“Welcome to the IBS (Institute for Biblical Studies) Virtual Classroom! The primary goal of this ministry is to provide affordable or even free Bible courses for those who would like to attend Bible college, but who are, for whatever reason, unable. This could also be used as a review for those who have been to Bible college. What we are offering at present is a New Testament Survey course in RealAudio® and mp3 format, along with quizzes, links to related articles for further reading, a course syllabus, and instructions for taking the course online. What we do not offer is college credit or any type of certificate for completing the courses; they are provided for your enrichment only.
We have tried to make taking these courses as simple as possible. All you have to do is buy the book(s) and listen to the classes online. Most of the books are available from Amazon or CBD. Or you may simply listen to any of the sessions which interest you. Either way there is no charge whatsoever for the online courses. You will need to download RealPlayer (version 8 or above) to play the RealAudio® files. The mp3 format should play in just about any media player. I hope that these classes are a blessing to you!”
William Arnold III
Webmaster, IBS
Showing posts with label New Testament Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Testament Studies. Show all posts
2.24.2010
IBS Virtual Classroom by William Arnold and Jason Dulle
1.11.2010
Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part Four
Position Statement- James 2:17
Verse 17 is the position statement of James on this matter. James has just told us that if a brother or sister comes to us for warmth and we give the traditional farewell or the formulaic response, without ever really helping them with warmth then our words are no good. James listed a specific situation and then gave his position on the matter.
The NIV does a good job of rendering his words, “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” Many in the time of James knew the will of God about certain things. Many, schooled in the principles of the OT knew that God desired attention to the poor. However, what good is that knowledge if we do not allow it to move us to positive action? None. This is a faith that has neither physical benefit for others nor the benefit of personal salvation.
It is interesting to remember that Paul’s use of works is different from that of James. Paul mainly speaks of “works” in a negative way to describe actions done apart from a genuine faith. This type of work is rooted in human boasting and is a human attempt to gain favor with God based upon merit (See Romans 9:32). Conversely, James references a work that naturally develops from genuine faith (2:21-26). “When Paul speaks of faith, he speaks of it as including the works of faith. When James speaks of faith in this instance, he speaks of false faith that does not result in the works of faith. When any apostle speaks of works resulting from faith as saving anyone, inherent in those works is included the faith that is the only way whereby those works can be produced.”
Argument from Reason - James 2:18-20
Before we approach the text further consider vss. 18-20 rendered by the NET:
But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith without works and I will show faith by my works. (19) You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that and tremble with fear. (20) But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless?
The meaning of the objector here can vary according to commentarians. However, what is most crucial is that, regardless of the argument from the hypothetical objector, no one can demonstrate their faith apart from works. To compound the absurdity of the antithesis to this position James says that the demons believe in one God, and even tremble. The one who simply says he believes is worse off than the demons because they do more than believe this fact, they shutter at it.
The claim of the objector has been seen as empty. Thus James rhetorically asks if more evidence is needed. The NIV uses “empty” and the NKJV “foolish” in describing the person who simply says they have faith, but is never demonstrated. The Greek word here, kene, means hollow or empty. If the empty person still desires evidence that works validate faith, then familiar figures of OT history will be presented, e.g. Abraham and Rahab.
Argument from Torah - James 2:21-25
The use of Abraham here is brilliant. The Genesis account of Abraham says, “Abraham believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6, NKJV). At this particular time Abraham did nothing but believe and continue his life of obedience. God made Abraham a promise and Abraham sincerely believe the promise and because the faith was genuine, it was accounted to Abraham for righteousness, even though it was impossible, for the moment, to demonstrate the genuineness of his faith in a tangible way. God in his omniscience and power knows full well those who have genuine faith or no. We are justified by faith even though the person has not yet lived out their faith over time.
The dichotomy of the works of some and those of Abraham is that Abraham did not offer his son in an attempt to earn favor with God. Therefore it was not a work done for human merit, but done in loving obedience to the Almighty.
In Genesis 15:6 the Hebrew verb translated as “believed” (Genesis 15:6) simply means that Abraham trusted God. This believing on God was continual and it was imitative of God. This principle is “most famously expressed in Leviticus 19:2, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (for NT formulations of this principle, see, e.g., Matt 5:43-48; 1 Cor 11:1). It is no surprise, therefore, that if Yahweh is faithful, it is expected of Israel that they should be faithful too. Abraham then was committed to God; his live would be a life of living by faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
The faith of Abraham was not merely mental assent, as demonstrated later in Abraham’s life (c.f. Genesis 22:1-14; James 2:21-23). Genuine faith, necessarily, is transformative. Those who believe will make their faith evident. This does not mean, however, that the only faith that is valid is faith demonstrated. The fact that genuine faith will be demonstrated does not make it invalid simply because it was not demonstrated. Abraham was to trust and believe that God do as He promised.
The genuineness of Abraham’s faith was later demonstrated in a tangible sense when he offered Isaac, (c.f. Genesis 22:1-14; James 2:21-23) but it later serves to prove that Abraham was justified apart from and prior to works. Although faith results in obedience to God’s commands, justification occurs at the point of faith.
The use of Rahab is brilliant as well. Rahab put her faith in action. Not only did she profess to be on the Lord’s side, she demonstrated it by lending the Israelites spies lodging and sending them in a different direction. It is also interesting to note the difference between Abraham’s situation and that of Rahab.
Apparently Abraham obeyed a direct command from God. Rahab, on the other hand, did what was seen as the right thing to do. She heard no explicit commands from God, as did Abraham, but she acted upon her faith in a practical way. A way, that in principle, many of us can use every day.
From divine perspective, faith seen with action is foreknown by God. From human perspective faith and action are anticipated almost simultaneously since the former is not seen by the human eye—only its works.
Conclusion: A Body Without a Spirit - James 2:26
No analogy is perfect, especially when we look for the weakness. It is wise, then, to be cautious with this example since it can be read so that works are THE animating cause of salvation. This is not so. Faith must come before any work. It is the job of faith to produce good works; it is not the job of works to produce faith. The point is simple, the result of removing works from faith is like removing the spirit from the body; it is dead.
Neither soul nor body is desirable alone; a body without its life-force is simply a rotting corpse. Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith.
Application:
James reminds all of us about the pressing and continuing concern for the thoughtful treatment of the poor (2:15-17). James also spurns the one who would say they have faith but never demonstrate said faith. He also reminds us of two very important figures in OT history—Abraham and Rahab. The use of these two figures demonstrates for us that that genuine faith results in tangible demonstrations of compassion for others. True religion lives. It is not dead and stale. The Letter of James relevantly demonstrates to us that that doctrinal purity alone is merely dead orthodoxy (verses 19-20).
Many have and still do point to such events as the Inquisition, or other blights upon Christendom historically, and measure our faith accordingly. A fresh observing, interpreting, and applying of this text can only serve to revive the doctrine of good works. Jesus said that we should let our “light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16 NIV)
James encourages us to leave a “pretended faith that does not work.” Since “the hypocrite merely “says” that he has faith (James 2:14). A searching, groping world is looking for relevance and answers it seems only right to demonstrate a Christ and a church, full of believers, who are energized and activated by love and through faith.
“Unproductive faith cannot save, because it is not genuine faith. Faith and works are like a two-coupon ticket to heaven. The coupon of works is not good for passage, and the coupon of faith is not valid if detached from works.” (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 421 2:24)
NOTES:
1. Zodhiates, S., & Baker, W. (2000, c1991, c1994). The complete word study Bible : King James Version. This electronic resource is a compilation of the The Complete Word Study Old Testament, edited by Warren Baker, and The Complete Word Study New Testament, edited by Spiros Zodhiates.; Words in the text numerically coded to Strong's Greek and Hebrew dictionary, introduction to each book, exegetical notes, grammatical codes on the text, lexical aids. (electronic ed.). Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.
2. The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, (HALOT) CD-ROM Edition © 1994-2000 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. All rights reserved
3. Willem A. VanGemeren, General Editor. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. © 1997-2001 Zondervan Publishing House
4. Davids, P. H. (1982). The Epistle of James : A commentary on the Greek text. Includes indexes. (134). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
5. Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology. "First one-volume edition (3 vols. in 1)"--Jacket. (3rd ed.) (788). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.
Verse 17 is the position statement of James on this matter. James has just told us that if a brother or sister comes to us for warmth and we give the traditional farewell or the formulaic response, without ever really helping them with warmth then our words are no good. James listed a specific situation and then gave his position on the matter.
The NIV does a good job of rendering his words, “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” Many in the time of James knew the will of God about certain things. Many, schooled in the principles of the OT knew that God desired attention to the poor. However, what good is that knowledge if we do not allow it to move us to positive action? None. This is a faith that has neither physical benefit for others nor the benefit of personal salvation.
It is interesting to remember that Paul’s use of works is different from that of James. Paul mainly speaks of “works” in a negative way to describe actions done apart from a genuine faith. This type of work is rooted in human boasting and is a human attempt to gain favor with God based upon merit (See Romans 9:32). Conversely, James references a work that naturally develops from genuine faith (2:21-26). “When Paul speaks of faith, he speaks of it as including the works of faith. When James speaks of faith in this instance, he speaks of false faith that does not result in the works of faith. When any apostle speaks of works resulting from faith as saving anyone, inherent in those works is included the faith that is the only way whereby those works can be produced.”
Argument from Reason - James 2:18-20
Before we approach the text further consider vss. 18-20 rendered by the NET:
But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith without works and I will show faith by my works. (19) You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that and tremble with fear. (20) But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless?
The meaning of the objector here can vary according to commentarians. However, what is most crucial is that, regardless of the argument from the hypothetical objector, no one can demonstrate their faith apart from works. To compound the absurdity of the antithesis to this position James says that the demons believe in one God, and even tremble. The one who simply says he believes is worse off than the demons because they do more than believe this fact, they shutter at it.
