The Confusion of Tongues:

William G. Bellshaw the Dean of the San Francisco Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary authored a work entitled, "The Confusion of Tongues" in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 120 (April-June, 1963; North American revival of Pentecost began in 1901; UPCI formed in 1945). This paper will be the source of discussion. Bellshaw’s view is antagonistic to the Pentecostal explanation of tongues. His view asserts that tongues speaking was a sign for the Jews and that tongues have ceased since the canonization of scripture. The early arguments Bellshaw offers have become fodder for contemporary cessationist; therefore, this paper will briefly consider many points that are posited therein.

As a preface, please note that speaking in tongues is not the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues is the sign that the Holy Spirit has made His abode in a believer. There are many evidences of the Holy Spirit being present in a believers life (See Gal. 5:22-23); however, the phenomenon of speaking in tongues is treated as a sign authenticating Christian believers.[1] The Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) is not glossolalia, rather it is the sign that the Gift has been received by the believer. This paper is not written to clearly distinguish between the types of tongues, but there is a fundamental difference between the sign of tongues, the gift of tongues, and tongues for interpretation. Biblical research by cessationist and Pentecostals alike should be given to the glossolalia in the New Testament, specifically focusing on the apparent distinction of tongues as a sign in Luke’s writings (Acts) and those of Paul’s where tongues are private and for self-edification and another public and for collective edification (cf. Acts 2, 10, 19 and 1 Corinthians 12-14).

After Peter preached at the house of Cornelius, the Gentiles there began to speak in tongues (Acts 10:46). Consequently, the Jews were surprised that the Holy Spirit had even been poured out upon the Gentiles. This was taken as a sign that the Holy Spirit had indeed granted salvation to not only the Jew but also the Gentiles. In Acts 19, Paul met some disciples of Apollos at Ephesus. These disciples, had known only “John’s baptism” until this time (Acts 19:3), they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul showed them that there was indeed more for them, baptized them in the name of Jesus, and laid his hands on them. As this happened the Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke with tongues (Acts19:6). Luke, the author of Acts no doubt considered these two incidents as identical to the one described in Acts 2:38, there Peter tells us that the Promise (cf. Acts 2:33) had been poured out.

Both in 1 Corinthians and in Acts, the glossolalia is associated with the activity of the Holy Spirit. Paul’s treatment of tongues as a language which is not understood (1 Cor. 14:2) by the Corinthian people probably reflects actual practices in his churches. The author believes that the tongues of scripture are languages that may be human or angelic (1 Cor. 13:1). Some, however, mistakenly proclaim that God supernaturally grants people the ability to speak in foreign languages for the purpose of missionizing the lost; this theory has been called the Augustinian explanation[2]. Conversely, when Paul said tongues were not understood then how could they strictly be for missionary purposes, as some claim? Was this a practice session? Also, linguists are not simply granted with an ability to speak in foreign languages apart from laborious hours of study. This doesn’t seem miraculous.

Those who spread aspersions about tongue talkers should consider that “[Martin] Luther and [John] Calvin both spoke positively of the gift and some believe Luther actually had such experiences.”[3] (Emphasis in brackets mine). In addition, John Wesley felt necessary to defend certain early religious, namely the Montanists, that spoke with tongues and even called them “real scriptural Christians”. Wesley noted that the disappearance of the charismatic gifts from the church was due to “dry formal orthodox men,” who had begun to ridicule what they themselves did not possess.[4]

Bellshaw’s paper cannot be considered in any way exhaustive or a final word for several reasons. First, Bellshaw begins with an aphorism of limited inerrantists, i.e. “the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice.” This aphorism has long been the slogan for those who have a limited view of biblical inerrancy. His point, however, is taken—the Bible should be the rule by which we measure doctrines. Using this method, I find Bellshaw’s view lacking.

Second, Bellshaw makes the common mistake of asserting that tongues are rarely mentioned in the text, therefore, he concludes, they are non-important. Has Bellshaw considered that it may have not been the intent of those books to discuss such an issue, as the Holy Spirit inspired them? This approach cannot be a rule of thumb for measuring doctrine, in fact it is dangerous. For example the Virgin Birth is rarely mentioned yet it is vital to Christianity, also homosexuality is dealt with rarely in the texts, do we conclude that the bible is not concerned with either of these issues? Ironically, the New Testament contains four passages that indisputably describe speaking in tongues: Acts 2; 10:44-47; 19:6, and in I Corinthians chapters 12-14 are full of references to tongues. In each case, those who spoke in tongues did so by the power of God’s Spirit, “as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).[5] Also, Mark 16:17 is a direct reference to speaking in tongues as a sign of them that are believers. Pre-New Testament occurrences are also prophetically interjected, tongues was even foretold by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 28:12-12. Decidedly, then, the issue of tongues receives more attention than such foundational truths as the Virgin Birth and homosexuality

Third, Bellshaw naively mentions the fact that whenever tongues were demonstrated that Jews were present. This is a simple logical fallacy, because Bellshaw fails to remember that the early church was primarily Jewish. It was to the Jew first and then the Gentiles. In fact, excluding Luke, the bible was authored by Jews. Early on Christianity was almost entirely Jewish, it was not until Acts 15—the Jerusalem Council—that the Apostles came to solidarity concerning Gentile soteriology.

