Oxford Brookes University Mission – Day 2

One of the things that I failed to mention yesterday was the complete horlicks I made of the question time after my talk. That may have been why no one decided to ask any questions today. Or, as is more likely, they were completely bored by my unbelievably dull talk.

At the end of yesterday’s talk I used a brilliant CS Lewis quote,

‘Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important’.

The questioner put up his arm and asked what it was that had convinced me that Jesus was of infinite importance rather than of no importance. What a gift of a question. It could almost have been a plant. It wasn’t. (Though I was to later learn that the guy was part of the Christian Union). Anyway despite the set up that he’d given me, I bogged it. I wittered. And what I should have said was something like this:

1. the first thing that tipped me over the edge was meeting Christians who gave Christianity credibility. It was amazing really because the first Christians I met were at school. They were only sixth formers and yet it was evident that they had something that I did not. There was substance to them even at that young age. I found them hugely impressive. And I could imagine becoming a Christian and not thinking that would be the worst thing in the world!

2. the second thing that tipped me over the edge was seeing that Jesus’ teaching had the ring of authenticity. Every time I encountered Bible teaching I kept being nailed. Jesus had this uncanny knack of knowing what I was like and why I would do things. It made me uncomfortable but at least I knew that he knew what I was like on the inside. And then I heard an explanation of the cross which made sense of why people got so excited about Jesus. That was the clincher.

3. the third thing that tipped me over the edge was discovering that the historical accounts had integrity. I read some books by people like FF Bruce and Paul Barnett and they gave me confidence that what I was reading was legitimate history. I wasn’t being asked to suspend belief but to exercise belief in the Jesus I encountered. I just couldn’t shake the feeling that I was reading facts! And that mattered to me. I didn’t want to believe a fairy tale. I was an engineer. I needed to know that there was evidence for what was being said. And these writers kept on showing me historical evidence to support what the Bible said.

Some of that came out in the question. But you’d have had to be working pretty hard to access it. First note to self: be better at thinking on your feet!

Today was the issue of the historical reliability of the New Testament. I’ve been reading John Dickson’s book ‘The Christ Files’ which is a very helpful introduction to the issue of the historical studies. Paul Barnett’s book ‘The Truth About Jesus’ has also been an invaluable resource. Neither are technical. They’re paperbacks, which is how I like my theology books in general! But you can feel the weight of scholarship that underpins what are popular level treatments of an important but quite dull question. And so today was poor. The crowd was bigger. But the talk was dull. That was my fault, though I do think the topic lacks the x-factor of some of the other talks. I tried, but the issue of the authenticity of our contemporary versions, the salient historical details being attested by non-Christian writers and the accuracy of the written testimony established by eyewitnesses accounts is hardly edge of the seat stuff.  At least, it wasn’t the way I put it! In his book, Dickson himself says ‘It is a sad fact of scholarship (in many fields  that the most impressive work is too subtle, cautious and sophisticated – in other words, boring – to be considered newsworthy by the regular media outlets’. He uses that to explain why it’s the ‘Jesus married Mary’ stuff always gets an airing. I suspect that a more sensational approach to my talk might have given it some juice. But I felt constrained by the need for careful explanation and so it felt a bit flat.

My new resolve is not to put my confidence in my fearsome intellect (ahem) but in the God who says that he’ll bring people to faith in his Son through the work of his Spirit as he speaks through his word. And so I’m hoping that the brief exposition of Luke 1:1-4 makes some impact. It wasn’t much. It couldn’t be since time was running on. But I briefly mentioned that the fulfilment that Jesus’ historical biographer, Luke was out to establish had to do with the long awaited provision of a saviour from sin. That’s got some juice!

