What is Biblical Meditation? How is different from the pagan practices of meditation? What are some current dangers that Christians are facing with the introduction of mystical practices. In a recent sermon, I dealt with these questions.
The audio for the sermon as well as my notes can be found here: SermonAudio
Dear CLA Families and Friends,
Thank you for your prayers for the Americans for Truth Conference that was held at CLA earlier in the month of August. On the first evening of the conference there were around 75-100 protestors organized by the Gay Liberation Network. Though some of the protestors were quite vulgar, rude, and even smelly, there was thankfully no violence. Some of the protestors were even willing to engage in serious conversation with some of the speakers and attendees of the conference. While the protestors were shouting about how the conference was inspired by hate, a former homosexual was sharing his story of God’s grace in his life.
I would strongly encourage you to order either CD’s or DVD’s from the conference. To learn more visit – www.aftah.org
To learn more about the protest, note the Facebook page here: GLN Protest
Introduction
Matthew begins his gospel with a genealogy that shows that God has guided the whole of Israel’s history so that it might climax in the birth of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of David and the Son of Abraham.[1] In this genealogy we see the perfect but often surprising plan of God.
1. Verse 1: Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham
Note verse 1 again: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.
Matthew’s gospel is appropriately the first of the gospels. And one way that we see this is in its opening words: the book of the genealogy. These same words in Greek are used in the Greek Translation of the Old Testament in Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 5:1. And so from the very beginning Matthew shows the connection between the Old and New Testaments. Yes, something new has come and is happening. But what is new is firmly based on what God already has done and has promised.
In the Old Testament the genealogies always take their name from who is first in the list. In Genesis 5, the genealogy runs from Adam to Noah, but since Adam, obviously was first, the genealogy is called the genealogy of Adam and not Noah. But here in verses 1-17, the genealogy is called not the genealogy of Abraham, but the genealogy of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.[2] Matthew’s original readers would not have missed this point.
The name or title Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word, Messiah. Messiah means the anointed one. It is the word used in Psalm 2:2, “The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Messiah, saying…” Christ is not simply Jesus’ last name, though often we read in Scripture the name, Jesus Christ. Since we are so familiar with the name, it is difficult for us to appreciate how a first century Jew would have heard this title. Christ or Messiah is the long-awaited deliverer of God’s people. The name Christ represents the true hopes of God’s people for four thousand years of Old Testament history and for two thousand years since the time of Abraham. It was also a misunderstood title. Jesus did not want his disciples or others to go around telling people that He was the Christ or Messiah.
The expression, Son of David, is similar in meaning to the term Messiah. Jesus as the Son of David was the true heir to the throne of Israel. But interestingly the name Son of David is used most often in connection with Jesus’ power to heal. And in Matthew’s gospel, those who use the name are mainly those who had little social or theological importance: the blind, the lame, the dumb, the demon-possessed daughter of a Canaanite woman, and children.[3] These people were able to recognize Jesus for who He is while the religious leaders rejected Him. And does this not continue today? It is the humble who are able to recognize Jesus as the true King, who call out to Him for mercy, while the proud and arrogant reject Jesus in favor of their own ideas.
Finally here the expression, Son of Abraham, which is only used here in Matthew’s gospel, shows that Jesus is the one in which the entire history of Israel has its goal. Jesus is also the one through whom God will indeed bless all the nations of the earth, as was promised to Abraham.[4]
2. Verses 2-17: History and Christ’s humanity
The word begot is used 39 times in verses 2-16. There are some missing generations, so each group of two is not necessarily father and son. What is very important to see is that in verse 16, we do not read, and Joseph begot Jesus. Rather we read, that Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. Matthew clearly shows that Jesus did not biologically come from Joseph. Rather from Mary, Jesus was born. And this verb, was born, is a different form of the word begot. And in verse 20, we have another form of this verb. Look at the end of the verse which reads, “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” This word conceived is another form of the word begot. And so there are four important things that Matthew shows here in this chapter. Jesus was not fathered directly by Joseph. He was born of Mary. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was then adopted by Joseph and so therefore he was connected to David and Abraham by legal right. And so what Matthew has given here in this genealogy is not so much the biological descent from Abraham to Jesus but rather the legal right to be the ruler of Israel.[5]
3. Verses 2-17: Four Important Women
Besides the name Mary, in verse 16, there are four other women mentioned in this genealogy. And what is somewhat surprising is that they are not the traditional matriarchs of Israel: Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel, but four women, perhaps Gentiles, who in some cases in very disturbing ways became part of the lineage of our Savior.
Genesis 38 tells the horrible story of Tamar. Tamar may have been a Canaanite. She was the daughter-in-law of Judah, married to two of Judah’s sons who were both killed by the LORD because of their wickedness. What a sad life she had. Judah was to give his third son to Tamar, but he did not. And so one day after Judah’s wife had died, Tamar dressed up like a prostitute, and Judah seeing her solicited her services. And from this perverse union, came twin boys, Perez and Zerah. Tamar was far from innocent in this story, but Judah recognized that she was more righteous that he was, which in this case was not saying much. And yet in God’s Providence, Tamar gave birth to one who was directly part of the line of Christ.
In verse 5, we find the second woman in this genealogy, Rahab. Rahab is two other times mentioned in the NT by the designation, Rahab the harlot. Of course she did not remain a harlot. And by faith she did not perish with those who did not believe, when she received the spies with peace, showing that her faith was real. According to some Jewish legends, Rahab married Joshua, but here was see that Rahab was married to a man named Salmon. And so again we see God working in unexpected ways, bringing a pagan prostitute to a knowledge of the truth and bringing her into the lineage of David and more importantly Christ.