Fourth, tongues are a sign, and a language, that attest to the Holy Spirits indwelling. Bellshaw feels they have ceased, I do not. Speaking in tongues is not gibberish or merely an unintelligible utterance without meaning. Those who speak in tongues speak in genuine languages, even though the speakers themselves do not understand what they say, observers can recognize these languages (Acts 2). The languages can be either human or angelic in nature (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1). The term “glossolalia” derives from glōssais lalō, a Greek phrase used in the New Testament meaning “speak in, with, or by tongues [i.e., other languages].” The related term “xenolalia” is used to describe glossolalia when the language being spoken is an identifiable language never learned by the speaker.[6]

In Bibliotheca Sacra Bellshaw fights half the battle by proving that tongues were:

1. A reality. Pg. 152
2. A sign and a gift of the Holy Spirit. Pg. 151

Fifth, his argument depends upon the cessation of these tongues and that tongues are cultural—to the Jews only. Therefore, if these assumptions can be proven wrong then the “reality” of tongues as well as it being both a “sign” and a “gift” are still maintained for contemporary Christianity.

The culture argument can be dismissed by Acts 2:39, this verse declares that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is for all that are “afar off” and anyone that God may call. This verse clearly indicates that God’s calling can and would include those that are afar off, not just Jews. God’s plan for New Testament salvation did not ever include Jews alone. In fact, New Testament salvation came as a result of Israel’s unbelief (See Romans 11).

The outpouring of the Holy Ghost and its sign of speaking in tongues involves the seeing and hearing of the Promise as told us in Acts 2:33. Luke wrote:

Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. (Acts 2:33 NKJV)

Bellshaw admits that the “see and hear” is “an evident reference to the tongues” mentioned in Acts 2:4. The Promise of the Holy Spirit is an obvious reference to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus before His death. John records:

On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. (38) He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. (39) But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37-39 NKJV)

Therefore, the Promise of the Holy Spirit outpouring is irrefutably connected to something seen and heard. Speaking in tongues fulfills this verse, as Bellshaw indicates, and is also tied to the transcultural Promise of God’s Spirit upon mankind.

Sixth, Bellshaw cites the view that the gift of tongues ceased with the canonization of the New Testament. Immediately, this argument is completely absent from scripture and is abandoned today by popular trinitarian apologists, e.g. Dr. James White, Hank Hannegraff (The Bible Answer Man). In addition, as later noted, even the late Dr. F.F. Bruce refuted this notion. By engaging the argument in this way Bellshaw commits circular logic. He begins his argument by disparaging tongues based upon a low mention frequency in Scripture, yet as we have seen this is not so and now his current argument of the closed canon theory is conspicuously vacuous in the biblical texts. In short, Bellshaw attempts to qualify his argument in the same way that he previouslydisparaged another, this is circular logic.

This argument fails also because of 1 Cor. 13:10-12. Paul says:

But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. (11) When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (12) For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 1 Corinthians 13:10-12 NKJV

Paul and the “perfect” is referring to the coming end, he was referring to when we must see Christ face to face. The perfect here is referring to the Second Coming of Christ, because when we are glorified such things as tongues will no longer be needed. “Paul’s point in this analogy, then, is not that our current understanding and relationship with God is distorted (as if the mirror reflected poorly), but rather that it is “indirect,” (i.e., the nature of looking in a mirror) compared to the relationship we will enjoy with him in the future when we see him “face to face””[7]

Also the word “perfect is the Greek teleios which is neuter singular. The neuter gender, albeit not always, is used to refer to persons and groups (cf. John 3:6; 1 John 5:4; John 17:2; 6:37; Gal 3:22)[8] The singular obviously narrows the scope of the neuter because it is referring to one person, i.e. Jesus Christ. If this was a reference to the complete canon the reference would’ve seemingly been plural a reference to the multiple books of the bible. Actually, “Greek Christians called their sacred Scriptures ta Biblia, "the Books." When this title was subsequently transferred to the Lat., it was rendered in the singular and through Old French came into English as "Bible.”"[9]

As mentioned earlier, various well-known scholars, like F.F. Bruce conclude that "according to 1 Cor 13:8-10, prophecies, tongues, and knowledge are to be done away, but only 'when that which is perfect is come.' That which is perfect is not come yet . . . the literature of the period following the apostolic age makes it plain that the gifts did not come to a full stop with the closing of the New Testament canon."[10]

An example of literature that made plain references to speaking in tongues and other miracles was the historian Edward Gibbons. He produced the work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; this work has long been the standard by which many other writings are judged. Gibbons looks at the history of the Roman Empire from the time of the Antonines through the rise of Christianity. This work is considered to be one of the most well written histories around. It is claimed that Winston Churchill had at one point credited Gibbons with influencing his own style.

Gibbons records that the early church “claimed an uninterrupted succession of miraculous powers, the gift of tongues, of vision, and of prophecy, the power of expelling (sic) daemons, of healing the sick, and of raising the dead.”[11] He also stated, “…about the end of the second century, the resurrection of the dead was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle was frequently performed on necessary occasions, by great fasting and the joint supplication of the church of the place, and that the persons thus restored to their prayers had lived afterwards among them many years.”[12]

In conclusion, first we have seen the glossolalia or speaking in tongues is a predominant theme in the book of Acts, 1 Corinthians, and has mention in Mark and certain other Old Testament prophecies. Second, the early church and the scriptures are primarily Jewish due to chronological sequence and exposure. Third, the sign of speaking in tongues is not mere gibberish but is the tongues of men and angels and can be understood by others (Acts 2). Fourth, tongues is as transcultural as the Promise of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring. Lastly, literature and syntax prove that speaking in tongues can and has extended beyond the Apostolic age and the canonization of the scriptures. Decidedly, there is no text that calls for the cessation of tongues/glossolalia.

