Theology

When Religion Runs Out of Wine

This is a preview of the forthcoming publication, The View from Above. The official release will include explanatory and bibliographical footnotes that are absent from the preview.

When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."

…Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine….and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

…When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:3, 7-10, 13-22)

The miracles of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of John were historical events. They are not mere legends or symbols, but they happened at definite times and places, and produced the effects described by the text. That is, when miracles of healing are reported, those individuals had actual ailments and defects, and these were cured by the power of Christ, so that they no longer had these ailments and defects. When it is reported that Jesus commanded a storm to cease, there really was such a storm – the winds really blew, and the waters really moved – and the dangers and fears associated with it were actual and historical. But at Christ's command, the winds and waters became still. This is a rather elementary principle to a proper reading of the Gospels, and indeed all of Scripture. It is not up for discussion, and anyone who disagrees with this should be regarded as an enemy of the Christian faith.

When we read that Jesus turned water into wine, that was what happened. By an act of divine power, he changed one physical substance into a different physical substance. The event involved a number of things that were not subject to human control. They were not playing games – it was a serious situation that could lead to great embarrassment for the hosts. If they had more wine, they would have brought it out, and the matter would have never been raised. Then, the servants were the ones who brought the water and who filled the jars. And they were the ones who brought out the water that had been turned into wine to the master of the banquet, who tasted this wine and commented on its superior quality. There was no trickery, and no elaborate showmanship.

Thus the miracle "revealed his glory." It was a demonstration of his power, that he could do such a thing. The manner in which he performed the feat also demonstrated his spiritual confidence or assurance. The Gospel would go on to stress this a number of times, showing that Jesus always knew what he would do. He was never at a loss, never in a panic, never thrown into a state of turmoil or desperation. There were flaws in all the prophets, albeit not in their inspired words. Abraham produced Ishmael, Moses struck the rock in anger, Samson betrayed his vow, David committed murder and adultery, Isaiah had to be cleansed, but in Jesus we see one who had no flaw. In him was more than a disposition to holiness, as we see in the prophets, but the very definition of holiness, as we see in God.

These remarks lead us to the next point, namely, in the Gospel of John the greatest aspect of a miracle is not in its evidentiary power, but in its revelatory power. In other words, the significance of the fact that Jesus turned water into wine was not only in showing that he could do it, but when explained and considered in a proper theological context, it serves as an illustration about God and his relation to his creatures and his creation. Since John devotes much attention to this aspect of the miracles of Jesus, and selects and arranges his materials with this in mind, he prefers to designate these acts of power as "signs." They are historical events that convey spiritual meaning. Now, John selects and arranges his materials with purpose, and there is a definite progression of thought. The Cana episode is best read together with what comes immediately after, or the temple episode. Like John 1, other than what they convey by themselves, these passages continue to set the tone for the rest of the Gospel.

The Jewish religion had run out of wine. I am not referring to the system of doctrine and worship prescribed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament religion was a revelation from God, and it was right for its purpose. But the Jews of Jesus' time did not follow the Old Testament. Instead, as Jesus said elsewhere, they had invented their own traditions by which they pretended to follow God's commands, but that in reality served to subvert or to work around them. The religion of the Jews was not the religion of the Old Testament.

There are some Christians who think that the Jews rejected Jesus because they were too attached to the Old Testament, too hung up on the law, but this is entirely false. The Jews did not believe Moses, and did not obey the laws that he delivered. They followed their own traditions, invented by men for men, and practiced to impress men and to gain the approval of men. Despite the appearance that they tried to maintain, it had little to do with the worship that God commanded through the prophets. If they had believed and followed Moses, they would have recognized Jesus for who he was (John 5:46).

Although the temple was the focal point of their religion, since they were not serious about the worship of God in the first place, the Jews had turned it into a marketplace. Jesus came to put an end to this. He used a whip to chase the sheep and cattle out of the temple, scattered the coins of the money changers, and even overturned their tables. This was a remarkable and daring display for a number of reasons. Among these we must note that although the text does not say that he struck anyone, this was nevertheless a physically violent act. There is no way around it, and we should not find a way to put it otherwise. Jesus invaded the merchants' businesses, and disturbed properties that, humanly speaking, did not belong to him.

