Category Archives: Pastoral Reflections
What does Church Architecture Point Toward?
With the coming of the reformation, particularly with the coming of Calvin’s reformation in Geneva, came a shift in the architecture of the Church building. In the architecture of the medieval Roman Catholic church, the central item in the front of the church—the area that everything in the church pointed, so as to direct one’s attention toward—was the altar. In the Roman Catholic service, it is the Mass that is central to worship, and since the altar was central to the Mass, the altar was made to be the focal point of the church.
Yet, for Calvin, it was not the Mass that was central—in fact, the Mass was done away with altogether as being unbiblical and in contradiction with Christ’s sacrifice being once and for all time as pointed out in Hebrews 10. For Calvin, the Holy Scriptures were central along with their exposition and proclamation. Thus, as a result of the Calvinistic influence, the pulpit and the scriptures were moved to the central part of the church symbolizing its importance and its centrality to worship.
This abovementioned transition is fairly well established in history, but I began to reflect recently on other changes that seem to be taking place in church architecture as churches move away from a traditional church model to a more non-traditional, assembly room/warehouse model of worship. Architecturally, what is center? In many instances, the stage has been cleared as to place nothing at the central point. One of the trends that ties in with this has been a move toward a translucent pulpit, almost as if nothing is there at all.
Now, I confess that I have a bias toward a traditional church worship and traditional church architecture with the Lord’s Sacred Desk (the pulpit) placed centrally in the church to visually make the statement, “This is the most important thing we do!” And, I suppose that by posting these views here I will be stepping on the toes of some folks even in my own denomination who have embraced a more non-traditional model. I know that when you are reaching out to unchurched folks, many times they feel intimidated by the traditional elements of church architecture and worship—then again, is church supposed to be about making people comfortable or is it supposed to be about pointing toward Truth (and Truth never makes people feel comfortable, not even me). The traditional architecture and the scriptures presented remind us that we are part of a tradition that is far older than we are.
But can we set our biases to the side for a moment and pose the question as to what this new, non-traditional architecture points toward? In other words, what does the eye focus on, what does the church layout communicate as being central? I would suggest that in the absence of the pulpit or the altar, what is presented as central is the man, whether that man be the pastor or the worship leader, it seems to be the man that all of the eyes turn toward. It is also worth noting, and this is where many more toes are going to be stepped on, that preaching has also reflected this change. The systematic and consecutive exposition of scripture has largely been replaced by topical and practical preaching. This does not mean that the preaching is not laced with scripture, it is, but the scripture becomes secondary to the topic and the topics tend to be very anthrocentric, dealing more with how to live in this world than with how God has revealed himself to this world.
In making this assertion, please do not think that I am rejecting application in a sermon—sermons must be laced with application, but I would suggest that application needs to be drawn out of the scriptures, while in the non-traditional model, the scriptures are used to support the application. In the first, the scripture is the primary focus, in the latter, the application is the primary focus. In a very real sense, this is reflected in the changed architecture where no longer is every eye drawn to the pulpit, but where every eye is drawn toward the man. Every decision we make carries with it ramifications, and I think that we must be careful in seeking new models and contexts for church worship, for when we change the focal point, oftentimes other changes follow as well.
Samson or Sampson
Growing up I remember being corrected on the spelling of Samson. “No ‘p’ in his name!” I would be told over and over. The interesting thing is not in that I was spelling the name incorrectly, but that so many people spell the name incorrectly. In addition, there are many people in our culture today whose surname is Sampson, which seems to reinforce the use of the letter “p” in the middle of the name.
This year, as I have been teaching through the book of Judges, I posed the question as to what is the cause for this phenomenon? Is this but a dialectical thing, or is there something in the original text that is not being carried over into our English transliteration? What I found was quite interesting.
The Hebrew spelling of Samson’s name is !Avm.v. (Shemshon). While there is some debate over the source of his name, it seems that it is derived from vm,v, (shemesh), which means “sun.” Since the Philistines worshiped the sun as one of their gods (the Mesopotamian god “Samsu” was revered as god of the sun), this seems to be a direct attack on their deity, much in the same way that the plagues in Egypt are attacks on the Egyptian gods of that day. Yet, this does not help us solve the mystery of the “p” in his name.
The “p” actually arrives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. About 300 years before the birth of Christ, the Hebrews began translating the Bible into Greek. Greek was the “lingua franca” of the day and many Jewish people in the dispersion could no longer read Hebrew well. In addition, the Greek mind likes to engage in dialogue with other schools of thought and such a translation provided a medium for that discussion. This translation is referred to as the “Septuagint” or the “LXX.”
When the translators of the Book of Judges approached the name of Samson, they transliterated it as follows: Samyw/n (Sampson). This transliteration not only explains how the “Sh” transformed into a “S,” but also explains the importation of the letter “p” into the center of the word. Now, why they opted to use a psi (y) instead of a pi (p) is still clouded by the shadows of history, perhaps it was simply seen as an easier way to pronounce his name—there are a number of names that have been transliterated oddly both in the Septuagint and in our English translations.
Thus, the next time you happen to slip, and pronounce or spell Samson’s name with a “p,” and someone curtly corrects you, all you have to do is to put on as serious and scholarly a face as you are able and inform them that you simply favor the Greek spelling over the English one. That ought to get them scratching their heads for a while. :8)
Why Doesn’t God Just Obliterate the Devil and thus Get Rid of Evil?
Why doesn’t God just obliterate the Devil?
One of the projects that we engage in at Rocky Bayou Christian School is that of helping to train students how to defend their faith when it is challenged. One of the ways in which we do so is to pose questions to the student body that challenge the faith and then challenge them to write out a response for a prize. Each of these questions are drawn from atheistic websites, blogs, books, or movies to ensure that the questions we use are ones actually being presented by unbelievers.
This month’s question is, “Why doesn’t God just obliterate the Devil and thus get rid of evil—and if he can, what is he waiting for?” The question itself comes from the trailer for Bill Mayer’s new movie, “Religulous.” The movie is presented as a documentary—more a “mock-u-mentary,” designed to poke fun at religious people. In his interview on Larry King Live this past August, Mayer gives the motivation for asking this question. Mayer states that religion is “the ultimate hustle,” that Christian leaders “need” the Devil, “because if God got rid of the devil—and he could because he is all-powerful—then there is no fear, there is no reason to come to church, there is no reason to pass the plate, we are all out of a job…” This statement falls on the heels of the comment, “at some point, mankind is going to have to shed this skin (Religion) if he is going to move forward. I do have a serious intellectual problem with it, and on another level, it just ticks me off…”
It is worth making one more comment about the interview on an indirectly related note: when speaking about the afterlife and the Christian’s view that we know what will happen to us after we die, Mayer makes a wonderfully true comment. Mayer states, “unless a God told you personally what happens to you when you die, it all came from another person with no more mental powers than you.” And that is exactly the point. God did come and tell us what will happen to us when we die, and he tells us the way that leads to eternal life, which is through a relationship with Jesus Christ, and the way that leads to death, which is the way that Mayer seems to have chosen to pursue—to reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. And we have these words of God recorded for us in the Bible.
How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God and not the writings of men, as I would presume Mayer would assert? While my point here is not to present a full defense for the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures (as others have written excellent volumes on just that subject), let me set forth several basic points.
The first thing that we must present is that the Bible itself claims to be God’s word. Now, your initial response very well may be to assert that a statement like this is circular reasoning. And on some level, it is. But let us pose the question, what might be true about the Bible if this statement about it being God’s word is true? We would expect, were it written by God, that all of the facts that it contains are true. And indeed, while evolutionists would assert that the creation story is untrue, evolution is a theory based on a speculation of the order of events. The “mountains” of evidence that so many evolutionists point toward are illusory, and Creation Scientists can present interpretations of the evidence that are arguably more compelling than the evolutionary models, and which are consistent with Scripture. If you doubt this, try getting a college Biology professor to agree to debate with a Creation Scientist—you will find it to be a rather challenging task. The Creation Scientists are willing, but the evolutionists are not—basic logic should tell you that they are hiding something if they are unwilling to engage in such debates.
But let us look at events that are clearly documented in history. What we find when we examine the archaeological evidence is that there is nothing to contradict the historical Biblical account. In addition, when we compare Biblical records of historical events with extra-Biblical documents of the same age, we find once again that there are no contradictions. There are more textual accounts, for example, to the life of Jesus than there are for example to the life of Julius Caesar, but no-one doubts that Julius Caesar lived, nor do they doubt the historicity of his writings.
In addition, we might not only expect that the history that the Bible records is accurate, but we might also expect that the things that it foretells is also accurate. Now, certainly all of the things that the Bible foretells have not yet come to pass, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of prophesies that the Bible did foretell that did come to pass. For example, Isaiah prophesied that the man who would be used of God to return the exiles to Jerusalem would be named Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), a prophesy that was given roughly 200 years before the event took place. There are numerous prophesies that are given about the coming Messiah as well—that he was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that a forerunner would be sent (Malachi 3:1), that he would be rejected by his people (Psalm 118:22-23), numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12), that the soldiers would divide Jesus’ garments (Psalm 22:18), and that in his death his bones would not be broken, but his side pierced (Exodus 12:46, Zechariah 12:10). We could go on, as there are many more, but as a friend of mine who used to be in the meat packing industry regularly says, “If the sample is true and free from bacteria, the whole lot is likely true and free from bacteria.” In other words, to prove that a tree has roots you don’t need to dig up every tree, but only a representative sample. Time after time, it can be documented that Biblical prophesies have come to pass. By every scientific measure, then, one must accept the validity of the whole.
One might also suggest that if the Bible were written by God himself, it would be true and without contradictions. And indeed, that is exactly the case. It is granted that there are some people who would point out that the Bible does seem to contradict itself on occasion, but in each of these cases, the contradictions are only apparent ones noted from a surface reading of the text. Reasonable explanations can be given for each of these apparent contradictions. One thing that we have learned from the discipline of forensic science is that in crimes, oftentimes very unusual events take place. And while a crime may at first seem to have taken place in one way, when all of the evidence is examined, rational explanations can be given for why the initial assumptions were wrong. If one is going to seek to say that the Bible contradicts itself, all of the evidence, both internal and external, must be examined before any rational conclusions can be reached. I suggest that once that examination is made, the Scriptures will be recognized to be internally consistent.
Though I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I want to make several more practical observations about the Bible that only seek to affirm that it is God’s word. First of all, one of the things that separate the Bible from mythic and religious writings of the ancient times is that it gives accurate names as well as detailed historical as well as geographical information. Most ancient religious documents are rather vague when it comes to such details so that they cannot be refuted. The Bible presents this kind of information, and as noted above, it is not found in error when challenged. Secondly, the Bible has had a greater impact on the events of worldwide history in a way that no other book can claim. Nations have risen and fallen around the contents and teachings of this book. Philosophies have emerged with the contents of this book as their foundations. The bible is the most widely-read book in history and even non-believers have benefited from its insights and wisdom into human nature. In addition, people have been willing to die for the veracity of this book in a way that no other book can claim in history. And finally, on a very pastoral note, the Bible has the ability to bring peace to a dying person’s heart unlike any other book in human history. When folks are on their deathbeds, they typically do not ask for someone to read from Shakespeare’s sonnets, but regularly ask to have some of the Psalms read to them. This again is a sign that the words of this book transcend humanity and are found to be of divine origin. No other book, religious or secular, can claim the authority that the Bible claims for itself, and it is irrational to ask for a higher authority to attest to the divinity of the Bible than God himself because God himself is the highest authority—and He claims thousands of times in the scriptures that these words are his own. If you doubt that this book is truly God’s word, I challenge you to sit down and give the Bible an honest read from cover to cover, examining the evidence for and against, before you seek to challenge its authority.
Now, as to answering Mayer’s specific question about why God does not destroy the Devil and thus rid the world of evil? To answer this question well, there are several things we need to take into account. First of all, there is an important distinction that needs to be made between the Devil and evil in the sense that even if the Devil were to cease to exist tomorrow, there would still be evil in the world. The name “Devil” comes from the Greek term, dia/boloß (diabolos), which literally refers to one who engages in slander against another (certainly something that Mayer is guilty of when it comes to God). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, dia/boloß (diabolos) is typically used to translate !j’f’ (Satan), which means, “accuser.” Satan is described as the accuser of the faithful (Zechariah 3:1-2; Job 1) and one who incites to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1). The Devil, in turn, is described as tempter (Matthew 4:1), enemy of God (Matthew 13:39), betrayer (John 6:70), murderer and Father of Lies (John 8:44), oppressor of God’s people (Acts 10:38), enemy of righteousness (Acts 13:10), the one who sets snares for God’s people (1 Timothy 3:7), and the father of those who make a practice of sinning (1 John 3:7-10). Ultimately it will be the devil and those who serve him who will be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented eternally (Revelation 20:10,15). Thus, in a sense, part of Meyer’s answer is answered. God has promised that he will destroy the devil, but such will not take place until all of God’s elect have been brought to faith (arguably Christ’s return is keyed to the death of the last martyr [Revelation 7:11]).
Before I address the question of evil and it being taken out of the world, I want to address the follow-up question that Meyer posed—what is God waiting for? In other words, the question can be rephrased—why doesn’t God just get on with it? In a sense, the answer was given just above—God is waiting for the final predestined believer to come to faith/the last martyr to give his life for the Holy faith. To understand this better, it is important to look at how Peter addressed this very question in his second epistle. Peter was dealing with those who were scoffing and saying “nothing has changed since the old days—where is this God of yours?” It is almost as if Peter were writing to Mayer on this very issue—or perhaps Mayer isn’t overly creative in asking questions. Peter states that the reason God is taking what seems to us to be a long time is not because God is slow to act, but because God is patient, being willing to endure the mocking and scoffing of unbelievers until the very last member of his elect has been brought to faith (2 Peter 3:8-10). Thus, in God’s eternal decree before the foundation of the earth, when he chose his elect throughout history (Ephesians 1:4), God also determined to stay his hand of eternal judgment long enough for the very last believer would be brought to faith—he will not lose even one of those who he has so ordained to become his own (John 10:28).
Finally, we are left with the question of evil. The first thing to note is that while the concept of sin is related to the concept of evil, they are not synonymous. The Old Testament word for sin derives from the Hebrew verb aj’x’ (chata), which means to miss the mark or target that one is aiming at. Thus, sin is missing the mark of God’s righteous character or not being able to live up to his standard. In turn, the antonym of sin is righteousness. In contrast, the Hebrew word for evil is [r: (ra), and it is typically used as the antonym of bAT (tov), or “good.” Deuteronomy 30:15 presents this contrast quite clearly where Moses presents the people with the following statement: “See, I put before you this day the life and the good—the death and the evil.” In other words, that which is good and that which is evil are seen as the necessary results of obedience or disobedience respectively, or in the context of our discussion—good and evil are the results of a righteous lifestyle or a sinful lifestyle. One might take the concept one step farther, understanding the fall of mankind as described in Genesis 3 as the entrance of evil into the world, that good is ultimately reflected in what it was like to live in an unfallen world and evil is reflected in what it is like to live in a fallen world.
So why does God permit us to live in a world that is less than perfect and is often filled with evil rather than with good? Admittedly, such a time is only for a season, for there will come a time when Jesus will return and remake the heavens and the earth free from the effects of evil—restoring the world to an unfallen state, but with one catch—we will no longer be able to fall into sin. Yet, for now, we live in a fallen world and not only do we sin, but we are forced to endure not only evil people all around us, but also evil events that take place—events that are reflective of the fall of mankind. So why does a good God permit such evil? First of all, God permits such to go on in the world around us to remind us of the effects of our sinful actions and hopefully compel us to grieve over our own sin as well as the sins of others. Secondly, evil in the world around us stands as a constant testimony against the secular humanists and almost every other religious system. Most religions and the secular humanists believe that deep down mankind is good and that it will only truly become good when it “sheds the skin” of religion and moves forward apart from God. The Bible tells us quite the opposite. We are born in sin (Psalm 51:5) and we pursue sin (Romans 3:10-12) with all of our strength apart from a movement of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If mankind were good, then mankind would be perfecting itself and wars and political oppression and greed would come to an end. Yet we are sinners, and thus we stumble and fall into sin. Mankind is fallen and evil is a constant testimony to that fallenness. A final reason for God’s permission of evil in the world is that he uses evil to strengthen Christians in their faith. Facing evil, trials, and tribulations force us to draw closer to God and to rely on his strength and thus grow in our relationship to him.
In other words, for the Christian, while evil is something that we never desire to enter into our lives, when it does, such evil things are not necessarily bad. In fact, in many cases, the scriptures remind us that it is good to face evil things so long as we are relying upon God, for such cases will grow us to be stronger in our relationship with Jesus Christ. One final note—while the final destruction of the Devil will not take place before the second coming of our Lord, Jesus did once and for all time defeat the power of the devil upon the cross of Calvary. Yet, though Satan has been defeated, we must endure for a little while longer while God works out his plan in the world.
