Sometimes their actions, arising from this arrogant confidence, don’t have serious consequences. At other times, it can be the ruination of their lives. If they had only listened, if they had only considered another point of view, the situation would have turned out much differently. However, now they are suffering the effects of their willful blindness.

When Jesus heals the man born blind in John 9, he is not only saving this man, but he is also condemning the willfully blind Pharisees. The Pharisees are the “eyes” of Israel. They are the judges who determine whether an action is lawful or unlawful and, consequently, who is included in the people of God and who is excluded. The parents of the man born blind were afraid that they would be excommunicated by them (Jn 9:22), and the man born blind was eventually excommunicated (Jn 9:34). But they are blind judges who sit in Moses’ seat (cf. Mt 23:2, 16, 24).

The problem is that they won’t recognize their blindness and, therefore, their need for healing mercy. Quite the opposite. They believe that they see very well. They tenaciously hold to their view of reality, which includes Jesus being a sinner (Jn 9:24). Jesus tells them that if they recognized their blindness and (implicitly) came to him for healing, they would not be condemned for their sin. However, they are cocksure about how they see Jesus. Because of this, their sin remains (Jn 9:41). In the judgment, the true eyes of Israel, Jesus the Judge, will blind those who see (Jn 9:39); that is, he will destroy their view of reality and them with it.

The arrogant blind remain with us today, both inside and outside the church. These are the people who come across confidently about their distorted views of reality. These are the people who genuinely believe that Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or any other religion besides the Christian faith is true. These are the people who confidently assert that all religions are basically the same. These are the people who believe that marriage between a man and a woman is an outdated concept. These are the people who affirm that gender fluidity and identifying yourself as the opposite sex or an animal is legitimate. These are the people who believe that heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage is perfectly natural. These are the people who see clearly that same-sex unions are normal. These are the people in the church who twist the Scriptures to justify disobeying God and refuse to be convinced otherwise by sound counsel. This is the spouse who believes his or her adulterous relationship must be the will of God because it all feels right. These are the people who call good evil, and evil good, and are very confident in their views.

The Pharisees’ arrogance is a warning to us today, especially in the church (for they were good “churchmen”). Proud eyes, as Solomon calls them in Proverbs, are blind eyes. The antidote to pride is humility. Humility is not a lack of confidence, but rather confidence in the right authorities and a willingness to submit to them when it is clear that I am wrong. Humility always recognizes the lack of omniscience and the need for learning. Humility confesses the need for healing and is willing to admit being wrong when corrected. Humility doesn’t seek self-justification in the face of being shown sin and error but gladly repents and course corrects.

Arrogant eyes are no small matter. They are, in fact, an eternally deadly disease. However, they can be healed

.

On Friday, the women viewed the cross from a distance. As they come to the tomb on the first day of the week, they have a new vision. “Seeing” language is all over the text. Looking up they see the stone rolled away (Mk 16:4). They see a young man sitting on the right side dressed in a white robe (Mk 16:5). They are invited to see where Jesus had been laid (Mk 16:6). The disciples will see Jesus in Galilee (7). These women shared the blindness of the disciples, at least in part. Now, they are invited by the young man to see, to understand, what has happened. Their hopes were crushed on Friday, but Jesus rose as he told them he would.

One of the ladies, Mary Magdalene, is focused on in Mark 16:9-11. Jesus delivered her of seven demons. She must have wondered what would happen to her since her deliverer died. Now that she sees the resurrected Jesus, she can know that the powers that once dominated her life will never do so again.

On Friday, the disciples couldn’t be seen. They forsook and denied Jesus. Jesus sends his gracious word to them. Where their sin abounded, his grace much more abounded. Peter specifically needs to know that even though he sinned greatly, Jesus still loves him and will fulfill his promise to him.

What do you see?

Jesus is risen from the dead. You affirm that. You believe it. You know it is history. But do you see the implications? It means that Jesus was right about everything. It is only in him that we have forgiveness of sins. He has shown us the way life must be lived; that to have life, we must lose it. Do you see that? Many times, like the disciples who failed him miserably, cracking during the hour of testing, we are ashamed of ourselves. To you, the resurrected Jesus tells you, “You are forgiven. My resurrection guarantees that.”Yes, he will rebuke you for your unbelief and hardness of heart. That too is his grace to you. He does so in order to restore you and set you on the right path.

I know you’ve failed, but do you see the forgiveness that is yours in the resurrected Jesus? Do you see that he has conquered all the sin, uncleanness, and even demons that dominated you in the past? See it. Believe it

.

Jesus promised the disciples that after he was betrayed, mocked, scourged, and crucified, he would be raised on the third day. They had the promise, just as we have the promise of his return. But there is space. There is time. There is time for grief, doubt, and fear. There are questions. Our faith is tested. Did we misplace our trust? How can we be certain that what was promised will come to pass?

Pain, suffering, and death are real. They must be experienced. They must be endured. There is no rushing the fulfillment. There is no quick jump to Easter morning.

So it is in all of life. The resurrection gives us the rock-solid assurance that our future is secure, but taking up our crosses and following Christ will mean following him through Good Friday and Holy Saturday, the time when it is dark, when we can’t see the promised future, when we must trust God in the darkness of the tomb

.

Reactions to the cross vary across the spectrum of humanity. Some react violently at the suggestion that God would reveal himself in such a manner. “There is no possible way that the man Jesus is revealing the one true God. God doesn’t die on a cross,” they may say. Others see the cross as a tragic end to a well-meaning but possibly misdirected first-century revolutionary. He meant well, but like all revolutionaries, he met a horrible end at the hands of the relentless, bone-crushing machine that was the Roman Empire. Still others pay little mind to the cross at all. They tattoo it on their bodies or wear it around their necks, but that is as much thought as they give to it. Then there are those of us who see the cross as the apex of God’s saving revelation. We glory in its shame. Each group sees the cross, but each group doesn’t see the cross in the same way.

As Jesus was being crucified, different people had different visions of the crucified Messiah.

The Jewish leadership, who conspired with Judas to have Jesus arrested and put to death, saw the cross as evidence of Jesus being a fraud. “He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe” (Mk 15:31-32). Those cursed by God hang on a tree (Dt 21:23). If God doesn’t deliver him from the death of the cross, that means God approves of their verdict. They say they want to see him come down, and then they will believe. But would they? Time will tell.

The Roman centurion had a clear vision of who Jesus was. He declared, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mk 15:39). Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus hid his identity (“the Messianic Secret”). The Father declared Jesus to be his Son at his baptism (Mk 1:11). The centurion is the first one since then to echo the declaration of the Father. The Gentile sees Jesus’ crucifixion for what it is: the revelation of the Son of God.

There are women there who see the cross from a distance (Mk 15:40). Their distance is similar to Peter’s “following at a distance.” Perhaps they don’t want to get caught up in the frenzy and wind up on a cross. We don’t hear them confess what the centurion confesses. We know they love Jesus, for they will later take his body and prepare it for burial. At this time, however, they can’t believe their eyes. “Was this really how it was supposed to end?”

The apostles are nowhere to be found, as Mark records it. They see the cross as defeat.

What do you see?

We have grown accustomed to the story that we sometimes don’t meditate on it too much. Do we see and understand what Jesus is doing for us? Do we see the wrath and curse he endured for our sakes? Do we see ourselves taking up our own crosses and following him

?

But that is what Jesus did.

On the night Jesus was betrayed, he instituted the Lord’s Supper, a meal that demonstrates the depths of Jesus’ love and the lengths to which he will go to be faithful to his promises. In Mark’s Gospel, the institution of the Supper is sandwiched between Jesus declaring that one of the Twelve would betray him and telling the other eleven disciples that they would forsake him, epitomized in Peter’s three-fold denial. The shepherd will be struck, and the sheep will scatter.

Mark set us up for this throughout his Gospel, especially recently, when he homed in on the disciples’ blindness (Mk 10:32-52; see this article). They can’t see how Jesus’ kingship involves betrayal, mocking, suffering, and death. All they see is the promised glory, not the path to it. Because they refuse to see the reality of the suffering Messiah, they are prime bait to fall into the trap of the enemy and forsake their Lord in his hour of suffering … and they do so spectacularly. Judas hands him over to the Jewish leadership. Peter denies him three times. The other ten scatter. Jesus is left alone.

Knowing all this was about to happen, Jesus institutes his memorial meal, declaring his self-sacrificial love for his unfaithful disciples. The bread is his body given for them. The wine is his blood shed for the forgiveness of their sins. Jesus loved them even in their unfaithfulness. Jesus served them even when they forsook him.

O, what wondrous love is this!

On this night, Jesus calls us to love one another as he has loved us. That means staying faithful for the sake of others even when they are unfaithful to you. This loving faithfulness takes on many different forms. Sometimes it is drawing hard lines that insist on repentance before reconciliation can take place. Other times, it will mean confrontation of sin in others. Love does what is best for the beloved. What is best doesn’t mean affirming people in and enabling the sin that destroys them. Jesus died to conquer his disciples’ sins. He certainly didn’t condone them. He loved them enough to stay faithful to his mission so that they could be reconciled to him.

As Jesus has loved us, so we ought to love one another

.

The Sanhedrin had been crowned, anointed, and named the official power brokers of Israel. When the rogue rabbi from Nazareth showed up, they claimed the right to kill him, as much as a Scot has a right to Scotch. Jesus’ ministry threatens the political arrangement between the Pharisees and Rome. Jerusalem thrives on economic exploitation. It serves as the capital city, the seat of power, and the base of Herod’s operations. The Temple operates as a den of thieves, built on this corrupt relationship. The money changers at the temple only accept the regular half-shekel, which weighs double. As a result, worshipers pay twice the amount. As often happens with a strong centralized government, the nation’s people face heavy taxation, while the ruling class benefits the most.

Jesus’ ministry endangers the fragile alliance between Pilate and Caiaphas. The Sanhedrin wants to protect its position, so they come after Jesus like a pack of howling savages. Caiaphas explains that if the people believe in Jesus, “the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (Jn. 11:48). The Jewish leaders aim to maintain their wealth by staying in Rome’s good graces. As Jesus’ popularity grows, the likelihood increases that the people will try to make him king by force (Jn. 6:15), which could lead to the collapse of the lucrative Jewish temple complex and bring ruin to the nation. The Romans demand compliance from the Jews—no riots, no disruptions, and no repeat of the Maccabean revolution.

What will satisfy both parties? Caiaphas suggests, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish” (Jn. 11:50). They find a single victim, a scapegoat that allows the cronyism to continue (from the Sanhedrin’s perspective) and keeps the peace (from Rome’s perspective). With the right victim, the Pharisees remove the threat of Jesus while letting the Jews release their pent-up violence in a way that doesn’t threaten Rome. The solution is simple: kill Jesus so the nation won’t be destroyed. If Jesus dies, Israel survives. The Council kills Jesus to prevent Rome from killing Israel. They substitute Jesus for the Sanhedrin. To an external observer, the high priest condemns a blasphemer, and the Roman governor Pilate maintains the peace. Place the blame on one man. Punish the one man. His guilt doesn’t matter; it’s for the greater good.

Jesus has a history of scrapes with the Scribes but arranging for Jesus’ execution is a question of proportion. When Jesus enters Jerusalem that fateful week, his reputation is the perfect ruse for a common cause among the leaders of the Temple Industrial Complex (Jn. 12:19). Jesus is a troublemaker. The large crowds that follow him create chaos compared to the ordinary foot traffic the Romans prefer. That’s why they can’t arrest Jesus during the day; they must do it at night to avoid an uproar among the people (Mt. 26:4-5) Jesus blasphemes on the level of robe tearing (Mt. 26:65). He eats on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1), heals on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:10), and instructs people to work on the Sabbath (Jn. 5:9-18). He dines with disreputable people (Mt. 9:10f) and openly challenges the authority of the temple leaders (Mk. 11:27-33). He claims to be the Temple incarnate (Mt. 26:61).

The Jewish Council fears that if Jesus grows in popularity, the Romans will take away their place and their nation (Jn. 11:48). The term “place” refers to the temple (Acts 6:13f; 21:28). Given the Jewish history of repeated and traumatic loss of land, including the sacking of the temple, they have every reason to doubt the stability of their positions. The fear of losing the “nation” refers to the semi-autonomous status the Romans grant the Jews. The Sanhedrin works hard to appease Rome and avoid armed revolt. They believe killing Jesus will end the threat of messianic expectations. Yet the temple falls anyway because they put Jesus to death in a desperate search for political solutions.