The story of Tamar is connected to the third woman mentioned here, Ruth. Ruth, we know was at one time a pagan Moabite. But in the LORD’s grace, Ruth, the faithful friend to Naomi, became a follower of the LORD, and she too was brought into Israel and into the lineage of Christ. When Ruth and Boaz were allowed to marry, a blessing was spoken over Ruth. The people and the elders together said, “We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. 12 May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman.”[6]
The fourth woman mentioned here is not even specifically named. She is called in verse 6, the wife of Uriah. We know her of course as Bathsheba. Why isn’t her name directly listed like the others? Perhaps she is named in this way, so that we are reminded of the sin of David. And in 2 Samuel 12, when Nathan the prophet came before David to confront him of his terrible sin, Bathsheba is not named directly, but in that chapter she is also twice called the wife of Uriah. We don’t have time to review this awful story in detail. Some commentators and preachers have described David’s sin as adultery.[7] But this description implicates Bathsheba and almost makes her equal in the crime, which Scripture does not say. David’s sin is nowhere simply and directly described as adultery. It was even worse. Bathsheba loved her husband, Uriah. David clearly took advantage of her in this awful incident. And yet in God’s amazing providence, Bathsheba did become one of David’s wives and gave birth to Solomon.
Why these four women? They may be examples of how God’s plan was to bring the nations or Gentiles into His kingdom. This was not simply plan B because Israel rejected her Messiah.[8] We know that at least Ruth and Rahab were clearly Gentiles. And Tamar and Bathsheba may also have been Gentiles. It is also possible that their surprising stories prepare the way for the virgin birth of Christ, which is the ultimate surprise. These women then serve as reminders that God often works in ways most unusual and unexpected.[9] There is no sinner who is too sinful to be forgiven. The grace of God through Jesus Christ is indeed greater than all of our sin.
[2] Donald Hagner, Matthew (Word Biblical Commentary), 9.
[3] France, 286.
[4] Hagner, 9-10.
[5] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT), 33.
[6] Ruth 4:11-12.
[7] For a contrary position see Richard Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” available at http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=318&journal=1&type=pdf
Dr. Magary at Trinity also would describe David’s actions as a case of rape.
[8] Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 79-80.
[9] Hagner, 10.
Introduction: Did Columbus seek to prove that the world was round as he set out for the New World in 1492? The idea that there was a controversy over this is a hoax. Jeffrey Burton Russell explains the origin of this hoax in his fascinating book, Inventing the Flat Earth. The Flat-earth myth was propagated to seek to drive a wedge between ‘Science’ and the Bible.
Proposition: There is no conflict between the Bible properly understood and Science properly understood.
1. Modern Science Developed out of a Christian View of the World
Modern science did not develop in the advance cultures and civilizations of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and others. Though those civilizations were culturally and sometimes politically sophisticated and advanced, because they worshipped nature, true science was never able to develop. As Stanley Jaki puts it, science suffered “still births” in those civilizations. It was only in an environment, influenced by Christianity, that science was able to begin and flourish.
Why did Science spring from a Christian worldview? Today we of course see that few scientists are professed believers, there are some but they are in the minority. Even with the attacks on Christianity by many of the current champions of science, we can say with confidence that only because of a biblical view of the world was science able to flourish. Why is that the case?
If we think about, the answer is no surprise. The Bible, though not a science textbook, presents the only true view of the world and creation. The physical creation is not god. The physical world is not eternal – there was a starting point in time. God world runs in a stable and coherent manner. The physical world can be understood to a great degree because the world is real and not just our imagination. Another encouragement coming especially from the Protestant Reformation was that God wanted His people to use their talents not only in ‘religious’ service but in all areas of life. It was man’s duty to learn so that there could be benefit for others.[1] These fundamental and basic starting points are what allowed science to develop. In a worldview or religion that worships the physical world, there is no chance for true science to develop and flourish.
As an aside, there is no need for Christians to try to justify this argument by making every scientist of the past into a Christian. Isaac Newton was probably not an orthodox Christian. We don’t need to try to make all the scientists into Christians. Newton who spent a vast amount of time trying to convert lead into gold – he wrote over a million words on the subject – was still operating from a Christian worldview. His contributions to science came because of the influence of Christianity. This is a major statement, but it has been proven true historically, and we are not surprised of its truth because of our view of God and creation.
Example of Galileo – The issue was not the Bible v. Science but had more to do with Galileo’s rejection of the philosophy of Aristotle. The Roman Catholic Church based many of its ideas on Aristotle.[2]
2. Science Hardly Has a Track Record for Being Always Right
There are different theories for how science develops and progresses. Some would see a slow natural progression where science is constantly learning new truth after another. But this would be much too simplistic. Most science education does not focus enough on the history of science and the failures of scientific theories and ideas. We shouldn’t have to feel like just because many scientists believe in something, then it must be true.
Not too many years ago, it was very respectable to believe that some races of people were superior and that it was to man’s advantage to keep down the population of inferior races. This was part of the ‘science’ of Eugenics. Major universities studied ways to achieve the goal of developing an advanced race. Those deemed inferior were forbidden to marry, sterilized, and treated in other very inhumane ways. And this was all in the name of science and the supposed human good.
3. We must distinguish between science based on actual observation and careful measurements where actual theories can be tested and that science which is focused on theories that cannot really be tested. In this sense, creation is not ‘scientific’ but neither is evolutionary science.
[2] Ibid., 39.
Copyright © 2012 koinonia. All Rights Reserved.