In a nutshell—God does has already destroyed the Devil and has promised to cast him in the lake of fire in the end times. Second, God is waiting for the last of the elect to come to faith and/or the last martyr to die. Third, even if the Devil were thrown into the pit tomorrow, we would still have evil in the world due to the fall of man and man’s sin—something that can only be remedied through a relationship with Jesus Christ. Fourth, evil is not always bad though it is always unpleasant. God often uses evil to bring about his work in this world as well as using it to sanctify and mature us in the faith.
Does Sin Crouch? (Genesis 4:7)
Genesis 4:7
Can Sin Crouch and can sin Desire?
Genesis 4:7 (ESV) “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
Literal Translation: “Will not, if you do good, to lift up? And if you do not do good, sin is laying at the door. And it’s longing is toward you, and you must rule over it.”
The question that was asked, is this passage simply personifying sin of does God’s word somehow suggest that sin is an entity which can act on its own volition? The simply answer to the question is that sin is being personified by God to emphasize the point that God is making with Cain. God wants Cain to truly understand the power that sin has over him, so the comparison that is being made is of a predator crouching in wait at the threshold of his home—ready to strike—and that it has a desire for Cain.
While the simple answer is that God is personifying sin for the sake of emphasis, perhaps the more interesting question is why might God have communicated in this way with Cain? To answer that question, we need to know something about what is literally being communicated.
First, as you can see above, the initial question, when translated literally, makes rather awkward and unintelligible English. And such is not overly unusual when going from one language to another—especially with idioms, so a few notes must be made up front. First of all, the Hebrew language often uses word order to add emphasis to those things that are found at the beginning of the sentence, though typically not as much so as Greek. In other words, what is being emphasized is God’s beginning question—“Won’t this take place…?” Oftentimes when my son has been disobedient, instead of just telling him that he was wrong, I will ask him a leading question so that he speaks the truth about his action. I might ask “Surely, you didn’t think that such and such was okay to do…,” and in doing so, add a great deal of emphasis on the word, “Surely.” Usually, when confronted in this way, my son responds by hanging his head and saying, “no, dad…” I think that the word order and structure of the initial question lends itself to this tone on the part of God. God knows that Cain knows right from wrong, God knows that Cain knows that he sinned, and God also knows that Cain knows that he needs to repent, but the leading question is designed to force Cain to respond properly—yet Cain’s heart is hardened and he refuses to repent.
The second thing that we need to note is the word af’n” (nasa), which means, “to lift up.” While this term broadly refers to picking or lifting up anything in particular, it is also sometimes used in a judicial sense to some being restored to favor before a king, as with the cupbearer being restored to his office in Genesis 40:13. That seems to be the context of its use in this particular pattern—if Cain does right (in this case, repenting of his heartless offering and make a proper offering, sacrificing what is first and best of his crops), then he will be forgiven. Thus, the concept that the ESV is seeking to capture as they translate this word as “be accepted” is this idea of Cain’s being restored to proper fellowship with God. Note too, that af’n” (nasa) is being used in it’s infinitive form, and thus carries with it no subject (as my translation above reflects), and though this makes awkward English, it is meant to remind us that in the repentance (doing what is good in God’s eyes), the process of lifting up—the process or legal restoration to his original position in the covenant community—takes place. Yet, of course, if he chooses what is not good, in comes sin.
This raises the issue with respect to what is “good” and what is the relationship between “good” and “sin.” The concept of “good” is understood in a number of ways, but in its absolute sense (from which we should derive our applications of the concept) only applies to God (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Psalm 119:68 is the basis for this concept:
“You are good and you cause good to be;
teach me your statutes.”
Note the structure of this psalm. God is described as good—where the idea of “good” is functioning as a predicate nominative. In other words, “good” is being portrayed as part of God’s essential character and reciprocally, “good” cannot be defined apart from a discussion of God and who he is. The psalmist continues, though, by stating that not only is God good, but God’s work is good. This second use of the term good, moves from the adjectival use of the word Good (a reflection of God’s character) to the participial use of the term, reflecting his ongoing actions. In addition, the Hebrew uses the Hiphil stem of the verb in this case, which reflects causative action—in other words, God is the one who causes all good to come about.
One note that we need to make in relation to this is the way in which we use the term “good,” because even as Christians we rarely use it in its absolute sense. We often express the idea of good in relationship to our preferences, other people, or our general comfort. And while they are all legitimate uses of the term, “good,” the general term must derive its meaning from some sort of inviolable standard. God is the only one who can set such a standard. This, of course, provides a problem for unbelievers who reject God’s presence, but in rejecting God, to where will they turn for the measure of what is good? If they determine that preference determines the meaning of good, all intellectual interaction is reduced to meaningless babble—one can turn to the beginning of Genesis 11 to see what happens to a culture that cannot communicate with one another in any meaningful way. If the unbeliever looks outside of himself, to perhaps the state, for a standard for good, they are reduced to excusing Nazi Germany for their execution of millions of people, for those in government saw themselves as doing good for the German people. If you look to the Nuremburg trials, they defined good in terms of that which preserved life (though one might ask from where they adopted that absolute definition). Yet many who would advocate such a definition would also advocate abortions, which terminate the life of an unwanted baby. The unbeliever is reduced to an endless cycle of confusion and frustration unless he can appeal on some level to a supernatural standard, and then he has trapped himself in an unwanted contradiction. If you don’t accept God as being who he is—and being the source of the definition of good—then you cannot use the term in any meaningful sense. At the same time, this causes a great deal of practical difficulty for many Christians, because if you accept that God provides the absolute definition of what is good, we must define what is good on that basis, not on the basis of our own comfort or preferences—and that causes Romans 8:28 and similar passages to be taken in a very different light compared to how most Christians look at the passage. Thus, while God does work all things for my good, what is ultimately good for me is not my comfort, health, or financial blessing, but being conformed into the image of his Son, Jesus Christ.
So, for Cain to do good, he must repent from his sin—and in this case, sin stands as the direct opposite of good. The term we translate as “sin” in the Old Testament is taJ’x; (chattath), and is derived from the verb aj’x’ (chata), “to miss the mark” or “to fail to hit the target” (see Judges 20:16). And then, what are we missing when we sin? We are missing God’s perfect standard (Matthew 5:48). This, of course, is why we needed a redeemer who could come and live a perfect life on our behalf as well as to pay the debt we owed on account of sin (retributive justice). Thus sin is not an entity wandering about on its own, but it is the result of our failure to live up to God’s perfect standard—and willful sin, being that God has revealed his law, is an intentional missing of the standard, and is thus outward rebellion against God’s holy and good character.
There is one more note that we need to make on this passage, and that is of the language of “desire.” The Hebrew term employed in this verse is hq’WvT. (tishuqah), which refers to a “longing” or a “desire” for something. What is particularly interesting is that while this term is only used in two other places in the Old Testament, one of those places is in the previous chapter: Genesis 3:16 (the second other place is in Song of Solomon 7:10). What is also interesting about this is that in both of these cases (Genesis 3:16 and 4:7) the word lv;m’ (mashal) is used in conjunction with it. The verb lv;m’ (mashal) refers to ruling over something or someone. In both cases, the desire is defined as something that must be ruled over—in the first case, Adam ruling over Eve in spite of her desire for him (or for his position as many understand it) and in this case, Cain ruling over sin’s desire for him (or to destroy his relationship with God as part of the covenant community).
The reality is that the struggle with sin, while an inward spiritual struggle, is like wrestling against a wild beast seeking to destroy, but instead must be dominated and ruled over. Not only is God using this language to emphasize the urgency of Cain’s repentance, but also to communicate to us the very real battle that we face—one that is not a battle against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities and thus we must take up the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-12).
Are Christians “Peculiar” or “Possessed”? (1 Peter 2:9)
In a conversation that I had recently with a friend, we stumbled across an excellent example of why we ought to use modern translations and not the old King James. In this case, we were looking at 1 Peter 2:9, and we struck on a significant difference in translation between the King James and the ESV (which I typically use to preach and teach from). I found that the results were both interesting and useful, dealing with the question: “are we a peculiar people” or “are we a people in Christ’s possession” as we go through life?
Initially, I compared the Greek of the Majority Text (from which the KJV is drawn) to the NA27 (from which modern translations are drawn) to see whether the difference in translation lay within a textual variant (please note that while there are variations between ancient manuscripts, they are largely minor linguistic nuances, and none of them place in question any orthodox doctrine that has been held by the church). Yet, both Greek Texts are identical in terms of this verse. Here is how the verse is literally translated (nuances of the words in parentheses):
“But you are an elect family, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession (could also be a people for preservation), in order that you might proclaim the moral excellence of the one who called (or summoned) you from darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9)
The language of “a people for possession” is the language that the King James Version translates into “a peculiar people.”
To understand this, we must recognize that the word “peculiar” in English is a word that has changed its use in meaning over the last 400 years since the KJV was translated. Today, we use the word “peculiar” to refer to something that is a little odd or strange—unique or outside of the mainstream. We might say something like, “This tastes peculiar,” to suggest that there is something disagreeable with the meal that has been set before us—in other words, it tastes odd.
But this is a more modern usage of the term and it was not what the KJV translators intended to communicate. In the 17th century, the term “peculiar” referred to something that was the exclusive property of something or someone else. When you understand this, the modern translation of “a people for possession” is synonymous with what the 17th century translators understood when they wrote, “a peculiar people.” It is only in a modern sense that we have tended to misunderstand what the KJV was saying because we no longer typically understand the word “peculiar” in the same way.
We do still have remnants of this old usage in modern English when we say things like, “the antiseptic smell that is peculiar to hospitals” or “he speaks in an accent that is peculiar to the Cajun culture of New Orleans.” Yet, even this use of the word “peculiar” seems to be falling away from common vernacular.
For what it is worth, the English word “peculiar” comes from the Latin, peculiaris, which means, “private property.” This is exactly the sense that Peter is using the term—we are the private property of Him who has delivered us from darkness and into his marvelous light—we are Christ’s exclusive property—a people peculiar to Him.
(Note: to its credit, the New King James Version translates this as, “his own special people,” which does a better job of capturing the idea in modern vernacular. The point: language changes as it is used one generation to the next and being bound to translations that use outdated language can easily lead to misunderstandings of the Biblical text.)
God’s Work of Creation
God’s Creative Work
The work of creation is a work that was engaged in by all three members of the Triune Godhead, thus it needs to be briefly treated here, as we discuss Theology Proper. Within this category, there are four things that we must principally discuss: The Setting of creation, the Act of creation, the Purpose of creation, and the Destiny of creation.
The Setting of Creation
When we speak of the setting of creation, we are speaking of the state of existence prior to creation from which God began his creative work. In this case, there was nothing apart from God.[1] All things that are were created by God and from nothing. In other words, there was no preexistent matter from which God began his creative work.[2] This fact rejects the Gnostic and Greek notion of the Pleroma, it rejects any sort of polytheism, and it rejects the notion of the universe being eternal[3] and ongoing. In modern science, it also rejects the notion of the universe’s origin being a “Big Bang” as the theory hinges on the idea of a preexistent singularity from which the universe came. Similarly, this rejects naturalism, as God is outside of and not bound within nature. Simply speaking, God existed in perfect harmony and satisfaction in his Triune state for eternity prior to his work of creation; he is the self-existent being from which all that exists finds its origin.
The Act of Creation
There are several things that fall under this heading: first, the cause of the act; second, the means by which the act was performed; and third, the act itself.
First, we must note that there was no outside cause that brought about God’s act of creation, nor was there anything lacking within God that precipitated a need for him to create. He made the decision to create purely for his own eternal purposes and to show his own glory. There are some who would portray God as being needy without the praises of his people or as being desirous of a relationship that was outside of himself, yet this is not the Biblical presentation of God’s sovereign being or act of creation.
Second, we must address the means by which God created. Scripture affirms that God spoke all creation into being[4] by the word of his power[5], which is Jesus Christ.[6] Scripture does not portray God as creating through other powers, it does not portray God as creating by forming preexistent matter, nor does scripture present God as creating through an interplay with or against evil powers. Instead, scripture presents God in the sovereign act of creating and then pronouncing that which he created as good.[7]
Finally, we see the act itself, by which God made all things.[8] There is a great deal of debate as to the nature of this act. Did God directly create all things by divine fiat? Did God begin the work of creation miraculously and then guide the natural development of the world through secondary causes? Did God begin creation and set the natural laws and then leave development to take place in a natural way? Is the world relatively young of is the language of Genesis 1 metaphorical?
It is not possible, within the scope of this discussion to address all of these issues as much ink has been spilled over these debates. The answer to this question falls largely into the question of which one holds to have priority. Do we interpret scripture according to man’s reason and scientific understandings or do we submit our reason and scientific understanding to the authority of scripture? We must ask, “which is translated by which?” There are faithful Christians on all sides of this debate. If one holds that scripture is primary, then science must be interpreted in light of the revelation. If one holds otherwise, then one is free to hold various interpretations of Genesis 1. See appendix for a defense of a literal (seven 24-hour days) position on the time and order of creation and the importance of holding to such a position.
The Purpose of Creation
There are really only two answers that can be given to the question of the purpose of creation. The first is that God created to glorify himself[9] and that the second is to honor Christ.[10] While there may be many secondary and subordinate plans and purposes that God has worked out in his world, like that of bringing us into a relationship with himself, the primary purpose of creation is to honor the one who brought it into being—to honor the one who rightly deserves praise and adoration. Even in our fallen state, one thing that we understand well is that it is right and proper to honor the artist or maker of a great work of art. Hence, names like Michelangelo and Rembrandt, Bach and Mozart, or Chaucer and Shakespeare are well known to us, though many years have passed since they created their masterpieces. Even the most ardent unbeliever understands that it is proper and honorable to give words of acclamation to someone who is an accomplished musician, athlete, or painter. Thus, when we see the created order and understand it to be the infinitely wonderful masterpiece that it is, how much infinitely more proper it is to praise its artist, God himself, for his work. Even more so, how much more wonderful is the infinitely perfect character of God himself than the character of his creation, and how we should praise him simply for who he is even apart from what he has done! Indeed, how much more rude and conceited it is when we refuse to honor God properly than when we refuse to give a human artist his or her due. Likewise, Christ, as the radiance of God’s glory[11] and the perfection of God’s image[12] deserves our praise.[13]
The Destiny of Creation
The discussion of the end of the created order begins with God’s initial creation. For God created all things and pronounced them to be very good[14] and gave mankind the responsibility of subduing it[15], essentially extending God’s garden of Eden—paradise—to the whole of the created order.[16] In other words, creation, while very good in every way, needed to be given order and further cultivation. Man and woman, in taking dominion over the world, were to imitate God in his gardening activity by making the planet paradise. Yet, Adam and Eve fell and as the created order was under their regency[17], the created order fell with them. Yet, God has promised through Christ that the created order will be remade perfectly at the time his Son returns[18], Jesus as King in Adam’s place, remaking the world into paradise. Hence the language of Revelation picks up on much of the Old Testament imagery of the Garden of Eden.[19] Thus, the destiny of the created order is never-ending paradise under the dominion of Christ.
[1] Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-2.
[2] See the unit on Symbolics for more on God’s creating ex-nihilo.
[3] Note that there is a difference between time and eternity: time being created and eternity being a state of timeless-ness, it simply is. This is important to note, as Augustine points out in his Confessions, for otherwise we must ask why God waited “so long” to begin his noble task of creation. Time is simply the measure that finite beings use to mark the sequential progression of their existence. Eternity describes the state of God’s being.
[4] Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26.
[5] Hebrews 1:3; Psalm 33:9.
[6] John 1:14.
[7] Genesis 1:31.
[8] Note that in the discussion of God creating all things, we are including the spiritual realms as well as the physical realms. Though it is not entirely clear as to on which day God created the spiritual world and populated it with angels, given that God is the only pre-existent being, it is understood that they were created at some point within these seven days. See appendix for more on angels and the spiritual realm.
[9] Revelation 4:11; Isaiah 43:7.
[10] Colossians 1:16.
[11] Hebrews 1:3.
[12] Colossians 1:15.
[13] Note that while some would consider God to be conceited and prideful for demanding our praise, we need to remember two principles. First, conceit and pride come as a result of a disproportionate emphasis on self to the exclusion of the rightful honor of others, and certainly this is not so with God. Secondly, praise is in our best interests, for when we praise that which is good, we find great joy. Thus the greatest of joy can be found in praising that which is the most praise-worthy: God himself.
[14] Genesis 1:31.
[15] Genesis 1:28.
[16] Genesis 2:15.
[17] Romans 8:20.
[18] 2 Peter 3:10.
[19] Revelation 21:1, 22:1-3.
Understanding Predestination
Predestination:
The natural outworking of the Doctrine of God’s Decrees when applied to salvation is the language of predestination, of which election is a subset. Regardless of how you understand predestination to be worked out in history, the term (and terms surrounding predestination) need to be dealt with because they are employed within scripture. With this in mind, various views on the nature of predestination have been put forth including that of God’s foreordination of some to glory and some to reprobation (Calvinistic), God’s predestination based on divine foresight (classic Wesleyan), and God’s predestination of Christ as the only elect one and believers finding their election in him (modern Wesleyan).
