Ask Rob

What does it mean that Jesus learned obedience?

Our fellowship, Sovereign Christ Church is using John Piper’s Passion of Jesus Christ, or Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die as a 50-Day devotional before Resurrection Sunday (Easter). This is such a rich exercise and I recommend it to everyone. Click the link above to download a free PDF.

After reading Day Three: Christ Suffered and Died. . . To Learn Obedience and Be Perfected, one person asked how His learning obedience and becoming perfect was possible. Here is the answer I gave:

This is an excellent question. In the Book of Hebrews, there are a fair number of complexities. Taking a text from Hebrews and slowing down and asking a lot of questions is wise.

In the passage of Hebrews 5:8-9, there are a few minor things going on, as well as some clarity in how one handles words. Hidden in the Greek, which is of little importance for us in my opinion, is a play on like-sounding words between what is translated “learned” (Greek= emathen) and “suffered” (Greek= epathen). This may have influenced the use of those particular words for the original readers. The meaning though is wrapped up in a bit of a language discussion.

When looking at these Ancient Middle-Eastern languages, we avoid simply looking for a word-for-word translation – as if there is a one-to-one relationship between Koine Greek words and English words. We are tempted to say, “The Greek word ‘X’ means ‘Y’ in English; where The Greek word ‘R means ‘S’ in English”. Rather, we should see the words in what is know as semantic domains, or groupings of somewhat synonymous words that are influenced and flavored by one another – even serving to be interchangeable at times. See here:
http://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+21:16
for more of a discussion on this and look at footnote number 31. This will be a bit of a thick read, but worth it. Tell me if more questions arise out of it.

So, what I mean is that the definition of the word is often wider than we might think and is often driven by how the word is used, more than a lexical meaning in a language dictionary. This does not mean that the definition is up for grabs. It is just a bit more philological than lexical- that is, how a word is used, its function, can overule a decided dictionary definition.

This is the case with these two words, one more than the other. The word for “learned” carries with it strong connotations of experience. That is, Jesus “learned” the experience of obedience through bodily physical suffering. This is not just a cognitive understanding, but something that He would experience so that He would become for us what we needed. (Hebrews 4:15) Granted, this semantic flexibility is not as flexible as we will see in the word translated “perfected” (teliow), but together, this understanding of “He learned the experience of” is preferred. This is why the intro of “Although He was a Son (of God)” . . . is there. Because He is the Son of God, this discussion might seem a bit unusual.

In verse 9, “been made perfect” is a phrase that also carries the nuances of fulfillment or completion . . . and in some cases maturity (see James 1:4). I believe that is what is at play here- namely, Jesus wanted to do all that fulfills what we needed Him to be by God’s design to be what Hebrews 4:15 says He became for us. This is much like what Jesus said to John the Baptizer in Matthew 3:15. He was to fulfill the plan and be what God had determined. See Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 on this.

So, Jesus obeyed the Father in the way He always does (John 8:28 & 12:49), yet, here, in the Incarnation and as one who suffers – there is a great mystery here that God can suffer, a mystery which is the Incarnation. He experienced the obedience through suffering (learned) such that He would fulfill or complete (be made perfect) all that was to be completed according to the predetermined plan.

He certainly did not add to His essence or eternal wisdom.

Post to Twitter

Dialog on Angels for WCA

Had a great time at Wake Christian Academy today. I was able to take part in a chapel series on topics from Systematic Theology. My topic was angels.

We had a question and answer time after the high school chapel, but I know there are more questions.

This post is to provide a place for those to ask those questions. Just post your question and then check back for the answer.

Let’em rip!

Post to Twitter

Question on Dispensationalism, Israel and Continuity, part 2

Meagan wrote:

Rob,
how would you reply to the notion that dispensationalism is a relatively new (just over 100 years old according to some) belief, and that it is not biblical in origin? Also, why is it
so important to clarify whether the Bible is referring to Jews or Christians ( or both) when it speaks of the “church”?

Lastly, is 1 Cor. 15:52 the only passage from which to build a theology of the rapture, and specifically a pre-tribulational rapture?

ANSWER:

This second one is a very important question, in my opinion. The first answer must be that it is only important if the Text seems to make it important. I think the Text does indeed do this.

