Tag: prayer

Sermon Download: See How He Loved Him! (John 11)

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

I recently had the opportunity to preach at our church again, and decided to focus on a text from the Gospels. I tried to tell the story of Lazarus as story, and the result was better than I expected. The suspense and despair at Lazarus’ sickness, and later the surprise and wonder at his resurrection really came through, as did the greatness of Jesus Christ our Savior. Also highlighted were the perspective of Lazarus’s sisters and their struggle to believe despite their questions and unmet expectations.

I hope by sharing this message, others may be blessed by the living story of Lazarus. If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (48 minutes), please do look over my notes.

Place: The Heights Church, St. Paul
Date: Oct. 28, 2018
Title: See How He Loved Him!
Text: John 11:1-47, 53
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Click to listen (right click to download)

Book Excerpt: “The First Thanksgiving We Don’t Remember”

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

Happy Thanksgiving! This morning I was paging through my copy of The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning From History by Robert Tracy McKenzie (read my brief review here). I found the section where McKenzie concludes that what we remember traditionally as “the first Thanksgiving” was more like an autumn harvest festival in Plymouth. The Pilgrims themselves would never have deemed that festival as an actual holy day devoted to Thanksgiving and public worship. McKenzie notes: “That contemporary Americans are disposed to see this as a distinction without a difference says a lot about our values, not the Pilgrims’.” (pg. 141)

Following this observation, McKenzie’s next section title is the title of my post: “he First Thanksgiving We Don’t Remember.” I want to share some selections from this section and encourage you to pick up McKenzie’s book.

From the Pilgrims’ perspective, their first formal celebration of a day of thanksgiving in Plymouth came nearly two years later, in July 1623. [We don’t remember that occasion because we] condense their story to three key events — the Mayflower Compact, the landing at Plymouth Rock and the First Thanksgiving — and quickly lose interest thereafter. In reality, the Pilgrims’ struggle for survival continued another two years…. Only weeks after their 1621 harvest celebration, the Pilgrims were surprised by the arrival of the ship Fortune. The thirty-five new settlers on board would nearly double their depleted ranks.

The good news was that several of the newcomers were loved ones from Leiden…. The bad news was… they had arrived with few clothes, no bedding or pots or pans, and “not so much as biscuit cake or any other victuals,” as [colony governor William] Bradford bitterly recalled…. rather than having “good plenty” for the winter [following the traditional “First Thanksgiving” (in Autumn 1621)], the Pilgrims, who had to provide food for the Fortune‘s return voyage and feed an additional thirty-five mouths throughout the winter, once again faced the prospect of starvation….

The harvest of 1622 provided a temporary reprieve from hunger, but it fell far short of their needs for the coming year, and by the spring of 1623 the Pilgrims’ situation was again dire. As Bradford remembered their trial, it was typical for the colonists to go to bed at night not knowing where the next day’s nourishment would come from. For two to three months they had no bread or beer at all, and “God fed them” almost wholly “out of the sea.”

Adding to their plight… for nearly two months it rained hardly at all. The ground became parched, the corn began to wither, and hopes for the future began dying as well. When another boatload of settlers arrived that July, they were “much daunted and dismayed” by their first sight of the Plymouth colonists, many of whom were “ragged in apparel and some little better than half naked.” The Pilgrims, for their part, could offer the newcomers nothing more than a piece of fish and a cup of water.

In the depths of this trial, the Pilgrims were sure of this much: it was God who had sent this great drought; it was the Lord who was frustrating their “great hopes of a large crop.” This was not the caprice of nature, but the handiwork of the Creator who worked “all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11). Suspecting that he had done this thing for their chastisement, the community agreed to set apart “a solemn day of humiliation, to seek the Lord by humble and fervent prayer, in this great distress.”