To better frame out this discussion, the first question that needs to be raised is whether God is active or passive in his predestination. The Calvinist will typically hold that God’s predestination of believers to glory is active while his predestination of unbelievers to reprobation is a passive activity—that of literally choosing not to act in the life of some. The Wesleyans will hold that God’s predestination of both believers and unbelievers is passive, the final decision in terms of salvation being left in the hands of the individual who chooses either to believe or to reject the things of God.
The second question that is addressed is the question of who forms the object of predestination. The Calvinist will hold that all men, both good and evil, are the object of God’s predestinating work. The Wesleyan will either argue that men ultimately choose to become the object of the predestinating work (as the work is passive) or that Christ is the only object of God’s predestinating work. It is worth noting that these theologies typically apply the language of predestination to angels as well as to humans, thus it is God who predestinated Satan and his minions to fall or that it is Satan and his minions who chose to fall on their own free and un-influenced will.
The third question that must be addressed is that of the specific language of the New Testament surrounding predestination. There are several terms that feed our understanding of God’s decretive work when it comes to predestination.
- proori/zw (proorizo): This term that we typically translate as “predestine” is constructed from two root words: pro (pro), for “beforehand” and oJri/zw (horizo)—“to define, appoint, or set a limit to.” Thus, when the terms are combined, this refers to something that is predetermined or decided upon ahead of time. Thus, two ideas must be accounted for in interpreting this word. First is that this word carries with it the idea of willful determination. God determined to do something (scripture context and theology will determine what that something may be); there is an intentionality that is contained by this word. Second, this willful act is an act that takes place before said events are realized, arguably, based on passages like Ephesians 1:4-5, said willful act takes place before the act of creation.
- proginw/skw (proginosko): Again, this term can be broken down into two constituent parts: pro (pro) and ginw/skw (ginosko), which means, “to know.” Thus, this term refers to God’s knowing beforehand things and events. There are two ways in which this “foreknowing” has been understood. The Calvinists have consistently argued that God’s foreknowing is due to his foreordaining (God knows the end of the story because he wrote the book). The Wesleyans have typically held that God, being outside of time and not bound by the linear time-stream as we are, equally sees past, present, and future, viewing the entire timeline of history from his divine vantage point (God knows the end of the story because he read the story beforehand).
The Wesleyan view ties proginw/skw (proginosko) with proora/w (proorao), or “foresight.” Thus God knows because he sees. Yet, the Calvinist points out the theological connection between ginw/skw (ginosko) and the Hebrew term [d:y” (yada), “to know.” The Hebrew concept of knowledge is relational, thus, when Adam “knew” his wife, she became pregnant. The Calvinist would thus argue that it is impossible to have a relationship with something that is simply seen in time, but that the word demands the idea of God setting his affections on those he “foreknew” ahead of time.
- ejkle/gomai (eklegomai): This is the verb that we translate as “to elect” or “to choose,” noting that this verb implies a certain degree of intentionality. This idea is also communicated through two nouns: ejklekto/ß (eklektos)—“chosen one” or “elect”—and ejklogh/ (ekloge)—“a choice” or “an election.” This is a term with which we will deal in more detail in our unit on Soteriology, but it is an important part of the understanding of predestination in terms of God’s decretive work. For our purposes here, though, it is important simply to understand the idea of election as being something that is a result of God’s intentional choice, regardless of the means by which you understand that choice being made (foresight or foreordination) or of your understanding of the object(s) of God’s electing work (Christ alone or all believers).
There is a fourth question that must be addressed, and this question, though it is one that tends to be more subjective than objective, is one that carries with it more pastoral connotations, and thus, in the eyes of many, is likely the most important question to address. This question is, “Is the idea of God predestinating fair?” Certainly, one may dismiss this concern by quoting, “Who are you, O Man, to answer back to God?” And, indeed, it is important to be reminded that we are the ones who must answer to God and he does not answer to man or seek man’s counsel. We were not the ones who set the world into place nor do we even know what tomorrow will bring. God is sovereign and man is not. As the German composer, Samuel Radigast, wrote: “Whatever my God ordains is right…”
At the same time, as we discussed before, God is not capricious and he is not unjust. All God does, he does in perfect harmony and accordance with his will. Thus, the question is raised once again, how do we understand the idea of predestination in terms of the “rightness” or “fairness” of the act that is consistent with the goodness of God’s character? The answer that we must give falls under a right understanding of our fallen, sinful estate. While we will discuss sin further when we discuss Anthropology, let it suffice to say that as a result of Adam’s fall, what every man, woman, and child deserves is the judgment of God—that is what we have earned. Thus, in terms of “fairness,” what is fair is that all mankind would face eternal judgment. In turn, the redemption that is seen in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ must be seen as the greatest of mercies delivered to an undeserving people. Regardless of your particular view on the object or means of election, a right view of our sinful states places into its proper context the marvelous, gracious, and wonderful work of our Lord on the cross. It can be said that the more seriously you take sin and its effects, the more you will appreciate the mercy of the cross.
One final note in terms of the language of predestination, in particular with respect to the Decrees of God: while there are many and varying views on how one explains the theology and theological ramifications of predestination, one must not ignore the concepts because they are scriptural concepts. One must deal honestly with the language of texts like Acts 4:28 and others, and while one’s theology may make less or more of them, one must make something of such passages in order to be faithful to scripture.
Ordinarily, this approach is rather backwards. Normally, when doing exegetical work, one should examine the words and their meanings, working from what the text literally states within its context and then deriving an interpretation from that point. Yet, in discussions as theologically charged as this discussion can be, it is worth noting that one’s theological presuppositions will often color one’s understanding of the context within which particular words may be found. If one is aware of one’s own presuppositions as they approach a text like this, it is my belief that one will be more inclined to recognize the effect that said presupposition is having on interpretation, hopefully using more discernment as the words are defined and understood.
Note that one must not be too hasty in assuming that a word can be defined accurately by combining the definitions of its constituent parts. Just as the English word “hot-dog” does not refer to a cute, fuzzy pet on a summer-time afternoon, such is often the same with Greek terms. At the same time, just as in English, many compound words do carry with them the combined meanings of their parts, and thus is the case with proori/zw.
Typically, when we speak of the Decrees of God, we speak of them as having taken place prior to his creative work.
Matthew 22:14; Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:22; Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 1 Timothy 5:21; 1 Peter 2:4; 2 John 1; Revelation 17:14.
It is important to note that a related debate in terms of predestination is that of single/double predestination. Some would argue that God actively elects some to salvation and passively permits unbelievers to condemn themselves to damnation. Others would argue that God actively elects some to life and elects others to condemnation. That debate is outside of the scope of this discussion, though it deserves to be referenced in this context.
Note that this question is often rephrased to say, “Is it just?” or “Is it consistent with my understanding of God’s character?”, but ultimately, if you read between the lines, the question that is being asked is whether or not God is being arbitrary and partial, which flies in the face of most of our understandings of “fairness.”
Romans 9:20—Here Paul is citing Elihu’s rebuke of Job (Job 33:13) and Isaiah’s illustration of a clay pot in the master’s hands (Isaiah 29:16).
Also note that predestination, even in a strict Calvinistic sense, is different from philosophical determinism. God did not make automatons of mankind and though we make choices that are set within God’s will, these choices are not coerced in a negative sort of way. This will be discussed further in our discussion of Anthropology.
The Decrees of God
The Divine Decrees of God[1]
In general, we can begin by defining what we mean by a “decree” of God. A decree reflects the definite plan of God; Wollebius[2] defined a decree as: “an internal act of the divine will, by which he determines from eternity, freely, and with absolute certainty, those matters which shall happen in time.”[3] Thus, when we are speaking of the “Decrees of God,” the definition is focused on three basic aspects:
- The Decrees were made in eternity, prior to God’s creative act. This is not a portrayal of God that pictures him working along through history, hoping that he can bring his desires into reality, but a God who is in sovereign control over history.[4]
- These Decrees were made in perfect consistency with God’s immutable will.[5] All these decrees flow out of his perfections and are good and right and designed for the bringing about of God’s purposes.
- These Decrees were made without outside influence[6] (as in eternity prior, there was nothing outside of our Godhead) and without any internal deficiency or need.
With this definition in mind, there are seven attributes or character traits that can be said to belong to these decrees: they are founded on divine wisdom; they are eternal; they are efficacious; they are unchangeable; they are unconditional; they are all-comprehensive; and they are permissive with respect to sin.
- They are founded on Divine Wisdom. God neither pronounces his decrees randomly nor in a way that is arbitrary or fickle, but his sovereign decrees are pronounced in, by, and through his divine wisdom. This gives his decrees purpose and meaning and gives us every reason to trust in said decrees. They are his “good pleasure” to design, are grounded in God’s ever-wise foreknowledge[7], and they come to pass as a result of God’s ever-wise foreordaining.[8]
- They are eternal. The Decrees of God are formed from before the beginning of time and will relate to all things that will come to pass, beginning with God’s first spoken word of creation and continuing forever without end.[9]
- They are efficacious. What God decrees comes to pass. While man may plan, contrive, and anticipate all sorts of endeavors, he cannot so much as make one hair white or black[10], nor add an hour to his life.[11] Yet, God can do all things that he sets before himself to do; the God of the Bible is not a God who sits in submission to the works of men nor is he a God whose plans are able to be undone by the aspirations of man.[12]
- They are unchangeable. God is not a God who is fickle as men are fickle, nor is he a God of chaos. If God’s will is perfect, then, by definition, there is no room to improve on that perfection, and hence the concept of change in the decrees of God is nonsensical.[13]
- They are unconditional. God does not act in response to outside input; God’s actions and decrees are not caused by anything apart from his perfect will. Neither do God’s decrees rely on fallen man so that they may come to pass; they come to pass because God so decrees.[14]
- They are all–comprehensive. Some have made the suggestion that God’s decrees are only concerned with salvation and do not apply to anything else. Yet God has ordered all things according to the counsel of his will[15] and has set all things into being[16], from the greatest of things to the smallest. He numbers our hairs[17], feeds the birds of the air[18], and he has set the moon and stars into their respective orbits.[19] Even what we view as evil in this world is brought to pass through the will and decrees of God.[20] Note that this does not mean that God is the author of evil, yet he uses the evil that comes through sin and rebellion to accomplish his good and perfect will. There is nothing that we experience in this world that does not fall under the oversight of God’s decrees.[21]
- With reference to sin, they are permissive. God is not the author of sin[22], yet God yet permits sin to come about through secondary causes, using it to complete God’s good and perfect plan.[23]
Objections to the Doctrine of God’s Decrees:
There are several concerns that rise when we use the language of God’s decrees that ought to be addressed. The first is one which we have already dealt with in that the language of decrees can seem to imply that God is the author of sin. In discussing this, we must add to what has already been discussed the concept that sin is an attribute of the fall much in the same way that wisdom is an attribute of God. Wisdom is not so much a created thing as it is a reflection of God’s perfect being and actions. In the same way, sin is not so much a created thing, but it is a reflection of our fallen state and actions. We miss the mark, when it comes to God’s righteousness, and hence we sin. Even so, this doctrine does contain the idea that God willingly chose to permit the fall to take place and could have ordained otherwise. Yet, as Augustine suggested, there is a blessedness in the fall, for without the fall of man, we would not know the full extent of Jesus’ sacrificial love for us as his people.
The second concern that has been raised with the Doctrine of God’s Decrees is that such a doctrine robs man of his moral freedom and will, thus removing from him the liability for his sin, making the idea of salvation meaningless. This debate is at the core of the Calvinist-Wesleyan/Arminian[24] debate. It is not our purpose here to delve into this debate beyond the following principle: the scriptures present the God of the Bible as being sovereign over all things and the scriptures present man as being responsible and culpable for his sin. Any theology that does not affirm both of these principles is out of accord with orthodox Christianity and both the Calvinist and the Wesleyan seek to present a theology that affirms both of these principles. With this in mind, whether Wesleyan or Calvinistic, one is right to speak of the decrees of a sovereign God.
The third concern flows out of the previous question and leads us to the discussion of election and predestination. It is felt that in affirming a doctrine of God’s decrees (assuming that God has decreed who will come to him in faith) one robs man of the motivation for evangelism and of the responsibility to seek him in a stance of worship. Yet, this objection misunderstands the position of the Calvinist.[25] Scripture clearly affirms that man is used as a tool by God[26] to bring about his ends and that our primary task as the church is to go out and make disciples of all nations[27] through the process of preaching and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.[28] Thus, regardless of your position on decrees and on predestination, the making of disciples through evangelism and teaching is the work we have been commissioned to do.[29]
[1] While we normally refer to “Decrees” of God in the plural, it should be noted that this is not meant to suggest the disunity of God’s decretive work. All of the decrees of God flow from his perfections in such unity that one could realistically speak of them as if they were a single, multi-faceted
[2] Johannes Wollebius (1586-1629) was a Dutch theologian and professor of Old Testament at the University of Basel.
[3] Compendium of Christian Theology (need more accurate citation)
[4] Acts 2:23; Job 11:7-9; 21:22; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
[5] Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; Proverbs 16:4; Job 40:2.
[6] Romans 11:34-35; Isaiah 40:12-14; Job 34:13-15.
[7] There is an important distinction that must be made between foreknowledge and foreordination. Foreknowledge, drawn from the Greek term proginw/skw (proginosko), literally means, “to know beforehand.” Yet, we must understand that this knowledge is not simply a result of God gazing ahead in time and seeing what will come to pass. Knowing, in its Biblical usage, refers to a relational knowledge. Thus, foreknowledge not only reflects God’s perfect knowledge of all time from eternity prior, but it also reflects God’s setting his affections upon that which he foreknows or those which he foreknew. In contrast, foreordination is represented by several Greek words: pro/qesiß (prothesis), which means “to will beforehand” (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; 3:11); and proori/zw (proorizo), which means “to decide beforehand” or “to predetermine” (Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 2:7).
[8] Acts 15:18; Psalm 84:8-11; Ephesians 1:9-11.
[9] Ephesians 1:4; Isaiah 48:13; Matthew 25:34; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 17:8.
[10] Matthew 5:36.
[11] Matthew 6:27.
[12] Psalm 33:10; Proverbs 19:21; Isaiah 46:10; Acts 2:21.
[13] Ephesians 1:11; James 1:17; Job 23:13-14; Psalm 33:11; Luke 22:22.
[14] Ephesians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:2.
[15] Ephesians 1:11.
[16] Job 38.
[17] Matthew 10:30.
[18] Matthew 6:26.
[19] Psalm 8:3.
[20] Isaiah 45:5-7.
[21] Deuteronomy 18:22; Isaiah 42:9; Ezekiel 24:14.
[22] James 1:13; Job 34:10—note, the concept of God sinning is self-contradictory and nonsensical. Sin, by definition, refers to missing the mark—not living up to the righteous standard of God. Thus for God not to be able to live up to the standard that is set by his own essential character is a contradiction of the very term and makes no sense.
[23] Genesis 50:20.
[24] It should be noted that while many Calvinists confuse Wesleyanism with Arminianism, assuming their views to be synonymous, there is a distinction between the two. Wesley adapted the positions of the Remonstrance particularly in the area of the extent of the fall. The Arminians held that the fall did not affect the human will, thus allowing man freedom of choosing God rightly on one’s own. Wesley properly understood that the fall affected the will as well as the mind and flesh, yet argued that the work of the Cross made it possible for man to choose God when presented with the Gospel (falls under Wesley’s category of “Prevenient Grace”).
[25] It should be noted that one ought not confuse the position of the Calvinist with the heretical position of hyper-calvinism, which does, in fact, hold that believers have no obligation to evangelize because of God’s predestining work.
[26] Zechariah 9:13; Romans 9:19-24.
[27] Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; John 20:21; Acts 1:8.
[28] Luke 24:47; Romans 10:14-17.
[29] Sometimes it is easier to talk about these decrees in the negative: God is not the author of sin; God does not repress the will of created beings; God does not eliminate secondary causes; God does not relinquish his divine sovereignty.
