Category Archives: Pastoral Reflections
No Nice Christians!
I don’t want any nice Christians in our church! In fact, I don’t want to see nice Christians anywhere in the world! Okay, now that I have your attention, let me explain what I mean. The English word, “nice,” comes from the Latin word “nescire.” Nescire has as its root word, “scio,” which is the verb, “to know.” The “ne” prefix negates the term. Thus, the term “nescire” means “to not know” or “to be ignorant.” When the term originally came into Middle English, it meant the equivalent of “stupid.” Over time, the usage of the term changed from being stupid to being unthreatening (someone who knows nothing is not a threat!) to being pleasant to be around. Slowly, the term continued to change in its usage to the way we use the term today (pleasant or agreeable).
Thus, at least in the original sense of the word, I don’t want to see nice Christians in my congregation or even in the world. I want Christians to know what they believe and why they believe what they believe. I want them to be strong enough in what they do know to stand against those who would challenge their beliefs. In fact, I would argue that part of the reason the American church is in the mess that it is in is because of nice Christians—at least in the original sense of the term.
God speaks of this very thing through the prophet Hosea. In the fourth chapter of Hosea, God begins by lamenting that there is no knowledge of God in the land (Hosea 4:1) and as a result, the people’s lives are filled by swearing, lying, adultery, and bloodshed (Hosea 4:2). And when we get to verse six of the same chapter, God makes a devastating statement: “My people are ruined because they are without knowledge.” In other words, the knowledge of God (understanding that true knowledge comes through a relationship with God—Proverbs 1:7) is what keeps us healthy and whole as God’s people—it prevents us from utter ruin.
But look at what else Hosea records in this verse: “Because you have rejected knowledge, so I reject you from being a priest to me; and because you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.” This is covenantal language, as when God makes his promises to his people, he consistently makes them with their posterity (Genesis 12:7; 17:19; Deuteronomy 12:28; Acts 2:39), thus the threat of discipline is not only pronounced against God’s people, but also against the generations that will follow them. In addition, Jesus uses similar language in Matthew 10:32-33, where he says that those who confess him, he will confess before his Father and those who deny him, he too will deny—all connected to the lack of knowledge of Him.
Now, it is fair to say that as Christians, we ought to be pleasant people to be around, but pleasant should not be our goal—loving should. So nice really should not be something that we strive for as an attribute even in the modern usage of the term. More importantly, though, we should strive to be knowledgeable in the things of God. To cite the old King James language, “study to show yourselves approved” (2 Timothy 2:15) because the Scriptures are profitable to prepare you for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Strive never to be nice—be loving, but also be knowledgeable in the Truth so that you will always be prepared to make a reasoned defense of the hope you have within you (1 Peter 3:15).
Defending Job’s Wife
Recently, I read an article that really came down hard on Job’s wife because of the statement that she makes to her husband, to “curse God and die.” The author went as far as to suggest that this was a woman who clearly had no faith and was a blasphemer because of the statement that she made and her unwillingness to follow her husband’s example. Granted, Job’s wife does not follow her husband’s example, but that being said, we need to be very careful about making judgments about her character and about her faith.
All too often, when folks come to texts like these, the matter of primary concern is, “What is the doctrine in question?” or “What moral or ethical principle can I learn?” And while texts like this do raise moral and ethical questions, when we look to answer these questions first, we oftentimes lose the people who are living out the event. Job and his wife are not fictional or allegorical characters, but they are real, historical people—human beings like you and me. They come complete with worries and fears, good days and bad days. They struggle with the same kind of struggles that you or I would struggle with, and Job’s wife, more-so than others in the narrative, needs to be looked at through this lens. We need to see her humanity and her hurt and as a result, we need to discuss her character flaws with compassion and not analytical scorn.