This is the Jesus I know. This is the Jesus that I have always known since I first read the Scripture as a child, and human traditions have not been able to take him away from me. Those who hold to a false concept of Christ would have disapproved of him, and even now they show their disapproval by presenting a Christ that has been tamed and caged. We would expect to find this false Christ among the liberal theologians, but almost as often he is also preached by the Reformed and the Evangelicals. They claim to uphold the Christ of Scripture, but theirs is in fact the Christ of their tradition or denomination. This is Jesus Christ – the one who turned over tables. He did not behave this way all of the time, but he did at least some of the time. Either take all of him, or none of him. They say that they take all of him, but their hypocrisy shows in how they react to those who come in his name and follow his example.

Jesus came to destroy the Jewish religion, and to set his people free from the burden that it placed upon men's conscience. Of course, he could have cleared the temple a hundred times and it would not have effected a permanent change. What he did at the temple foreshadowed the destruction of Jerusalem that would occur within one generation of his earthly ministry. He was committed to the permanent conclusion of the Jewish religion and he came in AD 70 through the Roman army, which slaughtered thousands of Jews and destroyed their temple. The Jews that survived were dispersed, and their system of worship was dismantled. As Jesus says in one of his parables, "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others" (Mark 12:9). Jesus in his human body overturned the Jews' tables. Jesus in his divine power overturned the Jews' nation and religion.

However, what really put an end to the Jewish religion was not its destruction, but the fulfillment of what the temple signified in the person of Jesus Christ. When Jesus died, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The way to God was now open to everyone through Jesus Christ, apart from the Jewish temple, and apart from all Jewish rituals and traditions. Then, within one generation of this event, the Jews were slaughtered, Jerusalem was burned, and the temple was destroyed. The Jewish religion would never be restored as anything that has real significance. Of course, men can make a building and implement a religion, just like I can use popsicle sticks to construct a temple on my desk and call my room Israel. But all that would have no spiritual significance, and it would not be a religious system that God accepts. There is no legitimate Jewish worship today, and there never will be again. The only true worship is Christian worship. Just like anyone else, a Jewish person can become a Christian and offer true worship through Jesus Christ. But just like anyone else, a Jewish person can never be righteous before God or offer him true worship unless he becomes a Christian. The Jewish person has no special standing with God just because he is a Jew, and he never will on that basis. Anyone who comes to God must come through Jesus Christ, or he cannot come at all.

The Jewish religion had no reality and no power, only a long list of self-serving traditions designed to excuse themselves from obeying the commands of God. Those who offered genuine worship did so through faith, and in spite of the human traditions that stood in their way. Jesus, on the other hand, came and brought reality, truth, power, salvation – wine superior to all that went before. He did not effect this change through economics or politics, or the methods of men, but by truth that came from heaven, and a divine power that was beyond a mere form of religion, but that could change water to wine, and that could bring the dead to back to life. It is through him that people can find reality and power in religion, and worship God in spirit and in truth. The Gospel tells us about this reality and power, and how we can sit at the wedding feast of Christ.

Alas, sinful human nature has remained the same, and many churches today have run out of wine. This is not because Christ has run out of wine – he makes wine by his inexhaustible power – but because these churches have very little to do with him. They have strayed from a simple and sincere devotion to Christ, and have turned to a religion of their own making.

They have turned to follow their own desires and traditions, both in matters of doctrines and ethics. Examples are too numerous for me to compile a balanced collection – one could easily name several hundred things – so I will mention only several that come to mind.

Churches have redefined compassion in order to justify divorce and remarriage, when the former is forbidden by Scripture, and the latter is permitted only after the death of the spouse. Denominations have redefined love in order to permit homosexuals to marry, and to even become ministers in their churches. But Paul writes that the wrath of God is poured out against the likes of these – both the homosexuals and those who approve of them. Some have abused the doctrine of the goodness of creation and the so-called "cultural mandate" to justify worldly pursuits, political ambitions, and personal expressions. The cumulative effect of hundreds or even thousands of traditions, each designed to subvert biblical teaching, is the almost total loss of truth, reality, life, and power in the churches.

They have turned the Christian faith into a marketplace. They use gimmicks to draw crowds, and they have commercialized the propagation of Christian doctrine and culture. Jesus has become a product for them to sell. They hit upon a marketable idea – a special prayer or fast, a novel series, a catchy slogan or song – and then comes the calendars, workbooks, seminars, jewelry, and movies to profit from that idea. The world has awards shows, so we will have them too. The world has concerts, so we will have them too. The church should gather to worship, but very often it has become a place for social gatherings to please men, and to facilitate business and personal relationships.