The entire episode demonstrates the wickedness that results from unity with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. It’s no surprise that the High Priest Caiaphas would stoop to Satanic oneness with Rome. The Sanhedrin possesses the hubristic quality of believing in their own power as the salvation of Israel. All teaching, all miracles, all ideas, and all creations have to survive the intoxication of this bald, unvarnished commitment. There are rumors that Caiaphas purchased the high priesthood from Herod. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, who serves as the high priest for twenty-three years, becomes part of a dynasty. Five of Annas’ sons and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, serve as high priests after Annas leaves office, making Annas a sort of perpetual high priest. John’s gospel says that after Jesus’ arrest, he first meets with Annas, “for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year” (Jn. 18:13). This suggests that Caiaphas’ authority exists in a stratified form, with Annas pulling the strings behind the scenes (Jn. 18:19-24; Lk. 3:2).

The Roman governors can remove the high priest for any reason, and they often do. Some high priests serve only one year before Rome replaces them. Caiaphas remains the high priest for eighteen years (AD 18 – 36), a feat only possible if he is a child of the appetites of the Romans. But Caiaphas’s shady politics are not the only factor behind the death of Jesus. His prophecy about Jesus carries a political meaning with a sacrificial nuance. Where does Caiaphas’s prophecy come from? Is this a genuine prophecy?

In Israel’s history, the high priest hears from God through the oracle of Urim and Thummim. The high priest wears a breastpiece on his robe, containing Urim and Thummim, the shining precious stones (Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21). God uses this oracle to direct his people throughout their history, going back to the days of Moses and Joshua. When Saul becomes king, he rejects God’s commands (1 Sam. 14:3, 18–19, 36–37), and the oracle shifts from Saul to David. Even after God rejects Saul, he tries to return to the oracle, but God does not answer him (1 Sam. 28:6). In contrast, David frequently consults God, hears God’s Word, and obeys the divine directions (14:35-41; 15:26; 22:13, 15; 23:9–10; 30:7–8, 18; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19, 23; 21:1; 23:14; 1 Chr. 10:14; 13:31; 14:10, 14).[1]

David’s successors do not consistently consult God through this oracle. When the two tribes returned from exile, the right to the oracle was not immediately restored (Neh. 7:61-65).[2] Josephus wrote that the oracle had been silent for two hundred years before he wrote his Antiquities. According to Josephus, the oracle is temporarily restored during the days of the high priest John Hyrcanus (134 BC – 104 BC), an excellent king, priest, and prophet. Hyrcanus foretells several things that come to pass, but the oracle ceases when he dies.

That doesn’t stop the high priests from wearing the diadems and attempting to hear the will of God. Do these high priests receive secret messages from God? Does Caiaphas’s prophecy of Jesus come from God as a specimen of this ancient oracle? Or does Caiaphas impose his thoughts on the people by claiming to speak for God?[3]

John’s gospel provides a clue. Caiaphas says, “It is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” Then John explains, “He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (Jn. 11:50-52). John indicates that Caiaphas prophesies, suggesting that John believes God gave these words.

Receiving God’s words and understanding them are two different things. God has a particular meaning with these words (Mk. 10:32-34), while Caiaphas interprets them differently, in a self-serving, politicized way. God’s meaning is that Jesus’ death and resurrection establish a forever reign for the eternal King. Caiaphas believes Jesus needs to die and be out of the way. This is how politics kills Jesus. The death and resurrection of Christ demonstrate what happens when people who are infatuated with their authority confront the Son of God. Caiaphas is one of those exasperating people who does not understand Jesus’ prophesies, and yet also does not understand his own. What appears as political power overwhelming the Messiah actually becomes the Messiah overwhelming their power. This is how the Kingdom of God operates. When the elites exchange virtue for pernicious schemes, they bring judgment upon themselves (Ps. 2:1-12).

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and the book The Making of Evangelical Spirituality (Wipf and Stock).}

[1] Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The Works of Josephus, Antiq. 6.12.5. Hendrickson.

[2] See also 1 Esd. 5:40; 1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41

[3] Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The Works of Josephus, Antiq. 3.8.9. Hendrickson.

Sin has radically corrupted us. We need healing, healing of body and soul. Through his substitutionary death and subsequent resurrection, Jesus has come to perform this healing.

Among other themes that tie Mark’s Gospel together, healing is prominent. As in the other Gospels, we see the record of Jesus healing many. In Mark, however, the Evangelist ties the healings to the condition of Jesus’ disciples. The correlation is there from the beginning. Jesus calls four disciples–Simon, Andrew, James, and John (1:16-22)–and four healings follow (1:23-28; 29-31; 40-45; 2:1-12). Jesus calls Levi (2:13-17), and one healing follows (3:1-6). Jesus calls the disciples to himself on the mountain, and there are eight new names (3:13-19). Eight healings follow in the rest of the Gospel (5:1-20; 5:21-43 (x2); 7:24-30; 7:31-37; 8:22-26; 9:14-29; 10:46-52).

Mark makes this even clearer in what scholars call “the Markan sandwich.” Mark will record a few stories together that mutually interpret one another. He may start a story, interrupt it, and then finish the original story. The literary device is used to tell us how the stories relate.

One of those sandwiches includes the Royal Entry. Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to Jerusalem to be betrayed, die, and rise again (10:32-34). That is foundational for the next three scenes: wanting to sit on Jesus’ right and left hands (10:35-45), healing blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52), and the Royal Entry (11:1-10). Jesus tells his disciples, “See” or “Behold” in 10:33. What do they need to see? They need to see his mission as king as including betrayal, death, and resurrection. The sandwich that follows tells us that both they and the crowds on Palm Sunday are blind to his mission. They need to be healed like Bartimaeus.

James and John ask to be seated at Jesus right and left hands when he comes into his kingdom, which they probably thought he was about to do when he went to Jerusalem. Maybe Jesus would deal with his enemies as King David dealt with the Jebusites in 2 Samuel 5. They are blinded to the fact that the path to glory is the way of suffering and death. The beginning of exaltation is to be lifted up on the cross.

Parallel to the disciples are the crowds at the Royal Entry. Like the disciples, they proclaim truths about Jesus, but they don’t fully see the full picture of how the King enters his glory. These same people who hail him as king may be those who join in the cries to crucify him later.

Blind Bartimaeus is the only one who sees clearly. He calls out to Jesus as the Son of David, the King. When the Son of David comes, he will, among other things, heal the blind (Isa 35:5). Jesus asks Bartimaeus the same thing he asked James and John, “What do you want me to do for you?” making the parallel between the two obvious. Bartimaeus wants to see. Bartimaeus receives what the disciples need: the ability to see Jesus for who he is and what he came to do.

What do you see? Do you see glory without the cross? Do you see authority as a means to consume upon yourself instead of being spent for others? Do you need your eyes healed

?

Confirmation bias exists in an echo chamber where you don’t allow other voices in to challenge you with evidence. You already know what you believe, and you only accept evidence that supports your belief. This reality is only exacerbated today in social media. We can tailor the groups we join so that we feed off of one another and deepen our commitments to whatever we are for or against. It is not a bad thing to have these types of groups, unless they blind you to sound reason by examining other evidence or acknowledging that your knowledge is limited.

Confirmation bias creates a bad relationship with reality. If you don’t get out of the spiral, you become blind to any other possibilities and live in self-deception because that is where you are comfortable.

The Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus. They have been wanting to kill Jesus for a while. Even if he gives them evidence that their judgment of him is wrong, they can’t see it. They have already determined what they believe about him, and all evidence to the contrary is dismissed. Everything Jesus says and does confirms their belief about him because they see him through these darkened eyes.

This is never more evident in the Gospels than in John 9 with the man born blind. Jesus healed this on the Sabbath by making clay out of saliva, anointing his eyes, and telling him to go wash in the Pool of Siloam. The Jewish leadership already wanted to kill Jesus, a fact established in a similar story with many parallels in John 5 (the healing of the paralytic). Everything Jesus does only confirms their opinion of him. He again heals on the Sabbath, which means he has violated their rules about what constitutes work on the Sabbath. They won’t see, first, that as God in the flesh, Jesus fulfills the Sabbath by providing rest for those under his authority. Second, they won’t see that never in the history of the world has a man who was born blind been healed. That is nothing less than the power to raise the dead, the power that only God has. They have become futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts are darkened (Rom 1:21).

As the story progresses, while the healed man moves into greater and greater light, understanding who Jesus is, the Jews spiral into greater and greater darkness. The longer they continue, the greater their blindness.

Neither sin nor righteousness is static. We are never in a neutral position. We are either growing into greater insight or devolving into greater blindness. The only way to avoid the darkness is to humbly submit to the light. Pray that God’s Spirit will keep your mind submitted to his revelation. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. Find friends who will challenge you and not simply agree with you on everything. Stay out of echo chambers

.

We could go through a long and scholarly dissertation concerning Jesus’ Jewishness, but here is the short version:

When God promised that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15, God was telling us that a son would be born sometime in the future who would undo all that had been done by the serpent, the woman, and the man. The seed then becomes a thread throughout the entire story of Scripture. The seed would be a new Adam, the new head of humanity and king of the world. As Adam, he would represent the entire created order, acting on its behalf.

The seed is not all the sons born to a certain man and woman in a family. The seed is God’s chosen son. He may have brothers, but not all of them are “the seed.” Abel is the seed. Cain is not. After Cain kills Abel, Seth takes up the mission of the seed. The seed line continues through to Noah (cf. Gen 5) and eventually Abraham (cf. Gen 11). Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, but Isaac was the seed, not Ismael (cf. Rom 9). Jacob (who became Israel) was then given the mission. The twelve sons of Israel (the twelve tribes of Israel) took up this mission, but Judah was the son whose line had the seed mission, the son from whom the king would come (cf. Gen 49:8-12). This is shown when God makes a covenant with David and promises that David’s son will be God’s son (2 Sam 7; 1 Chron 17; Ps 89). The whole mission of Israel to take the strike from the serpent in order to crush his head devolved upon the King of the Jews. Eventually, Jesus is born as the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:4). When he is crucified, he is crucified as King of the Jews (Mt 27:11, 29, 37). As David’s son, King of the Jews, he is the second and last Adam (cf. Rom 5:12-21), the one who takes Israel’s mission as the seed upon himself to crush the serpent’s head. As Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “Salvation is of the Jews” (Jn 4:22).

Israel (eventually “the Jews”) is vital to the story. Jesus’ Jewishness is absolutely essential to the story. He couldn’t have been an Assyrian, Babylonian, Cushite, or any other ethnicity. The genealogy is not complicated. It’s covenantal. God’s plan went through Israel. It couldn’t be any other way.

Whatever your view of the modern state of Israel and the Jews may be, it shouldn’t become the lens through which you read the Scriptures. Jesus was born, lived, died, and rose again as the embodiment of Israel. If he didn’t, then he is not the Savior of the world

.

When Jesus is introduced in John 9, he is the only one who can see. He sees a man who was blind from birth. Just previous to this, Jesus was hidden from the Jews who picked up stones to stone him (8:59). They were blind to his presence, though he walked in their midst. Jesus’ disciples are blind to the reason for the blind man’s blindness, and the Pharisees in the story are blind to who Jesus is. Jesus is the Seeing One. He is the new, seeing Adam who has come as king to recreate a seeing humanity in himself, a humanity able to fulfill the mission of dominion God gave to man.

Recalling the image of the original creation of man in Genesis 2:7, Jesus spits into the dust of the earth, making clay to anoint the eyes of the blind man. He told the crowds earlier at the Feast of Tabernacles that he is the source of living water (Jn 7:37), which John tells us is the Spirit (Jn 7:39). As God formed man from the dust of the ground and gave him his breath-Spirit to make him a living soul, so Jesus is recreating this man from the dust of the earth and the Spirit so that he can move from darkness to life, from death to life. He sends him to the Pool of Siloam, which is the Pool of “Sent,” to emerge from the water as the original creation came from water. By water and Spirit this man is born again or born from above so that he can now see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3, 5).

With his ability to see restored, he is the image of Jesus, the Seeing One. Like Jesus, the blind man’s neighbors, who should know him, are unsure of his identity (Jn 9:8-9). Like Jesus, he answers that he is “I am” (Jn 9:9). He is not the I AM, but he is his image. He has been baptized into the name of the I AM and therefore shares his name. As Jesus sees, so he sees. As Jesus is sent (Jn 9:4), so he is sent. With his sight restored, he is prepared to fulfill his purpose as man.

