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.
An Outline of C.S. Lewis’ Writings
| Works By C.S. Lewis | |
| Date Published | |
| Pre-Conversion Writings | |
| Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics | 1919 |
| Dymer | 1926 |
| Post Conversion Writings | |
| The Pilgrim’s Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason, and Romanticism | 1933 |
| The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition | 1936 |
| Out of the Silent Planet | 1938 |
| Rehabilitations, and other Essays | 1938 |
| The Personal Heresy: A Controversy between EMW Tillyard and CS Lewis | 1939 |
| The Problem of Pain | 1940 |
| A Preface to Paradise Lost | 1942 |
| Broadcast Talks | 1942 |
| The Screwtape Letters | 1942 |
| The Weight of Glory, and other Addresses | 1942 |
| Christian Behavior: A Further Series of Broadcast Talks | 1943 |
| Perelandra (Reprinted in 1953 as “A Voyage to Venus”) | 1943 |
| The Abolition of Man: Or, Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools | 1943 |
| Beyond Personality: The Christian Idea of God | 1944 |
| That Hideous Strength: A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grownups (Abridged version published in 1946 as “The Tortured Planet”) | 1945 |
| George Macdonald: An Anthology | 1946 |
| The Great Divorce | 1946 |
| Essays Presented to Charles Williams | 1947 |
| Miracles: A Preliminary Study | 1947 |
| Authorian Torso: Containing the Posthumous Fragment of the Figure of Arthur by Charles Williams and a Commentary on the Authorian Poems of Charles Williams | 1948 |
| Transporation, and Other Addresses | 1949 |
| The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe | 1950 |
| Prince Caspian | 1951 |
| The Voyage of the Dawn Treader | 1952 |
| Mere Christianity (Revision and Expansion of “Broadcast Talks”, “Christian Behavior”, and “Beyond Personality”) | 1952 |
| The Silver Chair | 1953 |
| The Horse and His Boy | 1954 |
| English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama: Volume III of The Oxford History of English Literature (In 1990, Lewis’ volume was renumbered as Volume IV, “Poetry and Prose in the Sixteenth Century”) | 1954 |
| The Magician’s Nephew | 1955 |
| Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life | 1955 |
| The Last Battle | 1956 |
| Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold | 1956 |
| Reflections on Psalms | 1958 |
| Studies in Words | 1960 |
| The Four Loves | 1960 |
| The World’s Last Night, and other Essays | 1960 |
| A Grief Observed | 1961 |
| An Experiment in Criticism | 1961 |
| They Asked for a Paper: Papers and Addresses | 1962 |
| Posthumous Writings | |
| Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer | 1964 |
| The Discarded Image: An introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature | 1964 |
| Poems | 1964 |
| Screwtape Proposes a Toast, and Other Pieces | 1965 |
| Letters of CS Lewis | 1966 |
| Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories | 1966 |
| Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature | 1966 |
| Spenser’s Images of Life | 1967 |
| Christian Reflections | 1967 |
| Letters to An American Lady | 1967 |
| A Mind Awake: An Anthology of Lewis | 1968 |
| Narrative Poems | 1969 |
| Selected Literary Essays | 1969 |
| God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Published in UK in 1971 as “Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics”) | 1970 |
| Fern Seeds and Eliphants and other Essays on Christianity | 1975 |
| The Joyful Christian: Readings from CS Lewis | 1977 |
| The Dark Tower, and Other Stories | 1977 |
| They Stand Together: The Letters of C.S. Lewis to Arthr Greeves, 1914-1963 | 1979 |
| Of This and Other Worlds | 1982 |
| On Stories, and Other Essays on Literature | 1982 |
| The Business of Heaven: Daily Readings from CS Lewis | 1984 |
| Boxen: The Imaginary World of the Young CS Lewis | 1985 |
| First andSecond Things: Essays on Theology and Ethics | 1985 |
| Letters to Children | 1985 |
| Present Concerns | 1986 |
| Timeless at Heart | 1987 |
| Letters: CS Lewis and Don Giovanni Calabria: A Study in Friendship (First issued as “The Latin Letters of CS Lewis” in 1987) | 1988 |
| All My Road before Me: The Diary of CS Lewis, 1922-1927 | 1991 |
| The Collected Poems of CS Lewis | 1994 |
| CS Lewis: Collected Letters, Family Letters, 1905-1931, Volume 1 | 2000 |
C.S. Lewis: Christianity and Literature (outline)
Christianity and Literature: Outline
The Big Idea: What distinguishes Christian Literature? Answer: it clearly points to Christ
Introduction:
- Asked to discuss “Christian Literature” though unsure of value of this discussion
- Understands that Literature is a means for sharing the Gospel
- Rules for good writing are same for Christian and non-Christian
- Thus, does not see a value in a genre of “Christian” literature, just good literature or bad literature, both kinds reflecting the author’s perspective
- Is one a “Christian writer” or a “writer that happens to be Christian?”
One: What makes literature “Christian?
- Sacred in theme/starting point for devotion
- Value is subjective (rag may be sacred for some)
- Written by Christians for Christians, not for literary merit per say
- Christian approach to literature
- Creative vs. derivative
- Spontaneity vs. Convention
- Freedom vs. Rules
- Great authors are innovators, “breaking fetters,” not followers
- Jesus as Poet or Philosopher
- Jesus’ limitations
- Poetic in some senses
- More like Socrates than Shakespeare in analogy
- Man as head of woman, God the Father as head of the Son, Jesus as head of Church
- The subordinate is to reflect the head
- Just as son watches Father, so Jesus observed the Father to better communicate his being
- New Testament Literary Expression
- Originality is the prerogative of God
- Creativity discouraged and being conformed into the image of Christ
- “being as little as possible ourselves, in acquiring a fragrance that is not our own but borrowed, in becoming clean mirrors filled with the image of a face that is not ours
- Lewis’ rejection of Total depravity
- Derivative & reflective is good
- “pride does not only go before a fall—a fall of the creature’s attention from what is better, God, to what is worse, itself.
- Applied to Literature
- Purpose is not to create, but to reflect Christ
- Embody or reveal what is true of eternal beauty and wisdom
- Originality is not true originality as it comes from God
- Non-Christian writes for vain purposes, Christian for Christ
- Christian does not ask, “Is it mine?” but will ask “Is it good?”
- Conclusion
- “The Christian knows from the outset that the salvation of a single soul is more important than the production or preservation of all the epics and tragedies in the world”
- The strength of Christian literature comes not from the literature but from the God of Christian literature
Words to Define:
- Hagiological: of the Saints
- Proprement dite: French for “properly itself”
- Argumenta ad hominess: argument by opinions
- A fortiori: “From the Stronger”
- Catena: chain
- Redolere Christum: “to smell of Christ”
- mi/mhsiß is derived from mimhth/ß, meaning: imitator
- au moins je suis autre: French—“At least I am different”
- di se medesmo rise: Italian for, “I lauged at myself”
C.S. Lewis: Miracles (outline, part 2)
Miracles By C.S. Lewis
Flow of the Argument
Chapter 11:
I. The Big Idea
a. The difference between Tradition and a living faith
II. “Those who make religion their god will not have God for their religion” Thomas
Erskine
a. Popular Religion
1. God is abstract
i. God is truth
ii. God is goodness
iii. God is a spiritual force pervading all things
2. Makes God impersonal
i. impersonal gods make no demands
ii. impersonal gods are more “comfortable” than a god who
demands of us
iii. hence, impersonal gods are more preferable
3. this kind of religion is really pantheism
i. “the fact that the shoe slips on easily does not prove that it is a
new shoe” (131)
ii. pantheism is the permanent “natural bent” of the human mind
(132)
iii. only religions to refute pantheism
a. Platonism
b. Judaism
c. Christianity (the only truly formidable opponent)
4. Pantheism leads to immoral behavior
i. racism
ii. German racial nationalism (Sprach Zarathustra)
5. Christian vs Panthistic view of God
i. Pantheists believe that God is present everywhere because he is
diffused or concealed within everything
ii. Christians believe that God is totally present at every point of
space and time but not locally present anywhere (no place
or time can contain the fullness of God)
6. Good theology is a nuisance to the fancies of popular religion
i. true historian is a nuisance to one reminiscing about the “good
old days”
ii. real musician is nuisance to one indulging in self-taught music
iii. truth vs. preference
iv. “IF God is the ultimate source o fall concrete, individual things
and events, then God himself must be concrete and
individual in the highest degree. Unless the origin o fall
other things were itself concrete and individual, nothing
else could be so; for there is no conceivable means whereby
what is abstract or general could itself produce concrete
reality.” (138-9)
v. God “is not a universal being: if he were there would be no
creatures, for a generality can make nothing.
vi. The Limpet analogy (142-143) –note that a Limpet is a marine
slug
vii. must have a conception of what something is to say what it is
not
viii. the ultimate spiritual realities are more real, not less real than
physical existence
ix. Note that this is the Rubicon that you cross—once you reject
pantheism, you find yourself crossing into Christianity
Chapter 12:
I. The Big Idea
a. Are Miracles “acceptable” to a mighty God?