Science tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

Every Church needs Gifted Amateurs

‘The curse of the gifted amateur’, that was how Phillip Jensen berated English Evangelicalism. It was one of his off-piste comments that, had he known he was going to be quoted, he may well have wanted to kill with a thousand qualifications. But he didn’t, which is what makes him so worth listening to! But at the time, his point was that as a theological constituency we had far too low a view of the value of theological education. He was probably right. And there were good reasons for that. We hadn’t had it and we’d had to survive without it. Lots of our flagship churches were run by men who were extraordinarily gifted in intellect, initiative and instinct but whose theological education had ill equipped them for evangelical pastoral ministry. I’m not saying that they weren’t good. They were. And are. And I still benefit hugely from their ministries. But most of the people who went to the theological colleges in Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Bristol in this period say that they learnt how to do ministry by being involved in student ministry and participating in their local evangelical churches. They weren’t helped by their theological training, which was overwhelmingly liberal in flavour. These men were ‘naturally’ gifted and on their watch they raised up the next generation of young church leaders. Those men now have the privilege of being able to choose between some fine theological institutions that are geared up to helping us teach the truth and refute error. But it’s possible to overplay the theological education card. My Co-Mission colleague, Pete Woodcock, repeatedly reminds us that attending a theological college isn’t a New Testament requirement for consideration for eldership. And he’s right. It’s not. And then there’s Nehemiah 3.

One of the striking features of this narrative is the sheer number and diversity of people who joined in. Just look over the chapter to get an impression  of the frequency with which different people are named. The variety of different people is astounding. Every Tom, Dick and Harriet is involved in rebuilding the Kingdom of God. We get a flavour of that from the people mentioned who rebuilt the area around the Jeshanah Gate.

The Jeshanah Gate was repaired by Joiada son of Paseah and Meshullam son of Besodeiah. They laid its beams and put its doors and bolts and bars in place. Next to them, repairs were made by men from Gibeon and Mizpah—Melatiah of Gibeon and Jadon of Meronoth—places under the authority of the governor of Trans-Euphrates. Uzziel son of Harhaiah, one of the goldsmiths, repaired the next section; and Hananiah, one of the perfume-makers, made repairs next to that. They restored Jerusalem as far as the Broad Wall. Rephaiah son of Hur, ruler of a half-district of Jerusalem, repaired the next section. Adjoining this, Jedaiah son of Harumaph made repairs opposite his house, and Hattush son of Hashabneiah made repairs next to him. Malkijah son of Harim and Hasshub son of Pahath-Moab repaired another section and the Tower of the Ovens. Shallum son of Hallohesh, ruler of a half-district of Jerusalem, repaired the next section with the help of his daughters.

Uzziel the goldsmith participated. Did he really know how to wield a trowel. Perhaps DIY was a hobby. Shallum the ruler got involved and so did his daughters in. But what I especially love is Hananiah the perfume maker. The man was a beautician! What could he possibly know about bricklaying? But God used him and all the others to rebuild his Kingdom. This is a grand theme that the New Testament picks up in places like 1 Corinthians 12. God uses gifted amateurs and not simply the professionals to grow his churches. He gifts his people with whatever he thinks they need in order to grow the church in maturity and numbers. Very few of us are professionals. But no matter. God does it this way so that he gets the credit. And rightly so. He uses the glorious diversity of gifted amateurs like us.

To build the Kingdom of God in this country I’m not sure that we need more professionals as much as we gifted amateurs who are prepared to get involved in building the work of the local church.

Read Full Post »

No church can avoid the nobles of Tekoa

Nehemiah 3 is littered with examples of people who had social and political clout. It’s full of people for whom labouring on a building site wouldn’t be where you’d expect to find them. But they did their bit.  They played team, got involved and did what had to be done. And so the comment in (5) about the nobles from Tekoa strikes a jarring note.

⁵ The next section was repaired by the men of Tekoa, but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work under their supervisors.

They decided not to get involved. We’re not told why. They clearly resented being told what to do by their supervisors, so perhaps they thought this work was beneath them. We may be tempted to think that they were work shy aristocrats. And we may be right. But before we judge them too harshly, it’s worth asking whether there are ministries in the church that we think are beneath us. Is chair stacking really what someone with a 2:1 from Cambridge ought to be doing? Durham perhaps, but not Cambridge. I jest. I wouldn’t trust a job of such complexity to a Durham man. I jest again.

But when our church has a recruitment drive for crèche helpers aren’t we tempted to think that looking after babies is beneath someone like us? But this is a ministry that enables both parents to hear the word of God on a regular basis. It’s a ministry that contributes to the growth of the church.