I encourage each reader as Paul did:

Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. (40) Let all things be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:39-40 NKJV)

NOTES:

[1] Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (1082). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

[2] This form of explanation was conceived by Augustine of Hippo, later Pope Leo 1 parroted and expanded this view in his sermon “The Sprit and Truth”, and this explanation is widely held today. See: Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (1999-<2003).>The encyclopedia of Christianity (1:iii). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill

[3] “Tongue, Speaking” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (C) Copyright 1984, by Baker Book House Company. (C) Copyright 1988.

[4] Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (1999-<2003).>The encyclopedia of Christianity (1:iii). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill

[5] “Speaking in Tongues” THE NEW BIRTH, pg. 221 Copyright © 1984 by David K. Bernard

[6] Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (1999-<2003).>The encyclopedia of Christianity (1:iii). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill

[7] Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

[8] Wheeler's Greek Syntax Notes, Copyright © 1985-2002 by Rev. Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D. All rights reserved. Used by Permission

[9] The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright © 1988

[10] F.F. Bruce, "Answers to Questions," The Harvester, August 1964.

[11] “Miraculous Powers of the Primitive Church” The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.

[12] Ibid.

Anarthrous Phrase: “and the Word was God” (kai theos en ho logos)

We have visited the text of John 1:1 before (see John 1:1 "With God" and "pros"). A lot of controversy surrounding John 1:1 exists around the fact that the theos (Grk. God) of the last phrase in John 1:1 kai theos en ho logos is anarthrous, i.e. it has no article. There are three schools of thought here, the first—Jehovah’s Witnesses—says the correct translation, consequently, is ‘the Word was a god,’ basing the argument on the lack of the definite article ho before theos.

The second school of thought is the that of the trinitarians, who often assert that the text of John 1:1 speaks of two distinct persons—the Father and the Son. This is, of course, a presupposition assumed into the text starting with the interpretation. James White says, “By the simple omission of the article (‘the,’ or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism. . . . ”[1] Of this same passage White also says, “Without a trinitarian understanding of God, this passage ends up self-contradictory and illogical.” [2] Therefore, his argument is somewhat circular and confounding, unless one views it through a trinitarian lens. Most scholars would call this pretext. The trinitarian view versus that of Oneness will be discussed in this paper.

In essence, trinitarians like A.T. Robertson, Marvin Vincent, Phillip B. Harner and Kenneth Wuest, who are used as building blocks for this proposition concerning the anarthrous phrase, assert that the anarthrous phrase implies that Jesus was divine or possessed what God was in nature. The argument is that John was not saying Jesus is identical with God but that He is like God—qualitative rather than definite—meaning, the last clause in John 1:1 was not an attempt to identify Jesus but to express His quality of being. Trinitarians assert that Jesus was identical to God in terms of nature, not in terms of Person.

Beasley-Murray says, “without the article signifies less than ὁ θεός [theos]; but it cannot be understood as ‘a god,’ as though the Logos were a lesser god alongside the supreme God; nor as simply ‘divine,’ . . . rather it denotes God in his nature. ”[3] Bruce says, “What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God.”[4]

Daniel B. Wallace also asserts that theos is qualitative rather than definite.[5] Wallace emphasizes “the nature of the Word, rather than his identity.”[6] One of the translations he cites as affirming his suggestion is the New English Bible: “What God was, the Word was” (John 1:1). It should be noted that in the rendering of the NEB “the translators were very experimental, producing renderings never before printed in an English version and adopting certain readings from various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts never before adopted. As a result, The New English Bible was both highly praised for its ingenuity and severely criticized for its liberty.”[7]

Trinitarians ignore the emphatic of John’s last phrase ‘the Word was God,’ and assume that a Hebrew thinker as John could see a plurality in the being of God. However, if John is implying a tri-personal deity, then it is with the utmost subtlety and thus counterproductive, if the trinity is to be known and believed upon. Paul places strong soteriological influence upon a proper understanding of the Godhead in Romans 1:20 by saying that it is ‘without excuse.’ John must have known this as well; if so, then why aren’t great efforts made to exalt this tri-personal deity? In fact, the Prologue, as it reaches back to call to remembrance the Creation story, is the ideal place to elucidate such a concept. Nevertheless, trinitarians are left to impose upon the texts post-Nicean and philosophical concepts.

William Arnold has this response to the anarthrous phrase, “ . . . My first response would be: Why does the presence of the article demand that this is God the Father? Why not God the Holy Spirit? For some reason, when a Trinitarian reads ‘God’ they first assume it is a reference to God the Father unless they have reason to believe otherwise. Somehow the Father is more ‘God’ than the other two persons. Second, I would simply point out that almost every time the phrase ‘God the Father’ or ‘God our Father’ appears in Scripture, the article is lacking. This includes every one of Paul’s benedictions as well as several other verses (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal. 1:1,3; Eph. 1:2; Eph. 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 2:11; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1,2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phm. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:17; 2 John 1:3; Jude 1:1). So there is no justification to claim that the second theos in John 1:1 does not refer to God the Father simply because there is no article. Finally, John was a devout Jew who had no concept of persons in the Godhead. The only God he knew of was God the Father. Therefore, to identify the Word as God was to identify him as the Father.”[8]

D.A. Carson does not totally agree with James White. Of the aforementioned trinitarian logic he says, “A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God,’ here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness.’ The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God,’ as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ ”[9]

It is interesting to expound further on Carson’s mention of ‘theios’ (thay-os). Theios is used roughly three times in the NT: Acts 17:29; 2 Peter 1:3 and 4. In the KJV it is rendered ‘Godhead’ in Acts, and twice as ‘divine’ in 2 Peter. In most translations the rendering of theios as ‘divine’ in 2 Peter is preserved; however, the NKJV and the NASB render theios as ‘Divine Nature.’ It is the adjective typically used to describe qualities of an entity. As Carson posits, ‘theios’ would be more than apropos if John were just describing the quality of Jesus as God-likeness.