II. Would God break his own scientific laws
a. difference between elementary rules taught to schoolboys and deeper rules
employed by the masters for the purpose of style
b. God created the universe intentionally for a relationship with himself
c. Science is not the rule that constrained God’s creation; science is the byproduct
of God’s orderly creative work
d. “if miracles do occur then we may be sure that not to have wrought them
would be the real inconsistency” (155)
e. we don’t understand God’s deeper plan because “it is a very long story, with a
complicated plot; and we are not, perhaps, very attentive readers.” (158)
Chapter 13:
I. The Big idea
a. The probability of miracles is not the question, it is how fit miracles may seem
to one’s mind
II. Nature and uniformity
a. “the fact that a thing had happened ten million times would not make it a whit
more probable that it would happen again” (162)
b. “Experience therefore cannot prove uniformity because uniformity has to be
assumed before experience proves anything” (163)
c. we have a sense of “fitness” about the way things go, so all things must be
consistent with that fitness if our minds will readily accept them
d. If God is “a rational Spirit and we derive our rational spirituality from it, then
indeed our conviction can be trusted. Our repugnance to disorder is
derived from Nature’s creator and ours.” (168)
e. “Even those who think all stories of miracles absurd think some very much
more absurd than others: even those who believe them all (if anyone
does) think that some require a specially robust faith. The criterion which
both parties are actually using is that of fitness.” (171)
Chapter 14: The Grand Miracle
I. The Big Idea
a. the Incarnation is the grand miracle of all from which all other miracles stem
from or lead up to
II. The Incarnation is the Grand Miracle
a. greatest importance
b. the supernatural coming down and becoming part of nature for a time
III. Patterns of this in Nature
a. Descent/ascent (death/rebirth)
1. the corn god motif
2. phoenix
3. life and rebirth in nature
b. chosen-ness/God’s selectiveness
1. selectiveness in nature
2. selectiveness in redemptive history
c. Vicarious nature
1. exploitation and oppression
2. kindness and gratitude
IV. How other religions respond to these themes
a. Natural religions deify them
b. anti-religions deny them
c. Christianity explains them as illuminated by supernatural
V. Original vs. Imitation
a. Christianity is the original pattern from which all other cultic religions get their
start, not the other way around
b. Christianity as the one true “myth” that really did happen
Chapter 15&16:
I. The Big Idea
a. Miracles can be divided in many different ways
1. classes
a. fertility
b. healing
c. destruction
d. dominion over inorganic
e. reversal
f. perfecting/glorification
2. Old and New creation
a. Old Creation= a reflection of what God has already done in
nature on a vast scale
b. New Creation= pointing toward that which is to come
b. note importance of these chapters for apologetic arguments
Chapter 17:
I. The Big Idea
a. You are now prepared, having dealt with the philosophical aspects, to deal with the historical question. Yet, if you do, make sure that you re-teach yourself what you have been taught for so many years by the culture. Reject Everythingism as something that offers nothing.
Appendix A:
The different usages of the term “Spirit” and we must define our terms and say what we mean by the word spirit when we use it in dialogue
Appendix B:
On Providential matters—understand the difference between first and second causes and how Lewis is defining Providence as the miraculous and thus rejects providence.
Also understand Lewis’ analogy of the curved lines running parallel to one another and how God views history from the outside, not being bound to it.
C.S. Lewis: Miracles (Outline, part 1)
Miracles By C.S. Lewis
Flow of the Argument
Chapter 1:
I. The Big Idea: Before we can argue for Miracles, we must answer the philosophical
question as to whether miracles can exist.
a. They either do exist or they do not.
b. If they do exist, we must also ask if they are likely or not.
II. Flow of Reasoning:
a. What is your presupposition about miracles?
1. If you don’t believe they exist, even if you are confronted by one you
will explain it away.
2. If you believe that they are possible, but unlikely, you will also explain
them away even if confronted by one.
b. Because historical data is recorded by the observation of people with
presuppositions, historical inquiry cannot prove the miraculous unless the
initial philosophical question is answered.
Chapter 2:
I. The Big Idea: Defining the terms Miracle, Naturalism, and Supernaturalism.
a. Miracle: “an interference with Nature by supernatural power” (5)
b. Naturalist: Those who believe that nothing but nature exists (5-6)
c. Supernaturalist: Those who believe that there exists something in addition to
nature that is outside of nature (6)
II. Flow of Reasoning:
a. Given the broad definition of a miracle, the naturalist must, by definition, deny
that miracles are possible
b. The Supernaturalist accepts the possibility of miracles by Lewis’ definition,
though the supernaturalist does not necessarily think that miracles are
probable.
c. For the naturalist, nature must be the “whole show” and include whatever there
is.
d. What is “nature” or “the natural state”?
1. the state that something would be in without outside interference
i. the dog would be unkempt and have fleas
ii. the wilderness would not have roads or houses in it
iii. “The natural is what springs up, or comes forth, or arrives, or
goes on, of its own accord: the given, what is there already:
the spontaneous, the unintended, the unsolicited.” (7)
2. As everything must be explainable in terms of the whole system
i. nature must be cause and effect
ii. any spontaneity and originality is reserved for the whole
iii. Nature exists in its own right with nothing outside of it
iv. Nature is independent and depends on nothing.
e. The Supernaturalist
1. Agrees with the naturalist that there must be something that exists in its
own right
2. this self-existing reference is the “Starting point for all explanations”
3. Supernaturalist does not identify this self-existing entity with nature,
and nature is seen as being derivative from that one thing
i. “The one basic Thing has caused all other things to be. It exists
on its own; they exist because it exists. They will cease to
exist if it ever ceases to maintain them in existence; they
will be altered if it ever alters them.” (9)
f. the God of the naturalist
1. a naturalist need not be an atheist if the naturalist’s god is understood to
be within or part of nature, much like the gods of Ancient Greece
and Rome or the Gnostic perspective
2. the naturalist cannot accept a god who is outside of nature or one who
made nature
g. the Naturalist view is a view that all things exist within the framework of
nature, the supernaturalist holds that God created the framework within
which nature operates
h. the possibility of a plurality of “Natures” as long as they are not interconnected
in any way, nor do they influence one another.
i. a speculative view of a plurality of natures opens up two kinds of miracles
1. God bringing two natures together for a time
2. God interfering with one or both natures
Chapter 3:
I. The Big Idea: Naturalism rules out reasoning.
II. Flow of Reasoning:
a. By definition, Naturalism must be explainable in terms of the whole system
—no heeltaps
b. Anything found outside of the system ruins the naturalistic argument
c. This rejects science by statistics—everything must be calculable
i. “The movement of one unit is incalculable, just as the result of tossing a
coin once is incalculable: the majority movement of a billion units
can however be predicted, just as, if you tossed a coin a billion
times, you could predict a nearly equal number of heads and tails.
Now it will be noticed that if this theory is true we have really
admitted something other than Nature. If the movements of the
individual units are events ‘on their own,’ events which do not
interlock with all other events, then these movements are not part
of Nature.” (19)
d. The knowledge we have of any information is observation + inference, thus all
possible knowledge depends on the validity of reasoning.
i. our observation demands that we recognize something outside of
ourselves
ii. when we recognize that which is outside of ourselves, then we are
reasoning
iii. “It follows that no account of the universe canbe true unless that
account leaves it possible for our thinking to be real insight. A
theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but
which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid,
would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have
been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory
would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its
own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no
argument was sound—a proof that there are no such things as
proofs—which is nonsense.” (21-22)
e. If nature is explainable in terms of the whole system, it must, by definition,
imply a cause & effect universe—cause and effect all of the way back to
the beginning
f. In this view, then, reasoning must be nothing more than “one link in a causal
chain which stretches back to the beginning and forward to the end of
time.” (24)
g. Thus, mental events are caused by previous mental events and nothing more—
“knowledge” plays no role in the progression of these mental events—also
mental events came into being in the same evolutionary way that physical
events came into being—mental events to the naturalist, then are nothing
more than responses to stimuli.
h. Yet, the experience that things are always connected (fire burns you) is only of
animal behavior, Reason comes into play when you infer something from
the events
i. Nature cannot show how one turns sub-rational, animal instinct, into rational
thought, thus a break in the chain occurs
j. Knowing is more than mere remembering what happened last time, but of
inferring that what happened in the past will continue to take place in the
future. Inference, then is determined by genuine knowledge, not by cause
and effect.
k. Inference and reason are the means by which we know and understand nature
and how we explain nature and cannot be explained by nature
Chapter 4:
I. The Big Idea: Acts of reasoning are not interlocked in the system of Nature as all
other items are interlocked with one another.
II. Flow of Reasoning:
a. Reasoning is not interlocked with the system of Nature but is connected
1. the understanding of a machine is connected with the machine but not
in the same way that the parts of the machine are connected with
each other
2. My understanding of the machine is outside of the functioning of the
machine
b. Reasoning affects the cause-effect process, but it is a one-way street
1. Nature is powerless to produce rational thought
2. Rational thought produces actions which change nature
i. “Nature can only raid reason to kill; but Reason can invade
nature to take prisoners and even to colonize” (39)
ii. “The walls, ceiling, and furniture, the book, your own washed
hands and cut fingernails, bears witness to the colonization
of Nature by reason: for none of this matter would have
been in these states if Nature had her way.” (39)
c. Asymmetrical relationship (A yields B but B does not yield A)
1. (A) is the father of (B), the reciprocal cannot be said of (B) to (A)
d. Does not follow that rational thought exists absolutely on its own (rational
thought is not God)
1. As above, rationality would become irrationality if it is dependent on
nature
2. Yet, my reason stops at night when I go to sleep or when I am
unconcious
3. Reason must come from something outside of nature that also exhibits
reason
e. Objection:
1. Rather, then of saying, “I reason,” should we not say, “God reasons
through us.”
2. “Reasoning does not happen to us; we do it.” (43)
3. We also have false conclusions, which would be impossible if our
reasoning were only God reasoning through us.
f. Objection:
1. Could this greater reasoning, be a part of nature, having emerged or
evolved as we do?
2. Nature, by definition, cannot beget reasoning, thus that which begets
our reasoning must be outside of nature
Chapter 5:
I. The Big Idea:
a. Moral arguments are a product of reasoning and not merely a result of societal
influences
II. The Flow of Reasoning:
a. Many suggest that “morals” are merely a result of conditioning by society
b. but “ought”, “this is good” and “this is evil” are value statements, not
preferences
c. “If the fact that men have such ideas as ought and ought not at all can be fully
explained by irrational and non-moral causes, then those ideas are an
illusion” (56)
d. Yet, “A moment after they have admitted that good and evil are illusions, you
will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, revolutionize,
liquidate, live and die for the good of the human race.” (57)
e. the naturalist is inconsistent—his philosophy does not match his living
f. “If we are to continue to make moral judgments, then we must believe that the
conscience of man is not a product of nature.” (60)
Chapter 6:
I. Big Idea:
a. Our reasoning is done through the medium of the brain much like we observe
through the medium of a looking glass
II. Flow of Reasoning:
a. if the brain is impaired our reasoning is impaired (though the opposite does not
follow)
b. When we look at a garden through a window, we are not cognizant of the
window unless we intentionally look at it or it is distorting our field of
vision
c. “The naturalists have been engaged in thinking about nature. They have not
attended to the fact that they were thinking.” (65)
d. The implication is that we ought to discover the looking glass through which
we view nature and understand his character
Chapter 7:
I. Big Idea:
a. Does nature, by its very nature, exclude the miraculous?