But the nobles of Tekoa teach us that when building the kingdom of God we can’t rely on everyone playing ball. There’ll always be a bunch of individuals who decide to be non-compliant. But the work carried on regardless. The walls were built. And sadly, for them, they missed out on the joy of being a part of it. Presumably this will always be the case. A church is unlikely to get 100% co-operation from everyone. There’ll always be a dissenting minority, perhaps even vocal who will not join in with what everyone else is doing.

What do we learn from this? God built the walls without the co-operation of the awkward squad. Nothing is going to stand in his way of fulfilling is promise to build the Kingdom of God. Not even the non-compliance of people who think that working hard to build the church is beneath them. So crack on. Don’t let their negativity get you down. Enjoy building the church. And trust the Lord.

Read Full Post »

Keller’s Good Endeavour

Tim Keller’s new book arrived in the post last week. It’s due to be holiday reading so I’ll have something to say about it in a while.

But for now, here’s a clip of him being interviewed about it on MSNBC.

Keller on MSNBC

Read Full Post »

Is on holiday …

… and having a lovely time, thank you very much.

See you in September.

Read Full Post »

Small Things – The Mission Half Night of Prayer

Every now and again, no more frequently than that, God makes little things happen that help ministry feel sustainable. He sends encouragements that take me out of my despondency and stop me from wallowing in self pity! I thought it’d be a good thing to mention them when they happen. And so I’m hoping that this becomes a regular feature. If they don’t then the odds are that I’ve quit and gone back to being a pool lifeguard (the only professional qualification I’ve ever had)!

We had a half night of prayer last Wednesday. It started at six and finished at midnight. We operated in hour long slots and made sure that there was variety from one hour to the next so that it didn’t become routine. The intention was that people would be able to come for an hour or two and pray in preparation for our forthcoming mission, which starts this week.

Regrettably, many of the church used the opportunity of the half night of pray to either take the night off or to use the time for other things. Not everyone, because some stalwarts came and prayed for four or five hours with the staff. And one couple took it in turns to be at home looking after their son so that they could both participate. Those sorts of things are priceless. But many of the regulars ended up coming for less time than they would otherwise do on a Wednesday night for small group. I guess they thought that they’d actually prayed for more time than they would usually do. We usually pray for 10-15 minutes in a small group session. But on this occasion we deliberately planned to pray for longer. And teh truth is that they did. I just thought we’d push the boat out and do that little bit extra by staying for two hours.

I was feeling a little deflated then when at eleven o’clock (when most people had sensibly gone home to bed) two young men walked through the door. They’d come straight from work. I cannot tell you how much that lifted my spirits. I’d been in a bit of a grump up until that stage. I’d kept it hidden, no one would have known. But the sight of these two men pitching up to pray was a massive encouragement. Humanly speaking what they were doing was not impossible. But it was unlikely. They’d just worked a full day. They needed to get home for some sleep. And yet they pitched up to pray. That’s a work of God in their lives. And I rejoiced. I kept it hidden. Again no one would have known. But inside I was whooping with delight because of the goodness of God. And that’s helped me get over the more disappointing aspects of thatterrific evening.

Read Full Post »

Relocating for the Gospel

I came across this article this week as I browsed my copy of Evangelicals Now. It’s about the possibility of changing where you choose to live as a Christian. And it’s by Ken Brownell.

Ken is a much respected evangelical leader. He’s the Senior Minister at East London Tabernacle (ELT). Of the area in which ELT is situated, their website says,

More recently its (ELT’s) concern has been for the large number of Bangladeshis, Somalis and other predominantly Muslim groups that live around the church. However the church is a very diverse community with people of many nationalities and a wide social mix. While one ward near the church is one of the most socially deprived in Britain another has one of the highest concentrations of university graduates. With a number of universities the area is also home to many international students. Also effecting the church is the shift of London’s centre of gravity eastward with the development of Canary Wharf and the Thames Gateway.

Ken runs a flourishing ministry in what must be one of the toughest environments in London to grow a church. In addition to his church responsibilities, he edits Foundations, the theological journal of Affinity. In short, this is a man worth listening to.