Look to other characters in scripture that have committed equally heinous sins. Look to King David who had his friend murdered to cover up his adultery with Bathsheba. Look at Peter who denied our Lord three times and then later, after Pentecost, still falls into fear of the Judaizers and had to be rebuked by Paul, “to his face.” Look at Abram and Sarai who doubted God’s promise and tried to force God’s hand through Hagar. Look at God’s people through history and their stumbles and failures, their doubts and their fears, and when we look at Job’s wife in this light, we see her very differently. Granted, we never see her recanting her statement, but she is restored in the end alongside of her husband. Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad are strongly rebuked in the end; Job’s wife is not.
Remember something as well, it is not just Job that is going through this trial, but Job’s wife is going through the testing and trial as well. Are not Job’s children also the children of his wife? Are not the lands, the wealth, and the property of Job also the lands, wealth, and property of his wife? Thus, in all these things, she has lost and suffered and hurt and grieved right alongside of Job—and been faithful, according to the account. Now, though, she sees the hand of trial turn upon her husband to the point where he is reduced to a wretched state, covered with sores and scraping himself with pottery shards, sitting in ashes. And it is here, at this point, that she breaks down and makes the comment that is recorded above.
Let me pose the question, how many confessing Christians have you known through the years who have come to this point? How many Christians have sought euthanasia for a loved one to end their suffering? Is this not the same thing as what Job’s wife is advocating? How many confessing Christians have been so overwhelmed by the grief over the loss or suffering of a loved one, that they have railed against God in anger and rage? Even many of the theological giants have gone through such crises—C.S. Lewis does us the favor of allowing us to see his inner doubts and fears about God as he watched his wife, Joy, wither and die of bone cancer. Friends, if you do not see her grief in these matters, you will interpret her badly, but when you see her grief you will see that these are not the words of a faithless blasphemer, but are the words of a fearful, hurting believer who is not able to bear what she sees taking place in the body of her husband.
The beauty of this whole event, and of our own lives when we face such trials, is that God is bigger than our grief. He is gracious in our doubts and merciful to us even in our anger. And sometimes we need to be brought by God to that point where we can just stop and be still, finding peace in Him—even in the midst of our lack of understanding. He is like a loving Father that once he has loved and held his child through a fit of rage, sits calmly with them and comforts that child in the wake of the fit. The beauty, loved ones, is that we don’t need to understand, simply trust that God understands and will work even the most horrendous things for our well-being. Thus, the next time you are ready to condemn Job’s wife, remember that she is human and remember that you are too; that ought to show her in a different light.
Education Versus Programming
(the following is excerpted from my essay, “Teaching Image Bearers, not just Warm Bodies,” which is part of the compilation: Docens Coram Deo: Teaching Before the Face of God. This book is written as a festschrift in honor of Bob Grete and Harold Thomas, the founders of Rocky Bayou Christian School, on the school’s 35th anniversary. Copies can be acquired at the above link; I served as the editor of this Festschrift.)
As mentioned before, the naturalistic model sees the human mind as nothing more than a super-computer, capable of processing and retaining a vast array of data which is then manipulated by genetic programming in such a way as to output a result that we commonly describe as thought. Thus, in principle, educating a human is akin to programming a computer. Yet, if humans are altogether different than a computer, what must our approach to education be?
The beginning of the answer to that question is found in the very meaning of the word, “educate.” The English word derives from the Latin verb, educere, which literally means, “to lead out. Thus, the purpose of education is not so much that of putting in, but bringing out. Now one might argue that children are not born with an innate knowledge of history, mathematics, or even of the Bible and thus, “putting in” is an important part of education. And indeed, that is where instruction comes in—instruction coming from the Latin verb, instruere, which literally means, “to pile in.” Yet notice the relationship of these two terms. Instruction is not the end goal—education is. In other words, you instruct towards the end of educating a student—you pile in mathematics, history, science, and Bible not so that a student will be full of ideas (many of which a student may never use again in life), but you instruct so that something will be brought out in them. What needs to be brought out? It is the image of God that they bear which needs to be brought out.
