ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
I am committed to expository preaching because of the nature of Scripture. This was the subject of the previous post. Beyond this, I am committed to expository preaching because of its purposes which are given in Scripture. I believe that expository preaching has at least four purposes. Those four purposes are to (1) glorify God, (2) establish sound doctrine, (3) sanctify the church, and (4) save the lost. These four purposes of preaching outline at least four commitments of the preacher. First and foremost, preaching must glorify God. The preacher’s first commitment in expository preaching is not to his listeners. It is not to himself. It is not to the church or to formal responsibility. The first commitment of the expository preacher is to God. Expository preaching glorifies God because it tells forth who God is as he is revealed in his own word. It ascribes glory to God by proclaiming his self-revelation. Furthermore, this purpose of preaching should be sobering to the preacher (cf. Deut 18:20). The glory of God should cause the preacher to preach God's word with severe reverence. As we saw in the last blog post, the preacher is a steward of God's word. It is the Lord's word, therefore the preacher should seek to honor the Lord by delivering the word accurately. For this reason, I believe that ambiguity in preaching is dishonoring to God.
0 Comments
read more
Back to Blog
This post was originally written for The Moody Standard, the student paper of Moody Bible Institute. Because this was written to merely report on Davis' experience, I will not explicitly state my own opinions and beliefs here (though my bias should be obvious). I am planning to write several posts following this one to further examine the false beliefs of Bethel, explain my own experience at a very similar school (Valor Christian College), and speak on my time spent working personally with a well-known televangelist. Bethel Church is a 9,000-member [1] church in Redding, California. The music produced from Bethel has brought the organization as a whole into mainstream Christianity. Bethel church and its music has shaped the modern American worship landscape. Bethel Music’s top 5 popular songs on Spotify have a combined 120 million plays and their official YouTube channel has 912 million views. It is not uncommon to hear their music on Moody Bible Institute's campus, or even in chapel services. Bethel's ministry school, Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry (BSSM), made waves in late April when they expelled a student for questioning their teachings.
Lindsay Davis was removed from the ministry school for publicly speaking out against it and the church. While Davis was attending the school, a believer on Facebook suggested that she watch the new documentary American Gospel: In Christ Alone. A prominent Christian blogger [2] describes the film as “a film about how the gospel espoused by so many so-called Christians is not good news at all. This gospel is not drawn from the Bible but from the worldly desire for a long, comfortable, and affluential life. Much of the film is spent exploring the history of the Word of Faith movement, explaining its key claims and promises, and showcasing clips from its foremost leaders.” After watching the film, Davis began to speak out against the teachings of Bethel church and its leaders, Bill Johnson and Kris Vallotton. A spokesperson for BSSM explained, “Our leaders met with the student several times to seek to understand their viewpoints and attempted to clarify any misunderstanding of how they were experiencing our teachings from Scripture. Upon their transition out of BSSM, our leaders prayed for and blessed the student, and hope that they are led by the Lord in their next season.” To the charge made by Davis that the school does not present the gospel, BSSM has responded, “What God has accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is worthy of attention, praise, and adoration throughout eternity. The salvation we enjoy through Jesus is of supreme value to us, and is an ongoing, regular part of our curriculum at BSSM. Whether we are studying the Bible, studying theology, teaching people to share their faith, or moving in signs and wonders, the Cross is central to our identity.” However, Davis tells a different story of her experience at BSSM and Bethel Church. Davis explained that the students of BSSM are all very kind, but consistently opposed her questioning of the organization’s leaders. She was told that she had a “religious” spirit and that she may even be in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (the unpardonable sin). [3] These warnings were prompted when she questioned some of the beliefs of Bethel’s leaders. Davis lists many issues, but three of those beliefs are particularly problematic. The first of those issues is a false understanding of the person of Christ. In his book Face to Face with God[4], Bill Johnson teaches that “Jesus set aside His divinity, choosing instead to live as a man completely dependent on God.” This teaching, which Johnson has endorsed in at least one other book as well[5] , is known as the Kenosis Theory. This particular brand of the Kenosis Theory denies that Jesus was both very God and very man during his earthly ministry. Matt Slick of CARM.com[6] says that this teaching is dangerous “because if it were true, then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world.” I had the opportunity to bring up this issue to a spokesperson from BSSM. Rather than addressing Johnson’s false claims, he simply directed me to the church’s statement of faith, which is orthodox. While this shows that Bethel is orthodox