II. Flow of Reasoning:
a. People of old believed in miracles because they were uneducated and knew no
better
1. Joseph understood that virgins did not get pregnant, which is why he
went to send her away
2. Bible presents these things as miracles, not as the norm
b. People of old did not have good enough science to know better
1. Ptolemy taught that earth was point with no magnitude in comparison
to sun 1700 years ago
2. Pythagoras (525 BC) calculated
i. earth was round
ii. earth revolved around a “Central Fire” (though the central fire
was not the sun, and only reflected the sun’s light.
iii. popularized base 10 mathematics
c. Thus, there is no reason to write off miracles because of our chronological
snobbery
Chapter 8:
I. The Big Idea
a. Recognizing that there are regular laws within nature, How does God interact?
II. Flow of Reasoning
a. 3 conceptions on the “Laws of Nature”
1. They are “brute facts” known only by observation
i. but observation cannot give us knowledge—knowledge requires
inference (reasoning)
2. They are applications of the law of averages
i. yet, if the Naturalist is correct, there must be no law of averages
and all must be predictable down to the smallest element
3. Fundamental laws of Physics are “necessary truths”
i. they provide meaning to the system of nature
b. Thus, God’s interaction is an interaction that in itself is a “cause” and effects
come from it—God as a “cause” from which effects come
1. “a miracle is emphatically not an event without cause or without
results. Its cause is the activity of God: its results follow
according to the Natural law.” (95)
Chapter 9:
I. The Big Idea
a. Recognizing a God, must he be the kind that acts and is nature any less real as
a result?
II. Flow of Reasoning
a. this line of objection (that God would not wish to act) is a purely emotional
one
b. to say nature is unreal because a God has created her is nonsense
c. Every aspect of nature expresses the character of nature that God wished her to
express
Chapter 10:
I. The Big Idea
a. We must understand the nature of this Supernatural God through Analogy
II. Flow of reasoning
a. we cannot understand many finite things but through analogy (imagining
London)—analogies being imperfect notions
b. Yet even an imperfect analogy does not invalidate the results (horrid red
things)
c. 3 principles
1. Thought is distinct from the imagination that accompanies it
2. thought may be sound even when false images accompany it
3. anyone who talks of that which cannot be seen, touched, or heard must
inevitably speak of them as if they could be seen, touched, or heard
(analogy)
d. We must then use analogy to explain the supernatural, not to explain it away
C.S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain (outline)
The Problem of Pain
C.S. Lewis
Overview of the Argument
Chapter 1:
I. The Big Idea:
A. There is Pain on the earth
1. In the natural world creatures prey upon one another
2. In the natural world life is sustained through the death of other things
3. Man has the capacity not only to feel pain, but to anticipate pain
4. Philosophical fatalism abounds
i. Albert Camus (1913-1960)—“the only question modern man
has left to answer is the question of suicide”
B. Yet, if there is so much pain on the earth, why did human beings ever attribute
creation to a benevolent creator?
1. Note that dread & awe stemming from the created order are not
physical qualities, but inferred from physical qualities
2. Moral goodness/guilt is not result of cause & effect
3. Men stand condemned of their moral failure regardless of their
religious theology/philosophy
4. You thus cannot write off moral teaching of Jesus, and if you accept his
moral teaching you must accept his teaching about his divine being
-“Either he was a raving lunatic of an unusually abominable type,
or else He was, and is, precisely what he said. There is no middle
way. If the records make the first hypothesis unacceptable, you
must submit to the second.” (13)
C. The very fact that we have a good creator as God creates the problem of pain
rather than solving it—were God other than good, as he describes himself,
the question would never arise.
Chapter 2: Divine Omnipotence
Initial Problem: “‘If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty He would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.’ This is the problem of pain in its simplest form. “(16)
A. This assumes that “goodness”, “happiness,” and “omnipotence” are defined
the same for us as for God
B. Meaning of Omnipotence
1. God does not have the power to do anything
2. God has the power to do anything that is consistent with his nature
a. God cannot be righteous and unrighteous at the same time—that
would be nonsense
b. law of non-contradiction
c. the impossible/contradictions are not things but non-entities as
they are impossible
3. Freedom for the creature implies that there is a choice
-“their freedom is simply that of making a single naked choice—of
loving God more than the self or the self more than God.” (20)
4. The Freedom of God consists in the fact that no cause other than
Himself produces His acts and no external obstacle impedes
them—that His own goodness is the root from which they all grow
and his own omnipotence is the air in which they flower.” (27)
Chapter 3: Divine Goodness
Big Idea: God’s definition of Goodness must include human pain.
I. Problem: “If God is wiser than we His judgment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil. On the other hand, if God’s moral judgment differs from ours so that our black may be His white, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say, ‘God is Good,’ while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say, ‘God is we know not what.”’
A. The difficulty with equivocal and univocal language
1. Must use analogical language
2. our understanding of good and evil is neither the same as God’s nor is
it wholly different—our understanding is derivative
3. Since God is our moral compass, there must then be a degree of
agreement
4. “When the man of inferior moral standards enters the society of those
who are better and wiser than he…[then he] gradually learns to
accept their standards” (29)
5. “His idea of ‘goodness’ differs from ours; but you need have no fear
that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your
moral standards” (30)
B. Man’s Idea of God’s Goodness
1. Understood in terms of God’s “lovingness”
a. Gumball machine analogy
b. The Old Man and Mr. Smith, by Peter Ustinov
2. Desire not for a Father in heaven, but for a senile grandfather
3. Kindness is more just giving escape from suffering
a. Euthanasia question
C. God’s concept for kindness
1. “It is for people whom we care nothing about that we demand
happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lovers, our children,
we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be
happy in contemptible and estranging modes. If God is Love, He
is, by definition, something more than mere kindness.” (32-33)
2. The Dog and master analogy
a. training a dog takes hard discipline at first
b. trained dogs enjoy benefits that wild dogs do not
3. “We may wish, indeed, that we were of so little account to God that He
left us alone to follow our natural impulses—that He would give
over trying to train us into something so unlike our natural selves:
but once again, we are asking not for more love, but less.” (36)
4. God is conforming us into the image of His Son
a. that requires suffering
5. “Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but
love cannot cease to will their removal.” (39)
D. Our Response
1. “Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience
the love of God in a true, and not illusory form, is therefore to
experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to
His desire: to experience it in the opposite way is, as it were, a
solecism against the grammar of being.” (44)
2. “When we want to be something other than the thing that God wants us
to be, we must be wanting what, in fact, will not make us happy.
Those Divine demands which sound to our natural ears most like
those of a despot and least like those of a lover, in fact marshal us
where we should want to go if we knew what we wanted. He
demands our worship, our obedience, our prostration…God wills
our good, and our good is to love Him…and to love Him we must
know Him: and if we know Him, we shall in fact fall on our faces.”
(46)
Chapter 4: Human Wickedness
Big Idea: We must get to the source of the problem—the source is not God, but Man
A. Problem is that we have had “human goodness” preached to us for generations
a. and we are wicked, not good, by nature
B. We see God’s hand as one meddling in our lives
C. “When we merely say that we are bad, the ‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous
doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere
corollary from God’s goodness.” (52)
D. Undoing false beliefs
1. We suppose ourselves not much worse than others
2. domestic conceptions of morality
3. illusion that time cancels sin
4. the idea that there is safety in numbers
E. Fact that moral beliefs contain basic consistencies regardless of background
1. Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gautama, Christ, Marcus Aurelius
2. all agree that man has problems and needs fixing
F. Moral perfection of God
1. some theologians deny necessity of this for judging humans
2. “the road to the promised land runs past Sinai” (59)
G. Note Lewis’ misunderstanding of the doctrine of Total Depravity
H. “I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present,
creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it
is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves. This I believe to be a fact:
and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact.” (62)
Chapter 5: The Fall
Big Idea: Lewis’ Commentary on Genesis 3
I. False views
A. Monism
B. Dualism
II. Is it better to create than not to create?
III. For Lewis the fall is more than disobedience, but contains deeper, more mystical
truths
A. Lewis’ view on evolution and the Imago Dei in man
B. Man’s sin of pride
C. “They wanted, as we say, to ‘call their souls their own.’ But that means to live
a lie, for our souls are not, in fact, our own. They wanted some corner in
the universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not
yours.’” (75)
D. Man was created to love and serve God, sin is a rejection of our most basic
function
E. “Theoretically, I suppose, we might say ‘Yes: we behave like vermin, but then
that is because we are vermin. And that, at any rate, is not our fault.’ Bit
the fact that we are vermin, so far from being felt as an excuse, is a greater
shame and grief to us than any of the particular acts which it leads us to
commit. (81)
IV. Conclusion:
-“The thesis of this chapter is simply that man, as a species, spoiled himself, and
that good, to us in our present state, must therefore mean primarily remedial or
corrective good.”
Chapter 6: Human Pain (part 1)
The Big Idea: The value of pain is that it shatters our illusions.
A. Two kinds of pain
1. Physical sensation
2. Anything that the patient might find distasteful.
B. Life as imitation
1. Jesus models the father to man
2. Christians are to model Jesus to unbelievers
3. “We are not merely imperfect cratures who must be improved: we are,
as Newman said, rebels who must lay down our arms. The first
answer, then, to the question why our cure should be painful, is
that to render back the will which we have so long claimed for our
own, is in itself, wherever and however it is done, a grievous pain.”
(88-89)
C. Pain Shatters the Illusion that all is well
1. “We can rest contentedly in our sins and in our stupidities; and anyone
who has watched gluttons shoveling down the most exquisite foods
as if they did not know what they were eating, will admit that we
can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists on being attended to.