We are saved unto good works, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:10. We are saved, not merely to secure our eternal future but to be co-laborers together with God in his new- creation project (1 Cor 3:9). We are a new creation to work with God for the renewal of creation. That project starts with our own hearts and bodies but extends to the world around us, encompassing everything God puts in our hands. We are to work to see everything rightly ordered under the lordship of Jesus. To do this, we must be able to see, making proper judgments between sin and righteousness and good and evil. Thanks to the saving grace of God in Jesus, once we were blind, but now we can see

.

Every now and again, Solomon exhorts his son in Proverbs not to covet or be envious of the wicked. Rather, he is to be content. The specific exhortations pop up here and there, but contentment is the undercurrent for all the commands to walk the path of wisdom and avoid the path of folly.

Contentment is the self-mastery of one’s appetites, taming them so that there is joyful satisfaction no matter the circumstances. You master your heart’s appetites so that your circumstances don’t master your heart’s affections. Neither good nor bad circumstances master your affections. Your deepest loyalties that tell you who you are, your purpose, and your future control your attitudes and actions, no matter if times are good or bad. Whether you mourn or laugh, whether you are rich or poor, your soul is quietly satisfied because you have certainties that are surer than all these fleeting realities. Contentment is happy to stay within the boundaries of God’s law and providence, humbly giving thanks for how he made me, what he has given me, the promises for the future, and what he has told me I may and may not do.

Covetousness is contentment’s enemy, resenting God’s boundaries of law and providence, always looking and grasping for that which does not rightfully belong to me or that which God in his providence has refused to give to me. I am agitated that God created me male or female, put me in this family, has not given me this amount of money, has given me this body type, has not given me that person to be my spouse, or … well, you fill in the blank. I have idolized this part of creation (Eph 5:5; Col 3:5), believing that if I could only have this, then my life would be complete. My life is found in the creation and not the Creator.

We have legitimate God-given desires for more. God created us hungry, so we have an appetite for food. God created us to be fruitful and multiply, so he has given us a desire to couple up with all the sexual desires involved in that relationship. God has created us for dominion, so we have a desire for glory. Covetousness latches on to those desires and perverts them, wanting to grasp for all of those things outside of the boundaries God has established. Contentment gives thanks for those boundaries and happily lives within them.

You can still be aggressive in your dominion without being covetous. Indeed, you must be. That is your calling. What distinguishes covetousness from contentment is whether or not what you are pursuing is lawful and whether or not you can pursue it with enjoyment that is not distracted or dampened by all that you don’t have. Can you be patient, or do you become irritated and overly restless because you don’t have something? Are you thankful for what you have right now? Can you relax and laugh at the end of the day, or are you always fidgety and irritated? Can you rest?

Contentment is not a luxury to be enjoyed by the super spiritual. Contentment is vital to your mission. If you have not mastered your appetites with contentment, then circumstances and others will use your appetites to control you, taking you off mission. If you are focused on seducing another person’s spouse, then you are not being a good steward of the family God has given you. If you are homed in on the possessions of others, you are not focused on what God has put in your hand. Lack of contentment is a distraction from your mission. If you are not content, that means you are neglecting your responsibilities somewhere.

Contentment must be cultivated for you to be effective in the callings God has given you. Cultivating contentment involves many particulars about your situation that you will have to work out. Not even Solomon worked out every detail for his son. He gave him the principles and expected him to meditate on them and work them out. That is part of the discipline. That which is vital to contentment’s cultivation is humble gratitude. Gratitude focuses you on what God has given you instead of what he hasn’t. The grateful man acknowledges his neediness, but he also respects the boundaries placed on him by his Grace. Whether he feels like it or not, he disciplines himself to say, “Thank you,” especially when his heart is drawing him to covetous discontentment.

Contentment may indeed be a “rare jewel,” but it is one that God has called you to discover and treasure

.

While these people may be formally called “Americans,” we wouldn’t say they’re really Americans. Americans are those who adopt the culture and work for the interests of America. They may be citizens of our country, but they are far from being Americans.

In John 8, Jesus speaks to a group of Jews who are formally Abraham’s seed, but they are also the seed of the serpent. Jesus affirms their covenantal connection to Abraham, saying, “I know that you are Abraham’s seed” (Jn 8:37), but then tells them that their father is the devil (Jn 8:44). How can they be both?

Some will say that the Jews were the “physical descendants” of Abraham but not his “spiritual” children. The dichotomy between physical and spiritual is misplaced and, therefore, misleading. Not all who were heirs of the Abrahamic covenant were Abraham's biological family members. While God did (and does) work along the biological lines of the family, the covenant runs deeper than blood. Children of Abraham were grafted in and adopted through receiving God’s covenant sign and participating in the life of Israel. Since the Spirit of God is the one who creates covenantal bonds, the covenant was “spiritual.” Besides that, not all of Abraham’s biological children were Abraham’s seed, something that Paul demonstrates in Romans 9. Physical vs. Spiritual misplaces the battle lines.

The Jews were heirs of the Abrahamic covenant. They were covenant members. Abraham was their father in one sense, but their desires and actions revealed that they had rejected the faith of their father, Abraham, and, therefore, had rejected the God of Abraham. They aligned themselves with another father: the devil. Because they sought to kill Jesus and would rather live in lies than the truth, they manifested the characteristics of the seed of the serpent. As the devil murdered the first man and woman and his “son,” Cain, murdered Abel, so they are trying to murder Jesus (Jn 8:37, 40).

As the eternal Son always loves, speaks, and does what he sees in his Father (Jn 8:38, 40), so the sons of God who love their Father will be like the Son and imitate the Father whom they see and hear in the Son. Earthly sons who love their fathers imitate them. Whatever they see their father doing, they want to do. If he is excited, they are excited. If he is working, they want to work like he is working. So it is in our relationship with the Heavenly Father or with the devil. We reveal which one we love by the one we imitate. We declare our family loyalties by what we desire and do. Though we may be formally or legally a part of God’s covenant family, it is possible to betray that family and align ourselves with the family of the devil.

Jesus’ words must be taken seriously. All of Jesus’ words must be taken seriously. People who are formal members of God’s covenant family may also be children of the devil. God’s covenant is more than a standing. It is a call, a call to assimilate into the Divine Family culture. It is a call to share the character of God, desiring what he desires, loving what he loves, hating what he hates, and doing what he does. Where a man or woman lives a life without repentance, that one is a child of the devil. So, wherever we see individuals, for example, celebrating and promoting sin as if it is righteousness, though they may be formally called “Christian” and their churches be called “Christian churches,” they are children of the devil and their churches are churches of Satan.

Those who hear and obey God’s words are of God. Those who do not hear and obey are not of God (Jn 8:47).

The post The Seed of Abraham & the Devil appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

This article is an adapted chapter from the author’s book Servant Not Savior: An Introduction to the Bible’s Teaching About Civil Government.

As described in my book, the upper/lower story division finds its current expression in the secular/sacred divide. Secularism divides  life into two fundamentally  different spheres: the secular and the sacred. It aims to liberate life from the authority of God. Yet, removing God only creates a vacuum that will be filled by something else. The highest authority in any system becomes that system’s god. Thus, in the place of sphere sovereignty which places the Christian God over each area of life, we now have two spheres that both have man as their highest authority. In the sacred sphere, the individual reigns supreme. In the secular sphere, it is the state.

In the West, we live in this secular wasteland that provides no foundation for personal liberties and is moving us inevitably toward statism. Because secularism prioritizes the lower story, the state becomes the de facto god. The state becomes divinized. It invades all of life, and so politics looms over everything. With no God above the state, there is nothing to limit the state’s reach. The authority structure of statism is that the state rules over every other sphere (See Figure 1). Everything must bend its knee to the almighty state.

The preeminence of an ever-growing state is the behemoth of our day. The only way to slay it is to overthrow the secular/sacred divide it is constructed upon. Christians must build a comprehensive alternative, a worldview that is unified under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture. How do we offer this vision without falling into the tyranny of prior ages when the church consumed all of life? Is there a way to maintain a healthy distinction between the church and the state that does not banish God from the public square?

This chapter expands on the doctrine of sphere sovereignty that was introduced in Chapter 5. The West needs a robust understanding of sphere sovereignty to counter our malignant secularism. To limit the state, we must recover the vision of the God who rules over the sphere of the state and who has established other, equal spheres. Without this doctrine, our political theologies will slouch either toward a “Christian” version of secularism or an unhealthy blending of the church and the state.

SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY: THE GOD WHO IS THERE

Sphere sovereignty begins with the God who is there. This doctrine recognizes that God has established different spheres, or areas of authority, in life. These spheres have different God-ordained governments (authority structures), and different ministries (assigned roles). Sphere sovereignty assumes the existence of God, not just any God, but the God who rules over each sphere. Note, that no individual sphere is divine, as each is established by and accountable to God.

Therefore, the doctrine of sphere sovereignty begins with the God who is there. It is not a god who is deistic and thus detached from these spheres. Rather, it is the Christian God. The one who speaks and expects his creatures to obey. The one whose providence is meticulous and who is sovereign over everything.

In the place of the secular/sacred divide, Christianity tells the story of the world through creation, fall, and redemption. Each of these three movements has a comprehensive impact that rules out the secular/sacred divide. First, God creates everything by a word of command. All things were made by God through Christ (Gen 1:1; John 1:3). This God is not distant, but intimately upholds his creation (Col 1:17). In creation, there is no fundamental division between the secular and the sacred as God rules over everything. But man, who was created to rule God’s creation under God’s authority, fell into sin and everything was cursed (Gen 3:14-19; Rom 8:19-20). Like with creation, the impact of sin is comprehensive. Therefore, Scripture opens with a comprehensive beginning and a comprehensive problem. Such an opening demands a comprehensive solution.

In redemption, Christ deals with the cosmos-wrecking reality of humanity’s sin (Rom 8:19-25). He dies for our sin, and in the process, he unites all things (Col 1:20) and possesses a universal authority (Matt 28:18). Through his work, Christ makes all things new (Rev 21:5). Christ’s redemptive act is not limited to the “sacred” parts of life, but rather brings all things under his redemptive reign. The Christian worldview is unified and complete at each step of the creation, fall, redemption storyline.

Sphere sovereignty begins here—Christ is the Lord of lords and King of kings. He created every sphere of life, he is redeeming every sphere, and he is the head over every sphere (Eph 1:22). Christ rules over all.

In the Christian faith, there is no room for a fundamental division of the universe. There is no secular/sacred divide because God created all things, sustains all things, and is reconciling all things by the blood of Christ’s cross. To acquiesce to secularism is to functionally deny the gospel.

SOVEREIGNTY: WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE AUTHORITY OVER OTHERS?

Sphere sovereignty relies on a big view of God’s sovereignty as it directs us to see the relation between his reign and the authority of the state. The concept of sovereignty forces us to ask, “Who gets to demand obedience?” As Kuyper notes, sovereignty is the “right, the duty, and the power to break and avenge all resistance to its will.”[1] Whoever has sovereignty has the power to require obedience. Does the state possess that authority? If so, why? If there is no sovereignty, then there is no power to compel obedience. If there is no sovereignty, there can be no state.

Therefore, every governing authority must answer the question, “What gives us the right to demand obedience from others?” This question is further complicated by Christianity’s belief in the funda-mental equality of every person (Gen 1:27). If we are truly equal, then why should anyone obey anyone else?

How we answer this question matters. For many unbelievers, the solution comes in the form of might makes right. With no God above, there is no universal right and wrong, and thus there is no such thing as equality. The strong rule over the weak. Survival of the fittest. Those in power make the rules. If might makes right, either through voting or conquest, then human rights are illusionary. They become privileges granted to the weak by the powerful. A truly terrifying proposition. If the powerful get to determine what is right and wrong, they will often use their strength to do whatever they want. With no God above, the state is the highest power as it owns all the guns, tanks, and missiles. It makes the rules. Military strength is not a suitable foundation for establishing a righteous government.

Others have answered the question of the sovereignty and power of the state by claiming some connection to the divine. Why should citizens obey the state? Because the rulers are somehow connected to the divine. Deifying the state is a tale as old as time and can happen in many ways. For secularism, the state fills the role of God but does so without any overt claims to divinity. In the ancient world, rulers boldly asserted their divine status. Both of these options must be rejected by faithful Christians. Only by denying the state’s claims to divinity can the foundation for limited government and human rights be established.

