This is a series on sayings of the Bible about self.
Deny Yourself. To deny oneself is to think my self is worthless, that my own efforts are worthless—I have nothing to offer God in exchange for my salvation. The word Jesus uses (Mt. 16:21-28; Mk. 8:31-37; Lk. 9:21-27) is the same used in the passage where Peter denies Jesus; it means a dissociation with something. My self wants to “gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16-18; 1 Pet. 2:11), and I should deny that, or have nothing to do with it. It is important to understand that Jesus does not mean what we usually think of as “self-denial.” By this we usually mean that we are giving up something. It is like how some Christians observe Lent, by giving up something, perhaps it is the giving up of a bad habit in life, or something really important (although this may be a good spiritual exercise). That is not what Jesus is talking about. He is not only concerned with what we do, but even more importantly what we are. Therefore he is not talking about denying ourselves luxuries or even necessities, but about “denying self” which is entirely different. Denying self means that we renounce our right to ourselves, the right to rule our own lives. John MacArthur writes, “The self to which Jesus refers is not one’s personal identity as a distinct individual. The self of which Jesus is speaking is rather the natural, sinful, rebellious, unredeemed self that is at the center of every fallen person. To deny that self is to have the sincere, genuine conviction that one has nothing in his humanness to commend himself before God, nothing worthwhile to offer Him at all. It is only the person who realizes how poor he is (Mat. 5:3) who will ever know the riches of Christ. It is only the person who realizes how sinful and damned he is who will ever come to know how precious the forgiveness of God is. To be saved calls for a sinner to deny self so as to “lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and … be renewed in the spirit of [one’s] mind” (Eph. 4:22–23). Are we called to be slaves of Jesus Christ? What about being servants? Are there any commandments requiring Christians to become any of these?
As I read through the Bible I could not find one example of Jesus, the Apostles, or Paul commanding us to be slaves, or servants of Jesus, or anything close to it. Paul does call himself a “slave [or servant, or bond-servant] of Christ Jesus” (Rom. 1:1; see also Titus 1:1, and Philippians 1:1, written while Paul was probably in jail), but nowhere does he writes that this is what all Christians should strive to be. Even if we consider Paul somebody we should imitate in all maters—after all, so it goes, since he considered himself a slave, we should do so as well—what did Paul understood a slave or a servant of Christ to be? I would guess that when we think of a slave we think of somebody without any decision-making powers in all aspects of his life. Now, that doesn’t seem to square well with how Paul himself lived:
And if we are to imitate Paul, since he is an apostle chosen by Jesus (and because he said so, 1 Cor. 4:16), it follows, I think, that we may also act as Paul did when it comes to day-to-day choices, as a non-slave, or somebody that can make decisions, can exercise our decision-making powers. What is obvious in the Bible text is that, before we are saved, we are slaves to sin – Romans 6:20, John 8:34. The way Paul uses the word 'slave' may be cleared up a bit by reading Romans 6:16, where Paul says we are slaves to obedience, because (notice the action) we offered ourselves as obedient slaves (which will eventually lead us to righteousness). A passage probably easier to understand is John 15:15, where Jesus himself calls us his friends: "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." (John 15:15) Therefore, we should not think of ourselves as slaves or servants of Christ; at least not in the sense of what we know a slave to be, or what more recent history shows us what slavery has been. Of course, we should devote our lives to Jesus in the sense that everything we own, even our own lives, should be employed to the glory of God. That is what the first commandment demands of us, "to love Him" with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). Remember as well the first Catechism answer, and what some Christians say is our calling: to know God and make him known. And even if we are not sure how this devotion actually is realized in practical life, we should take in consideration what clearer texts in the Bible seems to require of us—ex.: 1 Peter 3:15; Jesus's Great Commandments (to love God and neighbor); . . .—and also what Jesus himself considered us to be, in relation to him—a friend, God's child. "So you are no longer a slave, but God's child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir." Galatians 4:7 I wrote this response to an article as part of an assignment for a book study I am doing (Turek/Geisler, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" Curriculum).