God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience,
but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf
world.” (90-91)
D. Pain shatters the illusion that we have all we need
1. “Let me implore the reader to try to believe, if only for a moment, that
God, who made these deserving people, may really be right when
he thinks that their modest prosperity and the happiness of their
children are not enough to make them blessed: that all this must
fall from them in the end, and that if they have not learned to know
Him they will be wretched.” (95)
E. Pain shatters the illusion of human divinity
1. “the movement ‘full speed astern’ by which we retrace our long
journey from paradise, the untying of the old, hard knot, must be
when the creature, with no desire to aid it, stripped naked to the
bare willing of obedience, embraces what is contrary to its nature, and does that for which only one motive is possible.” (100)
2. God requires bare obedience from his creatures even if we do not
understand the outcome
a. Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac
b. Job is never given an answer for why these tests were placed on
him
3. Pain teaches not that we are self sufficient, but that we have the
sufficiency to trust in heaven
Chapter 7: Human Pain (part 2)
The Big Idea: Lewis deals with 6 propositions regarding pain
A. There is a paradox in Christian teaching on suffering
1. We are told blessed are those who are poor, but for the rich to give
money to them to alleviate their poverty
2. We are told blessed are those who are persecuted, but we find believers
leaving a city to avoid persecution
3. If these things are really a blessing, should not we be striving to be
poor and persecuted? (“If suffering is good, ought it not be pursued rather than avoided?”)
4. Lewis argues that pain is not a virtue in itself but a means to an end
(sanctification)
B. Tribulation is necessary in redemption
1. genuine tribulation is different than masochistic acts
2. Tribulation will always be here until God returns to judge
3. the idea of a utopia, heaven on earth, is inconsistent thinking
C. Church Doctrine of self-surrender and obedience is a theological, not a
political doctrine
1. government is incapable of bringing about or thwarting genuine
Christianity
2. the Church grows under the harshest persecution and grows lethargic
and dies when apart from it
D. The Christian doctrine of suffering explains about the world around us
1. We desire settled happiness
2. we do not find it in this world
3. We are only given stabs of joy here and there, but not lasting
4. the Remedy is Heaven, not earth—we are on a journey to Heaven
E. We must never overestimate pain
1. toothache analogy: pain x + pain x does not equal pain 2x, but two of
us share the pain x
F. Of all the evils, pain is a sterilized or disinfected evil
1. pain is different than sin—when sin is over one must go, repent of it,
and make the offense right
2. Pain is done with when it is done
Chapter 8: Hell
The Big Idea: Lewis refutes objections to the doctrine of Hell
-“I am not going to try to prove the doctrine tolerable. Let us make no mistake; it
is not tolerable. But I think the doctrine can be shown to be moral, by a
critique of the objections ordinarily made, or felt, against it.” (121)
A. How can pain that does not lead to repentance be beneficial?
1. Hell then is positive retribution for sin
2. of the confirmed wicked sinner: “Can you really desire that such a man,
remaining what he is, should be confirmed forever in his present
happiness—should continue for all eternity, to be perfectly
convinced that the laugh is on his side? And if you cannot regard
this as tolerable, is it only your wickedness—only spite—that
prevents you from doing so? Or do you find that the conflict
between Justice and Mercy, which has sometimes seemed to you
such an outmoded piece of theology, now actually at work in your
own mind, and feeling very much as if it came to you from above,
not from below?” (123)
B. Is there not a disproportion between transitory sin and eternal damnation
1. sin in part spoils the whole
2. we may be given a thousand chances to do right and will reject every
one
C. Are not the frightful images of hell just that, images meant to scare, and not
reflective of the reality?
1. True that they are images, but there is a concrete reason these images
are chosen
2. They are meant to reflect that which is unspeakably horrible because
Hell is.
3. Hell is spoken of as a place of punishing pain, destruction (not
annihilation), and privation of good—don’t overstate one at the
expense of the others
4. Lewis’ view of Hell emphasizes the privation
-“They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded,
and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever
submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more
and more free.” (130)
Chapter 9: Animal Pain
The Big Idea: How do we explain animal suffering?—an odd answer by Lewis
A. Suffering for animals contains no moral dignity
B. What kind of pain do animals suffer?
1. varies depending on the animal, some more than others
2. must be careful not to attribute pain where there is none
C. How did disease and pain enter the animal world
1. through the fall of Satan
2. views fall of Satan causing pain and suffering in animals long before
Adam and Eve’s fall
D. How can animal suffering be reconciled with the Justice of God?
1. mosquito heaven would be hell for man
2. heaven and hell as a question are irrelevant as animals cannot
understand the concepts only feel when pain begins and ceases
3. Justice is applied to man, not animals
Chapter 10: Heaven
The Big Idea: Heaven is the solution to the problem of pain
A. Many object to heaven as a ‘pie in the sky” doctrine—but there must be a
basis for it, otherwise all of Christianity is false
B. Many think of heaven as bribe for good behavior
-“Again, we are afraid that heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our
goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers
nothing that a mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart
that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are
rewards that do not sully motives.” (149)
C. “Your soul has a curious shape because it is a hollow made to fit a particular
swelling in the infinite contours of the Divine substance, or a key to
unlock one of the doors in the house with many mansions. For it is not
humanity in the abstract that is to be saved, but you—you the individual
reader, John Stubbs or Janet Smith.” (152)
D. Heaven, apart from all the glorious description found in the Bible, is living in
perfect harmony, peace, unity, joy and grace and living thus for all
eternity.
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
Outline of 1 Peter
I. Greeting (1:1-2)
II. God in his Grace is raising you out of your sin to salvation (1:3-12)
1. God has given us new birth to a greater inheritance (1:3-5)
2. God will keep that inheritance while you are being sanctified through
persecutions (1:6-7)
3. The joy of that salvation in your hearts and in the hearts of those who have
pointed to Christ from old (1:8-12)
III. Therefore, be holy for God is holy (1:13-25)
1. Live your life obediently and in anticipation of what is coming (1:13-16)
2. God has redeemed you by the blood of Jesus Christ (1:17-21)
3. God has purified you through his imperishable word (1:22-25)
IV. Therefore, live your lives to reflect God’s good work in you (2:1-3:22)
1. Rid yourself of sinful ways and nourish yourself on spiritual things (2: 1-3)
2. God has made you a holy nation, built on the Living foundation stone of Jesus
Christ (2:4-12)
3. Live in submission to authorities outside of the home (2:13-25)
4. Live in submission to authorities inside of the home (3:1-7)
5. Living submissively in spite of persecution brings you blessing and the
persecutor shame (3:8-17)
6. Look to your baptism as a reminder of Christ’s past work and its eventual
completion (3:18-22)
V. Therefore, since Christ was persecuted, expect to be persecuted yourselves (4:1-19)
1. Misery loves company and will seek to drag you down into their sin (4:1-6)
2. Yet, judgment is coming, so be prepared (4:7-11)
3. Do not be surprised by your sufferings, but take joy in them (4:12-19)
VI. Closing remarks to church leaders (5:1-11)
1. Be good shepherds, modeling your service on Christ, the Chief Shepherd
(5:1-4)
2. Live humble lives (5:5-7)
3. Resist the enemy in faith and persevere until the end (5:8-11)
VII. Personal remarks and closing blessing (5:12-14)
Outline of 2 Peter
I. Greeting (1:1-2)
II. God’s Call on the life of a Christian and the Christian’s response (1:3-11)
1. God’s calling His people to glory (1:3-4)
2. The Christian’s response to God’s call (1:5-11)
a. progression of faith to love (1:5-7)
b. work to grow in grace (1:8-11)
III. Purpose (1:12-15)
IV. Defense of Apostolic and Scriptural authority (1:16-21)
1. Defense of Apostolic authority (1:16-18)
2. Defense of Scriptural authority (1:19-21)
VI. Warnings against false teachers (2:1-22)
1. Warning of their imminent arrival (2:1-3)
2. Warnings from history and God’s Faithfulness through history (2:4-10)
a. the fall of the angels (2:4)
b. the fall of the ancient world and salvation of Noah’s family (2:5)
c. the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah and salvation of Lot’s family (2:6-8)
d. reminder of God’s competence in saving his people from trial (2:9-10)
3. Description of the false teachers (2:11-17)
4. Warning about the road these teachers travel along (2:18-22)
V. The second coming of Christ, the imminent judgment of ungodly, and the new
heavens and the new earth (3:1-13)
1. Have confidence in Christ’s promise to return (3:1-9)
2. Have confidence that Judgment is coming (3:10-12)
3. Have confidence in the remaking of heaven and earth (3:13)
VI. Closing exhortation (3:14-18)
Bible Translation Philosophies
All translations are interpretations. This is for two reasons. First is that English grammar is different than Greek or Hebrew grammar. A truly literal word for word translation would prove extraordinarily difficult to read. Secondly, in Greek and Hebrew, as with English, words often carry a variety of meanings depending on the context in which they are used.
Translators must make the decision as to what English words best represent the original text and they must write the grammar in such a way that the translation reflects the grammatical emphasis of the original. In doing so, it is impossible to translate without being influenced by your religious biases. The other challenge that you face in translation is in how you express a first century idea in twenty-first century language. This depends on how well you understand not only both cultures but also in understanding the context that surrounds the text.
And, you must also have an understanding of the Bible as a whole. God planned out history in intimate detail, and he wrote his scriptures and preserved them for his people. Thus, how we interpret scripture ought to reflect God’s decisive hand in its creation but also the consistency and inerrancy that belongs to his written word. That being said, there are Three general philosophies behind Bible translation: Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrasing.
Formal Equivalence: This is as close to a literal translation as you will find. The philosophy is to translate the original text on a word for word basis into contemporary language. The main advantage of this approach is that it gives you a more accurate word for word correspondence with the original text. This makes word studies, where you trace a particular word’s usage through the Bible, more straightforward. The drawback is that the language can often become fairly wooden and awkward to read.
There is another issue regarding formal equivalence translations that is hotly debated as to whether it is a strength or a weakness. Because the English language is often vague and sometimes less precise than the Greek and Hebrew languages, sometimes a literal translation on a word for word basis leaves important theological concepts open to the reader’s interpretation. These concepts are usually clear in the original text, but become less clear when translated on a word for word basis into the English. Formal equivalence tries to minimize the translator’s interpretation of the text.
Dynamic Equivalence: The response to the problem of ambiguity within formal equivalence translations is dynamic equivalence. Rather than translating on a word for word basis, dynamic equivalence translates on a thought for thought or a concept for concept basis. This does involve more interpretation of the original text, but often can deliver a reading that is closer to the original intent. This translation often provides a more fluid reading of the text, but it does sacrifice a degree of precision when it comes to word studies.