If even genuine signs effected by divine power did not in themselves produce true believers, then still less can worldly gimmicks and a commercialized Christianity lead people to faith in Christ. The Gospel tells us that Jesus did not need men to tell him about men, that they would appear to believe in him but do not in fact believe. The contemporary church either lacks this basic insight into human nature, or it really does not care about making true progress for the gospel at all. Like the Jews, they have subverted divine revelation by human tradition. Their religion is a way of life and thought made by men for men, to advance men's desires and ambitions, to approve one another, and to indulge their lusts.

We deceive ourselves if we think that Jesus does not judge his churches. As Paul writes, "For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off" (Romans 11:21-22). As the body of Christ, the church will remain forever. God will always reserve for himself a remnant of faithful believers, and he will never destroy the church as he did the Jewish nation. However, we cannot say the same about individual congregations and individual believers.

Revelation 2 and 3 show us that Jesus scrutinizes every community of Christians with a penetrating gaze, and that the fate of each church rests in his power. He dispatches messages to seven congregations. His remarks reveal that his standards are high, but they are also very clear. In sum, he is pleased with those who maintain sound doctrines and ethics with zealousness even in the face of temptation and persecution, and he disapproves of those who fail to do so. Today, most churches fall far short of this. Do they – the leaders and the members of these communities – really think that no calamity will befall them? Is there a proper basis for this complacent attitude? What does the Scripture say? Does it show us a pattern of perpetual immunity or a pattern of eventual reckoning? We must not mistake God's patience for a lack of concern or even an inability to punish.

There is no fear of God in the churches. They do not believe that God will act. They say, "We are the Church of the Lord, the Church of the Lord, the Church of the Lord. No evil will befall us. Surely goodness and mercy will follow us all the days of our lives." But if they have departed from Christ in their doctrines, in their ethics, and in their practices, will the bare banner of Christ save them? Surely what was true of the Jews is now also true of them, that they draw close to God with their lips, but their hearts are far from him. Will God spare ones such as these? Surely Christ walks among his churches to judge and to punish. Paul told the Corinthians that because of their irreverence toward the body of the Lord, many of them were weak, sick, or even dead. And he said that they were judged by the Lord so that they would not be condemned with the world. If Jesus Christ would inflict sickness on unruly believers and even kill some of them, how much more will he torment those who reject the gospel?

Many Christians lean toward a deistic faith because of their unbelief, so what I say here is not stressed often. The Lord killed Ananias and Sapphira in a dramatic and apparently instant manner, in a way that comes under extraordinary providence. He also killed some of the Corinthians, but most likely in less spectacular ways, through ordinary providence, so that Paul had to indicate the reason to them. This thought ought to dawn on us: whenever he sees fit, the Lord kills the people who displease him. For Christians, this is discipline, so that they will not be condemned like unbelievers. For non-Christians, this is the beginning of everlasting punishment in hellfire. The point is that God kills people, even today, even in our churches. Sometimes he does this by extraordinary providence, but rarely, thus it is called extraordinary. But ordinary providence is still effected by his decree and power, and one who dies this way is just as dead as the one who dies under extraordinary providence. He watches. He acts.

No one should think that Christ does not see or that he does not act among his people and in the world. He is not waiting to sort everything out only after people die. He exacts punishments even in this life. But Christians do not think about this, do not believe this, or they are so blind that they do not even notice when it is happening. Paul wrote that God cannot be mocked, but whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. The churches have been reaping – reaping in sicknesses, in bankruptcies, in loss of attendance and membership, in an absence of spiritual fruit and theological aptitude, in ethical and financial scandals, and in a myriad of ways. They face oppositions from without, and implosions from within. They have sown to the indulgence of the flesh, and now Christ punishes them, and their own children – entire generations of them – forsake them.

Nevertheless, it is during times like this that God's remnant is revealed. In Exodus 32, Moses saw that Aaron had allowed the Israelites to get out of control, to worship a golden calf, so that they had "become a laughingstock to their enemies" (v. 25). So he said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me," and the Levites rallied to him. Then he ordered them to slaughter their own people. The Levites complied, and killed about three thousand of them. Thus Moses said to them, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day" (v. 29). God-centered religion produces a true zeal that enables one to condemn his own people for their defiance against the doctrines of the Lord. And this zeal is one sign of genuine faith. As John 2 also points out, it was zeal for his Father's house that moved Jesus to overturn the merchants' tables in the temple (v. 17). The Lord will use the disobedience and faithlessness of his churches to sift out the true from the false. His remnant will be those who are willing to separate themselves and denounce apostate churches and denominations.