Sometimes, Christians have supported the idea of the divine rights of kings. This political theory asserts that the monarch stands in God’splace on earth. By granting royalty divine rights, this idea places them above a! other earthly authorities. The implications of such a theory are as clear as they are ripe for abuse. The king becomes functionally autonomous (a law unto himself). No one on earth can question him. He has no equal because he stands as God’s unmatched earthly representative. Therefore, anything he does is right and even divinely ordained. Moreover, the divine right of kings denies any equality between rulers and citizens. In this life, citizens are to obey the state because it stands in the place of God.

This view exchanges the God-given rights of the people for the divine rights of rulers. Ideas have consequences, and throughout world history, this philosophy brought tyranny with it. The state, pretending to be God, swells beyond its God-given role and the people inevitably suffer.

This theory is not wholly dead. It has merely shifted forms. Today, many wrongly use texts like Romans 13:1-7 to argue for the divine rights of the state. I call this view Christian statism. It argues that since the stateis divinely ordained, it is owed a near-complete submission. Through a shallow and selective exegesis of Scripture, many Christians espoused this ideology in the years surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Allegedly, the state as God’s representative on earth, must be submitted to no matter what. In Christian statism, there is no functional limit on the state’s authority. Unlike secularism, Christian statism recognizes there is a God above the state. Yet, in concert with secularism, it asserts that the state reigns unrivaled over the rest of life (See Figure 2). In some ways, Christian statism is more dangerous than secularism as it elevates the state to an unrivaled position as God’s sole representative on earth.

The problems of Christian statism are numerous because it ignores the totality of Scripture’s teaching. It undermines the inherent equality between ruler and citizen. It uses God’s presence over the state only to legitimize the state, but not to limit its authority. It fails to see that the state is not God’s representative, but his servant (Rom 13:4). Finally, it also fails to recognize the state is only one government that God has ordained among many. Just as God has given authority to the state, he has also granted authority to the family and the church. What are we to do when these different God-ordained authorities are at odds with each other? Christian statism dangerously relies on the preeminence of the state over all of life.

The Christian worldview rejects the preeminence of the state and replaces it with the preeminence of Christ. God, through Christ, is sovereign over everything. He is the one who possesses the right to demand obedience from everyone at all times and in every sphere. God indeed ordains the state, but he also ordains the authority structures in the home and the church. In doing so, God places limits on each sphere’s authority. Each sphere is equal and yet distinct. Equal in that God established them all. Distinct in that each has a different God-given ministry. God’s universal sovereignty cannot be shared with the state. Rather, it naturally limits all other earthly authorities.

DELEGATED AND DERIVED AUTHORITY

Sphere sovereignty also recognizes that all human authority is dele-gated and derived. Christianity asserts the equality of every human, but it also commands submission to authorities in the state, home, and church. Instead of making some authority figures greater than others, it maintains a basic human equality. Christianity solves this tension between authority and equality by recognizing God’s delegation of power. The authority of a king is not inherent to him but is delegated and derived from God. Likewise, the authority of a father or pastor is not intrinsic to the individual, but is given by God and therefore dependent upon him.

The idea of a delegated and derived authority has two important effects on all earthly authorities. First, it legitimatizes that authority. The world is not egalitarian in the modern sense of the word. Some do possess more authority than others, but this is not an inherent evil. Hierarchies are inevitable, but God has given them for our good. We are called to obey these delegated authorities precisely because their authority is not rooted in their status or power; but rather, because their authority comes from God for our good (Rom 13:4). While man often abuses these power structures, he does so in rebellion against God’s good design. According to Christianity, you should submit to the state, not because it has an inherent power, or because it is divine in some fashion. Rather, we submit because God instituted the state for our good.

Second, an authority that is derived and delegated from God is necessarily limited. The state is not autonomous. It is given a specific and narrow authority to fulfill its mission as a servant of God (Rom 13:4). God is the state’s master, and the state is his servant for our good. There are, as Jesus said, some things that the state has a right to, and other things that it does not (Matt 22:21). Therefore, the state’s authority only extends as far as its God-given mission. The state has only the authority God has delegated to it. When a sphere claims an authority God has not given it, the Bible does not require us to obey it. All authority individuals possess is limited to precisely what God has given—nothing more and nothing less. This glorious truth confines the state’s power and prevents the idolatry of statism. Finally, recognizing that all authority is delegated from God means the power he gives to one sphere must be respected by the other spheres.

EQUAL SPHERES OF SOVEREIGNTY

Each of these spheres of authority—home, church, state—is equal to the others because each receives its authority from the same source. God has assigned a specific role, or area of authority, to each. For the state, God has delegated it the power to accomplish its primary ministry to execute God’s wrath upon the evildoer (Rom 13:4). God gives the state a sword of justice to carry out this ministry. Outside of its sphere, the state possesses no God-given authority. God has not given the state the ministries of healthcare, education, child-rearing, doctrinal instruction, or the redistribution of wealth. All attempts by the state to expand its reach are invalid trespasses of a power delegated elsewhere.

This reality is at the heart of sphere sovereignty—God has equally established each sphere. Within the state’s sphere, God has given the state the power to enforce obedience. Likewise, the church and the family also have spheres where they possess a similar sovereignty. God has instituted equal and distinct areas of life, and he delegates the necessary authority to each one. None of these spheres are autonomous, as God is sovereign over each one. God, as the chief sovereign, has the right, duty, and power to demand obedience in every area of life. Sphere sovereignty declares that God rules over each sphere and that each sphere is equal in standing before him and yet they remain distinct in their primary roles. The below diagram demonstrates the equality found in the doctrine sphere sovereignty (Figure 3). Note that each sphere is equal in standing beneath God’s ultimate authority.

SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY: THINK MINISTRIES, NOT LOCATIONS

What are the practical realities of the doctrine of sphere sovereignty? How does it differ from the modern understanding of the separation of the church and the state? For secularists, the separation of church and state means religion has no role to play in the affairs of the state. Society must remove all references to religion from public life (e.g., the Ten Commandments in courthouses). Sphere sovereignty rejects this separation of the church and recognizes that religion is inseparable from statecraft—there is no separation between God and the state. There can be no fundamental separation between the servant and his master. Instead, sphere sovereignty recognizes the different roles of the church and the state, while firmly keeping God above both. The church must not seize the state’s role, and the state must not infringe upon the church.

Sphere sovereignty is more concerned with a sphere’s specific ministry than it is about that sphere’s place. Each governing authority in the home, church, or state, is not distinguished by its location. Nor is it primarily concerned with its relationship with the other spheres. Rather, sphere sovereignty points to the role, or ministry, of each sphere within society. Each sphere needs the others. They are neither replaceable nor interchangeable. For example, a courthouse is not a secular space, free from religion, but is rather a place where the ministry of justice occurs. This is a ministry to both God and men. Therefore, posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not violate sphere sovereignty because the church is no more invading the state than the state would be invading the church by requiring building permits. The law of God, as represented by the Ten Commandments, is absolutely essential to the state’s ministry of justice. Thelocation itself, a courthouse, while not a church, is also not a secular space.

Likewise, the church is not given the state’s sword to carry out the ministry of justice (Rom 13:4). The church’s ministry is that of the Word and sacrament. In this, she wields the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God and the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19). The church should no more bear the sword of justice than the state should hold the keys of the kingdom. In both cases, one sphere would be rebelling against its God-given role by usurping a different sphere’s authority. Similarly, the family is given the ministry of raising and educating children. The state possesses no such authority.

The limits on each sphere pertain to its ministries, not its locations. Each sphere complements the others. For example, while the church must not use the sword of the state to punish evildoers, it does inform the state as to what is just and unjust. It can, and should, inform the direction of the state’s sword. The state, as God’s servant, is not a law unto itself. It does not define justice on its own. It needs the ministry of the church and God’s Word to do so.

Consider another example. If a murder happens within a church or a family, one cannot point to sphere sovereignty to exclude the ministry of the state. The location of the crime doesn’t matter because the ministry of earthly justice belongs to the state. Giving Caesar what belongs to him requires that families and churches hand over such cases to the God-ordained authority. While the state cannot raise children, it can punish parents or children who break the law inside the home. Likewise, the state is not to interfere with the worship, doctrine, and life of the church as that is not its assigned ministry.

God’s limit on the spheres is not locational, but ministerial. Each sphere needs the others. The state needs the family because the family is the foundation of society. The family needs the church to receive the Word and the sacraments. The church needs the state to punish evil-doers. The state needs the church to provide guidance on justice and to train the people in righteousness. In a healthy society, each sphere functions in its God-ordained ministry with proper deference to the others.

Sadly, such thinking no longer describes our civilization. Many statists desire for the state to rule over everything, provide personal meaning, and even raise their children. This is often demanded under an ill-defined concept of “justice.” Christians are right to reject such naïve thinking. Giving the state more power will not lead to more human flourishing. Yet, some still seek to expand the state beyond its God-given role. Some desire the state to be Christian, as do I, but they want it to do so by enforcing religious belief or speech with its sword. Promotion and punishment of things like belief and speech rightly belong to the spheres of the family and church. The doctrine of sphere sovereignty helps us to recognize how a state can be sanctified (or Christian) without placing it over the church. It also provides the necessary foundation to limit the state, and it reminds us that the civil government is not the most important sphere in life. Most importantly, it reminds us that God, through Christ, is the head of the state.

CONCLUSION

The Christian worldview establishes the only adequate foundation for a limited government because it recognizes God’s authority over the state and God’s establishment of other, equal authorities. If we hope to overthrow modern statism, then the need of the moment is a comprehensive Christian worldview. Christians must reject the secular/sacred divide for the folly that it is. In its place, we need to see the preeminence of Christ as the head of all things—including the state. Only by deemphasizing the state, and understanding that it is one sphere among equals, can sanity return.

Sphere sovereignty, with its recognition of God’s ultimate authority, is the bedrock of a biblical political theology. It is God who is sovereign over all of life, not the state. Now that the ideal of sphere sovereignty is established, we can turn our attention to what sanctifies a government in its ministry to God and its people.

Author Bio

Levi Secord is the founding pastor of Christ Bible Church in St. Paul, MN. He earned a Masters of Divinity (2013) and a Doctorate of Educational Ministry (2022) from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Levi hosts a podcast on the Christian Worldview and has numerous publications including his book, Servant Not Savior: An Introduction to the Bible’s Teaching About Civil Government. Levi and his family live in the St. Paul area.

[1] Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans:, 1998), 466.

The post The Imperative of Sphere Sovereignty For Political Theology: God’s Authority Over All Of Life appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

But what does it mean to be free? Free from what? Free to do what?

As Jesus speaks to the Jews who believed in him at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 8, he tells them that they shall know the truth, and the truth will make them free (Jn 8:32). Jesus’ words have been used (and misused) for everything from new scientific knowledge to children coming clean with their parents. But what does Jesus mean by them?

We need to understand what it means to “know the truth.” Knowledge of reality, the truth, is not grasping a few superficial facts about something. To truly know something, you must understand its purpose. True knowledge is a right relationship with reality that puts me in a position to be productive or fruitful in every sense.

Let me illustrate. I can know what a handsaw looks like and even recreate a handsaw, becoming the world’s great manufacturer of handsaws. However, if I believe that a handsaw is made to drive nails, I don’t know what a handsaw is. If I try to use a handsaw to drive nails, I destroy the handsaw, frustrate myself, and don’t accomplish the driving of the nail.

Knowing the truth is understanding reality. Understanding reality means that I must know everything about everything, every permutation, and how everything relates to everything else. No finite mind can do this. The only other alternative is to submit to and trust someone who knows everything about everything.

God created all that there is. That doesn’t mean that he merely brought things into existence (although that was necessary). It means that he has a design and purpose for all things. He knows how everything is supposed to relate to everything else. He has a design, a purpose, for you as a male or female. He designed you to relate to him, others, and the non-human creation in particular ways. When you submit to his knowledge, which is reality, the truth, then you are free. That is, you can operate to the full potential for which God created you.

Sin enslaves you. This is what Jesus told the Jews in that same discussion. Sin perverts God’s design in your thoughts, words, and deeds. When you submit to sin, you have a bad and unhealthy relationship with reality. Sin deceives you, telling you that not submitting to God’s commands is true freedom, but that is like saying not submitting to the manufacturer’s design of your vehicle and using it as a boat is true freedom. Sin is a lying slave master.

