Dear Friends and Brethren: Ever since I obeyed the Gospel in December of 1996, I have been trying to learn as much as I can regarding the Christian faith and the Bible through which that faith is understood and articulated. I do not pretend to be an expert, but simply put a student - a disciple and a learner - of the only inspired teachings God has delivered into human hands.
I have always desired to share with others the things I learn from the Bible as I continue my journey through this land called Earth. I have been writing and dialoging with individuals for some time on spiritual matters, and have now been focusing my energies upon my own blog. It is called Biblical Faith, and it is a blog focusing upon Understanding the Bible and Applying it to Life. I am not asking for any financial support, just your spiritual support.
Many of you I know personally, and many of you I have known through online discussions. Others have arrived simply by accident (providence?). I am inviting all of you to my blog in the hopes that I am not running in vain, and that I may be able to impart any assistance possible in your spiritual formation. I am not perfect, just earnest, and if you believe I need to be instructed in the way more accurately you will find that I am more than happy to be pliable to the truth of God's Word and sound exegesis.
Please, if you can, keep me and this work I am endeavoring to accomplish in your prayers. They will be appreciated.
In Christian Sincerity,
Jovan Payes
Click here to read about Biblical Faith
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
When Boy Met Girl: For The First Time - by Jovan Payes
One of the most fundamental principles articulated in the Bible is that God created the universe, and that within this grand cosmos, a focal point was given to a small globe predominately covered in water – the planet earth. It is upon this planet that God organized the elements for human habitation over a period of six days (Exod. 20.7). During the sixth day, the un-caused Creator made humanity (Gen. 1.26-27).
In Genesis 2, the sixth day of creation is elaborated upon (2.4-25). There is a common literary device in the book of Genesis that perhaps is obscured by the English translation to which we call brief attention. It is called the Toledoth formula, and is often translated as “these are the generations,” “this is the family history,” “this is the account,” or some other formulation (Gen. 2.4, 5.1, 6.9, 10.1, 11.10, 11.27, 25.19, 36.1, 9, 37.2).
Attention is given to this literary device for two reasons – though several other thoughts could be developed. First, it is one of the clearest features in Genesis that displays to biblical students the “structure intended” by the author.[2] Second, this series of episodes throughout the book both provides a strong sense of unity and harmony within its narrative, and indicates a “historical impulse” to be understood while reading Genesis.[3]
These narratives are not mere “fairy-tales” given for ancient religious and philosophical contemplation. Instead, the biblical material is styled in such a way to make it obvious “the author intended it to be read as a work of history that recounts what has taken place in the far-distant past.”[4]
Therefore, in Genesis 2.4, when it reads, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth […],” we are beginning a historical – albeit theological – pilgrimage that starts with the historical creation of our forefathers made in the “image of God” (1.27).
Humanity - The Pinnacle of Creation
Heaven’s joy in creating humanity is perhaps seen quite clearly when we compare how God assessed the situation when humans come into the picture. In general, God saw His creation as “good” – “And God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1.4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The Hebrew word for “good” in Genesis 1 (Heb. tob) has many applications in the Old Testament, employed by different authors as many times as 741 instances.
In the Creation Account, “good” anticipates the theme of the fall of Adam and Eve,[5] but at the same time demonstrates that the Creation as God intended was an ideal place for the well being of its inhabitants.[6] Consequently, at the close of the sixth day, after the creation of humanity God surveyed his handiwork, and saw that “it was very good.”
Perhaps our Creator observed that all the pieces to his creation were now in place, and so now the planet was a very good place to live – God’s ideal world realized. Though not in contradistinction, perhaps we are reading a phrase of great emotion and tenderness, as the only creation made in the Imago Dei (“image of God”) now walks the earth. Furthermore, humanity is entrusted with sovereignty over the animals and with the planets overall care (Gen. 1.26); humanity is thus the crown of creation.
The sweet psalmist of Israel (2 Sam. 23.1) sets forth a beautiful hymn of praise to God for His creative acts, but most importantly, for his emphasis upon the human family. A segment of the 8th Psalm is as follows:
God Created the Family
Returning to Genesis 2.4, we see a narrative serving much as a prism fragmenting a beam of light into many unique colors of spiritual insight. We may focus upon many of them as we have done above, but here attention is drawn to one in particular. When God created humanity, he also created the fundamental building block of human society – God created the family.
God employed His sovereignty and created a human community on the sixth day made up of one male and one female. Genesis 1.27 abbreviates the day, but 2.4-25 reiterates and expands upon the sixth day, a common feature in Old Testament narration to focus upon a critical moment that pushes the story forward.[7] We find Adam created from earthen materials, and fashioned into a “living soul” with the “breathe of life” given to him (2.7); however, he was alone, and that was not good for the well being of the creation (2.18).
One of the aspects of being made in the image of God is that humans are by-in-large social beings. God is a trinity; in other words, God is a community of love made of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28.19; 2 Cor. 13.14; 1 Pet. 1.2, etc.). Should it be all that surprising that the Imago Dei is likewise a social being? Hardly, and God saw the loneliness and incompleteness Adam felt and addresses the matter.
In what appears to be an animal parade of potential companions organized by God, Adam still finds no animal that would be a “a helper fit for him” (2.18-20). In other words, “a helper corresponding to him,”[8] suggesting Adam’s deep need to have another person just like him to help fulfill his responsibilities of governing the creation. A companion was needed to work side-by-side, another person like Adam to continue the human family, another person to create a community of love made in the image of God.
Consequently, when no animal met those criteria, the Lord caused a great sleep to fall upon Adam. When Adam awoke, God had created a new being that corresponded to him; someone who would help him in this new world. God presented this person to Adam and he named her Woman (Heb. 'issah), which is the logical result since she was taken out of man (Heb. 'is 2.22-23).
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., makes a very important point here worthy to be reflected upon:
Boy Meets Girl
It is amazing to fathom how God corroborated with Adam and his imperfect solitude. God orchestrated the events that lead to the creation of Eve, and Adam knew exactly what he saw: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2.23). We might respectfully paraphrase Adam as saying, “Finally, a person made just like me!” The event was quite literally that of a match made by Heaven.
Together, they were to share the dominion over the planet (1.26), and dwell in an environment objectively unaware of the evil uses of the sexual appetite – hence “they were naked and not ashamed.”'[11]
After Adam’s great announcement of finding his companion, the bedrock biblical principle of marriage is declared in terms of a logical consequence derived from the events of day six leading to the creation of womankind. Moses addresses his post-fall contemporaries and places a prescriptive emphasis upon this pre-fall narrative: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2.24).[12]
There have been departures from God’s intent for marriage since the polygamy practiced by Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (etc.), or whether it is the tolerated relaxation of the original marriage code in Genesis 2.24 allowed under the Mosaic system due to the “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19.8).
Jesus appealing back to this Genesis narrative affirms that “from the beginning [of time] it was not so” (Matt. 19.8).[13] The marriage can only be severed on the basis of adultery, and while many pollute this teaching, the Lord is quite clear on the subject (Matt. 5.32).[14]
Some Areas of Application
Jesus addressed a much-needed foundational marriage issue, one that our contemporary culture is in dire need of emphasizing: divorce and remarriage is not for any cause.
When God created male and female, and gave them the garden for their home, reproduction as an aspect of life, and delegated the authority to them for the governance of the world and its other inhabitants, He joined Adam and Eve into one flesh (2.24; 1.26-28). Their example is designed to serve all subsequent generations on earth as the templar for the permanent nature of marriage (and its goals).
As we conclude this piece focused upon the first encounter between boy and girl – rather man and woman (Heb. 'is and 'issah respectively), it is vital to give some attention to the concept of one flesh. In doing so, there are three pivotal principles articulated by Ortlund based upon Genesis 2.24.[15]
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness […] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1.26a, 27)[1]The Historical Setting
In Genesis 2, the sixth day of creation is elaborated upon (2.4-25). There is a common literary device in the book of Genesis that perhaps is obscured by the English translation to which we call brief attention. It is called the Toledoth formula, and is often translated as “these are the generations,” “this is the family history,” “this is the account,” or some other formulation (Gen. 2.4, 5.1, 6.9, 10.1, 11.10, 11.27, 25.19, 36.1, 9, 37.2).
Attention is given to this literary device for two reasons – though several other thoughts could be developed. First, it is one of the clearest features in Genesis that displays to biblical students the “structure intended” by the author.[2] Second, this series of episodes throughout the book both provides a strong sense of unity and harmony within its narrative, and indicates a “historical impulse” to be understood while reading Genesis.[3]
These narratives are not mere “fairy-tales” given for ancient religious and philosophical contemplation. Instead, the biblical material is styled in such a way to make it obvious “the author intended it to be read as a work of history that recounts what has taken place in the far-distant past.”[4]
Therefore, in Genesis 2.4, when it reads, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth […],” we are beginning a historical – albeit theological – pilgrimage that starts with the historical creation of our forefathers made in the “image of God” (1.27).
Humanity - The Pinnacle of Creation
Heaven’s joy in creating humanity is perhaps seen quite clearly when we compare how God assessed the situation when humans come into the picture. In general, God saw His creation as “good” – “And God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1.4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The Hebrew word for “good” in Genesis 1 (Heb. tob) has many applications in the Old Testament, employed by different authors as many times as 741 instances.
In the Creation Account, “good” anticipates the theme of the fall of Adam and Eve,[5] but at the same time demonstrates that the Creation as God intended was an ideal place for the well being of its inhabitants.[6] Consequently, at the close of the sixth day, after the creation of humanity God surveyed his handiwork, and saw that “it was very good.”