In other words, it is to be expected that the true disciples of Jesus Christ will also turn over some tables. There are tens of thousands of pastors and professors who undermine or even deny biblical inerrancy, the deity of Christ, the atonement for sin by blood, and other basic and essential doctrines. They should be removed from their positions right away. If necessary, they should be physically (but legally) thrown out of the premises by authorized personnel. As it is written, "Expel the evil man from among you." What are they doing in our midst in the first place?

Churches, seminaries, and even entire denominations that tolerate heretics should be confronted, and if necessary, overthrown and destroyed. A pastor or professor who, say, denies biblical inerrancy or approves of homosexuality, sends the world a mixed or a false message, and cause believers to stumble. Those who tolerate, defend, or endorse such a person share in his guilt. This also applies to individual Christians, who have long tolerated and even kowtowed to heretics. If you are loyal to Christ, why do you call a person "doctor" this or that in a church or seminary setting, when he rejects biblical inerrancy or shows himself a heretic in some other way? Why should I respect someone just because he studied very hard to become a heretic? Why should I stand in awe of his academic and ecclesiastical credentials when they only signify that other evil men approve of him?

The Gospel says that Jesus acted the way he did because of his zeal for God. Do we have any zeal of God? Some say they do, but what a bunch of cowards and hypocrites they are, if even when they purport to stand up for God and lambaste unbelief, they do it with an air of academic courtesy. Where was Jesus' sense of courtesy when he chased away the merchants' sheep and cattle, and when he turned over their tables, and scattered their money all over the temple? May their social propriety perish with them, "But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin" (Micah 3:8). They refuse to do the same, and even criticize those who do, because they do not have the Spirit of God.

The Jews demanded Jesus to prove his authority (2:18). If Christ was challenged on this matter, and if you are his disciple, then you will also be challenged by the religious establishment. Their idea of authority is based on human approval, so that if we are to initiate reform, we must not appeal to mere human approval as our license to speak and to act even if we have it. As Donald Guthrie observes, Jesus "did not have official sanction for his mission. The Jewish hearers entirely missed the sanction of God himself in the mission of Jesus." There is a perverted understanding of spiritual authority among denominations, seminaries, churches, and believers – it is based on men's approval of one another. But as long as their concept of divine authority is defined by human approval, there is no basis for thinking that they have divine authority or approval for what they say and do. So what gives them the right to oppose other people, to oppose those who oppose them? Where does their authority come from?

Reformers will always be persecuted because they lack human approval, since if they have human approval, they would not be reformers. It also means that reformers will be in the minority, and sometimes they even have to stand alone. Jeremiah, for example, stood alone against the whole nation. He was considered a troublemaker, even a traitor to his people. But he was indeed sent from God. He was right, and everyone else was wrong. His words were vindicated by fulfillment, but even before that, he was supported by the Law.

So I do not say that a reformer is accountable to no one (he is accountable to God), and that he cannot be judged as false until it is too late (he is judged by the word of God). No, I only say that a man's calling cannot be vindicated by an appeal to human approval, and neither can it be challenged because he does not appeal to it. On the other hand, those who appeal to human approval to assert themselves or to challenge others can be safely ignored. Now, we refer to reformers only to stress a point, but reformers, at least in the sense intended here, are needed only when the norm must be overturned. But the principle stated about divine authority and human approval applies to all ministers of God.

Many churches have run out of wine, and they are dying, if not already dead. But Jesus Christ can turn water into wine, and even bring the dead back to life. To revive the churches, we must return to a simple and sincere devotion to Christ, not the Christ that has been tamed, caged, or altered, but the one that this Gospel testifies about. But this means that many traditions must die – doctrinal, ecclesiastical, social, cultural, academic, and all kinds of unbiblical traditions invented by men. We must bring people to know and to adore this Jesus as he really was and as he really is. This is not done through gimmicks, but by simply telling people to "come and see" – that is, by providing reliable testimony about him, so that the Spirit of God may also grant our hearers the understanding that he who came from heaven was indeed the Christ, the Son of God, that he had died, but was raised from the dead, so that all who believe in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

A Man Sent from God

This is a preview of the forthcoming publication, The View from Above. The official release will include explanatory and bibliographical footnotes that are absent from the preview.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. (John 1:6-8)

The Gospel calls John the Baptist a man who was "sent from God." This means that God conceived of him and decreed that he would serve a specific purpose. And after he was born, God prepared him to be the exact instrument that he wanted him to become. Then, God authorized him and anointed him with his Spirit. John was conscious of his purpose because God communicated this to him. He had received a commission from God. John was conscious of his obligation and authority to speak and to act because of this commission. Within the boundaries defined by the commission, John was speaking and acting on behalf of God with the authority of God, since he was sent by God.

