When I came to Mongolia in November 2002 to take over as Station Manager of Eagle TV I was not sure what to expect. I knew that I would be leading a staff of mixed religions at a TV station where those mixed motivations might normally seem contrary – even out of place for a Christian owned organization with dual faith/secular objectives. Eagle TV has Christians, Mormons (not the same, in case you didn’t know), Buddhists, shamanists, and atheists working in nearly every department. The ministry department is naturally made up of Christians of various theological (or non-theological) backgrounds. When I arrived four years ago I expected to encounter Mongolian Christians who were young in their faith, but passionate about the Bible and biblical truth. I encountered this in other countries I had experience in where the church was young, small (in fact 15 times smaller than Mongolia), with few resources to learn about God’s word. Yet the biblical knowledge of those young believers was, to put it mildly, remarkable. I remember observing Christians in one Middle Eastern country who had known Christ for far shorter than I, yet I felt ashamed because many of them understood far more about Bible than I did.

That is not what I encountered when I came to Mongolia. Through our staff and some outside relationships I discovered a passion for Jesus, and for Christianity – but not a knowledge of the Bible that should have been commensurate with the length of time people had known Christ. This was not only my experience, but also the experience of most missionaries I talked with, and some of the Mongolian leaders as well. Such a situation is ripe for cults and heresy, and these have stormed their way into some corners of the Mongolian church with a vengeance – such as the Word of Faith movement turning the Gospel into spiritual “me-ism,” and the Mormon church preying on new, yet ignorant believers. The best way to defend against heresy is to educate people about the truth of the Bible, and encourage a passion for its life-sustaining text.

There is a difference between a passion for Jesus and a passion for God’s word. A passion for Jesus can be predicated upon rudimentary knowledge, but can’t help you much beyond that. It’s like a sword. I have three swords hanging on my home office wall; I love them, they’re awesome. I take good care of them. But I wouldn’t know how to use them to save my life. This is what I have observed about many people’s understanding of the Bible. They love Jesus and have a passion for him. But they cannot explain or defend their faith according to the Bible – and the Bible is what provides a definition of their faith in the first place. That’s a spiritually dangerous place to be.

By developing a passion for the Bible we come to know God’s mind. By practicing obedience to the whole counsel of God’s word, we come to know God’s heart. An initial passion for Jesus can only carry a person so far. Jesus himself knew this, which is why he instructed his disciples over and over again to “abide” in his word (John 14:21, 26, 15:7, 10, 16:1).

When I began getting to know Mongolian Christians I discovered that the passion for wanting to understand the Bible in its context seemed to be only rudimentary (Certainly that is not true with everyone – I don’t want to paint with a kilometer-wide brush). As an example, four years ago I began leading Bible studies with our Christian staff on basic principles of spiritual growth. At the time we had staff that varied from 2-7 years knowing Christ. All had Bibles, but I found that most could not relate even the most basic stories of the Old Testament about major Old Testament figures. Many seemed not to grasp elementary principles from the New Testament about the identity of Jesus. Most of these precious believers could tell you they loved Jesus and believed in him, and why they personally believed in him, but they could not explain why the testimony about Jesus was true or reliable.

Just last year I sat with a Mongolian pastor, showing him a short video of Mongolian believers, one after another after another who did not know basic things like who Abraham, Moses, and David were and their place in the story of Jesus. Many had seemed to never have even heard the names though they had Bibles, regularly attend church, and been Christians for at least two years or more. What was so terrible, I explained to him, was that we spent four weeks getting video from Mongolian believers to try and find people who could tell us some basic things about major biblical figures. The overwhelming majority didn’t seem to have a clue. The pastor and I sat watching the video together, grieving over what we were seeing. Suddenly he said to me, “Hey, I know her!” referring to girl on the video. “That wall looks really familiar.” Then it dawned on him – most of the people on that particular video were from his church. (We don’t share that video publicly, nor will we say what church it came from.)

I was red-faced embarrassed. I didn’t know this particular string of video had come from his congregation. We looked at each other and I thought he might be angry, as if I was trying to embarrass him – though he understood from our discussion that I wasn’t. Finally at the conclusion of the video he looked at me saying, and I quote: “I guess we have a lot of work to do.” Amen to that brother. Amen.