Perhaps our Creator observed that all the pieces to his creation were now in place, and so now the planet was a very good place to live – God’s ideal world realized. Though not in contradistinction, perhaps we are reading a phrase of great emotion and tenderness, as the only creation made in the Imago Dei (“image of God”) now walks the earth. Furthermore, humanity is entrusted with sovereignty over the animals and with the planets overall care (Gen. 1.26); humanity is thus the crown of creation.
The sweet psalmist of Israel (2 Sam. 23.1) sets forth a beautiful hymn of praise to God for His creative acts, but most importantly, for his emphasis upon the human family. A segment of the 8th Psalm is as follows:
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet [….] (Psa. 8.3-6)No doubt as King of Israel, David had pondered over the Creation Account several times (cf. Psa. 19). Perhaps he became more intimately involved in its study, since it was his duty as King to be a Scribe of the Law as well (Deut. 17.18-20).
God Created the Family
Returning to Genesis 2.4, we see a narrative serving much as a prism fragmenting a beam of light into many unique colors of spiritual insight. We may focus upon many of them as we have done above, but here attention is drawn to one in particular. When God created humanity, he also created the fundamental building block of human society – God created the family.
God employed His sovereignty and created a human community on the sixth day made up of one male and one female. Genesis 1.27 abbreviates the day, but 2.4-25 reiterates and expands upon the sixth day, a common feature in Old Testament narration to focus upon a critical moment that pushes the story forward.[7] We find Adam created from earthen materials, and fashioned into a “living soul” with the “breathe of life” given to him (2.7); however, he was alone, and that was not good for the well being of the creation (2.18).
One of the aspects of being made in the image of God is that humans are by-in-large social beings. God is a trinity; in other words, God is a community of love made of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28.19; 2 Cor. 13.14; 1 Pet. 1.2, etc.). Should it be all that surprising that the Imago Dei is likewise a social being? Hardly, and God saw the loneliness and incompleteness Adam felt and addresses the matter.
In what appears to be an animal parade of potential companions organized by God, Adam still finds no animal that would be a “a helper fit for him” (2.18-20). In other words, “a helper corresponding to him,”[8] suggesting Adam’s deep need to have another person just like him to help fulfill his responsibilities of governing the creation. A companion was needed to work side-by-side, another person like Adam to continue the human family, another person to create a community of love made in the image of God.
Consequently, when no animal met those criteria, the Lord caused a great sleep to fall upon Adam. When Adam awoke, God had created a new being that corresponded to him; someone who would help him in this new world. God presented this person to Adam and he named her Woman (Heb. 'issah), which is the logical result since she was taken out of man (Heb. 'is 2.22-23).
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., makes a very important point here worthy to be reflected upon:
Unlike the animals – indeed, unlike the man himself – she did not come up from the ground below but out from human flesh, putting her alone at the man’s level.[9]This was indeed a public proclamation of her status as his only true companion in the garden.[10]
Boy Meets Girl
It is amazing to fathom how God corroborated with Adam and his imperfect solitude. God orchestrated the events that lead to the creation of Eve, and Adam knew exactly what he saw: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2.23). We might respectfully paraphrase Adam as saying, “Finally, a person made just like me!” The event was quite literally that of a match made by Heaven.
Together, they were to share the dominion over the planet (1.26), and dwell in an environment objectively unaware of the evil uses of the sexual appetite – hence “they were naked and not ashamed.”'[11]
After Adam’s great announcement of finding his companion, the bedrock biblical principle of marriage is declared in terms of a logical consequence derived from the events of day six leading to the creation of womankind. Moses addresses his post-fall contemporaries and places a prescriptive emphasis upon this pre-fall narrative: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2.24).[12]
There have been departures from God’s intent for marriage since the polygamy practiced by Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (etc.), or whether it is the tolerated relaxation of the original marriage code in Genesis 2.24 allowed under the Mosaic system due to the “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19.8).
Jesus appealing back to this Genesis narrative affirms that “from the beginning [of time] it was not so” (Matt. 19.8).[13] The marriage can only be severed on the basis of adultery, and while many pollute this teaching, the Lord is quite clear on the subject (Matt. 5.32).[14]
Some Areas of Application
Jesus addressed a much-needed foundational marriage issue, one that our contemporary culture is in dire need of emphasizing: divorce and remarriage is not for any cause.
When God created male and female, and gave them the garden for their home, reproduction as an aspect of life, and delegated the authority to them for the governance of the world and its other inhabitants, He joined Adam and Eve into one flesh (2.24; 1.26-28). Their example is designed to serve all subsequent generations on earth as the templar for the permanent nature of marriage (and its goals).
As we conclude this piece focused upon the first encounter between boy and girl – rather man and woman (Heb. 'is and 'issah respectively), it is vital to give some attention to the concept of one flesh. In doing so, there are three pivotal principles articulated by Ortlund based upon Genesis 2.24.[15]
- First, viewed negatively marriage severs the strongest of human bonds – parental; and as such, “elevates the marital union above all other personal loyalties, under God.”
- Second, viewed positively marriage is the context where the male “devotes his primary loyalty to his wife” emotionally, sexually, and socially.
- Third, “the new life [as one flesh] created by a marriage fuses a man and wife together into one, fully shared human experience, prompting mutual care, tenderness and love.”
These are beautiful principles that would enrich any marriage.
Conclusion
The teaching from Genesis 2.24 is set forth before the Mosaic and Christian covenant, and this means that its teaching applies to entirety of the human race.[16] God did not allow the creation week to end without the creation of humanity, and subsequently the family.
It was not consistent with the well being of the creation for Adam to be alone, and God created the perfect companion to help him navigate through the world of Eden. This was the first marriage, and God designed marriage to be a permanent relationship of a “fully shared human experience” – the good, the bad, and the ugly. Human interference in the marriage is strongly warned against by Jesus (Matt. 19.6, 9).
All we can do is ponder over these principles, find avenues in our lives to enact them, and allow the idealistic Edenic garden to be planted, cultivated, and blossomed in our marriages. As it is written in the Scriptures:
Awake, O north wind, and come O south wind! Blow upon my garden, let its spices flow. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits. I came to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gathered my myrrh with my spice, I ate my honeycomb with my honey, I drank my wine with my milk. Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love! (Song 4.16-5.1)Sources
- All quotations of Scripture are from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).
- Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994; p. 48.
- Dillard and Longman, pp. 48, 49.
- Dillard and Longman, p. 49.
- Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. 1997. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. 3 vols; 2.491-92.
- Vine, W.E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Nelson, 1984. 2 vols; 1.100.
- Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. NY: Basic Books, 1981; pp. 50-51.
- Woods, Clyde M. Genesis-Exodus. Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972; p. 9.
- Ortlund, Raymond C., Jr. Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996; p. 19.
- Ortlund, p. 19.
- Cf. Woods, p. 9.
- Ortlund, p. 20-21.
- Jackson, Wayne. The Teaching of Jesus Christ on Divorce and Remarriage: A Critical Study of Matthew 19.9. New ed. Stockton, CA: Courier, 2002; cf. pp. 2-8.
- Lewis, Jack P. The Gospel According to Matthew. 2 vols. 1976. Living Word Commentary. New Testament Series. Ed. Everett Ferguson. Abilene: Abilene Christian UP, 1984; 2.67.
- Ortlund, p. 21-23.
- Cf. Jackson, pp. 5-6.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The Bible is Beyond Human Production - by Jovan Payes
Introduction
It has been a few years since Mel Gibson’s movie, "The Passion of the Christ," was all that the world could talk about. It was a situation bound to receive controversial media coverage – it just comes with the territory of religion in the media. A case in point was the February 16 issue of Newsweek published in anticipation of Gibson’s film. About a week or so before this publication hit the stands, Jon Meacham’s cover story entitled, "Who Killed Jesus?," was published online on MSNBC.com in four internet pages.
Meacham’s article feigned an attempt to evaluate Gibson’s new movie, and instead, assaulted the biblical text. He openly affirms, "the Bible is the product of human authors." He further argues that these authors were producing religious propaganda for Christianity, and like any other literary work the Bible is plagued with historical inaccuracies. Concerning the Bible Meacham writes:
Media's Treatment of the Bible
Meacham’s view of the Bible articulates three ways the Bible is often misrepresented in mainstream American media: (1) the Bible is of sole human origin, (2) the Scriptures are unreliable historical records, and (3) the biblical sources are legendary that need specious sources to embellish the narrative to provide the "true story." With a national circulation over 3 million, there is no doubt that the church, our neighbors (religious or otherwise) and our youth our influenced by this.
How shall we respond? Bible believers need to be able to affirm the following response. Although these erroneous views of the Bible are widespread, the Bible (i.e. Scripture) is beyond that of human production and consequently trustworthy, because the internal evidence of predictive prophecy, the uncanny historical accuracy, and the marvelous unity of the 66 books is of supernatural origin and guidance.
Predictive Prophecy
Predictive prophecy is one of the most powerful lines of evidence that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The specific foretelling of future events serves as an accurate brief definition. Moreover, there are at least three criteria: (1) it must be given separated by a significant amount of time, (2) there are specific details (not generalities) and, (3) 100% fulfillment must follow (not 95% etc.). As an example, observe the prophecy of the rise and fall of four world powers of antiquity given in Daniel 2 and its relationship to the establishment of the church in the first century.
