GeorgePWood.com

Listen to The Daily Word online. 

About halfway up the 286 spiraling stone steps of the Oleviste Church tower, I began to wonder whether the view it afforded of Tallinn, Estonia, was really worth the heart-pumping, lung-burning, knee-buckling effort. Construction on the Oleviste Church began in the 13^th Century. At one time, it was the tallest building in Europe. And the only way to the top was one unevenly sized, medieval stair at a time. 

I thought about the Oleviste Church tower when I read Romans 11.33-36. Romans is Paul’s most theologically systematic and rigorously argued letter. About halfway through it, in chapters 9-11, we encounter some of the most difficult theologizing ever put by pen to paper. The heart pumps, the lungs burn, and the knees buckle as we climb the spiraling steps of Paul’s argument about his fellow Jews’ rejection of Christ.  

The theology of these three chapters is intrinsically difficult, but the sociological issue behind them is difficult too. Honestly, when was the last time you—a Christian—thought theologically about the first-century Jewish rejection of Jesus? In Paul’s day, that was an important theological issue. Two millennia of Gentile Christianity have mostly pushed it out of our minds. But still we climb Paul’s steps anyway, one at a time. 

More than once, I have grown frustrated with Romans 9-11. I haven’t known what to write. Sometimes, I have wanted to give up, skip the entire section, and move directly to Romans 12-16, which are very practical in orientation. But Bible reading—like stair-climbing—is a discipline. You have to take the steps as they are, not as you want them to be.  We might wish that Paul would skip directly from Romans 8.39’s assertion that nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord,” to Romans 12.1’s conclusion, “Therefore, I urge you brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices.” But that’s not the way Paul built the staircase. And anyway, how could we ever reach the top by skipping the middle of the climb? 

When I reached the top of the Oleviste Church tower, the panoramic view of Tallinn’s old town made the climbing worth every palpitation, wheeze, and cramp. If you ever get the chance, climb the tower. Tallinn is beautiful. 

So is God, only more so. We do the hard work of theologizing so that we get a better sense of who God is. Romans 9-11 teaches us, in essence, that God is faithful even to the faithless, whether Jew or Gentile. “God has bound all men over to disobedience,” Paul writes in Romans 11.32, “so that he may have mercy on them all.” And when we get that breathtaking view of God’s universal mercy, all we can do, like Paul, is excitedly exclaim: 

 If your theology of God doesn’t result in heart-pumping, lung-burning, knee-buckling worship, then buddy, you’re probably climbing the wrong stairs.

My friend Ron emailed me the following video. It's about a 65-year-old dad and his 43-year-old son who run marathons and triathlons together. The kicker? The dad pushes his son in a wheelchair. It's entitled, appropriately enough, "Can."

Today, in New Testament Survey, I lectured on the Gospel according to Matthew.

Download lecture MP3.

Listen to The Daily Word online. 

I have made a pilgrimage to Israel several times. First-time Christian pilgrims inevitably come away with an epiphany and two questions. The epiphany: Jesus was here! He walked and talked then where we can walk and talk today. The questions: Why didn’t the Jews believe in him then? And, by extension, why don’t they believe in him now? Those are very good questions, and Romans 9-11 is Paul’s very good answer. 

Over the past several weeks, I have walked you verse by verse through Paul’s argument about the unbelief of his fellow Jews. In Romans 11.25-32, Paul weaves the complex strands of that argument into a conclusion. Here’s what he writes: 

The first strand of Paul’s argument is expressed in the word hardening. “Israel has experienced a hardening.” Jews in Jesus’ day rejected Christ because, for whatever reason, they hardened their hearts against him. Of course, this is not a uniquely Jewish failing by any means. All of us—Jew or Gentile—have hardened our hearts against God. That’s why he sent his Son into the world to save us. Our hearts may be hard toward God, but his heart toward us is not. 

And Israel’s unbelief had good results for us Gentiles. That’s the second strand of Paul’s argument: The good news of salvation began to spread among the Gentiles because of Jewish unbelief. In God’s way of doing things—and he never wastes even bad experiences—our belief in Christ is possible because of Jewish unbelief. You and I are part of “the full number of the Gentiles” Paul wrote about.  

But God is still not done with Israel. That’s the third strand: “All Israel will be saved.” Paul prophetically foresaw a day when modern-day Jews would come to Christ in droves. You see, God doesn’t give up on his prodigal children. “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” What are those gifts? What is that call? To “have mercy on them all.” 