A Context for Passion
What I experienced that day was very similar to my earliest experience with Christians in Mongolia. Since that first day more than four years ago I knew that Eagle TV would need to change its focus from only presenting the basics about Jesus, and some of the fluffy feel-good stuff, to performing more of a substantive discipleship and educational role. That is why I begin working on the idea of using Bible movies and documentaries to tell the Bible’s story over and over again. Those early ideas eventually lead to the creation of our Steppe-by-Steppe ministry that is now seeing enormous fruit in the countryside, in addition to our on-air education about the Bible.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. More than 10 years ago a single Bible class by Professor Pratt and two of his books planted the seeds in me that would later sprout at the time they were needed most. I therefore cannot really take credit for the recent successes of our Bible movie strategy and Steppe-by-Steppe program. They were germinated long ago, long before Mongolia ever entered my mind. I find it so very interesting that of all the classes I took in 1997, and of all of the theology and books I’ve studied that what I gleaned from Professor Pratt and his books, and from Professor Wayne Grudem, have stuck with more than any other. Since my first days in Mongolia I find myself often dwelling upon what was learned from these men, the ideas from their books. I keep a copy of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology on my desk at Eagle TV – it is indispensable to me. Apart from the Bible, it is the single most important print resource I use in my ministry functions at Eagle TV.

It is to me no accident that the things I learned the most during that period happen to be the very things needed the most by Christians in Mongolia. I believe this is why God is blessing our efforts in this regard with such tremendous success. Whenever you truly focus on God’s word, God blesses. God blesses his own word, and he blesses the study and application of it when we study and apply it according to his design. When you give yourself wholly to knowing and understanding the Bible – the whole Bible – in its historical and other contexts, God reveals to us more and more of his character, and uses that to shape our character to be more and more like his. Without a genuine, contextual knowledge of the scripture Jesus so easily becomes a magic-genie in the bottle, nothing more than another Buddha, a way to get blessings and positive feelings rather than that for which Christ died – redemption from sin so that we can become just like him (Romans 8:29).

I’ve got 20 minutes before my flight to Denver boards so I thought I’d drop a little rant about the latest thing to catch my attention in America.

Great big fat people. Gi-freaking-normous balls of lard that wobble like webbles down the terminal.

Holy cow I thought I was fat. Well I AM FAT. I know it. No sense in denying it. I’m roughly 80 pounds overweight (36.2 kg), with a new 10 pounds flying on me in the last 6 months. Now, because I am such a fat guy I have the authority to say nasty things about fat people. ‘Cuz as the saying goes, “I are one.”

Sometimes I think we fat people are like planetary bodies. We have gravity. We suck in everything that comes close to our sphere. In our case, my case, food. Pizza. Gotta love it. Hagen Daz, solid or squishy. Oh man. Omelettes, stuffed with, with, with, whatever! Don’t forget the cheese. Oh…the cheeeessse.

Now I’m one who understands how most of us get so disgusting looking – yes, we are disgusting looking. Admit it. Be real. Once you get a clue about how disgusting you look (as I have) then you finally get to the point of saying, “Maybe I don’t want to look so offensive to the rest of humanity?” I understand this. I own a mirror, it groans every time I approach. I don’t mind being the butt of a joke, but when your butt is the butt of a butt of a joke, well, come on.

But (oops) when I arrived in America I noticed that the food portions in restaurants seemed to be BIGGER. Seriously, just how big does that burrito have to be? I’m tempted to whinny as I count the height of my food in hands. Is it me, or is it really necessary to have a flight of stairs from the side-dish to the main dish? Forks need less exercise, not more. I could not believe the size of my morning omelet. Even I can’t eat that much. And have you seen the size of eggs in America? I mean, do chickens scream?

There must be an excess of food on American farms that they have to dump the extra on our plates. And the restaurants seem to be getting bigger too. I went to a place in Albuquerque that can seat HUNDREDS of people. That’s very cool, I like open space (I’m fat after all, I need MORE open space), but I shouldn’t have to change timezones to go from my table to the buffet line – unless of course the overwhelming number of fat people stretch that far. And speaking of my fellow fat people, guys, you’ve got a find a tailor so that when your pants hang down like that it doesn’t look like you left a deposit in your backside when you walk. Geez. Do I need to check my own butt?

Speaking from long experience, when you are served a giant plate of giant portions to cram down your giant gullet you can’t help but feel the pressing need to be a good boy and “clear your plate.” But dude, restaurant dude, you may charge of lot of money for that food, but I don’t really need to eat a dinner that will feed Somalia.