The truth of which Jesus speaks in John 8:32 is revealed in him. “The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:17). Jesus is “the truth” (Jn 14:6). He is God’s Word through whom everything was created, who designed and ordered all things according to God’s wisdom (Jn 1:1-4; Prov 8). Jesus is reality. You can’t even know who you truly are without knowing Jesus, that is, having your thoughts, words, and deeds determined by him. When you submit to Jesus, you are set free from the tyranny of sin, able to live as God designed you to live.

When you know the Truth, the Truth will make you free.

The post The Truth Shall Set You Free appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

To not be stooped into the narrative of Scripture often leads to having a fundamental commitment to eisegetical interpretations.1 In other words, coming to Scripture casually or infrequently is a prime growing condition for the flawed interpretation & application of it. A recent example of biblical illiteracy was seen in a current US Senator who defended the reason he believes the US ought to unequivocally support the modern-state of Israel, because “God says that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed, and I want to be on the blessing side of things”. 2 The Senator knew about a real verse in Genesis but misquoted it, did not know where it was located, and ultimately, had no understanding what the contextual setting was for that verse in relation to the rest of Biblical revelation, leading him to defend catastrophic policies. The problem of biblical illiteracy is rampant within our churches, and as you can see, spills into the way the Christian understands or misunderstands the world that Jesus, the Apostles, and the 1st century believers lived in as the New Testament was being written.  

The Bible Was Written For You But Not To You

One of the greatest weapons to use in fighting today’s battle of misinterpretation of Scripture is the hermeneutical principle that the Bible was written for us, but not to us! Many Christians seek to find application for specific texts, but we must remember to let the text itself determine the context first before we apply any given text. In other words, we need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. As stated previously, each Biblical author had a particular historical audience in mind, they were writing to real groups, real saints, real churches. An example of this is when John wrote the book of Revelation and addressed the seven churches of Asia Minor. He was actually writing to… seven churches in Asia Minor that were in existence a little over 2000 years ago. Or when Paul wrote to the Ephesians, or Galatians, or Corinthians, these were real churches that were historically in existence in the cities of Ephesus, Galatia, and Corinth. Does this mean that there is no application and biblical principles that one could glean for today? Not at all! But it does mean that the material found in Scripture was primarily speaking of a particular time and a particular world, that the Church in the 21st century is not in, for obvious reasons. I am simply seeking to remind us that these are important things to understand to help us achieve true Biblical literacy. 

So, What Was the Big Idea in the 1st Century World of the New Testament? 

When the Christian is able to read and study his Bible remembering that it was written for him but not to him, the big idea of the New Testament begins unfolding itself organically. Many 21st century Christians would argue that the ministry and work of Jesus was solely focused on providing salvation by faith alone, or that the Bible’s story is only about how Christians get to heaven. While that is an incredibly important part of the story, that piece of the pie has to be understood in light of the whole pie! Meaning, the redemption that Jesus accomplished on the cross has to be contextualized within the historical progression of the metanarrative of Scripture. 

The Newer Testament (the fruit) is building upon the foundations of the Older Testament (the root). This means you cannot properly understand the full intent of the New Testament if you have not read from the beginning, Genesis. God created a world where he deputized Adam and Eve to be vice-regents over his creation, to bring everything under the triune God’s reign and rule, and to spread Edenic holiness to the ends of the earth (Gen. 1:26-31). They failed by sinning, which cursed all of creation (Gen. 3). But God graciously set a plan in place to push that curse of sin out as far as it is found (Gen. 3:15). This glorious mission known as the cultural mandate, or the first part of the Great Commission, gradually progresses in stages. Notice how it was first tasked to a couple, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-31), then to a family, Abraham’s (Gen. 12, 15, 17), then to the nation of Israel (Ex. 19:3-6), and finally with the advent of the last Adam to inaugurate the New Covenant, that mission expands itself to the entire world including both Jew and Gentile. (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 4:13). 

The Edenic commission had landed upon the nation of Israel, they were to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6). Their tabernacle/temple was where the presence of God was confined, in the Holy of holies, in the city of Jerusalem. But when Jesus arrived as the new Israel, all of the old covenant structures were shaken up. The presence of God would no longer be confined to a temple in a city, in one nation (Acts 1:6-8). But rather, his presence would be unleashed to the ends of the earth by believers as living stones (1 Pet. 2:4-8), all over the world, building God’s Edenic temple (Eph. 2:11-22).

That change of administrations from the old covenant people (Jews), to the new covenant people (Jews and Gentiles), was brought about by Christ the mediator, Lord, and fulfiller of all the covenantal promises (Eph. 2:12; 2 Cor. 1:20). This produced a serious tension amongst Jewish hearers who struggled to accept the full inclusion of their Gentile brethren into the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). That particular tension is touched upon consistently throughout the New Testament. The dynamics between Jew and Gentile, in light of the coming Messiah who destroyed the wall of hostility (Eph. 2:14-16), play a massive background role within the context of many stories, judgements, parables, and controversies in the Biblical narrative. To practice Biblical literacy, let’s look at a few examples of how this plays out within the records of the New Testament.

The Synoptics

Matthew, writing to a largely jewish audience, demonstrates that the promised Jewish Messiah has come to fulfill all the promises concerning his messianic Kingdom to bless the world. 3 It’s easy to see the Jew/Gentile theme right from the beginning because of the genealogies mentioning Abraham,Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (Matt.1), who were all non-jewish individuals. Throughout his gospel, Matthew continues to repeatedly demonstrate that Jesus has come as the new Israel to provide light to the entire world and to unify Jew and Gentile in Him, the new and true Israel. In the synoptics, there is a thread of de-emphasizing the importance of Israel’s land, temple, sacrificial system etc. through Jesus’ healings, teachings, and miracles. This thread instead emphasizes the newly inaugurated Kingdom which extends its borders to the ends of the earth in contrast to a concentrated nation. The Kingdom is a decentralized nation of men, women and children all over the world who are called to live sacrificial lives of service before the Lord Jesus! 

The Jew/Gentile tension escalates as the gospel accounts progress to Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem (Lk. 19), where the topic clearly centers around the Jewish nation and its leadership consistently rejecting the son of God as the promised Messiah. Thus, Jesus begins to warn them of the impending judgement if they continued in their covenant unfaithfulness and hard heartedness (Matt. 21-24).  Most of Jesus’ miracles weren’t random miracles, most of Jesus’ parables were not random parables about life, and most of Jesus’ strong language wasn’t directed towards people “who are religious”. He was actively exposing the sin problem present amongst the Jewish leadership, the covenant administrators. They were putting too much emphasis on the ethnic component of their salvation and heavily relying on the ceremonial system which was only created as a shadow which was to vanish when the substance came. And the substance, Christ Jesus, had come!

The Pauline Epistles

This emphasis of the birth of a new humanity beginning in Jesus uniting jewish and gentile believers by faith, opposing any sort of ethnic pride and special blessing connected to the physicality of the land, temple, priesthood, and sacrifices, continues heavily throughout the Apostle Paul’s writings. In the book of Romans, the entire build up of the letter is not merely an emphasis on justification by faith alone, although this is a beautiful part and revealed throughout the entirety of Scripture (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:33, 32:40; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). Rather, Paul is trying to demonstrate that racial distinction is not what matters before the eyes of Christ. What Christ values, what he has always valued since the Old Covenant, is that Jew and Gentile alike would have a circumcised heart before God. Paul reminds the reader that the true Jew is one who is inwardly circumcised, not outwardly so (1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 7; Rom. 2:25-29). Romans 5-8, is the retelling of the exodus story through the eyes of the New Covenant world. 4 Here, Paul parallels the exodus story and imagery to its climactic fulfillment in Jesus as he leads the enlarged Israel by the Spirit out of sinful bondage to slavery and death and into the promised “land”, which is now the entire world. The controversial chapters 9-11 are no different and continue to build upon the expansion of the covenantal administration to include Gentiles in the Abrahamic mission to bless the nations of the world.

The letter to the Galatians follows suit, the Jew/Gentile theme is heavily discussed in Paul’s mind as he shows these believers in Galatia, that Abraham as the Father of faith (Gal. 3:9) and inheritor of the world, is the primary example of what the mission of God was always to be. God’s kind intention had always been that all the nations of the earth would be blessed by Abraham’s seed, which is Christ (Gal. 3:16). This blessing would not come by becoming a Jew or coming to the Temple to sacrifice. Those things were getting ready to pass away in the first century as the epistle to the Hebrews tell us (Heb. 8:13), but the blessing (which was the Spirit of God) would come to all, equally, who would turn from their sins and trust in the finished work of Messiah. This was the entire purpose for which God providentially preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, so that the Gentile nations would one day be blessed (Gal. 3:7-8) and as Jesus beautifully said, Abraham longed to see his day, because it had come (Jn. 8:56)!

Ephesians is no different, here the Apostle works to masterfully build his case on the basis of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension. When Christ died and the veil was torn, which happened simultaneously, it represented the death of the Messiah and the death of the Jewish economy with its physical temple, physical priesthood, and physical sacrifices (Eph. 2). When he rose the old world did not rise again, but a new one rose in which the separating ethnic wall was torn down (Eph. 2:14-16). This meant the strangers of the covenant of promise (gentiles) were now brought in as fellow citizens in the Kingdom of Christ (Eph. 2:12) and sent out to rebuild the third temple! The third temple is not to be expected one day in the future during a great tribulation. 5 The construction of the third temple began with the inauguration of the Kingdom of God, as living stones work to build Christ’s spiritual temple all over the world! This is the end-time, eschatological temple that Christ inaugurated as in which living waters flow out from, just as the prophet Ezekiel had prophesied in chapters 40-48 (Jn. 7:37-39).

The General Epistles

The General Epistles (Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude), persist in demonstrating the importance of understanding the covenantal first century background. The topics of persecution and suffering play a big role in these letters. A proper understanding of how to view and live through persecution and suffering is extremely important and we truly can find much comfort in the general epistles.

Nonetheless, it is important to remember yet again, it was written for us but not to us. 

As the Apostles address these first century churches, the saints of that day were going through a very real time of tribulation and persecution at the hands of the Jews and the Roman authorities. Nero was even nicknamed as “the Tyrant” and was a great persecutor and murderer of Christians. That awful time period of much tribulation for those first-century believers reminds us of an important eschatological truth as well, which is that, while it is true that there will always be sin in the world ‘till the last day, and at times there will be seasons of persecution and tribulation in different areas of the world, one ought to be careful to not project the incredible high intensity of those persecutions and tribulations of the first century and make it the story of Christianity throughout the rest of human history. 6 

Persecution will most likely always be present amongst Christians around the world due to sin and the Church ought to never stop praying for and serving all of the precious brothers and sisters who are suffering and dying for their faith. Nevertheless as history progresses, the kingdom of God does so as well. What began as a tiny mustard seed in the first century has been growing up into the tallest and most grandiose tree ever! This bold, faith-filled expectancy of worldwide-kingdom success leads the Apostle John to remind Christians who were going through tribulation under the tyranny of the Roman empire and the Judaizers, which John describes as present-day antichrists (1 Jn. 2:18-22; 2 Jn. 7), to remember that they have already victoriously overcome the world through their faith in Jesus Christ the ascended King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Jn. 5:1-5).  

The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably one of the greatest examples of the thesis presented in this article. The theme is clear, the author (Paul!) is writing to Jewish Christians who are living in a transitional generation (from 33 AD to 70 AD), reminding them of the progress of redemptive history that has led to their present day circumstances: there is a covenantal transition of administration from the Old Judaic world into the new world of the Kingdom of God, where Jew and Gentile are united in Christ, and the New Covenant is the apex of redemptive history (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12). The authors of the New Testament write with a great sense of urgency, letting their audience know that there is a transition happening, and to not return to the Old Covenant types and shadows for the hammer was about to fall on that old shadowy world (Heb. 2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:14-29). All of covenantal history has awaited for the time of the Messiah and his kingdom (Heb. 1:1-4). That time has come, the New Covenant has been inaugurated as the final and greatest covenant. There will be no newer covenants ever again, this is the last stage of redemptive history (Heb. 10; 12). And thus, the old covenant world with all of its physical structures, was passing away (Heb. 8:13).