Is your heart hard toward God? Then soften it up. Only a soft heart can receive God’s grace.

In my Worldview class this morning, I began to talk about the propositional elements of a Christian worldview. I'm using The Universe Next Door (4th ed.) by James W. Sire as my basic text. My lecture is organized around an outline of his chapter on Christian theism.

Download lecture MP3.

Listen to The Daily Word online.

What is God like? First John 4.8 says, in the context of encouraging Christians to love one another, “God is love.” But Hebrews 12.29 says, in the context of warning Christians about divine judgment, “God is a consuming fire.” Is God love or fire? Why not both! I thought about the dual nature of God’s character when I read Romans 11.22-24: 

In their original context, these verses warn Gentile Christians not to get uppity about their salvation. The gospel came to them because of Israel’s belief. Using a horticultural image, Paul says that Israel was “cut off” from God like a branch from a tree. If Israel would believe, they would be “grafted” back in. And if Israel could be cut off, so could the Gentiles. The only way to remain a branch of God’s tree is to “continue in his kindness” through faith in Jesus Christ. 

Cutting off is an act of judgment. A gardener prunes dead and unproductive branches. By the same token, grafting onto is an act of love. It improves the tree, the branch, or both by introducing new life. A good gardener either cuts off or grafts onto, depending on the state of the branches. 

So does a good God. Persistent unbelief and obstinate disobedience occasion God’s judgment. God’s sternness reveals itself in his refusal to tolerate our sin. But honest faith and humble obedience prompt his mercy. His kindness shows itself in his desire to bring us sinners back into fellowship with him. 

Unfortunately, for some reason, we have a difficult time keeping love and judgment in proper balance, at least when it comes to God. Christians make equal but opposite mistakes about God. Some focus on his judgment against personal unrighteousness and social injustice, but they fail to leave room for spiritual turnarounds. Others focus on his love for prodigals but fail to mention that God’s grace results in (and requires) holiness, both in the individual and in society. 

Of course anyone who is a parent knows that childrearing requires both sternness and kindness. Combining them is the only way to raise good kids. Everyday, a parent must love the disobedient child but hate the child’s disobedience. Why can’t we see that our Heavenly Father acts the same way toward us? 

So, as Paul writes, “Consider…the kindness and sternness of God.” Not either/or, but both/and. And then do everything you can to continue in his kindness.

P.S. This past Sunday, I spoke to my Sunday school class about "The Books of God," based on Psalm 19. If you'd like to listen to my message, go here.

Today, in the Open Bible Class, I spoke about "The Two Books of God" from Psalm 19. God has written two books–Nature and Scripture–and he wants us to read them both.

Download sermon MP3.

Download sermon handout.

Pope Benedict XVI deliverd a speech at the University of Regensburg that has generated quite a bit of controversy in the Muslim world. (The text of the speech is here.)

The thesis of the speech, as far as I can tell, is a quote from the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palelogus, who was dialoguing with a Persian scholar about the differences between Christianity and Islam: "Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God."

In and of itself, the quote is uncontroversial, both within Catholic and Muslim theology. What has been controversial is the Pope's citation of another remark by Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Various authorities in the Muslim world have demanded that the Pope apologize for his remarks. 

Consider these paragraphs from a story in The Guardian:

I only wish one of these Muslim authorities would show in which sense the Pope is wrong: (1) Is he wrong to assert that not to act reasonably is contrary to the nature of God? (2) Is he wrong to assert that using violence to spread one's religion is unreasonable? (3) Is he wrong that Mohammed actually commanded the use of the sword against infidels, or that the House of Islam spread in the early centuries through a vigorous practice of jihad?

From what I've read about Islam's history, I have concluded that Mohammed did in fact countenance violence and that Islam spread through jihad. So, in my opinion, the Pope's simply telling the truth. Rather than protesting the Pope's remarks (and acting violently against Palestinian Christians), why don't these Islamic authorities simply cite chapter and verse by way of an enlightened and peaceful refutation?

Not to do so simply proves the Pope's point and confirms the worst stereotypes about Islam.

UPDATE: Speaking of confirming Islam's worst stereotypes, it seems that Islamist gunmen in Mogadishu, Somalia have murdered a Catholic nun and her guard. Click here for details.