In the article, his contends that for the past century evangelicals have been moving out of the inner city. This is killing some churches, he argues. And so he pleads with evangelicals to give serious consideration to the issue of relocating for the sake of the gospel. We need to hear this. I like much of what he says.

He suggests five possible types of people who might consider relocating for the gospel.

1. Wealthier Christian families could move into the inner city since they can afford both a nice house and independent schooling for their kids. He’s right; they could. And then they could use their decent sized kitchen-diner, their spacious living room and their garden for the gospel and benefit their poorer Christian brothers and sisters at the same time. We had a family leave CCB a while ago to do just this. And I think it’s brilliant. They’re involved as a senior family in a (albeit it large) city centre church. But they could have easily decided to throw their lot in with a smaller work if they’d wanted to and been a great blessing to them.

2. Childless Christians could move into the inner city and redeem their desperately sad circumstances by using the opportunities that their situation has created for gospel ministry. I know of a handful of couples for whom this is their situation. They add an immeasurable benefit for the gospel ministry in their churches. Providentially God has liberated them from the concerns that come from raising children. And wonderfully, in the kindness of God, they’ve been able to see their situation as a means to bless others. I’m not saying it’s easy. But I am saying that it’s wonderful.

3. Retired Christians could move into the inner city after their kids have flown the nest. Friends of mine have done this. They’ve exchanged a spacious suburban dwelling for a bijou flat in zone 1 in order to support the ministry of a recently appointed incumbent at a tiny Anglican Church. They have years of ministry under their belt and more experience than you can shake a stick at. They understand the pressure of ministry on ministry families and so they’ll be a great support to the Minister and his wife. They’re servant hearted and so they’ll do what they can to help.

4. Comfortable Christians who are fed up with their own unwillingness to embrace self sacrifice could do something courageous and challenging for the gospel. Some of us have the aptitude and opportunity to be a little bit more adventurous than the norm. Why not give it a blast rather than die wondering?

5. Suburban Christians who either travel in to a large city centre church or who attend a local suburban church could stay living where they do and travel in to help support a struggling ministry. This is the one I like least. I think I just disagree with it altogether! Commuting Christians isn’t an idea I’d want to encourage at all. I’m an unashamed supporter of the local church.

Ken doesn’t spend long in the article talking about why the small evangelical churches are small, though he does acknowledge that there are reasons for that. He writes, ‘While in some churches there are some deep problems that may need to be addressed, many are relatively healthy spiritually, though small’. The issue of church growth, the suitability and competence of a minister and the ministry patterns of the church are sensitive and delicate issues. I understand that. And I’ve personally felt their force over the years. But we need to ask the questions even if we’re not sure that we’ll like the answers. For example, did the church start small? In which case, why has it remained small? Why haven’t people joined it? What have been the barriers to growth? Or did the church start big? If so, why have they shrunk? Why have people left? Why haven’t people joined? It simply can’t be the case that evangelicals leaving the inner city is the only contributory factor, can it? White middle class evangelicals may have left the inner city (as the map above shows). But Ken acknowledges that they’ve been doing this for a century. So it’s not a new problem. These churches could be struggling for the very reasons that he identifies and putting new Christian families, couple or individuals in them may not be the answer.

In Balham we’re on the cusp of Zone 2 (which is my way of saying that I’m unwilling to accept that Balham can share the same zone as Wimbledon). It’s like doing ministry in a river here. We have a stream of people leaving us every summer; often for good reasons. But we also have a steady flow of people coming to have a look at us. For sure it’s demanding and disappointing. We often say goodbye to some of our best; people we’ve known and loved, people we’ve trained, people we’ve served and helped them grow in ministry competency. But it’s also thrilling. Every year God brings us people at the other end of the maturity spectrum. Recent graduates or people who’ve moved into the city for work come and pay us a visit. They’re looking for a home. And we’ll happily provide it for them.