The Revelation

John’s Apocalypse, the Revelation, is known to be one of the most difficult books of the Bible to interpret. The prolific American journalist Ambrose Pierce sarcastically once said about the book, “Revelation: a famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing”. 7 Because this book has led so many Christians to think it is a book full of codes to decipher to know how the world is going to end, they miss the hermeneutical principle that has been previously applied. What was John trying to communicate to his audience in the first century? It would be odd to have a unified theme being developed throughout the New Testament by Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles, and all of sudden in the Revelation the theme completely changes. John is describing much of the theme that has already been explained. The book is not describing the end of the world, but the end of their world, the Old Covenant world, in the first century. It is a book revealing the judgment that was soon to come towards apostate Israel (Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10), as the covenant breakers, for ultimately rejecting the Messiah and crucifying him, while simultaneously demonstrating the gradual victory of Jesus Christ and his people throughout the nations as the dawning of the New Covenant light shines forth.

The Fruit of Biblical Literacy

Its tempting to think that there is no point in reading or obeying the Scriptures if we affirm this hermeneutical principle that the Bible was written for us but not to us. But this is not true, understanding Scripture like this will actually allow it to speak for itself which increases our clarity and understanding of the mission at hand. This is how we become Biblically literate. When we keep this understanding in tandem while we read we are able to tune our ears to the rhythm of the Bible. We will be able to see Biblical patterns, catch the melody behind every story, and then allow the Scriptures to give meaning to our World. When we behold the New Testament specifically within its own world and timeframe, we can see why Jesus spoke of the sun, and the moon, and the stars falling out of the sky (Matt. 24:29), or why John described the resurrected Jesus as a gardener (Jn. 20:15), or why Paul encouraged the Roman Christians that soon they would be crushing the head of the Serpent (Rom. 16:20), etc. There are covenantal and historical ramifications of Jesus’s work and ministry in the 1st century church. That reality highlights the grandeur of the story, it does not minimize the role of the church in the 21st century. We instead understand more clearly just how expansive and relevant her task is in bringing Eden to the ends of the earth, as opposed to a false understanding of the mission: to escape to heaven one day in a secret rapture. Our job is to train ourselves to be Biblically literate so we can see just how Scripture is speaking. The Scripture must contextualize itself and by doing so, it then contextualizes the world.

_______________________________

1The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines eisegesis as : the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas.

2This quote came from the recent interview between Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson.

3This thesis is further developed in my article, Matthew a Lordship Gospel.

4See this article by Peter Leithart at the Theopolis Institute, and also consult N.T. Wright’s great book called Into the Heart of Romans: A Deep Dive Into Paul’s Greatest Letter

5The Great Tribulation mentioned by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse took place within one generation at the destruction of Jerusalem at 70AD.

6While Postmillennialists must steer away from a triumphalistic view of history, Amillenialists and Premillenialists must steer away from viewing history as a steady decline towards the church’s failure to disciple the nations.

7Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil’s Dictionary (University of Georgia Press, 2001), 200.

The post The World of the New Testament: For Us, Not to Us appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

What do you want to be angry about today? There are plenty of rage-bait conspiracy theories that, many times, contain elements of truth. Some, of course, are wildly untrue, but people throw them out there because engagement farming is a revenue stream for many posters. This was true before social media. In traditional media, “if it bleeds, it leads.” People are attracted to the sensational, especially that which threatens an apocalypse. Al Gore did this with global warming and the rising seas years ago. But he is only one in a long line that threatened catastrophe, trying to keep everyone in a dither and focused on those who had the answers … or, at least, claimed to have the answers but did nothing but keep people anxious and angry.

Anger is a God-given disposition. It cannot be eliminated, but it must be disciplined. Before we discipline anger, we must know what anger is in its righteous and sinful expressions.

Anger is rooted in and reveals our loves. God is angry every day (Ps 7:11). He is angry because the wicked seek to subvert his good purposes for creation and destroy it. Not to be angry with evil would be a moral deficiency. If you’re not angry when you hear of a mother giving birth and throwing her newborn in a dumpster to die, there is something wrong with you. If you aren’t angry when you hear children being sexually abused and mutilated or innocents being maimed and killed in war as they are used as shields, you have a problem. When you hear of another deranged trans shooting up a school, it ought to enrage you. As a Christian, when you hear of people seeking to destroy all the remnants of our Christian culture, you should be angry. When we become angry at these sins, we reflect the righteous anger of God himself. Not to be angry with these sorts of unrighteousness would be a sin. There is a time to be angry.

As with every other righteous quality that we have as the image of God, anger has been twisted by sin. We become angry for the wrong reasons. We are angry for the wrong reasons because we love the wrong things. Sinful self-love will be enraged when we don’t get what we want. We lash out and seek to destroy the offender because we see him as a threat.

But we can also have legitimate righteous anger and express it in sinful ways. Abortion should raise our ire. Acting as a vigilante and murdering abortionists is a sinful expression of that anger. We are to “be angry and sin not” (Ps 4:4; Eph 4:26). We are to have our loves in harmony with God’s loves and, therefore, be angry with those things that anger him. But we are then to express our anger in disciplined ways that are ultimately constructive. Righteous anger doesn’t “fly off the handle” and “vent all of its spirit” (Pr 29:11) because the righteous man knows that man’s sinful expression of anger doesn’t bring about the righteousness of God (Jms 1:19-20). Sinful expressions of anger don’t accomplish God’s plan for his creation; it only makes the mess worse.

So, next time you start to feel that fire burning inside, stop and ask yourself, “What is this anger revealing about what I love? Is that righteous or sinful?” Even if you conclude that it is righteous anger, then ask yourself, “What is the best way to express this anger to be constructive?” For example, is it helpful for me to get caught up in the rage machine that is social media, whether it is the subculture of Reformed world X or the general culture wars? Are my thoughts and posting on this online debate distracting me from other responsibilities where I can make a difference with people with whom I actually interact face-to-face? Am I consumed with anger about things over which I have little to no control? Why am I consumed with these matters I can’t control? Am I avoiding the things I can control but don’t want to deal with? Is my angry focus on these issues I can’t control a fig leaf for my feelings of inadequacy or my real deficiencies in another area of life?

Be angry, but do not sin.

The post Be Angry And Sin Not appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, “The greatest weakness in evangelical Christianity today is that it forgets God.”[1] That means the church has a memory problem. Memory is information that you hold in the mind; knowledge that you store away. But memory is not the same as data storage. God gave you a vast capacity for memory because you are intended to move through the story he is writing.[2] Memory is the ability to retrieve information from the past, use the information in the present, and project the information into the future. Memory is a repertoire of knowledge that can be summoned in a way that travels freely between the past, the present, and the future. It is this conjectural thinking that provides life with the depth perception necessary for faithfulness.[3]

Memory is a gift. What if there were no memory? Think of the chaos. The world would appear as a random, fuzzy collection of objects. There would be no meaning, only the arousal of innate reflexes. There would be no basis for interpretation, only the elapsed and deserted moments of the past. There would be no knowledge of the external world, only unintegrated events that lack unity and intention.

One doesn’t form memories. One is inhabited by them. The reason the world is in such a moral mess is that it is in the grip of a demonic inhabitation, willfully possessed by the dark daydreams of solipsism. If your memory canvas is painted with an amoral, asymmetrical human world, void of aesthetics and substantive only in the meaning of power patterns, then it’s no wonder people occupy a gallimaufry cosmos with no solid meaning, order, or wisdom. Love and trust become empty rationalizations, bowdlerized buzzwords that merely flatter the dominant patterns of the zeitgeist.

Lest you are already missing the point, here it is more plainly: The memories that inhabit you really do matter. A person with the wrong memory, or no memory at all, becomes barbarous, easily tyrannized by sin, obeying a nihilism masquerading as advancement.

Different Types of Memories

There are two main types of memories. The first type consists of memories of your past experiences. These experiences live in your head not just by images, but by the ability to feel emotion. There is sensory memory, such as the smell of fresh-baked bread or the sound of your favorite song, that triggers a broader recollection of your past world. There are the traumatic memories of unhealed wounds. There are embodied memories, such as the skill of riding a bike or the habit of making your bed in the morning. These experiences don’t necessarily begin as words, but they do eventually translate into language and are reborn in the imagination. Then there are memories gone askew. When psychologists note that people’s memories tend to be populated with inaccuracies, they’re pointing to a common human tendency to analyze our present circumstances and unconsciously reshape the past to make sense of who we are now.

The second type of memory is communal and inherited. Your mind contains not only what you’ve personally experienced but what others have told you. There are all kinds of influences that come into your life. There are all kinds of documents that live in your head; all kinds of narratives and images and characters—real and chimerical—that reside in the human imagination. Family stories, historical accounts, biblical symbols, cultural myths, and fictional narratives. You know characters from novels as intimately as childhood friends. You remember the Exodus, though you weren’t there. The Civil War, the Resurrection, and your grandfather’s war stories all dwell in you as memory, though not as personal experience. These transmitted memories, some factual, some legendary, some entirely invented, are the impressions, tidings, and tales that now inhabit you.

God’s Memories

God’s remembrances surpass even the strongest human memories (Is. 49:15). God’s mercy for his people is because of his memory of his people. This is part of God’s deep paternal affection (Jer. 31:20). There is an unfolding pattern of God’s memory across Scripture. In Genesis and Exodus, God’s remembrances initiate salvation. In Leviticus, God’s remembrance restores Israel, even in judgment. In the Psalms, God’s memory is cause for praise and faith. In the Prophets, the promise is renewed that God will remember his covenant despite Israel’s unfaithfulness. In the New Testament, Jesus comes as the ultimate fulfilment of God’s covenant remembrance.

The first person God remembered was Noah (Gen. 8:1a). Lest Noah get a big head, God also remembered the beasts and livestock on the ark (Gen. 8:1b). All this remembering led to action, the waters receded and preservation continued (Gen. 8:1c). Then God promised Noah that in the future he would remember the sign of the Noahic Covenant, the rainbow, ensuring preservation of the earth (Gen. 9:15f; Ps. 98:3). Lot is spared because God remembers Abraham, establishing that God’s covenant loyalty extends to Abraham’s family (Gen. 19:29). Then God remembered Rachel and ends her barrenness. This results in the birth of Joseph (Gen. 30:22). In Exodus 2:24-25, God hears the Israelites groaning and remembers his covenant with Abraham. This is the theological foundation for the Exodus (Ex. 6:5). After the golden calf incident, Moses appeals to God’s covenant memory as the reason for withholding punishment (Ex. 32:13; Dt. 9:27). God promises that even if Israel is in judgment and exile, he will remember his covenant. He will remember how he saved them from Egypt, and restore Israel (Lev. 26:42, 45; 2 Kings 13:23; Ps. 105:8; 106:45). In 1 Samuel 1:19, God remembers Hannah’s petition, and Samuel the prophet is born. God’s remembrances translate into ongoing provision for his covenant people (Ps. 111:5). Because of God’s remembrance of his people in their time of need, Israel will praise the Lord (Ps. 136:23). The birth of John the Baptist and the sending of Jesus the Son are because of God’s covenant remembrance (Lk. 1:72f). God remembers the almsgiving of Cornelius, marking out that in the New Covenant, God’s remembrance includes faithful Gentiles in covenant blessing.

Consider three key features of God’s memory. First, God’s remembrances lead to action, such as deliverance or provision. Second, God’s covenant is central. Most references connect God’s remembrance to his covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Third, God’s memory is paradoxical. When God does not remember the covenant of brotherhood, judgment comes (Amos 1:9). When God does not remember the iniquity of the people, salvation comes (Heb. 8:12). God remembers His covenant by choosing to remember sins no more. God’s people are comforted as forgiven sinners because God’s memory has changed sides.

Human Memory

Since human memory should mirror God’s memory, that means human memory also ought to have three key features. First, godly memory leads to righteous action. When God commands Israel to remember the difficult forty years they had in the wilderness, including the testing and discipline, the goal is that these memories become the foundation for present obedience (Dt. 8:2). This is also why God establishes a perpetual liturgical memory. Israel keeps the Passover as a re-presentation of God’s faithfulness, which allows each new generation to participate in the founding salvation act that created the nation-state of Israel (Ex. 12:14; 13:8f). Likewise, Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper as the New Covenant memorial (1 Cor. 11:24), where each believer participates in the salvation act of Christ’ sacrifice (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 10:14-22). Through this participation, the people of God are instructed and molded into the church.

