to the church, so that the church could understand the incredible thing that Jesus did for us and praise him and love him more than ever.

We don’t have the fragile faith that Ken Ham preaches. We have a vigorous real faith that comes from having the Spirit of God living in us, which we received through faith in Jesus Christ, the glorious, knowable, real, and living Son of God!

Evolution can’t shake that faith. If evolution is true, then our great God and his great Son did it. If it isn’t, then maybe Genesis 1 is absolutely literal.

Either way, we’re busy learning the proper lessons we should learn from Genesis 1. We want to be a full moon, reflecting as much of the light of the Son as possible in the darkness of the night, until Jesus returns and daylight reigns again. We believe and know that whether Genesis 1 is a literal description or an allegorical one full of spiritual lessons, either way it was our mighty God who created the universe, strewing between a sextillion and an octillion stars across 14.7 billion light years of space.

Wow.

That, to me, is what the argument is about. I am not arguing that evolution is true, even though I’m arguing that evolution is true. I’m arguing that we have to be honest, and I’m arguing that we have to be united, holy, obedient believers in Jesus Christ, not divided, pharisaical defenders of our own particular interpretations of the small portion of God’s words that have been written down.

I hope I haven’t over-spoken nor offended you too much.

I really love our God, and I believe he’s way stronger than our ideas. He can take care of us even while we enjoy searching out the truth. Those who seek find. He doesn’t give snakes to children who ask for eggs. Let us not be “ye of little faith,” but let us address him as Father and trust him as children.

Have you ever had someone tell you that Jesus never claimed to be God or the Son of God?

I was a part of the fledgling New Age Movement as a teenager and young adult in the 70′s and early 80′s. The New Age Movement loves to claim Jesus as its own, but it can’t have Jesus teaching the things he teaches. The New Age is all about feeling good and living for yourself. Staying married, denying yourself, or changing in any way so that you might benefit others is an abridgment on New Age freedom and enlightenment.

The New Age is sort of like the far left in politics. Its adherents simply invent their own reality and live in a dream world all the time. That way, they feel really good about themselves and even believe they’ve transformed the world, while never having actually met or touched the people they talk about helping.

Actually, I guess they’re also like many (most?) Christians, who say glowing, worshipful things about the Bible, but who don’t actually read it, do what it says, or even believe the things it teaches.

Okay, I’m off track. (And to think I did so well being brief in my last post.)

The Outrageous Claims of Jesus

Despite what I was told in the New Age Movement, Jesus most certainly did claim to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:63-64; Luk. 22:70; Jn. 3:18; 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; etc.). Yes, the apostles taught that we could all be sons of God, but it was Jesus alone who could say, "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn. 8:58).

It’s not the words, "I am the Son of God," that make Jesus’ claims stand out. It’s everything else!

It’s not the rest of us who can say, "I saw satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). We hear about it from Jesus, who has existed since before the beginning.

He’s the one for whose coming we wait, and he’s the one who will sit down on his glorious throne and judge the nations (Luke 17:24-25; Matt. 25:31-46). He’s also the one who will call the dead out of the graves (Jn. 5:25-29). Now that’s an audacious claim!

But today I want to talk about the simply implied claim I was reading about in Matthew 10.

Matthew 10 and the Implied Claim of Jesus

Picture this scenario. You’re a Jew; you are listening to a man expound the Law of Moses, the greatest of the prophets, and towards the end of his exposition, he says the following:

The HCSB capitalizes "Me" in this passage, but those who were listening to him, even though they were apostles, did not yet know that pronouns referring to him ought to be capitalized. (Actually, I don’t even agree with that; let’s honor him with our obedience, not by adjusting our grammar.) Statements like these had to take the apostles’ collective breath away!

The crowds had wondered who he was just because there was so much authority in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:28-29). This passage from Matthew 10 is only directed at his disciples, but what a statement!

I’m more important than your parents, and if you love them more than me, then you’re not worthy of me?

What???