The image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:1-24) was a picture of 4 sequential kingdoms: Babylonia (605-539 B.C), Persia (539-331 B.C.), Hellenistic (331-63 B.C.), and Roman (63 B.C-A.D. 476).[2] Daniel living in the 6th century B.C. predicted the fall of Babylon and the rise of these world empires. Furthermore, in Daniel 2:44-45 the prophecy was declared that during the reign of Imperial Rome, the God of heaven would establish His kingdom for all time.
While Rome was in power Jesus was born, lived, ministered, died, and resurrected. He declared that he was going to establish His church (Matt. 16:18), which in this context means His kingdom (Matt. 16:19-20; Mark 9:1). This kingdom-church would come after the Holy Spirit had come upon the 12 Apostles (Acts 1:4-8), which arrived on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The prophecy was fulfilled as precisely as it was given centuries in advance.[3]
Precise Historical Accuracy
Historical accuracy is another line of reasoning which demonstrates that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The book of Acts is a powerful example. Luke wrote the book of Acts, which is a chronicle of the labors of the apostles Peter and Paul as the gospel goes from Jerusalem to the entire world. The accuracy of Acts is such that no human could have been so accurate, except for the guidance of the Holy Spirit; observe:
Accessibility to libraries was minimal due to how few or exclusive they were, and even if they had reference works, "the events Luke was trying to chronicle had taken place – at least at the beginning – in what the people of that day would have said were remote areas of the world."[5]
There has yet to be historical accuracy of the magnitude of Acts and the Bible recovered from antiquity to the present.
Unity of the Scriptures
A third line of argumentation is the unparalleled unity of the Scriptures. For instance, Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 are among a variety of passage appealed to substantiate the claim that the Bible is not a harmonious work. Here is the argument. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to the same event in antiquity, the invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. However, the date of the event mentioned appears upon face value discrepant for Jeremiah says the event happened in the 4th year of Jehoiakim’s reign while Daniel says the timeframe was during the 3rd year of Jehoiakim’s rule.
If the two accounts cannot be harmonized then this is a historical mistake, underscoring a purely human enterprise. The answer to this riddle, however, lies in the distinct systems of dating reignal years used by Daniel and Jeremiah. Bruce K. Waltke writes:
As so often happens, the supposed discrepancies become evidence against the critics of the Bible.
Conclusion
The Bible is not a problematic source; however, that does not mean that it has no range of complexity. The Bible is "a faithful record of historical events," and its principles are grounded upon historical reality (e.g. creation, the Exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.). The Bible comes together like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. It is due to overwhelming evidence like this that we affirm that the Bible is beyond human production.
Sources
It has been a few years since Mel Gibson’s movie, "The Passion of the Christ," was all that the world could talk about. It was a situation bound to receive controversial media coverage – it just comes with the territory of religion in the media. A case in point was the February 16 issue of Newsweek published in anticipation of Gibson’s film. About a week or so before this publication hit the stands, Jon Meacham’s cover story entitled, "Who Killed Jesus?," was published online on MSNBC.com in four internet pages.
Meacham’s article feigned an attempt to evaluate Gibson’s new movie, and instead, assaulted the biblical text. He openly affirms, "the Bible is the product of human authors." He further argues that these authors were producing religious propaganda for Christianity, and like any other literary work the Bible is plagued with historical inaccuracies. Concerning the Bible Meacham writes:
This is just one quote from a number of similar statements found throughout the article. The editor of Newsweek couches his statement with liberal theological overtones. In other words, Scripture is regarded as human produced literature designed only to give morals, void of any direct involvement of God.The Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to makeand visions to advance.[1]
Media's Treatment of the Bible
Meacham’s view of the Bible articulates three ways the Bible is often misrepresented in mainstream American media: (1) the Bible is of sole human origin, (2) the Scriptures are unreliable historical records, and (3) the biblical sources are legendary that need specious sources to embellish the narrative to provide the "true story." With a national circulation over 3 million, there is no doubt that the church, our neighbors (religious or otherwise) and our youth our influenced by this.
How shall we respond? Bible believers need to be able to affirm the following response. Although these erroneous views of the Bible are widespread, the Bible (i.e. Scripture) is beyond that of human production and consequently trustworthy, because the internal evidence of predictive prophecy, the uncanny historical accuracy, and the marvelous unity of the 66 books is of supernatural origin and guidance.
Predictive Prophecy
Predictive prophecy is one of the most powerful lines of evidence that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The specific foretelling of future events serves as an accurate brief definition. Moreover, there are at least three criteria: (1) it must be given separated by a significant amount of time, (2) there are specific details (not generalities) and, (3) 100% fulfillment must follow (not 95% etc.). As an example, observe the prophecy of the rise and fall of four world powers of antiquity given in Daniel 2 and its relationship to the establishment of the church in the first century.
The image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:1-24) was a picture of 4 sequential kingdoms: Babylonia (605-539 B.C), Persia (539-331 B.C.), Hellenistic (331-63 B.C.), and Roman (63 B.C-A.D. 476).[2] Daniel living in the 6th century B.C. predicted the fall of Babylon and the rise of these world empires. Furthermore, in Daniel 2:44-45 the prophecy was declared that during the reign of Imperial Rome, the God of heaven would establish His kingdom for all time.
While Rome was in power Jesus was born, lived, ministered, died, and resurrected. He declared that he was going to establish His church (Matt. 16:18), which in this context means His kingdom (Matt. 16:19-20; Mark 9:1). This kingdom-church would come after the Holy Spirit had come upon the 12 Apostles (Acts 1:4-8), which arrived on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The prophecy was fulfilled as precisely as it was given centuries in advance.[3]
Precise Historical Accuracy
Historical accuracy is another line of reasoning which demonstrates that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The book of Acts is a powerful example. Luke wrote the book of Acts, which is a chronicle of the labors of the apostles Peter and Paul as the gospel goes from Jerusalem to the entire world. The accuracy of Acts is such that no human could have been so accurate, except for the guidance of the Holy Spirit; observe:
This companion of Paul was a careful and meticulous historian. For instance, in Acts he mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons in Acts, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. He is thoroughly familiar with the geographical and political conditions of his day. And this is really amazing since the political/territorial situation was in a constant state of flux and flow in Luke’s time.[4]
Accessibility to libraries was minimal due to how few or exclusive they were, and even if they had reference works, "the events Luke was trying to chronicle had taken place – at least at the beginning – in what the people of that day would have said were remote areas of the world."[5]
There has yet to be historical accuracy of the magnitude of Acts and the Bible recovered from antiquity to the present.
Unity of the Scriptures
A third line of argumentation is the unparalleled unity of the Scriptures. For instance, Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 are among a variety of passage appealed to substantiate the claim that the Bible is not a harmonious work. Here is the argument. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to the same event in antiquity, the invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. However, the date of the event mentioned appears upon face value discrepant for Jeremiah says the event happened in the 4th year of Jehoiakim’s reign while Daniel says the timeframe was during the 3rd year of Jehoiakim’s rule.
If the two accounts cannot be harmonized then this is a historical mistake, underscoring a purely human enterprise. The answer to this riddle, however, lies in the distinct systems of dating reignal years used by Daniel and Jeremiah. Bruce K. Waltke writes:
In Babylonia the year in which the king ascended the throne was designated specifically as "the year of accession to the kingdom," and this was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of rule. In Palestine, on the other hand, there was no accession year as such, so that the length of rule was computed differently, with the year of accession being regarded as the first year of the king's reign.[5]Therefore, Daniel living in Babylonia used that system, while Jeremiah employed the Palestinian method. The unity spans cross-cultural methods of communication, how wonderful! The remarkable unity is so strong that even difficult passages backfire on the critic.
As so often happens, the supposed discrepancies become evidence against the critics of the Bible.
Conclusion
The Bible is not a problematic source; however, that does not mean that it has no range of complexity. The Bible is "a faithful record of historical events," and its principles are grounded upon historical reality (e.g. creation, the Exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.). The Bible comes together like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. It is due to overwhelming evidence like this that we affirm that the Bible is beyond human production.
Sources
- Meacham, Jon. "Who Killed Jesus?" MSNBC.com. 16 Feb. 2004. Accessed: 12 Aug. 2007; p.1 par.5.
- Boyd, Robert T. World's Bible Handbook. Nashville: Nelson, 1996; p. 309.
- Jackson, Jason. "How Can the Church be the Fulfillment of Daniel 2.44?" Christian Courier Online. 28 Sept. 2005. Accessed: 16 Aug. 2007.
- Jackson, Wayne. Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1982; p. 46.
- Boice, James M. Acts: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997; p. 14.
- Waltke, Bruce K. "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976); p. 326.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Comments on 2 Peter 1.1-11 - by Jovan Payes
Greeting (2 Peter 1:1-2)
Unlike modern letter writing standards, ancient letter writers put the author’s name first, followed by some reference that connects the author and the readers. Peter calls himself a servant and apostle, two terms that are quite descriptive. As a servant (the word usually means slave), Peter stresses his submission to God and his disposition regarding his ministry to others. The word apostle stresses his spiritual commission to represent God and his message.
The readers are those who share the same faith as he does, they are on "the same level as the author."[1] This faith is personal, as developed with their relationship with God and Jesus. Then consistent with ancient letter writing, Peter sends them a greeting. Grace is usually seen as the Greek salutation, while peace is typically considered to be the Hebrew way of saying hello. It is probably because of what Peter will address later, that he sends this greeting in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
In fact, 2 Peter places a high premium on knowledge, especially as it pertains to knowledge and morality, and knowledge and truth. True knowledge appropriately originates from God and of Jesus our Lord.