E.D. Radmacher aims at Jehovah’s Witnesses and utilizes Colwell’s Rule: “The last portion of 1:1 is the major point of contention. It reads in the Greek theos en ho logos, or literally, ‘the Word was God.’ God, or theos, occurs in this verse without the Greek article ho, so that some have contended that the lack of the article in the Greek text should cause the statement to be translated ‘the Word was a god.’ The best understanding for the translation, however, as recognized by Greek scholars, is that since theos is a predicate and precedes the noun logos and a verb, it is natural for it to occur here without the article. Greek scholars are agreed that the verse should be translated as it regularly is in modern and ancient translations, clearly affirming that Jesus is indeed God.”[10] Notice that Radmacher does not allude to Jesus possessing the nature of God-ness or etc.; he simply says, “Jesus is indeed God.”

“A Definite Rule for the use of the Article in the Greek New Testament” by E. C. Colwell in the 1933 Journal of Biblical Literature, has helped to solidify an alternative interpretation. It later became known simply as “Colwell’s Rule.” On page 21 Colwell begins comments on the Prologue with this statement, “The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. [και2532 CONJ θεος2316 N-NSM ην2258 V-IXI-3S ο3588 T-NSM λογος3056 N-NSM][11] looks much more like ‘And the Word was God’ than ‘And the Word was divine’ when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas.”

Thomas’ confession is “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28 KJV). Thomas here calls Jesus his Lord and his God. God or theos here is a noun in “the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine,”[12] which means Thomas was most likely making an emphatic and direct address to Jesus.

It would seem that Robertson and others are at odds with Colwell’s Rule. James White says, “It should be noted that Robertson [and others] . . . had passed away before the work of Colwell, and their comments reflect this.”[13] James White tells us that Colwell’s view “is the same view taken by [Leon] Morris, [Bruce] Metzger, Griffith and others.” Prior to this concession White proclaims, “A slightly different tact is taken by another group of scholars.” Subsequently, in an effort to find trinitarian solidarity, White asserts that “both approaches [his and Colwell’s] lead to the same conclusion in that ‘the passage teaches the Deity of Jesus Christ.’ ”[14] This is not a conclusion that Oneness adherents deny, but affirm greater. White offers no real interaction with Colwell’s Rule; he only suggests that everyone is in agreement.

Kai theos en ho logos: the article ho before logos naturally indicates that the logos is the subject of the verb kai. Logos receives the verb’s action and theos, as Colwell mentions, can be the definite predicate noun. In a correspondence Eddie Dalcour, author of a new Oneness critique, states, “Some well meaning apologists in their quest to refute JWs have tagged theos (1:1c) with a definite force.”[15] Here Dalcour recognized earlier leanings towards the last phrase of John 1:1 to be definite but suggest that they done so because of a reaction to JW's.

White summarizes by saying, “The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as ‘and the Word was God’ (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll). Colwell's rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as ‘god-like.’ Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God. Anything less departs from the teaching of John, and is not Biblical.”[16]

White raises the issue of convertible propositions, or whether or not logos and theos can be used interchangeably. In my opinion (and I do not contend for this) Oneness adherents do not need to have logos and theos as interchangeable to affirm Oneness theology. The logos is the plan and/or unexpressed thought ‘with God’ or, as in the UBS Handbook, ‘the Word was there where God was.’ As it relates to the Prologue, Theos is the proper name of God; it is God himself. In my opinion, the Word was not literally the complete sum of God but with God and part of God. In terms of post-Incarnational theology, the Word became flesh, or the unexpressed thought of God became expressed in man. The thought was that God himself, in time would become man (not just ‘robed’ as a man) and, therefore, would redeem fallen humanity.

Finally, trinitarians like Dalcour assert that Colwell “did not consider or evaluate the qualitative tags of nouns—his investigation was greatly limited.”[17] This is basically a smokescreen to marginalize Colwell’s Rule of definite predicate nouns. However, on page 17 Colwell notes: “There are bound to be mistakes in the list of definite predicate nouns without the article, but an attempt has been made to exclude all nouns as to whose definiteness there could be any doubt. This means, of course, that ‘qualitative’ nouns have been omitted, since all such nouns (and their total in the New Testament is small) are not definite.” What this means is that Colwell was very aware of qualitative nouns and therefore purposely excluded them from his work. When he says he excluded all nouns as to “whose definiteness there could be any doubt,” he means that he has searched for qualitative nouns and thereby removed them. Therefore, seeing John 1:1 included in Colwell’s work on page 21, it is obvious that since he did consider qualitative nouns, theos in John 1:1 did not fit his criteria for being qualitative.

Therefore, the anarthrous phrase in the last clause of the Prologue presents no problems for Oneness theology. Theos here can be demonstrated to be definite and not necessarily qualitative and does affirm that Jesus is God. The Apostle John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was compelled to identify the logos as the original plan with God to humanity, and also in time, to be shown as Jesus—God Himself manifest in flesh.