Jesus had better be more than just one of many sons of God if he’s going to be making statements like these!

The Foolishness of Preaching Christ

Let’s forget about New Agers. We’ve addressed some Scriptures to answer them with. People who live in a fantasy world are always easy to answer.

But what about us?

Do we know what religion we’ve joined and what religious leader we’ve chosen to follow?

We’re making some outrageous claims. Jesus rose from the dead? He created the universe? Somewhere around an octillion stars (a number so big that WordPress’ spellchecker doesn’t recognize it!) spread across 14 billion light years of space? 14 billion light years is 5.88 trillion miles … times 14 billion, or 82 sextillion miles.

Jesus, if we believe what we teach, lived a highly supernatural life, and he sent his apostles to live a highly supernatural life. In Matthew 10, he sent his disciples to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons.

Have you ever thought about those people knocking at Jesus’ door on the last day, asking to be let into the kingdom? Jesus said many would tell him that they prophesied, cast out demons, and did miracles in his name.

He’s not going to let them in because it’s not faith that matters on the last day, but what your faith accomplished: good works. So they are kept out because they didn’t obey the Father but were lawless instead (Matt. 7:21-23).

But despite the fact that they were locked out of the kingdom, the King—Jesus—doesn’t deny that they performed these supernatural feats. If we’re going to be Bible believers, then we have to acknowledge that miracles are a somewhat normal part of the Bible’s picture of the Christian life.

We’re making outrageous claims. We had better have outrageous power.

One Final Caveat and One Final Plea

Matthew 13:58 says that Jesus couldn’t do many miracles in his own country because of their unbelief.

In the history of the world, there has never been a more unbelieving culture than modern western society, primarily the US, Canada, and western Europe. Miracles are limited here.

I’ve spent a relatively significant amount of time in 3rd world countries, and I’ve had good friends raised in countries like Kenya, Nigeria, Surinam, India, and Togo. Miracles are not so uncommon there. I know atheists would believe they’re just confused or inventing the stories, but I’ve been too close to too many absolutely stunning events to disbelieve so easily. While I’ve personally witnessed only a few of those events, I’ve spoken firsthand with literally dozens of people who have recounted amazing miraculous occurrences.

In fact, one of South Africa’s national rugby players was healed of a knee injury by a faith healer from Nigeria. That was a public event, and there are videos of it on the internet.

I’m not giving a plug for the prophet who healed him. Obviously, if we believe in Jesus, some miracle workers are lawless; Jesus said so in Matt. 7:21-23. I don’t know anything about T.B. Joshua.

But we’re not in Nigeria. We’re in America, a breeding nest for venomous unbelief.

But just because America’s full of unbelief doesn’t mean we who are Jesus followers should be. Let’s give some actual thought to whom (Whom) exactly we’re following.

The point of this 3-part series is to get to examples of Christians being too lazy to reason. Any ol’ excuse will do for maintaining the status quo, even if it’s completely unreasonable. Or, “Here’s my argument; if I took 2 seconds, I could refute it myself, but I don’t care enough to give it 2 seconds.”

Today, though, I want to talk about when it’s okay to not give the reasons for your faith 2 seconds of thought.

Christianity IS Tradition

That statement ought to come as a surprise to us non-Catholics, but really, it’s undeniable.

At least, it’s undeniable if you believe in sola scriptura.

• Now I commend you, brothers, that you keep the traditions as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor. 11:2)
• Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
• We command you, brothers, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which you have received from us. (2 Thess. 3:6)
• It was necessary for me to write to you and exhort you to earnestly battle for the faith that was delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)
• Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you will, as well, continue in the Son and in the Father. (1 Jn. 2:24)

The early churches always understood that there was a body of truth delivered to them by the apostles, and it was their job to preserve it. They did an excellent job of it, too … for a while. Even when they departed from their faith, they took their lumps—delivered in the form of rebukes from apostles and chastenings from the Lord—and got back going in the right direction. Even Laodicea maintained a good and godly church past the 1st century!

