A friend of ours stopped by our house with her elementary school-aged son. As she stood chatting with my wife, Vicki, the boy climbed onto the back of the couch.
“Neil, get down off the couch,” the mother said.
The boy sat there unmoved as she continued to chat.
“Neil, get down off the couch,” she repeated, then kept talking with Vicki about other things.
The boy visibly stiffened his resolve. On his face and in his posture, you could see it: of all the things in the world Neil could do, he wasn’t going to get down from that couch.
The game was on.
“Neil, if you don’t get down off that couch, Sam and Vicki aren’t going to like you.”
Frankly, that’s irrelevant. To Neil, whether we like him or not was immaterial. (We like him. Years later I officiated at his wedding.)
The boy stayed put. Neil’s defiance had become the issue — not the couch, and not Sam and Vicki. The mother started digging in her purse. “Here, Neil, I’ll give you this candy bar if you get down off the couch.” When she pulled out the candy bar, he hopped down and fetched the candy bar.
Checkmate.
Mom loses.
Get this: she may think she’s rewarding him for his obedience. Actually, she’s paying him to disobey her. guess what she’s going to get lots more of?
Neil was obeying not his mother, but his sweet tooth. And the mother was catering to that….
…If you’re startled at the thought that you might actually be rewarding rebellion, whining, sassiness, and disobedience in your child, keep reading. None of us wants to be a parent that rewards the wrong thing in our child. This chapter can help you avoid that.
(p. 77-79 – italics and bold emphasis added)
The rest of the book is as on-point as the anecdote above. And while Crabtree’s diagnosis is sharp, his bedside manner is quite mild. I highly recommend his book (and hope to review it more fully later).
R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is known as a preacher and enjoys his role of cultivating preachers. Mohler has a new book out on preaching from Moody Publishers this year with the title He is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World. One of his chapters focuses on “preaching the Bible’s big story.” In it he stresses the need for preachers to situate the text they are focusing on within the bigger picture of God’s redemption story. He uses a particularly poignant example playing off of the children’s Sunday School song that starts with the line, “Zaccheus was a wee little man, and a wee little man was he.”
…One of the great problems with much evangelical preaching today, and one of the reasons so many saints are not growing to completeness in Jesus Christ, is that so many of our pulpits are filled with what you might call “Zaccheus sermons” — or to put it more bluntly, wee little preaching.
Every Sunday, far too many preachers read a wee little text, apply it in wee little ways to their people’s lives, and then tell everyone to come back next week for another wee little story.
That tendency to isolate our sermons to one tiny piece of biblical text is a major problem, and it also explains why so much evangelical preaching is moralistic. It is easy to pick out a familiar story, make a few points from it about what people should and should not do, and then be done with it. But that kind of preaching will leave a church weak and starving, because the Christians who sit under it never find themselves in the big story of God’s work in the world. If we as preachers want to see our people growing to maturity in Christ, we must give them more than a diet of wee little morality sermons. We must place every text we preach firmly within the grand, sweeping story of the Bible. (p. 89-90, emphasis added)
…Our people can know so much, and yet know nothing, all at the same time. They can have a deep repository of biblical facts and stories, and yet know absolutely nothing about how any of it fits together, or why any of it matters beyond the wee little “moral of the story.” (p. 95)
…We want our people to leave the preaching event asking the right questions. If our preaching is too small, their questions will be equally small. If we neglect the big story — the gospel metanarrative — they will be satisfied with small questions and will live on small insights. They may take home an insight, a story, a principle, or perhaps an anecdote. We should not be satisfied with that. They should not be satisfied with that. Our ambition — our obsession as preachers — should be nothing less than to preach so that the congregation sees the big story of the gospel, the grand narrative of the gospel, through every text we preach. (p. 102-103)
I say “amen” to Mohler’s assessment on this. I’ve heard too many “wee little” sermons in my day. May God grant the rising generation of preachers the wisdom to unpack God’s Word for us in such a way as to highlight the Gospel story and the grand narrative of Scripture!
From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.
This post is long but especially appropriate for today (Good Friday). I have taken the liberty of slightly editing the original post.
Today is Good Friday. We celebrate the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ today. When we think back to all that happened on Good Friday, we of course focus on Jesus’ becoming the “propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2).