on paper (at least concerning this issue), it does not explain why Johnson was allowed to put a false view of the Hypostatic Union into print on two occasions. A second teaching Davis highlights is the promise for miracles and healings. According to Davis, Bill Johnson teaches that physical healing and miraculous signs are integral pieces of the gospel. Any gospel that does not include physical healing then, is a false gospel. Johnson teaches [7] that it is always God’s will to heal people without exception because their healing (and wealth!) was bought in the atonement. Johnson has taught this position publicly. This teaching is espoused by Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and nearly all of the modern charismatic TV charlatans as well. Justin Peters, an author and speaker prominently featured in American Gospel, corrects this teaching by explaining that physical health is purchased in the atonement but it is not guaranteed in this life. Physical well-being is promised to believers in the life to come. Sam Storms, who is a self-proclaimed continuationist[8] , says, “it is theologically misleading to say that Jesus bore our sicknesses in the same way he bore our sins. Rather he paid the price of the latter (sin) in order that one day, when he returns to glorify his people, he may wholly do away with the former (sickness).[9] ” However, when Davis presented the correct view of the atonement on campus, her allegiance to the school’s leaders and reliance on the Holy Spirit was called into question. The spokesperson for BSSM which I spoke with once again directed me to their statement of faith rather than addressing specific claims made by Johnson. Bethel’s official statement is, “We believe all can be healed because Jesus demonstrated the Father’s will in healing all the sick and demonized He encountered.” The third practice Davis describes is rarely seen from the outside world: Bethel’s cultish and unorthodox practices. Having attended Bethel’s church and school, Davis speaks from first-hand experience of the practices commonly found in their meetings. One strange practice in their worship services are “glory clouds.” These clouds are merely plumes of glitter. Justin Peters has recorded a first-hand testimony [10] of a woman whose job was to pour gold dust into the ventilation of a church distantly affiliated with Bill Johnson. This was done to create a “glory cloud” in the worship services and fabricate the supernatural. Johnson’s official response to the glory cloud is that “Occasionally we have unusual things happen…I don’t typically take a service for it…that’s typically my response to the signs that make you wonder.” He goes on to say, “Frequently…gold will start falling during worship…we’ll see it just drop like rain.” His only explanation: God is bigger than our understanding, so we should not question the validity of these occurrences. BSSM offered no response to the criticisms raised against the “glory cloud” except to redirect me to Johnson’s statements. I encourage the reader to watch the readily available videos of the “glory cloud” on YouTube. Worship services at Bethel also include “spirit drunkenness.” This practice, which includes uncontrolled movements and unintelligible moaning, has drawn criticism from many, including Todd Friel of Wretched Radio[11] and the 2013 Strange Fire conference[12]. Davis describes an event in which students were encouraged to dip their heads in a large honey barrel to become “intoxicated” on the Spirit. On another occasion, Davis said she was surrounded by “drunken” worshipers as they began to point at her and cackle uncontrollably because she did not have the same experience as they did. BSSM offered no comment concerning the honey barrel. While expelled from BSSM, Davis still actively speaks out against Bethel’s teachings in the hope that some of the 4,000 BSSM students, 9,000 church members, and millions of followers around the world would come to true faith and reject the false gospel being taught by Bethel. She has also said that even one convert would be worth all the trouble that she has been put through. She is currently trying to figure out the best means of communicating the truth and striving to unlearn everything she was taught at BSSM. Her full testimony is recorded in three podcasts here. While BSSM offered several public statements, they declined an interview. If you have not already, please consider watching the film American Gospel: In Christ Alone. You can purchase the full version here or view the shortened, free version here. [1]https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-bethel-church-movement/ [2]https://www.challies.com/music-movies/american-gospel/ [3]https://apologiastudios.com/cultish/defecting-from-bethel-GGO_ywKP [4]p.80 [5]When Heaven Meets Earth [6]https://carm.org/kenosis [7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p-n47dVtQ8 [8]https://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/why-i-am-a-continuationist [9]https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/is-there-healing-in-atonement [10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_kw6OgQgtQ [11]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_rF9A3pYY [12]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhG2CBVQy3w&t=312s see 50:42 and forward. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzqFwY_z2nY And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xkV6BloXOg
Back to Blog