NOTES:

[1] White, James. John 1:1: Meaning and Translation - http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
[2] White, James. The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology - http://aomin.org/CHALC.html
[3]Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1998). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
[4] F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), pg. 31.
[5] Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pg. 269
[6] Arnold, William III Colwell’s Rule and John 1:1. http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm
[7]Comfort, Philip W. The Complete Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1991.
[8] Arnold, William III, In the Beginning was the Word - http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/logos.htm
[9] Carson, D.A. Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John. Eerdman Publishing, © 1991
[10] Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible commentary (Jn 1:1). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
[11] Brackets here indicate my emphasis, i.e. parts of speech/case listing and Strong’s numbering.
[12] Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft & Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright (c) 1985 by Broadman Press
[13] White, James. John 1:1: Meaning and Translation - http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
[14] White, James. John 1:1: Meaning and Translation - http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
[15] Dalcour, Edward L. M. Apol. Private Email. Monday, February 14, 2005 12:21 PM
[16] White, James. John 1:1: Meaning and Translation - http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
[17] Dalcour, Edward L. M. Apol. Private Email. Monday, February 14, 2005 12:21 PM

A Case for Inerrancy: Argument from Animation

Varying definitions of “inerrancy” exist today. However, an orthodox interpretation should include the idea that the Bible, when correctly interpreted, is completely truthful and accurate in all and every respect and that its original autographs are free from error. This paper is not exhaustive on the subject of “inerrancy” because there are so many paradigms to consider; however, one particular view that this paper considers is the “argument from animation.”

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16 NKJV

This paper presupposes that its readers understand and affirm the “divine inspiration” of Holy Scriptures. However, the phrase “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16 is one Greek word, theopneustos. It literally means “God-breathed”.[1] If the book is God-breathed, then it is God's Book and not just man's book. In the Genesis 2 God formed man (Adam) from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. The body was present, created by God, but it was dead. It had no animation—no life. The difference here is between life and death.

We should not understand the Holy Scriptures as written merely by people but as breathed into by God (as in the case of the Adam). The words of the Bible came from God but were written by men. The apostle Peter affirmed this when he said that “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21 NKJV). These men were literally “moved” (Grk. phero) to write or go into the destination that the Holy Spirit desired. It is as if the Holy Spirit picked them up in one place and carried them or bore them to another. They did not write by their own will, but were moved by the Spirit. These writings are living, not inanimate, and have the ability to encourage and convict the hearts of people.

It has been a common thing for non-believers to argue against the inerrancy of Scripture. In recent times, however, many Christian scholars have come to disallow in part or in whole the scriptural doctrine of inerrancy (Jack Rogers of Fuller Theological Seminary affirms limited inerrancy[2]). In view of this attack against the reliability, inspiration, and veracity of Scripture from those within and without the ranks of Christianity, it is important that Christians be able to defend and articulate the proper position on the inerrancy of Scripture against all attacks. Here is my personal statement on inerrancy; it is basically a modification of Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

“When all facts are known, the Scriptures--the original autographs--properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences. We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. This inerrancy is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. Past, present, or future scientific hypotheses about earth history will not overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”

Without understanding or perhaps realizing their position many preachers or lay persons have made statements like this, “Well, the bible does not claim to be a science book so it may have some errors about biology or creation.” Such a statement is on par with “limited inerrancy” and should be avoided. If the bible is God’s book, and God is omniscient, it is only counterproductive to use such reasoning. Usually the faux pas is the fault of the exegete. Typically the texts are not interpreted properly or the translations make an error—not the original texts. In any case, all supposed biblical errors in English translations have a plausible explanation.

Another common argument against the true inerrancy of the Scripture is that man wrote the bible, man is errant, thus there must be mistakes in the bible. This is a circular argument. None of us would question the fact that George Washington was the first American president. Yet, we can only know this fact by reading the historical writings of men. Another attempt to undermine inerrancy is the change in certain terminology. Some scholars prefer the term "inerrancy" over "infallibility." “Infallibility” is the “idea that Scripture is not able to lead us astray...”[3] This switch of terms, most likely, has to do with the insistence of some that one could have an infallible message while also having an errant biblical text.[4] Here, we should wonder if the critics really understand or affirm divine inspiration.

As Christ made no room in His claims to simply be a “good man” or a “good prophet”, so the Holy Scriptures affirm that all of Scripture is profitable for us (2 Timothy 3:16) and that all of it is "God-breathed." Thus it is completely pure (Psalms 12:6), perfect (Psalms 119:96), and true (Proverbs 30:5). The Bible itself does not make any exclusions or special restrictions on the class of subjects to which it speaks truthfully or un-truthfully. As Jesus told us that He is “the way”, so the scriptures tell us that they are breathed by God Himself—they have life and animation by Him.

A denial of inerrancy presents us with the snowball effect. It begins like this, since the scriptures are indeed inspired of God, yet is not inerrant then it is possible that God has inspired lies. If God is a liar, and we are being made into God’s image should we expect to lie? This would lead us to wonder if we can really believe anything God says. Thus, by discounting certain passages as errant we are making the claim that we have a higher level of understanding and truth than God’s Word. Essentially we end up in a humanistic paradigm, where human reasoning has exalted itself above God. Therefore, we end up with Pandora’s Box and all of biblical doctrine subject to error and easily dismissed.

The Bible lets us know about its human authorship, but it also makes us aware of its divine authorship as well—dual authorship (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21). The argument for Spirit animation, in my opinion, is a very strong argument—albeit significant others do exist. Dr. Elmer Towns, of Liberty University, says, “Since the process of inspiration is “in-breathing” God did more than breathe accurate content into the Bible, He breathed His Spirit into it.”[5] God is not a stranger to the supernatural. The Incarnation is accompanied by a virgin birth—a supernatural infusion of divinity and humanity. The Word of God should be seen as no less supernatural—an infusion of a divine author and human authors. Thus, we have a supernatural book. This supernatural book has the ability to transform lives. It is a supernatural book that has the power to convict, convince, and convert.

