Because of this, there are a few times when we find John downplaying his ministry while proclaiming the ministry of the One to come. One such instance is recorded in both Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:15:

Matthew 3:11

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (ESV)

Luke 3:16

16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (ESV)

Luke records that John said this in response to people who wondered if John was the Messiah. John’s response is that no matter how impressed people might be with him, he is not even worthy to serve the one who was yet to come.

John’s statement also provides a brief summary of the ministry of Jesus: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” John baptizes with water, which holds some significance, but it is nothing compared to the baptism which will come from the true Christ.

Many who read this passage conclude that Christian baptism carries with it two aspects: the Holy Spirit and fire, that when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit, we are also baptized with fire. That in itself has led to quite a bit of discussion – what does it mean to be baptized with fire? – and many people point to Acts 2:1-4 when the Holy Spirit descends on the day of Pentecost, appearing as wind and tongues of fire.

Despite the connection between the Spirit and fire in Acts 2, I don’t think John the Baptist had one baptism in mind when he mentioned baptism by the Spirit and fire. Instead, he is talking about two distinct kinds of baptism: some of you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, others of you will be baptized with fire. Consider the very next thing he says:

Luke 3:16-17

16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (ESV)

In verse 17, John makes a clear distinction between two kinds of people: those who will be gathered into barn, and those who will be burned with unquenchable fire. His meaning is, “The Messiah to come will baptize some of you with the Holy Spirit and others with fire; he will secure some of you and judge the rest of you.” In other words, the ministry of Christ would be a ministry which would ultimately result in the salvation of some and the judgment of others. Jesus did not come into the world to judge the world (John 12:47), yet his very coming reveals the sinfulness of men and the justice of judgment (John 3:18-19).

There is a kind of baptism by fire that believers undergo, but it is not what John has in mind and is never explicitly called baptism. The biblical word for what believers undergo is ‘refining’:

Isaiah 48:9-11

9 “For my name’s sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off.
10 Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

This kind of refining with fire is not a mystical process, a charismatic experience of the power of God, but is the work of the Holy Spirit to sanctify believers throughout the course of life, transforming the Christian to be holy as God is holy, to live the life of Christ.

Looking back at the words of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:15, we do not want the baptism by fire that he mentions for that is the fire of judgment, the unquenchable flame where the worm does not die (Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:48). Next time you hear someone say, “We have been baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire!” feel free to respond, “Thanks be to God, only the first is true of me!”

The great passage for this is found in Isaiah 53. Note in particular verses 4-6:

But some have challenged the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross. One of the arguments is that Psalm 49:7 makes it impossible for one man to die on behalf of another:

Context is key, and it does not take much more context to realize that Psalm 49:7 does not prohibit penal substitution. For starters, take a larger block, Psalm 49:7-9:

The Psalmist says that the reason one man cannot redeem another man’s life is because the price is too great. The ransom of life is costly and one man can never afford to pay for another. But faithful Christians have taught that this is one reason why the Son of God had to be our substitute. For a list of reasons, I could not pay for your sins. I cannot even pay for my own. But Jesus Christ is of infinite worth and value. While the cost is too great for me, the cost is not too great for the God-man. Thus the author of Hebrews goes to great length to show that Jesus Christ is more precious than anyone or anything else, that Jesus alone is able to be a complete and final sacrifice for us.

But there is another contextual clue in Psalm 49 that tells us the Psalmist is not tossing out the possibility of penal substitution. In fact, Psalm 49:15 anticipates that God himself will come and be a ransom for us:

No man can ransom another. I cannot even pay for my own sins. But thanks be to God that God himself has ransomed me! The Psalmist knew the price for his life, his sin, was great. But the Psalmist also knew he had a deliverer and that one day God himself would do that which was necessary to ransom men from sin and death. And so we say with Paul the words of Romans 7:24-25: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Far from disproving penal substitution, Psalm 49 affirms that God himself will ransom us from our sins.