Comments are always welcome! “Why Do You Exist?”, by Dr. Robert Lanza (Dr. Lanza's full article can be found at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201111/why-do-you-exist?collection=81244) Even though the questions the author poses are a few of the most important questions in life, he doesn’t seem to answer them; at least not in this article (I did read some of his other material where he exposes his ideas clearer). The title of the article is “Why do you exist?” And he adds “Where did it all come from? Why are we here?” as well. Midway through the text Dr. Lanza expresses some ideas bordering (probably exposing) what I think is his extreme skepticism. When he says “We've looked at the world for so long that we no longer challenge its reality,” I wonder what he really means by that. Is he really challenging the reality of the universe, or raising a few questions on the way we examine (look at) the world? He doesn’t seem clear; in any case, to challenge the reality of the world, or to challenge our basic sensorial perception (if that is what he is doing here), is an incredible claim, for which he doesn’t appear to give reasons—why should I doubt what my eyes see; what I feel? The article is full of unclear, unsupported statements, embellished with poetic writing, but that at times reveal some of the author’s beliefs. In the sentence, “It seems likely that we're the center of our own sphere of physical reality, connected to the rest of life not only by being alive at the same moment in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history, but by something suggestive — a pattern that's a template for existence itself,” does he believe the universe had a beginning? In spite of vague statements (we are connected to the rest of life . . . by something suggestive — a pattern), is he affirming that we create our own reality (“we’re the center of our own sphere of physical reality”)? If yes, anybody can create whatever they want; anybody can see/feel/hear whatever they want; but that doesn’t seem to fit reality. He also seems to agree with what he says is usually taught to us as kids, that “the universe can be fundamentally divided into two entities—ourselves, and that which is outside of us.” I am not sure that this is the usual division of the universe taught in schools. I don’t think that this is what we are taught since childhood; at least not when defining the word/concept ‘universe’. That seems more a definition of ‘self’ than a physical entity. In any case, he seems to agree with the claim that “’Self’ is commonly defined by what we can control.” Does he agree with that? Personally, I believe we are more than biology. We’re a soul; although he wrote before: “We're more than we've been taught in biology class. We're not just a collection of atoms — proteins and molecules — spinning like planets around the sun,” he seems to contradict himself with the previous phrase. Even when I don’t move a thing in my body (or if I lose control of my limbs, say) I still get a sense that I exist, that I am a consciousness. By reading Dr. Lanza’s other writings, one quickly finds out that he is a major proponent and defender of biocentrism. In this article he defines it only as the “view of the world in which life and consciousness are bottom-line in understanding the larger universe — biocentrism,” and that this view “revolves around the way our consciousness relates to a physical process.” There is more to that when you read his other articles, but in these few chapters he doesn’t go much further. I personally agree that life and consciousness are extremely important in understanding the universe — for it to come into being, there had to had existed a conscious life who decided to create. But he adds that, “According to biocentrism, you're not an object — you're your consciousness. [agreed, to a certain extent!] You're a unified being [?], not just your wriggling arm or foot [OK], but part of a larger equation that includes all the colors, sensations and objects you perceive [I am a large equation that includes the sensation I perceive?].” Here he seems to affirm (again, always evasive) that we are our perception. I am not sure what he is affirming (and, it seems, neither does he in this article), but, if I’m right, he says that we are everything we perceive—colors, sensations; we are even the objects we perceive. That’s seems to me to be a form of pantheism, where we and everything else are the divine (or at least, for Dr. Lanza, we and everything else are the same). He also asserts, oddly, that “Our consciousness is why they [life and the universe] exist.” Does he believe that we (or the sum of our beings/consciousness) ‘created’ the universe? Did I create the universe before becoming conscious of it? Or I have been always conscious but my state won’t permit me to remember what I thought billions of years ago? Again, those are serious claims presented without any support (as Greg Koukl would put it, this is a roof without walls; and I believe these walls are rather week and cannot support the roof). He concludes saying that our consciousness (however he defines it) is what “unifies the thinking and extended worlds into a coherent experience and animates the music that creates our emotions and purposes — the good and the bad, wars and love.” Our consciousness animates the music that creates our emotions? Are we the sole responsible for our emotions; or rather, its creator? Does our consciousness create our emotions and purposes? We create our own purposes? Even if that happens, our purposes would be utterly false, specifically because WE created them. Also, according to him, do we create the good and the bad? Again, like some Eastern religions, he seems to affirm that evil (and the good) doesn’t really exist; the bad is all what we create it to be. Does he believe that I can physically hurt him and that would only be a product of his consciousness? And that it wouldn’t be evil at all; since both of us are unified, part of the same consciousness? Finally, Dr. Lanza doesn’t seem to answer the main question of the article, “Why Do You Exist?” He basically provides his explanation of what existence is, without providing any support for his claims. But he does not answer what seems to be the point of the title: what is our meaning or purpose? Does he believe that nature is all that is? He does provide his opinions for one of the questions posed earlier, “Where Did All Come From?” But not to the following question, “Why Are We Here?” Dr. Lanza’s apparent scientific spin on Eastern religion/philosophy is presented without arguments; with some contradictions (if the universe had a beginning, as he apparently presumes, where did it come from? From the unification of our consciousness?); and full of unlivable claims (if my consciousness creates evil/good, nothing is really ultimately evil; I can do whatever I want, to whoever I want, and that wouldn’t be really evil, just an expression of my consciousness, which ultimately is unified with yours). A very confused article and view, indeed. Sometimes, especially when I feel life is not treating me good, I wonder about God’s will for my life. What is it? How can I know it? Will He tell me, and how? Will I feel something different? What am I looking at exactly? Should trust my heart? So, I decided to give some thought to it and share what I discovered (and wish for comments). I believe that thoughts about God's will for our lives are usually connected with moments in our lives of failure or disappointment as well as doubt; so these topics will be present as well. I believe this ‘Will of God’ topic is somewhat of a Christian-talk invention. Think about it. When is it that we think all the more about God’s will for our lives? During which circumstances? My wife reminded me that it is usually when people are not satisfied with what they have now, or where they are at the moment. Which means, when I want to know God’s will, most of the time I want to get out of trouble; I want something better; I want my problems to be solved. We want the will of God to work as something that will take our problems away. If we are deep in problems, God’s will is the solution. . .! But I don’t think this should be the times when we worry about God’s will for our lives. The only Bible reference that I can think of that people commonly mention about God’s will is Romans 12:1–2. In this passage, “Paul tells his readers that they should present their bodies as a living sacrifice, pleasing and acceptable to God, and to be transformed by the renewal of their minds. Why? He says, “so that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” That is the description of God’s will for your life. It is good; it is acceptable, both to you and to the Lord; and it is perfect. That means that anything you do to try to improve upon God’s will can only damage it. It is perfect, and you don’t tamper with the perfect. So, on the basis of God’s omniscience, we can trust him totally for his guidance in our lives, even when this takes us through deep waters and the valley of the shadow of death.” So, God’s will may not be something that He will tell me through a dream, or through reading the Bible during hard times, or through a funny feeling, or a feeling of His presence, or through peace. Also, problems in our lives do not mean being tested by God, or being in sin. Still, we should pray even more, and examine our lives, repenting of any sins immediately and making sure of an unwavering relationship (devotional and prayer life) with God. I don’t think, either, that we can find that many examples of God being extremely clear about His will to individuals, with the exception of a few Bible figures, chosen for very special, specific situations. And yet, we are talking about texts written about events, which, I assume, may not reflect the exact feelings of the Bible figures themselves at the time—it might well be a look-in-the-back-mirror of the writers, identifying God’s acting in specific events. What is more, even if we knew the will of God for our lives at a particular moment, I doubt we would always follow through. What if we found out that God's will wasn't necessarily what we were looking for... Just look at several of the Bible characters, who, knowing exactly what God’s will for their lives was, still they did what was wrong—think of Abraham, lying about his wife, Sara, so that his life would be preserved; TWICE!? (Gen. 12:12; 20:1–2); or remember Jonah’s story! Think also of John, who, after seeing and doing everything he did, after spent time with Jesus, sent his disciples to ask Jesus whether He was really the Messiah or whether they should expect someone else. He doubted! Wasn't John sure about God’s will? Wasn't God clear about His message to John? Consider also Luke, when he decided to write his Gospel, it wasn't, apparently, because God was clear about His will, but rather, “since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:3). Also, maybe it is exactly during hard times that God might want us to grow deeper in faith, in dependence on Him. And not being sure of God’s will at a certain time might be a sign of spiritual maturity and development—God’s knowing you can go through hard times, because He has worked you enough, and He knows you can do it, and that it will develop your belief and trust in Him. As we work through our doubts, we should be mindful of our own spiritual life: corporate worship, prayer, Bible study, service, giving, etc. Finally, do not let this be in the way to your worshiping God!! “Confess sin as soon as you’re aware of it, and allow the Holy Spirit to empower and direct you. Be sure to maintain a devotional life, with regular times alone of prayer and Bible study. Take your doubts to God and ask Him to give you grace to persevere. Cultivate the Christian virtues in your life, and then you can claim the promise of II Peter 1:5–11: “if you do this you will never fall.” Make sure you participate in truly meaningful corporate worship in the setting of a local church. Lone Ranger Christians generally don’t make it, and even a small group setting is no substitute for the church, which is the body of Christ locally, replete with all His gifts. Be sure you’re exercising your own spiritual gift in the context of a local church, so that you are serving others. Never lose sight of the fact that you are involved in a spiritual warfare and that there is an enemy of your soul who hates you intensely, whose goal is your destruction, and who will stop at nothing to destroy you.” I know this is not about failure in the life of a Christian; but there is a text that, when thinking about God’s will, is very appropriate (Personal reflections on how God can use failure in your life--http://www.reasonablefaith.org/failure): “God has important things to teach us through failure—and true success, the success that counts for eternity, consists in learning those lessons. So when you fail, do not despair or think that God has abandoned you; rather, learn from your failures and never give up.” Never give up!! Draw closer to God and He will draw closer to you (James 4:8). See also The Thomas Factor: Using Your Doubts to Draw Closer to God—http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/thomas_factor/thomas_factor.htm (free online; or you can buy it). Recently I was talking with a friend and we ended up talking briefly about the Apostle Paul’s apparent lower view of women, based on some of his sayings in the Bible. So, I’ve decided to check out two passages that are very known and cited for when discussing Paul’s views. The first one is from 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 and refers to women covering their head, along with his famous saying, “let the women keep silence in the church;” and the second is from 1 Timothy 2, which says, among other things, that “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” What was Paul saying in these verses? How could it be harmonized with other texts from the Bible (including Paul’s own writings)? First, I think we should observe the principles behind certain commandments; what the Christian should do is absolute, but how to do it might be relative (to different cultures, at least). Second, even if what Paul wrote is to be taken literally—that women cannot teach or should not teach men—that would be God’s prerogative, and He could determine things as He wants, and we should obey. I will highlight at least two options for reading these verses. One with a bit more historical weight, with several possible contextual possibilities for the sayings of Paul; and the other with a higher view of the Bible, one in which the entire Bible, including Paul’s words are inspired and inerrant—even if we cannot understand it completely. I will jump back and forth between the two biblical texts. A) The first try into understanding Paul would be to interpret Paul’s sayings in the context of first-century Jewish practices, or costumes. A bit of historical research shows us that Jewish women were always veiled in public in the first century. Women’s hair was a prime object of male lust in the ancient Mediterranean world; societies which employed head coverings thus viewed uncovered married women as unfaithful to their husbands. It is not part of the life of the Christian needlessly to disobey or to break accepted conventions. Referring to the text in I Cor. 14:34–35 – Paul is restricting only one kind of speech directly addressed in these verses: asking questions. It was common in the ancient world for hearers to interrupt teachers with questions, but it was considered rude if the questions reflected ignorance of the topic (see Plutarch On Lectures). Since women were normally considerably less educated than man, Paul proposes a short-range solution and a long-range solution to the problem. His short-range solution is that the women should stop asking the disruptive questions; the long-range solution is that they should be educated, receiving private tutoring from their husbands. Paul’s long-range solution affirms women’s ability to learn and