Giant portions. Giant plates. Giant people. Take it from me, when your stomach touches the edge of a standard table and the lowest you can drop your napkin is 2 inches under your nipples, then dude, dude, dude…do you need another picture? How about when your belly button gets stuck on the gum that kid stuck to the underside of the table? See! Something IS wrong FATSO!

Remember, I can say that cuz I ARE ONE.

Skinny people, if you want to help us then listen up. First, stop watching Oprah. We don’t need to feel good about ourselves. We need something better – ridicule. Secondly, stare at us, right in the tummy, make it obvious. Chuckle but don’t laugh. You don’t want to make us mad – trust me, never tick off a freight train – but a snicker behind your hand, a wink at a companion and chuckle will make us feel really bad. And we need to feel really bad so that we can really do something about it. If positive motivation REALLY worked for fat people then there would be none. There’s nothing a fat chick or guy likes better than to feel good about themselves as they stuff another cream filled eclair end-first down the pipe.

Well, I gotta go get on the plane. Coach seat. I’m one of those fat guys that sits next to you, stretches a lot, and says, “Excuse me, gotta use the bathroom,” 15 times a flight. Yeah, I’m one of those guys I used to make fun of. Well, I still make fun of them, except they are not “them” anymore, they are “us.”

One of the most popular charges leveled against the elect is that of judgmentalism. Because Christianity teaches from the Bible about the nature of sin, and declares that sin requires repentance, some, both unbelievers and even fellow Christians charge many Christians with being judgmental or condemning instead of loving as Christ did. Yet as we shall see from this study, there are times when obedience to Christ, and adherence to God’s word requires that a Christian exercise judgment for the purpose of condemnation in turn leading to the hope of repentance.

We shall see from this study that Jesus condemned sin and certain people; that the Apostles condemned sin and certain people, and that we are enjoined to condemn sin and certain people.

Condemning a Lack of Judgment
There are times when Jesus pronounced condemnation about societies or individuals. This fact is sadly overlooked by some who tend to slice up the Bible’s text to give preference to the “positive-feeling” passages instead of the whole text. There were some that Jesus condemned and urged to repentance, and there were some that He openly condemned and left in their condemnation. Many of these examples come from the book of the Bible that many perceive to be the most gentle or representative of love in all its text. Look at these harsh examples from the loving book of John:

• Jesus condemned religious leaders who rejected His testimony about Himself (John 8:21-24), stating directly, “You will die in your sins.”
• He declared that as part of His mission He had “much to judge” (John 8:26).
• Jesus called these same religious leaders sons of the devil (John 8:42-44).
• Jesus declared that He not only came to forgive, but “For judgment I came into this world” to make those who “see” to “become blind” (John 9:39).
• Jesus declared that those who do not receive his words (believe in the testimony He gave about Himself), that “The word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12:48).
• Jesus declared early in his ministry that “Whoever does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18).

Jesus’ declarations of judgment were foundational to understanding the consequences of rejecting the testimony about His identity and what He requires of us. The same God who sent Jesus Christ is the same God who gave the Law of Moses and proclaimed grave consequences for disobedience to the Law of God (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Just as one could not expect to reject the Law of God given through the agency of a mere man and not suffer consequences, so too one cannot expect to reject the testimony of the Lord Jesus Himself and escape even greater consequences (Hebrews 10:28-31). Even the Apostle Paul followed in Jesus’ footsteps in this regard, sometimes proclaiming harsh judgment against both believers and unbelievers in certain circumstances. Make no mistake, Jesus and the Apostles did not “condemn the sin but not the sinner.” In fact, they condemned the sinner because of their sin – and they did so openly:

• Two believers, Ananias and Sapphira were condemned by Peter for lying – and they died on the spot (Acts 5:1-11).
• The Apostle Paul condemned a man named Elymas calling him, “Son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy” (Acts 13:4-12). Those were strong words of a clearly judgmental nature spoken to condemn.
• Paul ordered the church to harshly condemn sin within its midst, saying of a man committing incest, “I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing,” and “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh…” (I Corinthians 5:3-5). Thankfully this man repented, which is what the church’s condemnation in this case was designed to do (I Corinthians 5:5, II Corinthians 7:7-13).
• Paul openly condemned those who were leading the Galatians church astray, using the harshest language: “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9). To paraphrase this in modern language, Paul was literally saying, “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him go to hell.” That is personal condemnation.
• The Apostle Peter condemned false prophets and teachers – those who added to the Gospel or perverted its message, calling them “irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed” (II Peter 2:12). Peter dedicated a whole chapter in his letter to the condemnation of false teachers (I Peter 2).
• Jude (the brother of Jesus) also condemned false teachers inside the church saying that they were “Long ago designated for this condemnation” (Jude 4). The majority of his epistle is a letter of harsh judgment against those who pervert the doctrines of Christianity.