The claim of the objector has been seen as empty. Thus James rhetorically asks if more evidence is needed. The NIV uses “empty” and the NKJV “foolish” in describing the person who simply says they have faith, but is never demonstrated. The Greek word here, kene, means hollow or empty. If the empty person still desires evidence that works validate faith, then familiar figures of OT history will be presented, e.g. Abraham and Rahab.
Argument from Torah - James 2:21-25
The use of Abraham here is brilliant. The Genesis account of Abraham says, “Abraham believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6, NKJV). At this particular time Abraham did nothing but believe and continue his life of obedience. God made Abraham a promise and Abraham sincerely believe the promise and because the faith was genuine, it was accounted to Abraham for righteousness, even though it was impossible, for the moment, to demonstrate the genuineness of his faith in a tangible way. God in his omniscience and power knows full well those who have genuine faith or no. We are justified by faith even though the person has not yet lived out their faith over time.
The dichotomy of the works of some and those of Abraham is that Abraham did not offer his son in an attempt to earn favor with God. Therefore it was not a work done for human merit, but done in loving obedience to the Almighty.
In Genesis 15:6 the Hebrew verb translated as “believed” (Genesis 15:6) simply means that Abraham trusted God. This believing on God was continual and it was imitative of God. This principle is “most famously expressed in Leviticus 19:2, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (for NT formulations of this principle, see, e.g., Matt 5:43-48; 1 Cor 11:1). It is no surprise, therefore, that if Yahweh is faithful, it is expected of Israel that they should be faithful too. Abraham then was committed to God; his live would be a life of living by faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
The faith of Abraham was not merely mental assent, as demonstrated later in Abraham’s life (c.f. Genesis 22:1-14; James 2:21-23). Genuine faith, necessarily, is transformative. Those who believe will make their faith evident. This does not mean, however, that the only faith that is valid is faith demonstrated. The fact that genuine faith will be demonstrated does not make it invalid simply because it was not demonstrated. Abraham was to trust and believe that God do as He promised.
The genuineness of Abraham’s faith was later demonstrated in a tangible sense when he offered Isaac, (c.f. Genesis 22:1-14; James 2:21-23) but it later serves to prove that Abraham was justified apart from and prior to works. Although faith results in obedience to God’s commands, justification occurs at the point of faith.
The use of Rahab is brilliant as well. Rahab put her faith in action. Not only did she profess to be on the Lord’s side, she demonstrated it by lending the Israelites spies lodging and sending them in a different direction. It is also interesting to note the difference between Abraham’s situation and that of Rahab.
Apparently Abraham obeyed a direct command from God. Rahab, on the other hand, did what was seen as the right thing to do. She heard no explicit commands from God, as did Abraham, but she acted upon her faith in a practical way. A way, that in principle, many of us can use every day.
From divine perspective, faith seen with action is foreknown by God. From human perspective faith and action are anticipated almost simultaneously since the former is not seen by the human eye—only its works.
Conclusion: A Body Without a Spirit - James 2:26
No analogy is perfect, especially when we look for the weakness. It is wise, then, to be cautious with this example since it can be read so that works are THE animating cause of salvation. This is not so. Faith must come before any work. It is the job of faith to produce good works; it is not the job of works to produce faith. The point is simple, the result of removing works from faith is like removing the spirit from the body; it is dead.
Neither soul nor body is desirable alone; a body without its life-force is simply a rotting corpse. Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith.
Application:
James reminds all of us about the pressing and continuing concern for the thoughtful treatment of the poor (2:15-17). James also spurns the one who would say they have faith but never demonstrate said faith. He also reminds us of two very important figures in OT history—Abraham and Rahab. The use of these two figures demonstrates for us that that genuine faith results in tangible demonstrations of compassion for others. True religion lives. It is not dead and stale. The Letter of James relevantly demonstrates to us that that doctrinal purity alone is merely dead orthodoxy (verses 19-20).
Many have and still do point to such events as the Inquisition, or other blights upon Christendom historically, and measure our faith accordingly. A fresh observing, interpreting, and applying of this text can only serve to revive the doctrine of good works. Jesus said that we should let our “light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16 NIV)
James encourages us to leave a “pretended faith that does not work.” Since “the hypocrite merely “says” that he has faith (James 2:14). A searching, groping world is looking for relevance and answers it seems only right to demonstrate a Christ and a church, full of believers, who are energized and activated by love and through faith.
“Unproductive faith cannot save, because it is not genuine faith. Faith and works are like a two-coupon ticket to heaven. The coupon of works is not good for passage, and the coupon of faith is not valid if detached from works.” (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 421 2:24)
NOTES:
1. Zodhiates, S., & Baker, W. (2000, c1991, c1994). The complete word study Bible : King James Version. This electronic resource is a compilation of the The Complete Word Study Old Testament, edited by Warren Baker, and The Complete Word Study New Testament, edited by Spiros Zodhiates.; Words in the text numerically coded to Strong's Greek and Hebrew dictionary, introduction to each book, exegetical notes, grammatical codes on the text, lexical aids. (electronic ed.). Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.
2. The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, (HALOT) CD-ROM Edition © 1994-2000 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. All rights reserved
3. Willem A. VanGemeren, General Editor. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. © 1997-2001 Zondervan Publishing House
4. Davids, P. H. (1982). The Epistle of James : A commentary on the Greek text. Includes indexes. (134). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
5. Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology. "First one-volume edition (3 vols. in 1)"--Jacket. (3rd ed.) (788). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.
10.02.2009
Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part Three
In any journey for meaning in the Scripture, we must apply meaning from the ancient times and theological principles of scripture to the modern times of now. This is no easy task. A river made of ancient culture, language, situation, and time separates us from the text and also hinders our grasping of the actual meaning of the text. As we do this we must seek to understand the plain meaning of James’ letter. He has definite principles and ideals in mind, we should look for them.
As an attempt to cross this river, we develop a principilizing bridge to gain accurate meaning in the texts. Each text is different yet it is our pursuit to find the original meaning as well as the universal theological principles that are still relevant for us, today. As we read our pericope a few questions should emerge. Anytime we, as modern readers, look into the Word of God for guidance we should attempt to read it correctly. Let us look at a few questions from each verse.
(14) Here James begins by asking questions with an assumed answer of no (rhetorical inquiry). This use of rhetorical questions and answers, as mentioned earlier is quite frequent. James also begins with the use of emotion by invoking the phrase "my brothers". Is it possible then that he wants to ensure kinship with them as he broaches a controversial topic? Does the particular "faith" mentioned in this passage relate to one's salvation (Romans 5:1; 6:1)? Does pistis here carry the same import as in Romans 5:1? In the English translations we see that James mentions the word "faith" at least 11 times in this pericope (James 2:14-26). Thus, faith of some sort is primary.
(15) Becoming more specific, James creates a “for example” situation. He makes a practical case by using the example of a "brother or sister" that is destitute. Here he moves from the general to the specific by citing a specific example. Does this mean our generosity should only extend to our fellow believers?
(16) This verse begins with a conditional clause. The use of "if" here predicates a response or action by people. The action then is active. The entire verse is rhetorical and explanatory.
(17) This verse begins with a conjunction, "In the same way." Vs. 16 is enjoined by 17 in that either situation (a brother or sister without food or one with faith) should experience some action on account of saving faith. The content of either verse, then, is contrasted one to the other. Is faith then qualified by good deeds? Are good deeds essential? What if one professes to have genuine faith but never produces positive faith in action? Is that genuine faith?
(18) This verse puts James' argument in a more practical way. "Someone will say" is James’ intuitiveness in knowing that some will say, "I have faith" and yet others will lean upon their deeds alone and say, "I have deeds." James goes on to indicate that the two are actually mutually inclusive. James is actually being sarcastic because it may be impossible to prove the presence of faith apart from deeds because the antithesis to the aforementioned is that "I will show you my faith by what I do." Does our good works spring from our faith?
(19) Again James uses a conversational device by dialoguing with an imaginary person. James possibly answers certain questions by asserting that even the devil believes in the existence of one God. James’s point seems to be that even the devils believe in one God, yet they obviously do not act according to that God, but do tremble—something more than those who simply profess faith. Most Americans profess a faith in God, or a higher power. Likewise, it is probably that many people in the time of James’ letter were vocal in their monotheism but were absent in manifesting the faith. Could it be that James is indicating that faith should naturally be appropriated in some action?
(20) Even more emotion and accusatory is introduced. James rhetorically asks the imaginary person if he wants "evidence that faith without deeds is useless". Interestingly enough, those who still seek this evidence may find themselves amid the prior company--the demons.
(21) Here James begins with more specifics in moving to further prove that, historically, faith accompanies positive obedience. James sees mere profession of faith inadequate if it is not manifested in fruits. Did the righteous deeds of Abraham justify or was it his faith? Is faith contingent upon obedient acts?
(22) James brings greater clarity by telling us that the faith and actions of Abraham worked together and thereby making his faith "complete". Does this mean then that faith can rest in some sense in an incomplete stage?
(23) Here James introduces further data about the Abraham, the OT patriarch of faith. James seems to reach a pinnacle here in declaring that it was actually because "Abraham believed God" that he was justified and became in friendship with God. Does this undo what James has written prior? Or, does this statement lend to qualify the prior?
(24) This verse is a crux interpretum for many in NT theology. Does this statement actually contradict other Pauline discourses? How do we reconcile this seemingly contradictory statement? The imaginary opponent is dropped here and the recipients of James' epistles are invoked by "you see".
(25) Again a conjunction is used to bring continuity or relationship of thought. The conjunction, though, leads us back to rhetoric in the example of Rahab and her positive acts to save her life. Would someone really act if faith was not already active or present? Is works then, given the example of Rahab and Abraham, something that is done BECAUSE of faith or to PROVE faith? James uses many emotional clauses. Is it possible then that James is actually taking aim at a cultural attitude?