But I want you to also think about all the signs and wonders which were on display that day. The sky turned dark, there was an earthquake and many who were dead came back to life. The veil of the Temple ripped from the top down. And on top of all of this, the weeks leading up to Jesus’ death were filled with all the talk of his many miracles including the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
Peter’s Sermon at Pentectost
Keep these signs and wonders in view as you look at Acts 2 with me, as Peter tries to explain another miraculous event – the mighty, rushing wind, tongues of fire, and the miraculous speech that enabled the 120 who were gathered in the upper room to tell the Good News to people of a multitude of languages, who all heard the Gospel in their native tongue.
For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [quoted from Joel 2:28-32]
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it….
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:15-24, 32-33)
Put in this light, you can see what Peter is doing. He’s comparing both the signs and wonders that were seen on Pentecost with the larger story of all that was seen surrounding Jesus – and all of this is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy, which Peter quotes. We have the men and women speaking in tongues (the first part of Joel’s prophecy), and we have a darkened sky and other wonders (the second part). Peter is making a point that the “last days” have now come. He adds the words “last days” to Joel’s prophecy for this very reason (Joel has “and afterward”). The “signs of the times” as it were, were already being seen – and Peter felt like he was living with the “day of the Lord” in the near future.
Some object to this view of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. They claim that Peter was just making an anlogy with Joel 2 to the current situation. Others claim that just the first part was being fulfilled, not the heavenly signs – which would obviously be in the future tribulation period. I won’t delve into all the arguments, but suffice it to say that the view that the New Testament authors understood the “last days” to have begun is quite strong and is attested to throughout the New Testament (see 1 Cor. 10:11, Heb. 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:20, 1 John 2:18).
Going back to Acts 2 now, let me quote from a book I’ve been reading: 40 Questions About the End Times by Eckhard Schnabel (Kregel, 2012):
The connections of the “wonders” and “signs” of Joel’s prophecy with Jesus’ ministry and death provide the basis for Peter’s subsequent arguments concerning the status and the significance of Jesus. The reference to the “last days” establishes how Peter reads the prophets: God has begun to fulfill his promises; the last days have arrived with Jesus’ ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension, and his bestowal of the Spirit. (pg. 21-22)
I agree with Schnabel’s conclusion, but I was especially intrigued with another point he made, almost in passing, in this chapter.
The Moon Turned to Blood
The suggestion that Acts 2:19 refers to a lunar eclipse during which the moon assumes a dull, red color, which was visible in Jerusalem at Passover in A.D. 33, is intriguing; however, it requires a later date for Jesus’ crucifixion, which is more plausibly dated in the year A.D. 30. (pg. 20)
Ever since I read Harold Hoehner’s Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Zondervan, 1978), I have held to a Friday crucifixion and to April 3, A.D. 33 as the most likely date for Jesus’ death. This view, that A.D. 33 to be the most likely year of Christ’s death and resurrection, is commonly held by a wide number of evangelical scholars. So I was not put off by Schnabel’s preference for A.D. 30. Instead I was very much intrigued by his reference to the moon turning to blood being explained by a lunar eclipse.
I must be honest in admitting that while I have understood Peter to be saying Joel 2 is fulfilled, I was thinking the literal fulfillment focused on the Pentecost event not on the darkening of the sun at Christ’s death. Or at least I hadn’t thought very much about this. So I was eager to read the paper that Schnabel cited which dealt with this lunar eclipse. I was happy to find that the paper is freely available online. It is titled, “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ’s Crucifixion” by Colin J. Humphreys and W. Graeme Waddington (Tyndale Bulletin 43, 1992).
I encourage you to read the entire paper (available here), but for my purposes I will excerpt the chief evidence presented for understanding a lunar eclipse to be in view with the prophecy that the moon would turn to blood.
Evidence from Early Christian Writings
In addition to quoting from the apocryphal “Report of Pilate”, the authors of the paper cite Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 412) as evidence:
The so-called ‘Report of Pilate’, a New Testament apocryphal fragment states, ‘Jesus was delivered to him by Herod, Archelaus, Philip, Annas, Caiphas, and all the people. At his Crucifixion the sun was darkened; the stars appeared and in all the world people lighted lamps from the sixth hour till evening; the moon appeared like blood’. [No matter the authenticity of this later document,] there must have been a tradition that at the Crucifixion the moon appeared like blood….