How do we then rectify these many examples (and there are many, many more) with Jesus’ words, “Judge not lest you be judged?” (Matthew 7:1) It would seem upon first glance that this is a glaring contradiction. In fact even many Christians take Matthew 7:1 as a guiding principle and use that to re-interpret the already offered examples to mean something different than that which the text so plainly and clearly says.

Are Christians not to judge? On the contrary, in fact Matthew 7:1, when taken in its full context, and other similar passages reveals that we are supposed to judge – but to do so with a “righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

Immediately after Jesus said, “Judge not lest you be judged,” He did two things:

• First, He illustrated His principle with a parable about hypocrisy in judgment, then secondly, in the same breath
• He called certain people “dogs” and “pigs” because they reject truth.

Calling people “dogs” and “pigs” wasn’t exactly nice or nonjudgmental. Jesus was in fact, strongly urging us to use sober and correct judgment. There was never a time when He urged anyone to refrain from making or declaring judgment. He simply taught that our judgment must be made upon right principles, and more importantly right behavior. The Apostle Paul did the same when he pronounced some of his harshest words in Romans 1:18-32 for idolaters, liars, homosexuals, murderers, gossips, etc. Immediately after declaring, “that those who practice such things deserve to die,” he went on in Romans 2:1-2 to condemn those who condemn such practices and commit the same sins themselves. Paul’s focus was on the hypocrisy of those who judge – not the exercise of judgment itself. But Paul himself, not guilty of the sins and people he condemned, had the moral authority to pronounce God’s already revealed judgment against such sin.

Mercy as an Act of Judgment
This brings us to the practice of judgment in light of mercy. Certainly Paul, Peter, Jude, and even Jesus were not primarily concerned with the judgment of people. While they condemned sin in the strongest terms – and even openly condemned certain people – their first acts of judgment were to demonstrate mercy. In fact, mercy is an act of judgment because judgment is not always negative. The scripture says all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ – including the righteous (II Corinthians 5:10).

Demonstrating mercy toward a sinner instead of condemnation reveals that an act of judgment (condemnation) has already taken place. Jesus taught this very directly when He told the Jewish teacher Nicodemus, “Whoever does not believe [in Jesus] is condemned already” (John 3:18). Just prior to this Jesus said, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world” (in other words: to condemn it again, as it was already under condemnation), “but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). Did you notice the order of events? God had already declared us to be sinful and damned. That judgment was final. Jesus’ role was to extend mercy by taking our condemnation on our behalf. He took our place. Judgment is therefore prerequisite to mercy. Mercy is not exercised upon the innocent, but the guilty!

In this sense also we see that God’s judgment is part of His expression of love. For He judged us rightly as people corrupted by sin worthy of death (Romans 3:23, 6:23). His response to our condemnation was not to leave us condemned, but to offer mercy (Romans 5:6-11) by taking our judgment upon Himself (I John 2:2). Yet for those who reject His mercy, only judgment awaits (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Jesus is the Model
There can be no doubt from the scripture that we are called upon to condemn sin and even at times to judge people – especially within the church (I Corinthians 5:12-13). Yet our first response to sin must always be that of Jesus Christ – mercy. “If you see your brother in sin,” the scripture says, “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). Jesus lays out a process for dealing with sin that is designed to:

• Condemn sin,
• Avoid public embarrassment for the sinner, and
• Encourage repentance so that
• Mercy and forgiveness may be shown, so the
• Person doing the confronting can openly support the person being confronted.

In fact, any confrontation of sin that does not follow Jesus’ instruction and more importantly – His purpose of mercy, forgiveness, and support – is an act of sin itself (Romans 2:1-2). However, even though we are always to confront sin with the hopes of seeing repentance and forgiveness, there are some who will not receive it. Jesus condemned such people with the words, “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17).

Conclusion
To follow Christ we must follow all of His ways. To fulfill God’s plan of becoming like Jesus (Romans 8:29) we must imitate His instructions. Do you want to be faithful to the message of the Gospel and the love of Jesus? Then you must express God’s judgment. For without expressing God’s judgment, then you cannot express God’s mercy. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be expressed apart from the condemnation of sin and the subsequent offer of mercy. Without understanding our sin, and our condemnation, then what reason do we have to accept mercy?