(26) The verse is very plain, short and begins by comparison to a body without a spirit. Is it possible then, given the analogy of a body dead without a spirit, that James is addressing a stale orthodoxy that could no longer save? Is the address of James towards a local area or people group that was possibly backsliding?
Rhetorical Inquiry with Case in Point- James 2:14-16
The use of rhetoric enables James to be direct in his approach without offense. He further uses this approach, possibly, by using the phrase “my brothers”. In such a time as James’ this subject would be controversial. If faith, that one supposes to have, does not provide the benefit of salvation then that faith is defective. It profits us nothing to simply say we have faith.
The word for "faith" here is exactly the one used in Romans 5:1 and Ephesians 2:8. It is quite difficult to imagine the faith described in James as something not relating to personal salvation. Faith is the subject of most of the Letter of James, but notice here that he is referencing a person that says, or proclaims to have faith but has not works. Faith is fine, but to declare it without demonstration is incongruent with the thinking of James. James is not speaking of the man who has true faith, rather he aims at those who say that have such a faith.
Herein lays the rub. James takes aim at those who say he believes but whose life does not bear out that profession. OT Jews knew well the command by God to supply the needs of the poor (See Deut 15:7-8). A brother or sister should certainly be given help, but the poor in general were too as well. They knew that to do so was disobedience before God. In verse 16 James uses a Jewish farewell blessing, “Go, I wish you well” (NIV), but may should reflect something like “go in peace.” The mention of being warmed was probably an allusion to the cold that easily developed because of the high elevation of Jerusalem, especially in winter. It is said that “Jewish people held Abraham to be the ultimate example of such hospitality.”
NOTES:
1. Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (Jas 2:14). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
9.27.2009
Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part Two
Just before our pericope, in vss. 1-13, we see James proclaiming a warning against favoritism. Those receiving this letter may have played favorites with the middle-upper class, or the rich, while they ignored those possibly like themselves—poor. In the Letter of James, we shall see a call for consistency between the words and deeds of believers. We shall also see that faith in quantity is not the discussion, but it is faith that lives and makes alive.
James vs. Paul?
Furthermore, our pericope is also one of the most controversial in Christendom. Its content manifests the classic theological struggle of whether or not James and Paul contradict or complement each other. As we shall see my view is the latter. Apart from the syntax or theological interpretation, Paul is known for having the fortitude to confront theological error directly and publicly (Galatians 2:11). Because of this, and considering the seriousness of this issue, I feel it plausible that he would have done this with James, if such existed, through rather direct reference. Paul tells us that he met James while in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:9) and that James was, ironically, one of those who extended to him the “right hand of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9).
It seems plausible that some communication of such a matter between Paul and James would have been well known and well written, especially considering the status of James in the Jerusalemic church and early Christianity generally. In this paper I have been careful, as should we all, to mitigate Lutheran presuppositions in my interpretive paradigm. Luther has made considerable influences in popular theology. It is also commonly known that Luther’s view of the Letter of James is highly unfavorable. Some suggest that “Luther rejected James because he knew that it contradicted his theory; and it is amazing that any should hold that this is not the case.” This letter has been divinely placed and preserved in our present canon, I feel we should honor it as inspired and seek to understand its meaning further in harmony with the Pauline writings, rather than begin with the paradigm that it is possibly contradictory.
I feel it is quite certain that Paul understood faith to have expressions beyond positive mental assent; to Him faith worked. It was active. This activity is rooted in love and thereby has its sustaining power in love (See Galatians 5:6). Paul and James, no doubt, have some of their intensity from the very teachings of Christ, who said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (See John 14:15). The theological rationale of James and Paul, diverge at times, but are comfortably similar. As James does, Paul understands that there is life working in us, something compelling us to some activity (c.f. 2 Corinthians 4:12, Ephesians 3:20).
Written In The Holy Land:
The Letter of James does not let us know of any specifics to his location while writing, but given James’s prominence in the Jerusalem church it is quite plausible that it was written somewhere in the Holy Land around the early or mid 40's. During these times, the Holy Land area was under Roman control. Around 40 B.C., Augustus appointed Herod the Great as king and Jerusalem, of course, was to be his home and place of reign. The history of Roman governors or many Roman leaders generally, is characterized with ruling by power and intimidation, but would yield some flexibility to the religious leaders.
Such accommodations, though, actually resulted in Herod constructing an outstanding temple. Such accommodations also aided the notions of Pilate when he bowed to public pressure (Matt 27:15-26), concerning the crucifixion of Christ. Let it be known however, that the bulk of Jews disdained Roman rule and longed for freedom. The role of the Zealots, civil uprisings and insurrections were common. This type of atmosphere basically continued until a later Emperor—Titus—destroyed the city and the temple in A.D. 70.
Defections From The Faith:
In times of blessing and prosperity defections of the faith exist. Consider, Jerusalem or the Holy Land as being the location of this letter and the times of James and you will begin to see that compromise and defections from the faith were a high probability. Under Roman domination the city and area would be in literal religious turmoil, not only by the profaning presence of pagans with the sacred, but the certain conflict caused by Christianity between Sadducees, Pharisees, and of course a high priest. In such climates, Christians were the minority. Because of the conditions in and around the Holy Land, it is likely that many early Jewish-Messianic believers were tempted to compromise their values and beliefs in order to escape persecution or to improve the economy of their life situation.
The Letter of James is an attempt to make certain theological truths, some elaborately composed by the Apostle Paul later on, to come alive in practical understanding. James, the brother and later follower of Christ, writes earlier (before A.D. 49) than any of the Pauline discourses (1 Thessalonians being earliest; written A.D. 49-54). Carson-Moo-Morris suggest that “if, then, we allow some time for Paul’s teaching of justification by faith to develop and become known, the most likely date for the letter of James is sometime in the early or middle 40’s. "
Letter of James Written Prior to Jerusalem Council and Style:
In fact, this letter, was written before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 or A.D. 48-50. It would cause one to wonder why Paul would not address any preconceived inconsistency with his understanding of The Faith with that of James. A sincere and inductive focus upon the reciprocity of the two should be sought.
For some time the Letter of James has been recognized as an example of religious paraenesis; ethical instruction rooted in religious values and beliefs. The purpose of this type of writing is to influence, direct, and further ground the actions of the readers with a particular understanding. “The letter of James resembles a letter only in its opening greeting. It has none of the other formal features that are usual in ancient letters, no personal information about the readers addressed, and no farewell message.”
It also sets an imperative tone since there are about sixty imperative verbs in a total of 108 verses. Carson-Moo-Morris suggests that this frequency is actually greater than any other New Testament book. Craig Keener suggests that “James reads more like an essay than a letter, but one kind of ancient letter in which moralists and skilled *rhetoricians engaged was a "letter-essay," a general letter intended more to make an argument than to communicate greetings. Writers like Seneca and Pliny used literary epistles of this sort, which were published and meant to be appreciated by a large body of readers."
Still other styles are suggested such as the Letter of James being an example of New Testament wisdom literature. In this style, James would be a wise teacher instructing his readers in ways of wise living. "His short, rather disconnected maxims resemble the ancient proverbs of Solomon. This feature has led some scholars to suggest that James wrote in the manner in which he taught. They suggest that this epistle is written catechetical (instructional) material.”
As we read The Letter of James a clear distinction between good and evil wisdom is seen (3:13–18). “A person whose life reflects jealousy and selfish ambition has not the true wisdom of God, but is earthly minded and unspiritual. But true, God-given wisdom is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity” (Jas 3:17).
One possible problem for James being a well-polished apologetic or instructional essay seems to be that James changes topics frequently, and randomly (e.g. 2:1-13, 14-26; 3:1-12). The Letter of James exhibits traditional wisdom, and has many of its sensibilities in Jewish thought rather than Greco-Roman. However, passage after passage lists crucial subtexts that are biblical references, not Greco-Roman—a perspective recently defended in L. T. Johnson’s commentary on James (See L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1995).
Dr. James B. Coffman has illustrated the Christocentric nature of The Letter of James. Coffman suggests that “there is no similar portion of the Sacred Scriptures so surcharged with the mind of Christ as is the Epistle of James. This is true to such an extent that the entire epistle exhibits all of the qualities of an inspired commentary upon the red-letter portion of the New Testament, especially upon the Sermon on the Mount.” Coffman also points out more than a few applications of the principles Christ laid down while on His earthly ministry. Christ said, "Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20); James wrote: "Did not God choose them that are poor in this world, rich in faith, to be heirs of the kingdom?" (James 2:5). Christ said, "Every one that asketh receiveth" (Matt 7:8); James wrote, "If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God ... and it shall be given him" (James 1:5).
It may be wise to consider these similarities as part of James’s theology but we should be careful that we do not make it primary. Ben Witherington suggests that the Letter of James exhibits a more conventional, less prophetic theological conception than found on the lips of the Synoptic Jesus. As we read the Letter of James we can also see many stylistic features in his text. The use of rhetorical questions is quite abundant (2:4, 5, 14, 21; 3:13; 4:1, 5), an imaginary debating partner (2:18-19; 4:13; 5:1), and abrupt changes (4:4). James also employs many metaphors, and figures of speech, e.g. tossing sea 1:6, the bridle (1:26), the brushfire (3:5), and so on.
I favor the advice of Carson-Moo-Morris here, which requests that the Letter of James not be too specific in genre. Yet, it can be seen as a series of homilies put into a letter to address issues with other Christians from afar.