There is a crisis of confidence and authority among Christian ministers. This is partly due to confusion regarding the proper basis of spiritual authority. The problem exists among all groups and denominations. Their theology of ministry is entirely inadequate to explain the legitimacy of their work.

Suppose I ask, "Who authorized you to lead and to speak, men or God?" I would not get an adequate answer from the typical minister, whose self-understanding is usually deficient.

If his authority came from men, then why is he speaking for God? What makes the men who authorized him better than other men who believe very different things, and who therefore might not have authorized him for ministry? And since his authority came from men, why do I have any obligation to listen to him? If he argues that these men were placed in position of authority by God, so that they exercise legitimate authority, in this context it changes almost nothing at all. It still does not explain which particular minister has authority over me, or if I must heed the authority of all the ministers ordained by men who oppose one another. If the argument amounts to saying that a man has legitimate authority if he is authorized by any organized group of men, then unless some qualifications are made to this, it would also legitimize any religion that has any kind of authority structure. But if to answer this he appeals to the authority of divine revelation, so that not all authorities are legitimate on matters of religion, then this brings us back to all the previous questions: Who authorized him, men or God? Which group of men, even "Christian" men, are legitimate? His answers appear to make him no different than any other person.

Perhaps he would be unwilling to say that his authority came from men, but that God himself had authorized him to perform the work of ministry. But then suppose I say, "Good. On what basis do you say that your authority came from God?" He might give an answer that again appeals to the approval of men. Why should I believe that you know anything? "Well, I have a degree from the seminary." But often this tells me only about the poor standards of the seminary, so that someone like him could come from it, or that the seminary had overlooked a dud – or probably thousands of duds. What authority do you have to lead and to speak? "Well, I was ordained by my denomination." Right, but why must I respect your denomination? Who authorized your denomination? If the denomination is just a group of men who approve one another, and if your ordination is only another instance of this mutual approval, then it is not very different than a bunch of Pharisees calling each other righteous. It is totally meaningless. Human approval many times over does not divine authorization make.

When they talk about the canonization of Scripture, they insist that the church only acknowledged the divine authority that was already in the collection of inspired documents, and did not confer authority upon it. The Bible would be just as authoritative even if the church had failed to acknowledge it for whatever reason decreed by divine providence. Of course, although the Scripture claims divine authority for itself, since it does not promise that the church as a community would acknowledge its authority, in principle we must allow to stand the possibility that the church could have failed to acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, we would make the church's acknowledgement the test of the authority of Scripture, which would make the authority of Scripture come under the authority of the church, which in turn would defeat the very doctrine that the church tries to affirm, that it only acknowledged the authority that was already there.

The question is whether the same thinking applies to how the church regards divine authority in other areas, such as individuals called to the ministry. We find one example in Acts 13: "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off" (v. 2-3). The Holy Spirit had already called these men. It was not up to the church to authorize or not authorize them, but only to agree and to obey. Again, God had already called them, so even if the church had disobeyed, the men would have still been commissioned and authorized by God, just as the Bible would remain a divine revelation even if no one acknowledges it.

Likewise, to assume that the church would without fail acknowledge every person that God has called leaves no possibility for an imperfect or even an apostate church. However, Scripture does not say that the church will acknowledge every legitimate minister without fail, or that no church can be imperfect or even apostate. Sometimes it is said that even if an individual is called by God, he should not be allowed to function until he receives the church's recognition. But the Bible does not teach this anywhere, and the doctrine is rather suspicious. It grants the church the right to ignore or nullify God's call. It also makes church reformers impossible – at least it makes all of them sinners until their views become the norm. If the claim is that God himself has instituted church order and therefore will ensure its proper function, this is refuted by examples of confused and disobedient churches in the New Testament. Scripture leaves room for God to raise up faithful servants to address and correct churches that have strayed from his principles and that would fail to acknowledge legitimate authority.

If it is agreed that church ordination only acknowledges a divine commission, then the commission exists without the ordination, and there must be a basis for the authority other than and prior to the ordination. In other words, our ministers have their Acts 13:3 event, but where is their Acts 13:2 event? Does the completion of Scripture render this unnecessary? Does the doctrine of cessationism render this impossible? But the Scripture does not affirm the relevance of its completion to this question, and it does not approve the doctrine of cessationism. These are religious traditions invented by men to cover their own unbelief and deficiencies, and to divert attention away from questions about their competence and authority. All this is sheer made-up rubbish.