3-4: The Basis for Godly Living
Peter continues the theme of knowledge and says that it is through Christ’s divine power (God-based ability), that Christians have been given access to all things that pertain to life and godliness. Christians must learn here that "the ultimate condition, prerequisite, or essential foundation for holiness in the believer’s life is God’s divine power."[2]
The Christian has this access through knowledge, but this is not simple knowledge, it is the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence. The reference to his glory and excellence is a pointer to which our calling finds completion -to abide with God. Yet this final reality can only be obtained through knowledge of him.
Knowledge has given us his precious and very great promises, which are the means by which God allows us to become partakers of the divine nature (i.e. to share the nature of God). Modern man -even the modern Christian- may feel skeptical about this promise,[3] but it is what we have to look forward to (1 John 3.2). This nature is obtained as one learns how to escape from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Christians are expected to employ God’s knowledge to do this, it will not happen by accident.
5: Faith, Virtue, and knowledge
Naturally, since the Christian aim is to escape the corruption of this world and partake of the divine nature through knowledge, Peter provides a list of virtues that must be added to one’s lifestyle in order reach these goals.
Furthermore, Christians are to supplement their moral excellence with knowledge, meaning that in a fully functional godly behavioral system they are to have knowledge. Contextually, this knowledge is what allows Christians to become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
6: Self-Control, Steadfastness, and Godliness
In addition to moral excellence and knowledge, to become completely holy and capable to partake of the divine nature, the Christian is to assume the development of self-control, steadfastness, and godliness. Some translations have the word temperance (KJV), but this is inaccurate since now the word "temperance" is limited to self-control against alcohol. The English word used here comes from a Greek word meaning, "to exercise complete control over one’s desires and actions - ‘to control oneself, to exercise self control.’"[7]
Next, is the idea of bearing up courageously under suffering, here translated steadfastness.[8] And then, disciples of Jesus are to supplement their behavior with godliness. One would think that this exhortation is unnecessary since the whole list of virtues revolves around the idea of devotion towards God in such a way where one "does that which is well-pleasing to Him."[9]
7: Brotherly Affection and Love
The last two virtues of Christian godliness are brotherly affection and love, elements which are of special consideration because there is a distinction being made here between the two. Brotherly affection is mutual love, while love is all the more encompassing.
Fred Craddock discusses these words in the following way:
Peter does not hold back here, where people are prone to; instead, he affirms clearly that these things -qualities- must be in the Christians possessions and in the process of development. In so doing, he affirms, they will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not let loose of two concepts -godly living and knowledge- for the two are joined at the proverbial "hip."
This will stand more clearly in stark contrast to the false teachers in chapter 2. Rigorous training and development in godly behaviors assures one that they will not become "useless and unproductive" in the joys that exist in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. A strong warning is made against those who would lack these qualities, stressing that to lack these qualities is the result of forgetting that a person’s sinfulness was forgiven, and that these sins represent one’s imperfection and need to develop morally. Failure to do this will be detrimental to one’s calling and election.
10-11: Making Your Calling and Election Sure
Because of the dangers that inhere should a Christian not develop these qualities of godly living, Peter warns with a logical conclusion, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure. The answer to the question "why?" is provided, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. It is crystal clear that Peter is demonstrating that one’s salvation can be a fragile thing, should one neglect personal development.
Neglect will give way to falling, and contextually, this fall refers to one’s failure to enter into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peter even affirms, by supplementing one’s life with godly characteristics, one will be richly provided an entrance into this kingdom; however, failure to do this makes this entrance void - it is not just the richness of the heavenly entrance being considered, it’s the entrance into heaven itself.[11]
Sources
Unlike modern letter writing standards, ancient letter writers put the author’s name first, followed by some reference that connects the author and the readers. Peter calls himself a servant and apostle, two terms that are quite descriptive. As a servant (the word usually means slave), Peter stresses his submission to God and his disposition regarding his ministry to others. The word apostle stresses his spiritual commission to represent God and his message.
The readers are those who share the same faith as he does, they are on "the same level as the author."[1] This faith is personal, as developed with their relationship with God and Jesus. Then consistent with ancient letter writing, Peter sends them a greeting. Grace is usually seen as the Greek salutation, while peace is typically considered to be the Hebrew way of saying hello. It is probably because of what Peter will address later, that he sends this greeting in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
In fact, 2 Peter places a high premium on knowledge, especially as it pertains to knowledge and morality, and knowledge and truth. True knowledge appropriately originates from God and of Jesus our Lord.
3-4: The Basis for Godly Living
Peter continues the theme of knowledge and says that it is through Christ’s divine power (God-based ability), that Christians have been given access to all things that pertain to life and godliness. Christians must learn here that "the ultimate condition, prerequisite, or essential foundation for holiness in the believer’s life is God’s divine power."[2]
The Christian has this access through knowledge, but this is not simple knowledge, it is the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence. The reference to his glory and excellence is a pointer to which our calling finds completion -to abide with God. Yet this final reality can only be obtained through knowledge of him.
Knowledge has given us his precious and very great promises, which are the means by which God allows us to become partakers of the divine nature (i.e. to share the nature of God). Modern man -even the modern Christian- may feel skeptical about this promise,[3] but it is what we have to look forward to (1 John 3.2). This nature is obtained as one learns how to escape from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Christians are expected to employ God’s knowledge to do this, it will not happen by accident.
5: Faith, Virtue, and knowledge
Naturally, since the Christian aim is to escape the corruption of this world and partake of the divine nature through knowledge, Peter provides a list of virtues that must be added to one’s lifestyle in order reach these goals.
The virtues described in the chain in 1.5-7 not only are holy actions, but the very chain indicates the fullness of holiness that they must strive for. Thus those who seek them will be completely holy.[4]In fact, the word supplement suggests "the believer contributes lavishly to the work of his salvation."[5] Christians must contribute faith with virtue; moreover, this faith is probably the same referred to earlier -a personally developed reliance upon God- that must be contributed to with virtue (moral excellence).[6]
Furthermore, Christians are to supplement their moral excellence with knowledge, meaning that in a fully functional godly behavioral system they are to have knowledge. Contextually, this knowledge is what allows Christians to become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
6: Self-Control, Steadfastness, and Godliness
In addition to moral excellence and knowledge, to become completely holy and capable to partake of the divine nature, the Christian is to assume the development of self-control, steadfastness, and godliness. Some translations have the word temperance (KJV), but this is inaccurate since now the word "temperance" is limited to self-control against alcohol. The English word used here comes from a Greek word meaning, "to exercise complete control over one’s desires and actions - ‘to control oneself, to exercise self control.’"[7]
Next, is the idea of bearing up courageously under suffering, here translated steadfastness.[8] And then, disciples of Jesus are to supplement their behavior with godliness. One would think that this exhortation is unnecessary since the whole list of virtues revolves around the idea of devotion towards God in such a way where one "does that which is well-pleasing to Him."[9]
7: Brotherly Affection and Love
The last two virtues of Christian godliness are brotherly affection and love, elements which are of special consideration because there is a distinction being made here between the two. Brotherly affection is mutual love, while love is all the more encompassing.
Fred Craddock discusses these words in the following way:
Mutual affection is literally ‘love of one’s brothers and sisters’ (philadelphia) and is an essential component of church life. But that is just the point: mutual affection, reciprocal love, pertains to life in the church, to the fellowship. Beyond that, however is love, agape. Love does not require reciprocity; it includes the stranger, and even the enemy. It behaves favorably and helpfully toward the other regardless of who the other is or what the other had done.[10]8-9: The Importance of these Characteristics
Peter does not hold back here, where people are prone to; instead, he affirms clearly that these things -qualities- must be in the Christians possessions and in the process of development. In so doing, he affirms, they will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not let loose of two concepts -godly living and knowledge- for the two are joined at the proverbial "hip."
This will stand more clearly in stark contrast to the false teachers in chapter 2. Rigorous training and development in godly behaviors assures one that they will not become "useless and unproductive" in the joys that exist in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. A strong warning is made against those who would lack these qualities, stressing that to lack these qualities is the result of forgetting that a person’s sinfulness was forgiven, and that these sins represent one’s imperfection and need to develop morally. Failure to do this will be detrimental to one’s calling and election.
10-11: Making Your Calling and Election Sure
Because of the dangers that inhere should a Christian not develop these qualities of godly living, Peter warns with a logical conclusion, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure. The answer to the question "why?" is provided, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. It is crystal clear that Peter is demonstrating that one’s salvation can be a fragile thing, should one neglect personal development.
Neglect will give way to falling, and contextually, this fall refers to one’s failure to enter into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peter even affirms, by supplementing one’s life with godly characteristics, one will be richly provided an entrance into this kingdom; however, failure to do this makes this entrance void - it is not just the richness of the heavenly entrance being considered, it’s the entrance into heaven itself.[11]
Sources
- Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude. Interpretation. Ed. James L. Mays. Louisville, KY: Knox, 1995; p. 167.
- Howe, Frederic R. "The Christian's Life in Peter's Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000): 303-14; p. 307.
- Perkins, p. 169.
- Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. Vol. 37C. Gen. ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1993; p. 154.
- Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987; p. 251.
- Newman, Jr., Barclay M. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993; p. 24.
- (L-N) Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. Eds. Rondal B. Smith and Karen A. Munson. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. 2 vols; 1.751.
- Vine, W.E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Nelson, 1984. 2 vols; 2.200.
- Vine, Unger, and White, 2.273.