Still other styles are suggested such as the Letter of James being an example of New Testament wisdom literature. In this style, James would be a wise teacher instructing his readers in ways of wise living. "His short, rather disconnected maxims resemble the ancient proverbs of Solomon. This feature has led some scholars to suggest that James wrote in the manner in which he taught. They suggest that this epistle is written catechetical (instructional) material.”
As we read The Letter of James a clear distinction between good and evil wisdom is seen (3:13–18). “A person whose life reflects jealousy and selfish ambition has not the true wisdom of God, but is earthly minded and unspiritual. But true, God-given wisdom is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity” (Jas 3:17).
One possible problem for James being a well-polished apologetic or instructional essay seems to be that James changes topics frequently, and randomly (e.g. 2:1-13, 14-26; 3:1-12). The Letter of James exhibits traditional wisdom, and has many of its sensibilities in Jewish thought rather than Greco-Roman. However, passage after passage lists crucial subtexts that are biblical references, not Greco-Roman—a perspective recently defended in L. T. Johnson’s commentary on James (See L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1995).
Dr. James B. Coffman has illustrated the Christocentric nature of The Letter of James. Coffman suggests that “there is no similar portion of the Sacred Scriptures so surcharged with the mind of Christ as is the Epistle of James. This is true to such an extent that the entire epistle exhibits all of the qualities of an inspired commentary upon the red-letter portion of the New Testament, especially upon the Sermon on the Mount.” Coffman also points out more than a few applications of the principles Christ laid down while on His earthly ministry. Christ said, "Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20); James wrote: "Did not God choose them that are poor in this world, rich in faith, to be heirs of the kingdom?" (James 2:5). Christ said, "Every one that asketh receiveth" (Matt 7:8); James wrote, "If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God ... and it shall be given him" (James 1:5).
It may be wise to consider these similarities as part of James’s theology but we should be careful that we do not make it primary. Ben Witherington suggests that the Letter of James exhibits a more conventional, less prophetic theological conception than found on the lips of the Synoptic Jesus. As we read the Letter of James we can also see many stylistic features in his text. The use of rhetorical questions is quite abundant (2:4, 5, 14, 21; 3:13; 4:1, 5), an imaginary debating partner (2:18-19; 4:13; 5:1), and abrupt changes (4:4). James also employs many metaphors, and figures of speech, e.g. tossing sea 1:6, the bridle (1:26), the brushfire (3:5), and so on.
I favor the advice of Carson-Moo-Morris here, which requests that the Letter of James not be too specific in genre. Yet, it can be seen as a series of homilies put into a letter to address issues with other Christians from afar.
NOTES:
1. As it is well known, our pericope and the book of James as a whole, practically was rejected by Reformation father Martin Luther.
2. Coffman, Burton James, Coffman's Bible Commentary, Copyright © 1971-1993 by ACU Press, Abilene Christian University. All rights reserved.
3. Mare, W. H. New Testament Background Commentary. © 2004 by W.H. Mare. All rights reserved.
4. Carson, D.A. Moo, J. Douglas, et al. An Introduction to the New Testament Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Zondervan Publishers
5. Loh, I., & Hatton, H. (1997). A handbook on the Letter from James. UBS handbook series (1). New York: United Bible Societies.
6. Keener, Craig S. (1993) IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament Published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved
7. Packer, J., Tenney, M. C., & White, W. (1997, c1995). Nelson's illustrated manners and customs of the Bible (360). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
8. Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible. Map on lining papers. (2152). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
9. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments Copyright © 1997 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA®. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.
10. Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage, The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Pgs.236-247 © 1994 by Ben Witherington. Augsburg Fortress Press.
9.24.2009
Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part One
James 2:14-26
Much of our culture has lost its way in thought due to the negative influences of Post-modernism. It has caused some to question the very fundamentals of their faith. Some begin with an open mind but end with it slammed wide open as it is filled with even the most improbable of notions, at the hands of moral relativism. Our culture, no doubt, but the church is also being infected by this reasoning.
The Letter of James was written to impart practical absolute truths to the Christian faith and it is for believers who face the very situations that our culture presents. It can also inform our world that Christianity is about doing and not just talking. James is about truths enforced with divine wisdom for a people at a crossroads in religious thought and Post-Modernism has helped us reach this crossroads—for good or bad. Understanding the whole of this letter will better help us grasp the theological principles of our text under discussion.
This letter is the very wisdom of Christ made plain and practical. As our culture gropes for modernism and relativity we must reach their grasping hands with transforming truth. It is difficult, if not impossible, to make Jesus Christ of the 1st Century relevant to modern peoples of the 20th Century. Jesus is the Incarnation of the person of God, but He also existed as an actual historical man in an actual time and place. We are to demonstrate (as The Body) Jesus to the world so that they can see His eternal relevancy; the need for a Savior; faith in our Lord, be filled with His Holy Spirit that has come with enablement, and identify with our Lord in the waters of baptism. Evangelism must never supersede the need to disciple (See Matthew 28:19, literally “go” or “move” with imp. to “teach”)
Just before a sharp increase in public doubting, brought about by myths—partially revived by Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code or Simcha Jacobovici-Charles Pellegrino’s The Jesus Family Tomb theory—Dr. Josph Stowell wrote a book entitled The Trouble with Jesus (A Christianity Today’s Gold Medallion Book Award Winner 2003). Chicago Annually holds a Leadership Prayer Breakfast, the first Friday after the week of Thanksgiving. In this book Stowell tells us that attending the Breakfast was the religious thing to do. He admits that he has attended the Breakfast for 15 years (at the time of the book) and that up until a couple years ago the name of Jesus was freely used in prayers and sermons.
Stowell also goes on to say that at the 2003 Prayer Breakfast “new” change was introduced. The name of Jesus was never mentioned in any prayer or sermon. Instead, says Stowell, the emcee opened the service by expressing to the audience that diversity of religion in America now demands a new representation regarding the expression of our faith. The emcee continued to call for a “new wind” of cooperation and tolerance. Such interfaith language only set the tone for the rest of the Breakfast. Before the Breakfast ended a representative of Islam chanted, a Rabbi prayed, a Catholic priest took his turn and then a Protestant minister prayed, both without ever mentioning the name of Jesus. At the end the entire group held hands and prayed together.
Modern culture is replete with this philosophy in almost all areas of human thought, e.g. religion, politics, sociology. The need to herald to a lost and confused world the name of Jesus and its saving, healing, and delivering power should be foremost (c.f. Acts 4:12, Colossians 3:17). The Letter of James as a whole, and certainly the discussion in James 2:14-26 clearly compels believers to make their faith practical, to demonstrate authentic faith.
This faith, demonstrated and visualized, can help to bring certitude and faith to the skeptics and the Gnostics of our time. Intellectual demonstration is limited, but a Christian lifestyle with mercy, love, and justice at work can also aid in informing any person’s doubts. The Inquisition has served to springboard doubt and unbelief because it is the antithesis of Christian works. Guided by the wisdom of Christ, through the pen of his brother James, we can allow our “light” to “so shine before men” so that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven (See Matthew 5:16). We can impact our culture positively with authentic Christianity.
The purpose of this discussion, on James 2:14-26, will be to get to its meaning by first looking at its historical and literary contexts. Secondly we will ask some questions of the text to help us in the interpretative process. Thirdly, we will seek to answer those questions by doing some word studies and syntactical analysis. Finally, we will seek to apply the passage to contemporary audiences.
NOTES:
1. Zodhiates, Spiros. Faith, Love & Hope: An Exposition of the Epistle of James, (1:1) Copyright © 1997, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates
2. Stowell, Joseph M. The Trouble with Jesus © 2003 by Joseph Stowell
9.15.2009
John 1:1
I truly believe that we are going to see a day where the Oneness view will either predominate or at least be seen as a legitimate alternative to the Trinitarian hypothesis. Exegetically Trinitarianism is a needless interpreting of the text.
Eg. The Trinitarian argument is always fraught with a presupposition. In regards to pros, and contrary to many Trinitarian apologists, pros does not demand the notion of "in a face-to-face relationship with." Only the context can determine if this sort of thing is meant. So in order to demonstrate that pros in John 1:1 is being used in this way, one would first have to successfully argue that the logos is a distinct person from God, who is able to be in a face-to-face relationship.
This cannot happen. They try to use pros as proof that the logos is a distinct person from God. It becomes circular. If the logos is not a reference to another person then pros would only hold its normal meaning of "with."
John's parallel account in I John 1:1-2 demonstrates that John did not have the idea that the logos was a distinct person from God in mind. It is said that the logos of "life" was with (pros) the Father. God's life was with him, but clearly not in a relationship with Him. If God's life can be with Him but not be a distinct person from Him, then neither do we have reason to believe that John's use of pros in John 1:1 indicates that the logos is a distinct person from God, and thus no reason to think pros in John 1:1 means "in a face-to-face relationship with."
Many Jews and Muslims reject Christianity, not merely due to their depravity, but also because of the "Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. It is not Christian, it is Romish and to MANY (esp. if you enjoy history) that means ALOT. Protestants haven't PROTESTED ENOUGH.
.
8.27.2009
"It is not for you to know the times or the dates..." (Acts 1:7)
Acts 1:7 NIV
He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
Kenneth O. Gangel has noted that the answer Christ is giving here has not been “heeded very well for almost two thousand years:”1 Despite the warning of Christ some have persisted in trying, at a feverish rate, to discern the Second Coming of Christ to set up a millennial kingdom. Besides this, and realizing there is a kingdom of Heaven, then it is hard to imagine a notion of “kingdom” pertaining to a particular location or within a fixed boundary.
In 1st Century times, no doubt, “kingdom” referred to something akin to a Roman imperial system. One where its boundaries fixed, for the time, and protected to establish peace, e.g. Pax Romana. Christ’s very threat to this notion was what ultimately caused Roman intervention and eventual crucifixion of the Messiah.