Due to the TNIV’s poor reception, Zondervan has now decided to drop the translation. Instead, they have released a new update to the New International Version, an update generally known as the 2011 NIV. This update retains much of the original NIV but also incorporates many of the changes found in the TNIV as well as adding changes not found in previous versions.

Because the gender neutral approach of the 2011 NIV largely matches that of the TNIV, many have expressed similar concerns about the new version. What I find particularly concerning, and believe Zondervan must have considered, is that the new version is being sold simply as the NIV. With the TNIV, people knew what they were getting. But with the 2011 NIV, a person might walk into the bookstore and expect to find the same NIV they have always known only to receive the new version with all of its changes. Customers did not purchase the TNIV, so Zondervan has found a new way to expand the audience of their gender neutral translation.

But even as many people have voiced concern with Zondervan’s gender neutral approach, many others have cried foul. These people have pointed out that most modern translations, including the English Standard Version, engage in some degree of gender neutrality. Why single out the 2011 NIV for doing what everyone does?

To a degree, these critics are correct. Modern translations generally include some degree of gender neutrality. The problem is, there are at least two ways to approach gender neutrality.

First, a brief example of gender neutrality. In the old days – say, back in the early-mid 90’s – a person could say, “All men must eat to survive,” and people would know that by men you mean people, human beings in general. But in the late 90’s and continuing on today, a movement began to make gender language more generic. Instead of saying “all men” we began to say “all people.” Further, pronoun use has also changed. Back in ye old days, he could be taken as a generic pronoun so one could say, “If anyone is hungry, let him eat.” Today, however, the trend has been to say either, “if anyone is hungry, let him or her eat,” or, “if anyone is hungry, let them eat.” The third person plural has become a de facto gender neutral pronoun.

In the Bible, the language of address is almost always masculine. For instance, Philippians 1:12 reads, “I want you to know, brothers…” The Greek word here is ἀδελφοί, a masculine plural word meaning brothers. To make the verse gender neutral, the 2011 NIV reads, “Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters…” For that particular verse, the change is fairly inconsequential. In fact, though the ESV simply reads brothers, it includes a footnote that says, “Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated ‘brothers’) refers to siblings in a family…”

While in some places the ESV and 2011 NIV make similar changes, there are many gender neutral changes made by the 2011 NIV that are not found in the ESV. Here is what I see as the difference in approach:

Some translations, such as the ESV, seem to say, “Where the authors of Scripture clearly have universal intent, the language may be adjusted to reflect gender neutrality.”

Other translations, such as the 2011 NIV, seem to say, “Where the authors of Scripture are not clearly referring specifically to men or women, the language should be adjusted to reflect gender neutrality.”

Here is one example, from Philippians 2:4. Note the three translations below:

KJV: Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

ESV: Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

2011 NIV: not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

In the Greek, all the pronouns in this sentence are masculine. This is clearly reflected by the KJV.  But it is also clear that Paul’s intent here is to refer to all believers. This is not an instruction for men only; this is for all believers in the church, men and women. That universality is demonstrated in the ESV and 2011 NIV. Also note that in the 2011 NIV, the masculine pronoun is not used as a gender neutral. For this particular verse, the change is not important. But this approach means the NIV translators have to make interpretative decisions as to when it is or is not acceptable to change what the Bible says. In some places, the changes are not so inconsequential. For instance, note Hebrews 2:6:

KJV: But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

ESV: It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?”

2011 NIV: But there is a place where someone has testified: “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?”

Note the difference. The context of the passage is Jesus Christ. The author of Hebrews is resounding with praise for Christ and is demonstrating how Christ is truly unique in the world. Here, he points back to Psalm 85:4-6 as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus. In the KJV and ESV, Psalm 85:4-6 retains its gender-specific language, with masculine singular pronouns. In the 2011 NIV, Psalm 85:4-6 has been made gender neutral, using third person plural them in place of third person masculine singular him. But in this the 2011 NIV is inconsistent. Hebrews 2:6-8 quotes from Psalm 85:4-6. In the Psalm, the NIV makes it gender neutral. In Hebrews 2, the translation is mixed, with the first part gender neutral and the rest gender specific. The reason they do this is because Hebrews 2:6-8 is clearly about Jesus. But if the quote is about Jesus, then the Psalm is about Jesus. The Psalmist may not have known what he was writing, but God knew what he was giving. If the intention of the words in Hebrews 2:6-8 is gender specific, the intention of Psalm 85:4-6 is also gender specific.