- Craddock, Fred B. 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: WJK, 1995; p. 101.
- Kistemaker, pp. 257-58.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Purge the Evil Person: A Brief Analysis of 1 Corinthians 5.1-13 - by Jovan Payes
Introduction
One of the most difficult public displays of Christian obedience to God is the withdrawal of fellowship from a recalcitrant Christian. It is perhaps one of the most dynamic of commands to follow in the New Testament. Before reaching such a public excision, the Lord Jesus addressed the problem of confronting a wayward brother with the view to "gain" him (Matt. 18.15-17).
Preliminary Thoughts
The Lord sets forth a four-pronged redemptive procedure that begins under the most private of circumstances – "you and him alone" (18.15); in this setting, then, a private appeal to repent is offered. If the rebellious child of God maintains their posture, then the circle of brotherly concern widens to "one or two others" that come to witness the call to repentance (18.16).
Unfortunately, even at this point some are so entrenched in sin, that they will not hear the admonitions; consequently, the Lord says, "if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church" (18.17). The publication of the situation allows the church as a whole to make an appeal to their fellow saint. All the "ties that bind" are summoned to invite this wayward soul to repent.
The Lord acknowledges that some will not be gained back to the fold by these loving and redemptive attempts, and sets forth the final process – consider the rebellious Christian as both an outsider of the blessings of the Christian covenant and a traitor who has chosen to serve Satan instead of Christ. In other words, the congregation must "disassociate the offender from the church fellowship."[1] The saved has now become the lost – how ironically tragic.
A Flagrant Issue
The New Testament has several examples of discipline; most usually they are of a very flagrant issue. For example, in 3 John 9-10 the apostle of love forewarns his audience that he will bring discipline upon Diotrephes the "missions" killer. Or, when Paul abbreviates his role in the discipline of Hymenaeus and Alexander ("delivered them to Satan"), who made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim. 1.19-20).
However, in 1 Corinthians 5.1-13, Paul deals with an outlandish mode of porneia that is not even "tolerated" among the pagans (5.1 ESV). Porneia is the Greek word that is commonly translated "fornication" in older translations, and in newer translations as "sexual immorality."
The truth of the matter is that porneia is a generic term for "illicit sexual intercourse."[2] Porneia is an umbrella term and context must determine the type that is under consideration. The flagrant form of porneia Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5.1 is this, "a [Christian] man has his father’s wife" (i.e. his stepmother). The severity of this behavior is evident by the fact that Paul appeals to the fact that Gentiles – or pagans – do not even permit such behavior.
This context provides the most insightful New Testament example of withdrawing Christian fellowship from recalcitrant saints. And as careful Bible students, we must definitely rehearse the valuable instruction of these verses.
The Duel Rebuke
Paul moves from the case of the man with his stepmother, and draws attention to the congregation’s part in this flagrant relationship. The church had been "arrogant" and not "mournful" about the sinful relationship (5.2), and argues immediately that removal of the Christian was the appropriate reaction. The church at Corinth was laden with arrogance (4.6, 18-19), and here Paul rebukes them for this dispositional flaw that was affecting their decision making process on this matter.
Paul demonstrates that not only is the rebellious person accountable to God, but that the church too cannot subscribe to a lax posture about known – public – sin in the church. The church is responsible and accountable to respond to a situation where a saint’s sin has become public knowledge. The apostle’s prescribes that a period of "mourning" along with "disciplinarian action" is the appropriate reaction to sins of a public nature.
The Judgment
With the next flip of his pen, Paul moves into position to make the judgment Corinth should have – he places judgment upon the Christian and the sexually immoral relationship with his un-Christian stepmother (5.3-5). There is no clear statement regarding the woman in view, aside from the fact that she is the wife of his father.[3]
However, since the judgment is upon the Christian man, "it seems safe to assume that she is not a Christian."[4] Paul writes:
The judgment is upon his sin and behavior, but the goal of the discipline is to restore him back – i.e. to gain him (Matt. 18.15). In Hebrews 12.12-13, the author demonstrates that discipline is a privilege of sonship (12.5-8), and that the purpose is so "that the lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed" (12.13).
Discipline is not designed to "disable permanently those who have experienced the crippling effects of sin. Rather, His purpose is to heal and restore the repentant to spiritual usefulness"[6]; in other words, "that we may share his holiness" (Heb. 12.10).
The Imagery of Influence and Purity
Corinth was crippling the unfaithful man’s ability to be restored by failing to address his immoral relationship. Paul makes very clear that both the church and the man were in a spiritually precarious position. Paul appeals to the imagery of the Passover, where preparing unleavened bread demanded the need to remove the leaven (yeast) from the lump of dough (5.6-7).
The bread is the congregation, and the leaven (yeast) is the culprit sinner in the church, and Paul speaks very clearly that the bread must be prepared for the Passover feast which is the Christian faith. From this, the apostle suggests that the Christian who is in a sexually immoral relationship with his stepmother must be removed from the congregation. Otherwise, the church would be affected by the "leaven" (influence) of this spiritually rebellious relationship.
But the truth is, they were already being afflicted by his influence, making it necessary for a public withdrawal to maintain the purity of the loaf (i.e. the church). David Williams, in his profitable work, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character, writes:
The Place of Christian Judgment
Paul later recalls a previous letter, where he instructed them "not to associate with sexually immoral people" (5.9 ESV). But it does not seem that they were even practicing such instruction, evident by the fact that they had allowed this immoral situation a harbor of protection in the bay of misguided church fellowship. Yet, Paul did not even suggest mere sexually immoral people in general. He meant, defiant immoral Christians are not to be associated with (5.9-11).
It is very interesting to observe that Paul moves from a specific case of porneia, and ends with formulating a generic principle against Christians practicing immorality in general – poneroi (i.e. evil doers).[8] Verse 11 is very clear that purity focused Christians are not to be involved with Christians who practice evil, and it is transparent where Paul stands on the matter by saying that eating a meal with them is forbidden. Such a withdrawal of Christian fellowship reflects the disfellowshipped Christian’s heavenly reality – estrangement from God (Matt. 18.18-20).
Christians have a responsibility to each other before the Lord (Matt. 18.15-17). This responsibility is to "judge" each other regarding sin when necessary (1 Cor. 5.12). To support his case, Paul appeals back to a formula common in Deuteronomy that highlights the need to judge insiders rather than outsiders of the covenant (17.7, 19.19, 21.21, 22.21, 24, 24.7),[9] and affirms : "God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you’" (5.13).
The Aftermath: Mission Accomplished
What ever became of this gentleman and his situation after being withdrawn from? The answer depends upon the view taken as to how many letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. It is true that Paul mentions a previous letter written to them prior to 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5.9), but did he write a third letter that would chronologically fit between 1 and 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8)?[10]
Without delving into this academic discussion, we set forth our assessment of the discussion. Essentially, we assume for the time being that Paul wrote three letters: (1) A lost letter prior to 1 Corinthians (5.9); (2) 1 Corinthians known as the "sorrowful letter" or "severe letter" (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8); and (3) 2 Corinthians.
Chronologically placing 1 and 2 Corinthians together contributes greatly in answering our question. In 2 Corinthians 2.6-11, Paul speaks of the reward of making the Corinthians sorrowful, and a certain punishment rendered by the majority of the congregation upon a certain individual. The connection is drawn that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 is the same as the gentleman made sorrowful in 2 Corinthians 2.
This man was sufficiently disciplined (2.6), and now the congregation's responsibility was three-fold (2.7-8): (1) "forgive him"; (2) "comfort him"; and (3) "reaffirm brotherly love." There will a great deal of Divine judgment upon those that do not respond in this fashion to a penitent brother or sister, for this is a great test of Christian obedience (2 Cor. 2.9-10; Matt. 6.14-16).
To the apostle, it appears that the matter of restoration of fellowship is just as important as the withdrawal of fellowship; the reason being, Satan is prepared to take advantage of our short comings at these pivitol moments (2.11). Would it not be appropriate to make the restoration announcement just as public as the withdrawal process was? It would definitely seem so.[11]
Conclusion
It seems therefore important to stress that the same amount of effort it took in the discipline process, should follow in the restoration process. There is to be no more invisible line of fellowship between the restored and the brethren, for that is over and the saint has returned. Neither should a "we'll see" attitude embody the brotherhood, but a loving reception - a mirror of heaven - is expected by Paul.
This is the victory of faith, the power of the blood of Christ, and the faithfulness of God. This is a great test of Christian faithfulness. May we be ever minded to discipline when needed and repair the splintered connections of fellowship after restoration. May we likewise be faithful to receive those who have been restored.
Sources
One of the most difficult public displays of Christian obedience to God is the withdrawal of fellowship from a recalcitrant Christian. It is perhaps one of the most dynamic of commands to follow in the New Testament. Before reaching such a public excision, the Lord Jesus addressed the problem of confronting a wayward brother with the view to "gain" him (Matt. 18.15-17).
Preliminary Thoughts
The Lord sets forth a four-pronged redemptive procedure that begins under the most private of circumstances – "you and him alone" (18.15); in this setting, then, a private appeal to repent is offered. If the rebellious child of God maintains their posture, then the circle of brotherly concern widens to "one or two others" that come to witness the call to repentance (18.16).
Unfortunately, even at this point some are so entrenched in sin, that they will not hear the admonitions; consequently, the Lord says, "if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church" (18.17). The publication of the situation allows the church as a whole to make an appeal to their fellow saint. All the "ties that bind" are summoned to invite this wayward soul to repent.