Preaching: Foundation and Definition1/28/2019 The verse which I have chosen as the focus of this website and of my own personal ministry is 2 Peter 1:15, which says, "And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind." The "things" which Peter wanted his readers to remember were the truths of Scripture (1:3-11, 16-21). Why was he concerned with teaching the truths of Scripture? Because in them is all that is necessary for life and godliness (1:3). To solidify the truth of Scripture in the hearts of others is a worthy goal in life. One primary way in which this is done is through preaching. Preaching is also a mandate of Scripture (2 Tim 4:1-4). For this reason, I will dedicate several blog posts (I have no idea how many it will be in the end) to answering the question "what is biblical preaching?" In this first post, I hope to lay the theological foundation for preaching and to define preaching as simply as I can. Doctrine of Scripture as the Foundation
My understanding of preaching is built on two theological pillars. Those two pillars are the doctrine of Scripture and a biblical definition of preaching. The first theological pillar on which my philosophy of preaching stands is the nature of Scripture. I believe that Scripture is authoritative, sufficient, and clear. Each one of these attributes of Scripture uniquely affects my understanding of preaching. Before explaining how they affect my understanding of preaching, it is necessary to define each of these attributes. First, Scripture is authoritative because it is breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16). Because God is authoritative, all of his words are authoritative. I affirm verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. That is to say that the very words themselves as well as the whole of Scripture, in every expression, is equally inspired. Scripture is the very word of God, and for this reason I believe that Scripture is the only authority God has given us to know, glorify, and enjoy Him.[i] Second, I believe Scripture is sufficient and lacking nothing (Ps 19:7-11). Twice, once in Deuteronomy 4:2 and again in Revelation 22:18-19, God gave the command neither to add nor to take away from the text. I also believe, as James did, that the law is “perfect” (Jas 1:22). This implies that nothing is missing from the text and also that everything within the text is necessary. Furthermore, Scripture is sufficient for salvation (2 Tim 3:15), for making believers complete (2 Tim 3:17), for equipping believers with everything necessary for holy living (2 Tim 3:17), and for equipping the believer for life and godliness (2 Pt 1:3). Scripture is explicitly clear in that it is complete (Ps 119; Ps 19:7), needing no outside influence to be efficacious (Col 3:16; 2 Tim 3:15-17; Matt 7:24-25). I believe that adding supplements to Scripture detracts from its sufficiency (Matt 7:26-27; Rev 22:18-19). Finally, I believe in the absolute clarity of Scripture. That is to say that it is perfectly and inherently clear. Theological truth revealed in Scripture requires no special knowledge for comprehension. Every believer is able to understand Scripture clearly through careful study and with the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:17-18). Preaching Defined in Scripture With these attributes in mind, it is now helpful to properly define preaching. Preaching is the proclamation of God’s Word on his behalf with the prompting for the hearers to obey his word. In this way, the preacher is a steward of God’s word. John Stott explains that preachers are rightfully called “stewards” because, "The steward is the trustee and dispenser of another person’s goods. So the preacher is a steward of God’s mysteries, that is, of the self-revelation which God has entrusted to men and which is now preserved in the Scriptures."[ii] This definition of preaching is informed by 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, "So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Now it is required of stewards that they be found faithful." A brief study of the other uses of the term "steward" in the New Testament is beneficial for understanding its use in this passage (Lk 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Rm 16:23; Gal 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pt 4:10). I have written elsewhere on the significance that we are "sent ones" with the responsibility of representing Christ accurately. Our responsibility as stewards is to represent our Master faithfully. Another writer helpfully explains that, "It is only when the living God, who himself spoke in the history recorded in the Bible, speaks again through the preaching of the Bible that a sermon becomes a sermon."[iii] If preaching is the proclamation of Scripture from the mouth of a steward, then the sermon which is preached should also reflect the attributes of Scripture which were previously explained. This is how the two pillars of my understanding of preaching come together. Scripture is authoritative, therefore preaching should be authoritatively spoken on behalf of God. Scripture is sufficient, therefore preaching need not search other materials to adequately address the issues of the soul. Scripture is clear, therefore preaching must never dilute the clarity of Scripture. The faithful steward of God's word will rely on the authority, sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture in his preaching. With these two theological pillars now explained and combined, it is possible to look at why preachers should be committed to expository preaching. In the next post, I will give the purposes of preaching as they are found in Scripture. In the mean time, consider the question, "Why do we preach?" [i] WSC Q2 [ii] Stott, John R.W., The Preachers Portrait (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1961) 17. [iii] Miller, “The Biblical Background of Preaching,” Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology 2.