From the inception of the nation of Israel through Abram of Ur, God had designed a people to be distinct. For certain purposes, God made an “us and them” situation between Israel and everyone else. This distinctive puts Israel in a unique light by definition. Now, Paul works some of that out in Romans 3 by way of a side argument. This intersects what God is doing through the Gospel more in Romans 9-11. It is this intersection that many interpret the “mystery” that Paul speaks of very often being the Church producing Gospel. This is heightened by Romans 11:25 that indicates a time and position distinction for Israel, offset from the Gentiles (everyone else).

The key is always remembering that when you say “Jew”, you must think of both the individual AND the nation. Read the rest of this entry »

Post to Twitter

Question on Dispensationalism, Israel and Continuity, part 1

Meagan wrote:

Rob,
how would you reply to the notion that dispensationalism is a relatively new (just over 100 years old according to some) belief, and that it is not biblical in origin? Also, why is it
so important to clarify whether the Bible is referring to Jews or Christians ( or both) when it speaks of the “church”?
Lastly, is 1 Cor. 15:52 the only passage from which to build a theology of the rapture, and specifically a pre-tribulational rapture?

ANSWER:

Ok, I am finally able to get to this – busy week! Now I do not want to just pass the buck here, or inundate you with more reading, but this is a Costco-size can of worms you opened, so a little reading will be necessary.
I want you to go here for a balanced approach at the truth that beliefs held within modern dispensationalism (well defined here) were also held by Church Fathers and many way before the 1800′s. This is more directly approached here (although I do not know this guy or this site very well, he is at least though provoking in the right direction.)
So, look at those in that order – but, as you do, think about this:
- Every system or school of though has a birth. Just because something is systematized more recently does not necessarily make it wrong. There were rocks here before Geology became the system that it is today. Systems classify things, if they are done well. Although it is usually a niche thing, they are still just to be a classificational tool. I mean are we to reject the thoughts and teachings of Calvinism because he was not in the beginning with God?
- Every system also has an off-label use and that is when things often go awry.  The system is supposed to be a helpful tool to take a wider breadth of data and be able to look at (parts of) it all at once. It is a “desktop organizer” that can potentially provide one with the insight needed to ask and answer broader questions based on comparative data. So, in Systematic Theology, the sub-categories are definitive of this fact – i.e. angelology, bibliology, ect. Angelology allows one to see all that the Text might say about angels, so one could potentially come to broader conclusions about angels from a more holistic, biblical point of view. But this is very complicated hermeneutically, in that these passages are being drawn from several genres, time periods, contexts – etc. Caution and time needs to be spent with liberty, or the system can be too quick to ask and answer WRONG questions – THEN the off-label use . . .
- The system at some point can stop being a tool and start being the standard. This is when someone takes the system and lays (at times forces) it back over the Text as a whole and then starts running all interpretations of all texts in all subjects through that system. This is unfortunate. It is in this sense that many dispensationalists to some degrees are rightly accused of eisegeting (putting into) the text from a strongly preconceived point of view.
So, all that to say, the system is new in it’s official and current form of organization. That does not in itself make it wrong, for the beliefs existed with many since the second century – just like many who held other beliefs. The problem is when the system gets out of place and is given a Red Bull and takes over. It, and all other systems, are tools and should be seen as such.
The 2nd and 3rd parts of your question to be answered in the coming days . . .

Post to Twitter

AskRob: Question on the use of Scripture for “Life Verses”

Question:

I need to understand in detail how to use Gods word correctly for hope, strength and encouragement. I know you mentioned about how some life verses are not verses to use for life verses. The verse that keeps me going and full of hope is Galatians 6:9. I use this verse because it reminds me that there is a bigger picture and that I need to press on till the end. 
So how do we use Gods word for encouragement and hope?

I know that I have though about this question too long and I have just determined that this will be one that I will think about for years and revise my understanding of it along the way. For now, let me give you my thoughts on it.

As we think about using verses of Scripture – for any purpose – it is assumed that the Scripture has a purpose and is to be used. Both of these premises are absolutely true. (2 Tim. 3:16-17) The question is how and how much? By this I mean, what is the purpose of Scripture and how are we to use it?

Well, let’s start with some other premises:

- Scripture is vast an contains a lot of verses, books and content

- It is implied that since we have a book full of stuff that He wants us to use all the Book

- It has a primary purpose of revealing God to us -

- We know that knowing God correctly is the very most important thing in our lives

- There is always four contexts to every passage – thought, book/author, testament, Bible

These are just a few important thoughts that get me to this point:

Read the rest of this entry »

Post to Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.