By understanding and expressing God’s judgment we come to a fuller appreciation for God’s grace (Ephesians 2:4-9). It is God’s mercy and grace that every sinner needs, and we receive it and give it through an act of judgment.

I sat down in my hotel room in Beijing on Friday night to waste away a couple of hours on a movie – One Night with the King. The movie, now on DVD, tells the story of Esther, the biblical figure who saved the Jewish nation from destruction at the hands of Haman. Now, I may be late in seeing this movie compared to most back in the States, but when I did watch it I confess that I was disappointed.

One Night with the King was promoted as one of the best-produced movies based upon the Bible in decades. In many ways that is true. It’s production values, acting, directing, all very good. When I first read about the movie and saw the previews I was hoping it could be another movie for Eagle TV to use to tell the Bible’s story. After all, the official website for the movie asserts boldly: “The True Story of Queen Esther.”

It is not the true story of Queen Esther. It is a mix of biblical elements, speculation, and downright fiction. Only a completely made up story using the same names would be further from the truth.

Like so many Bible-based movies which are entertaining, and try to even honor the text of the Bible, there are extra-biblical scenes in the movie – most of this movie in fact is extra-biblical – that so draw you in that unless you are already familiar with the story of Esther from the Bible, you won’t get a clear picture of what really happened in the actual history. Even the elements of the story that are taken from the Bible are so edited and altered that the events themselves differ radically from the scripture.

The story is set by telling of King Saul’s defeat of the Amalekites and the wife of Agag escaping to eventually have a son who would form a tribe dedicated to the destruction of the Jews – Nazi cross and all! This is used as a plot device to set up Haman’s motivation of hatred for the Jews. In these first 8-minutes of the movie I knew the story was headed for trouble.

Along comes the Agagite descendant Haman, portrayed in the movie as a man sowing hatred of Jews at barely-secret rallies as if he was some kind of Adolph Hitler building a new Nazi party, all the while trying to ingratiate himself to the king. Haman’s continual ridicule of democracy also figures prominently in the second half of the movie. One wonders why the producers felt it necessary to give ancient biblical figures 20th century, pre-World War II political motivations.

In the movie Haman is at least being suspicious of Esther sympathizing or being a Jew. But the scripture portrays Haman in no such way. When called by Esther to a feast, Haman is again suspicious, ready to accuse the Queen before the King from the first moments. But the Bible reveals that Haman was so deceived by his own pride that he felt only good things could come from his participation in the feast (there were actually two feasts – but why nitpick). Esther’s appearance before the King, in risk of her life, has a certain cuteness to it – perhaps even a hint of sensuousness, all drenched in water like that, busting in the door to present herself, humble yet aggressive. Whatever. The movie’s rendition does not begin resemble the scripture in the slightest, nor the level of risk Esther took.

When Haman is exposed by Esther he doesn’t fear his fate, he accuses the Queen in front of the king. The king leaves the room for a moment, and Haman mocks Esther to her face, feigning fear until the king returns and orders him hung. The actual history is much different. Once exposed, Haman was terrified, he knew he was about to die and pleaded with Esther for his life. When the king returned he thought Haman was trying to assault the Queen – in addition to his other offenses – and had him strung up by the neck.

Most important in the movie is the failure to portray the level of fear that Esther felt when she knew should would approach the king. Mordecai challenged her to approach the king, and pushed her to do it because of her great fear. Esther had become accustomed to the life of the palace, knew the fate of her predecessor and did not want to suffer worse. Her fear was so thick she asked the entire Jewish community to take neither food or water for 3 days on her behalf in hopes of averting disaster for the Jews and her own judgment by the king. None of this is portrayed accurately in the movie. Esther is presented as a wise young woman – which is good – but the Bible presents her as not only wise, but as someone who had nothing within herself with which she could approach the king – even though she was Queen. She had to rely completely upon the Lord for her salvation and that of her people. This foreshadows Christ who died on our behalf because we have nothing with which to come before the king for our own salvation. Only the mercy and grace of the king prevents our judgment. The movie One Night with the King misses the point of Esther’s story entirely.

There are other elements just plain silly: The adaptation of a Nazi symbol into a symbol of the Agagites, and Esther’s pendant that projects stars of David like a disco ball – which Haman can’t see but the King can see. It’s just plain stupid. The story of Esther is dramatic and captivating enough not to be poisoned with such fantasy nonsense.