Second, godly memory is rooted in covenant truths. There is a reciprocal nature to covenant memory. God remembers his people and has mercy. God’s people remember God’s mercy and respond with obedience (Dt. 7:9; Ps. 103:17f). Also, there is an intergenerational nature to covenant memory. God’s people are supposed to “Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father; and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you” (Dt. 32:7). It’s not just that memory is transmitted through testimony, but it’s a communal activity with God’s people in the past.

Third, godly memory forgets certain things. Christians forget the former life of sin to take a new life of holiness (Eph. 2:1-10; Phil. 3:13f; 1 Pt. 1:16). Forgetting the wrong things is spiritually dangerous. For example, forgetting God’s provision in a time of prosperity leads to pride and disobedience (Dt. 8:11-14). And forgetting God’s goodness leads to idolatry, like the golden calf (Ps. 106:21). By remembering the right things now, “the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind” (Is. 65:17) “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4).

Consider Four Further Functions of Memory

First, Memory Reinforces Relationships

Memory includes people. The people you can’t forget are the ones to whom you had a bond. Your ongoing memory of the person reveals the strength of your loyalty to the bond. It also reveals what, and who, you were paying attention to. When you forget a person, it may be simple absent-mindedness. Maybe you only met the person once. Maybe it was twenty years ago. It’s an innocent forgetfulness. Other forgetfulness is purposeful, a social excision and intentional severing of any link, a destruction of the relationship. When you remember a person, like Paul commands the Galatians to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10), you aren’t supposed to imagine some distant person in a far-off land. You are exercising your will to remember the particular poor people you know, to not remove them as if their need is undesirable to you. Your remembering is a purposeful interceding on their behalf.  

Second, Memory Awakens Transcendence

Forgetfulness is part of the fall. Which means memory doesn’t just have an intellectual dimension, but a spiritual one. What is remembering? It’s internalizing knowledge. Once this knowledge was outside of you. Now it is part of you. It might be terms, people, patterns, or concepts. It might be smells, loves, feelings, or poetry. It’s all the sensory experiences impressed on the mind to form abstract associations between the seen and the unseen.

These sensory experiences relate to “real” spiritual ideas. The more angelical the memories, the stronger the potential exists to see the true nature of things. This is near what Augustine is getting at in chapter ten of his Confessions, where memory serves as a vessel of grace. Memory becomes the mind’s capacity—the soul’s capacity—to feel the ineffable compound of Joy and Wonder, of strangeness and familiarity, in the consuming sense of Transcendent Truth. Some memories are terrifying. Others beautiful. Others mysterious. Because each person is colonized by eternity (Eccl. 3:11), each person possesses the potentiality of spiritual institutions such as faith, hope, and love. This potentiality forms the calling of every human being: to submit their human identity to the Lordship of Christ for the glory of God.

For some people, the Spirit’s sovereign sway awakens the human spirit to see the unmistakable stamp of cosmic reality, and their heart is opened to pay attention to the divine witness (Acts 16:14). The heart is freed to receive the world as something given to them, as something they inherit and experience. The heart is enabled to learn the patois of God’s universe.

For other people, the vitality and resoluteness of this Transcendence denervates their souls. They look in the mirror and see the mark of Cain, so they flee the glory cloud, preferring to vaunt the dark nakedness of an ugly autonomy rather than the beauty of the glory of the grace of God. Their heart is hardened to the unassailable facts of sex, marriage, and decency as they overturn the fixities of human nature.

If forgetfulness is soul deep, then memory improvement is spiritual restoration. Memory of what, exactly? Above all, the goodness of God, his invisible attributes, eternal power, and divine nature. When this knowledge is integrated into your own being, then the soul will honor God and give thanks to him (Rom. 1:19-21). These memories are the very first sign of the renewal of the soul.

Third, Memory fights unbelief

Psalm 126:3 describes a deliberate act of remembering. The psalmist recalls God’s past intervention, not as nostalgia, but as a foundation for renewed trust in the present. Memory has a purpose. It is not passive recollection; it is active resistance against despair. By remembering how “the LORD restored the fortunes of Zion” (Psalm 126:1), the people are strengthened to pray, “Restore our fortunes, O LORD” (Psalm 126:4). Memory turns past joy into present faith. It reorients the heart from what is to what God can do again. Memory becomes the bridge between sorrow and joy, linking what God has done with what we believe He will do.

The restored are not merely those who experience joy again. They are those who learn to remember rightly. Memory, for them, is not a gallery of fading photographs but a weapon against unbelief. In Psalm 126, joy begins not with new circumstances, but with the recollection, “The LORD has done great things for us” (Ps. 126:3). This is not sentimentality. It is theological clarity. The restored learn that to forget God’s past faithfulness is to surrender to present despair.

Righteous remembering is to anchor the soul in a truth deeper than circumstance. They rehearse the miracles, not to live in the past, but to insist that God is still who He was. Memory is about establishing thoughts based on God’s character, which is never changing. When you remember God’s character, you stop obsessing about your always-changing life situation.In this way, memory is an expression of faith looking backward, so the person can walk forward in faithfulness. Thus, memory is a spiritual weapon, not a mere mental exercise.

Fourth, Memory aids obedience

Psalm 132 refers to David’s affliction suffered while he was faithful to God in trying to find a place for the ark. Verse one asks Yahweh to “remember” David’s affliction, and so should we. At least fifteen times in the New Testament, believers are commanded to “remember.” Knowing this biblical history is important. With a biblical memory, you have two thousand years of experience from which to make off-the-cuff obedient responses to every kind of situation. If the church is going to live adequately and maturely as the people of God, we need more memories to work from than our own experience can give us.

We need the theological narrative of the Bible. This biblical history is not a museum of moral tales; it is a fortress against madness. Without it, we are at the mercy of every mood, every fashion, every gust of opinion that blows through the culture like a leaf in a storm. Modern man prides himself on spontaneity, but without the right memory, his spontaneity is merely ignorance in motion. True biblical memory is a treasury of battle-tested wisdom. And biblical memory is not just any memory; it is the memory of a people who have walked with fire and cloud, sung in prisons, and prayed in lions’ dens.

The Bible gives you commandments etched in stone and stories etched in blood, stories of the One True God and his people walking in deserts. To live without this biblical memory is to set out to sea with no map and no stars. Your own experience is a thimble of water beside the ocean of Scripture (Job 8:9). If you are to live not just impulsively, but rightly; not just reactively, but faithfully, you must root your reflexes in divine revelation.

Conclusion

The Bible is not yesterday’s news. It is yesterday’s wisdom that is alive, divine, and desperately needed today. And that is why it is good for you to study the Bible, and not just the epistles of Paul, but the stories of the Old Testament. These are not merely ancient tales. They are buried treasure. You must read the stories of Scripture and look for the typology, the history, and the theology of the Bible. This will teach you what life in God’s covenant is all about.

So you must not remain ignorant of Abraham, called from the land of Ur, the Hebrews enslaved in Egypt, David battling the Philistines, Jesus arguing with the Pharisees, or Paul rebuking the Corinthians. The obedience of memory creates a Christian who has David in his bones, Jeremiah in his bloodstream, Paul in his fingertips, and Christ in his heart. It is through biblical memory that you learn that obedience is not a stodgy plodding in the ruts of religion; it is a hopeful race toward God’s promises. That’s why learning the stories of the Bible leads to mature obedience.

Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

[1] Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Great Doctrines of the Bible: God the Holy Spirit (Crossway, 1997), 127.

[2] N.D. Wilson, Death by Living (Thomas Nelson, 2013), 96.

[3] Abby Smith Rumsey, When We Are No More: How Digital Memory is Shaping Our Future (Bloomsbury Press, 2016), 12.

The post A Theology of Memory appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

Charles Wesley’s hymn, And Can It Be That I Should Gain?, contains a rich, yet somewhat controversial line in the refrain: “… that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me.” God dying? Some will argue that this is theologically imprecise and quite dangerous. Jesus died in his humanity but not in his deity. However, that brings up another set of questions that were debated and settled at the Council of Chalcedon about the union of the two natures in the one person of Jesus. Did Jesus die as the eternal Word-made-flesh, or did he just die as flesh? “’Tis mystery all, Th’ Immortal dies! / Who can explore his strange design?”

I believe Wesley strikes the right note here (pun intended). There are aspects of the incarnation and the death of the Word-made-flesh that pass our comprehension but demand our confession, awe, and gratitude.

In John 8:21-30, Jesus speaks somewhat cryptically about his death as the I AM. Speaking of his death (along with his resurrection and ascension), he tells the Jews that he is “going away” (8:21). Returning to what he told Nicodemus in chapter three, he tells the Jews that they will “lift up the Son of Man,” again referring to his death (cf. Jn 3:14; cf. also 12:32-34). Jesus must die as the beginning of his glorification. Death is the path to the throne.

Twice in this particular dialogue with the Jews, Jesus identifies himself as I AM (which is not uncommon in John’s Gospel). In John 8:24, he tells the Jews, “if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.” Then in John 8:28 he says, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM….” The one who dies is the great I AM who revealed himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai when he commissioned Moses to deliver his people from Egypt. He is the one who led them through the Sea and wilderness into the Promised Land. I AM is the Deliverer.

Jesus is the Deliverer, and he will deliver his people and the entire created order from slavery to sin and death. When Jesus tells the Jews that they will know that he is the I AM after they have lifted him up as the Son of Man, he is calling up Daniel’s vision recorded in Daniel 7. There, the Son of Man ascends to the Ancient of Days to receive a kingdom, but he does so only after suffering. Suffering and death were always an integral part of the story. The same story is told in Isaiah 52 and 53. The servant of Yahweh will be lifted up, exalted (Isa 52:13). This exaltation will be through his suffering and death to save his people from their sins.

Jesus is the revelation of the God of the Jewish fathers. He is the Deliverer. He is the I AM. The living God, the God who has life in himself, will mysteriously submit to death to deliver his people from their great bondage to death and lead them to life.

“Amazing love! How can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?”

The post The I AM Dies? appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

When the children of Israel left Egypt, the Angel of Yahweh led them by a pillar of cloud and fire. This pillar joining heaven and earth provided shade by day, light and warmth by night, and a guide. When the children of Israel approached the Sea and turned to see the Egyptians pursuing them, the fiery, cloudy pillar moved from in front of them to behind them, serving as their rear guard. The Egyptians were engulfed in darkness while the same cloud provided light for Israel (Ex 14:19-20). This pillar of cloud and fire took them through the Sea and led them through the wilderness, ultimately to the life promised in the land of Canaan (cf. Num 9:15-23).

During the Feast of Tabernacles, recorded in John 7 and 8, this saving light of God’s presence was celebrated with great ceremony. Four seventy-five-foot lampstands, each with four enormous bowls of oil, stood in the outer court of the Temple, the court of women. Old, worn-out priestly garments provided wicks, and men would climb ladders to light the lamps. There is testimony that the light was as bright as day. Men would dance and sing with torches, celebrating God’s saving light that led them through the wilderness.

When Jesus says in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life,” he is speaking during the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2). He is the “I AM” who met with and commissioned Moses on the mountain in Exodus 3. He is the pillar that joins heaven and earth in himself. He is the fiery cloud that leads and protects the people of God, ushering them safely into the promise of life.

He is the light of life, not only for Israel, but for the world. He is the Servant of Yahweh who is given as a covenant to the nations, to be a light to the Gentiles (Isa 49:6), fulfilling the mission of the seed of Abraham to be a blessing to the nations.

He also executes death. He says that those who follow him will never walk in darkness; that is, they will not be like the Egyptians who were engulfed in darkness to be eventually consumed by the Sea. Those who do not follow him will suffer the same fate as the Egyptians.

As with Israel of old, the light must be followed. Salvation is a way of life. Salvation is not a “thing” that is given to you like a ticket to Disney World, providing you entry into the heavenly theme park at the time of death.

This past week, Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, died. Whether or not God has mercy on him in his relative ignorance is God’s judgment to make. However, with the revelation God given us of himself, Adams’s last words don’t give me a great amount of confidence. He said words as if they were a magical formula that would give him his ticket to heaven, even though he wasn’t a believer.

Many professing evangelicals treat salvation the same way. God gives me this thing called “salvation” and won’t take it away, no matter how I live. Jesus, being the saving light of the world, the pillar of cloud and fire, tells us that salvation doesn’t work this way. Salvation is a path; it is a way; it is the way. This light must be a lamp to your feet and light to your path (Ps 119:105). You must follow the Light to life through the sea and wilderness. You must follow the Light through the battles in the land. You must follow the Light through the cross. As you follow the Light, he will lead you to life.