Birth Announcements
I. The Birth of John the Baptist Announced
A. John’s Parents
1. Zechariah the priest (name means “Yahweh has remembered”)
2. Elizabeth of the house of Aaron (name means “My God is an Oath”)
3. Both parents from a priestly line—not a common thing to happen
B. Herod
1. John’s righteous parents set in history against the background of a
tyrannical ruler
2. Herod the Great had been given an army by Rome to conquer as much
as he chose to rule
C. Zechariah in the Temple
1. Lighting the incense
a. The altar of incense was one of the pieces of furniture in the
Holy Place of the temple
b. The Incense was lit 2x per day so that it would perpetually burn
as a sign of the prayers of God’s people perpetually before him
2. The prayers of the priests were ones connected with the coming
Messiah (angel pronounces his prayers answered in Luke 1:13)
3. This privilege was drawn by lot and was a once in a lifetime privilege,
and many never got to do it—note God’s hand at work in the timing
D. Zechariah’s response
1. Zechariah responds in doubt, his tongue mis-speaks and thus, his
tongue is silenced
2. In contrast, Mary will pose a question, but it is a question asked in
faith, thus, she is not rebuked
E. Restrictions on John
1. John will be forbidden to drink wine or strong drink from birth
2. This is likely a Nazarite vow that is given to him (note Samuel’s
Dedication in 1 Samuel 1:11)
a. under such a vow they could not
i. drink wine and alcohol (could not even eat grapes)
ii. cut their hair
iii. be near a dead body
b. see Numbers 6:1-10
F. Both John and Jesus given names
1. John means “Yahweh has been gracious”
2. Jesus means “Salvation” or “he will save his people from their sins”
-Jesus comes from the name Joshua
II. Birth of Jesus announced
A. Note that Zechariah and Elizabeth are both in the line of Aaron and Joseph
and Mary are in the line of Judah
B. The Greeting to Mary
1. “Greetings O Favored One”
2. Note this is an emphasis on her being favored because of what God is
doing in her, not because of who she is.
3. She responds in shock at such a greeting given her lowly status
4. Though is befuddled, she responds in faith (see 1:45)
C. Title given to Jesus is “Son of the Most High”
1. This is the Greek word u¢yistoß (hupsistos), which when used
substantivally (as a noun) always refers to God himself
2. This Greek word is used to translate the Hebrew word !Ayl.[, (elyon)
which also is used in the Old Testament to refer to God
-Elyon means “God most High”
3. This is the name of God attributed to Jesus’ sonship—a clear statement
that Jesus is the Son of the covenant God of Israel (Amy Grant song,
“El Shaddai”—which means “God Almighty”)
D. Mary’s Song
1. Called the “Magnificat” meaning “the praises” from Latin
2. See 1 Samuel 2:1-10 and compare Mary’s Song with Hannah’s prayer
E. Note the 2 names given to Jesus in Matthew’s account
1. Jesus-“for he will save his people from their sins”
2. Immanuel-“God with us”
Forms of Special Revelation
Forms of Special Revelation:
We have been speaking of and citing some of the weaknesses of General Revelation and our need for something more. Yet, let us point out that General Revelation was never designed to teach us our obligation towards God and our proper relationship to him as our creator. Indeed, it was never designed to even guide us in morality even if the fall were not to have taken place. How do we know this? It is because God engaged in Special Revelation prior to the fall of mankind. God gave Adam the law in the garden and regularly communicated with him in terms of instructing him in his role as regent over the creation. We are also told that God was prone to walk through the garden (by implication, to speak with Adam and Eve). Thus, communication beyond what could be learned from nature was part of God’s pre-fall relationship with his creatures. Now, one could argue that all revelation from God is Special Revelation. Was not God the author of the genetic code by which organic creatures function? Was God not the author of the laws of science by which the physical bodies of the universe operate? Certainly the limitation of understanding science lies within us, not within God’s revelation of it in creation. And certainly, in our fallen state, we sometimes mis-interpret the Special Revelation that is given to us. Thus, the important thing to note is that the purpose of General and Special Revelation is different. General reveals broadly and to all; Special reveals narrowly (dealing especially with God and our relationship with and obligation towards him) and only to whom it is delivered. How many people have read the scriptures only to come away with heretical teachings? Thus, not only is it delivered to few, its proper interpretation requires insight from the Holy Spirit, who effectively guides Special Revelation’s delivery.
We can categorize Special Revelation in the following way:
- Manifestations of God: God manifests himself to his people to guide them, encourage them, and teach them. And, God has done this in a variety of ways.
- Theophanies: Where God physically presents himself to the prophet while the prophet is awake and aware of such taking place. For example, God descended upon Mount Sinai when the law was given, He appeared to Job in a whirlwind, and He spoke to Elijah on Mount Sinai to mention just a few.
- Visions: This is where God manifests himself in a vision (not physically) to a prophet who is awake and aware of what is taking place. God came to Abram in a vision, to Samuel, and to the prophet Isaiah again to name just a few.
- Dreams: This is where God manifests himself visually (not physically) to a prophet who is asleep. God communicated this way to Jacob, to Joseph the son of Jacob, and to Joseph, the earthly adoptive father of Jesus again to name just a few.
- In his Son: Jesus is the ultimate manifestation of God given not just to the prophets, but to all people. He is also the perfect image of the invisible God and the object of all Special Revelation. All of scripture, not just the Gospels, points to Jesus.
- Prophesy: God also speaks to and through his prophets. The role of the prophet, as we have already discussed, is to faithfully be the mouth of God to his people. The role of prophesy is two-fold: it is to foretell and to forthtell. While some prophesy does speak of things that will take place in the future (foretell), the bulk of prophesy is to speak forth God’s word to the people of God, for rebuke and encouragement (forthtell). With this before us, God speaks prophetically in a variety of ways.
- Direct Verbal Prophesy: God speaks directly to his prophets and then the prophets relate it either orally or in writing to God’s people. This is the “thus says the Lord” clause in scripture.
- Indirect Prophesy: God also spoke to his people through indirect means. God gave the High Priest the Urim and Thummim, by drawing lots, and signs.
- Typology: As God is the God of history, it is not surprising that God would order events in similar ways as a means of demonstrating his hand at work. Typology is the study of these repetitions through persons, events, or institutions that are repeated with intensification in the events that follow—usually pointing toward Christ. For example, the institution of the priesthood, particularly that of the High Priest was designed to prefigure Christ’s priesthood. Moses, as a mediator for his people, prefigures Christ’s mediatorial work. There are many more such events that God has arranged in such a way as that they point to what is to come.
- Miracles: While miracles are not sufficient in and of themselves to generate faith, but they are given to confirm and strengthen the faith that is already present. They were given as signs that the prophets were genuine and given as signs that Jesus really is the Son of God.
Scripture
In a sense, scripture is the ultimate Special Revelation of God as it is the record of the forms of Special Revelation we have already spoken of that is preserved in writing for God’s people through history. Scripture is the ultimate manifestation of God’s special Revelation to his people, revealing Christ and uniting in Christ all of these separate forms of Special Revelation. Thus, with the close of scripture, the necessity of such authoritative revelation from God has ceased. Scripture reveals Christ in his fullness for God’s people and thus, the completed canon of scripture is given to us as the capstone upon which our faith is held together. It is, according to the Apostle Peter when comparing the scriptures to his own experience of walking with Christ and witnessing (as well as performing) miracles, something that is “more sure.” Thus, we have General Revelation and Special Revelation, and all of the many forms of Special Revelation find their climax in the Scriptures—the written word of God.
This phrase occurs 414 times in the Bible, some examples are: Exodus 4:22, Isaiah 37:33, and Jeremiah 23:16.
This is a view that is hotly debated by the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements in the church, and this is not the place to go into an extensive discussion of the relevant issues. In short, the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements would look to what they refer to as gifts of the Holy Spirit (Prophesy and Tongues) from the New Testament as normative for the church in all ages. In response, the question must be asked, “Is the canon of scripture closed?” Certainly that is the Bible’s own testimony about itself, as we have discussed. If there is continuing authoritative prophesy, for example, thus God speaking verbatim (thus says the Lord) through an agent to his people, are you not adding to scripture? There are many good books which argue on both sides of the debate, but the most important aspect of this discussion is what scripture says of itself. Scripture’s testimony, as we have discussed, is that it is complete and sufficient for matters of faith and matters of life. If it is complete and sufficient, why is there need for further supernatural revelation to be given?
Strengths and Weaknesses of Proofs for God’s Existence from General Revelation
This is just a small sampling of the many proposed “proofs” for God’s existence drawn from General Revelation; there are many more that we could spend our time reviewing. Yet, these six do a good job demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of such proofs. The strength of the proof is that it demonstrates the truth of Romans 1 and Psalm 14 (as well as many other places) where the Bible states that even natural man is able to recognize that there is a God that is greater than him. And by definition, if there is one who is greater than you who has created you, you have an obligation to him. Thus, in refusing to worship the one true God, man knows that he is condemned in sin. Hence, human responsibility to live acceptable lives before this God is affirmed indirectly by these proofs.
The weakness of the proof is that it does not explain who this God is, it does not teach us how we may come into relationship with him, and it does not teach us what are obligations toward that God are or how our past failure to fulfill our obligations to him may be redressed. I daresay that another weakness of this argument, at least from a purely naturalistic or secularistic perspective, is that these arguments assume a God like whom the Bible describes. For a conclusion to be valid, the premise must be valid. We need scripture to affirm the premise of an infinite God who is the creator, designer, or first mover in a meaningful way. Anselm’s definition of that which is “greater” is a definition, for example, that assumes benevolence to be a necessary aspect. Yet, what of one who defines “greater” in terms of maliciousness? Even Anselm’s definition, then, is predicated on the Biblical idea of God. These proofs demonstrate why it is so essential to begin with the presuppositional stance of Biblical inspiration as defined earlier.
Limitations of General Revelation:
Thus, one can argue from General Revelation that God exists, which is consistent with what Paul teaches about General Revelation in Romans 1:20. What else may we discern from General Revelation? We can discern something of the orderly and moral nature of God from the orderly way the creation functions and behaves. We can also observe that we are created to be religious, as everywhere and in every culture, religion of one form or another arises. More will be said on this when we speak of Anthropology, but let it suffice to say that given the evidence around us, man is a moral and religious creature. Finally, we must confess that General Revelation is rather insufficient for any system of thought, either religious or otherwise. General Revelation is dependent upon our ability to interpret evidence, something that is limited first by our fallen and finite minds and second by our ability to observe the world around us. How many scientific principles have changed through the years when advances in technology allowed us to observe something that was previously unobservable. The electron microscope, for example, revolutionized the study of the cell and turned the scientific world on its head. Prior to this discovery, the cell was thought to be a simple organism, and in fact, the whole Darwinian theory of evolution was based on the premise that the cell was simple and not complex, easily able to be mutated and adapted into different things. This is clearly not the case, as electron microscopes have allowed us to look into the cell and discover that they are far more complex than even the most intricate factories or machines that humans have ever made. In fact, human machines pale in comparison to the complexity of what was once thought of as a “simple” cell. As a result, there is a move within the scientific establishment away from evolution back to the idea of Intelligent Design. Many Intelligent Design proponents are not willing to admit to the designer being the God of the Bible, but they at least recognize that we are created by design and not random chance. As a result of this one invention, more than 100 years of science has been shown to be faulty and scientists must begin again in making their arguments. Like science, psychology and philosophy are in a constant state of flux. Thus, if General Revelation is insufficient, then what must we have if we are to walk faithfully before God in this world?
Special Revelation
The answer to the limitation of General Revelation is Special Revelation, or, revelation that comes directly from God. We have already demonstrated, by the weakness of General Revelation, that Special Revelation is essential. Without Special Revelation, we would have no way to understand the fullness of God’s nature, the depravity of our sinful state, the means to which man may enter into a relationship with the creator God, or the means by which we may be redeemed from our wretched estate of sin. Without Special Revelation, we truly would have no meaningful way to understand the world, for Special Revelation provides us with a lens to look through that is not distorted by the effects of the fall. In fact, Special Revelation is the only undistorted lens by which we may see and understand even the things in the scientific world clearly and properly. Mankind did not need to invent the electron microscope to know that the cell was a complex entity and thus all things were made by a Grand Intelligence. God told us as much in Genesis 1 and 2.
Anselm’s Ontological Proof for the Existence of God based on General Revelation
Anselm’s Ontological Proof
In dealing with the question of naturalistic proofs for God’s existence, we must not fail to discuss Anselm and his Ontological argument. Anselm predated Aquinas by about 200 years, so clearly, Aquinas is responding to Anselm’s idea that the reality of God’s existence could be proven by looking at General Revelation. It is worth noting that through history there have been many, including people like Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant who have felt they have undone Anselm’s argument, but in reality, these critiques fall short of refuting Anselm’s proof—hence it is still discussed today. Again, this is not designed to prove the God of the Bible, but simply that God, as an infinitely greater being, does exist. He was simply seeking to develop the language of Psalm 14:1, “The foolish one says in his heart that there is no God.”
- Anselm begins by presenting a definition of God. God, he says, is a being greater than which no greater being can be conceived. Again, this argument is not designed to prove the God of the Bible, but that there is a God who is infinite and above all else. One might take issue with Anselm’s definition, suggesting, as many today do, that we can have a plethora of Gods depending on culture and preference, yet, why would one bother worshipping one God of many, who is at best equal to others and likely less than some? This hardly seems like the definition of a god worthy of worship. The one worthy of worship and veneration is the one whom above which there is no other. Why accept a cheap counterfeit when you can have the genuine article?
- Given this definition, Anselm argues that there are only two possible candidates for “God.”
- This infinitely perfect being exists, but he only exists as an idea. Yet, what is greater than an infinitely perfect God who exists as an idea? It is an infinitely perfect God that exists in reality.
- Thus, the second candidate is an infinitely perfect being, greater than which none can be conceived, that does exist in reality: God.
Objections to Anselm:
The two most regularly cited objections to Anselm’s argument come from Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm and Kant, more than 700 years later. Briefly, their arguments were similar, but distinct. Gaunilo argued that he could think of many things greater than which no other could be conceived. He suggested, as an example, an island, arguing that he could conceive of the perfect island but just because he could conceive of it did not imply that it existed or that he should seek it out. Anselm replied that he had committed the logical fallacy of equivocation, in other words, using the same term in different ways to refute an argument. Gaunilo and Anselm were both speaking of that which was perfect, but were not using them in the same way, hence Gaunilo’s argument did not carry any weight. In the case of the island, Gaunilo was defining “perfection” in terms of the best representative of a given class of objects—namely islands. Anselm was not positing God as the best member of a class of beings, but as the being par excellence, who is not a member of a class, but a class unto himself.
Kant approaches the argument from a slightly different angle and criticizes Anselm for making the concept of “real existence” a primary quality of value. His suggestion is that the existence or non-existence of something does not make it qualitatively better or worse, but simply different. This can be approached from two angles. First, from a philosophical view, even if existence is not a primary qualitative attribute, it is still an attribute of something. If the idea of God is, as Anselm posited, a being which nothing greater can be conceived, the simple addition of the secondary attribute of existence is still an addition to the being and is, by definition, greater. Thus, Anselm’s argument still stands. The second approach is a practical one. The existence or non-existence of something is a qualitative attribute and cannot be refuted as such. Even Kant would have to concede that were he hungry, the existence or non-existence of food on his plate or in his cupboard is a qualitative difference of first priority. Let us assume one goes to a restaurant and orders an expensive meal, and let us assume that the waiter brings out an empty plate claiming that such is simply the non-existent form of the meal—the meal consisting as an idea in the patron’s mind—how do you think that even Kant would respond when the bill for the meal is brought? Surely we must concede, that the existence and non-existence of an object is a qualitative measure of primary importance, and thus, Anselm’s distinction between an infinitely perfect God that exists as an idea and an infinitely perfect God that exists as reality stands.
Aquinas’ Five Ways: Proofs for the Existence of God from General Revelation
St. Thomas Aquinas listed what he saw as five intellectual proofs of the existence of God—proofs that were dependent on reason and observation, not the revealed word of God.
Aquinas and the First Way:
Aquinas recognized that for motion to take place, there had to be something that interacts with it to cause it to move. For a ball to move, for example, it must be struck by another object, for example, the foot of a child kicking it. The ball has the potential to move, but that potential cannot reach its actuality until something else acts upon it. Aquinas argued then, that as the original object that was moved needed to have something act upon it to move, so too does the second object have something act upon it. The boy swings his leg, which moves his foot which in turn moves the ball. And the chain continues backwards from there. He also recognized that without a first mover, the chain of cause and effect must, by definition, go eternally back. Since that idea is absurd to the ordered mind and is not consistent with observable evidence, there must be a first mover upon which nothing is needed to act to cause him to move. This, in turn must be an infinite being outside of creation and hence is God.
While it is not my purpose to go into a detailed critique of these proofs, it is important to point out what Aquinas is doing. It is clear from the language that this is designed to be an intellectual argument for the existence of a god, but it does not point clearly to the existence of the Biblical God. This proof could just as easily be applied to Allah, Odin, or Jupiter. The point is simply to argue that it is impossible to rationally look at our world without seeing the reality of a creator God.
Aquinas and the Second Way:
The second approach that Aquinas mentioned is similar to the first, but focuses on cause and effect rather than on potential motion being converted into actual motion. Every effect must have a cause, if you eliminate the cause you eliminate the effect. Once again, since an infinite series of cause and effect is irrational, the principle posits that there must be an original cause that in itself does not need a cause: hence God. Again, this does not posit the God of the Bible, or even a good and benevolent God for that matter, it only posits that a God exists who is the cause of all things and who is the effect of nothing.