The Disciple have more reason to be concerned since the Old Testament Scriptures associates the coming of the Spirit with the coming of a kingdom (See Isaiah 32;15-20; Ezekiel 39:28-29; Joel 2:28:31). This belief system is what prompted them, along with their desire to be a part of the kingdom themselves.
Christ’s reply to the disciples was different than the reply to the mother of Zebedee’s sons. In vss. 7-9 we find His reply:
Acts 1:7-9 NIV, “He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. (8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (9) After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
Jesus instructs them that they do not need to know the specifics times or dates because the Father has set them in His sovereignty. The Holy Spirit, or helper, will come upon them and they will be witnesses “to the ends of the earth”. The kingdom of God then is not a geographical location, as much as Eden is a place pinpointed in Iraqi topography. The Kingdom is the authoritative power and empowering by Immanuel—God with us.
6.27.2007
John 14:31: Understanding the Enigma
The Farewell Discourse (FD heron) is popularly known as being 13:31 – 14:31 of John’s Gospel. D.A. Carson concludes[1] that the discussion concerning the FD encompasses a portion of scripture that has been both a “favorite passage for Christians” for “study and meditation” as well as “considerable debate.” As F.F. Bruce points out,[2] the debate has arisen from certain textual arrangements made by earlier translators of the texts, one being James Moffatt. His unique arrangements are found in his translation of the NT and possibly his commentaries on the Gospel of John. Moffatt held that chapters 15 and 16 were to be placed in the middle of 13:31.
The major challenge in textual structure relates then to the closing remarks of Christ in 14:31, “Arise, let us go from here” (NKJV). These words have proven to be enigmatic for many (hereon this phrase will be referenced as the “Enigma”). Determining the textual relevance or relationship of the data before and after that break is what remains pertinent to the minds of students. “The common response throughout the church’s history has been that the first two chapters, John 13-14, are set in the upper room, while chapters 15-17 continue the dialogue along the road to the Mount of Olives, culminating in the prayer of John 17.”[3]
Many interpret the Enigma in a way that it only has spiritual meaning; possibly akin to “arise, let us march to meet the prince of this world” (See Carson here). I do not hold this view and therefore do not see the Enigma phrase as being a pure theological statement. It is plausible “to regard the remainder of the discourse as taking place in the open air, although in 18:1 Jesus is said to have ‘left’ with his disciples, and it would be necessary to suppose that chs. 15–17 were uttered on the way to the Kidron Valley… Some have supposed that ch. 14 should follow ch. 17, but there is no evidence for such rearrangement. The only other alternative is to suppose that 14:31 implied an intention which was fulfilled some time later. On the whole the first suggestion is fraught with the least difficulties.”[4]
After uttering the Enigma it is also plausible that Jesus simply stood up (the disciples may or may not have stood with him) to finish the discourse before finally departing (in John 18:1), but the disciples lingered and conversation continued. Leon Morris “suggests it is possible that the group probably was slow in making its departure and so Jesus continued to teach them in the room. But he prefers the proposal of Lightfoot that it is a “stage in the teaching.”192I believe it plausible but unlikely that Christ was uttering a spiritual command to get up and prepare “to meet the enemy who is on the way already in the person of Judas and the soldiers with him.”[5]
Borchert states that the “view of speaking en route offers a difficulty that a walking band is hardly a conducive setting for communicating major segments of teaching.” He goes on to advocate that, “total rearrangement theories make the contemporary restructuring person wiser than the original writer and means that the present order is a purposeless collection of writings. However one seeks to solve the problem, I refuse to accept any theory that proposes that the logic of this tightly knit argument is to be disturbed by rearrangement.”[6]
My conclusion seems to be shared, at least in part, gree with that of Carson when he states, “it is possible that Jesus and his disciples did not in fact leave until after John 17. Anyone who has frequently invited home ten to twenty graduate students knows how common it is, after someone has announced it is time to go, for another half hour to slip past before anyone makes a serious move to leave.”
Good reason for this delay could stem from Christ’s earlier statements. Consider:
“before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.” (John 13:1 NKJV)
NOTES:
[1] Carson, D.A. Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John. © 1991 Eerdman Publishing pg. 476
[2] F. F. Bruce, The Gospel and Epistles of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983, reprint 2004) pg. 292
[3] Carson, D.A. Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John. © 1991 Eerdman Publishing pg. 477
[4]Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (Jn 14:1). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.
[5] THE NET BIBLE®, New English Translation Bible Notes, John 14:31
[6]Borchert, G. L. (2002). Vol. 25B: John 12-21. The new American commentary, New International Version (136). Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
6.12.2007
The Miraculous Messiah of the Fourth Gospel:
As John begins his prologue he reminds us of the most important Christological miracle—the Incarnation (John 1:1; 14, 1 Timothy 3:16). As John reminds us of the Creation story (John 1:1), the Incarnation of the Logos lays the context in which the rest of Jesus’ miracles will be performed.
Turning Water into Wine: Jesus the Creator
In the Gospel of John, the very first miracle was the turning of water into wine (2:1–10). This miracle was performed at a marriage. It is likely that the marriage took place in the home of some friend or relative of either Jesus or Nathanael. As in many ancient weddings, the most favored of wine was usually held until the end. It is possible that many withheld the best wine for last because many would have stopped drinking or would be very full at that time. In this particular wedding, however, the wine runs out. Mary, the mother of Jesus, asks that He do something about the apparent need of more wine. With only a few words and the heeding of the servants, suddenly the situation went from drought to inundation. Jesus had truly turned the water into wine. John claims this time, in 2:11, as the “beginning” (archē) of Jesus’ signs.
Creative miracles express a very special part of deity. The eternal God of the scripture is also the creator of all things. Jesus demonstrates that He has these very same creative powers. It should be mentioned as well, that this miracle occurs just after the Gospels record Christ being tempted by Christ. That which satan solicited with power Jesus gave to those who had genuine needs.
Healing of the Nobleman’s Son: Jesus the Healer
The second miracle performed by Christ is the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46–54). Two chapters and one year after the first miracle Christ finds Himself, once again, at the very same place—Cana of Galilee. Here a nobleman, possibly an official for Herod, has heard of the miracles of Christ. He simply sees Christ and implores Him to heal his son. Contrary to probably the majority of His miracles, Jesus did not need to physically see or touch the boy to heal him. It was by the faith of this nobleman that his son was raised to life, with Christ never touching him and being about 20 miles away. In this instance we see that our Creator is even our healer.
Healing of the lame man at Bethesda: Jesus is God
Not only does this miracle include the lame being made to walk again, it involves a miracle performed on the Sabbath—even further statement of deity. There was a feast going on simultaneously as well, this caused even more crowds and attention. To heal on the Sabbath involved insanity or a statement of a higher authority. This miracles is positioned to gain the attention of the Jewish leaders by violating their ideas of the Sabbath. Essentially, this miracle gave Christ’s claims to deity broad publicity in the nation's capital. It also positioned Him to testify of His deity in the Sanhedrin. This publicity, however, brought about the decision to kill him (v. 18).
Ironically, the man by the pool did not even know who He was. This stands in contrast to the nobleman prior, who had previously heard of Christ’s powerful acts. The pool of Bethesda would have been busy and crowded. The pool was also used to wash animals for use in sacrifice as well. According to the text, an angel would visit and people would be healed. A custom developed that only one could be healed with each visit of the angel. Jesus interacts with the man and simply tells him to stand and walk. By healing this man Jesus demonstrates that He possessed powers that transcend all human intervention—He was God in the flesh.
Feeding of 5,000 men: Jesus the Bread of Life
This massive supper is the only one of Jesus' miracles that is told in all four Gospels (c.f. Matthew 14:13–33; Mark 6:32–52; Luke 9:10–17). Scholars are undecided as to exact location of this particular miracle, but it was probably not far from the northern side of the Sea of Galilee.
A crowd had gathered and no doubt many were present due to the nearness of the Passover. Once the crowd had spent time with Christ they grew hungry. Financing the meal was out of the question, but miraculous provision from a small boy’s lunch pack would suffice. With two fishes and five barley loaves Jesus fed what John records as 5,000 men. As most prudent cultures indicate, all leftovers are to be gathered at the end of mealtime. The disciples began to take up the leftovers and were able to accumulate 12 baskets full!
John records later comments of Jesus that give us insight into the fuller meaning of this miracle:
“For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. (34) Then they said to Him, Lord, give us this bread always. (35) And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” (John 6:33-35 NKJV)
Christ tells us, above, that the “bread of God” is “He” who has come down from heaven. Ironically, Christ reveals to them that He is the bread of life. Coming to Christ ensures one that they do not hunger and he who “believes” on Christ shall not thirst.
Walking on water: Jesus Lord over Nature
After the miracle of feeding 5,000 Jesus ascends into the mountains to be alone. The text indicates Christ sought this solitude because his growing followership might force Him to be king. By a night’s sky the disciples sailed towards Capernaum, obviously Christ would tarry long to pray. Mark 6:48 indicates that the time was around 3 a.m. As they sailed a storm blew that caused rough sailing. About three or four miles out the disciples see Jesus walking towards them, on the water. This miracle plainly reveals that the Creator of all things can and even will exercise His sovereign control over the forces of nature.
Healing of the man born blind: Jesus the Light of the World
Once again Jesus performs a miracle (Chapter 9) on the Sabbath day. In fact, Wescott indicates that the Greek is quite emphatic and literally reads, “It was a sabbath on the day on which,”[2] On this day Christ brings light to the darkened eyes of a blind man. Christ’s violation of the Sabbath though, by restoring the sight of this man, angered the Pharisees. In fact, even the parents were called to testify which later gave testimony that this blind man had been so since birth. After intensely interrogating the ex-blind man they conclude that the blind man was born “completely” in sin; thereby condemning this man, by their power, into spiritual darkness—so they said.