NOTES:

[1]Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (Page 196). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
[2] Belief that the Bible is free of error only in its theological content, and not in its historical or scientific statements
[3] Systematic Theology, Copyright © 1994 by Wayne Grudem. All rights reserved.
[4] Horton, Stanley M. Systematic Theology © 1994, 1995 by Gospel Publishing House. All rights reserved
[5] Theology for Today, Elmer Towns. Copyright © 2002 by Wadsworth Group. Pg. 72

New Fossil: Transitionary Link Between Fish and Land Creatures?

Recently Yahoo News!, CBS, and others declare, “Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals.”[1] This fossil, the coelacanth, “is a large fish, some 150 cm long, covered in thick scales reminiscent of armor. It belongs to the Osteichthyes class, and the earliest fossils from it are found in strata from the Devonian Period (408-350 million years). Up until 1938, a great many evolutionist zoologists assumed that the coelacanth walked on the sea bed using its two pairs of double fins, and that it represented a transitional form between land and sea creatures. As evidence for this they pointed to the bony structure of the fins in the coelacanth fossils to hand at the time.” [2]

As in the Gospel of Judas, the media wishes us to believe that this fossil is a new find. In fact, it is not new. It has been cycled through the system for some time now. The assumption here is that this fossil is a transistionary link for the evolutionary theory of fish evolving to land dwelling creatures. This leads the evolutionist to believe that humans derive from this as well and assumes to affirm macro evolution.

The April 2003 edition of Focus magazine (a magazine affirming evolution) heralded this fossil as well, yet to their demise because the coelacanth actually refutes evolution. “A development in 1938, however, totally overturned this intermediate species claim. A living coelacanth was caught in the waters off the Republic of South Africa! Furthermore, study of this animal, believed to have disappeared at least 70 million years ago, revealed that coelacanths had undergone absolutely no changes at all for 400 million years.”[3]

In addition, in 1966 a coelacanth was frozen immediately after it was caught. Later scientists found that the coelacanth had shark blood. Focus Magazine said that this was an “evolutionary difficulty”.

The coelacanth is classified as a “living fossil” and is a “baffling enigma to evolutionists…These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilized (sic) forms, believed to have lived ‘millions of years ago.’ Examples include the coelacanth fish (fossil coelacanths are believed by evolutionists to be 340 million years old), Gingko trees (125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years).”[4]

Evolutionists are left “baffled” by this mysterious fossil and others which have never “evolved” or experienced change. Doesn’t this defy the term “evolution” which implies that things “evolve”? Yes! As Christians there is no enigma, there is no mystery about “living fossils”. God’s Word tells us that these creatures were made to be fruitful and multiply after their kind, the Word says nothing of evolving into humans. In modern species there has been little or micro changes. These changes are normal. Dogs have changes colors and sizes yet they still remain just that—a dog.

Evolutionists cling to these mirages of hope for their cause ad nauseum. They do so at the sacrifice of their intellect, it is only to maintain the untenable declarations that there was NO creator, just the evolution of a species coming from primordial soup! Alas, therein is the rub! Humanity, fallen humanity, does not desire to be accountable to God. When they admit there is a God, they will understand He has a book. And that book—the Bible—makes demands.

NOTES:

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_sc/landfish_fossil
[2] http://www.darwinism-watch.com/focus_0304.php
[3] http://www.darwinism-watch.com/focus_0304.php
[4]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/living_fossil.asp

The Gospel of Judas: For the Gullible Only

Recently, National Geographic along with Coptic linguists and biblical scholars have announced the finding of what they call the “Gospel of Judas” or Peuaggelion Nioudas. This writing was found to be an ancient Egyptian Coptic text. Samples of the papyrus were analyzed at the University of Arizona's radiocarbon dating lab in Tucson—the world-renowned facility that was responsible for dating the Dead Sea Scrolls. The dating found is confidently placed at 220-340 A.D. Other linguist working on the text, because of theological nuancs, suggest a later date--possibly 400 A.D. The gospel of Judas, so called, is a codex—a method of keeping manuscripts beyond the use of scrolls. The older method of scrolls often made difficult the finding of a certain passage. The codex method allowed the pages to be placed sequentially and bound like a book.

The term “gospel” describes the genre of the type of manuscript that the writing of Judas is from. However, “gospel” comes from the Greek word for “good news”, thus, beyond genre, this author does not view this writing of Judas as “good news” since it distorts the orthodox Christian views of Jesus Christ. The “gospel of Judas” will be called the writing of Judas or etc. The term “gospel” will not be used in conjunction herein.

First, the way the media presents this writing it would seem it is a new discovery. It is heraleded as a great new find. Christianity Today (June 2006) offers these salient comments that are more revealing, "the best liberal scholars admitted up front that this find "tells us nothing about the historical Jesus, nothing about the historical Judas." Those are the words of James M. Robinson, lead scholar of the team that investigated the last great find of Gnostic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi library. Or as Adam Gopnik told New Yorker readers, "The finding of the new Gospel … no more challenges the basis of the church's faith than the discovery of a document from the nineteenth century written in Ohio and defending King George would be a challenge to the basis of American democracy."

The codex was discovered in the Egyptian desert in the 1970’s. It finally reached the United States and rested unfavorably in a safety deposit box for 16 years. Sadly, the writing of Judas deteriorated tremendously in the decades after its discovery. The codex was broken into many fragments and even crumbled at even the slightest touch. The sheets of the codex had also been reshuffled in a random pattern—most likely to increase the appeal to potential buyers by moving pages in apparently better physical condition to the front of the codex. Thus, the original pagination was lost; this complicated things tremendously especially in efforts to reassemble the manuscript. Conservationists, aided by computer software, were able to reconstruct most of the manuscript, fragment by fragment, over a period of five years. Consequently, the linguists in review of this codex have been able to translate the text. An English and Coptic translation can be downloaded here:

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document.html

Second, the writing of Judas begins in esoteric fashion, “The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover.”