Aquinas and the Third Way:
The third approach deals with a question of being and not being. Aquinas argued that from observation, the things around him had the possibility of being (or existing) or not being. The chair that you are sitting on exists, but it has not always existed. There was a time when the chair was not. He went on to observe that for something to move from not being to being, that action had to be brought about by something that was being. In other words, for the chair we spoke of earlier to come into being, it had to be manufactured. To manufacture something you must “be.” Something that does not exist cannot make something come into existence, the idea of such is nonsensical. Thus, all things that exist must be brought about by that which exists. Just as in the question of causation, there must be a first being. Yet, if that first being exists, he must necessarily not have the possibility of not being. In other words, as non-existence cannot bring about existence, the first being necessarily has to have always existed. And this entity that necessarily exists and cannot not-exist, is God.
Aquinas and the Forth Way:
Aquinas points out that we recognize that there are degrees of things. Some things are better than others; some things are shorter or taller or colder or hotter, etc… than others. And thus we rate them as good, better, and best. Yet, for us to have the idea that one thing is better than another, we must have a standard by which all things are measured and that can never be exceeded. That standard, then, is God. Note that this is not the suggestion that we get the idea of goodness or hotness from God, but simply that there must always be something that is more good or more hot than that which we are viewing and since there is a gradation, there must always be a top to the gradation that can never be surpassed. Such a top or asymptote, by definition, requires an infinite being, hence it must be God.
Aquinas and the Fifth Way:
Fifthly, Aquinas points out that there are entities in creation that have no consciousness at all, yet still act in a regular fashion and in such a way that it is beneficial to their continued existence. Trees, for example, have no consciousness of their own to direct themselves, yet they will sink their roots deeply into the soil to collect water, they will spread their branches wide to collect light for their photo-synthetic leaves, and they will drop seeds by which they may propagate their kind. Aquinas observed that since they act with some sense of direction in terms of self-preservation, yet are unguided by their own consciousness, they must be guided by the consciousness of another. This, once again, is the role of God.
A Theophany on Patmos, part 4: Revelation 1:17-20
“And when I saw him, I fell toward his feet like a corpse, and he put his right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not! I am the first and the last, and I am the life. I became dead, and behold, I am living into eternity. And I hold the keys to death and hell. Write, therefore, of what you saw, of what is, and of what is about to be after this. The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.’”
(Revelation 1: 17-20)
What is John’s response to being confronted by the risen Christ in all of his glory? He falls on his face. This is the proper response to such an experience. It is the response of the prophets themselves (especially note the parallel in Daniel 10: 8-12). We must ask ourselves the question, is this how we behave before God? Is it our first instinct to collapse in utter unworthiness and fear and in worship of that which is infinitely greater than you? Before you answer, remember that when you pray you come before the throne of God on high. You don’t need a theophany to experience God, you just need a sincere and prayerful relationship with him. Again, I place the question before you. Does this describe your response to the creator of the universe?
I think that one of the problems in many of our churches today is that we take the privilege of worship and prayer all too lightly. We think of worship as something we do to benefit God rather than our obligation toward him, and we think of prayer as something that we have a right to, rather than as the awesome privilege it is. Seek to nurture a sense of holy fear when you enter before God’s throne. Yes, approach with great joy and anticipation because of all he has done, but never forget that you have entered into the presence of something wholly supernatural and outside of your capacity to comprehend.
What is Jesus’ response to John? Take courage, is ultimately what he says. He reminds John that he is the firstborn from the dead and that he is the end of all things. He was in existence before creation, and he will remake the new heavens and earth. And all true life is in him. There is no imagery here; Jesus is speaking truth plainly. The emphasis is entirely on the work of Jesus, and is far from us. And it is Jesus who holds the keys to hell. Jesus describes himself as the doorway to heaven (John 14:6), but here Jesus is also reminding us that he holds the key even to damnation. Jesus is the deciding factor when the sheep and the goats will be separated (Matthew 25: 31-46).
John is once again commissioned to write. Twelve times in this book of Revelation, John is commanded to write. It is a reminder of the lasting nature of this book and of Scripture itself. It is also a reminder of the communal nature of faith. God did not give John the vision for the purpose of cheering up John. God gives this vision to John so that John will then share it with the churches. Let us never forget, as we go through our daily lives, that God’s word is to be shared with others. It will plant seeds in the lives of unbelievers and convict believers of their need to grow as well.
Lastly, Jesus explains to John two of the images that he has seen. These two images, of course, will become quite important for they are the central part of the next two chapters of the book. One of the reasons that people go back to the book of Daniel when trying to understand Revelation is that there are many stylistic similarities, not only in the images, but in the way that God is regularly explaining many of them to make sure that both the prophet and we gain understanding of what God is showing. As we close with our section of introductions, we can already anticipate where John, being lead by the Holy Spirit, is headed. Jesus is before him in glory and ready to conquer his foes. We have been introduced to the King of the universe in this chapter, and he is commending us to stand at his side as he marches victorious in battle. In the words of Isaac Watts’ classic hymn:
“Then let our songs abound, and every tear be dry;
We’re marching through Emmanuel’s ground,
We’re marching through Emmanuel’s ground,
to fairer worlds on high, to fairer worlds on high.
We’re marching to Zion,
beautiful, beautiful Zion;
We’re marching upward to Zion,
the beautiful city of God.”
Exegetical Insights:
Verse 9:
- The Greek word that John uses here for “perseverance” carries with it connotations of carrying on in boldness. It is not simply surviving the onslaught, but bravely putting your face to the wind and moving into the time of trial.
Verse 11:
- The two verbs that John uses in this verse, “gravfw” (to write) and “pevmfw” (to send), are both imperatives. They carry with them a sense of urgency. With God there is no dilly-dallying when it comes to doing his will.
Verse 15:
- Notice the contrast in this verse with the deformed statue in Daniel’s vision (Daniel 2). At best, Satan is only a poor counterfeit of Jesus. Here Jesus is arrayed as the perfect priest and king, in Daniel’s vision, we see the attempts of Satan to build a kingdom, yet it will fall apart.
Verse 17:
- The Gospel of John is filled with many “I am” statements of Jesus. These statements are the claims of Christ to be the great “I am” of scripture. Here, in this verse, we find another of Jesus’ “I am” statements brought to us through the Apostle John.
- “Fear Not” is the message from Jesus to John. It is through God’s grace and by his mercy that we can stand in his presence. Yet, while we must carry a reverential fear, God’s children must not be afraid in his presence—we are invited guests.
Verse 18:
- Jesus is living into eternity. Never again will his sacrifice be necessary as Catholic theology would teach.
A Theophany on Patmos, part 3: Revelation 1:12-16
“And I turned back to see the voice that was speaking with me, and turning, I saw seven golden lampstands. In the midst of the lampstands was one like the son of man, dressed in a long robe and with a golden belt wrapped around his chest. As for his head, the hair was white like wool and like snow, and his eyes were like a flame of fire and his feet were as fine bronze as if having been burned in a furnace. His voice was like the sound of much water, and he was holding seven stars in his right hand and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face appeared like the sun in power.”
(Revelation 1: 12-16)
As we wrestle with understanding what John is actually seeing, I think that it is important first to look at the images themselves and then to put them together. It is worth noting once again, that I hold that every image that is given to us in this book of Revelation either will be explained for us by John himself, or will be explained for us by the way the Old Testament uses those images.
Seven Golden Lampstands: This image is one of the more straight-forward images in the book of Revelation because it is explained for us, yet, to understand its full ramifications, we must also look back at the Old Testament for explanation. We are told in Revelation 1:20 that the lampstands refer to the seven churches that are listed above.
Again, we must understand the churches as representative of the Church as a whole, through the ages. We also must be reminded as to the purpose of the church, which is to proclaim God’s glory. Jesus tells us in Matthew 5: 13-16 that the church is to be both salt and light. Salt is a preservative, it prevents food from rotting as quickly. Light illuminates the things that are hidden in the darkness. The church must be about this kind of work. We must be a preservative in our society and we must shine the light of the Gospel into even the darkest places. Sadly, the church has rarely done this well.
But, there is far more here than initially meets the eye. We need first go to Exodus 25: 31-40 to more fully understand what we are looking at. Here we find another golden lampstand described. This is what is commonly referred to as a menorah. It consists of a vertical lampstand with three branches stretching out from either side. In the tabernacle, the menorah stood just inside of the veil to the Holy Place. As the priest would enter, the menorah would be on his left and the table of shew-bread was on his right. In the rear of the Holy Place (between the Holy and the Holy of Holies) was the altar of incense.
The menorah symbolized the life that God gave to his people and the fidelity of the priesthood (and the fidelity of the God who has called the priests). It also served the purpose of providing light inside of the temple at night. In the vision that the prophet Zechariah was given (Zechariah 4), the lamps on the menorah is described as “the eyes of Yahweh, which range across the whole earth.” The image given to him is of God’s omnipotence and of God’s omnipresence, for they rove across the earth. The Hebrew word for rove carries with it not only the connotations of going to and fro, but it carries with it the connotations of upturning things. God is not only present in the world as a cosmic guide of some sort, but he is active turning lives and kingdoms upside down to accomplish his ends.
As we move back to Jesus, then, we see him in the presence of one of these menorahs. There is some debate over whether John is seeing seven menorahs or whether he is seeing one menorah holding its seven lamps. I would suggest that since there was only one menorah in the temple, since the Holy Spirit is described in Revelation 4:5 as seven torches of fire (not 49), and since the emphasis is on the fullness of Christ and his work, not on the fullness within the seven churches (remember that seven is a number of fullness and to suggest that each church had a fullness of testimony seems to deny Revelation 2&3), that we should see this as a single menorah which Christ is standing before, just as the High Priest in the temple would. As High Priest, it is Jesus who lights or extinguishes the lamps of these churches.
It is also worth noting that in the construction of the menorah, all of the lampstands were connected on the same base. It is a reminder to us that no church, no denomination, and no individual Christian stands alone in this world. We are part of the body of Christ, which means when our brother is persecuted, no matter where they happen to be or how far away they are from us, we hurt on their behalf.
Lastly, it is worth noting that Jesus is standing in the midst or in the presence of these lamps. In the tabernacle, beside the menorah, stood the table of the presence or the table of shew-bread. This was a holy table that held on it the bread of the presence of God. There were twelve loaves of bread (representing the 12 tribes of Israel) that were consecrated as holy and laid upon this table. Each Sabbath, the priests would eat this bread and then replace it with 12 new loaves. Except for rare times of crisis, only the priests were allowed to eat this bread (see 1 Samuel 21).
Largely, these loaves represented that the tribes of Israel were always in the presence of God. Yet, John sees a vision of the lampstands apart from the bread of the presence. Or does he? I think that we can safely say that the bread of the presence is here, in Jesus. No longer must the people of God be represented in a physical temple, because Jesus is the new temple, and his church is kept in him. We, as Christians, have been consecrated as Holy by the work of Jesus, and in Jesus we are in the presence of God at all times, for Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, enthroned over creation.
One like a son of man: This was probably Jesus’ favorite name for himself (see Matthew 20:28 & Luke 9:44 for example). Yet, we also must make note of the Old Testament’s use of title. Oftentimes, when God is addressing a prophet (especially the prophet Ezekiel), God refers to him as “son of man.” This title designates the lowliness of the person being referred to. Jesus chose to take on flesh. And though his taking on flesh did not demean his Godhood in any way, it was an act of infinite humility and degradation (Philippians 2:7).
But we must attend, also to Daniel 7: 13-14. For here, in Daniel’s vision, he witnesses “one like the son of man” receiving dominion over all the peoples of the earth. Daniel is seeing a picture of what John will soon be seeing in Revelation 5. This is Jesus, in both visions, receiving his rightful place of honor. God revealed it to Daniel to point to the first coming of Christ, and is now revealing it to John to point to the second coming.
Clothed in a long robe and a golden belt: There seems to be some degree of discussion as to the nature of Jesus’ robe and sash. Some have suggested that these are judicial robes and others have suggested that these robes represent the dignity of Christ. There is no doubting the dignity of our risen Lord or the fact that he is coming as Judge. Yet, to gain a better understanding of these robes, we must again return to Exodus.
If we look at Exodus 28, we will see the instructions that God has given for the high priest’s garments. He is to wear a long robe, a breastpiece, a tunic, turban, and a sash. Here, we see Jesus with the robe and sash. The tunic was worn beneath the robe, so it is not surprising that we are not given a description of it. The breastpiece was used to hold the Urim and Thummim. These stones were given to the high priest to aid in the discerning of God’s will. Since Jesus is God himself, and the Father and Son are one in communication, Jesus needs no aides to discern God’s will. Thus the breastpiece is unnecessary.
The golden belt or sash is like a wide girdle that goes around the torso of the wearer. Josephus tells us that when this belt was worn low, it was used for labor or travel, but when it was worn about the chest, as we see here, it was an ornamental piece, which is how the priests wore theirs.
While the priestly connection is clear, we must go back to Daniel’s prophetic visions. In Daniel 10:5, we see a man who very much resembles the description that John gives us of Jesus. In fact, the resemblance goes far further than his wardrobe, but it extends to the flaming eyes and glowing legs as well. Likewise, Daniel’s response is the same as John’s (to fall down in fear). Though the one Daniel met was not called “one like the son of man,” he is referred to as “one like the children of man.” While this is not exactly the same language, I think that the same idea is being conferred. Daniel’s meeting is with the pre-incarnate Christ.
Hairs like wool and white as snow: The obvious connection to Daniel 7:9 must be made, where the Ancient of Days (God the Father) is described with hair like pure wool. Yet, John is not getting his images confused. There are two points that must be made here. First, Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). If God the Father is described thus, then it is fitting that God the Son should be described thus.
Yet, there is something more going on here. All of the imagery that we are given here is light imagery. You have lampstands that illuminate the darkness representing the churches, you have stars in Jesus’ right hand representing the angels of the churches. And Jesus is described with eyes flaming with fire, feet that glowed like molten metal, a face that shone like the sun at full strength, and a sash of gold around his chest. Jesus is glowing brightly in the darkness of this world.
The scriptures are filled with this kind of imagery. Daniel’s vision was this way as was Ezekiel’s. After Moses met with God on Sinai, his face shone brightly. When Jesus was transfigured, he shone brightly. John himself writes that God is light and in him is no darkness (1 John 1:5). Jesus’ birth was heralded by a great light in the heavens and his resurrection was heralded by an angel that shone like lightning on that Easter morning. I think that Jude alludes to this when he speaks of the fallen angels being kept in “eternal gloom” until judgment day (Jude 6). When you have been in the presence of the God of creation in His full glory and majesty, even the brightest day on earth is as pitch blackness.
I think that the imagery here is not of white hair as one would think of the aged, but of an illuminated person, where all of them glows with a white glow. Probably the easiest way to illustrate this would be to have someone, no matter what their hair color, stand in front of a large spotlight. When the spotlight is turned on, their hair will take on a whitish glow, even if the hair is as black as India ink. Turn up the wattage a million-fold and then you will begin to get the idea of what John is seeing. Jesus is there, speaking to him, and electricity is coursing through the air. It is positively breathtaking—which is what happens with John, he falls down like a dead man.
Eyes Like Fire and Feet like molten bronze: Again, we have light imagery. When Jesus came in his first incarnation, he came as a meek servant and as a sacrifice. Now we see Jesus clothed with his rightful power and authority. There is no mistaking that this is king and God over the universe and that he is rightfully worshipped. It is also worth noting that this is military imagery. Soon we will see the sword, but fiery eyes denote power and might—a blessing for Christ’s church, but for Christ’s enemies, as James says in the second chapter of his epistle top the church, they tremble. Bronze was a metal still in use for warfare at this point in history because it is harder than iron, and here Jesus’ feet are portrayed as armored, ready to crush the head of his enemy.
A Voice like Much Water: Have you ever stood in front of a waterfall and tried to have a conversation? It is nearly impossible. This is the idea that John is trying to get across. Jesus’ voice is booming and loud. It is almost deafening. Again, we not only see Jesus speaking with authority, but the “bigness” of what is happening is being emphasized. Jesus is speaking in such a way that cannot be denied or ignored. It is also worth looking at Daniel 10:6, which describes Jesus’ voice as like the sound of a multitude of people. Whether it be a flood of water or a flood of persons, the image is the same, Jesus demands that all eyes and ears be brought into focus on himself—and rightfully so.
Seven Stars in His right hand: First of all, the right hand was a symbol of authority and power. People were given the right hand of fellowship when they were acknowledged as part of a group. Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father after the resurrection. The right hand was also the hand that you used to attack. Your sword was held in the right hand and the defensive shield was held in the left.
Again, John tells us the explanation of this symbol. The stars represent the angels of the seven churches. Here we see a picture of these angels being under the sole authority of Christ himself. Any power or any work that these angels might do is at the discretion of Jesus. Again, we see Jesus here not as the servant but as the reigning king.
Now, there is a great deal of debate about the nature of these angels. The Greek word, a[ggeloV, which is used here literally means “messenger.” In Greek, this can refer to either a human messenger or a supernatural one. Many have debated as to which John is referring to here in Revelation. The primary argument for suggesting that these angels are human ones is that each of the subsequent seven letters are addressed to the “angel” of the church in … I would like to put forward several reasons for seeing these angels as supernatural beings.