A true representative of God wields divine authority because he has received a commission from God and he has been empowered by the Spirit. Do you have a seminary degree? Men will despise it. Unless you have what it takes apart from your seminary degree, it will only accentuate your incompetence. Do you have ordination papers? Try using that in place of the shield of faith. The devil will laugh at it and drive his fiery darts straight into your heart. Regardless of how many men endorse you, human approval will never transform into divine authority and power. After all, a degree, ordination, and such things are nothing more than and nothing other than men's opinion regarding your qualifications. A true man of God is taught by God and filled with his Spirit. A man who has received a commission from God is a man who has authority from God, and he will produce fruit that is consistent with the biblical description of a man of God. If a person leans on human approval in his own thinking or in defending himself to others, it shows either that he has no commission from God, or that he is in such a state of weakness and unbelief that he has no confidence in it.

Let me offer an example on how a loss of divine authority can distort our thinking about ministry. It might be too subtle for some people to notice, and perhaps for this reason, it is a good illustration of the depth of the damage.

First, we need to read 1 Peter 4:10-11. The passage says, "Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen."

The passage makes a broad statement to the effect that all believers should faithfully administer the abilities that God has given them, and then it divides these believers into two groups – those who are gifted to speak and those who are gifted to serve. Of course, every believer may speak the truth about God, but Peter has in mind those who have received a spiritual gift for a ministry of speaking. Also, to speak is to serve in a sense, but a distinction is made here so that serving stresses those spiritual works whose chief characteristics do not involve speaking. Peter is saying that each person should use whatever gift he has received. The one who speaks should use his gift to speak, and thus do it as one speaking the very words of God. The one who serves should use his gift to serve, and thus do it with the strength God provides.

Now, John Piper cites this passage in his The Supremacy of God in Preaching; however, according to his interpretation, Peter's meaning is that the one who speaks should use the Bible! Of course we should use the Bible, but the passage makes an altogether different point. Peter does not say, "If anyone speaks, he should quote the Bible." No. He says, first, each believer should use the gift he has received to perform his ministry. So if he speaks, let him speak using the gift he has received, and he would be doing it as one speaking the very words of God. If he serves, let him serve using the gift he has received, and he would be doing it by the strength of God.

Piper transfers all authority to the Bible alone, although Peter is talking about the person that God has called and gifted. Three times Peter states the principle associating a believer to a charismatic ("grace") gift, but Piper changes the second so that the one who speaks is now associated with the public and objective text of Scripture. But then the one who speaks is cut off from any relation to a charismatic gift, subverting the structure and meaning of the passage.

As if to maintain a relation between the person and the gift, Piper combines the two groups into one, and construes the passage into saying that the one who speaks should speak the Bible with the strength of the Spirit. This is an outright alteration of what Peter says, done to maintain one's theological prejudice. Peter's point is clearly that the one who serves can serve in God's strength because he has received the charismatic gift to serve, and that the one who speaks can do it as one speaking the very words of God because he has received the charismatic gift to speak.

This is embarrassing to those who affirm cessationism, or who reject this aspect of biblical teaching. It might mean that they are not speaking by the gift of God, or that they are not called to speak at all, and thus do not have the gift. I am convinced that most ordained ministers of whatever persuasion or denomination are in this position. On what basis do you speak to me? By whose authority do you lecture me? Do you speak to me on the basis of human credentials and by the authority of men? Get out! Send in someone who knows that he has received a commission from God, who has been endowed with a gift from God, and who can address me as one speaking the very words of God.

Jesus and Revelation

This is a preview of the forthcoming publication, The View from Above. The official release will include explanatory and bibliographical footnotes that are absent from the preview.

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18, NASB)

Two thousands years ago, God the Son took upon himself human nature and walked among us. As great as this event was, there are right ways to describe it and wrong ways to describe it. For example, it could be misleading to describe it with a cliché expression like saying that it "altered the course of history." This is because it did no such thing – although it was a most significant point in history, history itself had been running in the precise direction decreed by God, a direction that had been building toward and that had cumulated in the incarnation of Christ. God had prepared the world for his coming, so that the conditions were exactly right for the Son of God to come to us as a man to instruct mankind, to atone for sin, to defeat the devil, and to demonstrate the love and the power of God. This is a more accurate way to understand the incarnation.