In the fall, the righteous image of God in man has become warped, distorted, mangled, and bent, but not lost (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). We are born in the state of sin (Psalm 51:5), by nature we do not seek righteousness (Romans 3:10-11), we are at enmity with God (James 4:4), our hearts are corrupt (Mark 7:21), we commit sin through both action and inaction, and we sin with our intentions (Matthew 5:21-48) as well as with our activities. In addition, when we break a portion of the Law, we are guilty of breaking it as a whole (James 2:10). There is nothing good in us by nature (Romans 7:18)—we have been corrupted by sin in every aspect of our being. Of course, education is not a substitute for the work of the Holy Spirit in redemption and sanctification, yet it is a tool by which the Holy Spirit can and does use, both in the process of growth in grace and to enable parents to fulfill their God-given mandate to raise up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4; Deuteronomy 4:9; Proverbs 22:6).
Thus, if our teaching reflects only the idea of giving students information, we are not fulfilling our calling. When little Billy asks, “Why do we need to study literature?”, it is not enough to tell him that he needs the knowledge of literature so that he will be able to communicate ideas with others in this world, nor is it enough to tell him that God has called him to take dominion of the world, and that means taking dominion of the literary culture as well as the geography. These statements both may be true, but they are yet insufficient. We must also be telling little Billy that he is made in the image of God and that God loves language and that God loves expressing himself through every form of language; thus, if he is to reflect that image of God faithfully, he needs to nurture within himself that same kind of love for language and the study of literature is designed to help nurture that love and appreciation for the expression of ideas through language. I have applied this to literature, but the same argument can and should be applied to every discipline of study. There is a reason that we expose students to a broad array of academic studies rather than allowing them to concentrate their studies in a particular area of interest, and it is not to make students more “well-rounded,” but it is because God’s character is reflected in each of these disciplines and to reflect the Imago Dei, each of these disciplines must be applied to our character. Thus, if we are to educate and not program, and if education is a tool used by the Holy Spirit in sanctification to bring out the Imago Dei, we must instruct in every academic discipline.
Thoughts on Structuring a Discipleship Program
Recently, I was asked for some input on how I would structure a discipleship program if I were to have about 6 months of fairly intensive time to work with a small group of men. I thought that I would share my initial thoughts here.
When I began doing homeless ministry, I spent some time looking at some of the sermons found in the book of Acts to gain some insight into a model to base evangelistic preaching/teaching on. The model I came up with covered things in this order: 1) God’s glory, 2) man’s fallen state, 3) the work of Christ, 4) the promise of salvation coupled with the hope of ongoing sanctification in this life.
Unpackaging this in terms of a longer study would look something like this:
I. God’s Glory
a. Who is God?
i. names of God which reflect God’s character
ii. character traits of God
b. What has God done?
i. Creation
ii. Ordaining and Governing history
II. Man’s Fallen State
a. What does it mean to be made in God’s image?
i. the doctrine of the Imago Dei
ii. human dignity as a result of the Imago Dei
iii. the doctrine of the Imitatio Dei (how do we imitate God?)
b. What happened when Adam and Eve sinned?
i. Genesis 3
ii. The promise of a redeemer in Genesis 3
iii. Inherited sin guilt and the impossibility of our paying God back that sin debt on our own merit
c. How has the fall corrupted and contorted the Imago Dei?
i. Our aversion to the things of God and suppression of the truth
ii. The problem of pain–why do bad things happen to good people?
III. The Work of Christ
a. Who is Jesus and why is a Savior important?
i. the person and character of Christ
ii. the names of Christ
iii. the Old Testament prophesies of Christ
iv. The work of a mediator and paraclete
b. How Did Christ save us?
i. the preexistence of Christ
ii. the humiliation of Christ in life and in death
iii. the exaltation of Christ and his ongoing work as mediator at the right hand of God the Father
IV. The Promise of Salvation and the Hope of Sanctification
a. Who is the Holy Spirit?
i. the person of the Spirit
ii. the work of the Spirit
b. What is Faith and how is that tied to salvation?
i. The nature of Faith (Hebrews 11:1)
ii. Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance
c. What does it mean to be saved?
i. Justification
ii. Adoption
d. What happens next once I am saved?
i. Sanctification as a means to prepare for glory
ii. Living all of life “Coram Deo” or “Before the Face of God”
iii. 2 Peter 1:3-11 and adding to the faith as “Partakers of the Divine nature” (untwisting the Imago Dei–like having broken bones set)
iv. The fruit of the Spirit
v. The gifts of the Spirit
vi. Glory
To be Dynamic or not to be Dynamic, that is the question… (John 12:44)
I received a very interesting question recently regarding the translation of John 12:44. The English Standard Version (ESV) translates the passage this way: “And Jesus cried out and said, ‘Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.’”