As [Edward] Winslow [Bradford’s assistant] explained, their hope was that God “would be moved hereby in mercy to look down upon us, and grant the request of our dejected souls.” He exulted, “But oh the mercy of our God, who was as ready to hear, as we to ask.” The colonists awoke on the appointed day to a cloudless sky, but by the end of the prayer service — which lasted eight to nine hours — it had become overcast, and by morning it had begun to rain. It would continue to do so for the next fourteen days. Bradford marveled at the “sweet and gentle showers… which did so apparently revive and quicken the decayed corn….”

Overwhelmed by God’s gracious intervention, the Pilgrims immediately called for another providential holiday. “We thought it would be great ingratitude,” Winslow explained, “[if we should]* content ourselves with private thanksgiving for that which by private prayer could not be obtained. And therefore another solemn day was set apart and appointed for that end; wherein we returned glory, honor, and praise, with all thankfulness, to our good God.” This occasion, likely held at the end of July 1623, perfectly matches the Pilgrims’ definition of a thanksgiving holy day….

Although we remember the Pilgrims’ 1621 celebration as the origin, at least symbolically, of our own Thanksgiving tradition, there is no evidence that they themselves ever repeated the observance… of a public, colony-wide harvest festival…

[But] In 1636 the Plymouth General Court authorized the governor to proclaim days of thanksgiving “as occasion shall be offered.”

~ quoted from, Robert Tracy McKenzie, The First Thanksgiving, p. 140-144. Words in brackets are added for clarity. Words in brackets with an asterisk are original.

McKenzie notes that “the celebration of days of thanksgiving never evolved into an annual holiday” in Pilgrim-led Plymouth Colony. And this was due partly to “their longstanding general aversion to the numerous holy days imposed (they believed) without scriptural warrant by the Catholic and Anglican churches” (p. 144-145). Yet as Christians we can learn much from their heart-felt observance of true days of thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving as an annual feast of giving thanks, as celebrated by our culture, is a helpful corrective to our secular age. But sadly, this day is no “solemn holy day” of true thanks giving to God, such as the Pilgrims (first in 1623, and at other times) celebrated. We can enjoy the harvest-festival nature of modern Thanksgiving, but may we carve out adequate time to follow our Pilgrim forefathers and truly thank and worship our God who protected the Pilgrims and who cares for us as well.

Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).

Gregory Beale on the Temple, Living Water and the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Yesterday I was reminded again of the connection between the “living water” that is referred to in John 4 and John 7 and the prophesied end-times Temple.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Word who “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14).  “Dwelt” is literally “tabernacled” among us.  Jesus is the true Tabernacle.  Then in chapter 2, Jesus’ body is the true Temple (see 2:18-22).

Gregory Beale’s work on tracing out the Temple theme throughout Scripture highlights how John continues to allude to Jesus’ identity as the true Temple by means of the “living water” motif.  I’ll quote from two of Beale’s books here.  I’ve read the first one, and am currently reading through the second one.  After giving the quotes I’ll make a few more comments.  I think you’ll agree that this insight is profound and really quite helpful in seeing the significance of Jesus’ claims in John 4 and John 7.

Temple imagery may also be expressed when Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well that he is the source of “living water” which will “spring up to eternal life” for those drinking from him (John 4:10-14).  Just as water had its source in the first sanctuary in Eden and flowed down and became a life-giving element, likewise Ezekiel, alluding to the Garden of Eden, prophesied that the same thing would be the case with the end-time temple to be built in this new Jerusalem (Ezek. 47:1-12): “Then he brought me back to the door of the house [the holy of holies]; and behold, water was flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east” (v. 1); “so everything will live where the river goes” (v. 9b; so also v. 12).  Joel 3:18 (“a spring will go out from the house of the LORD”) and Zechariah 14:8 (“living waters will flow out of Jerusalem”) prophesy the same reality.  John’s Apocalypse sees the consummate future fulfillment of Ezekiel’s, Joel’s and Zechariah’s prophecies and restoration of an escalated Eden, in which “a river of the water of life, clear as crystal”, comes “from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev. 22:1), who just a few verses earlier have been identified as the “sanctuary” (Rev. 21:22).

