Tag: Theology

Don’t Spread the Gospel?

by Sean Perron
by Sean Perron

There are moments when a good Bible reader should be somewhat perplexed by the Scriptures. One of them is when Jesus tells his disciples not to talk about him.

On multiple occasions, Jesus performs miracles and then forbids those nearby not to tell anyone. When Jesus heals the deaf man in Mark 8:35-36, Jesus “charged them to tell no one.” Earlier in Mark 3:11-12, as Jesus cast out many demons they would shout out his identity. “And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’ And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.”

It is interesting that repeatedly in the book of Mark Jesus forbids people to spread his news, but they usually do not listen. Jesus’ fame catches like wildfire throughout the surrounding regions and crowds gather to meet him. It appears that these massive gatherings actually hinder Jesus’ mission.

Jesus cleanses a leper in Mark 1:40-45 and “sternly charged him… and said to him see that you say nothing to anyone…” Yet in verse 45, the leper “went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no long openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter.” It appears that Jesus was unable to enter into towns to preach because he had become so popular. In a strange turn of events, the spreading of his fame was beginning to hinder his purpose in coming.

Jesus did come to heal the sick, cast out demons, and preach the good news of the kingdom to the poor. However, Jesus mainly came to earth in order to die for the sins of the world and rise from the dead as the victorious Messiah. If word about the true identity of the Messiah spread too quickly, Jesus may have been hindered from fulfilling his main mission.

The people wanted a different type of Messiah than a bloody crucified Messiah. In Mark 8:30 when Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus told the disciples to “tell no one about him.”  Following this Jesus told his disciples of the death and resurrection. “And he said this plainly, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.” Even Peter did not understand the mission of Jesus when Jesus told him plainly at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus had to rebuke Peter because Peter opposed Jesus going to the cross. One can only imagine the uproar from the multitudes if Jesus had revealed his true mission to them. By veiling his identity to the masses, Jesus was able to keep on target to Golgotha and be unhindered in his plan.

This reasoning for the Messianic secret is confirmed with the story of the demoniac in Mark 5:1-20. After Jesus casts out the Legion of demons from the man, the man begged to travel with Jesus. Despite the urgent pleas of the man, Jesus refused his request and told him to return hope to “tell them how much the Lord has done for you and how he has had mercy on you.” (Mark 5:19) This is in stark contrast to the previous behavior of Jesus. Instead of telling the man to be quiet, Jesus tells him to go proclaim the good news.

Why the sudden change in commands for Jesus? Mark 5:20 gives the reader a clue. “And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.” The man was not from the area and would not be a hindrance to Jesus and his mission. The man was from a region of ten Gentile cities to the East. It would advance, rather than hinder, the cause of Christ for this man to return to his family.

When Jesus was coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration he told Peter, James and John “to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” (Mark 9:9) Now that time had come and the disciples were commanded to tell the world the gospel of Jesus Christ. Clearly, Mark himself is obeying this command when he starts his gospel, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

The message cannot be kept secret any longer. The personal ministry of every Christian is to understand the mission of Jesus, believe upon his saving work, and proclaim this message to all the nations. The gospel of Mark concludes with Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James visiting the tomb of Jesus. To their utter shock, the stone had been rolled back and Jesus was alive. An angel comforts them and says, “Do not be alarmed… but go, tell his disciples…” (Mark 16:6-7)

The word is out and the rumors are true. Jesus has risen from the dead. He is the Messiah and offers salvation to anyone who believes.

Tremble, believe, and rejoice. But whatever you do, don’t keep it a secret. Tell everyone.

Babies and Bathwater

by Spencer Harmon

Baptism is a big deal.  When someone becomes a Christian, they are not merely subscribing to a local club that meets on Sundays; rather, a supernatural work of God has taken place.  Christians believe that when someone puts their trust in Jesus their old “self” – with its selfish desires, rebellious disposition toward God, and cold heart – dies, and a new “self” – with a heart inclined to obey God, love his Word, and pursue righteousness – is born.  It is this reality that baptism declares.  Baptism is symbolic – it talks to us and reminds us of these transcendent truths.  It screams out that just as this person is plunged down into these waters that envelop them so their old self has been plunged down into death with Christ; just as they rise out of the water and gasp for air, so their new self has arisen with Christ.

For Protestant Christians, there have been two views as to who should be baptized:  1) those who have professed faith in Christ (credo baptists); and 2) those who have professed faith in Christ and their children (paedo baptists).  I’m a credo baptist.  I don’t think you should baptize babies.