Earlier I mentioned a teaching that, probably due to false piety and the influence of non-Christian thought, overstates the necessity of the incarnation when it comes to our understanding of God. It suggests that God is almost entirely hidden from us and unintelligible to us apart from the incarnation. This teaching, to whatever degree it is affirmed, is an insult to and a denial of the whole revelation of the Old Testament. God can be known, understood, and discussed with clarity and precision apart from the incarnation. He does it himself in the Old Testament through the prophets, and John makes a point of doing this in this Gospel before he mentions the incarnation. Again, this is not to devalue the incarnation – the greatness of the incarnation is such that there is no need to exaggerate it in order to honor it.

Some people insist that it is impossible to understand or to discuss God "in the abstract," but this is only because of their refusal to accept a God that can be explained in speech and grasped by intelligence. They talk so much about how impossible it is to understand God with their finite minds that it seems that they are even arrogant about their ignorance. Indeed, it is presumptuous to assume that we know so much about God as to know that we could not understand him even if he were to explain himself to us, even if he were to think that we can understand him. It is a false humility and a lazy theology. It is a private conception of divine transcendence that is so fiercely insisted upon that it amounts to a rejection of divine immanence. This criticism, it seems, applies more or less to almost all theologians in history. But it is not up to them to dictate what God can tell me or what I can understand.

This leads us to another false teaching about the incarnation, probably also invented due to false piety and the influence of non-Christian thought. I refer to the notion that Jesus Christ brought us a superior revelation in the sense that he brought a personal revelation and not a mere intellectual or propositional revelation. In other words, it is said that his person was the revelation, or that his main contribution in terms of revelation was his person, and this was more significant than the words said by him or about him. Proponents of this view would perhaps claim no higher support than the Gospel of John. However, the Gospel teaches the opposite.

Our verse says that Jesus came and "explained" God. This sets the tone for the rest of the Gospel, and we find many instances where this is illustrated. The Samaritan woman in John 4 says, "I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us" (v. 25). This could be her opinion about what the Messiah would come to do, but keep in mind that the Gospel presents episodes from the life of Christ that are meant to educate us about him. In any case, Jesus answers, "I who speak to you am he" (v. 26). He was the Messiah that she expected, who would "explain everything."

Then, in John 6, when his hearers become offended and turn away from him, Jesus asks the Twelve, "You do not want to leave too, do you?" (v. 67). And Peter answers, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (v. 68). He focuses on the words, or the propositions and doctrines, and this is in a context where he affirms that Jesus is "the Holy One of God" (v. 69). In John 18, when Jesus answers Pilate, he says, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (v. 37). A testimony is a verbal declaration about someone or something, and he has come to give a verbal declaration about truth. This is how he defines his own mission.

Commenting on John's Prologue, William Barclay writes, "Jesus did not come to talk to men about God; he came to show men what God is like, so that the simplest mind might know him as intimately as the mind of the greatest philosopher." This is wrong both in the general principle assumed, and in the particular case of Jesus. Take John 13 as an example. There it is said that Jesus washed his disciples' feet. In doing this, he said, "I have set you an example." So if ever Jesus wanted to teach by "showing," this was it. But he told Peter to his face, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand" (v. 7). After he was finished, he said, "Do you understand what I have done for you?" (v. 12), and proceeded to offer an extensive explanation.

The disciples did not understand the significance of his action, so that it had to be verbally explained – Jesus talked to them about it. He talked to them about what he showed them. And the explanation included principles that could not be inferred from the action. For example: "You also should wash one another's feet," and "No servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him" (v. 14, 16). He talked to them about what he could not show them. Even "the greatest philosopher" could not have inferred with certainty Jesus' intention or the lesson he taught. His concrete action baffled the disciples, but even the simplest mind could have grasped the abstract explanation that he offered.

Barclay reflects a common opinion, but it is the exact opposite of what John's Gospel teaches. Although it is unbiblical and nonsensical, it is stubbornly maintained due to false piety. It must be discarded if we are to truly honor the work of Jesus Christ. He came to show us more of what God is like by talking to us about him. It was mainly an intellectual "showing," not a physical or sensory demonstration. As John writes elsewhere, "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true" (1 John 5:20).

Another way to state the popular view is, as Barclay writes, "To see truth we must look at Jesus." By this he means that "very few people can grasp abstract ideas," so that they are more able to learn when something is shown to them rather than talked about. We have already exposed this error. But what about the idea that we should "look at" Jesus? Is there any biblical basis for it?