Jesus came to bring light into the world, to illumine the hearts and minds of believers. Just prior to the healing of this blind man Christ had just told those following near that He was the “light of the world” (9:5). Indeed, what better way to prove this by bringing light to eyes that has never seen a mere glimpse of light itself?
Lazarus Raised from the dead: Jesus the Resurrection and life
This is a miracle (John 11) situated in irony. It can be determined that this miracle, involving the raising of the dead, probably occurred about a month before Jesus' own death. In fact, this was the third time Christ raised someone from the dead (Jairus's daughter, Mark 5:21–43; the son of the widow of Nain, Luke 7:11–17; and now Lazarus). Ironically, all of these miracles, especially this one, would climax in His own death and resurrection. Even more, this miracle was the very one which brought about a Sanhedrin decision to kill Jesus (John 11:53 ).
After being dead 4 days Lazarus was raised from the dead by Christ. Ironically, in verses 17-27, Christ had just prophesied of His future resurrection, albeit different from being raised from the dead, it does have great affinity.
Miraculous catch of 153 fish: Jesus the Provider
In John 21, the disciples had returned to Galilee, as Jesus had previously told them to do (Matthew 28:7, 10; Mark 16:7). Jesus went away into a certain mountain, for probably a set time. As is typical of the disciples, they resumed their old business and forgot the affairs of the spiritual. Some scholars attest that this location may have been at, or near, the same spot where two or three years before He had first called them to become fishers of men (Luke 5:1–11).
Besides giving them the call to feed the spiritually hungry, Christ gives them a miraculous catch of fish, as He had also done several years before. This particular miracle is actually the third time Christ has appeared to the disciples since His resurrection. He continues heavenly provision just prior to His ascension by providing for them once again.
Christ is our redeemer, our miracle worker. He is God in flesh.
JNA
NOTES:
[1] Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (nasb) (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 1973.
[1] Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (nasb) (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 1973.
[2] The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and notes on the Authorized version. 1908. Greek text and "Revised version" on opposite pages.; Edited by Arthur Westcott. (B. F. Westcott & A. Westcott, Ed.) (146). London: J. Murray.
5.08.2007
John: Gospel to The World?
It is often said that John is the Gospel to the world (Matthew to the Jew, Mark to the Roman, Luke to the Greek). But in 1924 Israel Abrahams said, "To us Jews, the Fourth Gospel is the most Jewish of the four!" How is that so? If it so, why do so many people tell new converts to begin reading this Gospel?
The opening remarks (1:1) of John’s Gospel are reminiscent of the Creation story in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” In fact, it is very likely that John purposely arranged his Prologue to cause the reader to reflect back upon the Creation account. Immediately, then, we see John’s purpose is to interact with Old Testament theology or Jewish philosophy generally.
John’s “Gospel manifests perhaps the sharpest polemic in the NT against the “Jews”—a polemic matched in force only by passages such as Matthew 23”[1] Repeatedly, the Gospel of John refers to “the Jews” (sixty-four times) as if they were the antagonists of the church (Some suggest that neither Paul nor Luke writes with this same tone[2]). Some sources indicate that there are scholars who accuse the Gospel of John as being anti-Semitic[3]. As one reads the epistles of John (1, 2, and 3 John) one cannot help but notice the resistance and disagreement being experienced by John. 1 John 2:18 describes antichrists who have come into the world; later John identifies them as “liars” (2:2) who are denying genuine Christology. These signs should leave little doubt that much of Johannine theology is concerned with polemics and is situated in a time of theological debate.
Despite these facts we have the comments of Israel Abraham, as seen above. A better question is probably how we should interpret his comments and/or in what context were they spoken. The latter is not possible since the source is not available to me, but the former can certainly be attempted.
Israel Abraham was not a Zionist and therefore tended to have inclinations like those of Reformed Judaism. “His departure from the orthodox philosophy of Judaism was undoubtedly responsible for otherwise inexplicable errors in his exposition of some Jewish ritual practices.”[4] Therefore, from my limited perspective, it may be correct to consider the possibility that Abraham’s statements are not orthopraxis and were not intended as they are often received. Abraham’s comments probably address the generality that John’s Gospel possibly interacts with Jewish philosophy and the Old Testament more than any other Gospel and not any positive inclination toward the particular Christology that John describes.
The Gospel of John is certainly a tool for evangelism, but it serves didactical purposes equally, if not primarily. John’s disposition compels Him to declare, to all, that the person of Yahweh has come in human nature! He has revealed to us His glory in a way that Moses could not see, which Abraham could only dream, and which Jacob could only long.
The profound truths in the Johannine texts are au fait to introduce potential converts to Christianities most important character and work, but they are didactical, as well, for mature believers to understand proper Christology. John’s Gospel then is like a coin; it has two distinct sides, yet both sides share currency and significance. It seems unnecessary to even attempt to situate John’s Gospel entirely in one purpose. It is common in letter writing to cover various topics and have multiple intentions, even if embryonic, in what is being written. This is certainly plausible for the Johannine writings.
Dr. Elmer Towns notes John’s use of two key words, “believe” (98) and “life” (36). He goes on to say that “John wrote with a twofold purose—as noted in John 20:31[5]—to communicate Christ through His miracles and teachings so people might, first, believe that Jesus was indeed who He said He was, the Son of God; and second, have eternal life because of their belief”[6]
In 20:31, “there lies an ambiguity in the phrase “that you may believe,” and it is compounded by uncertainty as to whether the original text read ἵνα πιστεύσητε or ἵνα πιστεύητε; the former could suggest the making of an act of faith, the latter a continuing in faith, the former a missionary purpose, the latter an instructional or parenetic purpose, the former that the Gospel was directed to outsiders, the latter that it was directed to those within the Church. Whether in reality such distinctions can be justly maintained on the basis of the difference between an aorist and a present subjunctive is dubious; nevertheless, the majority of recent scholars incline to the latter view.”[7]
[1] Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Editors:, Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Copyright © 1992 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A, InterVarsity Press
[2] Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Editors: Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids. Copyright © 1997 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA®. InterVarsity Press
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.bookrags.com/biography/israel-abrahams/
[5] “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31 NKJV)
[6] The Gospel of John: Believe and Live by Dr. Elmer Towns. Copyright © 2002 by Tyndale Theological Seminary
[7]Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (lxxxviii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
4.06.2007
A Pauline Response to Government and Christian Participation:
In this post we will examine two questions: How does Paul describe the Christian's relationship to the Government? How do we apply these biblical principles today? We live in a politically tense enviroment and this is very relevant as we consider political policies and posturings.
The Christian relationship to Government is clearly addressed by Paul in Romans 13. In my estimation, it should be the "go to" chapter for believers regarding this subject. This chapter appears to be nuanced with the general principle of temperance. This may be apparent when we realize the particular political realites associated with this era (1st Century) and this culture (Roman, Jewish).
In the Synoptic Gospels it is very apparent that tension both existed and was mounting during the times of Jesus. It is ironic then, with Christ being the revolutionary tha He was, that Christ was promoting servitude and rendering unto "Ceasar" what is indeed his (Matthew 22:21). In retrospect and understanding the idealism of the disciples and others of a physical kingdom we can understand how misunderstood Jesus may have been, until the Resurrection, His subsequent appearances, as well as His Ascension. It is interesting to note, however, in the Gospels that we see Jesus imparting understanding and revelation, moreso, to the disciples during the end of His earthly ministry (e.g. Lord's Supper; Luke 24:27; John 20:22), obviously deepening and correcting their understanding of His purpose.
Paul tells us very early in this chapter that God has "appointed" government (vs. 1). Therefore, if government, is an establishment of God then it is to manifest the character of God in some way, e.g. justice balance with love. Paul, in no way, is advocating our adherence to any government, then, that is indeed contrary to Himself. "To disobey the laws of the land, except where they contravene the express will of God, is to violate the purpose of God himself."(1) In the Gospel's Pilate tells Jesus that he had power to set free or to crucify. Jesus replied that he would have no power at all if it had not been given to him from above (John 19:11). Government is God’s way of maintaining the public good and directing the affairs of state. It is a temperate hand resting on a restless humanity. Legitimate government then, is one instituted by God and consequently an exhibitor of His ways.
The implementation of justice is done so, by government, to punish bad and approve good. It is interesting to note the use of the term "sword" in the text. "Because a sword is an instrument of death, the weapon here symbolizes the right of civil government to inflict punishment, including the ultimate penalty of death for crimes that deserve it. In the earliest period of human existence, the Lord instituted capital punishment. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). When Jesus told Peter, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52), he was reminding His disciple that the penalty for his killing one of Jesus’ enemies would be to perish himself through execution, which the Lord here acknowledges would be justified."(2)
In Romans 13 Paul is encouraging believers to honor and obey just governing authorities as "God's minister to you for good" (vs. 4) It seems, then, that every political response we make should be made based upon discernment of God's will (vs. 2) and should be rooted in the fundamental, and what should be a ruling principle in a believers life--love (vs. 9). The need for this encouragment is confirmed by the historical events surrounding the times of Christ as well as Paul, and the church at Rome themselves.
This note of encouragement is applicable, still, in our times and in our tense political enviroments. Charles Colson said, "Government originated as an ordinance of God. It is, in one sense, God’s response to the nature of the people themselves. While it cannot redeem the world or be used as a tool to establish the kingdom of God, civil government does set the boundaries for human behavior. The state is not a remedy for sin, but a means to restrain it."(3)
NOTES:
1. Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (244). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
2. MacArthur, J. (1996, c1991, c1994). Romans (226). Chicago: Moody Press.
3. Quoted from Draper's Book of Quotations for the Christian World by Draper, Edythe. Copyright © 1992 by Edythe Draper. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
The Christian relationship to Government is clearly addressed by Paul in Romans 13. In my estimation, it should be the "go to" chapter for believers regarding this subject. This chapter appears to be nuanced with the general principle of temperance. This may be apparent when we realize the particular political realites associated with this era (1st Century) and this culture (Roman, Jewish).