Further evidence is provided by Cyril of Alexandria, the orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria in AD 412. After stating that there was darkness at the Crucifixion he adds, ‘Something unusual occurred about the circular rotation of the moon so that it even seemed to be turned into blood’, and notes that the prophet Joel foretold such signs. (pg. 342)
The Technical Nature of the Phrase “Moon Turned to Blood”:
The moon turning to blood is a graphic description of a lunar eclipse. The reason an eclipsed moon appears blood-red is well known and the effect has been well documented. Even though during an eclipse the moon is geometrically in the earth’s shadow, some sunlight still reaches it by the refraction of light passing through the earth’s atmosphere. The light reaching the moon is red since scattering by air molecules and very small particles along its long path through the atmosphere preferentially removes the blue end of the spectrum. The phrase ‘moon turned to blood’ has been used by writers and historians to describe lunar eclipses for many centuries, and the expression dates back to at least 300 BC….
In the medieval European annals compiled by G.H. Pertz there are so many lunar eclipses described by ‘the moon turned to blood’ that the phrase appears to be used as a standard description. (pg. 343-344)
For additional corroboration, see the picture at the top of this post (taken from this article about a lunar eclipse in Brooklyn from 12/21/10). In that article, the moon is described as going “dark red” — very similar to the “blood red” description of the medieval era.
Conclusion
On this point, the authors put forth the following conclusion:
There is therefore strong evidence that when Peter, the ‘Report of Pilate’, and Cyril of Alexandria refer to the moon turning to blood on the evening of the Crucifixion, they were describing a lunar eclipse. It is surprising that this deduction does not appear to have been made before, although F.F. Bruce almost reaches this conclusion. He states, with reference to Peter’s Pentecost speech, ‘It was little more than seven weeks since the people in Jerusalem had indeed seen the sun turned into darkness, during the early afternoon of the day of our Lord’s Crucifixion. And on the same afternoon the paschal full moon may well have appeared blood-red in the sky in consequence of that preternatural gloom’. Presumably Bruce and other commentators have not been aware that a blood-red moon is a well-documented description of a lunar eclipse. (pg. 344)
The paper goes on to document how there was only one lunar eclipse that would have been visible from Jerusalem during the Passover in any of the years that are possible dates for his death. That eclipse is dated to Friday, April 3, A.D. 33 – the most likely date of the crucifixion.
This study has forced me to see the Crucifixion anew — to realize what a world-shattering event it really was! The death of Christ and His resurrection marked the end of the old age and the beginning of a new one. And miraculous signs in the heavens and on earth all attest to the prophetic undertones of what is happening. This also should serve to wake us up to the importance of the Cross of Christ and the Empty Tomb. The Gospel of Christ really is world-shattering. The realities we are sharing through the indwelling Spirit and our present realization of the blessings of the Gospel are all a brand new experience which is a foretaste of even greater things to come!
We are living in the last days and Jesus’ return draws near. May we live soberly and righteously in light of all that Christ has done for us. And may we not forget that the power of His resurrection has been given to us — we can live lives that testify to the glory of the age to come.
UPDATE: You can read my review of 40 Questions About the End Timeshere.
Have you ever read something in a footnote that was just too good to leave there? If you are like me, you can get “lost in a good footnote.” This post focuses on another great footnote.
Conservative evangelicals share the traditional position of the Church down through the centuries with respect to a literal Hell. Universalism (the belief that all people will be eventually be saved) has had its proponents but has always been a minority position in the Church. The Bible teaches that there is a literal Hell where the unbelieving will endure conscious torment in punishment for their sins. Such torment is never-ending (Matt. 25:46; Mk. 9:43,48; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). While we don’t know exactly what Hell will be like, the pictures painted in Scripture aren’t pretty. And there is little basis for the annihilationist position either (the belief that the lost will have their existence mercifully ended rather than suffer continually). Jesus spoke more of Hell than of Heaven, and evangelicals traditionally have included a warning of Hell along with their appeals to believe in the gospel.
The idea of eternal torment is hard to stomach in our contemporary world, and it seems unjust by human standards. This makes the doctrine of Hell something that believers have always grappled with. Alongside a belief in Hell stands the assumption that the Bible also teaches that the majority of humanity will end up there. Such a belief is widespread in Christian circles, and many former Evangelicals condemn Christianity for it. They rejoice in denouncing as harmful a religion they see as teaching that a spiteful God gleefully consigns most of humanity to Hell.