Paraphrase: Sometimes called “free translation,” this mode of Bible translation is hotly debated. A paraphrase is the converting of the original text, or for most paraphrases, as translation, into your own words. Oftentimes this kind of translation can be very approachable for pleasure reading, but is not precise enough to do serious Bible study. Also, this kind of translation involves a great degree of interpretation, and depending on the translator’s biases, biblical doctrines may be obscured or given undue weight.
Obviously, these are very broad categories and they allow a great deal of overlapping. It is probably most accurate to picture these definitions on a chart with formal equivalence on one end and paraphrasing on the other, with dynamic equivalence being a middle ground. Each translation, then would fall somewhere on the chart, leaning toward one of the definitions, but being influenced by the others.
Regardless of their strengths and weaknesses, all three have their value. Formal equivalence translations are often best for serious Bible study, but dynamic equivalence is better for more casual reading and public reading of scripture. It is far more accessible both to younger people and to new Christians. While paraphrases are not my particular cup of tea, many find that they are quite good for pleasure reading. It just must be cautioned that a more technical translation of the Bible should be accessible for worship and study.
Regardless of your translation philosophy, the end goal is the same. We want the word of God to be read and understood by the people of God. People have different educational backgrounds and are at different levels of faith when they go to pick up this wonderful book. As Paul writes in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to salvation.” If the word of God is to be brought to bear on the lives of God’s people, it must be understood. Different translations for different seasons in different people’s lives is the reason that we have so many versions to choose from when we go the Bible book store.
Difficulties with Gender Neutral Translations
This is a major hotbed of debate within evangelical circles, particularly since the new revision of the New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), has gone this route. Most evangelicals consider this move to be a sell-out to the liberal feminist movement, but some hotly argue that it better reflects current language usage. Currently, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the Revised English Bible (REB), The New Century Version (NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and the New Living Translation (NLT) are the translations that have opted toward gender neutral language.
The philosophy behind gender neutral translations is that the use of the masculine “he” as a generic term to refer to both male and females is no longer the commonly accepted usage in the English language. The solution that they propose is to make the language plural. “He” becomes “they” and “his” becomes “their.” References that are specific to a particular person are left alone, only the general references are changed. Admittedly, there is a move within the liberal community to incorporate gender neutral language to refer to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but to the best of my knowledge, none of the above translations mentioned as gender neutral have adopted this philosophy.
The danger of pluralizing the language is important to discuss. In some instances, the change is quite harmless. For example, James 1:26 reads in the NIV:
“If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”
In the TNIV, it reads:
“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. “
Yet, in many cases, the gender neutral language either obscures doctrine or the personal nature of salvation, allowing for a reading that is more acceptable to the Roman Catholic church.
For example, John 14:23 reads:
“If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (RSV)
Yet, the NRSV reads:
“Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them and we will come to them and make our home with them.”
This may seem to be a slight change given the overall intention is that this verse is addressed to both men and women, yet it has profound implications. First, Jesus did not speak in plurals, he spoke in singulars. He wanted to make a point of emphasizing the personal nature of salvation. Salvation is an individual thing, not a corporate thing as the Roman Catholic church would teach. Jesus did not generically die for every believer, he died for each believer, and pluralizing the language obscures this important fact.
Making the pronouns plural also obscures many of the Old Testament prophesies about Jesus. For example:
“He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.” (Psalm 34:20, RSV)
The gender inclusive version renders this verse:
“He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.” (Psalm 34:20, NRSV)
This completely obscures the messianic prophesy that David is making in this psalm.
At times, changing the singular to plural completely changes the meaning of the verse. For example, Psalm 19:12a is changed from “who can discern his errors” (NIV) to “who can discern their errors” (TNIV). At first glance, with this verse entirely out of context, this change does not seem too threatening. Yet, when you realize that the preceding verses of Psalm 19 are dealing with the perfection of God’s law. Verse 12 is taking that law and then applying it to the individual, as Paul does in Romans, to remind us that we cannot know our errors without God’s good and perfect laws. Yet, the TNIV, when “he” is translated “their” shifts the meaning of the verse to look as if God’s laws are the ones that have errors. The TNIV reads like this:
“The Law of the Lord is perfect…,The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy…, the precepts of the Lord are right…, the commands of the Lord are radiant…, they are more precious than gold…, who can discern their errors.” (Psalm 19: 7-12, TNIV)
Oftentimes, the word “man” is simply omitted. In verses where the text reads “men and brethren,” the TNIV simply omits the term “man” altogether. Also, of the 61 times that the term “Saint” is used in the New Testament, the TNIV has omitted 53 altogether in favor of “God’s people.” The term saint carries connotations of holiness and being set apart. It is a term of endearment given to the saved people of God. The change does two things. First of all, it reduces changes the emphasis from personal salvation to a corporate sense, as the Roman Catholic church likes to teach. Secondly, it emphasizes the Roman Catholic belief that “sainthood” is only for a privileged few.
Our salvation comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not membership within the church. The church is a sacred institution because individuals who make up the body of Christ are saved and sanctified by the work of Christ. Christ did not die to save an institution, but to save a people who gather together as part of an institution. As Martin Luther cried out, we are saved by grace and grace alone! There is no coincidence that the gender neutral translations are accepted by the Roman Catholic church, for these gender neutral translations obscure many of the holy doctrines that the protestants fought and died to proclaim.
There are nearly 2000 citations that evangelical scholars have addressed showing the dangers of gender neutral translations. In terms of casual reading, these changes may or may not be particularly noticeable, but for serious Bible study, they are a definite stumbling block. We need to hold translators to the highest standards of translations and be very careful of the biases that they bring to the table of interpretation. We also ought to ask ourselves, has the English language really changed that much as to make terms like “mankind,” that use the masculine in an inclusive way, offensive to the average person? Personally, I don’t think so.
This philosophy is not restricted to the liberal left, but is even sneaking into more respectable circles. Thomas Oden, the general editor of the highly acclaimed Ancient Christian Commentary on Scriptures wrote in his book on pastoral theology, “taking special note of the maternally nurturing images associated with the third person of the Holy trinity in its classical, orthodox, ecumenical formulation, I will speak of the Holy Spirit in the feminine …” See: Oden, Thomas. Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry. San Francisco: Harper, 1972. It is worth noting, that the ancient texts not only refer to the Holy Spirit in masculine terms, but there are a number of times that the personal pronoun “he” is used to refer to the Holy Spirit. Yet, as I mentioned above, theological interpretations will enter into any Bible translation. Sometimes for good, sometimes for ill.
Some Background to Modern English Bible Translations
There are a plethora of different Bible translations available for the Christian to choose from. Some are better and some are worse. All come from a devout desire to make the written word of God accessible to people of all cultures, languages, and walks of life. This is not meant to be an exhaustive overview, but is meant to be more of a snapshot of the available options.
The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901: With new archaeological and linguistic evidence available, it was deemed appropriate that the King James Version be revised and reworked. This lead to two versions being published: the Revised and the American Standard Versions in England and America respectively. These reflected both more modern speech and the most current linguistic scholarship of the day.
Scofield Bible: In 1909, Cyrus Scofield published the King James Version of the Bible with his own footnotes much in the same way as the earlier Geneva Bible had done. Scofield was a Congregationalist pastor but had been ordained in the Southern Presbyterian church (although he never served a Presbyterian congregation). Scofield was a dispensationalist in this theology, which set him apart from the Covenantal theology of his Reformed heritage. This becomes quite apparent when you begin to study his notes on the Second Coming of Christ. It is important that the Christian be aware of his biases before committing to the use of his notes. Regardless of your theological bias, Scofield’s theology has had a tremendous influence on the American church. His influence is can especially be seen in the Southern Baptist church and in the literature of the Moody Bible Institute.
Moffat Bible: Scottish theologian and Oxford professor, James Moffat completed his translation of the Bible in 1924. He also served as editor of a New Testament commentary series that utilized his translation. His translation never became widely circulated, but copies still turn up from time to time. While Moffat was not always orthodox in his thinking, his translation often grasps the literary intent as well as the meaning of the poetic books of the Old Testament.
Revised Standard Version: In 1952, the American Standard Version was revised in a somewhat less literal, but more readable form. The intent of this translation was to provide a more ecumenical translation that would be acceptable to Catholics and Protestants alike. The RSV and the later revision in 1989, the New Revised Standard Version, are probably the most widely used texts in mainline Protestant denominations.
New American Standard Bible: Another revision of the American Standard Version is the New American Standard Bible, published in 1960. This is probably the most literal translation of the original texts available today. It is the result of the work of 58 evangelical scholars from a variety of denominations so carries a good balance of literal translation as well as keeping doctrinal intent sound. This is one of the best study Bibles available today.
Amplified Bible: Because many words carry wider connotations in the original languages than in the English translation, in 1965, scholars were led to create the Amplified Bible. This translation includes in italics the various synonymous words that the original word implies. Readers then can insert one or more of these words to hopefully better convey the original intent of the text. While it can be awkward to read for personal edification and study, it has been often used by revival preachers who want greater emphasis on particular words in the texts from which they are preaching.
Today’s English Version (Good News Bible): In 1966, the American Bible Society published a new translation in contemporary English. This version intentionally uses colloquial language in its translation. In 1991 it was revised to become the Contemporary English Version. The CEV similarly uses colloquialisms and is written on about a 5th grade level to make it accessible to a broader audience.
New English Bible: This 1970 translation done in England carried a heavy British flavor. Its revision, the Revised English Bible, in 1989 removed many of these idioms, but still kept an English flair. It is a popular translation for public reading as it keeps much of the traditional poetic flair of the older King James Version.
Living Bible: In 1971, the American Standard Version was paraphrased to create the Living Bible. The New Living translation, published in 1996, was not a paraphrase, but a new translation although it kept much of the readability of its predecessor.
New International Version: In 1978, the New International Version was published which has turned out to be one of the most popular translations amongst evangelical Christians. It maintains a good balance between readability and technical accuracy. The latest revision of the NIV, Today’s New International Version, published in 2002, has created a stir in the evangelical churches who were loyal to it because it went to a gender neutral translation (see above).