Back to Blog
The God who sends1/26/2019 The relationship of the Father as sender and the Son as sent in John’s Gospel is used to show that Jesus is an accurate representative of the Father and to explain the goal of sending Christ into the world. As early as 3:17, John begins teaching the concept of the Father as the sender and the Son as sent. This concept then stretches the span of the book with frequent connections between Jesus and the one who sent him (3:34; 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 36, 37; 6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21). The terminology of “sender” and “sent” in John’s Gospel is not unique to the book, but it is one of the factors that makes the book unique. While the two Greek terms for sending are not unordinary, the sheer volume of usage within the book is worth investigation. For example, 40% of the NT usage of the verb “πέμπω” is found in John’s Gospel. In total, John uses one of the two terms in connection with Jesus 41 times.[1] These facts alone are not enough to prove that the sending of Christ is a significant point theologically. However, when key passages that contain the terms are examined, it can be shown that the relationship between the Father and Son as “sender” and “sent” is significant.
The God who sends Before the specific passages can be examined, the use and meaning of the concept of God sending people should first be explained. The biblical concept of people being sent by God with a specific goal to be achieved can be seen most clearly in OT examples. Joseph explains that it was not his brothers who sent him to Egypt, but God with the intention of preserving a remnant (Gen 45:7-8). The prophet Nathan was sent to David for the purpose of speaking a message (2 Sam 12:1). Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are all sent by God for the purpose of speaking a message to his people (Isa 6:8; Jer 1:7; Ezek 2:3). John carries this concept into the NT. He does so by recording twice that John the Baptist was sent by God (1:6; 3:28; cf. Mal 3:1). Therefore it can be adequately demonstrated that this concept often refers to “the sending of a messenger with s special task.”[2] The goal to be achieved may vary between those who were sent, but the fact that they were all sent with a goal to be achieved remains the same. He “represents in his own person, the person and rights of the other.” God sends people with purposes. However, to further understand the concept of God sending people in Scripture, the idea must be explored further. Those who were sent in the OT were sent as representatives of God. Köstenberger explains, “Moses and the prophets were considered to be God’s agents and mouthpieces who acted and spoke on God’s behalf.”[3] The sent messenger of God “represents in his own person the person and rights of the other.”[4] So, not only does God send messengers with a goal to be achieved, but he also sends them as representatives of himself. Both of these facts can be clearly seen of Jesus as God’s sent messenger in the Gospel of John. While many passages within the book could be used to demonstrate that both of these facts apply to Jesus as a sent messenger, only two key passages are necessary. Chapters 5 and 17 contain the highest number of references to the concept of Jesus being sent by God. Both chapters contain either the word “πέμπω” or “ἀποστέλλω” six times. For this reason, these two chapters will be used as the central texts to understand how this concept applies to the relationship of the Father and Son. Chapter 5 will be used to show both how and why Jesus perfectly and faithfully represents the Father. Chapter 17 will be used to show not only what goal Jesus was sent to achieve, but also how he fulfilled it. Jesus as God’s representative and beyond The NT firmly establishes that Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father (Phil 2:6; Col 1:15; 2:9). Perhaps no other passage does this more thoroughly than John 5:19-30. In this single passage, John explains two ways in which Jesus is perfectly representative and the purpose of that representation. First, Jesus represents the Father by having authority over life. The same Father who sent Jesus into the world also gave to Jesus to have life in himself (5:26). Second, Jesus represents the Father by judging according to the Father’s will. The Father has given all judgement to the Son who he sent into the world (5:22, 30). In the middle of the passage, Jesus explains why the Father has sent him as a representative in these two ways. The primary reason given by Jesus in this passage is that he is to be honored just as the Father is honored (5:23). If Jesus truly has authority over life and in judgement, then he is due the same amount of honor that is given to the Father. For this reason, both claims of authority, over life and judgement, should be carefully considered. God is seen in the OT as the giver of life (Gen 2:7; Deut 32:39; Ruth 4:13; 1 Sam 2:21; Job 33:4). It is no small statement then that Jesus here claims to give life “just as” the Father does (5:21). In the preceding passage, Jesus claims equality with the Father (5:18). This passage serves, at least in part, as an explanation of that claim. The Son is equal to the Father because he has authority over life. Not only does the Son have authority to give life, but verse 26 explains that he has life “in himself.” This fact was introduced in the prologue to the Gospel (1:4). Jesus will prove that he contains authority over life when he resurrects Lazarus from the dead and when he calls for the resurrection of all mankind before the judgement (11:43-44; 5:28-29). It should also be noted that Jesus’s authority over life is demonstrated not only in physical resurrection but also in his giving of spiritual life to those who believe (3:16; 5:24-25).