But does the Bible explicitly teach that most of humanity will ultimately miss out on salvation and an eternity with God in heaven? Many Christians will point to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ explanation that a wide road goes to destruction with many are on that road; but a narrow road leads to life and few are the ones who find it (Matt. 7:13-14). To this is added the common experience of the Church over the years as being a “remnant” and a marginalized slice of society.
Other Reformed theologians have been even more optimistic: on the basis of God’s electing grace, “we have reason to believe…that the number of the finally lost in comparison with the whole number of the saved will be very inconsiderable. Our blessed Lord, when surrounded by the innumerable company of the redeemed, will be hailed as the…Savior of Men, as the Lamb that bore the sins of the world.”17 “In the lack of people is the downfall of a prince” (Prov. 14:28). Will God have such a problem? Will He not be honored by a multitude?
…The diverse and often unexpected ways God has fulfilled past promises “should render us modest in our interpretation of those predictions which remain to be accomplished; satisfied that what we know not now we shall know hereafter.”18
(p. 93-94, bold emphasis added)
This hints that it is possible that more than just a few will be saved. I was interested in hearing more and found the following footnote quite instructive:
17 [Charles] Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:879–80. B. B. Warfield also affirms that “the number of the saved shall in the end be not small but large, and not merely absolutely but comparatively large; …to speak plainly, it shall embrace the immensely greater part of the human race.” “Are They Few that Be Saved?” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 349. In this essay Warfield argues that the texts (e.g., Matt. 7:13–14) frequently adduced to sustain the argument that the total number elected are few, in fact merely reflect the situation of pervasive unbelief current in Jesus’s day. Most pointedly, they urge the hearers not to prognosticate about the proportion of the elect but that “salvation is difficult and that it is our duty to address ourselves to obtaining it with diligence and earnest effort.” He adds, “We can never learn” from these texts “how many are saved” (338). On a related text, Matthew 22:14, Calvin recognizes that while the apparent ratio of saved to unsaved persons varies throughout the ages, Jesus’s words, “For many are called, but few are chosen” ought not prompt us to “enter… into the question about the eternal election of God.” Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 2:175. 18 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:850–51.
(pg. 94, bold emphasis added)
I then found that the essay from B.B. Warfield is available online. It is a relatively quick read, you can find it here: Are They Few That Be Saved?
Warfield gives a treatment of the three passages most often claimed to support the idea that few are saved: Luke 13:23, Matthew 7:13, and Matthew 22:14. His treatment of Luke 13:23 and its immediate context is quite convincing, and serves to provide the background for his treatment of the other passages. His case is bolstered by appeal to others who agree with his position. His main point in the essay is to point out how weak the basis is for the doctrine that only few will be saved. Such a position “crumbles when subjected to scrutiny” (p. 10).
While Warfield does not make a case for why we should believe that the majority of mankind will be saved, he does offer some brief thoughts: “Christ must reign until He shall have put all His enemies under His feet—by which assuredly spiritual, not physical, conquest is intimated” and Christ came “to save the world [and] nothing less than the world shall be saved by Him” (p. 10). Earlier in the essay he does look to the Kingdom parables of the mustard seed and the leaven as pointing toward a world-wide conquest of the Gospel as well.
Now this doesn’t answer all our questions around Hell, but it does underscore that the question about how many shall be saved has not been explicitly addressed in Scripture. We can trust in God, whose wisdom is exceedingly above our own. He will right all wrongs and settle all scores – and we can trust in His goodness and kindness.
UPDATE: The Gospel Coalition just published an article today (3/13) by William Boekestein on this very subject: Are Only Few People Saved? This is an expanded treatment of the topic I bumped into while reading his footnote. Go read his whole post!
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.
I recently finished a helpful little book on parenting by Sam Crabtree, Parenting with Loving Correction: Practical Help for Raising Young Children. In a chapter entitled “Reward Obedience, Not Disobedience” Crabtree shares the following pointed anecdote.
R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is known as a preacher and enjoys his role of cultivating preachers. Mohler has a new book out on preaching from Moody Publishers this year with the title 
Today is Good Friday. We celebrate the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ today. When we think back to all that happened on Good Friday, we of course focus on Jesus’ becoming the “propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2).
Happy Thanksgiving! This morning I was paging through my copy of