This intro gives the text away immediately as an Gnostic writing and non-Christian. Considering the dating of this codex we should feel compelled to, at least, consider the implications of competing doctrines—specifically Gnosticism—a belief contemporary with the early church and this codex. The Gnostics obviously wished to paint the life of Jesus with a different brush. Gnosticism is a heretical movement in the early Christian centuries that emphasized salvation through a secret gnosis or knowledge.[1] Given the opening of this codex, e.g. "secret...revelation", it is apparently an Gnostic theological teaching.

These Gnostic type manuscripts are not new, neither are such methods. Such writings were expressly for rewriting the normative and accepted biblical accounts. (Odd, I think somebody named Dan Brown wrote something like that too.) Manuscripts such as these were around in 180 A.D. We know this because a historic early church leader by the name of Irenaeus wrote about it in his work entitled Against Heresies. Such sects are called Cainite Gnostics, in fact the Ante-Nicene Fathers rebut them often. This is an early group that repeatedly tried to rewrite the orthodox biblical stories and spin them to give positive reflections of biblical characters seen as negative or evil in the Bible, including Cain and the Sodomites.

The writings of Judas indicate numerous theological concepts held by Gnosticism existing in the 2nd Century. Forms of Gnosticism were taken up with subdeities like angels and demiurges. For example in Scene 3 of the text, under “JESUS TEACHES JUDAS ABOUT COSMOLOGY: THE SPIRIT AND THE SELF-GENERATED” it is recorded:

Begin quote:

Jesus said, “[Come], that I may teach you about [secrets] no person [has] ever seen. For there exists a great and boundless realm, whose extent no generation of angels has seen, [in which] there is [a] great invisible [Spirit], which no eye of an angel has ever seen,no thought of the heart has ever comprehended,and it was never called by any name. “And a luminous cloud appeared there. He said, ‘Let an angel come into being as my attendant.’ “A great angel, the enlightened divine Self-Generated, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they became attendants for the angelic Self-Generated. The Self-Generated said, [48] ‘Let […] come into being […],’ and it came into being […]. And he [created] the first luminary to reign over him. He said, ‘Let angels come into being to serve [him],’ and myriads without number came into being. He said, ‘[Let] an enlightened aeon come into being,’ and he came into being. He created the second luminary [to] reign over him, together with myriads of angels without number, to offer service. That is how he created the rest of the enlightened aeons. He made them reign over them, and he created for them myriads of angels without number, to assist them.

End quote.

This writing of Judas also purports that Christ persuades Judas to betray Him. This view implies more of a human effort in the Christian plan of redemption rather than a divine one. Recent writings have attempted to articulate that Jesus was not seen as God nor did He see Himself as God. The implications here lend themselves to Gnosticism.

Actually these types of discoveries are not new at all. There are the Nag Hammadi texts that were found after WWII (1945-46) which included the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Phillip and other esoteric writings. However, with these and with this of Judas, there is an issue of credibility. Are we to take on this ancient "codex" and arrogantly assume that it usurps the accounts of the extant Gospel texts of the New Testament?

There are more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. If we add over 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions, then we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers. In comparison, Homer's Iliad comes second, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. Even then, the first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century AD.

The New Testament texts of over 5,000 have beautiful harmony. The present texts of the Gospels corroborate with each other. In other words, there is not just one lone text that depicts the life of Jesus as God or that says Jesus walked upon water, but there are hundreds from different time periods and writers that say essentially the same thing. This can be nothing but divine preservation and providence. In contrast, the writing of Judas does not share that privilege. In any sense, the writings of Judas are not on the same level or plateau of credibility as the present Gospels found in our New Testaments.

Third, this writing of Judas should not be seen as or understood as a writing as credible, accurate, or authorship as ascertainable as the largest percent of biblical writings. If one were to juxtapose the theological landscape of this writing with those of the biblical Gospels there would be irreconcilable differences. This writing, unless empirically proven otherwise, is simply Gnostic hypothesis. This writing of Judas, if it is to usurp the biblical accounts bears an insurmountable burden of proof.

Fourth, these Gnostic theological concepts show a diversity of opinion in ancient civilization and not necessarily the early church. Nevertheless, this should not diminish the early church in any way. Since the beginning of Creation there has been a dark and a light, a good and an evil. Where there is a truth there is a counterfeit or a lie. The fact of diversity should not be seen as alarming or diminishing in anyway--it should be a beacon to us that the truth of Jesus as God existed then as now.

Fifth, the University of Arizona carbon-dated five tiny samples of papyrus and leather binding to between AD 220 and AD 340, and other tests backed up that conclusion. The Judas writing is dated too late to be written by Judas first hand. Therefore, corroborating textual evidence would need to be presented to show Judas was indeed the author. Or, another few texts harmonizing with the writings and theological opinions found therein.

It's also very interesting that this work has surfaced at this time as well. Recently, while preparing to build a new prison in Israel, an ancient church at Megiddo with the mosaic stating "the God, Jesus Christ" was found.[2] This basically debunks delusional authors like Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code) and others who purport that Jesus was not viewed as God in the early church. Now, this pseudo-gospel may be a rejoinder in the textual debate on whether or not Christ actually claimed deity and whether or not the primitive church viewed Him as such.

This ancient mosaic speaks volumes concerning Jesus Christ as God Himself. Trinitarian theology will not say that Jesus is God in a definitive way, only qualitative. For example, John 1:1 says:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

For a more exhaustive treatment of this text see John 1:1: “With God” and Pros. Trinitarian theology would say that the last phrase “the Word was God” does not mean that the Word or Jesus is God or the God. They would assert that this means Jesus is of the same quality as God. Although there is no definite article here this does nothing to the fact that it can be definitive (See John 1:1 “With God” and Pros). This is indeed not necessary. John is emphatic here in declaring the Word was God! Thus the early church declares with definiteness "the God, Jesus Christ"!