Similar examples abound, though I consider Hebrews 2:6-8 to be one of the more serious examples. In a nutshell, though the ESV includes some gender neutral portions, the translators were careful to do so only when the text is clearly universal whereas the translators of the 2011 NIV took an opposite approach, taking a gender neutral approach everywhere except in those passages that they determined were clearly intended to be specific.

For myself, I am comfortable with the approach taken by the ESV translators but feel the translators of the 2011 NIV have gone too far for the translation to be acceptable.

More information about the changes in the 2011 NIV can be found all over the web. Here are two:

An Evaluation of Gender Language in the in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible

Gender Neutral Issues in the New International Version of 2011

Learn more at the P2R page or see it in the app store.

There are four things that stand out in this passage:

…that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment…

Paul does not pray for simple love. The modern notion of love says love is blind and free otherwise it is not love. But even as Paul prays for the love of believers to abound, he prays that it would abound with knowledge and all discernment. This does not mean believers can ever be stingy with love, but it does mean that as believers exercise their love, they are to practice discernment informed by knowledge. Our hearts must be connected to our heads as we seek to exercise love in a way that is pleasing to God. So true love does not engage in sin and true love does not give approval to sin.

…so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ…

Related to what was just said, the love believers are to have will ultimately give approval to that which is excellent. Excellence is determined by knowledge and all discernment which is grown through prayer and is given through the Word of God. But this means things are not determined to be excellent just because individuals approve of them, but Christians only approve of those things discerned to be excellent by the standard of Christ. And so the result for us of this love which abounds in knowledge and all discernment is that when we arrive at the day of Christ we will be found pure and blameless. This means the abounding in this kind of love and the right judgment of what is excellent and what is not is part of God’s sanctifying work in our lives. Through Christ God is purifying his bride, making us spotless so that one day Christ will present a spotless bride to his Father.

…filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ…

And here we see Christ’s work most clearly. A growing love that exercises knowledge and all discernment, giving approval to that which is excellent, will lead a person to be filled with the fruit of righteousness. This fruit can come only through Jesus Christ, so it must be Christ who works in us to abound in love so that we can then be filled with his fruit.

For the believer, there is a long-term goal of sanctification: that we might be pure and blameless for the day of Christ. But there is also a daily goal: that Christ’s sanctifying work in us might lead to fruitfulness. Being filled with the fruit of righteousness on the day of Christ requires bearing fruit each day. We normally think of fruitfulness as tangible results – how many people you led to the Lord, how many homeless people you helped, how much time you spent with your family, etc, but that isn’t really the point. Tangible results are a result of fruitfulness. The fruit of righteousness is the fruit of the Spirit – bearing in our lives the very character of Christ as found in passages like Galatians 5:22. So as we abound in the love of God we become more like Christ and will demonstrate his character when he returns. In the meantime, the daily outworking of our growth in Christ will be increased obedience to God’s commands such as love, justice, proclamation, service, etc.

…to the glory and praise of God.

The ongoing purpose of abounding in love is that we grow in our fruitfulness. The eventual purpose is that we be pure and blameless for the day of Christ. But the ultimate purpose is that God will be glorified and praised. We are not out of the spotlight of God’s work, but nor are we in the center. The spotlight is on God. We are mirrors that magnify the light shining on him and through Christ’s sanctifying work we are enabled to reflect him all the better. But God is the goal. We exist to give glory and praise to God. Our question each day cannot be whether the events of our lives give us personal fulfillment and the satisfaction we think we deserve but whether the events in our lives help us grow in Christ so that we might better bring glory and praise to God. And as we grow in Christ, we will find that our satisfaction is no longer in personal fulfillment on the world’s terms but personal fulfillment in the cause of bringing glory to God.