In the Synoptic Gospels it is very apparent that tension both existed and was mounting during the times of Jesus. It is ironic then, with Christ being the revolutionary tha He was, that Christ was promoting servitude and rendering unto "Ceasar" what is indeed his (Matthew 22:21). In retrospect and understanding the idealism of the disciples and others of a physical kingdom we can understand how misunderstood Jesus may have been, until the Resurrection, His subsequent appearances, as well as His Ascension. It is interesting to note, however, in the Gospels that we see Jesus imparting understanding and revelation, moreso, to the disciples during the end of His earthly ministry (e.g. Lord's Supper; Luke 24:27; John 20:22), obviously deepening and correcting their understanding of His purpose.
Paul tells us very early in this chapter that God has "appointed" government (vs. 1). Therefore, if government, is an establishment of God then it is to manifest the character of God in some way, e.g. justice balance with love. Paul, in no way, is advocating our adherence to any government, then, that is indeed contrary to Himself. "To disobey the laws of the land, except where they contravene the express will of God, is to violate the purpose of God himself."(1) In the Gospel's Pilate tells Jesus that he had power to set free or to crucify. Jesus replied that he would have no power at all if it had not been given to him from above (John 19:11). Government is God’s way of maintaining the public good and directing the affairs of state. It is a temperate hand resting on a restless humanity. Legitimate government then, is one instituted by God and consequently an exhibitor of His ways.
The implementation of justice is done so, by government, to punish bad and approve good. It is interesting to note the use of the term "sword" in the text. "Because a sword is an instrument of death, the weapon here symbolizes the right of civil government to inflict punishment, including the ultimate penalty of death for crimes that deserve it. In the earliest period of human existence, the Lord instituted capital punishment. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). When Jesus told Peter, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52), he was reminding His disciple that the penalty for his killing one of Jesus’ enemies would be to perish himself through execution, which the Lord here acknowledges would be justified."(2)
In Romans 13 Paul is encouraging believers to honor and obey just governing authorities as "God's minister to you for good" (vs. 4) It seems, then, that every political response we make should be made based upon discernment of God's will (vs. 2) and should be rooted in the fundamental, and what should be a ruling principle in a believers life--love (vs. 9). The need for this encouragment is confirmed by the historical events surrounding the times of Christ as well as Paul, and the church at Rome themselves.
This note of encouragement is applicable, still, in our times and in our tense political enviroments. Charles Colson said, "Government originated as an ordinance of God. It is, in one sense, God’s response to the nature of the people themselves. While it cannot redeem the world or be used as a tool to establish the kingdom of God, civil government does set the boundaries for human behavior. The state is not a remedy for sin, but a means to restrain it."(3)
NOTES:
1. Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (244). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
2. MacArthur, J. (1996, c1991, c1994). Romans (226). Chicago: Moody Press.
3. Quoted from Draper's Book of Quotations for the Christian World by Draper, Edythe. Copyright © 1992 by Edythe Draper. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
4.03.2007
Romans 9-11: Jews, Gentiles and Calvinism
What is Paul's purpose in Romans 9-11? How does this purpose fit into the purpose and argument of Romans as a whole?
In this pericope Paul has come to "speak the truth in Christ" and that the truth he is speaking is confirmed by the Holy Spirit in him (Romans 9:1). It is clear then that what Paul is telling us, here, and in prior chapters, is that he is not merely speaking as a man but is transmitting divine truths inspired by God Himself. Any audience, especially if it included a faith ful Jew, would have paid close attention to what Paul is declaring in Romans generally and in this pericope. His presentation, of Justification by Faith, then was probably an antithesis or at the very least a merging belief, to present Judaism or religiosity in general.
Primarily, I believe the question or issue of Israel's future or continued purpose in God's plan of salvation for the world rests in chapters 9-11. In the application of Justification by Faith though Paul is drawing lines, especially in his culture. With these lines, though, came the issue of the "New Israel" or "Spiritual Israel" or how this salvation, to all men, be applicable to Gentiles and Jews. Questions then arise like, is the Church Spiritual Israel, what of future Jewish salvation, are the Jews still God's chosen people, or does God have two brides, for whom did Christ die, and etc.
Paul explains that ancestry or lineage is not an entitlement to salvation, it is those within the covenant or promise--no matter their bloodline (c.f. Galatians 3:28). I have always thought that the Jews were feeling excessive entitlement due to their lineage. I think some focus may have shifted from a covenant with a people to a people in a covenant, the emphasis turned to self-preservation. It is the covenant that was binding and important to God, not necessarily a particular race. I think this is very much of what Paul is making plain in this pericope.
In these chapters lay a veritable gold mine of dicussion. One thing I learned as I studied these chapters though, or the book of Roman generally, is that I feel Paul speaks to both groups collectively (both Jew and Gentile) at times and then to an individual group alone ("I speak to you who are Gentiles..." Romans 11:13. See, Lake, Kirsopp (1911). The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (370). London: Rivingtons).
Second, I believe Paul is more concerned with Jewish and Gentile relations than we may give him credit for or ponder upon much today. Today, there is one body, the Body of Christ of which all can be a part. Immediately this view flew in the face of Israel and currently it flies in the face of Calvinism's ideals.
As mentioned earlier, it is possible that the Jews, possibly not all, felt entitlement due to race and not because of a covenant situated by God. I feel that many felt that they were in an eternal entitlement where many were actually "astonshed" (Acts 10:45 NIV) because God would allow Gentiles to be saved (c.f. Acts 10:40-48).
As it relates to Calvinism, I believe it weakens the third point in the T.U.L.I.P., limited atonement (1). I believe as well that the Calvinist and the Jew may find some common ground here, sadly. The Jews were in a covenant whereby God had elected them as a people. Conversely, the Calvinist feels that this relationship is maintained whereas Paul is clearly telling us that the covenant includes true Jews (c.f. Romans 9:6-8) and Gentiles, or non Jewish people--whosoever will. The Jew and the Calvinist then seem to verge on an excessive view of particularism. Someting God is In Romans 10:13 Paul states, "For whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." (NKJV) "The word whosoever is used more than 110 times in the New Testament and always with an unrestricted meaning."(2) (cf. John 3:16; Acts 2:21, 10:43).
In addition, in Romans 5:6 Paul states, "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." (NKJV) "The word all, or an equivalent term, is used to denote everyone. Christ died for the ungodly—everyone is ungodly (Rom. 5:6); Christ died for all, suggesting everyone (2 Cor. 5:14–15; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9)."(3)
God does not avoid particularity, but neither does he create men for wrath and without access to salvation. “The Bible teaches that Christ died for ‘sinners’ (Rom. 5:6–8, 1 Tim. 1:15; ). The word ‘sinners’ nowhere means ‘church’ or ‘the elect,’ but simply all of lost mankind.”(4) I believe Dr. Elmer Towns sums up my view nicely, "the death of Jesus Christ was for all people of all time."(5)
Chapter 11 is perhaps my favorite among this pericope. In it we see that Israel's rejection was not total nor was it final (1-10), that salvation has come to the Gentiles (11-25), and that all Israel will be saved (25-end). In this one chapter we see a panaromic view of God's salvation from Jew to Gentile and a possible eschatalogical salvation of Israel.
NOTES:
1. "limited atonement Also, particular redemption. Doctrine in Calvinism that Christ died only for the elect who are the only recipients of salvation. Many medieval schoolmen had similar teachings." Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.
2. Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1947), 3:204.
3. Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (327). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.
4. Elwell, Walter E. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 99.
5. Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today, Copyright © 2002 by Wadsworth Group. Pg. 428
In this pericope Paul has come to "speak the truth in Christ" and that the truth he is speaking is confirmed by the Holy Spirit in him (Romans 9:1). It is clear then that what Paul is telling us, here, and in prior chapters, is that he is not merely speaking as a man but is transmitting divine truths inspired by God Himself. Any audience, especially if it included a faith ful Jew, would have paid close attention to what Paul is declaring in Romans generally and in this pericope. His presentation, of Justification by Faith, then was probably an antithesis or at the very least a merging belief, to present Judaism or religiosity in general.
Primarily, I believe the question or issue of Israel's future or continued purpose in God's plan of salvation for the world rests in chapters 9-11. In the application of Justification by Faith though Paul is drawing lines, especially in his culture. With these lines, though, came the issue of the "New Israel" or "Spiritual Israel" or how this salvation, to all men, be applicable to Gentiles and Jews. Questions then arise like, is the Church Spiritual Israel, what of future Jewish salvation, are the Jews still God's chosen people, or does God have two brides, for whom did Christ die, and etc.
Paul explains that ancestry or lineage is not an entitlement to salvation, it is those within the covenant or promise--no matter their bloodline (c.f. Galatians 3:28). I have always thought that the Jews were feeling excessive entitlement due to their lineage. I think some focus may have shifted from a covenant with a people to a people in a covenant, the emphasis turned to self-preservation. It is the covenant that was binding and important to God, not necessarily a particular race. I think this is very much of what Paul is making plain in this pericope.
In these chapters lay a veritable gold mine of dicussion. One thing I learned as I studied these chapters though, or the book of Roman generally, is that I feel Paul speaks to both groups collectively (both Jew and Gentile) at times and then to an individual group alone ("I speak to you who are Gentiles..." Romans 11:13. See, Lake, Kirsopp (1911). The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (370). London: Rivingtons).
Second, I believe Paul is more concerned with Jewish and Gentile relations than we may give him credit for or ponder upon much today. Today, there is one body, the Body of Christ of which all can be a part. Immediately this view flew in the face of Israel and currently it flies in the face of Calvinism's ideals.