Readers Digest Condensed Version: While this translation, published in 1982, sounds somewhat humorous to more mature Christians, this translation was headed up by Bruce Metzger, a respected Bible scholar, with the intent of making the scriptures more accessible to un-churched people. Better than half a million copies were sold of this translation, but leaves open questions as to the dangers that abound when you edit and condense the word of God.
New King James Version: Another 1982 publication was more well received than the Readers Digest Version. The New King James Version offers more contemporary language than the Earlier King James Version.
International Children’s Bible: This translation of 1986 was the result of the collaboration of translators that worked on the New American Standard Bible, The New King James Version, and the New International Version of the Bible. Their plan was to create a translation that is specifically designed for use by children. It is written on a third grade educational level and uses short sentences with easily understood language. Its revision, the New Century Version of 1991 was marketed more for adults, but kept the third grade reading level.
The Message: In 1993, Eugene Peterson published his own New Testament. While this is technically a new translation of the Ancient Greek, stylistically it is closer to a paraphrase as many thoughts are added to convey the meaning of the text and it is written to read like a novel. Peterson also dropped the verse notations from his translation which makes serious Bible Study more challenging. Many Christians enjoy reading this translation casually, but it is not meant to be a primary Bible for study and worship.
Holman Christian Standard Bible: Published in 2000, this English translation was commissioned by the Southern Baptist Publishing House and was produced by a team of 90 scholars from a variety of denominations. This translation tries to balance Formal and Dynamic Equivalence methods to create a readable but literal translation.
English Standard Version: Published in 2001, the ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV. Its design was to provide an essentially literal translation without the “woodenness” that is found in many literal translations. Its language has much of the fluidity of the NIV, but it proves to be much more accurate in its translation. While it is an excellent Bible for study, it can be daunting particularly for younger Christians as it is written on an eleventh grade reading level.
Foreign Language Translations
With a vision to place a Bible in their native language in the hands of every man woman and child on the planet, groups like the Wycliffe Bible Translation Society are working at a feverish pace. Currently, there are complete Bible Translations in better than 500 languages worldwide as well as Bible tracts, which contain portions of scripture, in more than 2000 different languages. And the process continues. In some cases, translators must go into a region and create a written language for the culture before translation can even begin. It is a long and arduous process, but with the aide of computer communication and database technology, the missionaries that God has called into his service are spreading God’s written word even to the most remote regions.
* * * * *
Admittedly, the flood of translations can be confusing and misleading at times. Yet, we are privileged to live in a culture where reliable translations are available to us as we have the resources to study more than one translation if we choose. All too often we take this privilege for granted. Don’t. Rather, as you are mourning the flood of less than perfect translations, pray for those who are diligently seeking to provide a complete Bible for cultures who have none. And pray that those translations, as well as the English translations that we are presented with, would be faithful to the wonderful God we serve.
The specific Bible that you choose for Bible study should be a good one, but the particular version that you choose is less important than that you fill your life with God’s word. There is no excuse for the Christian to be ignorant as to the scriptures, but many professed evangelical Christians are. Find a translation that you can understand and perhaps a reliable commentary (I recommend starting with Matthew Henry) to help you through tricky verses and to enrich your study. Then read it, study it, and fall in love with it.
Differences between the KJV and NIV in 2 Corinthians 6:7
A friend emailed me a question about a variant he found between the King James Version and the New International Version of 2 Corinthians 6:7. As there were no textual variants, the difference is purely interpretive. Never-the-less, I thought that it was an interesting discussion. Here was my reply to my friend:
This is a good verse for a word study, because as you found, there is quite a difference in translations. A literal translation of the Greek would look like this:
2 Corinthians 6:7
In truth of word, in power of God: through the weapon (hoplon) of the righteousness of the right (dexion) and the left (apisteron).
The term hoplon, which I agree with the NIV and translated as “weapon”, can refer to a weapon or a tool of some sort. Literally, dexion means “right” and apisteron means “left” but both carry military connotations. Dexion can refer to the weapon of attack that is held in the right hand and apisteron can refer to the defensive weapon that is held in the left hand.
Perhaps this is the idea where the KJV got the idea of armor, but that does not seem to work well. If you make the argument that a shield is a defensive weapon, you can perhaps make the argument that this is military language. I would argue that this is likely gladitorial language, where two weapons were common. Certainly in history, by the time Paul was writing this letter, Nero was happily throwing Christians into the ring with lions in Rome. I expect that the Corinthians would have had familiarity with the Roman games.
While I think that the KJV was a very good translation for its day, we have a better understanding of Koine Greek due to archeological evidence within the last century or so. And even though this variation in translation is not due to a variant reading of the text, there are also many more manuscript variants that we have found that help us to understand the context of the passage better.
The Imago Dei, Evolutionary Dogma, and Human Dignity
“And God created man in his image;
In the image of God He created him;
Male and Female, he created them.”
Genesis 1:27
One of the delights that comes along with my position as Discipleship Director at Rocky Bayou Christian School is that I get to lead 3 chapels per week with different groups of elementary school students. The setting of our elementary chapels is smaller and more intimate than that of our Academy chapel services, and allows me a lot more one-on-one interactions; our time together is usually one of the highlights of my week.
About a month ago, I was doing a chapel reflecting on Psalm 128 and the fear of the Lord. I began by asking students some of the things that made them afraid for the purpose of contrasting worldly fear and the Fear of the Lord. For most students the responses were fairly typical: spiders, snakes, bats, monsters on TV, having to go to the principal’s office, etc… Yet, my heart broke when I got to mid-week and I was leading this discussion with the third group of elementary schoolers. One sixth-grader raised his hand when asked about what he was afraid of and said, “old people.” That one statement opened up what seemed like the floodgates of similar comments, like “the smell of the places where old people stay, etc…” My heart was crushed that students from Christian homes in a Christian school would make comments like that. It also made me aware of how our churches have allowed evolutionary teaching to degrade the teaching of the Imago Dei and thus to redefine, even in our church settings, where human dignity and worth finds its source. Needless to say we set aside the topic of fear and spent our time talking about the Image of God.
The Imago Dei:
The doctrine that man is created in the image of God finds its roots in Genesis 1:26-27. God, on the sixth day of creation (literal, 24-hour days, thank you), chose to make a creature that would reflect his being, made in his own image, and set into the world to take dominion of it—ruling over the creation as stewards or regents on God’s behalf. God made this decision within his Triune fullness, for he said, “let us make man in our own image…” Thus, at the onset, one of the things that we learn is that mankind is made in the image of the fullness of the Godhead—our image does not just represent God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, but in the image of the Triune God, we were made.
What, then, does it mean to be in the “image” of someone else? The Hebrew term that is used in Genesis 1:26-27 to describe God making mankind in his image is ~l,c, (tselem), which refers to that which is made to reflect the image of someone or something else. This can refer to anything from a statue or an idol to a painting or drawing of another. In other words, a ~l,c, (tselem) was something that reflected or represented something else. It is no the original “thing,” whatever that original may have been, and thus was understood to be derivative of the original. The image is not equal to the original in any way, the image owes its existence to the original, and the image gains any honor that it might have from the original, not from within itself. It is worth noting that in the Septuagint, the Greek term used to translate ~l,c, (tselem) is ejikw/n (eikon), the term from which we get the English word, “icon,” a word that carries with it many of the same connotations.
In many ancient cultures, kings would place a symbol or statue of themselves in a public place to represent their authority and their dominion over that particular town or territory. No human king could be in all places at once, and though the statue was not the king himself, the statue represented the king, reminded the people of the glory of the king, and established that the particular king had authority over the lives of those who lived in that realm. This very practice is a human example of what God did in creation. God not only created man and woman, but he did so for a purpose—so we might glorify him by taking dominion over the creation as his regents (Genesis 1:28-30) and then turn that work into obedient worship (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam and Eve were given authority over the earth even to the point of naming the creatures (Genesis 2:19-20), a privilege that only belongs to God. Thus, note, Adam and Eve did not carry with them their own authority, but they acted on behalf of God and in his authority. Indeed, their sin was an action taken in their own authority (Genesis 3:6-7), and we have paid the penalty for that action, generation after generation, throughout history, and we continue to pay that penalty in this world today.
Warped but Not Lost:
We must note, in recognizing mankind as fallen, that we have not lost the Image of God—had we lost that image, there would be nothing left to redeem. Instead, the Image of God in us has been bent, twisted, warped, and otherwise mangled. It is distorted, in some cases, almost beyond recognition. Not only that, I would suggest that many have sought to further warp and twist the Image of God within themselves through intentional immorality, drug use, and body modification (radical body piercings, tattoos, bodily mutilations, etc…). It is interesting, when you attend to the various Biblical accounts of demon possession, the primary thing that you see the demons doing is robbing the people of the things that reflect God’s Image—they rob the people of speech, of human contact, and they distort their bodies. The account of Legion is a typical example of this activity (Mark 5:1-20). Legion robbed the man he possessed of society and family as he was living in the tombs (Mark 5:3), robbed him of human dialogue as he spent his time howling like an animal (Mark 5:5), and robbed him of a normal physical human appearance as he was cutting himself to pieces with sharp rocks (Mark 5:5).
We see people in our own society doing these same things to themselves. We live in a culture where younger and older generations set themselves at odds with each other, breaking down the unity of the generations that is necessary for a healthy society. As a result, older generations are not passing down their accumulated wisdom to those who will follow them and younger generations are not seeking to learn from the wiser older generations. In our culture, we go as far as to glamorize youth, so we have middle-aged men and women who have become obsessed with vanity and pursue a variety of youthful activities (we usually call it a mid-life crisis), rejecting the wisdom of age and maturity for the folly of youth. We see people not developing their intellect, but instead sitting like zombies before electronic amusements (whether TV or computer games) for forty or more hours a week. We see youth engaging in drug use, which numbs the mind, and over time, does permanent damage to the intellect that is meant to reflect God’s intellect. A trend that has been growing in popularity is “cutting,” where people slice on themselves with razor blades, not deep enough to kill, but deep enough to damage their bodies. Tattoos have become the rage as a form of “personal expression” and some people have been going as far as to have tattoos on their face as well as on the rest of their bodies. Sexual-reassignment surgery has become more acceptable. We could go on endlessly, and my purpose is not to decry the ills of our culture, though they are many, but instead to point out that when we pursue these activities, we are doing to ourselves the kinds of things that demons have always sought to do to humanity in the past—in many ways, we are furthering the ends that Satan began at the fall.