In John 12:44-45, Jesus says, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me." And in John 14:9, he says, "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" People seize upon this kind of statements to assert that Jesus brought us a personal revelation and not a propositional revelation.

But what did Jesus have in mind what he said these things? And what did John have in mind as he related these snapshots from the life of Christ?

These verses in John 12 and 14 have been misused. In John 12, Jesus continues, "As for the person who hears my words…There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words…For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it….So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say" (v. 47-50). Likewise, in John 14, Jesus immediately refers to his words, "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own" (v. 10).

It is popular to stress a personal revelation using the statements, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father," and "I am in the Father" and "the Father is in me." But what was he talking about? He was talking about his words, his discourses, his doctrines. He was referring to an intellectual "seeing" all along. To "see" Jesus was to "see" the Father because Jesus said what his Father told him to say.

Therefore, the Bible again teaches the opposite of what these people affirm. One must rip these passages out of their context in order to assert an alternate meaning for what it means to "see" Jesus. This is what those who affirm the popular view have done. In asserting their idea of a personal revelation in contrast to the propositional, they never paid attention to what this person had to say. And I wonder how much they respect this person after all.

Jesus revealed God not by just showing up, but by speaking up. He revealed God not just by being a person, as if his very incarnation or his very existence as a man communicated God to the world, but he revealed God by speaking about him, using words to tell people about the attributes, purposes, and precepts of God. The notion that Jesus came to help us know God rather than to help us know about God is complete nonsense. Again, this is tied to the error that the revelation of God, or at least the superior revelation of God, is personal and not propositional. On the other hand, John's Gospel teaches us that Jesus Christ was a personal manifestation, who came to offer us a propositional revelation. The emphasis is never on physical sense or empirical seeing, but on spiritual understanding and intellectual perception. John would repeat this theme throughout the Gospel.

Jesus came and gave us a revelation of God. It is often suggested that he came to give us a revelation that was superior to previous revelations, in that God gave us propositional revelations by the prophets, but he gave us a personal revelation in Jesus Christ. This is a false contrast. Jesus was superior in his person than all the prophets, but he was a superior person who gave propositional revelation. As Hebrews 1:1-2 states, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son." In other words, in Jesus Christ, God did not give us something superior to verbal revelation, but he had a superior person to give us verbal revelation. There is no contrast between the personal and the propositional.

"All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). The Spirit of Christ was the inspiration of the prophets, so that their words are just as authentic and authoritative as the words of Christ, since they are all the words of Christ. Jesus did not speak in red letters. He spoke all the words of the Bible. The difference was that the prophets did not have the fullness of understanding, and certainly no single prophet had insight into the entire plan of God. On the other hand, Jesus had the Spirit without measure, and spoke from perfect understanding. Moreover, he said that he came "from above," from the Father, and that he testified about God on that basis. This suggests that he spoke from recollection rather than revelation as such, and he talked about the things of God in a fuller, deeper, and more explicit manner. In any case, the point is that what he brought remained a propositional revelation.

Beware of a false piety that is exhibited in a constant sense of mystery, that which equates indefiniteness with spirituality, and that which cannot be put into words as the highest wisdom. It is a form of reverence that requires very little effort and almost no obedience, but that makes a person feel good about himself, and that gain the admiration of others. It is not a way to embrace the person of Christ, but rather to escape him. He has revealed himself to us in propositions, in doctrines to be grasped by the intellect. True piety, therefore, is to study those words, understand them, believe them, and obey them. This is how you learn from a person. This is how you respect a person.

Jesus was God's personal manifestation, who came to deliver a propositional revelation. This truth defines Christian growth and ministry. Now we know how to learn about God and how to teach others about God. We understand that God is transcendent. But this very understanding comes from his immanent propositional revelation. As the Bible says, "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart" (Romans 10:8). If you want to know God, he is not far from you. You do not need him to appear in the flesh. You do not need to feel some special presence. You do not need to grasp a "person" in contradistinction to grasping the words said by the person, and words that reliable witnesses said about this person.

Words can be spoken, written, understood, and memorized. They are clear and public, so they can be studied, discussed, proclaimed, believed, and obeyed. There is no indefiniteness in how you can know God or whether you know him. And there is no excuse not to know him. No one can say that the way is ambiguous, or that it is impossible to fathom his "person," for he has explained himself in clear propositions. Likewise, we introduce God to other people not by presenting his "person," but by talking about him. Of course we should live out the doctrines that we proclaim, and become good examples to others. But because we understand that God shows himself by propositional revelation, we will also be sure to explain our examples.