In light of this background and of the discussion so far about Jesus as the new temple in John’s Gospel, Jesus’ offer of “living water” to the Samaritan woman should be viewed as another reference to him being the beginning form of the true temple from which true life in God’s presence proceeds.  John 7:37-39 confirms this connection.  Teaching in the temple on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus says, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.  He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’  But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

In verse 38 Jesus alludes to the prophecy of water flowing from the temple in Ezekiel, Joel and Zechariah.  The “innermost being” from which “flow rivers of living water” is Jesus himself as the new “holy of holies” and not the one who believes in Jesus.  This is apparent, first, from recalling that the Old Testament prophecies identify the source of the water to be from the innermost part of the temple (i.e., the holy of holies) where Yahweh’s presence had dwelt in the past and would dwell again in the latter-day temple.  Jesus was that presence on earth.  Secondly, John 7:39 interprets the “living water” to be the Spirit poured out at Pentecost by Jesus himself to all those who would believe in him (see Acts 2:32-38).

[G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), pg. 196-197]

In his latest book, Beale develops this a bit further and shows how Jesus’ statement about true worship in John 4:21-24 also ties in with his “living water” discussion.

…Jesus is saying that the place for true worship now and in the future is no longer in one location, such as Jerusalem, but rather is extended.  But to where is it extended?  True worship is any place where the end-time Spirit is or where worship in the sphere of that Spirit takes place: the time has come and will continue when true worshipers will worship the Father in the sphere of the promised Spirit and end-time truth that has come in Christ (4:23; so also 4:24).  Thus, to worship “in spirit and truth” is not a reference to “truly sincere” worshipers or worshipers who are “sincere in their spirit about the truth” …but is a reference to the Spirit, who has come in fulfillment of OT promises….  Here God’s presence in Israel’s localized temple is viewed as foreshadowing God’s tabernacling presence in Jesus now and his people later, after his resurrection and the sending of the Spirit….

The notion in John 4:23-24 of the expanding geography of the place of the true temple and of true worship in the inaugurated new age is likely a continuation of the earlier narrative about the “living water” from Zech. 14 and is part of the anticipation of John 7:37-39, and thus its roots are in the idea of the expanding temple and its holiness prophesied in Zech. 14 and Ezek. 47, as well as elsewhere in the OT.  Specifically, God’s special revelatory presnece in the form of the Spirit will no longer be located in the holy of holies of Israel’s temple but instead will break out of its architectural shackeles in the eschaton and spread throughout the earth.  The true temple and true place of worship and true worshipers can be found wherever the extending form of God’s holy of holies presence in the Spirit goes and among whoever is included in its sphere.  Consequently, wherever a true believer is, there also is the Spirit, as John 7:37-39 affirms.

[G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), pg. 134-135]

Personally, seeing that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, and we have the indwelling Spirit, I don’t see a problem with seeing the river of life flowing from the innermost being of believers – but ultimately the source is Jesus Christ.  Also, even if you don’t take “worship in the Spirit” as referring to the Holy Spirit, the ideas of the extension of the temple and that wherever true believers are there is true worship, still hold.  Also I should stress that Beale is not saying there is no future and greater fulfillment of these prophecies, but that Jesus’ coming has ushered in this age of the unfolding of the prophecy of all these end-times events.  The end-times Temple is in the process of being built and we believers are “living stones” being built on top of the Living Stone – the true Cornerstone – Jesus Christ (see 2 Pet. 2:4-5, 7).

I hope this adds to the richness of these passages for you.  It certainly does for me.  Seeing how these OT passages stand behind Jesus’ offer of living water and our experience of the Holy Spirit and the special presence of God in Christ — all this leads to greater worship and wonder and praise.  We should aim to keep our bodies holy and our churches (a corporate Temple) holy and we should realize how many spiritual blessings we truly have.

Furthermore, this river of life has trees on either side, according to Ezekiel, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations.  These trees do not wither – a direct allusion to Jeremiah 17:7-8 (and also to Psalm 1:2-3).  Our lives are to bring healing to the nations and to withstand the heat of the world and its troubles.  The Spirit cleanses and renews us and allows our lives to be a healing influence on this world as we live out and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Mining the Archives: Why Pray the “Sinner’s Prayer”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published December 10, 2005.