As mentioned earlier, it is possible that the Jews, possibly not all, felt entitlement due to race and not because of a covenant situated by God. I feel that many felt that they were in an eternal entitlement where many were actually "astonshed" (Acts 10:45 NIV) because God would allow Gentiles to be saved (c.f. Acts 10:40-48).
As it relates to Calvinism, I believe it weakens the third point in the T.U.L.I.P., limited atonement (1). I believe as well that the Calvinist and the Jew may find some common ground here, sadly. The Jews were in a covenant whereby God had elected them as a people. Conversely, the Calvinist feels that this relationship is maintained whereas Paul is clearly telling us that the covenant includes true Jews (c.f. Romans 9:6-8) and Gentiles, or non Jewish people--whosoever will. The Jew and the Calvinist then seem to verge on an excessive view of particularism. Someting God is In Romans 10:13 Paul states, "For whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." (NKJV) "The word whosoever is used more than 110 times in the New Testament and always with an unrestricted meaning."(2) (cf. John 3:16; Acts 2:21, 10:43).
In addition, in Romans 5:6 Paul states, "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." (NKJV) "The word all, or an equivalent term, is used to denote everyone. Christ died for the ungodly—everyone is ungodly (Rom. 5:6); Christ died for all, suggesting everyone (2 Cor. 5:14–15; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9)."(3)
God does not avoid particularity, but neither does he create men for wrath and without access to salvation. “The Bible teaches that Christ died for ‘sinners’ (Rom. 5:6–8, 1 Tim. 1:15; ). The word ‘sinners’ nowhere means ‘church’ or ‘the elect,’ but simply all of lost mankind.”(4) I believe Dr. Elmer Towns sums up my view nicely, "the death of Jesus Christ was for all people of all time."(5)
Chapter 11 is perhaps my favorite among this pericope. In it we see that Israel's rejection was not total nor was it final (1-10), that salvation has come to the Gentiles (11-25), and that all Israel will be saved (25-end). In this one chapter we see a panaromic view of God's salvation from Jew to Gentile and a possible eschatalogical salvation of Israel.
NOTES:
1. "limited atonement Also, particular redemption. Doctrine in Calvinism that Christ died only for the elect who are the only recipients of salvation. Many medieval schoolmen had similar teachings." Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.
2. Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1947), 3:204.
3. Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (327). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.
4. Elwell, Walter E. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 99.
5. Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today, Copyright © 2002 by Wadsworth Group. Pg. 428
3.02.2007
Matthew 18: A Systematic Philosopy for Dealing with Humans and Error--Part One
In this discussion the biblical approach (specifically as it is recorded in Matthew 18) to dealing with human error will be reviewed. It will be important for the reader to notice the synergistic effort in the area of human error, as it relates to the leader and follower. Many times the actions of one can negatively or positively effect another. In addition, it will be impossible to qualify or nuance every statement to the satisfaction of every reader. This discussion will be in multiple parts, so look for more to come.
Introduction:
In the Pauline epistle to the church at Rome Paul declares, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find." (Romans 7:18 NKJV) Paul explicitly presents for us the dilemma of humanity. Man knows what is good and righteous yet fails, many times, to perform those acts and exhibit those attitudes. Cicero, an ancient philosopher who is often studied to understand Roman life and politics, once said, "It is the nature of every man to err..." (Cicero, 106–43 b.c.) In a practical sense we can surely find the words of both these men to be accurate.
Human error is so rampant and so vile that often times leaders of righteousness are at a loss of how to deal or confront error. In fact, human error literally frustrates the peace of our globe and supports the forces of darkness against the church.
During the life of Jesus Christ we see how God gifted humanity with instructions on how to deal with certain types of human error. The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18, records these instructions with great detail. To understand these instructions we should analyze the chapter.
Matthew 18:1-5
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (2) Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, (3) and said, Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (4) Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (5) Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. (NKJV)
Refutation of Human Exaltation:
In this pericope we can see the refutation of human exaltation--pride. In verse one the disciples begin to query Jesus to see who would be the "greatest in the kingdom of heaven". To refute this Jesus says that we are to be "converted and become as little children". If we fail to do this we will not even be able to "enter the kingdom of heaven."
In verse 3 Jesus uses strepho (stref-o), the Greek word for "converted" (NKJV). This word has to do with turning or twisting away from. A true conversion, much like genuine repentance, engenders a turning away from certain pre-conversion characteristics. Mark’s Gospel renders this story with some similarity. Mark informs us of some finer details by recording the fact that Jesus precipitated this conversation (vss. 1-5) by asking the disciples what they had been discussing among themselves earlier (Mark 9:33-34). It is interesting that the disciples reply with a question concerning who would be greatest. This is because they were possibly expecting a physical kingdom, probably even one of military dominance. The disciples then were driven by a selfish desire for position, power and fame.
Typically human error starts in pride. In fact, the biblical writer of Proverbs says that "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18 NKJV) Pride is typically the inordinate esteem for oneself. It is to think of one more highly than should reasonably be expected.
The words of Jesus refute such pride at its very core because he commands that we are to "become as little children", i.e. to think lower of ourselves. "Rank and status were issues that members of ancient society confronted daily." (1) Here Jesus is declaring that the traits often possessed by a child are the very characteristics needed for conversion or salvation. Such traits typically found in children are trust, obedience, and humility.
Ironically, the answer to the disciples question, concerning greatness, is answered by the command to be like children. In the culture of then and even of ours today this is totally against what we would normally imagine. However, to even enter the "kingdom" we must take on the humility, trust and obedience as a child.
Matthew 18:6-9
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (7) Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! (8) If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. (9) And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. (NKJV)
Occassions for Stumbling:
As in verse five, these little ones refers not just to children but to Jesus' "little ones"—the disciples. Children are trusting by nature and believers of all ages are to do the same. I believe the overarching principle relates to stumbling blocks placed before children and believers generally.
This pericope clearly indicates that there is nothing worse than leading another person into sin. In fact, Jesus says that it would be better to hang a millstone about one’s neck and be cast into the depths of the sea. There is more significance to this passage than we typically notice, possibly.
1. Jesus mentions the use of a millstone. This particular millstone was not a hand stone popularly used by Jewish women (2); however, scholars tell us that such a millstone would be about 18 inches in diameter and 3 inches thick--quite large. This method of punishment was a popular form of punishment by Syrians, Greeks, and Egyptians. The very fact that Jesus mentions this type of instrument of punishment demonstrates, glaringly clear, the severity of leading others into sin. A person with such a weight about their necks would be held at the bottom of the sea by the most awful and terrible weight of the millstone.
2. Jesus mentions Capital Punishment. Drowning is definitely a form of capital punishment used by various cultures. Drowning was not an not uncommon punishment in Greek and Roman society as well. "Though rare in Jewish circles, it was done at least once in Galilee (Jos. Antiq. XIV, 450 [xv.10])." (3) Therefore, the import of Jesus' words should be recognized as extremely severe. To drown a person would connotate a serious offense in the eyes of a Jewish audience.
At this point, it is quite obvious that Christ considers human error to be very serious--even to those who contribute to the development of such an error in another person. I believe this entire chaper teaches us how to avoid human error, in a general sense, as well as how to actually reconcile (see below) the error after it has come to fruition.
Often times church leadership struggles, even to the point of overreacting, with human error. Perhaps integrating the teachings of this chapter, fully, could deter future error. For example, there are various ways one can cause another to sin--yet many believers may not even realize such an offense is active in their lives. Here are only a few ways:
1. Perception is reality. If we, even slightly, appear friendly or neutral towards certain sins the reality is, then, that we are indeed approving of that sin--in a general sense. I will not take the time to nuance this statement completely (because there are so many variables) but many times this can be done by simply overlooking things, for too long perhaps, when they should be reconciled. Another way is to actually ridicule or laugh at the efforts of others who are doing right.
2. Examples. Regardless of what age or maturity level of an individual most followers, students, children, disciples or etc. will imitate what is being taught by example--the silent voice. Often times, the actual voice of a leader is not even heard, on occassion, whereas the import of their actions are well recieved.
3. Peresecution and berating. The scope of the author relates primarily to Pentecostal believers, of which a great many are concerned with Holiness and outward separation. As a consequence church leaders can place inordinate or unnecessary pressure upon believers to conform or adapt to traditions or preferences. Such actions can contribute to the loss of friendship, or acceptance, and even lead to abuse.
3a. For example, vow cards, curfews, certain residential restrictions, certain required clothing and etc. CAN be inordinately applied to a believers life by church leadership. If we cannot find scriptural support for an issue then it is best to teach by principle and not make claims that violate the biblical text. It is a travesty against Christ and His Word to use an implication or conclusion based upon an implication to place a believer outside salvation.
Often times church leadership can or fail to place levels of priority and acceptance upon new believers. This is not always unacceptable. However, no matter how young or immature, the new believer has “obtained like precious faith with us.” Standing before God, such a believer is on equal footing with all others, including leadership. This should go without saying, however, this does not mean they are to be given positions of leadership while they are young or immature believers (1 Tim. 3:6, 10). Quite simply it means that they are to be treated fairly. They are to be focused upon and developed in the Body of Christ. Often times a young believer will not "appear" as "holy" (pun intended) as other, more mature, believers. They should not, by default or without reason, be overlooked because they cannot yet contribute much to the work of God’s kingdom neither should they be viewed as "less saved" than others. Each of us are saved by grace through faith--regardless of gender, ethnicity, or culture (c.f. Galatians 3:27-28).
Notes:
1. IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Craig S. Keener Copyright © 1993 by Craig S. Keener. Published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved.
2. ibid.
3. Expositor's Bible Commentary, NT. Gaebellein, Frank E. General Editor. Copyright (c) 1976-1992. Zondervan Publishing house
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