places them on equal footing with men. Also, the context is a description of an early home church worship service where Christians were coming together to worship the Lord. And Paul says in this context that he wants this type of service to be led by men and that the women should remain silent in the worship service. But that isn’t to say that outside the worship service the women would not be allowed to speak. On the contrary, Paul talks about prophetesses – there were prophetesses in the early church. Philip’s daughters were prophetesses. The gift of prophesy was given to women, and they did exercise it in the early church. But apparently, at least in Paul’s churches, they did not do so in the context of the worship service. With regard to women teaching, I don’t see anything in Scripture that says that women can’t teach children or other women or even men on certain subjects. But in 1 Timothy 2 Paul says that women should not teach Christian doctrine to men. In the area of teaching Christian theology in the church, you should have men teach other men, and you shouldn’t have a woman hold a position of authority as a doctrinal teacher over men. Whether we like that or not, whether it is counter-cultural or not, it seems to me that if this is God’s standard and order that he sets down, then we should obey it and abide by it. It seems to me that God, being God, has the perfect prerogative to prescribe whomever he wants as teachers. If God were to prescribe that none of us should eat beans, for example, as the early Pythagoreans believed that we should all forswear eating beans, that would be perfectly within God’s prerogative, and in that case we should obey him and do what he says. It seems to me that however counter-cultural it might be, given the type of service that is described here, Paul would not have women prophesy in the service. They would do it outside of the service. And women wouldn’t teach doctrine to adult males but could teach to females and children or they could teach men on other subjects or share their experiences. Still, Priscilla was apparently a very gifted teacher. She is mentioned before her husband many times, not “Aquila and Priscilla” but “Priscilla and Aquila.” They took him aside and instructed Appolos more carefully in Christian doctrine. And again that seems to me to be perfectly all right because it is not done in the context of the church. It is in the context of the church that Paul is speaking here. This doesn’t mean that a woman can’t be the head of a business or a professor. I don’t think that Paul would want a woman teaching a class on Christian doctrine that would include adult males in the class. He would say that you should have a man teach Christian doctrine to other men. And more, on defense of women, some Corinthian women prayed or prophesied in public worship. That Paul does not criticize the practice, but on the contrary lays down the way women should be dressed when engaging in it, shows that he accepted it. As seen above, there are several passages in which Paul approves women’s ministry. Romans 16:1–2, Phoebe, commended by Paul as a “servant” of the church; in Paul’s following greetings (Rom. 16:3–16), he lists about twice as many men as women, but commends more than twice as many women than men. Among the most significant ministers he lists is Prisca (a diminutive form of Priscilla); Andronicus and Junia; Phil. 4:2–3. Finally, at least two points are clear regarding the passage in 1 Corinthians. Fist, Paul plainly does not command total silence of women, since earlier in the same letter he expects them to pray and prophesy publicly along with the men (1 Cor. 11:4–5). Second, there is nothing in the context to support the view that Paul refers here to women teaching the Bible. So, if any of the historical or interpretative solutions given are at least possible, we should not condemn Paul, but, at best, hold his claims in tension, until we can understand it clearer. And this leads to the second strategy for interpreting these verses (much shorter!) B) The Bible’s ‘innocence’ should be considered first, before condemning it without enough hard thinking (innocent until proven guilty). Disregarding the Apostle Paul’s letters (or specific texts) because of its apparent counter-cultural suggestions might not be the right first step. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God; therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God. After all, “we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ” (after Martin Kahler). Again, when we can’t resolve the difficulty, then we simply hold the truth in tension. We just hold two beliefs without knowing how they are to be reconciled, but with the confidence that if we did have the full amount of information, we could reconcile them. We just don’t have the information, and so we hold the truth in tension. “If you cannot find a solution to the problem, then either hold the truth in tension, awaiting an eventual solution to the problem, or else give up the minimal amount that you would have to in order to retain a consistent Christian worldview. But don’t allow them to stand between you and a personal relationship with God.” And a Christian worldview, I think, would not willfully disregard Paul’s writings as plainly wrong, since they are the inspired Word of God. Comments, feedback, reactions... always