The Lord acknowledges that some will not be gained back to the fold by these loving and redemptive attempts, and sets forth the final process – consider the rebellious Christian as both an outsider of the blessings of the Christian covenant and a traitor who has chosen to serve Satan instead of Christ. In other words, the congregation must "disassociate the offender from the church fellowship."[1] The saved has now become the lost – how ironically tragic.
A Flagrant Issue
The New Testament has several examples of discipline; most usually they are of a very flagrant issue. For example, in 3 John 9-10 the apostle of love forewarns his audience that he will bring discipline upon Diotrephes the "missions" killer. Or, when Paul abbreviates his role in the discipline of Hymenaeus and Alexander ("delivered them to Satan"), who made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim. 1.19-20).
However, in 1 Corinthians 5.1-13, Paul deals with an outlandish mode of porneia that is not even "tolerated" among the pagans (5.1 ESV). Porneia is the Greek word that is commonly translated "fornication" in older translations, and in newer translations as "sexual immorality."
The truth of the matter is that porneia is a generic term for "illicit sexual intercourse."[2] Porneia is an umbrella term and context must determine the type that is under consideration. The flagrant form of porneia Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5.1 is this, "a [Christian] man has his father’s wife" (i.e. his stepmother). The severity of this behavior is evident by the fact that Paul appeals to the fact that Gentiles – or pagans – do not even permit such behavior.
This context provides the most insightful New Testament example of withdrawing Christian fellowship from recalcitrant saints. And as careful Bible students, we must definitely rehearse the valuable instruction of these verses.
The Duel Rebuke
Paul moves from the case of the man with his stepmother, and draws attention to the congregation’s part in this flagrant relationship. The church had been "arrogant" and not "mournful" about the sinful relationship (5.2), and argues immediately that removal of the Christian was the appropriate reaction. The church at Corinth was laden with arrogance (4.6, 18-19), and here Paul rebukes them for this dispositional flaw that was affecting their decision making process on this matter.
Paul demonstrates that not only is the rebellious person accountable to God, but that the church too cannot subscribe to a lax posture about known – public – sin in the church. The church is responsible and accountable to respond to a situation where a saint’s sin has become public knowledge. The apostle’s prescribes that a period of "mourning" along with "disciplinarian action" is the appropriate reaction to sins of a public nature.
The Judgment
With the next flip of his pen, Paul moves into position to make the judgment Corinth should have – he places judgment upon the Christian and the sexually immoral relationship with his un-Christian stepmother (5.3-5). There is no clear statement regarding the woman in view, aside from the fact that she is the wife of his father.[3]
However, since the judgment is upon the Christian man, "it seems safe to assume that she is not a Christian."[4] Paul writes:
When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor. 5.4-5 ESV)The context for such a procedure is the public assembly of the church. This recalls the instruction of Jesus regarding the procedures to discipline another for sin (Matt. 18.15-17), the last two of which are set in a public context. Paul assesses that this situation is a public matter; and consequently, the licentious Christian must be disciplined immediately by the church in the public eye. The goal of this withdrawal is redemptive – "that his spirit may be saved."[5]
The judgment is upon his sin and behavior, but the goal of the discipline is to restore him back – i.e. to gain him (Matt. 18.15). In Hebrews 12.12-13, the author demonstrates that discipline is a privilege of sonship (12.5-8), and that the purpose is so "that the lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed" (12.13).
Discipline is not designed to "disable permanently those who have experienced the crippling effects of sin. Rather, His purpose is to heal and restore the repentant to spiritual usefulness"[6]; in other words, "that we may share his holiness" (Heb. 12.10).
The Imagery of Influence and Purity
Corinth was crippling the unfaithful man’s ability to be restored by failing to address his immoral relationship. Paul makes very clear that both the church and the man were in a spiritually precarious position. Paul appeals to the imagery of the Passover, where preparing unleavened bread demanded the need to remove the leaven (yeast) from the lump of dough (5.6-7).
The bread is the congregation, and the leaven (yeast) is the culprit sinner in the church, and Paul speaks very clearly that the bread must be prepared for the Passover feast which is the Christian faith. From this, the apostle suggests that the Christian who is in a sexually immoral relationship with his stepmother must be removed from the congregation. Otherwise, the church would be affected by the "leaven" (influence) of this spiritually rebellious relationship.
But the truth is, they were already being afflicted by his influence, making it necessary for a public withdrawal to maintain the purity of the loaf (i.e. the church). David Williams, in his profitable work, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character, writes:
Paul had been speaking of the leaven (yeast), every trace of which had to be cleaned out of the house before the Passover was celebrated. On this analogy, he demanded that the Corinthians put their "house" in order by removing from among themselves what he called the "old leaven," a particularly appalling instance of sexual immorality that the church had condoned (vv. 1-5).[7]The apostle, then, was addressing what should have been quite obvious; but, because of the Corinthian’s arrogance the real issue (i.e. the issue of purity) was not seen as relevant – how shameful. May we strive to then the lesson of Corinth.
The Place of Christian Judgment
Paul later recalls a previous letter, where he instructed them "not to associate with sexually immoral people" (5.9 ESV). But it does not seem that they were even practicing such instruction, evident by the fact that they had allowed this immoral situation a harbor of protection in the bay of misguided church fellowship. Yet, Paul did not even suggest mere sexually immoral people in general. He meant, defiant immoral Christians are not to be associated with (5.9-11).
It is very interesting to observe that Paul moves from a specific case of porneia, and ends with formulating a generic principle against Christians practicing immorality in general – poneroi (i.e. evil doers).[8] Verse 11 is very clear that purity focused Christians are not to be involved with Christians who practice evil, and it is transparent where Paul stands on the matter by saying that eating a meal with them is forbidden. Such a withdrawal of Christian fellowship reflects the disfellowshipped Christian’s heavenly reality – estrangement from God (Matt. 18.18-20).
Christians have a responsibility to each other before the Lord (Matt. 18.15-17). This responsibility is to "judge" each other regarding sin when necessary (1 Cor. 5.12). To support his case, Paul appeals back to a formula common in Deuteronomy that highlights the need to judge insiders rather than outsiders of the covenant (17.7, 19.19, 21.21, 22.21, 24, 24.7),[9] and affirms : "God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you’" (5.13).
The Aftermath: Mission Accomplished
What ever became of this gentleman and his situation after being withdrawn from? The answer depends upon the view taken as to how many letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. It is true that Paul mentions a previous letter written to them prior to 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5.9), but did he write a third letter that would chronologically fit between 1 and 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8)?[10]
Without delving into this academic discussion, we set forth our assessment of the discussion. Essentially, we assume for the time being that Paul wrote three letters: (1) A lost letter prior to 1 Corinthians (5.9); (2) 1 Corinthians known as the "sorrowful letter" or "severe letter" (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8); and (3) 2 Corinthians.
Chronologically placing 1 and 2 Corinthians together contributes greatly in answering our question. In 2 Corinthians 2.6-11, Paul speaks of the reward of making the Corinthians sorrowful, and a certain punishment rendered by the majority of the congregation upon a certain individual. The connection is drawn that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 is the same as the gentleman made sorrowful in 2 Corinthians 2.
This man was sufficiently disciplined (2.6), and now the congregation's responsibility was three-fold (2.7-8): (1) "forgive him"; (2) "comfort him"; and (3) "reaffirm brotherly love." There will a great deal of Divine judgment upon those that do not respond in this fashion to a penitent brother or sister, for this is a great test of Christian obedience (2 Cor. 2.9-10; Matt. 6.14-16).
To the apostle, it appears that the matter of restoration of fellowship is just as important as the withdrawal of fellowship; the reason being, Satan is prepared to take advantage of our short comings at these pivitol moments (2.11). Would it not be appropriate to make the restoration announcement just as public as the withdrawal process was? It would definitely seem so.[11]
Conclusion
It seems therefore important to stress that the same amount of effort it took in the discipline process, should follow in the restoration process. There is to be no more invisible line of fellowship between the restored and the brethren, for that is over and the saint has returned. Neither should a "we'll see" attitude embody the brotherhood, but a loving reception - a mirror of heaven - is expected by Paul.
This is the victory of faith, the power of the blood of Christ, and the faithfulness of God. This is a great test of Christian faithfulness. May we be ever minded to discipline when needed and repair the splintered connections of fellowship after restoration. May we likewise be faithful to receive those who have been restored.
Sources
- Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986): 353-64; p. 361.
- Vine, W.E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Nelson, 1984. 2 vols.; p. 2.252; Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.1896. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999; p. 532.
- The phrase reads: ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν. Simon J. Kistemaker observes that "in Jewish circles, the wording wife of his father meant 'stepmother,'" and observes that God repeatedly told the Israelites to refrain from sexual relationships with their father's wife (cf. Lev. 18.8, 20.11; Deut. 22.30, 27.20). Kistemaker, S.J. "'Deliver This Man to Satan' (1 Cor. 5.5): A Case Study in Church Discipline." Master's Seminary Journal 3.1 (1992): 33-46; p. 35.
- South, Tommy. That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline. Abilene: Bible Guides, 1997; p. 87.