I wrote the following as a comment to a post by Jason Janz over at Sharper Iron. The post provided excerpts from an hour and a half long interview of Mark Dever that Jason conducted. I commented on the brief excerpt below. What follows that quote is my original comments (posted back before their site crashed and lost many of their old posts). Note: I’ve updated the link to point to the current page which contains the interview. The excerpts are no longer included in that post.

Jason Janz: And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?

Mark Dever: What do you mean if they “did it?”

Jason Janz: If they said “I believe.”

Mark Dever: Well, wonderful. Let’s watch. We’ll see….

I listened to much of this interview a few weeks back. Mark Dever is very interesting to listen to! This interchange, though, stuck out the most to me. Dever’s “What do you mean if they ‘did it’?” is simply amazing. He seems to come from a tradition that is not inundated with the “1,2,3 pray after me” menatlity, like most of fundamentalism is.

I see a big question raised by Jason’s question, “And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?”: what would the prayer do? If they said “I believe” or if they, presumably, responded favorably to an “invitation” (a modern notion, with its roots in Charles Finney, a rank arminian, openly heretical on the doctrine of the atonement), or were convicted by a sermon and were directed to trust in Jesus and then had faith, what would praying for salvation or praying to be saved do? If all who genuinely believe are saved, as John 3:16, Acts 16:31, and etc. teach, then why does anybody need to pray for salvation?

Is there any example of any evangelist or of Christ himself ever directing someone to ask for salvation or to pray anything like a “sinner’s prayer”? The “sinner’s prayer” so often cited was a story Jesus told, and certainly someone praying the kind of prayer the publican prayed manifested genuine faith. That is why I believe that sometimes people will naturally pray some kind of prayer, as an expression of faith. Much like someone might stand and say “I believe”. But what happened first, the prayer or the belief?

Rom. 10:14 would clearly say the belief. It is important to see that Rom. 10:14 comes right on the heels of vs. 13 and provides much to help us in interpreting vs. 13. It seems to force us to see “saved” as referring to ultimate salvation. For all who believingly pray on the Lord/worship the Lord (trace the phrase “call on the Lord” in the Old Testament or New Testament and see how it is used of worship often, and often describes those who are saints. 1 Cor. 1:2–the saints are those who continually are calling on the Lord.) will be ultimately saved at the resurrection/judgment. I think it is clear that “saved” in Romans 10 refers to glorification. And I believe this is substantiated by vs. 14 saying how can they call if they have not believed (first)? Vs. 10 gives the correct order in time concerning justification, while the order given in vs. 9 is paralleling the quote of Moses discussed in vs. 5-8. I believe vs. 11 is more correctly translated by the ESV’s “put to shame” rather than the KJV’s “ashamed” (the KJV has something similar for the translation of the same greek word in 1 Pet. 2:6). Vs. 11 really is not paralleling the english idea of shame in the sense of “everyone who believes will not be ashamed of the gospel, but will eventually confess Christ before men”. But rather is saying “everyone who believes in the cornerstone will not be destroyed by the coming flood of judgment, they will not be put to shame by the judgment coming”.

Think about it. When someone is praying the “sinner’s prayer” they may have already believed, but really are still unsure that mere simple faith in Christ will be enough to save them, so they add the prayer in hopes that this will really work. So then, are we really making our converts two-fold more the child of hell by giving them assurance based on a prayer (a work that they did)? If they have believed, they should be encouraged that belief alone is all that is needed since we have such a wonderful Savior. They may want to pray a prayer of thanks for God’s already having saved them, as they are already united to Jesus Christ by faith. They should further be encouraged to live for Jesus, and warned that their faith will be proven genuine by their fruits. Then they should be baptized and added to the fellowship of believers, their local church.

For more on “the sinner’s prayer”, see my later post: “The Sinner’s Prayer Problem“.