The Perfect ~l,c,:
Assuming that the Devil’s goal is to mock God by further bending and warping the Imago Dei within man, then we should not be surprised that one of the works of the Holy Spirit is the restoration of the Imago Dei in those who have been called to God in faith. We call this process sanctification. Yet, we must ask what the goal of this sanctification—what the object of the restoration of the Imago Dei—looks like. For a goal to be a genuine goal, it must not be ambiguous, but must be definite. With this in mind, Paul reveals to us that Jesus Christ is the ejikw/n (eikon) of God who is unseen (Colossians 1:15). In other words, one of the aspects of Christ’s redemptive work was to demonstrate to us—in his person—what the goal of our sanctification looks like. Thus, when Paul speaks of our sanctification, he refers to it as our being made to “share the likeness”—su/mmorfoß (summorphos)—of the ejikw/n (eikon) of the Son (Romans 8:29). Thus, to set the contrast, all are born into this world after the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3) and after one becomes born again, one is slowly transformed into the image of Christ. Those who remain in the likeness of Adam stand before God bearing the sin and guilt of Adam; those who are found in the likeness of Christ stand before God bearing the righteousness of Christ. The image you bear makes all the difference in the world.
The Nature of the Imago Dei:
There is some discussion as to the extent to which the Imago Dei extends within man. Some would argue that the Imago Dei is limited only to the spiritual/intellectual aspects of a person and then there are others who would argue that the Image of God also extends to man’s physical attributes. The rationale for the first position submits that man did not come alive until God breathed into him “the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7) thus separating him from the rest of the creatures that God had made. In addition, this position argues that for mankind to be made into the image of an invisible God, it ought to go without saying that such an image is then contained within the mind and the spirit. Finally, this position would point to passages like Romans 12:2, where Paul speaks of our sanctification as being guided by the transformation (“metamorphosis”) of our minds, and 1 Peter 1:13, where Peter commends us to “gird up the loins” of our minds. The strength of this also lies in the diversity of the human race and form and in the fact that the Scriptures reveal almost nothing about the physical form of Jesus while revealing countless insights into his spiritual, moral, and intellectual state.
The theological ramifications of this first, and predominant, view are many. To begin with, this view leaves one open to a Greek dualistic division of mind and body. Also, it denies the unique created beauty of the human body. If the body is simply an incidental vessel used to house the eternal spirit, what motivation is there to treat the body with dignity so long as the mind is intact? Such a view has led to Christian asceticism as well as to gluttony amongst believers. C.S. Lewis develops this idea further in his Chronicles of Narnia and in his Space Trilogy. In each of these sets of stories, there are creatures of many forms and types, yet all bear the Image of God—in the language of the Space Trilogy, they are all hnau. Thus, in turn, Azlan can come in the form of a Lion to redeem peoples of various forms and types.
The great danger of this position lies in the fact that it posits being rational, and not being human, as the qualifier for being an Image Bearer, and this has sweeping social consequences. What about the person in a vegetative state, is this person no longer in the Image of God because of a lack of brain function? What of infants and even embryos, do they exhibit sufficient rationality to be declared image bearers? How do we decide what that mark of “sufficient” rationality is? Certainly Scripture does not inform us clearly on that matter unless we are to take Jude 10 to imply that as unbelievers act as “unthinking animals,” that only those who are born again believers should be considered Image Bearers. Does that mean that only believing humans have moral dignity that is intrinsic to their very being? What if the science-fiction writers are correct and there are races of aliens on different worlds? What about robots created to simulate human thought? What of certain animals—certainly some monkeys exhibit more “rationality” than some infants.
It seems far more theologically and morally consistent to affirm that the Imago Dei is contained within the physical as well as the spiritual/intellectual form of man—our totality being God’s representative upon this world. God designed our bodies in a particular way, and we look markedly different than any other species on the planet. God uses human terms to describe himself to us (hands, feet, etc…) and while any theologian worth his salt will point out that this is merely an anthropomorphism, God regularly chooses to use such language to convey meaning when it is not necessary to make his point. But more importantly, Christ took on flesh not simply to dwell with us in the flesh and to die in the flesh, but to redeem the flesh as well. And, as a result of that redemption, we will have new, glorified bodies as well in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). Were the Imago Dei contained only in the intellectual/spiritual aspects of man, what would be the purpose of redeeming the body as well as the spirit? Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, I suggest it be considered that the Imago Dei rests not only in the mind and spirit of man, but in the flesh as well.
The Rise of Darwinism and the Decline of the Imago Dei in Religious Thought:
We live in an age where doctrine is often considered to be irrelevant to Christian life—a consideration that reflects the woeful lack of understanding as to what doctrine really is and represents, but that is a debate for another day. More importantly, we live in a culture that is a product of Darwinian teaching in the classroom and that teaches a humanistic and not a Christian worldview. Sadly, this kind of teaching has a devastating effect on society as a whole, and has even infected Christian churches and Christian schools, as the experience that I shared in my introduction demonstrates. So, what has happened?
To understand this, the first thing that one must do is understand the philosophical ramifications that come along with a Darwinistic/naturalistic/humanistic worldview. To begin with, under an evolutionary model, mankind has risen to a place of prominence in this world simply through a series of genetic mutations brought about by cause and effect—the process that governs all of nature. It is also assumed that humans are still in the process of evolving, opening the door for a hierarchy within the human race, some people groups being “more evolved” than others. In the naturalistic model, there is no room for human freedom (libertarian or compatiblist), in fact, there is no will at all—the only thing that there is room for is naturalistic determinism. In addition, as neither reason nor presuppositions can be adequately explained in a causal world, what we perceive to be thought, willful choices, morality, and meaningful principles is merely an illusion—a figment of our imagination, but then again, imagination itself cannot be accounted for as a result of cause and effect. Furthermore, naturalism permits no transcendent God upon which ideas and norms find their meaning. Morality, then (even though it is an illusion), is nothing more than a set of social constraints imposed on the people by the ruling class.
With no creator to serve and to guide one’s life, the Darwinian worldview leaves one to determine one’s own meaning and purpose. Thus, if your life is to have meaning and worth, you must create that meaning and worth yourself. This is a stark contrast to the Christian model, which asserts that our meaning and significance is not self-generated or self-decided, but is given to us by God as bearers of his image. In other words, the very fact that we are created in the image of God means we have dignity and purpose in our lives. The answer to the age-old question, “What is the meaning of life?” is not left up to us, but is given to us by God, for the answer is that life is given to us so that we might glorify Him with the aim of enjoying Him forever.
So, where does that leave us? Given then, the naturalistic worldview that Darwinism demands, we live in a society where a great many (if not most) people understand the value of their life to be something that they earn by their accomplishments. What are the societal ramifications of this?
- Abortion is legal and even encouraged in certain segments of our culture. In addition, many doctors even counsel parents to have selective abortions for high risk pregnancies, multiples pregnancies, and pregnancies where the child has a probability of being born with severe physical or mental disorders.
- Partial-Birth Abortion, which is nothing short of infanticide concurrent with delivery, is promoted as an ethically viable action in certain segments of our society.
- Children with disabilities are often mainstreamed in school systems and do not receive the specialized attention that they need to master skills.
- The poor and homeless are considered second-class citizens and rarely receive the legal and societal support necessary to become self-supporting.
- Elderly are often placed in care homes where adequate care is not given. Elderly in such homes often go unvisited by family. Neglect and abuse of said patients is also commonplace.
- Euthanasia is considered a “humane” option for the elderly and severely disabled by some segments of our culture.
The list could go on, but the point is clear: if you don’t have a clear sense that your dignity comes from the fact that you bear God’s image, your view of human worth will be based on what the person produces, not upon whose image that they bear. Thus, when the value of life is based on production, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, etc… all become reasonable options in society. At the same time, when you hold to a clear articulation of the doctrine of the Imago Dei, a person has dignity regardless of what they are capable of producing; hence the newest embryo and the most decrepit individual have dignity and worth, for they both bear the image of the divine creator.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
This is a documentary movie that is soon to arrive in cinemas that is designed to expose the way that Darwinistic scientists have been black-listing scientists who would suggest that a designer guided the development of life on earth, not random chance mutations. The purpose of this movie is not to set forth an argument for Biblical creation nor is it designed to argue for the doctrine of the Imago Dei. Instead, its purpose is to expose the censorship that is taking place against those in what is called the “Intelligent Design” movement. To this end, one of the things that the movie brings out is the serious danger to social institutions and human worth that comes from a Darwinian naturalistic worldview. In particular, the genocides of the 20th century are brought out as a result of consistent naturalistic thought (one race is further developed than another). This line of reasoning does underline the importance of the doctrine of the Imago Dei, and for that, this movie promises to have great value. The Christian must be warned, though, that if he expects to see an argument for a Biblical model of creation in six-literal days, he will be sorely disappointed. Theologically, Intelligent Design is a contemporary version of Natural Theology from previous generations, and while Natural Theology can and does clearly point to the existence of a God, the best description of God that Natural Theology can arrive at is the description of the God of Deism. Without the Bible, you cannot know the God of the Bible, hence proponents of natural design hail from seemingly every religious background.
Final Thoughts:
We are left asking the question, “What does this doctrine of the Imago Dei mean for me?” What it means is that first, we must recognize the human dignity that is in others—regardless of their age, their development, their circumstances, or their accomplishments. We have dignity because we are created in God’s image—from the embryo to the grave (and even in the grave, in terms of the dignity with which we honor the dead). Secondly, we need to help others understand that they have dignity because they bear the image of God. Largely this is taught by the way we treat others, particularly those who have nothing in this world. When we treat the homeless beggar with dignity and respect, that will go a long way to teach him that he has some genuine value in this world. And thirdly, we who understand that humans bear the image of God, must work to protect the dignity of others. This third element should lead us to social actions that will abolish institutions and practices that rob people of the dignity that is theirs because they are created in God’s image.
Biblical Perspicuity
What do we mean when we speak of the Perspicuity of Scripture?