Of course, it shouldn’t surprise us that a letter from the Lord Jesus would be effective at turning a church around, especially since he can follow it up with a personal visit by means of the Holy Spirit!

Cling Tightly to Tradition

It’s only the traditions of men that the apostles and Jesus wanted us to avoid. Jesus’ traditions and the apostles’ traditions, those are a new law for us (Heb. 7:12).

(Yes, I know: "New law" isn’t the most comfortable way to phrase it, but the fact is that we do have commands that we are to obey. We do so spiritually, empowered and led by the Spirit, but we nonetheless do so. It is only those who obey Jesus’ commands who know and love him [Jn. 15:14; 1 Jn. 2:3-4]. Further, Heb. 7:12 lets us know that we don’t have to be afraid of such terminology, and it was used off and on by the Christians in the apostles’ churches who still clung tightly to apostolic tradition.)

It is good for us to know what traditions came from the apostles. It is for that reason that the New Testament was gathered. I’ve read plenty of books by competent scholars giving numerous reasons why those specific 27 books made it into the Bible, but the more familiar I get with the first 4 centuries of the church the more convinced I get that there was only one criteria for whether a book made it into the New Testament: Did an apostle approve it?

All those Christians of the first 4 centuries cared about was whether a teaching came from the apostles. That’s it. If the apostles taught it, then it was true. If the apostles didn’t teach it, then it might be interesting, but it certainly isn’t crucial. We are "apostolic" churches.

Handing Down Apostolic Tradition

I’m a researcher. It’s my gift from the Holy Spirit. I love digging through the early writings of the church. I love hunting down truth.

So you might expect me to recommend that to you.

Nope.

I suggest you listen to me after I do the research for you.

… …

It’s okay to have tradition handed to you.

Your job is to determine whom you trust to hand it to you.

I usually get a couple emails a week telling me that I ought to trust a priest with apostolic succession—whether Catholic or Orthodox—to hand that tradition down to me. Most of them are appalled at my gall in saying I can find it on my own.

But I never find apostolic tradition on my own. I get it by listening to people I have judged in the same way I’m about to ask you to judge me.

Jesus said that you will know a prophet by his fruit. Good fruit always comes from good trees and bad fruit from bad trees. If you see bad fruit—say, for example, a church that burns someone to death for translating the Bible into a language that everyone can read—then you can know that’s a bad tree.

On the other hand, if you see good fruit, then you ought to pay attention to that "prophet," whether that prophet is a church or a teacher. That’s a good tree, even if that church or teacher is teaching something contrary to what you intellectually have determined to be true.

Chances are, you’re misled or deceived in some way—minor or major—and that’s why they’re bearing better fruit than you. That’s also why you should learn from them.

Now I’m not asking you to listen to me because I personally bear great fruit. If there was no one around but me, you probably shouldn’t listen to me.

I’m asking you to listen to me because what I’m teaching has produced good fruit for a very long time. It’s what Rose Creek Village teaches, and what RCV teaches works. It’s what the Anabaptists taught, and in their early days, they were immensely successful at the things that matter in God. It’s what the 2nd century church taught, and as far as I’m concerned no generation has lived up to that standard since.

Back on Subject

It’s okay to have your faith generally handed to you. It’s okay not to intellectually analyze every aspect of it. It’s even okay if your tradition, given to you by your good-fruit-bearing church, happens to differ in some ways from the tradition of another good-fruit-bearing church. If both churches are good trees, then the differences can’t be too important, can they?

Of course, if your two good-fruit-bearing churches can’t get along, then neither of you have good fruit, because the two most important fruits are love and unity (Jn. 13:34-35; 17:20-23).

So, if you get your tradition from a good source, a source that bears good fruit, then you’re okay. You don’t have to do all that research. You can let them do it for you, and you can trust them. Simple!

Now, let me tell you when all this holding to tradition falls apart.

It’s when you start lying.

Oh, that’s right. That’s tomorrow’s subject.