[5] Jesus will prove his equality with the Father by resurrecting the dead. He will also prove his equality with the Father when he judges those who have been resurrected. Just as giving life is taught as an exclusive right of God in the OT, so is judgement (Gen 18:25; Ps 75:7; Isa 33:22; Joel 3:12).[6] Therefore, Jesus’s claim to have exclusive rights to judge would have been shocking to any Jewish listeners. Jesus explains that just as the Father gave the Son “life in himself,” he also gave the Son authority over all judgement (5:22). While Jesus has been given all authority to judge, he still chooses to submit his will to the will of the one who sent him (5:30). This point has already been made earlier in the Gospel in connection with the relationship of sender and sent in mind (4:34). By willfully submitting his own will, he is acting as a perfect representation of the Father. Because he was sent by the Father, he must accurately represent him. As was established earlier, the one who is sent is expected to represent the one who sent them. Up to this point, Jesus has been given authority to represent the one who sent him. This is astonishing considering the one who sent him, but the concept of sending one with authority on the behalf of the sender is not uncommon. However, Jesus’s explanation of why he has been sent and given authority is truly shocking. So far this passage has explained that Jesus has been given authority on behalf of the party who sent him. He must use the authority given to him to faithfully represent the one who sent him. He glorifies the one who sent him by accomplishing what he was sent to do (17:4). Jesus explains exactly what authority has been given to him, then he explains why in verse 23. He says that the Father has given him authority so that “all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” One who is sent on behalf of another is expected to represent the sender with the authority that was given, but to receive equal authority to the sender is absurd. One commentator rightly notes that “the honour given to an envoy is never that given to the head of state.”[7] The fact that Jesus was given the authority of the Father for the sake of receiving equal honor as the Father is what makes his sending unique. The purpose for which Jesus was sent All those who are sent by God are sent as representatives by God and with a purpose. The Son is the perfect representative of the Father because the Father has given him life in himself and authority over all judgement. This was revealed in chapter five along with the astonishing fact that the Son is also sent as one deserving equal honor as the Father. Yet, that passage revealed little about the purpose for which the Son was sent into the world. A passage later in the book will reveal that more clearly. In John seventeen, Jesus is found praying to the one who sent him. Early on in this prayer he reveals that he has “accomplished the work” which he was sent to do (17:4). While scholars disagree on what “work” is referring to in this passage, the larger truth is still clear: As one sent by God, Jesus not only perfectly represented the Father, he also submitted his own will to the will of the Father in order to accomplish the task he was sent to accomplish. Before looking at the significance of Jesus’s submission of his own will, it is important to investigate the meaning of the word “work” in John 17:4. Two methods of interpreting “work” have risen to prominence among scholars. The first view interprets work to include the work of Jesus dying on the cross. If this is true, Jesus was speaking of his future death with certainty. The second way of interpreting this passage is to define Jesus’s “work” as everything that he has done up to the moment of his prayer. Both interpretations must be explained within the larger context of John. The first interpretation takes “work” to include the finished work of Christ on the cross. Morris holds this view and explains it partially through the use of the Greek word for “accomplish.”[8] The use of this term may in fact point forward to 19:30 where Jesus says, “It is finished!” This interpretation is helpful for two reasons. First, the connection between 17:4 and 19:30 would give reason to believe that Jesus was speaking of a future event in 17:4 even though he speaks of it as if it were already done. Second, this view accounts for the singular usage of the term “work.” If all of the work that Jesus did on earth is summed up as one whole, it would make sense for him to refer to it in the singular sense. The opposing view would be to see Jesus’s work on the cross as separate from the rest of his earthly works. Linders supports this view by distinguishing between the work and glory of Jesus.