- Some view the expulsion here as permanent, and redemption only to be found at the end of time (Harris 146-48); however, such a conclusion runs counter to the instruction of Jesus on discipline (Matt. 18.15-17), to Paul's use of similar language in disciplining and restoring false teachers (1 Tim. 1.20), and the general tenor of the New Testament regarding cleansing of sin in the Christian's life (1 John 1.6-2.3). Harris, Gerald. "The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5." Understanding Paul's Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Ed. Brian S. Rosner.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. 129-51. Cf. Wayne Jackson's article on the forgiveness available to Christians in sinful lifestyles: Jackson, Wayne. "God's Plan of Salvation for His Lost Children." Christian Courier Online. 7 July 2004. Accessed: 30 Aug. 2007.
- Laney, pp. 355-56.
- Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. 1999. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004; p. 248.
- Zaas, Peter S. "‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst" (1 Cor. 5.13b)." Journal of Biblical Literature 103.2 (1984): 259-61; p. 259.
- Zaas points out that aside from a minor adjustment by Paul, the Greek phrase is parallel with the LXX (i.e. Septuagint) formulations in Deuteronomy, p. 259.
- Wallace, Daniel B. "2 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline." Bible.org. 2007. Accessed: 26 July 2007. For those interested in this issue, Wallace's discussion will be of help on some of the complexities of this issue.
- Pilgrim, James. Withdrawing from the Disorderly. West Monroe, LA: Central Printers, n.d. I agree with Pilgrim's observation that, "To fail to forgive and receive the returning brother is as wicked as not marking him in the beginning (2 Cor. 2.11)" (p.17).
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Thoughts on the Attributes of God - by Jovan Payes
There are few biblical subjects that demand as must attention as does the attributes of God. Unfortunately, it seems sometimes insufficient attention to this topic is given.
We are not overstating the case when it is suggested that as a consequence of neglecting a specific study of the attributes of God, unbiblical concepts are formulated on the part of many Bible students regarding God and his attributes; not to mention, the demonstration of one's obedience to his Creator (Eccl. 12.13).
The scope of this subject is so vast; however, that obviously it cannot be addressed completely in such a minute space as this. However, there are numerous items that we can address. The particular lines of thought considered below are crucial to the formulation of a balanced and biblical understanding of God and his attributes.
The Goal to Understand God and His Attributes is a Paradox
A paradox is basically two statements that sound contradictory, but actually are not. When we say that understanding God and his attributes is paradoxal, we are referring the two pictures that the Bible presents. On the one hand, God can be known by humanity. On the other hand, Scripture presents God as beyond total human comprehension.[1] Look at an example of this contrast:
Despite the fact that we cannot understand God beyond what is revealed, we must constantly remember that his revelation can be adequately understood (John 6.44-45). Furthermore, his written revelation will be the measure by which man will be ultimately judged (2 Thess. 1.8; Jude 3).
Philosophies such as subjectivity or postmodernity will not be the standard of judgment; instead, it will be righteousness (Acts 17.31; John 12.48ff).
Synthesizing the Biblical Teaching on God
Understanding God and his attributes must be based upon a synthetic process of reasoning. In other words, we must not focus upon one attribute to the exclusion of all the rest.
To focus upon one attribute to the exclusion of another is to be unduly analytical. Analysis literally means to break apart to the most basic components for the purpose of individual study. This can be done to great profit; however, we must remember that God is every attribute at the same time (cf. Matt. 5.48).
God’s attributes exist in harmony in such an infathomable fashion, that we agree with the inspired Paul who observed that God is beyond total human comprehension (Rom. 11.33).
It is truly ironic when Atheist who are woefully ignorant of the Bible, or even when supposed Bible scholars presumptuously act as if they know God better than God (Isa. 55.6-11). No finite being has the intrinsic ability to prescribe what an infinite God can or should not do.
The Attributes of God are Cooperative
We must understand that the attributes of God are cooperative, not divisive. Where humans are prone to sacrificing one or more of their characteristics for another, God alone exists with all of his attributes intact. God’s goodness is not diminished by his mercy; neither is his justice altered by his love and good will, nor is his holiness infringed upon when God enacts his wrath.
As we underscored above, we must understand God and his attributes synthetically. The attributes of God never cancel each other out; otherwise, God would not be God and infinite. Furthermore, he will never do anything that would diminish or contradict any of his attributes. If he did, it would mean that he is not infinite in all of his attributes; hence, not the God of the Bible – the only true God (1 Thess. 1.9).
Contemplating the Attributes of God
We will briefly introduce a number of attributes of God and observe that there is no way to accept one attribute to the exclusion of another. These observations are made in light of the fact that so many sincere people extract one attribute that is most appealing to them, and divorce it from the totality of the nature of God.
Virtually everything we believe and practice religiously goes back to our perception of God; consequently, if our perception of God is skewed our beliefs will be too.
As we study this subject, let us remember that:
(1) Understanding God and his attributes is paradoxal.
(2) Understanding God and his attributes must be synthetic.
(3) We must understand that the attributes of God are cooperative, not divisive.
Finally, let us reflect upon what Moses has written:
We are not overstating the case when it is suggested that as a consequence of neglecting a specific study of the attributes of God, unbiblical concepts are formulated on the part of many Bible students regarding God and his attributes; not to mention, the demonstration of one's obedience to his Creator (Eccl. 12.13).
The scope of this subject is so vast; however, that obviously it cannot be addressed completely in such a minute space as this. However, there are numerous items that we can address. The particular lines of thought considered below are crucial to the formulation of a balanced and biblical understanding of God and his attributes.
The Goal to Understand God and His Attributes is a Paradox
A paradox is basically two statements that sound contradictory, but actually are not. When we say that understanding God and his attributes is paradoxal, we are referring the two pictures that the Bible presents. On the one hand, God can be known by humanity. On the other hand, Scripture presents God as beyond total human comprehension.[1] Look at an example of this contrast:
When Scripture makes reference to the fact that we can know God, we must not conclude that we know God exhaustively. We know God to the limit that He has revealed himself to humanity – through Scripture and Nature (Eph. 4.6; Rom. 1.19-20). Beyond His revelation, we cannot search (Isa. 40.28; 1 Cor. 2.10-16).And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. (1 John 2.3)
And the peace of God, which surpasses all under-standing, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 4.7)[2]
Despite the fact that we cannot understand God beyond what is revealed, we must constantly remember that his revelation can be adequately understood (John 6.44-45). Furthermore, his written revelation will be the measure by which man will be ultimately judged (2 Thess. 1.8; Jude 3).
Philosophies such as subjectivity or postmodernity will not be the standard of judgment; instead, it will be righteousness (Acts 17.31; John 12.48ff).
Synthesizing the Biblical Teaching on God
Understanding God and his attributes must be based upon a synthetic process of reasoning. In other words, we must not focus upon one attribute to the exclusion of all the rest.
To focus upon one attribute to the exclusion of another is to be unduly analytical. Analysis literally means to break apart to the most basic components for the purpose of individual study. This can be done to great profit; however, we must remember that God is every attribute at the same time (cf. Matt. 5.48).
God’s attributes exist in harmony in such an infathomable fashion, that we agree with the inspired Paul who observed that God is beyond total human comprehension (Rom. 11.33).
It is truly ironic when Atheist who are woefully ignorant of the Bible, or even when supposed Bible scholars presumptuously act as if they know God better than God (Isa. 55.6-11). No finite being has the intrinsic ability to prescribe what an infinite God can or should not do.
The Attributes of God are Cooperative
We must understand that the attributes of God are cooperative, not divisive. Where humans are prone to sacrificing one or more of their characteristics for another, God alone exists with all of his attributes intact. God’s goodness is not diminished by his mercy; neither is his justice altered by his love and good will, nor is his holiness infringed upon when God enacts his wrath.
As we underscored above, we must understand God and his attributes synthetically. The attributes of God never cancel each other out; otherwise, God would not be God and infinite. Furthermore, he will never do anything that would diminish or contradict any of his attributes. If he did, it would mean that he is not infinite in all of his attributes; hence, not the God of the Bible – the only true God (1 Thess. 1.9).
Contemplating the Attributes of God
We will briefly introduce a number of attributes of God and observe that there is no way to accept one attribute to the exclusion of another. These observations are made in light of the fact that so many sincere people extract one attribute that is most appealing to them, and divorce it from the totality of the nature of God.
Virtually everything we believe and practice religiously goes back to our perception of God; consequently, if our perception of God is skewed our beliefs will be too.
- The attribute of love. Among many of the more popular attributes of God which religionists cleave to is his love. The Bible says that “God is love” (1 John 4.16). The term here used is agape, and expresses behavior that has another’s best interest in mind.[3] Furthermore, action is taken to obtain the best possible state of being for another. This is expressed clearly in the sacrifice of Jesus, where God agape-loved the whole world, that he demonstrated the measure of his concern for our best spiritual interests by sending his son to give us spiritual life (John 3.16). But, we live under false assumptions if we exclude that God is equally demonstrative in his other attributes, like his just wrath (John 3.33-36).
- The attribute of justice. Justice includes God’s ability to evaluate humanity’s moral and immoral actions, and as its judge respond apprpriately (Gen. 18.25). Sometimes in God’s infinite justice certain actions, or punishments, are taken that do not make sense to finite humanity. For example, since God is holy, and will not allow sin to be in his presence (Lev. 16.13-15), sinners deserve estrangement from his presence (Isa. 59.1-2ff). That is the magnitude of sin (Rom. 3.23, 5.12). The ultimate estrangement is an eternal punishment in hell (Rev. 20.14). While some have over stressed the wrath aspect of the justice of God (cf. Jonathon Edwards[4]), it must be constantly reminded that God is also infinite in the mercy aspect of his justice.