One of the strongest arguments for believer’s baptism can be made from an Old Testament passage:  Jeremiah 31:31-34.  It is here that God Himself delineates through His prophet Jeremiah his “new covenant”  This is God’s new agreement with his people that binds him to treat them in a certain way so long as they keep their end of the bargain.  However, the problem with God’s people over history is that they have never been able to keep their end of the bargain.  They always worship the idol; they always complain in the desert.  But God has a plan – a new covenant.  The newness of this covenant is found in that fact that God promises to give his people a heart that actually wants to keep the law (verse 33).  God promises that everyone will know him in a saving way, and that all of their sins will be forgiven.  God says that this new covenant will not be like “the covenant that I made with [your] fathers” (verse 32).  The newness of the new covenant is found in the fundamental difference between the people of God before and after the coming of Jesus.  Before Christ, the covenant members were those who were born into the people of God – this means that there where people who really loved God in the community, and those that just were among the group, but did not really know the Lord.  After Christ, God’s covenant members are only those who have been regenerated (i.e. given a new heart that truly loves God).

If Jeremiah is interpreted as an announcement of a regenerated covenant community, those who support baptizing infants need to reconsider their view.  For if the covenant community is only those who have been regenerated, then it follows that the mark of the covenant community – baptism – should be limited to this specific group of people.  The new covenant has a new sign and it is reserved for people who have new hearts.

Some Practical Concerns

  1.   It seems inconsistent for a paedo baptist not to include infants in the Lord’s Supper.  If they are seeking to emphasize the continuity of God’s dealings with his people in one overarching covenant, it would seem consistent to include the children of the God’s people in this rite as well.  However, this would pose problems.  First, if children participate in the Lord’s Supper, it seems like this would say something that is not true.  When I take the Lord’s Supper, my pastors say to me, “Spencer, this is the body of Christ broken for you; This is the blood of Christ poured out for you”  But we can’t honestly say this to babies until they make a profession of faith.  Second, babies are incapable of examining their conscience, or confessing sin (one of the things baptism should push a believer towards), so why should they participate in the Lord’s Supper?  Yet infant baptism seems to lead to this.
  2.   Another concern is that church discipline seems to lose its relevance.  If children are included in the people of God by baptism, how do you determine if they are ever not a part of the true covenant community?  If the church is constantly a mixed community of both believers and unbelievers, why would any church discipline a non-Christian from their midst if it has embraced a mixed church?  Some may object that if a paedo baptist church knew that there was an unbeliever in their midst, they would most certainly discipline them.  Yet, for every baby that is baptized, an unbeliever is added to their community.  Why the inconsistency in church discipline?

Conclusion

Baptism is a secondary issue, but not a small issue.  Baptism is the sign of salvation, and how the church understands this sign of salvation matter immensely.  To misunderstand the issue of baptism is to run the risk of false assurance to those baptized as children, and a distortion of a beautiful portrayal of salvation.  Although evangelical Christians ought to keep the main thing the main thing, we ought to openly acknowledge our disagreements over these important issues.  So, let there continue to be conferences; let pastors be together for the gospel, and let evangelicals make coalitions; nevertheless, let there be an open and plain acknowledgement of these distinctive beliefs that make whole denominations form.  For these issues are exceptionally important, and ought to be treated like it.  So, keep the baby, but throw out the bathwater.

 

The Good News of Justice

Justice seems to be the buzz word of the year. Social justice, humanitarian causes, and mercy ministries are now in vogue. I just returned from an interesting conference that rallied for the cause of justice. The folks that this event attracted were rather diverse. Some solid on the Bible and others hanging by a thread over the flames of hell.

I am just a traveler on the journey of loving people rightly. I have a long way to go. But I know where the train begins and the tracks it should run on.  The gateway for fighting injustice is the good news of God. The tracks on which the train of justice roll are the tracks of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

Very important to the cause of fighting injustice are the words “No greater love has one for another than to lay his life down for his friends.” (John 15:13)  This strips social justice of any political overtones. Few liberals can run with this banner for very long and few conservatives can become calloused against it. When Jesus says he is going to love his friends to the death, it means love them to the eternal death.

Jesus left his glorious home in heaven to minister to the poor. And we can follow his example by giving our lives to the poor. But Jesus did not just come to live among the broken and abused. Jesus did not just leave us a good example when he died on the cross. There was something much bigger going on. He was absorbing the infinite wrath of an almighty God on behalf of wicked sinners.

So yes, I come from a church that emphasizes the substitutionary work of Jesus’ death on the cross.  And no, Jesus was not merely killed because he threatened the position of his oppressors.  The gospel is bigger than that.  Justice is bigger than that.  Jesus was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities and by his stripes we are healed.

Unfortunately, there is this false dichotomy that says that theology and loving neighbor are mutually exclusive. There are many theology loving people who neglect loving their neighbors. And there are many justice-loving people who neglect loving their Savior. A division like this is not needed. One should flow out of the other.

Only those who are gripped by the Jesus who lays his life down for sinners make good “social activists”. Idolatry is the worst injustice ever committed. The death of Jesus puts right the worst wrong. Sin against God is paid in full for those who call upon His name.

God hated injustice so much that he slaughtered his only Son. From the cross did his love and blood roll.

I can’t think of a better place for justice to flow from.