- The term a[ggeloV is used 171 times in the New Testament. Of those times, it is only used 7 times to refer to human messengers. John himself uses the term 70 times between his Gospel and The Revelation (the term is not used in his 3 epistles), and in every instance (apart from these few debated instances) John uses the term exclusively to refer to supernatural beings.
- Outside of the New Testament canon, in other pieces of apocalyptic literature, the term a[ggeloV is never used to refer to a human messenger.
- Generally, in scripture, the image of stars represents supernatural beings of power and authority (Isaiah 14: 12-13, Daniel 12:3, Jude 13). In fact, Jesus himself is referred to as the bright morning star (Numbers 24:17, Revelation 22:16).
- Angels are recorded as functioning as defenders and protectors of specific people and groups. The Archangel Michael had been given charge over the people of Israel (Daniel 12:1). Angels intercede for little children before God (Matthew 18:11). They may function as witnesses (1 Timothy 5:21) and can be seen pronouncing God’s word to his people (Judges 2:1-4, Luke 1). Likewise, while the precise interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10 is hotly debated, there seems to be a sense that angels are present with Christians when they gather to worship.
- Lastly, I think that this is the natural reading of the text, remembering the apocalyptic nature of this book. These are spiritual visions that John is having, not earthly ones. Later in the visions we will see that the true church is sealed and protected against the worst of the tribulations. It seems to fit with the tone of this book to see heavenly beings as being a part of the protecting of these seven churches.
Does this mean that we should adopt a theology of guardian angels? I think that the scriptures are remarkably silent about this issue. Why? Because the object of our worship must not deviate from Christ, and our sense of assurance that we will not fail must come from Him. It is in God’s hand that we rest and it is by God’s grace that we persevere. Christ may use his angels in the guarding and guiding of his church, but they are acting under orders of the king. It is for Christ’s glory that we either live or die; He does not need to entrust us to his underlings.
A Two-Edged Sword came from his Mouth: We would be remiss if we did not look to Hebrews 4:12:
“For the Word of God is living and effective, cutting more than all two-edged swords, penetrating until it divides soul and spirit, joint and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and the intents of the heart.”
This image is portrayed for us vividly. Christ is the word of the Lord made flesh, and the words of his mouth convict of sins and for some, will condemn to eternal damnation.
Yet, once again, we need to remind ourselves of the military and kingly overtones that are in this passage. Christ has come as king and ruler. This means blessing for some, but for Christ’s enemies, it means that they will face the sword.
His face shone Like the Sun at Full Strength: Once again, we are confronted with light imagery. Jesus does nothing small. This image should take our minds immediately back to Exodus 34: 29-33, where Moses, after speaking with the Lord, came down with a shining face. But it also ought to make us think of the transfiguration of Christ himself (Matthew 17), where Jesus was transfigured and his face became bright like the sun. When even the smallest hint of heaven shines through this veil of sin that blankets the world, it is blinding to the eye. Paul says for now we see as if through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12), but here, as he saw on the mountain of transfiguration all of those years earlier, John sees Jesus clearly, and the image is blinding.
*****
So, what is the point of all of this? When looking at most of the prophetic calls, one thing is consistent: God makes himself known in a big way. For Isaiah, it was a vision of heavenly worship that he witnessed, and it rocked the temple. For Jeremiah, it was the voice of God and the actual touch of God’s hand on his mouth. For Ezekiel, it was of the angels carrying the Ark of the Covenant and of Christ exalted. For Daniel, it was a similar face-to-face with the pre-incarnate Jesus.
This vision that John is having is an affirmation that God is in control and that Christ reigns. John lives in a pagan world that is persecuting and martyring Christians. His world is a world where Roman emperors demand the worship of their citizens. John’s world is a world where cults abound and cities are dedicated to false gods. Yet John sees Christ walking in power and authority amongst his churches. Christ has the angels of the churches in his hand, ready to be dispatched, and the sword of Christ is drawn and at ready. What is coming will break the back of the enemies of the risen King.
A Theophany on Patmos, part 2: Revelation 1:11
“It said: ‘Write what you see into a book and send it to the seven churches; to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicia.’”
(Revelation 1:11)
Here we have John’s specific task. One thing of interest is the contrast between the specific call of John and that of the Old Testament prophets. When God calls to them, he calls them to speak (Isaiah 6:9, Jeremiah 1:9, Ezekiel 3:1, Hosea 2:1, etc…). John is called to write. In fact, Nahum is the only Old Testament prophet whose writings are introduced as a book (Nahum 1:1).
In the case of Revelation, Jesus is the one doing the speaking, as he is the true prophet. John, as his servant, is given the commission to write that which has been spoken for the edification of the church. Like the faithful servants of the Old Testament prophets, John faithfully transcribes that which Jesus is relaying to him.
It is also worth noting that the churches are listed in order that the letter would probably be delivered. Patmos was 50 miles off the coast of Ephesus (it was actually in the domain of Miletus, another Asian city, but one where we have no record of a first century church). It would be read in Ephesus and copied for their own use and then transferred to the next church on the list. The cities are listed in clockwise order as you would travel through the Roman region of Asia along primary thoroughfares.
There is evidence of a second century church in Miletus, though. In Acts 20: 17-38, Paul meets with the Ephesian Elders in Miletus, but there is no reference to there being a church in that city at the time. In 2 Timothy 4:20, Paul relays that Trophimus was left in Miletus because he was sick, perhaps that is the beginning of a church plant. There are no other references to a potential church in the city.
A Theophany on Patmos, part 1: Revelation 1:9-10
“I John, your brother and participant in the suffering, the kingdom, and the perseverance in Jesus: I was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the spirit in the day that belongs to the Lord and I heard behind me a voice as great as a trumpet.”
(Revelation 1: 9-10)
Again, John states his name. What is interesting about this is the contrast between John’s statement and the statement of the Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets almost always gave their pedigree. Isaiah was the son of Amoz, Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah, Ezekiel was the son of Buzi, Joel was the son of Pethuel, Jonah was the son of Amittai, etc… Yet, any form of lineage is absent from John’s introduction. He does not even list the region that he hails from as many of the prophets do.
What are we to make of this? It is a reminder that as Christians, our lineage is in Christ and in him alone. In the Old Testament times, when they were still looking forward with anticipation, there was a need to stand in the authority of their forbears. As Christians, though we stand gratefully on the shoulders of those who have gone before us in faith, we do not stand on tradition for tradition’s sake. All we do and all we accept of those who have gone before us, must be judged against the same rule of scripture. There is no authority for the Christian but God’s word, and there is no lineage either biological or theological that is of any value apart from Christ. John’s pedigree is “Christian,” and that is enough.
And what role does John play in the larger scheme of things? John simply says that he is a fellow participator in the things of God. Like the other writing apostles, John places no merit in his position as an apostle. He does not use it to rule in authority over men—though as an apostle, he has greater authority over men—but considers himself a brother in faith to his people. Jesus said, “if anyone wishes to be first, he is to be last of all and servant of all” (Mark 9:35b). The apostles understood this well and it would do us well to understand this better.
Also note the close connection between suffering, perseverance, and the kingdom of God that John makes. It is a reminder of Jesus’ words at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount:
“Blessed are the ones who have been persecuted in the name of righteousness, for to them is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they reproach you, persecute you, and say evil and lies of you because of me. Rejoice and Exalt! For your reward is great in heaven. For thus they persecuted the prophets who came before you.”
(Matthew 5:9-12)
To those who would suggest that Christians ought not to suffer—that God only wants us healthy, wealthy, and wise—I commend to you the scriptures. God’s word consistently tells us that if we are followers of Christ, we will have trials in our life, and they will be abundant. The world hates the Lord who we serve and we ought to expect to be treated with contempt (John 15:20).
Why is this? James tells us that through trial we grow in faith and faith brings perseverance (James 1: 2-4). In fact, with this in mind, trial is not a curse, but a blessing for it brings us closer to God if we persevere. Why is this important to bring out? Because the dispensationalist will tell you that God is going to remove the elect from the world before the great tribulations of Revelation begin. I ask then, why would God deny his church such a great blessing and privilege as to persevere through even the greatest tribulation?
Next, John not only gives us his location as he received the revelation, but he further connects himself to the people who are suffering in persecution to whom he is writing. John is in exile because of his witness and preaching of Jesus. Living in a modern society, I find John’s state interesting. We live in an age where we strive to protect our leaders from suffering. Generals designate their authority to lesser commanders and so forth, orchestrating the battles from a safe distance. Most church pastors have adopted this mentality. They tend to do very little “hands on” evangelism and ministry—especially if they serve a large congregation—in favor for training others to do the task.
Don’t get me wrong, there is no way that a pastor can do everything in a church, but because they cannot do everything, many pastors take that to mean that they are not obligated to do anything. Here we have John, the last living apostle, probably one of the few, if not only, men alive at this point that actually spoke with Jesus face to face, and he is suffering in exile because of his preaching. John’s example should serve as a reminder to all who would shepherd God’s flock that they will have to sleep under the stars.
Patmos was a little island (about 35 miles in circumference), about 50 miles off the shore of Ephesus in the Aegean Sea. Roman Emperors would often exile political prisoners on the island. In this instance, under the reign of Domitian, John is exiled. We don’t know the details of what got him sentenced apart from the fact that it was because of his faithful testimony to the Gospel. We learn from Josephus, the Jewish historian, that John was given a pardon after Domitian’s death by Nerva in 96 A.D. and returned to Ephesus. John was the only Apostle not to suffer the death of a martyr, though he did experience persecution.
John tells us next that it was the Lord’s Day and he was “in the Spirit.” Though some will debate it, this is pretty clear evidence that by this point, for the Christian, the Sabbath had been moved from Saturday to Sunday (from the last day of the week to the first). We do this primarily to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, but it is important for us not to stop there in our understanding of the Christian Sabbath.
Most of the earliest Christian converts were Jewish as well as being Christian. In fact, they would not have seen a contradiction between the two. Christianity was the fulfillment of all that Judaism had anticipated. In practice, then, they usually celebrated both the Saturday Sabbath and the Sunday Sabbath.
Yet, as Gentiles flooded into the church through the missionary efforts of those like Paul, the Gentiles were not expected to keep all of the requirements that had been placed on the Jews. The food laws and the circumcision laws were not applied to them. In fact, the Jerusalem counsel only mandated four restrictions (Acts 15:19-20):
- Abstain from things polluted by idols
- Abstain from sexual immorality
- Abstain from food that has been strangled
- Abstain from eating meat that has the blood still in it
Not being required to conform to Jewish tradition, the gentile Christians tended only to keep the Christian, or Sunday, Sabbath, not both.
In 70 AD, the Romans came in and sacked Jerusalem, destroying the temple. When they did this, they went out of their way to eliminate potential pockets of resistance and groups that might form an insurrection. This helped to drive the wedge even deeper between Christians and Jews, until there was a fairly distinct separation between Christian and Jewish Sabbaths.
Yet, the change from Saturday to Sunday Sabbath-keeping was not simply a historical issue, but a theological issue. It is important to note the comparison. In the Old Testament, God’s people are commanded to keep the Sabbath for the following reasons:
- To rest from the labors of the week (Genesis 2:1-3)
- To commemorate God’s creative work (Exodus 20:11)
- To commemorate God’s consecration of His people as a holy and set apart (Exodus 31:12-15)
- To gather as a people in the name of God (Leviticus 23:1-3)
- To commemorate God’s redemption of His people (Deuteronomy 5:12-15)
As Christians, we look to Christ’s completed work for our hope and as the focus of our Sabbath day. In turn, we keep the Sabbath for the same reasons, but with a Christological focus. As Christ was resurrected on Sunday and the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost on Sunday, we celebrate our Sabbath on Sunday.
- The Christian Sabbath is still a needed rest from the labors of the week.
- Not only do we commemorate God’s creative work, which was begun on a Sunday, but we anticipate God’s re-creative work in the new heavens and the new earth, which was secured on a Sunday, as it is Christ’s resurrection that secured for us an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading (1 Peter 1:4).
- We commemorate God’s election, setting us apart as a holy priesthood (1 Peter 1:14-16).
- We gather as a people in the name of the Lord.
- To commemorate God’s redemption of His people, not only through the history of redemption, but also in the saving work of Jesus, through which we have been redeemed from our bondage to sin and are being prepared for eternity with Christ in heaven. Because Christ is resurrected, we have the hope of resurrection as well (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18).
John also tells us that he was “in the Spirit” when he received the revelation from Jesus. While there is some discussion as to just what John means, we can at least say that John was involved in worship. We can say this for a number of reasons. First of all, his vision was on Sunday, as we previously discussed, which is a day set apart for the worship of God. Secondly, scripture encourages us to pray with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26, Jude 20). And third, we see in Isaiah’s call and probably in Jeremiah’s call, that they were in the context of worship (for are not our souls best prepared for God’s call in this context?). Isaiah was serving in the temple when God called him. Though we do not know the context that Jeremiah was in when God called, we do know that he was a priest who resided in the city of Anathoth, which is less than 3 miles from Jerusalem.
Some will argue that this is referring to a prophetic state that John was in. John certainly ended up in that state, but to imply that John was in the prophetic state prior to the theophany is difficult to support. Throughout the scriptures, the Holy Spirit is found to be descending on people in a prophetic way (1 Samuel 19:20-24, Ezekiel 2:2, Acts 10:10, 2 Corinthians 12:2), but what is consistent is that the person has no control over the timing of it. God is sovereign not only in his creation and his election, but he is sovereign even in his revelation of himself. My suggestion is that John was involved in sincere prayer and worship and God chose that very appropriate time to reveal himself to him.
We then hear the voice that calls to John from behind. It is worth noting the imagery that John uses here: it is loud like a trumpet. Trumpets are used in the Old Testament for a variety of reasons. It is used to call people together for worship (Exodus 19:13, Leviticus 25:9) or for warfare (Judges 3:27, Nehemiah 4:20). They were used in worship (Psalm 150:3) and to announce a new king over God’s people (1 Kings 1:34). But there is one usage that carries over from the Old Testament into the New, and that is the use of trumpets to announce the presence of the Lord (Exodus 19:16-19, Isaiah 27:13, Matthew 24:31, 1 Corinthians 15:52, etc…). Here John is in the presence of the Lord.
Family Tree of Modern English Bible Translations
Here is a visual history of English Bibles and their historical/philosophical family trees. Note that these studies are works in progress as they were begun a number of years ago and as new translations of the Bible are always being developed.
win
Bible Translation Philosophies
All translations are interpretations. This is for two reasons. First is that English grammar is different than Greek or Hebrew grammar. A truly literal word for word translation would prove extraordinarily difficult to read. Secondly, in Greek and Hebrew, as with English, words often carry a variety of meanings depending on the context in which they are used.
Translators must make the decision as to what English words best represent the original text and they must write the grammar in such a way that the translation reflects the grammatical emphasis of the original. In doing so, it is impossible to translate without being influenced by your religious biases. The other challenge that you face in translation is in how you express a first century idea in twenty-first century language. This depends on how well you understand not only both cultures but also in understanding the context that surrounds the text.
And, you must also have an understanding of the Bible as a whole. God planned out history in intimate detail, and he wrote his scriptures and preserved them for his people. Thus, how we interpret scripture ought to reflect God’s decisive hand in its creation but also the consistency and inerrancy that belongs to his written word. That being said, there are Three general philosophies behind Bible translation: Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrasing.
Formal Equivalence: This is as close to a literal translation as you will find. The philosophy is to translate the original text on a word for word basis into contemporary language. The main advantage of this approach is that it gives you a more accurate word for word correspondence with the original text. This makes word studies, where you trace a particular word’s usage through the Bible, more straightforward. The drawback is that the language can often become fairly wooden and awkward to read.
There is another issue regarding formal equivalence translations that is hotly debated as to whether it is a strength or a weakness. Because the English language is often vague and sometimes less precise than the Greek and Hebrew languages, sometimes a literal translation on a word for word basis leaves important theological concepts open to the reader’s interpretation. These concepts are usually clear in the original text, but become less clear when translated on a word for word basis into the English. Formal equivalence tries to minimize the translator’s interpretation of the text.
Dynamic Equivalence: The response to the problem of ambiguity within formal equivalence translations is dynamic equivalence. Rather than translating on a word for word basis, dynamic equivalence translates on a thought for thought or a concept for concept basis. This does involve more interpretation of the original text, but often can deliver a reading that is closer to the original intent. This translation often provides a more fluid reading of the text, but it does sacrifice a degree of precision when it comes to word studies.
Paraphrase: Sometimes called “free translation,” this mode of Bible translation is hotly debated. A paraphrase is the converting of the original text, or for most paraphrases, as translation, into your own words. Oftentimes this kind of translation can be very approachable for pleasure reading, but is not precise enough to do serious Bible study. Also, this kind of translation involves a great degree of interpretation, and depending on the translator’s biases, biblical doctrines may be obscured or given undue weight.