- The attribute of mercy. The attribute of mercy is profoundly important to consider here. It seems that despite the just punishment of estrangement from God due to our sins, redemptive mercy had to be made and offered to humanity for God to be God. Observe this quote:
[23] [F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3.23-26)
His mercy and justice did not clash, but work harmoniously. Humans probably do not like the idea that punishment is still there looming in the possible future should they reject God’s mercy (Matt. 23.33; Mark 16.16). This disposition says more about the limitation or incompletion of our finite concept of justice and mercy, than it does about the alleged incompatibility of eternal punishment for unforgiven sin. - The attribute of omnipotence. Defining omnipotence is extremely important. Thomas B. Warren presents a helpful description of the omnipotence of God:
God can do whatever is possible to be done (that is, he can accomplish whatever is subject to power), and that (in harmony with his perfection in goodness and in justice) he will only do what is in harmony with the absolute perfection of his own nature.[5]
The omnipotence of God is a two-sided concept. God has infinite power, but God only uses that power in harmony with his other attributes (mercy, holiness, etc.). Power cannot violate any of God’s other infinite attributes, even if he is employing infinite power. Note these examples: God cannot lie (Titus 1.2), God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas. 1.13), and God cannot be illogical since he is the foundation of logic. These are things that no amount of power can accomplish.
As we study this subject, let us remember that:
(1) Understanding God and his attributes is paradoxal.
(2) Understanding God and his attributes must be synthetic.
(3) We must understand that the attributes of God are cooperative, not divisive.
Finally, let us reflect upon what Moses has written:
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut. 29.29)Sources
- Gilmore, Ralph. "Four Paradoxes of Our Sovereign God." Unpublished essay, 2004. Freed-Hardeman University. Henderson, TN; pp. 3-4.
- All Scriptural quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).
- Newman, Jr., Barclay M. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft, 1993; p. 2.
- Edwards, Jonathon. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." 8 July 1741. Leadership U Online. 6 March 1997. Accessed: 24 July 2007.
- Warren, Thomas B. Have Atheists Proved there is no God? Moore, OK: National Christian, 1972; p. 27.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Of Sheep and Shepherds – by Jovan Payes
Introduction
Background Bible study is fascinating and is perhaps one of the most important parts of biblical research. Obtaining a “behind-the-scenes” look into the biblical documents will “contribute to a more precise comprehension of the Word of God."[1] This observation can be said about the shepherd motif found in Scripture. Since it is dangerous to paint half a picture of anyone or anything – especially biblical topics. We stress, then, that this is but an introductory survey to the beautiful motif made by biblical writers of the pastoral profession (i.e. the shepherd).
Shepherds in Israel
Shepherding was a great profession in the culture of the Ancient Near East, and so far as it relates to Israel’s history, pastoral work was a constant aspect of nomadic life (cf. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). Even when they conquered and settled into Palestine, the end of the nomadic life did not stop pastoral work[2] (e.g. David 1 Sam. 16.19; Amos 1.1, 7.14). The widespread awareness of this profession “made motifs of sheep and shepherding apt descriptions of human and divine roles and relationships."[3]
Notice one Old Testament example. God through Jeremiah pronounces a “woe” upon the leadership of Judah using the pastoral motif:
Shepherds in the New Testament
There are several related New Testament words used to the work of shepherding. The noun form is poimein, and refers to a shepherd, herdsmen, or pastor,[4] and hence it is a metaphor describing a guardian-leader. The third translation option probably receives the most attention from among the three, and this is due to its connection with the eldership of the New Testament (Eph. 4.11, here teaching-pastors), and its erroneous but popular usage in denominational circles.
However, the New Testament uses the term significantly in its normal sense. Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” in John 10.1-18 to distinguish himself from the leaders who had oppressed or neglected the house of Israel. Luke narrates the story of the shepherds, in the field with their flock, who were told of the arrival of the Messiah (2.1-20). Jesus warned his disciples that when he is handed over to the Jews, that they would be scattered like sheep when their shepherd is harmed (Matt. 9.36 = Mark 6.34).
But perhaps the most vivid pastoral scenes are those that relate to our relationship with Jesus. The Lord is described as “the Shepherd and Overseer” of our souls (1 Pet. 2.25 cf. Heb. 13.20), who receives straying sheep as any good shepherd does. Another vivid scene using the shepherd motif is the Day of Judgment, when Jesus “will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matt. 25.32). This is taken from a understanding that sheep and goats were “pastured together” in Palestine, but at certain appropriate times they “require separation.”[5] The figure is given Christian meaning as a metaphor of the judgment upon faithful and non-faithful Christians.
Learning from the Sheep and the Shepherds
There are so many relationship lessons that God has taken from pastoral care, we would do well to reflect upon it more. For example: at the birthing of a new lamb, the shepherd “guards the mother during her helpless moments and picks up the lamb and carries it to the field. For the few days, until it is able to walk, he may carry it in his arms or in the loose folds of his coat.”[6] Could we not make an application from this? The shepherd and the lamb have a wonderfully tender relationship, and we would strengthen our fellowship in taking a lesson from this behavioral motif.
Truly, we can see that a pastoral care for Christians will encourage us to help in the development and care of new converts. It will stimulate us to help heal wounded sheep, and protect them as they are nourished to good health. And more personally, perhaps we would be more receptive to the prodding and care by our shepherds in the church. The “pastoral” mentality is not only for the elders, we would all do well to lead on, or be led, ever so gently (Gen. 33.14).
Sources
Background Bible study is fascinating and is perhaps one of the most important parts of biblical research. Obtaining a “behind-the-scenes” look into the biblical documents will “contribute to a more precise comprehension of the Word of God."[1] This observation can be said about the shepherd motif found in Scripture. Since it is dangerous to paint half a picture of anyone or anything – especially biblical topics. We stress, then, that this is but an introductory survey to the beautiful motif made by biblical writers of the pastoral profession (i.e. the shepherd).
Shepherds in Israel
Shepherding was a great profession in the culture of the Ancient Near East, and so far as it relates to Israel’s history, pastoral work was a constant aspect of nomadic life (cf. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). Even when they conquered and settled into Palestine, the end of the nomadic life did not stop pastoral work[2] (e.g. David 1 Sam. 16.19; Amos 1.1, 7.14). The widespread awareness of this profession “made motifs of sheep and shepherding apt descriptions of human and divine roles and relationships."[3]
Notice one Old Testament example. God through Jeremiah pronounces a “woe” upon the leadership of Judah using the pastoral motif:
[1]"Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!" declares the LORD. [2] Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: ‘You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD.’” (Jer. 23.1-2 ESV)The “shepherds” failed to maintain the pastoral relationship with God’s flock; consequently, the sheep were scattered. Jeremiah, looking to post-exilic times, promises that God will restore the proper care to his flock with faithful shepherds (Jer. 23.3-4).
Shepherds in the New Testament
There are several related New Testament words used to the work of shepherding. The noun form is poimein, and refers to a shepherd, herdsmen, or pastor,[4] and hence it is a metaphor describing a guardian-leader. The third translation option probably receives the most attention from among the three, and this is due to its connection with the eldership of the New Testament (Eph. 4.11, here teaching-pastors), and its erroneous but popular usage in denominational circles.
However, the New Testament uses the term significantly in its normal sense. Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” in John 10.1-18 to distinguish himself from the leaders who had oppressed or neglected the house of Israel. Luke narrates the story of the shepherds, in the field with their flock, who were told of the arrival of the Messiah (2.1-20). Jesus warned his disciples that when he is handed over to the Jews, that they would be scattered like sheep when their shepherd is harmed (Matt. 9.36 = Mark 6.34).
But perhaps the most vivid pastoral scenes are those that relate to our relationship with Jesus. The Lord is described as “the Shepherd and Overseer” of our souls (1 Pet. 2.25 cf. Heb. 13.20), who receives straying sheep as any good shepherd does. Another vivid scene using the shepherd motif is the Day of Judgment, when Jesus “will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matt. 25.32). This is taken from a understanding that sheep and goats were “pastured together” in Palestine, but at certain appropriate times they “require separation.”[5] The figure is given Christian meaning as a metaphor of the judgment upon faithful and non-faithful Christians.
Learning from the Sheep and the Shepherds
There are so many relationship lessons that God has taken from pastoral care, we would do well to reflect upon it more. For example: at the birthing of a new lamb, the shepherd “guards the mother during her helpless moments and picks up the lamb and carries it to the field. For the few days, until it is able to walk, he may carry it in his arms or in the loose folds of his coat.”[6] Could we not make an application from this? The shepherd and the lamb have a wonderfully tender relationship, and we would strengthen our fellowship in taking a lesson from this behavioral motif.
Truly, we can see that a pastoral care for Christians will encourage us to help in the development and care of new converts. It will stimulate us to help heal wounded sheep, and protect them as they are nourished to good health. And more personally, perhaps we would be more receptive to the prodding and care by our shepherds in the church. The “pastoral” mentality is not only for the elders, we would all do well to lead on, or be led, ever so gently (Gen. 33.14).
Sources
- Jackson, Wayne. Background Bible Study. rev. ed. (Stockton, CA: Courier, 1999); p. 1.
- Miller, Madeleine S., J. Lane Miller, Boyce M. Bennett, and David H. Scott. Harper’s Encyclopedia of Bible Life. 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978); p. 142.
- Johnson, D. in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992); p. 751.
- Vine, W.E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White. Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson, 1986); 2:462, 2:569.
- Lewis, Jack P. Matthew (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian UP, 1984); 2:137.
- Patch, J. in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Gen. ed. James Orr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943); 4:2764.