welcome! Sources: Geisler/Howe, “When Critics Ask;” Leon Morris, “1 Corinthians” commentary; C. S. Keener, “Dictionary of Paul and His Letters;”William Lane Craig, “How to Deal With Disagreeable Aspects of Christianity,” and his podcast on the “Doctrine of Revelation (part 3).” Finally, another title that Jesus used to refer to Himself is the Son of Man. This was the preferred title that Jesus used to describe himself—more than 80 times. This appears several times in the Gospels and only once outside of them (Acts 7:56). The fact that this title appears primarily in the Gospels contributes to the authenticity of the verses where that title appears. Therefore, it helps to rule out the idea that this designation used by Jesus was added by the Church years after his death. Moreover, only Jesus used this title. Jesus did not refer to himself simply as a son of man (Ezekiel 31:1), but as the Son of Man, in direct reference to the passage in Daniel 7:13-14. Jews of that time understood the vision of the Son of Man of Daniel as a divine-human figure. This was a Messianic title. And he believed in the coming of this figure / person as described in Daniel—Mark 8:38; 13:26-27; Matthew 10:32-33; Luke 12:8-9; Matthew 24:27, 37, 39; Luke 17:24, 26, 30. Jesus was attributing the prophecy of the Son of Man to himself! A very interesting passage is found in Mark 14:60-64, which describes Jesus' trial: "And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death." (Mr. 14:60-64, The New King James Version) In this passage, at once, Jesus states that he is the Messiah (Khristós), the Son of God, and the expected Son of Man. Here, Jesus compounds His crimes further when He says He will sit at God's right hand—a terrible blasphemy to the Jews. In conclusion, much more can be added to the fact that Jesus used these three title to refer to Himself: His actions are also important—His proclamation of the Kingdom of God; His authority (attributing Divine authority; exorcisms; using "Truly, I say unto you"; the fact the He forgave sins); His miracles; and his role as a judge (or arbitrator of people’s eternal destiny, Luke 12:8-9). The second point that we can bring out when considering the claims of Jesus - for his divinity - are the times in which he referred to himself as the Son of God. The clearest reference to that title comes from the Parable of the Vineyard (Mark 12:1-9). Historically speaking, this text is confirmed by independent sources, since it appears in the Gospels as well as the Gospel of Thomas - that counts in favor of its historical authenticity. This text also refers to common experiences of the ancient world, and also includes images and themes found in Jewish parables: Israel as a vineyard, God as the owner of the vineyard - all coming together with the context of the Jewish world (which helps in the interpretation of this text as the original, and not an addition by the Church at a later date). Other passages to consider: Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, Mark 13:32. That title was also used in the ancient world (in a Jewish context) as referring to kings, or even to Adam himself (Luke 3:38). However, Jesus saw himself as the Son of God, in direct contrast to the prophets who came before Him; the only revelation of God the Father to humanity; the Son of God, in the sense that He was the promised Messiah. After all, these kings or other authorities who received the title son of god did not consider, in fact, divine - but otherwise, it was a way to establish or confirm their authority. Furthermore, a more exalted sense for the title Son of God was no strange to Judaism of the first century: see, e.g., Colossians 1:13-20; Hebrews 1:1-12; also the historical book (apocryphal) 4 Ezra 13. Therefore, together with other statements and by His actions, Jesus considered himself to be God. The primitive church regarded Jesus as the awaited Messiah (Christ). This fact alone already counts in favor of the fact that Jesus used terms indicating his Divinity. How did the worship of Jesus as Lord and God appeared in the early church? Unless they believed the claims of Jesus. According to the criteria of evaluation of the authenticity of historical accounts, the conviction of Jesus that he was indeed the Messiah himself is attested in independent sources, such as Mark 8 (Peter's confession), Luke and John. The criterion of embarrassment also favors the authenticity of the claims of Jesus as the Messiah, as shown by the apparent hesitation of John's faith when he asked about Jesus (Matthew 11:3, Luke 7:19) - Christians probably would not include shameful aspects of faith in their texts. The deeds of Jesus also affirm his self-understanding. For example, His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where he claims to be the promised King of Israel according to Zechariah 9:9-10. Likewise, the messianic claims of Jesus led to his trial (Mark 14:61). Nobody, proclaiming lies, would undergo trial (and death) as Jesus did - and his conviction was for blasphemy. The importance of this theme is that Jesus considered himself (thought of himself) as the fulfillment of various prophecies. As the One who would come after John the Baptist. As "The Lord God Himself" (Isaiah 40:5, 9-11). |
AuthorHigo Rodrigues's Blog (this is not where I write stuff; it is just a free picture) Archives
September 2015
Categories
All
|