But I want to suggest a more radical proposal to the struggling innner city churches. Give away your buildings. There are churches round us with fantastic buildings; spaces and rooms that could be used for the gospel. But they’re only used for that purpose on a Sunday. During the week they’re rented out to independent nursery schools. These educational businesses sustain the dying church ministries. The church congregations are often tiny. These elderly congregation are declining as they bury their friends one by one. Anyone who ministers in that situation is, in my book, a hero. They do the saints a great service; helping them to die in faith. Whatever I say should not be taken to undermine the impressive servant heartedness of those who fuflil such a wonderful ministry. But is there a better way? Rather than bury the church as they bury their friends, why not give the building away. Give it to a church that lacks the space and could use the building for the gospel throughout the week. Give it to a congregation that doesn’t need a secular business to keep the church afloat. I said it was radical. But surely that’s better for ths gospel, isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

Planting for Christ – Media

Last Wednesday was the Co-Mission ‘Planting for Christ’ Conference. It was a good day. There was a good turn out, though not as many came as did last year. Mark Driscoll must’ve been quite a pull.  The talks from the conference are now available here.

I left the day (early if truth be told – to pick up various children) hugely encouraged. I missed Al Stewart’s talk but I got Richard’s and two seminars.That was enough for me. I was hugely stimulated. The conference aims to be ‘Biblical, Missional  and Practical’. And it did it for me in each of those areas.

Richard’s talk was especially helpful in causing me to re-examine the biblical principles that underpin and inform my passion for church planting.If you only listen to one talk from the conference, this should probably be it. It was excellent. Look out for his lightning summary of some of Ed Stetzer’s comments choosing church planters. There’s real wisdom in his observations.

I came away wanting to plant another church. In that sense the conference helped me to be missional. I’m desperate to think about how we at CCB can launch another congregation to reach another area with the gospel. I don’t want to lose the recklessness of youth as I move into middle age. Wisdom tempers the arrogance of the young but old men can become worryingly conservative. I’d rather have a go and fail than wait till all the ducks are in a row and never get round to it.

Justin Mote’s and Andrew Evans’ seminar made me think about what we’re doing and how we’re trying to do it. Andrew was very gracious in answering  a barrage of questions (largely from me, I think) about the practical details of what they did, where they did it and how they did it. That’s just so helpful for practitioners!

Dex has managed to record both the main talks, as you might expect. But he’s also recorded some of the seminars.

I’m looking forward to hearing what William Taylor had to say about ‘Priorities in City Centre Plants’. I’ll be amazed if it’s not teaching the Bible! But I’ll get back to you on that. Mike Cain took a seminar on preaching that’ll be pure gold. Andy Patterson talked about congregational identity and planting networks, which is something we face within Co-Mission.

You can get the talks here.

Read Full Post »

The Jesus Storybook Bible – on Video!

Friends of mine at Quirky Motion have been involved in turning the very excellent Jesus Storybook Bible into video. Here’s an offering. It’s brilliant. And I hope that, in due course, they can do the whole thing. Our kids for one would be gripped by the combination of storytelling and visuals.

 

The Quirky Motion blurb says this,

A short scene from the Jesus Storybook Bible. Based on the book by Sally Lloyd Jones and the illustrations by Jago.

The Moonbeam Award Gold Medal Winner in the religion category, The Jesus Storybook Bible tells the Story beneath all the stories in the Bible. At the center of the Story is a baby, the child upon whom everything will depend.

In The Jesus Storybook Bible, every story whispers his name. It tells the story beneath all the stories in the Bible.

With voice over by David Suchet, and music by Moritz Schmittat.

Read Full Post »

Virgin on the Ridiculous

Enjoyed episode two of the BBC’s Nativity last night. The kids put me onto it after seeing the first instalment. It reminded me that this is, of course, the time of year when we remember the virgin conception of Jesus. Before we remember his birth we remember that Mary, an unmarried single mother, gave birth to a human-divine ‘hybrid’ baby boy without actually having sexual intercourse. When you stop and think about it, it’s ridiculous; in the sense that it’s outlandish, preposterous and bizarre.

But when Dr Paul Barnett writes, ‘The doctrine of the virgin birth asserts that Jesus of Nazareth was not born by the usual biological processes. There was no human male who figured in the conception. Instead, Jesus was born through his natural mother, Mary, as a result of direct, divine intervention’, he’s summarising the biblical teaching.

The Bible asserts that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary by a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. That happened without the contribution of a human father.

In Matthew 1:28 we read

‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit’.