Now as movies go One Night with the King is a nice movie. It’s well written and very entertaining as far as fiction goes. I will probably watch it again. But we will never air it on Eagle TV, and it should never be used by a broadcast or video ministry to accurately tell the story of the Bible. One Night with the King, and movies like it only serve to confuse people about God’s word – not disciple or educate. The missionary, the pastor, and the Bible teach are called to disciple – not dissemble the story of the Bible.

At Eagle TV we use a series of television dramas about the Bible produced, ironically, by Ted Turner. They are the best movies ever made about the Bible, and are about 90 percent true to the text. A few well placed edits and you have movies that tell the Bible’s story accurately that can be used to lead a person chronologically through the scripture until you get to Jesus. We do this regularly on-air, and with our Steppe-by-Steppe project. The results speak for themselves – thousands have seen the movies (and our originally produced matching Bible studies), and so many have come to Christ. The number one comment by people watching the movies we show is that they are learning things from, and about the Bible they never before knew, and that they are not learning in their churches. A movie like One Night with the King might contain some biblical elements, but people ignorant of the scripture cannot learn God’s word from it.

The scripture warns us about taking away or adding to the Word of God. Bible-based movies like One Night with the King are the only Bible that many people will see. By butchering the story, and adding elements which are not found in the biblical text, the producers have, in effect, taken away from, and added to the Word of God that which doesn’t belong. If this is going to be the standard approach by Gener8xion Entertainment (the producer) to it’s line-up of Christian fare, then I’ll skip their productions.

One Night with the King is a good movie as movies go. But if you want to share entertainment with friends that could lead to a discussion of the scriptures without confusing the biblical issues, then One Night with the King should be left on the shelf.

Denial is a concept found in virtually every major religion. Various ideas on the practice of self-denial can be found in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and other religious and philosophical streams. In most religious practices, like Buddhism, self-denial is a means to achieve an end. Ironically, self-denial is a means of attaining something for oneself – selflessness. Some have thought that the Bible teaches something similar, noting as one example Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:39, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Are these concepts similar? Not in the slightest.

Unlike Buddhism and the other major religions of the world, self-denial in Christianity is not a means to an end, nor is it a religious practice. Self-denial is a loving expression of benefit for others, in obedience to God.

There are three great differences between most religions and Christianity regarding self-denial:

Buddhism & Other Religions

• Self-denial is a means to spiritual enlightenment,
• Self-denial is a religious practice,
• Self-denial is performed for the benefit of oneself.

Christianity

• Self-denial is an indicator of pre-existing character,
• Self-denial is not a religious practice, rather it is an expression of love for others and for God,
• Self-denial is not performed for personal spiritual benefit, it is always performed on behalf of others.

Let’s take a look at the Bible’s teaching on self-denial, and how the biblical concept of self-denial is firmly rooted in the expression of love.

Self-denial is not an end unto itself. The scripture commands that we deny ourselves of sin, and sometimes of things that are not sin but fall under the realm of conscience. Self-denial as modeled in the Bible usually has three purposes, pointing to a much greater fourth purpose:

1. Self-denial reveals and tests our love for God In Genesis 22:1-13Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham was heartbroken, but trusted God’s character. God’s response to Abraham’s obedience was to prevent the sacrifice and declare, “Now I know that you fear God.“
   
2. Self-denial reveals that we truly love other peopleIt is impossible to express love for another person without denying oneself in deference to the other person. In I Samuel 23:17-18 Jonathon, the heir to the throne of Israel willingly sacrificed his right to rule because of his love for his friend David. Jonathon didn’t simply give up the throne to pursue something else for his own benefit, rather he recognized the better man and denied himself the throne because of his love for David.
3. Self-denial indicates we are growing in our love for God and for othersDenying oneself for oneself is not an expression of selflessness, rather it is a misguided expression of selfishness. I Corinthians 10:23-33, and I John 3:16 teach a much better expression of self-denial: The benefit of others.
4. Rightly expressed self-denial is an expression of love.I Corinthians 13:3 states, “If I give away all that I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.” Every facet of self-denial, from denying sin, to personal pleasures, to God giving us His Son, and giving away our own lives is wrapped up in love. Self-denial without love is a self-denial without substance and is meaningless.As a manifestation of love, self-denial has certain conditions. It must be truly selfless. Self-denial exercised to gain some kind of spiritual standing is merely the replacing of one personal desire or goal with another. It is nothing more than a “trade” as opposed to a true denial. True self-denial puts down our own hopes, desires, and goals to submit to God’s will, or the desires, hopes, and goals of others. Jesus modeled this in the garden before His crucifixion when He prayed, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). The Apostle Paul expressed that his life was literally nothing to him (Acts 20:24, 21:13, Philippians 3:4-11). Paul took his example from Jesus who “made himself nothing, taking the form of a bondservant, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).