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders it: “And Jesus cried out and said, ‘He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.’”
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates it: “Then Jesus cried aloud: ‘Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me.’”
The King James (KJV) renders it as follows: “Jesus cried and said, ‘He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.’”
Okay, okay, there is not a lot of difference to be found in the translations above; yet look at how the New International Version translates this passage: “Then Jesus cried out, ‘When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.’”
For what it is worth, the New Living Translation (NLT) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV) render this verse in a similar way to the NIV.
When I was initially asked about this, the person was doing a Bible study and comparing different translations—an excellent habit to get into—and the variation between the NRSV and the NIV was what caught her eye. She said, ‘this seems to change the meaning.’
My initial instinct was to check my Greek testament to see if there was a textual variant in play, but that was not the case. This case has to do with translation methodology. There are different philosophies in Bible translation—at one extreme being a literal translation where every word from the original text is rendered as closely as possible into English. Then, at the other extreme you find paraphrasing, where the author of the translation communicates what their understanding of a particular passage happens to be. In the middle is a philosophy called “dynamic equivalence,” which seeks to translate the passages concept for concept as closely as possible. Now there is certainly a spectrum that these philosophies cross as some are either more literal or more paraphrased than others, but this presents the broad categories at least (for more on translation philosophies see some of my other blogs in this category).
Now back to John 12:44. In the case of this verse, the word “only” is not in any of the Greek manuscripts that are available to us. But instead, the translation committee of the NIV (and other dynamic equivalence translations) felt that the inclusion of the word “only” would help to clarify the meaning of Jesus’ statement. Yet, rather than clarify the statement, it seems to confound it. In the passage, Jesus is saying to his disciples that if we believe in Him, we are not really setting our faith in him but in the Father, who sent Christ. God is one, it is impossible to put one’s faith in Jesus Christ without resting one’s faith in God the Father, and visa-versa. The same applies to the Spirit as well, the three persons of the Trinity are not separable. Jesus is speaking of the unity of the Godhead.
When you include the word “only” in the translation, the passage loses this sense of unity that Jesus is speaking of and interjects the idea that it is possible to believe in one member of the Trinity and not the others, potentially even suggesting a divisibility in the Trinity. This is opening the door to serious Trinitarian error, suggesting a divisibility within the Godhead, a form of polytheistic error.
My purpose in writing this is threefold. First, I think that it serves as an excellent example as to the differences between an essentially literal translation like the ESV or NASB translations and the dynamic equivalence models like the NIV and the NLT. My second purpose is to illustrate the value of reading multiple translations side by side in your Bible study (unless you are going to learn the original languages. While my third purpose is not to knock translations like the NIV, it is to remind folks that the NIV is not the best Bible to be working from for serious Bible study.
Please do not misunderstand me, if you love the NIV and that is the only Bible you have or the only Bible you can understand, then please read it. Read it with gusto! God will bless your reading of the NIV, the NLT, or even my least favorite, the Message. God will bless the reading of anything that approximates his Word. Even the NASB and ESV have flaws. My point is simply to say that for Bible study, where you are trying to get as close to what John (or whoever the writer happens to be) is actually writing. To do that, you ought to seek to have several essentially literal translations at your disposal to compare so that you can get a clear sense of what is being said.
One final note: as pastors we have the responsibility of teaching and guiding our flocks on the path of truth. But this responsibility does not lie with pastors alone. It resides with church leaders, with parents, and with every Christian believer. We must teach ourselves to recognize error in our culture and in our churches so that we can take a stand for the faith that was once and for all time delivered to the saints.
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.
The Preacher's Study 