UPDATE 2: Peter Robinson provides some interesting background on Manuel II Palelogus here. He seemed to have a very extensive experience with Muslims, so one can hardly dismiss his remarks as misinformed. Wrong, perhaps, but not from a lack of textual knowledge and personal experience.

Listen to The Daily Word online.

—–

On Monday, August 21 of this year, my family and I visited the Stutthof Concentration Camp, which is situated in the forests near Gdansk, Poland. Construction on the camp began on September 2, 1939, the second day of World War II. (The war, in fact, began when Nazi troops overran Gdansk.) At first, Poles who opposed the Nazi regime were incarcerated there. Then Jews, Russians, and others who ran afoul of the Nazi’s found themselves unjustly imprisoned there. Stutthof’s gallows, gas chamber, and crematorium mark it as a place of execution. Tens of thousands died there.

I thought about my visit to Stutthof when I read Romans 11.17-21. Let’s read the passage first, then I’ll explain why it reminded me of Stutthof.

In this passage, Paul is speaking to Gentile Christians. Using a horticultural image, he says that Gentiles are “a wild olive shoot” that has been “grafted” onto the “olive root” of God's promises to save the world. Israel is "the natural branches," that is, the first recipients of these promises. Gentiles have been grafted onto the root, in part, because Israel rejected Jesus Christ. As Paul writes, “[Israel] was broken off because of unbelief, and you [Gentiles] stand by faith.” Therefore, he concludes, “Do not be arrogant.”

It is arrogance that connects Romans 11.17-21 and Stutthof, for me at any rate. Because of an irrational and immoral racial pride, Nazi Germany felt that it could abuse “inferior races” by incarcerating and executing them at places like Stutthof. The Jews received the worse treatment, but Poles, Russians, Slavs, and Gypsies also felt the end of the Nazi whip.

Now, Nazi ideology was not biblically based by any stretch of the imagination. But Nazi propagandists distorted and misused biblical passages to make their case for Jewish inferiority. Hadn’t the Jews rejected Christ? Hadn’t they called for his crucifixion? Didn’t they reject Christianity to this very day? If so, they must be especially devious and dangerous. And so, they must be destroyed.

Romans 11.17-21 refutes this evil conclusion. The nourishing root of Christianity is God's numerous promises of salvation. The first promises were made to Abraham and his descendants. To accept Christ is to be grafted onto this root, which includes the Jews. Reject the Jews and you reject the root, which means rejecting Christ.

In the end, Romans 11.17-21 calls for racial humility. No group is racially superior (or inferior) to another. Instead, all individuals are sinners who need to receive God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Listen to TDW: http://georgepwood.com/mp3s/romans_11_11-16.mp3

—–

Can bad choices nonetheless have good results?

If I read Romans 11.11-16 correctly, the answer to that question is yes. Throughout Romans 9-11, Paul has been reflecting on Israel’s bad choice in rejecting Jesus Christ. Although Christ fulfilled all of God’s promises to them, many in Israel nevertheless rejected him in his own day. This seems at first glance to be a failure in God’s plan. But Paul sees the matter differently.

Here’s what he writes:

“Again I ask: Did they [that is, Israel] stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

“I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.”

Notice several things:

First, Paul is quite clear that Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ is a mistake. He describes it using various negative terms: “stumble,†“fall,†and “transgression.†In our day and age, we tend to think that all religious choices are more or less equal, that they are mere preferences. I prefer Christianity. Others prefer Buddhism. Still others atheism. Who’s to say which preference is correct? Paul would be incredulous at our spiritual relativism. For him, it’s Christ or nothing. And he is, of course, correct. The world’s various religions and philosophies make contradictory truth claims. One may be right, or all may be wrong. But in terms of simple logic, not all can be right.

Second, according to Paul, Israel’s bad choice had good consequences for us Gentiles. When Israel closed the door on Jesus, he simply opened another door to the Gentiles. Not every bad choice has such a good consequence, but in God’s providence, some do.

Third, God isn’t finished with Israel yet. Regarding the Jews, Paul is a short-term pessimist and long-term optimist. In other words, regarding his own generation, Paul didn’t expect too much evangelistic success. But he firmly believed that that Gentile experience of God’s blessings would eventually bring Israel around to accepting Christ. That is what he means when speaks of “the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.†Elsewhere in the Bible, envy is a vice. In this context, however, it is a virtue, for it describes the deep-seated desire of the Jewish people to experience the blessings of salvation. And in the end, they will.