Biblical self-denial must cost us something. Giving from extra is good, but it is not denial. Biblical self-denial invokes personal loss, and may require suffering. Unlike many so-called faith preachers today, the Apostle Paul denied himself financial benefit from his preaching (I Corinthians 9:11-23) which sometimes put him in a difficult way. In order to fulfill God’s will, Moses denied himself food and drink for 40 days (Exodus 34:28). King David set the standard when he said he would not offer any sacrifice “that cost me nothing” (II Samuel 24:24).

More than costing us something, or as a sacrifice, self-denial must benefit others, God, or both. In religious practices like Buddhism, self-denial is practiced as part of achieving enlightenment. In other words, a person denies self in order to gain something for himself. This is a spiritual oxymoron. The model from the Bible is radically different, and far nobler. We deny ourselves in order to benefit other people and God’s kingdom. Nor is self-denial a means to some spiritual end, rather, it is a signpost of what is already in the heart.

Ezekiel 18:5-9 describes a man who denies sin, denies excessive pleasures, makes sacrifices to benefit others, and obeys God. The Bible calls such a person “righteous” because his behavior signifies what is already in his heart. He does not practice these things to become righteous (i.e., “spiritual” or “enlightened”) rather, because he is already righteous he practices these things. “Love does not seek its own…” (I Corinthians 13:5).

There are certain times when the scriptures enjoin us to deny ourselves that at first glance seems to be for our personal benefit – a “trade” so to speak. But closer examination of the text reveals that which is deeper. Matthew 16:24-26, John 12:25-26, and Romans 6:12-14 encourage us to deny sin and ourselves, in order to attain salvation. But this form of self-denial is not a religious practice, rather it is an acknowledgement of our sinful condition and need for a Savior. We deny ourselves that we might give ourselves to Christ and become His instrument for the benefit of others.

We are required to deny ourselves “anything” which might cause a brother to stumble or violate his conscience (Romans 15:1-3, 14:13-17, 21, I Corinthians 8:9-12). Here again we see that self-denial is directed for the benefit of another as an expression of love.

We are required to deny ourselves “anything” (not just sin) which might hinder our walk with God (Hebrews 12:1). This expression is directed toward God.

Conclusion
Self-denial is engaged by some as a religious practice to attain enlightenment or some greater spiritual standing. In such cases it is nothing more than a form of “self”-expression. The Bible teaches something far nobler, and more practical. Jesus said that the one who “loses his life for my sake shall find it” (Mark 8:35). The key to understanding Jesus’ meaning is found in the words, “for my sake.” Immediately after saying this Jesus went on to declare, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).

The correct path of self-denial is not to deny oneself for ones own benefit; rather it is to deny oneself for Christ. Jesus Christ denied himself that we might have eternal life. How small a thing it is for Him to ask us to sacrifice ourselves for Him and for others considering all that He has already done for us.

Jesus Christ is superior to all religious founders, teachers, philosophers, and ideologies. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Superior as, “Higher than another in rank, station, or authority, or a higher nature or kind, of great value, excellence, extraordinary.”

Beginning with this common and well accepted definition, examining the world’s most significant religious and philosophical figures, and comparing them to Jesus Christ, we see that Christ is eminently superior in every category.

Jesus’ Personhood

• His Birth
• His Life
• His Death
• His Resurrection

Jesus’ Character

• His Morality
• His Behavior/Expressions
• His Knowledge

Jesus’ Identity

• His Humanity
• His Servanthood
• His Kingship
• His Deity

In every way, Jesus Christ is superior to Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, Karl Marx, and all other religious and philosophical teachers. In every category Jesus Christ surpasses each of these significant but much less important figures of history.

His Personhood
Jesus birth is superior because unlike others, it was prophesied hundreds of years in advance (Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:2). His birth is superior because it was miraculous – Jesus was virgin-born (Luke 1:30-38). His life was superior because it was lived without sin (John 8:46, II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, I Peter 2:22). His death was superior because it was done on our behalf – to wash away sin (John 1:29, Romans 5:6-8). Jesus’ resurrection is not only unique, but also superior because it was permanent and it saves the person who trusts in Him (Romans 5:10, I Corinthians 15:3-4, Hebrews 7:25).