Obviously, these are very broad categories and they allow a great deal of overlapping. It is probably most accurate to picture these definitions on a chart with formal equivalence on one end and paraphrasing on the other, with dynamic equivalence being a middle ground. Each translation, then would fall somewhere on the chart, leaning toward one of the definitions, but being influenced by the others.
Regardless of their strengths and weaknesses, all three have their value. Formal equivalence translations are often best for serious Bible study, but dynamic equivalence is better for more casual reading and public reading of scripture. It is far more accessible both to younger people and to new Christians. While paraphrases are not my particular cup of tea, many find that they are quite good for pleasure reading. It just must be cautioned that a more technical translation of the Bible should be accessible for worship and study.
Regardless of your translation philosophy, the end goal is the same. We want the word of God to be read and understood by the people of God. People have different educational backgrounds and are at different levels of faith when they go to pick up this wonderful book. As Paul writes in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to salvation.” If the word of God is to be brought to bear on the lives of God’s people, it must be understood. Different translations for different seasons in different people’s lives is the reason that we have so many versions to choose from when we go the Bible book store.
Difficulties with Gender Neutral Translations
This is a major hotbed of debate within evangelical circles, particularly since the new revision of the New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), has gone this route. Most evangelicals consider this move to be a sell-out to the liberal feminist movement, but some hotly argue that it better reflects current language usage. Currently, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the Revised English Bible (REB), The New Century Version (NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and the New Living Translation (NLT) are the translations that have opted toward gender neutral language.
The philosophy behind gender neutral translations is that the use of the masculine “he” as a generic term to refer to both male and females is no longer the commonly accepted usage in the English language. The solution that they propose is to make the language plural. “He” becomes “they” and “his” becomes “their.” References that are specific to a particular person are left alone, only the general references are changed. Admittedly, there is a move within the liberal community to incorporate gender neutral language to refer to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but to the best of my knowledge, none of the above translations mentioned as gender neutral have adopted this philosophy.
The danger of pluralizing the language is important to discuss. In some instances, the change is quite harmless. For example, James 1:26 reads in the NIV:
“If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”
In the TNIV, it reads:
“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. “
Yet, in many cases, the gender neutral language either obscures doctrine or the personal nature of salvation, allowing for a reading that is more acceptable to the Roman Catholic church.
For example, John 14:23 reads:
“If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (RSV)
Yet, the NRSV reads:
“Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them and we will come to them and make our home with them.”
This may seem to be a slight change given the overall intention is that this verse is addressed to both men and women, yet it has profound implications. First, Jesus did not speak in plurals, he spoke in singulars. He wanted to make a point of emphasizing the personal nature of salvation. Salvation is an individual thing, not a corporate thing as the Roman Catholic church would teach. Jesus did not generically die for every believer, he died for each believer, and pluralizing the language obscures this important fact.
Making the pronouns plural also obscures many of the Old Testament prophesies about Jesus. For example:
“He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.” (Psalm 34:20, RSV)
The gender inclusive version renders this verse:
“He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.” (Psalm 34:20, NRSV)
This completely obscures the messianic prophesy that David is making in this psalm.
At times, changing the singular to plural completely changes the meaning of the verse. For example, Psalm 19:12a is changed from “who can discern his errors” (NIV) to “who can discern their errors” (TNIV). At first glance, with this verse entirely out of context, this change does not seem too threatening. Yet, when you realize that the preceding verses of Psalm 19 are dealing with the perfection of God’s law. Verse 12 is taking that law and then applying it to the individual, as Paul does in Romans, to remind us that we cannot know our errors without God’s good and perfect laws. Yet, the TNIV, when “he” is translated “their” shifts the meaning of the verse to look as if God’s laws are the ones that have errors. The TNIV reads like this:
“The Law of the Lord is perfect…,The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy…, the precepts of the Lord are right…, the commands of the Lord are radiant…, they are more precious than gold…, who can discern their errors.” (Psalm 19: 7-12, TNIV)
Oftentimes, the word “man” is simply omitted. In verses where the text reads “men and brethren,” the TNIV simply omits the term “man” altogether. Also, of the 61 times that the term “Saint” is used in the New Testament, the TNIV has omitted 53 altogether in favor of “God’s people.” The term saint carries connotations of holiness and being set apart. It is a term of endearment given to the saved people of God. The change does two things. First of all, it reduces changes the emphasis from personal salvation to a corporate sense, as the Roman Catholic church likes to teach. Secondly, it emphasizes the Roman Catholic belief that “sainthood” is only for a privileged few.
Our salvation comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not membership within the church. The church is a sacred institution because individuals who make up the body of Christ are saved and sanctified by the work of Christ. Christ did not die to save an institution, but to save a people who gather together as part of an institution. As Martin Luther cried out, we are saved by grace and grace alone! There is no coincidence that the gender neutral translations are accepted by the Roman Catholic church, for these gender neutral translations obscure many of the holy doctrines that the protestants fought and died to proclaim.
There are nearly 2000 citations that evangelical scholars have addressed showing the dangers of gender neutral translations. In terms of casual reading, these changes may or may not be particularly noticeable, but for serious Bible study, they are a definite stumbling block. We need to hold translators to the highest standards of translations and be very careful of the biases that they bring to the table of interpretation. We also ought to ask ourselves, has the English language really changed that much as to make terms like “mankind,” that use the masculine in an inclusive way, offensive to the average person? Personally, I don’t think so.
This philosophy is not restricted to the liberal left, but is even sneaking into more respectable circles. Thomas Oden, the general editor of the highly acclaimed Ancient Christian Commentary on Scriptures wrote in his book on pastoral theology, “taking special note of the maternally nurturing images associated with the third person of the Holy trinity in its classical, orthodox, ecumenical formulation, I will speak of the Holy Spirit in the feminine …” See: Oden, Thomas. Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry. San Francisco: Harper, 1972. It is worth noting, that the ancient texts not only refer to the Holy Spirit in masculine terms, but there are a number of times that the personal pronoun “he” is used to refer to the Holy Spirit. Yet, as I mentioned above, theological interpretations will enter into any Bible translation. Sometimes for good, sometimes for ill.
Some Background to Modern English Bible Translations
There are a plethora of different Bible translations available for the Christian to choose from. Some are better and some are worse. All come from a devout desire to make the written word of God accessible to people of all cultures, languages, and walks of life. This is not meant to be an exhaustive overview, but is meant to be more of a snapshot of the available options.
The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901: With new archaeological and linguistic evidence available, it was deemed appropriate that the King James Version be revised and reworked. This lead to two versions being published: the Revised and the American Standard Versions in England and America respectively. These reflected both more modern speech and the most current linguistic scholarship of the day.
Scofield Bible: In 1909, Cyrus Scofield published the King James Version of the Bible with his own footnotes much in the same way as the earlier Geneva Bible had done. Scofield was a Congregationalist pastor but had been ordained in the Southern Presbyterian church (although he never served a Presbyterian congregation). Scofield was a dispensationalist in this theology, which set him apart from the Covenantal theology of his Reformed heritage. This becomes quite apparent when you begin to study his notes on the Second Coming of Christ. It is important that the Christian be aware of his biases before committing to the use of his notes. Regardless of your theological bias, Scofield’s theology has had a tremendous influence on the American church. His influence is can especially be seen in the Southern Baptist church and in the literature of the Moody Bible Institute.
Moffat Bible: Scottish theologian and Oxford professor, James Moffat completed his translation of the Bible in 1924. He also served as editor of a New Testament commentary series that utilized his translation. His translation never became widely circulated, but copies still turn up from time to time. While Moffat was not always orthodox in his thinking, his translation often grasps the literary intent as well as the meaning of the poetic books of the Old Testament.
Revised Standard Version: In 1952, the American Standard Version was revised in a somewhat less literal, but more readable form. The intent of this translation was to provide a more ecumenical translation that would be acceptable to Catholics and Protestants alike. The RSV and the later revision in 1989, the New Revised Standard Version, are probably the most widely used texts in mainline Protestant denominations.
New American Standard Bible: Another revision of the American Standard Version is the New American Standard Bible, published in 1960. This is probably the most literal translation of the original texts available today. It is the result of the work of 58 evangelical scholars from a variety of denominations so carries a good balance of literal translation as well as keeping doctrinal intent sound. This is one of the best study Bibles available today.
Amplified Bible: Because many words carry wider connotations in the original languages than in the English translation, in 1965, scholars were led to create the Amplified Bible. This translation includes in italics the various synonymous words that the original word implies. Readers then can insert one or more of these words to hopefully better convey the original intent of the text. While it can be awkward to read for personal edification and study, it has been often used by revival preachers who want greater emphasis on particular words in the texts from which they are preaching.
Today’s English Version (Good News Bible): In 1966, the American Bible Society published a new translation in contemporary English. This version intentionally uses colloquial language in its translation. In 1991 it was revised to become the Contemporary English Version. The CEV similarly uses colloquialisms and is written on about a 5th grade level to make it accessible to a broader audience.
New English Bible: This 1970 translation done in England carried a heavy British flavor. Its revision, the Revised English Bible, in 1989 removed many of these idioms, but still kept an English flair. It is a popular translation for public reading as it keeps much of the traditional poetic flair of the older King James Version.
Living Bible: In 1971, the American Standard Version was paraphrased to create the Living Bible. The New Living translation, published in 1996, was not a paraphrase, but a new translation although it kept much of the readability of its predecessor.
New International Version: In 1978, the New International Version was published which has turned out to be one of the most popular translations amongst evangelical Christians. It maintains a good balance between readability and technical accuracy. The latest revision of the NIV, Today’s New International Version, published in 2002, has created a stir in the evangelical churches who were loyal to it because it went to a gender neutral translation (see above).
Readers Digest Condensed Version: While this translation, published in 1982, sounds somewhat humorous to more mature Christians, this translation was headed up by Bruce Metzger, a respected Bible scholar, with the intent of making the scriptures more accessible to un-churched people. Better than half a million copies were sold of this translation, but leaves open questions as to the dangers that abound when you edit and condense the word of God.
New King James Version: Another 1982 publication was more well received than the Readers Digest Version. The New King James Version offers more contemporary language than the Earlier King James Version.
International Children’s Bible: This translation of 1986 was the result of the collaboration of translators that worked on the New American Standard Bible, The New King James Version, and the New International Version of the Bible. Their plan was to create a translation that is specifically designed for use by children. It is written on a third grade educational level and uses short sentences with easily understood language. Its revision, the New Century Version of 1991 was marketed more for adults, but kept the third grade reading level.
The Message: In 1993, Eugene Peterson published his own New Testament. While this is technically a new translation of the Ancient Greek, stylistically it is closer to a paraphrase as many thoughts are added to convey the meaning of the text and it is written to read like a novel. Peterson also dropped the verse notations from his translation which makes serious Bible Study more challenging. Many Christians enjoy reading this translation casually, but it is not meant to be a primary Bible for study and worship.
Holman Christian Standard Bible: Published in 2000, this English translation was commissioned by the Southern Baptist Publishing House and was produced by a team of 90 scholars from a variety of denominations. This translation tries to balance Formal and Dynamic Equivalence methods to create a readable but literal translation.
English Standard Version: Published in 2001, the ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV. Its design was to provide an essentially literal translation without the “woodenness” that is found in many literal translations. Its language has much of the fluidity of the NIV, but it proves to be much more accurate in its translation. While it is an excellent Bible for study, it can be daunting particularly for younger Christians as it is written on an eleventh grade reading level.
Foreign Language Translations
With a vision to place a Bible in their native language in the hands of every man woman and child on the planet, groups like the Wycliffe Bible Translation Society are working at a feverish pace. Currently, there are complete Bible Translations in better than 500 languages worldwide as well as Bible tracts, which contain portions of scripture, in more than 2000 different languages. And the process continues. In some cases, translators must go into a region and create a written language for the culture before translation can even begin. It is a long and arduous process, but with the aide of computer communication and database technology, the missionaries that God has called into his service are spreading God’s written word even to the most remote regions.
* * * * *
Admittedly, the flood of translations can be confusing and misleading at times. Yet, we are privileged to live in a culture where reliable translations are available to us as we have the resources to study more than one translation if we choose. All too often we take this privilege for granted. Don’t. Rather, as you are mourning the flood of less than perfect translations, pray for those who are diligently seeking to provide a complete Bible for cultures who have none. And pray that those translations, as well as the English translations that we are presented with, would be faithful to the wonderful God we serve.
The specific Bible that you choose for Bible study should be a good one, but the particular version that you choose is less important than that you fill your life with God’s word. There is no excuse for the Christian to be ignorant as to the scriptures, but many professed evangelical Christians are. Find a translation that you can understand and perhaps a reliable commentary (I recommend starting with Matthew Henry) to help you through tricky verses and to enrich your study. Then read it, study it, and fall in love with it.
Differences between the KJV and NIV in 2 Corinthians 6:7
A friend emailed me a question about a variant he found between the King James Version and the New International Version of 2 Corinthians 6:7. As there were no textual variants, the difference is purely interpretive. Never-the-less, I thought that it was an interesting discussion. Here was my reply to my friend:
This is a good verse for a word study, because as you found, there is quite a difference in translations. A literal translation of the Greek would look like this:
2 Corinthians 6:7
In truth of word, in power of God: through the weapon (hoplon) of the righteousness of the right (dexion) and the left (apisteron).
The term hoplon, which I agree with the NIV and translated as “weapon”, can refer to a weapon or a tool of some sort. Literally, dexion means “right” and apisteron means “left” but both carry military connotations. Dexion can refer to the weapon of attack that is held in the right hand and apisteron can refer to the defensive weapon that is held in the left hand.
Perhaps this is the idea where the KJV got the idea of armor, but that does not seem to work well. If you make the argument that a shield is a defensive weapon, you can perhaps make the argument that this is military language. I would argue that this is likely gladitorial language, where two weapons were common. Certainly in history, by the time Paul was writing this letter, Nero was happily throwing Christians into the ring with lions in Rome. I expect that the Corinthians would have had familiarity with the Roman games.
While I think that the KJV was a very good translation for its day, we have a better understanding of Koine Greek due to archeological evidence within the last century or so. And even though this variation in translation is not due to a variant reading of the text, there are also many more manuscript variants that we have found that help us to understand the context of the passage better.
The Imago Dei, Evolutionary Dogma, and Human Dignity
“And God created man in his image;
In the image of God He created him;
Male and Female, he created them.”
Genesis 1:27
One of the delights that comes along with my position as Discipleship Director at Rocky Bayou Christian School is that I get to lead 3 chapels per week with different groups of elementary school students. The setting of our elementary chapels is smaller and more intimate than that of our Academy chapel services, and allows me a lot more one-on-one interactions; our time together is usually one of the highlights of my week.
About a month ago, I was doing a chapel reflecting on Psalm 128 and the fear of the Lord. I began by asking students some of the things that made them afraid for the purpose of contrasting worldly fear and the Fear of the Lord. For most students the responses were fairly typical: spiders, snakes, bats, monsters on TV, having to go to the principal’s office, etc… Yet, my heart broke when I got to mid-week and I was leading this discussion with the third group of elementary schoolers. One sixth-grader raised his hand when asked about what he was afraid of and said, “old people.” That one statement opened up what seemed like the floodgates of similar comments, like “the smell of the places where old people stay, etc…” My heart was crushed that students from Christian homes in a Christian school would make comments like that. It also made me aware of how our churches have allowed evolutionary teaching to degrade the teaching of the Imago Dei and thus to redefine, even in our church settings, where human dignity and worth finds its source. Needless to say we set aside the topic of fear and spent our time talking about the Image of God.
The Imago Dei:
The doctrine that man is created in the image of God finds its roots in Genesis 1:26-27. God, on the sixth day of creation (literal, 24-hour days, thank you), chose to make a creature that would reflect his being, made in his own image, and set into the world to take dominion of it—ruling over the creation as stewards or regents on God’s behalf. God made this decision within his Triune fullness, for he said, “let us make man in our own image…” Thus, at the onset, one of the things that we learn is that mankind is made in the image of the fullness of the Godhead—our image does not just represent God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, but in the image of the Triune God, we were made.
What, then, does it mean to be in the “image” of someone else? The Hebrew term that is used in Genesis 1:26-27 to describe God making mankind in his image is ~l,c, (tselem), which refers to that which is made to reflect the image of someone or something else. This can refer to anything from a statue or an idol to a painting or drawing of another. In other words, a ~l,c, (tselem) was something that reflected or represented something else. It is no the original “thing,” whatever that original may have been, and thus was understood to be derivative of the original. The image is not equal to the original in any way, the image owes its existence to the original, and the image gains any honor that it might have from the original, not from within itself. It is worth noting that in the Septuagint, the Greek term used to translate ~l,c, (tselem) is ejikw/n (eikon), the term from which we get the English word, “icon,” a word that carries with it many of the same connotations.