[9] He confers only with 12:28 but gives little explanation for his view. However, the underlying foundation of his view depends on the separation of the works of Christ, being what he did up to the point of dying, and the glory of Christ, being his death and resurrection.[10] Many scholars agree with the former view. Beasley-Murray refers back to 4:34 and 5:36 where Jesus seems to include the entirety of his earthly works as one unit.[11] Carson agrees saying, “it makes best sense if v. 4 includes all the work by which Jesus brings glory to his Father, and that includes his own death, resurrection, and exaltation.”[12] This view takes more of the Gospel into account and is therefore more probable. Regardless of which view is taken, it can still be said that, “the work of Christ was nothing other than to glorify the Father.”[13] The purpose for which the Father sent the Son into the world was mutual glorification (17:1-5). Jesus, the savior who sends The Father sent the Son into the world as a perfect representative and deserving honor for the sake of mutual glorification between the Father and the Son. The Son willingly submitted himself to the will of the Father, showing his love and dependence for the Father (5:30). This biblical truth and example of interactions between two persons of the Trinity should have a profound effect on every believer. Up until John 20:21, the language of “sender” and “sent” has primarily been used when speaking of the relationship between the Father and the Son. In 20:21, however, Jesus tells his disciples “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” Considering the use of this language in the preceding portions of the Gospel, this statement to the disciples should not be taken lightly. Jesus was sent by the Father as a representative with a task to be achieved. Therefore, when Jesus sent out his disciples, he sent them out in the same manner. Just as Jesus represented the Father so the disciples represented Jesus. Jesus represented the Father by having authority over life and judgement as well as by submitting to the will of the Father. The disciples represented Jesus by exercising authority over sin (20:22-23) and submitting to the will of Christ. They were sent out as representatives of Christ. In the words of Morris, this charge to the disciples in John 20:21, “remains the justification for the church’s mission.”[14] In order to respond to such a commission, the believer must first observe how Jesus responded to his commission. Jesus perfectly represented the Father because he perfectly submitted to his will. If the believer desires to represent Christ, he must perfectly submit to the will of Christ. What did Jesus withhold in his service to the Father? What then should we withhold in our service to the Son? Just as Jesus laid aside his own desires, so also must the believer. Not only did Jesus perfectly represent the Father, but he also had a clear goal to achieve. Jesus was sent into the world for the purpose of glorifying the Father. In turn, the Father glorified the Son. The faithful believer who accepts the commission of Christ must also set out to achieve the same goal. Just as Christ dedicated his life and even his death to the glory of the Father, so also must the believer dedicate his life and death to the glory of the Son. Again we must ask, what area of Jesus' life did he withhold in his efforts to glorify the Father? What areas of our lives do we withhold in our efforts to glorify the Son? Do we take our mission as seriously as Christ took his? Are we concerned with glorifying the one who sent us? Or are we more concerned with representing ourselves and achieving our own goals? [1] Timothy Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) 305. Friberg offers a concise explanation of the difference between “πέμπω” and “ἀποστέλλω”. However, the distinction between the two terms is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. [2] Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω (πέμπω), ἐξαποστέλλω, ἀπόστολος, ψευδαπόστολος, ἀποστολή” TDNT, vol.1, ed. Gerhard Kittle trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 400. [3] Andreas J. Köstenberger, ECNT: John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 188. [4] Rengstorf, TDNT 1:415 [5]D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 253. [6] Köstenberger, John 188. [7] Carson, John 255. [8] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (revised edition; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 638. [9] Barnabas Linders, The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972) 520. [10] Gerald L Borchert, “John 12-21,” The New American Commentary, vol. 25b ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman and Holman) 190. Borchert also seems to make a distinction between the work of Christ before and after the prayer. [11] George R. Beasley-Murray “John,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 ed. Bruce M. Metzger, Ralph P. Martin, and Lynn Allan Losie (second edition; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999) 297. [12] Carson, John, 557. [13] Morris, John, 638. [14] Leon Morris, Expository Reflections on the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 709. |