The post I Am. The Light appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.

With that introduction, let’s get on with the book review.

What are the “strong gods”?

What does Reno mean by “strong gods”? “The strong gods are the objects of men’s love and devotion, the sources of the passions and loyalties that unite societies. They can be timeless. Truth is a strong god that beckons us to the matrimony of assent. They can be traditional. King and country, insofar as they still arouse men’s patriotic ardor, are strong gods. The strong gods can take the forms of modern ideologies and charismatic leaders. The strong gods can be beneficent. Our constitutional piety treats the American Founding as a strong god worthy of our devotion. And they can be destructive. In the twentieth century, militarism, fascism, communism, racism, and anti-Semitism brought ruin” (xxiv).[1]

Strong gods are whatever inspires love, such as “Love of the divine, love of truth, love of country, love of family” (139). To qualify as a strong god, it must be a love that “impels us outside ourselves, breaking the boundaries of me-centered existence” (139). “The strong gods of public life are quite simply the objects of our shared loves. They are whatever arouses in us an ardor to wed our destinies to that which we love” (139).

What is the relationship between the strong gods and the PWC? The goal of the PWC is to transcend ideology by creating policies based on social science (11-12). There must be no metaphysical claims and no substantive purpose to life (18). In other words, there must be no strong gods. This vision was cast by Karl Popper’s 1945 book, The Open Society and Its Enemies. His main concern was how to keep authoritarianism from resurging in society, how to keep another Hitler from taking power.

The PWC underwent a broadening and flattening with F.A. Hayek’s 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, which does better than Popper because it has a much narrower economic aim. He casts a vision for the superiority of the market economy over communism. Yet, Hayek stands on the same foundation as Popper, with a rejection of metaphysics. Hayek promotes autonomy, or a version of individualism, the essence of which is that each person is “the ultimate judge of his ends” to decide what is good or bad for me, not based on any transcendent reality, but on increasing my social utility (21).

The PWC centers on disenchantment, opening borders, and weakening moral boundaries (xxiii). Closed borders equal Auschwitz (130). The PWC is concerned with getting rid of sacred foundations and shared loyalties (138). The fundamental judgment of the PWC is that “whatever is strong—strong loves and strong truths—leads to oppression, while liberty and prosperity require the reign of weak loves and weak truths.” If there is a strong, then there must be a weak. When Reno speaks of weakening, he refers to a strictly materialistic worldview that produces relativism, sociobiology, economic analysis, diversity, inclusion, sexual perversion, and globalism.

The Circle of Totalitarianism

Ironically, the goal of Popper’s open society was to end totalitarianism, yet the result was totalitarianism. Why did it work out this way? Why did the PWC’s opposition to totalitarianism lead to a new oppression? Why did their weakening of the strong gods become a Mephistophelean strong god? It’s because the battle against ideology quickly turns into an ideology. The struggle against loyalty quickly earns people’s loyalty. The erasure of ultimate truth quickly becomes the ultimate truth. The destruction of religion quickly becomes a religion.

When you remove the One True and Living God, when you build society without any metaphysics, or Natural Law, or Bible, or human nature, or ordered loves, when your imperative is “never again,” then you must insist that it is forbidden to forbid, because the people who forbid are like Hitler. They must be censured and silenced. Put again, according to Popper, transcendence is oppression because it savagely imposes its truths on humanity (55). Popper’s logic is foundational quicksand, and it’s stunning that in the last seventy-five years, the American leadership class has tried to make its stand on it.

There is an unforeseen and savagely ironic outcome to the PWC. That which hoped to withstand totalitarianism has created it. By flipping the script so that authority comes from the bottom up rather than the top down, the sources of authoritarian control have been rearranged rather than restrained. When Karl Popper calls for social scientific governance, or John Rawls calls for public reason, they are referring to data-based arguments that often present as “studies.” Their goal is to “restrict ourselves to the universal truths of science, especially the social sciences, which purport to be value-neutral” (81).

What is the consensus of the PWC?

The consensus is that if you remove truth claims, you remove the causes of divisive loyalty and forestall authoritarianism (50). Thinkers such as Karl Popper, F.A. Hayek, Albert Camus, Jacques Derrida, and Milton Friedman, while appealing differently to the Right and the Left, all agree that society must pursue disenchantment. This is why, for the last eighty years, on the ultimate questions, the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to the ongoing critical analysis that disenchants. The result of each political program is that there are no worthy objects of loyalty and love. For the Democrats, the highest truth is cultural deregulation. For the Republicans, the highest truth is economic deregulation. Both agree that the one thing that can’t be permitted is truth claims from the God of the Bible. Metaphysical poverty must be maintained. Anyone who makes ultimate truth claims is a neo-fascist.[2]

What is the PWC’s foundation?

The foundation is value-neutral science. Social science, or economic science, or political science becomes the privileged claim, the foundational assertion, the numinous presence, even as the PWC denies metaphysics. Notice the performative contradiction. They’ve rejected the tyranny of ultimate truth claims with ultimate truth claims. Now, they wouldn’t dare call their project an ultimate truth claim, because such a claim would make them crypto-fascists. But when they refer to hundreds of studies, data sets, and scientific facts, they expect this to be received as the unassailable conclusion. This is the very sort of definite epistemological claim they are trying to withstand. So, the method of the PWC depends upon the very thing it denies, the possibility of real knowledge, the ability to grasp meaning, and the capacity to make true claims about reality.

For others, the foundation is diversity and identity politics. The more diversity was celebrated, the more people gravitated toward their “identity.” This is understandable. People want, people need, a shared loyalty. Because they are deprived of the strong gods, they create solidarity based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and other identities.

What is the result of the PWC?

Reno argues that the PWC leaves people homeless, anchored to nothing, part of nothing great, nothing enduring, nothing worthy of admiration. It erases family history and marital fidelity. People are homeless in that they are expected to eat pabulum and like it. They are taught to tear down anything worth standing. Reno writes, “This is our crisis: a disquietude born of homelessness” (103).

So, that means our current crisis was created by the PWC. What current crisis, you ask? Marriage is collapsing, boys use girls’ bathrooms, drug overdoses decimate communities, leaders push for the legalization of gambling and marijuana, the suicide rate rises, doctor-assisted suicide rises, and the church conforms to the sexual revolution. Yet, all the leadership class sees is discrimination, exclusion, and bigotry, which are inadequate as ends in themselves (143f).

PWC and Hitler

The PWC arose as a direct response to the authoritarianism of WWII, especially Hitler. One reason the PWC has failed is that they got Hitler wrong. Hitler was, of course, authoritarian, and he, along with Stalin, is absolutely the villain. But the proponents of the PWC react to that by saying that anything that engenders strong loyalties, like Hitler, tradition, religion, family, or nation, must be done away with. Hitler is branded as a nationalist who lured the German people to love their nation too much. But is casting Hitler—Hitler!—as a facilitator of too strong a love an accurate historical assessment?

For all of Hitler’s blustering about love of country and love of Germany, he proved to be the greatest enemy to Germany. His actions as the Führer systematically destroyed Germany. The German church was in stage four cancer because it prostituted itself to theological liberalism. Nazifying the church put it in the grave. The young men of Germany were killed off, an entire generation of men sacrificed for Hitler’s territorial delusions of “blood and soil.” The moral authority of Germany was forfeited when they rounded up and killed the “deplorables” in mass, mainly the Jews. The Nero Doctrine of scorched earth that finished off Germany and destroyed it once and for all means that Hitler is not a loving father who is self-sacrificing to protect his family. He is the baleful father who kills his family in a murder-suicide. If the father left a note insisting he slaughtered them out of love, any sane detective would dismiss it as the words of a selfish loggerhead.

Hitler’s love of country doesn’t explain Germany’s share in the guilt of World War II. And similar things are revealed when you survey the other belligerent nations. For example, Stalin, the leader of the USSR, was driven by an ardent internationalism rather than nationalism. The reason we have to slow down and think about Hitler is that it’s not just the PWC that has gotten Hitler wrong. Now, Hitler-love is back. People see that the PWC is bunk. In this, they aren’t wrong. It’s plain as day. The reactionaries to the PWC (and their bots) have said, “If the PWC is wrong, maybe that means Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy. He’s been misunderstood.” And so, these reactionaries, under the influence of some strong excitement, engage in Hitler rehabilitation. This pro-Hitler reaction to the PWC, alarming and avenging as it is, requires special and rather grave consideration. In particular, Hitler fanboys seem unaware that they make themselves just like those they oppose, the creators and supporters of the PWC.

The deeper cause of differing opinions is more similar than the differences themselves. Each side has a strong reaction to Hitler that misses the mark. Each is interested in preventing the rise of authoritarianism—the PWC being concerned about Hitler-type totalitarianism and the Groypers being concerned about the post-PWC woke tyranny. Both sides, no matter how noble their views are made to sound, feed an unnatural view of life, namely, the PWC eliminating metaphysics and the Groypers wondering if a certain mustached murdering madman wasn’t so bad.

The PWC, for all its components, including free markets, weak borders, and multiculturalism, has at its heart a rejection of any ultimate truth claims. By rejecting metaphysics, the PWC ended up breaking all the shields and weapons ordinary citizens had to defend themselves from power.

And this is why the PWC has failed, even as free trade and unlimited immigration deserve different estimations. A rejection of metaphysics indicates a lack of interest in life as a thing to be lived, as if love letters, private emotions, or human happiness are unnecessary excesses to human existence. Then there is Hitler, who held as his chief heresy the fundamental falsehood that there could never be a Fate or Providence outside his control. The recent movement of Hitler-love is full of moral stunts and scoops, intellectual bargaining, and self-promotion. It is a world as spiritually dead as the world of the PWC, also rejecting metaphysics, only in a coarser form. As René Girard taught us, rivalry really does eliminate differences.

What this reveals is that just like the perverse strong gods of blood, soil, and identity won’t be overcome by the open-society therapies of weakening—multiculturalism, immigration, and globalism (153), neither will the PWC be overcome by a revival of blood, soil, and identity. Something else is needed.

Conclusion

Reno says, “The crisis of solidarity threatens the West and fuels populism” (xxvii). This is why America is broken into hundreds of tribes, where each person skitters off to find their new shepherd, usually an inflammatory podcaster, and their new people, always online and usually supplemented by a large number of bots.

The PWC leads to “never-ending critique, the spontaneous order of the free market, technocratic management of utilities, and the other therapies of weakening.” The reason this fails is that “Disenchantment will not make our society more humane and hospitable.” The open society has become the enemy of shared loves and anchored convictions, be they spiritual, cultural, or political. Humans “desire to live shoulder to shoulder with our fellow man in the service of shared loves.” To destroy the strong gods requires destroying love and solidarity. Thus, the PWC is anti-human (139-140). It turns out you can’t build a home without walls.

People need shared loves that include transcendent ritual, local civic bonds, definable cultural inheritance, and a “normal” social landscape where the family is indispensable to the moral imagination. For this to happen, people need the strong gods. Not just any strong gods, but the right ones. Rebuilding shared loves starts with nurturing the local church and marriage (159). No more can people be deprived of ennobling loves (159).

Reno ends his book with these words, “Our task, therefore, is to restore public life in the West by developing a language of love and a vision of the ‘we’ that befits our dignity and appeals to our reason as well as to our hearts. We must attend to the strong gods who come from above and animate the best of our traditions. Only that kind of leadership will forestall the return of the dark gods who rise up from below” (162).

Passivity leads to death. Active love leads to life. It’s time to stop dying. Every church that is paying attention should see the damage wrought by the PWC and have a ministry that teaches and inspires people to renew their shared loves and unifying loyalties under the Lordship of Christ. This is what the orphans and bastards produced by the PWC need the most: Worship of Jesus Christ, real fellowship with the body of Christ, and a moral imagination that is centered on the household, as G.K. Chesterton said, “Loyalty in the family is the chief security for liberty in the state.”[3]

Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

[1] Page numbers will appear in parenthesis: R.R. Reno, Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West (Regnery Gateway, 2019).

[2] HT to Larson Hicks for pointing out that John Mayer’s songs “Belief” and “Waiting for the World to Change” are the ultimate, PWC anthems.

[3] G.K. Chesterton, The Story of the Family (Ignatius Press, 2022), 224.

The post Book Review: Return of the Strong Gods appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.