While there are certainly many areas of scripture that are difficult to interpret and to understand, given that the Bible was given to all people throughout history, not to just a select few, and given that the Bible was given for the edification of people of every age and level of intelligence and education, not just those trained as theologians, in matters of salvation, the scriptures are clear enough that all can understand what God has communicated, particularly with respect to the question of salvation. The church fell into grave error in the medieval period when it argued that the scriptures were too difficult for any but the clergy to understand and thus restricted the Bible into the hands of the educated elite of the church. This is contrary to the Biblical testimony of the early church, where the gospel was proclaimed and the command to study scripture was given to all believers. The Bible is clear on the question of what sin is, the fallen state of man, the reality that man needs a redeemer, the fact that Jesus came and paid the penalty for sin for those who come to him in faith, and that if we yearn for redemption, we must flee to Christ. The Bible is also clear in terms of the explanation of what the life of the believer should look like in terms of moral behavior and good works. These things, even a young child or one with the least amount of education can understand and thus the scriptures should be read and studied by all who call themselves believers in Jesus Christ. This does not ignore that there are difficult passages of scripture; such passages should be labored over and assistance sought from reliable theologians and commentaries should be sought, but the last thing one should do is to flee from them.
What then do we mean that the Bible is infallible and inerrant?
What do we mean when we state that the Bible is infallible as well as being inerrant?
As discussed above, the Bible is inerrant, or, in other words, without error. The idea of infallibility takes the premise one step further. When we say that the Bible is infallible, we say that the Bible is incapable of making mistakes, or in practical terms, that the Bible is incapable of leading the believer into error. This is not to say that there have never been students of the Bible that have drifted into error, indeed, the history of the church is filled with those who have done just that. Yet, the reason that they drifted into error is not because they were misled by scripture, but it was because their own sin got in the way of the proper interpretation of scripture. To understand scripture fully, it must be approached in faith and with respect for what it is, and thus guided by the Holy Spirit for its interpretation. Many non-believers have spent their lives studying the Bible and have often provided valuable insights into the text, but they eventually fall into error because they do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and as a result, their minds are not illumined by the Holy Spirit. Yet, for those who are born again believers, those who are trusting in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, prayerful study and application of the scriptures will not lead them into error.
In addition, the scriptures are infallible in teaching the way by which men and women must be saved. To put it another way, it is through the writings of scripture, being taught and proclaimed, that people come to know the beauty of Jesus and to experience the wonders of salvation that Jesus wrought. So important was this idea that the Apostle Paul wrote the following words:
Therefore, how are they to call on him of whom they have not believed? And how can they to believe in whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without one preaching? And how can they preach if they have not been sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of the one who proclaims the good news!” But they have not all heard the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what they heard from us?” Therefore, faith comes out of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17)
Thus, the very content of our proclamation of the gospel and of our preaching in the church must always be God’s word. The thoughts and ideas of the pastor can lead one to fall, but God’s word is incapable of doing just that.
There have been different approaches to this concept in the history of the church. The Eastern Orthodox church has largely held that since the early Christian councils were so scripturally based, said councils should be considered to be infallible as well as the scriptures. The difficulty with this view is that there have been many books, creeds, and confessional texts that are deeply based in scripture, but when one argues that infallibility extends from scripture to those writings based on scripture, one enters into subjectivity in terms of what constitutes a document based on scripture. Such a view also places a great deal of weight upon the interpretation of scripture and not upon the scriptures themselves. Invariably, this view will lead you into theological error and toward crediting the minds and the pens of men with honor that God never intended that they be given. Such a position elevates the writings of these church councils to the level of scripture as well, and the dangers of that matter have already been touched upon. While there are many wonderful texts that have been written to guide our studies, we should always be cognizant that they have been written by men and not by God.
The Roman Catholic church has taken a different approach to this as well. They have held that the Pope, as “Christ’s Vicar” on earth is preserved by God from entering into error on matters of the church, faith, and morality. He is said to demonstrate that infallibility when he speaks from “Peter’s Chair,” properly known as speaking ex cathedra. This is built on the assumption that Peter was the first Pope of the church and that through the process of a succession of Popes, the Apostolic authority of Peter was handed down from generation to generation. Again, this makes the error of assuming that men are incapable of failing, something all sinful men can do, no matter the character of the individual. It is only God who is infallible and thus the infallibility of God extends to his divine word alone, not to the words of men. What we do with that word is what opens us up to error.
To what extent does inerrancy extend?
To what extent is the Bible inspired and thus inerrant? Does the inspiration extend only to the ideas conveyed or to the very words of scripture?
A debate that has been taking place between the Orthodox branches in the church and what is normally called the Neo-Orthodox movement, is over the question of the extent of revelational authority. Another way of phrasing the question is, “Is the Bible the word of God or does the Bible contain the word of God?” This presents a contrast between a view of the inspiration of scripture and the view of the plenary inspiration of scripture.
The Neo-Orthodox movement in the church has held that it is not the words of scripture that contain the inspiration of God, but it is that when those words find themselves to rest upon the ears and the heart of a believer, then, and only then, genuine inspiration takes place. This allows the Neo-Orthodox theologian to not get very hung up by source critical arguments because, after all, it is not the words of scripture that are important; rather, it is the effect that those words have on the believing heart that is important. As one can see, this scheme of understanding revelation becomes extremely subjective and robs the text of any genuine content, for content, according to this view, comes from the hearer’s interpretation of the words. Exegetical theology also becomes nearly impossible, for exegesis becomes about “what this text means to me…” instead of what this text actually says. And though this position can be attributed to Neo-Orthodoxy today, it is not a new sin, but one that can be traced all of the way back to Adam and Eve who doubted God’s word that they would die if they ate of the forbidden fruit.
In response to this, the Orthodox theologians have taken a strong stand on the plenary (or complete) inspiration of scripture. In other words, every single word of scripture is a result of the inspiration of God. Every noun, every verb, ever preposition, every adjective, every pronoun, ever article is a result of the breathing out of God and thus carries with it the full authority of God himself. This view holds that meaning comes from within the text and not from within the hearer. This view holds that God is a rational and intentional God and that as a result, when he rationally and intentionally communicates with his people, he has a plain and intended purpose and meaning behind what was said. This view holds that the very statements of scripture contain propositional truth given to God’s people so that we might know him and glorify him with our lives. This view holds that while we see the stylistic fingerprint of the human authors within each text, that it is God who is writing through them, using all of their gifts and talents to produce his word, and that word—every word of it—is true and perfectly given and preserved by the Holy Spirit.
There are many in the post-modern world that would contend that words in themselves contain no meaning. They would continue that words are nothing but culturally formatted symbols with which we communicate and that it is the context in which language is used that conveys meaning. On one level, there is a degree of truth to this argument. We have already spoken of the dynamic nature of language as it is used by a culture. Many of our words carry with them very different meanings depending on the context in which they are found. For example, depending on the context, the word “dope” in English could refer to illegal drugs, to someone who is foolish or not intelligent, to gossip that is shared, to a form of varnish used on aircraft, or to lubricant that is used as a sealant. Context, then determines which form of the word you are using. This being said, words in a culture do have a fixed and limited set of meanings. Dope does not also mean dog, cat, and grocery cart; it cannot mean anything we want it to mean. If it could, then language would become meaningless, for “Dope dope doped dope” could then mean, “I need you to pick up a gallon of milk at the grocery store.” If such use of language were ever to become the case, then, as a culture, we would be returned to the state people found themselves in at the Tower of Babble, when God confused the languages. Culture cannot exist and reproduce itself if language is rendered meaningless.
Yet, even the post-modern thinker, when pressed on the issue, would assert that language does contain meaning, though it pains them to do so. Post-modern thinkers write books for people to read. Certainly in writing a book, the post-modern thinker expects people to understand what he is trying to teach. When a post-modern thinker goes to the bank and asks that his paycheck be deposited in his checking account, certainly he expects the teller to understand what he is saying and he trusts that the money will actually go into his account rather than in some random account. When the post-modern thinker goes to the emergency room in agony because he has kidney stones, when he communicates this to the doctor, he does not expect the doctor to start by examining his knees. When the post-modern thinker goes to a restaurant and orders an expensive meal, the post-modern thinker expects to be served the meal he ordered. Thus words have meanings and any rational person is forced to admit such by the way they use their words in practical situations. And, as God is a rational God, the words that God speaks in scripture are spoken with an expectation that they be understood—and that they be obeyed!
It is important to note that scripture was not given as dictation, squelching the various personalities through whom God wrote. We see stylistic language, artistic structure of texts, and themes that run through the writings of given authors, showing us something of the human nature of the Bible. Exodus 4:14-17 records the calling of Aaron to be Moses’ prophet (also see Exodus 7:1). God would tell Moses what to say, Moses would tell Aaron what to say and Aaron would speak it. The words that the prophet speaks belong to God (or in Aaron’s case, Moses), but the mannerisms, inflections of speech, and personality belong to the prophet. So too with scripture—the words belong to God, but the structure and personality of the writings belong to the prophetic or Apostolic author.
It is worth emphasizing here that only the Orthodox view of plenary inspiration preserves the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture. When the meaning of scripture becomes subjective, the truth of scripture becomes subjective as well. In addition, scripture itself claims to be the word of God, not just to contain God’s word. As the scriptures claim to be inspired in a plenary sense, to claim otherwise is to invalidate the value of scripture as a whole, suggesting that it is nothing more than a book of lies.
To what extent does Biblical infallibility extend?
If the Bible is incapable of error, to what extent does that infallibility extend, just to theological matters or to all maters to which it speaks?
We have already touched on this idea but it bears repeating. Given that the Bible is written by God, it is impossible for the text to be in error. God is omniscient and as he is the author of the Bible, the Bible reflects his omniscience in all areas. This means that the Bible is inerrant in the history of which it speaks, of the geography of which it speaks, of the science of which it speaks, and of real existence of the miraculous deeds that it records. It is our obligation, when our own understanding seems to contradict the revelation of scripture, to submit our understanding to the revelation that is given. Anything that compromises this view accuses God of being untruthful in his revelation of all things or it denies that scripture is divine revelation altogether and accuses its authors of being charlatans and frauds in the name of religion.
The Preacher's Study 