Shortly after that an angel of the Lord said to Joseph, who was engaged to Mary,

‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20).

Then we read that Joseph

‘did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus’ (Matthew 1:24–25).

The same fact is affirmed in Luke’s gospel, where we read about the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mary. After the angel had told her that she would bear a son, Mary said,

‘How shall this be, since I have no husband?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35).

Denying the Virgin Birth has become a sport. As you’d expect, Richard Dawkins has had a pop at it. Even a previous Archbishop of Durham had a go. It’s been a cause of ridicule for those outside the church and a cause of embarrassment for those within it. But if what we believe is to be governed by the statements of Scripture, then we can’t deny this truth. And when we think about it, for the God who created the universe out of nothing, a virginal conception is a walk in the park. But rather than argue for the fact of the Virgin birth, which is an exercise in the historicity and reliability of the New Testament documents, I want us to consider briefly its significance.

If we’re in any doubt about the significance of this doctrine it’s worth reflecting on Barnett’s response to the question, if we don’t have a virgin birth, what are we left with? He responded with,

’You’re left with a Jewish Messiah and Christianity become little more than a Jewish nationalistic cause. If Jesus does not have a divine nature, He is qualitatively no different from many of the other self-proclaimed nationalist Messiahs who died while trying to deliver Israel from her oppressors. I think that the very things that are distinctive about Christianity like the Trinity, the divine-human nature of Christ, Christ’s sacrifice for sinners, justification by faith and the resurrection – all these doctrines are part of a whole. They are dependent in some way on Jesus having a divine nature’.

And so, let me suggest that the significance the virgin birth is seen in these three areas.

1. The virgin birth shows that salvation must come from the Lord

The virgin birth of Christ is an unmistakable reminder that salvation can never come through human effort. Salvation must involves the work of God alone. This is no co-operative project. God must take on human flesh to do what we’re incapable of doing ourselves; namely living a life of perfect righteousness and suffering as a substituteunder the just wrath of God upon sin. We took no part in the birth of our Saviour. We weren’t there. We weren’t involved. It’s the ultimate rescue mission. We’re just helpless bystanders looking on from the persepctive of historical distance. Mary had no part and Joseph had no involvement in the conception of this miraculous baby boy. Our salvation only comes about through the supernatural work of God.

2. The virgin birth unites deity and humanity in one person

Jesus Christ is fully human because he was born of a normal female Mother. But he is also fully divine because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And so he unites humanity and deity in one person. He must be human to live a life of representative righteousness and be an appropriate substitute for us. He must be divine to reveal the Father to us and to take his Father’s wrath upon himself. Barnett writes, ‘I think that what the doctrine of the virgin birth establishes is that if you didn’t have it, you would still have Jesus as a Messiah – but he would be a ‘this worldly’ Messiah. He wouldn’t be the Son of God in the filial sense. Without the virgin birth, Jesus can be special and anointed. But he can’t be unique’.

3. The virgin birth preserves Christ’s true humanity from inherited sin

Every human being inherits legal guilt and a corrupt moral nature from our first father, Adam. This is sometimes called ‘inherited sin’ or ‘original sin’. But Jesus did not have a human father. This means that the line of descent from Adam is partially interrupted. Jesus did not descend from Adam in exactly the same way in which every other human being has descended from Adam. This helps us to understand why the legal guilt and moral corruption that belongs to all other human beings did not belong to Christ. This idea seems to be indicated in the angel Gabriel’s statement to Mary,

‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35).

Luke 1:35 connects conception by the Holy Spirit with the holiness or moral purity of Christ. Because the Spirit brought about the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary, the child was to be called ‘holy’. We mustn’t therefore assume that the transmission of sin comes only through the father. We won’t find that taught in the Bible. But in the case of Jesus the unbroken line of descent from Adam was interrupted, and Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Barnett writes, ‘when Jesus dies as the Suffering Servant of the Lord, He actually dies in the place of sinners as the perfect sacrifice. He couldn’t do that if He simply came from the line of David. David’s natural descendants were all flawed’.

Conclusion

What ought we to with this idea of the virgin birth [or conception] of Jesus?

Understand it, ponder it, belief it, rejoice in it and defend it!

Read Full Post »