In many ancient cultures, kings would place a symbol or statue of themselves in a public place to represent their authority and their dominion over that particular town or territory. No human king could be in all places at once, and though the statue was not the king himself, the statue represented the king, reminded the people of the glory of the king, and established that the particular king had authority over the lives of those who lived in that realm. This very practice is a human example of what God did in creation. God not only created man and woman, but he did so for a purpose—so we might glorify him by taking dominion over the creation as his regents (Genesis 1:28-30) and then turn that work into obedient worship (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam and Eve were given authority over the earth even to the point of naming the creatures (Genesis 2:19-20), a privilege that only belongs to God. Thus, note, Adam and Eve did not carry with them their own authority, but they acted on behalf of God and in his authority. Indeed, their sin was an action taken in their own authority (Genesis 3:6-7), and we have paid the penalty for that action, generation after generation, throughout history, and we continue to pay that penalty in this world today.
Warped but Not Lost:
We must note, in recognizing mankind as fallen, that we have not lost the Image of God—had we lost that image, there would be nothing left to redeem. Instead, the Image of God in us has been bent, twisted, warped, and otherwise mangled. It is distorted, in some cases, almost beyond recognition. Not only that, I would suggest that many have sought to further warp and twist the Image of God within themselves through intentional immorality, drug use, and body modification (radical body piercings, tattoos, bodily mutilations, etc…). It is interesting, when you attend to the various Biblical accounts of demon possession, the primary thing that you see the demons doing is robbing the people of the things that reflect God’s Image—they rob the people of speech, of human contact, and they distort their bodies. The account of Legion is a typical example of this activity (Mark 5:1-20). Legion robbed the man he possessed of society and family as he was living in the tombs (Mark 5:3), robbed him of human dialogue as he spent his time howling like an animal (Mark 5:5), and robbed him of a normal physical human appearance as he was cutting himself to pieces with sharp rocks (Mark 5:5).
We see people in our own society doing these same things to themselves. We live in a culture where younger and older generations set themselves at odds with each other, breaking down the unity of the generations that is necessary for a healthy society. As a result, older generations are not passing down their accumulated wisdom to those who will follow them and younger generations are not seeking to learn from the wiser older generations. In our culture, we go as far as to glamorize youth, so we have middle-aged men and women who have become obsessed with vanity and pursue a variety of youthful activities (we usually call it a mid-life crisis), rejecting the wisdom of age and maturity for the folly of youth. We see people not developing their intellect, but instead sitting like zombies before electronic amusements (whether TV or computer games) for forty or more hours a week. We see youth engaging in drug use, which numbs the mind, and over time, does permanent damage to the intellect that is meant to reflect God’s intellect. A trend that has been growing in popularity is “cutting,” where people slice on themselves with razor blades, not deep enough to kill, but deep enough to damage their bodies. Tattoos have become the rage as a form of “personal expression” and some people have been going as far as to have tattoos on their face as well as on the rest of their bodies. Sexual-reassignment surgery has become more acceptable. We could go on endlessly, and my purpose is not to decry the ills of our culture, though they are many, but instead to point out that when we pursue these activities, we are doing to ourselves the kinds of things that demons have always sought to do to humanity in the past—in many ways, we are furthering the ends that Satan began at the fall.
The Perfect ~l,c,:
Assuming that the Devil’s goal is to mock God by further bending and warping the Imago Dei within man, then we should not be surprised that one of the works of the Holy Spirit is the restoration of the Imago Dei in those who have been called to God in faith. We call this process sanctification. Yet, we must ask what the goal of this sanctification—what the object of the restoration of the Imago Dei—looks like. For a goal to be a genuine goal, it must not be ambiguous, but must be definite. With this in mind, Paul reveals to us that Jesus Christ is the ejikw/n (eikon) of God who is unseen (Colossians 1:15). In other words, one of the aspects of Christ’s redemptive work was to demonstrate to us—in his person—what the goal of our sanctification looks like. Thus, when Paul speaks of our sanctification, he refers to it as our being made to “share the likeness”—su/mmorfoß (summorphos)—of the ejikw/n (eikon) of the Son (Romans 8:29). Thus, to set the contrast, all are born into this world after the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3) and after one becomes born again, one is slowly transformed into the image of Christ. Those who remain in the likeness of Adam stand before God bearing the sin and guilt of Adam; those who are found in the likeness of Christ stand before God bearing the righteousness of Christ. The image you bear makes all the difference in the world.
The Nature of the Imago Dei:
There is some discussion as to the extent to which the Imago Dei extends within man. Some would argue that the Imago Dei is limited only to the spiritual/intellectual aspects of a person and then there are others who would argue that the Image of God also extends to man’s physical attributes. The rationale for the first position submits that man did not come alive until God breathed into him “the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7) thus separating him from the rest of the creatures that God had made. In addition, this position argues that for mankind to be made into the image of an invisible God, it ought to go without saying that such an image is then contained within the mind and the spirit. Finally, this position would point to passages like Romans 12:2, where Paul speaks of our sanctification as being guided by the transformation (“metamorphosis”) of our minds, and 1 Peter 1:13, where Peter commends us to “gird up the loins” of our minds. The strength of this also lies in the diversity of the human race and form and in the fact that the Scriptures reveal almost nothing about the physical form of Jesus while revealing countless insights into his spiritual, moral, and intellectual state.
The theological ramifications of this first, and predominant, view are many. To begin with, this view leaves one open to a Greek dualistic division of mind and body. Also, it denies the unique created beauty of the human body. If the body is simply an incidental vessel used to house the eternal spirit, what motivation is there to treat the body with dignity so long as the mind is intact? Such a view has led to Christian asceticism as well as to gluttony amongst believers. C.S. Lewis develops this idea further in his Chronicles of Narnia and in his Space Trilogy. In each of these sets of stories, there are creatures of many forms and types, yet all bear the Image of God—in the language of the Space Trilogy, they are all hnau. Thus, in turn, Azlan can come in the form of a Lion to redeem peoples of various forms and types.
The great danger of this position lies in the fact that it posits being rational, and not being human, as the qualifier for being an Image Bearer, and this has sweeping social consequences. What about the person in a vegetative state, is this person no longer in the Image of God because of a lack of brain function? What of infants and even embryos, do they exhibit sufficient rationality to be declared image bearers? How do we decide what that mark of “sufficient” rationality is? Certainly Scripture does not inform us clearly on that matter unless we are to take Jude 10 to imply that as unbelievers act as “unthinking animals,” that only those who are born again believers should be considered Image Bearers. Does that mean that only believing humans have moral dignity that is intrinsic to their very being? What if the science-fiction writers are correct and there are races of aliens on different worlds? What about robots created to simulate human thought? What of certain animals—certainly some monkeys exhibit more “rationality” than some infants.
It seems far more theologically and morally consistent to affirm that the Imago Dei is contained within the physical as well as the spiritual/intellectual form of man—our totality being God’s representative upon this world. God designed our bodies in a particular way, and we look markedly different than any other species on the planet. God uses human terms to describe himself to us (hands, feet, etc…) and while any theologian worth his salt will point out that this is merely an anthropomorphism, God regularly chooses to use such language to convey meaning when it is not necessary to make his point. But more importantly, Christ took on flesh not simply to dwell with us in the flesh and to die in the flesh, but to redeem the flesh as well. And, as a result of that redemption, we will have new, glorified bodies as well in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). Were the Imago Dei contained only in the intellectual/spiritual aspects of man, what would be the purpose of redeeming the body as well as the spirit? Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, I suggest it be considered that the Imago Dei rests not only in the mind and spirit of man, but in the flesh as well.
The Rise of Darwinism and the Decline of the Imago Dei in Religious Thought:
We live in an age where doctrine is often considered to be irrelevant to Christian life—a consideration that reflects the woeful lack of understanding as to what doctrine really is and represents, but that is a debate for another day. More importantly, we live in a culture that is a product of Darwinian teaching in the classroom and that teaches a humanistic and not a Christian worldview. Sadly, this kind of teaching has a devastating effect on society as a whole, and has even infected Christian churches and Christian schools, as the experience that I shared in my introduction demonstrates. So, what has happened?
To understand this, the first thing that one must do is understand the philosophical ramifications that come along with a Darwinistic/naturalistic/humanistic worldview. To begin with, under an evolutionary model, mankind has risen to a place of prominence in this world simply through a series of genetic mutations brought about by cause and effect—the process that governs all of nature. It is also assumed that humans are still in the process of evolving, opening the door for a hierarchy within the human race, some people groups being “more evolved” than others. In the naturalistic model, there is no room for human freedom (libertarian or compatiblist), in fact, there is no will at all—the only thing that there is room for is naturalistic determinism. In addition, as neither reason nor presuppositions can be adequately explained in a causal world, what we perceive to be thought, willful choices, morality, and meaningful principles is merely an illusion—a figment of our imagination, but then again, imagination itself cannot be accounted for as a result of cause and effect. Furthermore, naturalism permits no transcendent God upon which ideas and norms find their meaning. Morality, then (even though it is an illusion), is nothing more than a set of social constraints imposed on the people by the ruling class.
With no creator to serve and to guide one’s life, the Darwinian worldview leaves one to determine one’s own meaning and purpose. Thus, if your life is to have meaning and worth, you must create that meaning and worth yourself. This is a stark contrast to the Christian model, which asserts that our meaning and significance is not self-generated or self-decided, but is given to us by God as bearers of his image. In other words, the very fact that we are created in the image of God means we have dignity and purpose in our lives. The answer to the age-old question, “What is the meaning of life?” is not left up to us, but is given to us by God, for the answer is that life is given to us so that we might glorify Him with the aim of enjoying Him forever.
So, where does that leave us? Given then, the naturalistic worldview that Darwinism demands, we live in a society where a great many (if not most) people understand the value of their life to be something that they earn by their accomplishments. What are the societal ramifications of this?
- Abortion is legal and even encouraged in certain segments of our culture. In addition, many doctors even counsel parents to have selective abortions for high risk pregnancies, multiples pregnancies, and pregnancies where the child has a probability of being born with severe physical or mental disorders.
- Partial-Birth Abortion, which is nothing short of infanticide concurrent with delivery, is promoted as an ethically viable action in certain segments of our society.
- Children with disabilities are often mainstreamed in school systems and do not receive the specialized attention that they need to master skills.
- The poor and homeless are considered second-class citizens and rarely receive the legal and societal support necessary to become self-supporting.
- Elderly are often placed in care homes where adequate care is not given. Elderly in such homes often go unvisited by family. Neglect and abuse of said patients is also commonplace.
- Euthanasia is considered a “humane” option for the elderly and severely disabled by some segments of our culture.
The list could go on, but the point is clear: if you don’t have a clear sense that your dignity comes from the fact that you bear God’s image, your view of human worth will be based on what the person produces, not upon whose image that they bear. Thus, when the value of life is based on production, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, etc… all become reasonable options in society. At the same time, when you hold to a clear articulation of the doctrine of the Imago Dei, a person has dignity regardless of what they are capable of producing; hence the newest embryo and the most decrepit individual have dignity and worth, for they both bear the image of the divine creator.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
This is a documentary movie that is soon to arrive in cinemas that is designed to expose the way that Darwinistic scientists have been black-listing scientists who would suggest that a designer guided the development of life on earth, not random chance mutations. The purpose of this movie is not to set forth an argument for Biblical creation nor is it designed to argue for the doctrine of the Imago Dei. Instead, its purpose is to expose the censorship that is taking place against those in what is called the “Intelligent Design” movement. To this end, one of the things that the movie brings out is the serious danger to social institutions and human worth that comes from a Darwinian naturalistic worldview. In particular, the genocides of the 20th century are brought out as a result of consistent naturalistic thought (one race is further developed than another). This line of reasoning does underline the importance of the doctrine of the Imago Dei, and for that, this movie promises to have great value. The Christian must be warned, though, that if he expects to see an argument for a Biblical model of creation in six-literal days, he will be sorely disappointed. Theologically, Intelligent Design is a contemporary version of Natural Theology from previous generations, and while Natural Theology can and does clearly point to the existence of a God, the best description of God that Natural Theology can arrive at is the description of the God of Deism. Without the Bible, you cannot know the God of the Bible, hence proponents of natural design hail from seemingly every religious background.
Final Thoughts:
We are left asking the question, “What does this doctrine of the Imago Dei mean for me?” What it means is that first, we must recognize the human dignity that is in others—regardless of their age, their development, their circumstances, or their accomplishments. We have dignity because we are created in God’s image—from the embryo to the grave (and even in the grave, in terms of the dignity with which we honor the dead). Secondly, we need to help others understand that they have dignity because they bear the image of God. Largely this is taught by the way we treat others, particularly those who have nothing in this world. When we treat the homeless beggar with dignity and respect, that will go a long way to teach him that he has some genuine value in this world. And thirdly, we who understand that humans bear the image of God, must work to protect the dignity of others. This third element should lead us to social actions that will abolish institutions and practices that rob people of the dignity that is theirs because they are created in God’s image.
Biblical Perspicuity
What do we mean when we speak of the Perspicuity of Scripture?
While there are certainly many areas of scripture that are difficult to interpret and to understand, given that the Bible was given to all people throughout history, not to just a select few, and given that the Bible was given for the edification of people of every age and level of intelligence and education, not just those trained as theologians, in matters of salvation, the scriptures are clear enough that all can understand what God has communicated, particularly with respect to the question of salvation. The church fell into grave error in the medieval period when it argued that the scriptures were too difficult for any but the clergy to understand and thus restricted the Bible into the hands of the educated elite of the church. This is contrary to the Biblical testimony of the early church, where the gospel was proclaimed and the command to study scripture was given to all believers. The Bible is clear on the question of what sin is, the fallen state of man, the reality that man needs a redeemer, the fact that Jesus came and paid the penalty for sin for those who come to him in faith, and that if we yearn for redemption, we must flee to Christ. The Bible is also clear in terms of the explanation of what the life of the believer should look like in terms of moral behavior and good works. These things, even a young child or one with the least amount of education can understand and thus the scriptures should be read and studied by all who call themselves believers in Jesus Christ. This does not ignore that there are difficult passages of scripture; such passages should be labored over and assistance sought from reliable theologians and commentaries should be sought, but the last thing one should do is to flee from them.
What then do we mean that the Bible is infallible and inerrant?
What do we mean when we state that the Bible is infallible as well as being inerrant?
As discussed above, the Bible is inerrant, or, in other words, without error. The idea of infallibility takes the premise one step further. When we say that the Bible is infallible, we say that the Bible is incapable of making mistakes, or in practical terms, that the Bible is incapable of leading the believer into error. This is not to say that there have never been students of the Bible that have drifted into error, indeed, the history of the church is filled with those who have done just that. Yet, the reason that they drifted into error is not because they were misled by scripture, but it was because their own sin got in the way of the proper interpretation of scripture. To understand scripture fully, it must be approached in faith and with respect for what it is, and thus guided by the Holy Spirit for its interpretation. Many non-believers have spent their lives studying the Bible and have often provided valuable insights into the text, but they eventually fall into error because they do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and as a result, their minds are not illumined by the Holy Spirit. Yet, for those who are born again believers, those who are trusting in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, prayerful study and application of the scriptures will not lead them into error.
In addition, the scriptures are infallible in teaching the way by which men and women must be saved. To put it another way, it is through the writings of scripture, being taught and proclaimed, that people come to know the beauty of Jesus and to experience the wonders of salvation that Jesus wrought. So important was this idea that the Apostle Paul wrote the following words:
Therefore, how are they to call on him of whom they have not believed? And how can they to believe in whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without one preaching? And how can they preach if they have not been sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of the one who proclaims the good news!” But they have not all heard the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what they heard from us?” Therefore, faith comes out of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17)
Thus, the very content of our proclamation of the gospel and of our preaching in the church must always be God’s word. The thoughts and ideas of the pastor can lead one to fall, but God’s word is incapable of doing just that.
There have been different approaches to this concept in the history of the church. The Eastern Orthodox church has largely held that since the early Christian councils were so scripturally based, said councils should be considered to be infallible as well as the scriptures. The difficulty with this view is that there have been many books, creeds, and confessional texts that are deeply based in scripture, but when one argues that infallibility extends from scripture to those writings based on scripture, one enters into subjectivity in terms of what constitutes a document based on scripture. Such a view also places a great deal of weight upon the interpretation of scripture and not upon the scriptures themselves. Invariably, this view will lead you into theological error and toward crediting the minds and the pens of men with honor that God never intended that they be given. Such a position elevates the writings of these church councils to the level of scripture as well, and the dangers of that matter have already been touched upon. While there are many wonderful texts that have been written to guide our studies, we should always be cognizant that they have been written by men and not by God.
The Roman Catholic church has taken a different approach to this as well. They have held that the Pope, as “Christ’s Vicar” on earth is preserved by God from entering into error on matters of the church, faith, and morality. He is said to demonstrate that infallibility when he speaks from “Peter’s Chair,” properly known as speaking ex cathedra. This is built on the assumption that Peter was the first Pope of the church and that through the process of a succession of Popes, the Apostolic authority of Peter was handed down from generation to generation. Again, this makes the error of assuming that men are incapable of failing, something all sinful men can do, no matter the character of the individual. It is only God who is infallible and thus the infallibility of God extends to his divine word alone, not to the words of men. What we do with that word is what opens us up to error.
The Preacher's Study 