Weston Blaha

Category: Theology

  • Re-Hitch to the Old Testament

    Re-Hitch to the Old Testament

    In my seminary studies, I have come to appreciate the Old Testament more than I ever thought possible. Although I would not have admitted it before graduate school, I mostly treated the Old Testament as a history of the ancient world and the church. Let me clear, I believed it to be a true and accurate historical account, but outside of some mostly now-irrelevant prophecy and proverbial wisdom, not much else. However, all of that has changed.

    In 2018, mega-church pastor Andy Stanley stated that Christians need to “un-hitch” their faith from the Old Testament. In all fairness to Stanley, he also stated that the Old Testament is “divinely inspired,” but added that it shouldn’t be the go-to source for behavior in the church. While I have much to say on this, the point of this post is not necessarily to re-hash the Andy Stanley “un-hitch” statement, but to point to a deeper issue that I believe Stanley’s statement revealed: the perceived irrelevance of the Old Testament in the Christian church.

    While many Christians acknowledge that the Old Testament is the inspired Word of God, and that it must be something more than simply a history lesson, the average-Joe Christian struggles to articulate how this is so. Therefore, I want to offer ten reasons—though there are more—that the Old Testament should receive just as much of our attention as the New Testament.

    1. The Old Testament re-orients our minds to the main character of the Bible–God.

    2. The Old Testament reveals our purpose as humans.

    3. The Old Testament provokes in us wonder of God.

    4. The Old Testament places the fault for sin at our own feet.

    5. The Old Testament illuminates us to the state of our hearts.

    6. The Old Testament demonstrates our need for a Divine Deliverer.

    7. The Old Testament illustrates our propensity to wander.

    8. The Old Testament catalogues God’s faithfulness.

    9. The Old Testament introduces us to the Messiah.

    10. The Old Testament contains the moral law.

    After his resurrection, Jesus “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). In other words, Jesus used the Old Testament to explain who he is to his disciples. If we refuse to do the same, we are failing to imitate the Apostle Paul in declaring the “whole council of God” (Acts 20:27).

  • I Don’t Believe In Coincidences

    I Don’t Believe In Coincidences

    One of the books on my current reading list is “Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt” by J.H. Breasted. It is important to note that Breasted is agnostic, at best.

    While providing a brief trace of the history of religion in Egypt, he writes, “In this process of popularization, the last great development in Egyptian religion took place 1300-1100 B.C.”

    Why That’s Interesting
    Now, if you are familiar with the historical dating of the Exodus, you might recall that many, maybe most, scholars believe the Exodus to have happened around 1250 B.C.

    I follow the thinking of Dr. Currid, that the plagues in Egypt were theologically polemical attacks against the gods of Egypt. For example, Heqet–a human body with the head of a frog–was a goddess of fertility. When Yahweh sent the plague of frogs, he directly attacked Heqet. Instead of their frog-goddess of fertility saving them, the Egyptians watched the frogs die, be collected into piles, and stink as they decayed. This is what Yahweh does to the gods of Egypt.

    Another example and perhaps the most powerful: Pharoah. Pharaoh was seen as a god himself who was in charge of the sun. So the 9th plague, that of darkness in all the land (except over the Hebrews!), was to show the people that their Pharaoh, their great god of the sun, was powerless before Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews.

    What’s the “Coincidence”
    Is it a coincidence that an agnostic historian would recognize that “the last great development in Egyptian religion took place 1300-1100 B.C.,” which is, interestingly enough, the exact parameters in which the Exodus occurred (circa 1250 B.C.)? In other words, is it a coincidence that God displayed his might and exposed the false gods of Egypt in such a way that it essentially ended the further development of their religion?

    I think not. I don’t believe in coincidences.

  • “Judas Ate Too”

    “Judas Ate Too”

    Each year, something that inevitably makes its way around the social media world is the phrase, “Jesus knew, but Judas ate too.” It’s a reflection of the reality that Jesus, knowing the role that Judas was about to play in his death, still washed his feet and fed him in the Last Supper. The power of Jesus’ actions demonstrates the love that we should have even for those who will seek to harm us. On the surface, this is a beautiful example of how one can and should love their neighbor. And there is most definitely merit to this application. Unfortunately, this phrase is often not applied fully or faithfully and, as such, is used to support an errant theological perspective. So, let’s take a closer look at the context surrounding this phrase:


    1. First, we must remember that Judas was still an outward disciple of Jesus.
    This is an important distinction that few who love this phrase acknowledge. Up til now, Judas has not followed through with anything beyond agreeing to betray Jesus. By the institution of the Lord’s Supper, what Judas had done was accept the arrangement in secret, but the actual betrayal was not until after the Last Supper. This means that Judas still identified as a member of the visible church and as a disciple of Christ. Thus, Jesus would treat Judas as he did all of his disciples that evening: He would wash their feet and serve them the Passover meal.


    2. Second, this has ramifications for how many people interpret the Lord’s Supper. For example, I’ve often heard it argued that the communion table should be an open table—meaning that both Christians and non-Christians can partake—because “Judas ate too.” In other words, Jesus fed his enemy, so why should we withhold communion from non or unrepentant Christians? While that is a nice sentiment, there is a significant problem: Paul.
    In 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, Paul writes,
    27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
    The question then becomes, “what is an unworthy manner?” Well, I would argue it is with unrepentant sin one’s heart. This means that neither an unrepentant Christian nor a non-Christian should partake of the table or, like Judas, they will end up drinking condemnation upon their own head. What Judas did before Jesus at the Supper was not mercy but wrath. So, yes, Judas ate too, but Judas also ate unto wrath and judgment.


    3. Third, one may ask, what’s the difference between Judas and Peter? Didn’t Peter eat and reject Jesus, too? The difference is Jesus.
    31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32)
    The difference is that Jesus interceded for Peter. Jesus prayed that Peter would return and that he would be a point of strength for the other disciples upon his repentance. Judas does not receive any such recorded prayer.

    Conclusion:
    So, what do we do with the phrase “Judas ate too?” Well, I suggest five things:
    1. We do not use it to accept or condone sin.
    2. We do not use it to open the communion table to non-Christians or unrepentant Christians. Judas drank unto his own condemnation. We should not be a party to encouraging sin.
    3. We remember that all who claim to be for Christ are not of Christ. Therefore, the visible church does not necessarily reflect the invisible church.
    4. We love our enemies and freely offer them the Gospel.
    5. We don’t let catchy phrases dictate our theology.