None of these things are true for any other religious leader or philosopher. The births of Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, and Marx, along with all other such leaders, were ordinary births, without foretelling. But Jesus’ prophetic virgin birth pointed to a unique quality of character and identity not shared with any other person.

Jesus’ Character
Jesus Christ was sinless in nature, thought, and behavior (John 8:46, II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15). Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary defines sin as, Lawlessness or transgression of God’s will, either by omitting to do what God’s law requires, or doing what it forbids.”

The founder of Islam, Mohammad, confessed that he was a sinner who transgressed God’s laws and needed forgiveness (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, #335, #379, #407, #408). Buddha and Karl Marx rejected the concept of sin or a sin nature, as we are familiar with it in the Bible – but both accepted the idea of wrongful deeds, which is another way to refer to sin. Moses confessed his sin before God, acknowledging his need for a Savior.

Unlike all of these, Jesus needed no forgiveness and needed no Savior because He was sinless. He declared his own sinlessness to the religious leaders of His day. His morality was perfect, without failure. While Buddha taught a form of enlightenment that he himself had to attain, Jesus was different. Jesus needed no enlightenment. The Bible declares Jesus to be the one who gives enlightenment (John 1:5,9, I John 1:6-10). Jesus even warned against so-called enlightenment that does not take sin into account: “Beware that the light that is within you is not darkness” (Luke 11:35).

As a sinless person all of Jesus’ thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and behaviors were without moral failing. No religious leader or philosopher can claim this other than Jesus Christ. In fact, none of the leaders mentioned here ever made such a claim, except for Jesus. Jesus was perfect in these things because His knowledge was perfect. Unlike Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, and Marx, Jesus was pre-existent (John 1:15, 8:42, 56-58). His teachings about morality and right living came from His perfect character, His perfect experience, and His foreknowledge (John 5:19).

Jesus’ Identity
Compared to other religious leaders Jesus’ identity is unique and superior. As already mentioned, His humanity was sinless. But there are three other traits that make Jesus superior to all others – His servanthood, His kingship, and His Deity.

While Buddha taught religious principles to others, he first sought enlightenment for himself, for his own benefit. Mohammad founded Islam on a principle that the prophet of Allah was to be served by those he taught. A prophet could even receive benefits from his religious service that ordinary people could not receive – like multiple wives. Karl Marx taught service to the State. Jesus was different from all of these.

Jesus Christ is above all rulers, authorities, and nations (Ephesians 1:19-23, Colossians 2:9-10). Though He was already God, He emptied Himself to become a servant (Philippians 2:5-8). Jesus said He came to serve (Matthew 20:28). While all other religious leaders sought to raise their spiritual standing, to achieve a higher plane of spirituality or consciousness, only Jesus Christ sought to lower and humble himself. Prior to His birth He was omniscient. Yet He sought in becoming a man to limit Himself – including His consciousness, to that of a man. Only Jesus sought to humble Himself from that position which was already His by Divine right.

Though Jesus was the ultimate servant (Mark 10:45), He is also a king. He is the King of Israel (Jeremiah 2:3-5, Ezekiel 37:21-28, John 1:49, 12:13). He is the King of the Earth (Psalm 42:2,7, Zechariah 14:9, John 18:37). Jesus is of higher authority than all earthly rulers (Ephesians 1:19-23, Colossians 1:9-10). He is king because of His kingly decent (II Samuel 7:12-13). He is king because He has moral authority to reign. He is king because of His Divine right as Deity (Colossians 1:13-17).

Mohammed ruled Arabia as a king – but only after slaughtering many opponents and shedding much innocent blood. Buddha was born into royalty, but he renounced it. Moses governed, but rejected kingship for himself. Karl Marx’s philosophies have reorganized many states, but like all others, he did not possess the moral authority to lead.

And finally, Jesus is superior because of His Deity. All others – Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, and Marx, and every other religious and philosophical figure were all mere men – but Jesus Christ is the unique Son of the Living God.

Conclusion
Even from our simple definition provided in the first paragraph we can see how unique and superior Jesus Christ is in comparison to all other religious teachers. He is higher in rank and station than Mohammed, of greater authority than Moses or Marx, of a higher nature, kind, value, and excellence than Buddha. Jesus Christ is more than extraordinary – and that doesn’t begin to explain Him.