The greatest satisfaction in our lives should come as we, in all things, give glory and praise to God.

Looking at science, here is how this would play out:

• It is accurate to say the Sun is far from the Earth, but it is not very precise.
• It is precise to say the Sun is 10,947.763 miles from the Earth, but it is not very accurate.
• To be precisely accurate, the Sun is a long way from earth – 1 Astronomical unit, or 92,955,807 miles.
• To be a little bit more thorough, we might note that this is the perfect distance to sustain human life. Much closer and we would be too hot. Much farther and we would be too cold. We could also note that while 93 million miles is a great distance, it’s still nowhere near as great as the distance between the Sun and Jupiter or Neptune or Pluto (and FYI, I’m still bummed about the whole Pluto fiasco). And the distance fades to a tiny speck if we compare it to the distance between the Earth and the Andromeda Galaxy (some 2,500,000 light-years away).

When it comes to Bible study we must be accurate in our observations, precise in our details, and thorough in our study. We will only grow in our knowledge of God’s Word, and the things revealed through God’s Word, when all three parts are present.

Take, for example, Revelation 22:18-19:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

• It is roughly accurate to say, “By this verse we see that anyone who adds or takes away from this book is cursed.”
• It is more precise to say, “John warns the reader of Revelation that if anyone adds or takes from the book of Revelation, he will be cursed.”
• Adding a bit of thoroughness, we can observe that the books of the Bible were originally independent works and John would have written the warning as applying to “this book I have written”, the book of Revelation. Nonetheless, we could say that the principle applies to all of Scripture, even if this verse does not directly apply. We are not to tamper with God’s Word. Note 2 Corinthians 2:17, 4:2.

(Note that in the example I’m by no means trying to say everything there is to say about the verse; I’m limiting myself to the scope of the verse’s application.)

Now, why am I saying all this?

I think we have a tendency to settle for accuracy without showing much concern for precision or thoroughness. When we do this, we can only arrive at a partial – and often distorted – understanding of Scripture which means our ability to walk in obedience will be limited. We also leave others with the impression that the Bible is not worth careful, attentive study and that people can claim to love Scripture without actually interacting deeply with the things taught in Scripture.

If we are to be people of the book – and we absolutely should be people of the book – then we must labor daily to arrive at a precise, accurate, and thorough understanding of all the verses of the Bible. We will never get there, but that’s no excuse to be caught neglecting the Bible.

Events of the Cross

Today, I’ve put together a briefer guide giving an overview of the events of Holy Week. This is highly summarized in order to fit everything on one page, but can provide a good, quick reference point.

Events of Holy Week

Ephesians chapter one, Paul’s only just begun.

He shows us what God’s done through Jesus Christ his Son.

Redemption! We’re set free! With God we’ve harmony!

Ephesians chapter two, by grace, through faith, it’s true!

Dead in your sins were you, but God, he brought us through;

Salvation full and free, Christ paid the price for me!

Ephesians chapter three, we’ve unity, you see!

The cross joined you to me, to show eternally,

The glory, the power, the love, of God Almighty above!

Ephesians chapter four, God’s opened up the door

Given workers to the chore of making something more

Of the people he has called till Christ is all in all!

Ephesians chapter five, to walk like Christ we’ll strive

To put aside all drive of the flesh in our lives.

With bride and groom we see that Christ has cherished me!

Ephesians chapter six, the devil’s evil tricks,

Cannot begin to nix our Lord’s mighty fix!

Put on his armor, saints! Your surety never faints!

Ephesians is God’s gift so we’re not left adrift

But Christ will us uplift and bridge the terrible rift

Thus, as you come and go, serve Christ and in him grow!