The reason that lost writings like Judas disappeared is not, as some claim, that there was some staged attempt to suppress gnostic literature. On the contrary, Gnostic texts abound. These Gnostic texts were rejected by the early church because they were not faithful to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the prophecies of the Jewish faith which prophecied of a Messiah--a God-man. Gnostics did not want a Savior to which accountability is reckoned, rather Gnosticism desired and still desires the little god within.

NOTES:

[1]Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.
[2] http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/?p=1208

The Source of Conflict: A Study of James 4:1-4

"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? (2) You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. (3) You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (4) You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (5) Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"? (6) But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." James 4:1-6 ESV

The inspired writings of James have found themselves in considerable controversy primarily because of a false perception of his view of Faith and Works, juxtaposed with that of Paul. James is "not in opposition to Paul but against people who fail to understand that faith includes obedience (Romans 1:5)" (1) In actuality both compliment one another and go hand in hand. In the Pauline epistles we see him speaking of faith that assumes good works to follow saving faith. James actually demonstrates for us that "faith without works is dead".

In a recent bible study, I found myself drawn to this passage. What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? The answer, indeed, lies at the heart of all strife and conflict. Each of us, especially myself, suffer from falling prey to senseless and often times selfishly driven quarrells. James accurately describes strife among Christians with the terms wars (KJV) and fights. Sadly, the battles that erupt among Christians are bitter, severe and often lengthy. Moreover, the battles and wars that erupt on our globe are fatal and acute.

The source of these strife's, come from desires for pleasure that war in our members. The source is the desires battling within each individual. There is some root of carnality, an internal war within the believer regarding the lusts of the flesh. At this point some may be thinking of 1 Timothy 6:10, where Paul says "the love of money is the root of all evil" Some scholars feel that money is NOT the root of all evil but all kinds of evil. However, the point at hand is that it is the "love of money" and not money itself that lies at the root of most, if not all, evil. It is avarice and the power that monetary wealth brings to an individual. This is inexorably linked to what James proposes in 4:1-6 because this is a carnal desire.

Another interesting note here is that James seems to be taken up more by the selfish spirit and bitterness of the fights and strife's than by the rights and wrongs of the various viewpoints. He never speaks of whether or not the fight is just or unjust, but it is in the source of the fight and the prideful manner in which it may be carried out (cf. vs. 6). Often time our truths are drowned out by the deafening noise of fighting and quarrelling.

"Most Greco-Roman philosophers and many Diaspora Jews repeatedly condemned people who were ruled by their passions, and described these desires for pleasure as "waging war." Many writers like Plato, Plutarch and Philo attributed all literal wars to bodily desires. In a somewhat similar vein, Jewish people spoke of an evil impulse, which according to later rabbis dominated all 248 members of the body." (2) Obviously, people ruled by their passions fall into prideful conflict where truth is not the sake of the argument but the purpose of winning the argument. Post-Modern hermeneutics are folly to this quite often. Covetousness leads to conflict (you lust and do not have), anger and animosity lead to conflict (murder). These are basic human attributes present prior to most conflicts.

James looks back to the Sermon on the Mount when he uses murder to express more than actual killing, but also as an inward condition of heart, shown outwardly by anger (Matthew 5:21-22). For a treatment of killing and its link to killing by the tongue see The Sixth Commandment: Thou Shall Not Kill. James uses the word murder also, and it is startling and meant to startle; James sought to force his readers to realize the depth of the evil in their bitter hatred toward others. This is a continuation of the principle Christ laid in Matthew 5 concerning the tongue.

The reason such destructive desires exist among Christians, or humans generally, is because they are not seeking God for their needs. Or, when they do ask, they ask God with purely selfish motivation (you ask wrongly). Most often, our human condition worsens to the utter depths before we finally seek God concerning our condition. This is due to our selfishness and self-dependency, this is purely anti-Christ because it relies upon human ingenuity and human strength rather than Christ to provide.

There are those who perpetually offer their supplications before the throne yet their supplication is from selfish motives. I have noted that some who are in a troubled condition feel the compulsion to pray more than they did prior to the trouble. Often, these individuals only avail themselves to prayer to be delivered from this condition, all the while overlooking the fact that they ignored heaven previously. Even this affair often leads to strife because the individual with new found piety begins to rally others for their cause and condemns those who do not.

America is reached empire status. We are a country ruling over several provinces of assorted languages. America is constantly extending its influence, this inevitably leads to conflict. Some may say, and rightly so to a degree, we extend our influence to share democracy and freedom. However, what is also a reality is that we extend ourselves for financial gains and territorial annexation.

James says, "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions." Spend is the same verb used to describe the wasteful spending of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:14. Ironically, destructive desires persist even in the midst of the most pious actions. Even if we pray, because our prayers may be self-centered and self-indulgent, we can have destructive desires. We must remember that the purpose of prayer is not to persuade a reluctant God to do our bidding or prod a slothful God to action, rather the purpose of prayer is to align our will with His, and in partnership with Him, to ask Him to accomplish His will on this earth (Matt 6:10). Today, we are His feet and we are His hands. God has chosen this to be so.

To pursue and propagate Godliness we should prefer one another. Romans 12:10 states, "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;" (NKJV) Could this be the source of peace?

NOTES:

1. Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

2. IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Craig S. Keener Copyright © 1993 by Craig S. Keener. Published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved.