“–and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6 NASB)
Everywhere we go we all try to find the best seat in the house. We want the best seat at a theater. Some like up close, some farther back. How about on an airplane? I like a seat by the window. Others might like an aisle seat. What about when booking a seat for a ballgame you look for a seat that’s good but in your price range.
Growing up we each had our own seat at the kitchen table. Our dad sat at the end, the head of the table. Even at church, everyone seems to have their own seat. Don’t sit in that seat, it is Brother so-and-so’s seat. Which actually has been said many times.
We are told how the scribes and the Pharisees were being very hypocritical doing all their deeds to be seen with long fringes on their clothing… “and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:5–6). Also, we’re told in Luke “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces” (Luke 11:43).
It is sometimes important what seat we sit in. At some functions such as a wedding reception or a retirement party, there are seats for the guest of honor.
We read that Christ is seated at the right hand of God:
“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” (Colossians 3:1 ESV)
We don’t want to be like the Scribes and Pharisees, who boasted about their status and position. But we can be reassured that when we have died to our sins and have been raised from the grave of baptism (Colossians 2:12), by the grace of God we will be seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
We all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). It is a joy to know we do have a seat reserved for us in heaven, as long as we continue to live a faithful life.
The phrases Jesus Christ, the Christ of faith, the Jesus of history, and Jesus the Divine Son all reflect significant themes pertaining to the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth. These concepts fall within a specialized area of theology known as Christology, which is a systematic “study of Christ” based on the full biblical picture derived from scripture.
A bit more formally, this field of study speaks to the Christian endeavor to map Jesus’ placement within “time and eternity, humanity and divinity, particularity and universality.” It answers how the life of a seemingly benign first-century Jewish rabbi could be so “relevant for all people and all times” (McGrath 2017, 207).
The present discussion maps Jesus’ Son-relationship in the triune unity of God, and the nature of his humanity. It then reflects on how the humanity of Jesus is relevant to the Christian’s personal walk before God.
Jesus the Son and the Trinity
The Trinitarian Formula
The divinity of Jesus is established in many passages of the New Testament. For example, Matthew closes with an appearance of Jesus where he affirms his authority “in heaven and on earth.” With this authority, he commissions his disciples for an international burden,
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:18–19 NRSV). [All Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]
Three themes are clear in this passage: Jesus’ divine authority, discipleship made in baptism, and the trinitarian language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the early generations of the church, the above trinitarian formula would represent a highly nuanced concept of monotheism affirmed to be in continuity with the “one God” of the Hebrew Bible.
What forced early Jewish Christians to accept this nuanced view of monotheism? The answer: the character and nature of Jesus did. It is not subversive of the “oneness” of God (Deut 6:4) but depends on the New Testament’s clarification that the “one God” is not a simplistic model. As the clarification argues, the Divine Son is not God the Father, nor is he the Holy Spirit. This raises tough questions that the historical church has discussed in earnest and in conflict for generations.
How do we map this out theologically?
The Divine Son Portrayed
We turn to the presence of Jesus and how He is portrayed in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
In the first century, the prologue to the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–3, 14) affirms that the person and nature of Jesus is the driving force to reshape the whole biblical landscape of the concept of God (Gen 1:1; Exod 20:11).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being... And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1–3a, 14)
Jesus not only pre-existed as the lógos at the time of creation (John 1:1), but he also “emptied” (ekénōsen) himself to take on the “form [morphē] of a slave”—a human (Phil 2:6–7). Leaning heavily on John 1:14, the Alexandrian theologian, Athanasius, concluded that this “human body” was taken by this same “Word of God” (Placher 2003, 184).
On this view, there was no room within this theology for Arius’ affirmation that Jesus the Son—the Word—was a created being who subsequently became divine. This view reduced Jesus to a creature impotent to redeem humanity (McGrath 2017, 217–19).
The Divine Association
As McGrath (2017, 214) chronicles, the divinity of Christ was one of the first major theological battles of the early church as it sought to hammer out its understanding of the contours of a very genuine human being in Jesus who, at the same time, was portrayed as being more than a mere human. The “battle” was not over the deity of Christ as such (that was established), but how to understand the relationship between his humanity and his divinity.
The divinity of Jesus was therefore accepted as true as his humanity—as affirmed in Chalcedon (AD 451)—which means that the question left to map out was the relationship between Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The only way to do this is by evaluating Scripture (Jenson 2003, 194). Despite certain reservations, Jenson argues clearly that Peter’s application of the divine title “Lord” from Joel 2 (kyrios LXX) to Jesus in Acts 2:33–34 (kyrios) demonstrates that
the risen Christ, without violation of God’s singularity, does what only the God of Israel himself does, and that he does this precisely by virtue of his situation with the God of Israel. (2003, 194)
Jensen in Essentials of Christian Theology (2003)
Jensen points out that the emerging notion of association that comes from the word “with” points to the “inescapably observable fact” that the biblical narrative is framed by three divine characters in its drama (2003, 195): the God of Israel, Jesus his Son, and the life-giving Spirit of God.
Agreeing with Jenson (2003, 196), Jesus should not be viewed as a mere successive mode of God’s presence in time (modalism) or as the Father’s subordinate agent with the Spirit in time (subordinationism). Instead, Jesus maintains an eternally mutual and reciprocal relationship with the Father and the Spirit. For this reason, ancient Christians used an analogy inspired by the theater, that is to say, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit although three in persona (mask) are one in Divine substance. Another model is found in Martin Buber’s I-You relationship model (McGrath 2017,179–80).
Understanding the Humanity of Jesus
What, then, goes into mapping this theological tension of the Son and the Trinity?
Mapping the nature of Jesus’ humanity—in balance with his divinity—requires great caution. The traditional doctrine of the incarnation (literally, “becoming bodily”) affirms both the full humanity of Jesus and his divinity. Any attempt to isolate what is organically interwoven in the person and work of Jesus runs a high risk of distortion.
Overcompensating to account for the humanity of Jesus has typically been met with the “stamp” of heresy. Three, in particular, are Ebionism, Arianism, and Docetism (McGrath 2017, 214–20).
The roots of Ebionism are Jewish. It framed Jesus through the lenses of a human prophet, as called and anointed by the Holy Spirit. As a low Christology, Jesus is only a “spiritually superior” human. This does not align with the picture of his eternal pre-existence as Creator.
Plotted on another point on the map is Arianism (named after Arius), which called into question the “fully divine” and “fully human” affirmation due to an irreconcilable application of the Greek notion of divine impassability and the doctrine of the incarnation. God cannot be both changeable (fully human) and transcendent (fully divine), therefore, the incarnation strikes at the perfect nature of the one God. Jesus must therefore be a “superior created being” with nothing divine to report. This failed to account for the actual testimony of the gospels where in fact this is possible.
Meanwhile, Docetism affirmed, with its hardline separation of God and the present evil world of matter (due to its gnostic foundation), the divine incarnation of John 1:14 was nothing more than “pretend.” The heresy’s name (or tendency) is derived from the Greek word dokéō (“to seem”) affirming Jesus only “seemed” to have a body in which he suffered and died, making the incarnation “into a fake” (Placher 2003, 183). Scripturally, the work of Christ is dependent on the fully human (Luke 24:38–39) and fully divine Jesus manifested in the death of the cross and resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3–4).
Similarly, the opening line of 1 John affirms the humanity of the “Word of Life”: “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands” (1:1).
Likewise, in the second century CE, Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35–ca. 110) stressed his concern to the Christians of Trallia that they should guard against (“be deaf,” kōphóthēte 9.1) anything which undermines the humanity of Christ with the following words:
Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, who was the son of Mary; who really was born, who both ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified and died while those in heaven and on earth and under the earth look on; who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his Father raised him up, who—his Father, that is—in the same way will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life. (“To the Trallians” 9.1–2)
Ignatius of Antioch, “To the Trallians” 9.1-2
The example of Ignatius is interesting because it is early and strongly affirms Jesus’ human form, “who really” (hosalethōs) an adverb repeated four times to assert what is true, actual because it corresponds to what is really so (BDAG 44). For Ignatius, Jesus actually was born, ate and drank, persecuted, crucified and died, and raised from the dead. Ignatius saw denying the humanity of Christ as subversive to the soteriological (the saving, redeeming) and eschatological (end times, fulfilling) work of Christ.
What Does This Mean?
What then does it mean for the Christian that God became flesh to redeem us in the person of Jesus Christ? Two extremes must be cautioned against here. One extreme is to moralize the life of Jesus (1 Pet 2:21), and as such reduces Jesus to a mere good teacher. Another extreme is to make Jesus’ life and teaching into a disjointed symbolic presence of God (i.e., Paul Tillich).
The humanity of Jesus provides me with a great deal of assurance as a believer that God knows through Christ the human plight. Jesus has “assumed all” and can, therefore “heal all” of humanity (Placher 2003, 184). When the “name” Immanuel (“God is with us”) is given to Jesus (Matt 1:23) the associated promise is that “he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21). God’s presence in the human child to be born provides a personal locus that can be isolated to time, space, and history.
For all humans, it then becomes quite clear that God is joining the human continuum to reconcile not only “us” but also “the world to himself” in Christ (2 Cor 5:18–19). Paul’s application has massive personal repercussions,
“if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (5:17)
The humanity of Jesus is not simply a modal expression of God, but God entering into time and space to save, forgive, reconcile, and renew humanity and creation.
It provides the seedbed to take the particular localized Jesus and affirm his enduring value for all humans for all time. As Ignatius wrote, God “will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life” (“To the Trallians” 9.2).
Truly, the humanity of the God-Man Jesus is relevant for the Christian’s personal walk before God because it is the seedbed for all our hopes, especially, hope for the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12–19).
Bibliography
(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, W. F. Ardnt, and F. W. Gingrich. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Ignatius. 1999. “The Letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.” Pages 128–201 in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 2d edition. Edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Jenson, Robert W. 2003. “Does Jesus Make a Difference? The Person and Work of Jesus Christ” Pages 191–205 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville, Kent: Westminster John Knox.
McGrath, Alister E. 2017. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th edition. Maldon, Ma: Wiley Blackwell.
Placher, William C. 2003. “Does Jesus Make a Difference? The Person and Work of Jesus Christ” Pages 183–91 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville, Kent: Westminster John Knox.
The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,
if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)
If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.
The Creator-God
The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:
if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]
Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)
Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]
Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).
These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.
A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.
Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring
In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).
Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.
The Resurrection
A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?
The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)
Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]
The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.
Conclusion
The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.
Endnotes
Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.
A few years ago the Barna Group published the results of 2014 survey of “2005 web-based and phone surveys conducted among a representative sample of adults over the age of 18 in each of the 50 United States.”[1] The results showed that while a strong 93% believed Jesus was a historical figure, they held various views of his nature:
43% believed he was “God living among us”
31% believed he was “uniquely called to reveal God’s purpose in the world”
9% he “embodied the best that is possible in each person”
8% he was “a great man and a great teacher, but not divine”
These are the signs of the time. Across generational lines people accept the historicity of Jesus rather than believe he never existed (See my research paper: “Regarding the Divide between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History“). The perception that Jesus is God, however, is questioned more by Millennials than their predecessors.
We have to come to grips with the reality that even some “Christians” believe Jesus as only a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders in human existence. They praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule) recorded in the Gospels. The New Testament, however, adds a unique dimension to his nature that make it impossible to accept his teachings while at the same time ignore the deity of Jesus Christ affirmed in its pages.
I will look at one historic figure who felt he could separate the ethical teacher, Jesus, from an enfabled supernatural Christ, and then demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching ministry was tightly interwoven with the miraculous.
The Case of Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), a “Founding Father” of the United States of America, is an interesting case study. He profoundly shaped the United States as drafter of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809). And while he was a self-proclaimed “Christian” and even promoted Bible literacy, Jefferson regarded all the miraculous elements in the Gospels as supernatural “rubbish” which must be removed from Jesus’ teaching, as one does “a diamond from the dung heap.”[2]
Jefferson was a theist and often used the language of Natural Theology/Philosophy (i.e., evidence in nature of a Creator-God) when speaking of his belief in God. For example, in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson appeals to “Nature’s God,” other times, “Infinite Power, which rules the destinies of the universe,” “overruling providence,” and a “benevolent governor.”
Jefferson did believe that God actively engaged in time, sustaining creation on an ongoing basis; yet, in his rejection of Biblical miracles and belief that natural laws were the language of God, he certainly is deistic.[3]
“Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org
As a product of these tensions, Jefferson was a hybrid rationalistic-deist with a Jesus twist. There is God (without miracles), there is providence (without intervention), and there is the mind God gave humanity to bring about good into the world.
To Jefferson, then, one of the greatest harms that ever happened to Jesus was the corruption of his teaching with the additions of “fabrications… of their own [i.e., disciples’] inventions [of miracles].”[4] This conviction led Jefferson to “edit” the Gospels by cutting out–literally–the teachings, sayings, and discourses of Jesus and then pasting them into his “wee little book.”[5] This project finalized in The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820), today known as, The Jefferson Bible.
Jefferson affirmed that his work was “proof,” as he wrote to Charles Thomson, “that I am a real Christian… a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”[6] However,
In neither the eighteenth century nor today would most people consider a person with [his] views a “Christian.”[7]
“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org
Certainly not an orthodox Christian. The problem with Jefferson’s estimation of Jesus as a moral reformer is its inconsistent denial of all the accompanying miraculous elements the Gospels often safeguard interwoven with his mission, nature, and instruction. As I shall illustrate below.
The Authority of the Son of Man
The Gospels reveal that the teaching ministry of Jesus cannot be divorced from their miraculous components without doing damage to our understanding of the nature and mission of Jesus.
The story of the healed paralytic is one of the most touching miracle stories in the Gospels. This miracle in Galilee event is recorded in Matthew (9:1–8), Mark (2:1-12), and Luke (Luke 5:17–26). Jesus had returned to his home in Capernaum, Galilee (Matt 4:13, 9:1; Mark 2:1) where crowds found him once again and flooded the domicile as he was preaching (Mark 2:2). As there was no room, the friends of a certain paralyzed man creatively removed the tiles of the roof so they could drop the man down for healing (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3–4; Luke 5:18–19). What happened next was a game changer: Jesus doesn’t heal the man, he forgives him (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20).
This episode instructs on the authority and divinity of Jesus. The narrative provides an unexpected conclusion in the first act (forgiveness): forgiveness of the invisible ailments of paralyzed man; after all, they came for healing. This declaration, however, raised the ire of the “scribes and the Pharisees” who were offended at the very idea. This was a blasphemous scandal:
“Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21 ESV; Mark 2:6–7; Matt 9:3)
Jesus had committed a spiritual offense of highest magnitude in the eyes of the “scribes and Pharisees.” By declaring forgiveness he claimed a Divine prerogative to forgive sins (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33, Jer 31:34). Remember, for the scribes and the Pharisees Jesus was just a freelancing rabbi, nothing more than a Jewish man.
In the second act (miracle), Jesus called out their inner monologue regarding his sacrilege (Matt 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 5:22), and then raised the stakes. Jesus has entered into the spiritual “kill box” of Jewish orthodoxy: a human cannot forgive sins, only God does that; a human cannot claim deity or Divine prerogative, to make the claim is to blaspheme. Jesus then utters an “either…or” challenge like the prophet Elijah against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20–40).
“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (Luke 5:23)
The rhetorical question answers itself. If he can do the “harder” thing that requires an empirical/visible demonstration (“rise and walk”), then he can do the “invisible thing” which is to forgive sins. The entire ethical validity of Jesus’ teaching depends on this challenge. In a public demonstration Jesus tells the paralyzed man:
“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home.” (Luke 5:24)
The miracle was immediate (Luke 5:25), the crowd was amazed (Luke 5:26), and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possesses both the ability and right to forgive sins!
Therefore, in this instance, Jesus exercises his privileges showcasing his God-nature. In the third act (reaction), the people respond with:
“We have seen extraordinary things today.” (Luke 5:26; Mark 2:10; Matt 9:8)
This miracle shows just how impossible it is to sever the miraculous from Jesus’ teaching ministry. Jesus taught and preached on moral excellence, this much is true, but he acted clearly as one who is more than human. As John says it, Jesus is “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The New Testament documents, if they are going to be read properly, must be read on their terms not what we think has happened to the text.
Lunatic, Liar, Lord… Legend?
We conclude this piece with a challenge from C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) in his work, Mere Christianity. Lewis goes into considerable length in calling attention to a problem of viewing Jesus as “a great moral teacher” and rejecting “His claim to be God.” As Lewis sees it:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[8]
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan)
Lewis offers three basic options when it comes to Jesus: He is either (1) a lunatic, (2) a liar, or (3) the very Lord and God revealed in the documents of the New Testament. In Jesus’ words, he affirms his own claim: “unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).
Jefferson, and many who follow in his footsteps, however, would suggest at least a fourth option about the Jesus of the New Testament: (4) legend. If the disciples embellished his divine nature, then, why not embellish his teaching ministry, his compassion, or for that matter his ethics? I wish to press this clearly, one must receive Jesus en toto–that is, completely (miracles and all)–for to accept him partially (only a moral teacher) is to have no Jesus at all.
The strong reliability of the transmission of the New Testament demonstrates that the miraculous elements of the Gospels are original to their presentation of Jesus, which strengthens the internal eyewitness testimony of the New Testament’s message about the Deity of Jesus. Furthermore, the small interval between the events of Jesus life to written accounts is too brief for legend to so transform the “truth” of the historical Jesus. The legend claim is simply not enough.[9]
A Concluding Plea
The biblical accounts leave the issue clear that Jesus pre-existed before coming to minister on this soil. From the outside, he looked and lived as a human; but, inwardly and also through demonstrations showed himself to be the Divine Word (John 1:1–3).
So what will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Give Him one real, genuine inquiry. He will not disappoint you.
As for me, I will serve Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). May the Lord bless you in your quest to learn about Jesus and his message, and the salvation that he alone can offer.
“Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816.”
“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (repr., New York: Macmillan, 2001), 53.
To read a succinct argument in support of these statements, read John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law, and Christianity (1964; repr., Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 3–44.
Weird question, I know. Let me explain. This phrase is from C. S. Lewis’s classic book Mere Christianity.[1] Lewis journeyed from atheism to a believer in Jesus as the Christ. In Mere Christianity, he articulated an argument in support of the deity of Jesus commonly styled the trilemma.
Actually, Lewis’ classic argument emerges from his desire to disabuse his readers who are tempted to accept Jesus of Nazareth “as a great moral teacher” and yet reject his claims “to be God.” Lewis is very adamant, “That is the one thing we must not say.”[2] Why? The reason is simple. Jesus made claims to have divine privileges, claims to be divine, and exercised the rights of God by forgiving others of their sins.
How could we rationalizeJesus being a “great moral teacher,” Lewis argues, when he makes such claims to which places him beyond humanity? We are forced to make a decision: accept all that Jesus teaches or attempt to separate this claim to divinity from his teachings.
Decisions, We Have to Make One
At this point, the question about Jesus of Nazareth could be reduced to a dilemma. Professor Maurice Stanley explains that the “dilemma is among the most powerful forms of argument. Like the horns of a charging bull, its alternatives seem to leave you with no escape.”[3]
For example, we may argue that eitherJesus is the Christ or He is just “a great moral teacher.”
IfJesus is the Christ, then his teaching is absolutely true.
IfJesus is just a great moral teacher, then his teaching is subjective.
Consequently, you are left with two alternatives: either what Jesus taught (1) is absolutely true, or(2) it is decidedly subjective (we may pick and choose).
As a dilemma, there is no both-and. If you accept one, you deny the other conclusion.
Lewis knew, however, there was a third element regarding the case of Jesus of Nazareth. It simply is not that Jesus is either the Christ or a great moral teacher. Jesus made too many claims to divinity recorded in the Gospel Accounts to leave it at those two options.
Lewis goes to see that Jesus is either one of three things.[4]Jesus is either (1) a lunatic (Lewis’s “a poached egg”), (2) a devil, or (3) the Son of God. This is the trilemma where there is no both-and-and. If you accept one, you deny the other two conclusions.
If you accept that Jesus is a lunatic, then he is the sort of man “who says he is a poached egg” — i.e, a madman.
No madman is a “great moral teacher.” Is Charlie Manson a great moral teacher? What about Jim Jones? Or, David Koresh? Hardly. These are the questions readers of the New Testament need to ask. Interestingly, we find that these questions were raised as well during the ministry of Jesus himself.
They Said, “Jesus is Beside Himself”
In Mark 3:20-21, the family of Jesus had heard that he was home in Capernaum (2:1). They rushed “to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” [All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]
The language is very vivid. Jesus’ own family was so concerned about what people were saying about Jesus that they rushed to take him into their “protective” custody. However, certain Jerusalem scribes had already come and dismissed the exorcisms of Jesus as the work and influence of Beelzebul and “the prince of the demons” (3:22).
The text forces the question concerning Jesus: He is either (1) “out of his mind” (i.e., “a poached egg”) or (2) in cooperation with evil spirits (“a demon”). In the latter point, no one disputed the supernatural elements of the exorcisms.
In this text, Jesus responds with a third option (Mark 3:22-27). He argues that He is not cooperating with Satan, nor is Satan in a civil war against himself since his kingdom would fall apart. Instead, Jesus demonstrates his power and authority over Satan by subduing him in his own home. Jesus, then, logically argues for his superiority over the demonic and satanic world.
This passage then, which questions his sanity, demonstrates that he possesses all his mental faculties (he is not crazy) and that he is no emissary of Satan (he is no deceiver). But true to his power and authority, he is in the company and presence of the Holy Spirit (he is from God). Mark presents Jesus as mentally stable and confident in his power over evil spiritual forces.
Did Jesus Go Crazy Later?
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), an Irish playwright, once claimed that Jesus began his teaching ministry as a sane Rabbi but later after being exalted by the masses as Christ lost his mind.[5] This is not, however, the testimony of the Gospel Accounts which are of such authenticity that they could arguably be “admissible as evidence in a court of law” as true ancient eyewitness documents.[6] This is significant since the only authentic evidence for the existence of Jesus, his teaching, and his ministry are the first-century documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
But still, if a person claims to be God today, we would say they are insane. The Gospel Accounts, however, are united in their presentation that Jesus claimed both the power and the nature of God. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus demonstrates that he not only has supernatural powers to heal a disabled man but also the prerogative and power of God to forgive sins (2:7). He then affirms, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins” he heals the man (2:10).
Jesus not only taught that he had this divine privilege, but he also claimed to be God in the flesh (John 1:14, 10:29-33). Furthermore, he accepted worship — a significant acceptance of an act only due to God (Matt 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; Mark 5:6-7; John 9:35-38).
When pressed about Jesus’ “I am God” claim as a demonstration that he was insane, psychologist Dr. Gary R. Collins responded that it is important to remember that “psychologists don’t just look at what a person says. They’ll go much deeper than that.”[7]
Dr. Collins sets forth four particular problems “disturbed individuals frequently show” that Jesus does not demonstrate, namely:
(1) Emotional instability.
(2) Out of touch with reality (misperceptions, paranoia, etc).
Instead, Collins praises the emotional and mental stability of Jesus, giving his “diagnosis” as follows: “All in all, I just don’t see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness… He was much healthier than anyone else I know —including me!”[9]
The Significance of Jesus and His Resurrection
Ultimately, the Gospel Accounts emphasize the story of Jesus and his significance. This is summed up in the word “gospel” (Grk. euangelion) which means “a good tiding” or “a tiding of joy” (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:19, 4:18; John 1:11-13). Surely, the authors would not attempt to establish their gospel message upon a delusional Rabbi from a backwater city like Nazareth (John 1:46). Yet their story hangs on such an individual.
The only thing that makes Jesus’ claim to divinity (“I and the Father are one”) credible is the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3-5). While Lewis would ask us to choose between the three options based upon the logic of the Gospel Accounts, the real evidence lies in the resurrection of Jesus.
The strongest evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus is seen in the various conversions of those who did not believe in Jesus (James the brother of Jesus) and those who persecuted Christianity (like Saul-Paul the apostle), who was moved from being unbelievers to significant leaders of the primitive Christian faith (1 Cor 15:1-11).
Gary Habermas reminds us that the earliest belief “that they had actually seen Jesus after his death led to a radical transformation in their lives, even to the point of being willing to die for their faith.”[10] Their conversion and capacity to endure sufferings as eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus are unexplainable otherwise.
Concluding Thoughts
Similar arguments can be made from various other texts, but the present discussion should be helpful to demonstrate that Jesus is no “poached egg,” nor is he a liar. We are then led to the only true credible conclusion that Jesus is the son of God.
What will you decide based upon the evidence and testimony of the Gospel Accounts (John 20:30–31; 21:25)? As Lewis reminds us:
let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[11]
Endnotes
Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (NY: Macmillan, 1952).
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
Maurice F. Stanely, Logic and Controversy (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2002), 192.
N.T. Wright critiques Lewis’ “lunatic, liar, Lord” trilemma argument, or as he rephrases it “bad or mad or God,” by observing that the argument does not take into account the pre-existing “incarnational model” of Israel in the Scriptures and consequently “drastically short-circuits the argument” (“Simply Lewis: Reflections on a Master Apologist After 60 Years,” TouchstoneMag.com). That criticism acknowledged, Lewis does provide the basic contours of the question by forcing his readers to decide if Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.
Wayne Jackson calls attention to Shaw’s point of view in Jackson, Eric Lyons, and Kyle Butt, Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 175.
Pamela Binnings Ewen, Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1999). It has been reprinted with slight variation to the title, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2013). The purpose of the volume is to demonstrate the credibility of the Gospel Accounts to have the internal evidence to stand up in a court of law as eyewitness documents. Ewen argues forcefully that they do. See also Simon Greenleaf, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (1874; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995).
Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 146.
Strobel, The Case for Christ, 146-47.
Strobel, The Case for Christ, 147.
G. Habermas, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, James P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 189.
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
This is a reformatted and slightly expanded version of the article which originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).
As the apostle Paul closes his immediate words acknowledging a recent gift from the Philippians (Phil 4:10-12), Paul interweaves a statement which transcends gifts and the encouragement to endure that they provide. In Philippians 4:13, Paul’s words read, “I can do all things through…”[1]
It ellipses into a scene from a role playing game. At this point, the verse breaks out into three possibilities (variant readings) as to how the verse ends. The first two are represented by mainline translations, but the third is my translation (AT) since there are none that I am aware of to represent it:
(A) I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. (NKJV; CEV, FHV4, KJV, NLT, Tyndale)
(B) I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (ESV; ASV, Barclay, CEB, HCSB, NASB95, NET, NIV, NRSV, Phillips, RSV, Weymouth, Wycliffe)
(C) I can be able to do all things through Christ. (AT)
In truth, Paul’s point is transparent regardless of the textual problem. In them, Paul, at bottom line, concludes his statement with a powerful declaration that “Christ/God gives me the strength to face anything.” Yet, at times questions are asked as to why a translation has this word or is missing that word, so this aspect of the text will be explored here.[2]
So here, in this note, we are not so concerned with the sense of the passage than we are with the original wording of the passage. For while these variants are theologically harmonious, they differ but in two ways; case in point, did Paul label Christ as his enabler, or did he leave it undefined for a reason? Let us consider the textual question, then attempt to put the most probable words in context.
Don’t Get Jittery, We Love the Bible
Every early Sesame Street kid remembers the lyrics: “Three of these things are kind of the same; Can you guess which one of these doesn’t belong here?” Sometimes when the topic of textual criticism emerges upon the scene of our faith it feels so flippant and cruel. “You mean to tell me that it was God’s Word in the time of my grandma but now ‘scholars’ know [sarcasm] it isn’t.”
But the study and search for the earliest wording of the biblical text is an act of devotion to God’s word and not some academic display of nerdiness. While there are areas of subjectivity to the evaluation process of the textual variants, so much as been done to minimize them as much as possible.
Why? Because for the most part textual criticism shows a love for the Bible. So in the words of the late Dr. Dowell Flatt, let us be clear that the search for the earliest wording of the biblical text is not (1) a liberal versus conservative issue, (2) a high view versus a low view of inspiration debate, nor is it (3) a study of the varied English versions, or (4) a study of what the providence of God should have done or not done.[3]
However, variants make it necessary to “arrive at nearest thing we can have to that which” is God-breathed;[4] “it is, after all, somewhat difficult to study or interpret a document accurately unless one first knows exactly what the document says.”[5] This is, then, a necessary element of biblical interpretation.
How can one explain the text if there is an uncertainty in the wording of the text? Unfortunately, the everyday student of the Scriptures (versus someone like an academically trained student of the Scriptures) rarely walks through these ancient halls and so it becomes something of a mystery. It does not need to be so.
An Evaluation of the Textual Variants
There are a few things that should be said at the beginning about some general assumptions I am making. There are more refined treatments of this subject to be sure,[6] but these will at least give some reason for the approach taken here.
First, this evaluation is based upon the premise that (within reasonable limits) the closer a manuscript is in age to the timeframe of its composition, then the more probable it is that it represents its autographic wording (i.e. original wording). The closer one is to the source it is typically regarded more pure.
Second, wide geographic distribution is a vastly important consideration of the evidence,[7] but it is not as weighty as the date of the manuscript evidence. For example, a reading may have a significantly wide geographic distribution, but if an earlier reading exists also having a wide distribution, then (all things being equal) the oldest reading is more probable to be the autographic wording.
Third, in most cases one must consider what is the variant which is the hardest to explain and would be most likely create a need to correct or clarify a difficult reading. Sometimes, for example, the shorter reading is taken to be the most probable reading since variations are often additions rather than deletions.
There are many exceptions to these general assumptions, but these are laid out in full disclosure. Let us, then, turn to the three textual variants of Philippians 4:13b.
From the Least Likely to the Best Supported
First, the (C) variant has the weakest evidence to be the probable reading of the early text of Philippians 4:13. It is only mentioned in the UBS4 textual apparatus.
The only manuscript supporting this reading in the apparatus is from the twelfth to thirteenth century (minuscule 1573). This variant can be easily dismissed due to its weak and late support, but it is an interesting combination of the next two variants. It is also weak since because variants (A) and (B) are more difficult to explain than the (C) variant.[8]
Second, the (A) variant is perhaps the most well-known among the three to the English reader. This is due in large part to the influence and dominance of the King James/Authorize Version tradition (1611). It is well known and it clearly establishes the source of Paul’s endurance – Christ.
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Manuscripts. The strongest manuscript evidence is seen in second hand “corrections” to the text of both Aleph (4th century) and Claromontanus (6th century). Yet, since they are second corrections the Christo notes are from about 7th century (Aleph) and 9th century (Claromontanus) respectively.[9] Despite support in the later Byzantine text (Byz) and in church lectionary readings (Lect), the reading is found in the ancient versions of the Syrian Peshitta (5th century) and Ethiopian tradition (6th century).
The evidence in the early church leaders (i.e. Church Fathers) is mixed. The mid-4th century finds roughly about half of Eusebius’s manuscripts which include “Christ,” and several late 4th and early 5th century Greek writers with verifiable references to 4:13 (Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodore in latin). Four-fifths of Jerome’s unstable Latin text (419-20) and Paulinus-Nola (481) are witnesses of the Latin church.
Distribution. While this variant has a wide geographic distribution among its witnesses (Western, Alexandrian, Byz), the strongest and earliest examples are substantially late and statistically problematic. David A. Black calls us to be open-minded to the possibility that “a later MS may preserve an early reading. It is the date of the reading and not of the MS, that is important.”[10] Still, the strength of this variant reading is its wide geographic distribution.
Probabilities. The earliest witnesses for this reading come from ancient translations and quotations from church leaders in both the Latin and Greek church and are omitted in the body of earlier Greek manuscripts. Instead, they exist in much later corrections notes. This leads to the probability that the reading emerged as “a later addition for the sake of clarity,” perhaps due to influential church leaders and the lectionaries harmonizing Philippians 4:13 with other passages with similar wording (2 Tim 4:17 and Eph 6:10).[11]
In other words, the reading emerged to identify the one who strengthens Paul and all subsequent Christians. Further, as Metzger observes, “If the word [Christo] had been present in the original text, there would have been no reason to omit it.”[12] One would more likely need to explain the “elusiveness” of the text rather than to delete Christ from the verse, as such, it would be a “predictable” variant.[13]
Third, on the whole, the evidence for the (B) variant is decidedly better to be the wording of the earliest text of verse 13. It’s vagueness better explains (A) and (C) because it is the most difficult reading between the three.
I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Manuscripts. This reading has a strong representation from the manuscripts regarded as the most reliable witnesses of the New Testament. They date from the 4th century (Aleph*,[14] Vaticanus) and the fifth century (Alexandrinus). Also, it is represented in the fragmented Freerianus (5th century) and the Claromontanus (D* 6th century) manuscripts.
It is also represented by early third-century text of Clement of Alexandria (before 215). It is insightful that statistically there are alternative texts among fourth-century church leaders Eusebius (1/3) and Didymus (1/3) with this reading. This shows a similar instability of their texts which include variant (A) above. Still, various fourth and fifth-century witnesses to this reading are from Latin church leaders.
Distribution. Witnesses to this reading are geographically broad. It is found in Alexandria and Western manuscripts to eastern translations (Armenian, Vulgate, Coptic), and as far West as Britain (Pelagius after 418). This distribution weighs stronger for the (B) variant due not only to its distribution but also due to its earlier witness.
Probabilities. The evidence of the manuscripts and early church leaders indicates strongly that this variation is older and is in the best position to explain variants (A) and (C). The later “scribes” understood Paul’s intent to be Christo (“Christ”), no doubt because Paul, as Gerald Hawthorne observes, “paradoxically gained all by losing all for Christ; he who longed to know Christ and the power of his resurrection (3:7-10), and so on, could only envision Christ as his true source of inner strength.”[15]
So we conclude here that the text reads, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (ESV). The evidence above explains why the majority of modern translation have the “unspecified” reading in the body of their texts (ASV, Barclay, CEB, HCSB, NASB95, NET, NIV, NRSV, Phillips, RSV, Weymouth, Wycliffe). So if this is the text, who then is “the one who strengthens” Paul?
So Why the Vagueness Paul?
Let us start with a verb. The verb endunamao used in Philippians 4:13 (“I make strong”) is used approximately 7 times in the New Testament, the majority of time by Paul (Rom 4:20; Eph 6:10; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 2:1, 4:17). The balance is one reference about Paul gaining strength as an early Christian (Acts 9:22) and those whom the world was not worthy due to their faith (Heb 11:34). The verb itself is part of a larger word family (based on the duna- stem),[16] but we will limit ourselves to endunamao.
Abraham, Paul argues, “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God” (Rom 4:20). Before Timothy, Paul evokes in prayer “him who has given mestrength, ChristJesusourLord” (1 Tim 1:12). In his last letter, Paul both encourages Timothy and acknowledges the role of “the grace that is in Christ Jesus” and “the Lord [who] stood by” has in their lives to strengthen them (2 Tim 2:1, 4:17). Moreover, in Ephesians Paul empowers his readers with, “Finally be strongin the Lordandin the strength of hismight” (Eph 6:10). The title “Lord” (kurios) is predominately a title for Christ Jesus in the letter.
Aside from Paul’s discussion of Abraham’s faith in Romans, Paul is clear to connect the empowering force in his life with the Lord Jesus Christ, his grace, and God his Father. This leaves us with Philippians 4:13b and its “vagueness.” The phrase, “the one who strengthens me,” requires explanation – who is that?
The truth is that Paul was not vague, elusive, or unspecific. Paul was perfectly clear. The articular particple (to endunamounte) points back to the “Lord” (kurios) in 4:10a. Again, consistent with Paul’s use in Ephesians, “Lord” (kurios) is used throughout the Philippian letter for “Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:1; 3:20). There is perhaps no greater example in Philippians that “Lord” refers to Jesus than 2:11: “everytongue confess thatJesusChrist is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
In the immediate context of 4:13b, Paul already expresses his great joy to be “in the Lord” (4:10; 3:1). Paul repeats this locative phrase “in the Lord” several times in Philippians (1:14; 2:19, 24, 29; 3:1, 4:1-2, 4) and such a phrase is unique to Paul. It is one of those phrases that he seems to have just made up to convey a Christian concept where the Lord Jesus’ presence dwells within – an immanent Christian context.[17] “In the Lord” means, then, “Jesus is here” or “in the presence of Jesus.”
So contextually, “the one who strengthens me” (4:13b) goes back to the presence of Jesus (“in the Lord”) in 4:10a and it is obvious that this is Paul’s intended meaning, even though it is not Paul’s words. But why the so-called “vagueness”? Perhaps it is simply a matter of style or syntax convention.
Consider one example along these lines. In Philippians 1:6, there is a similar example of a “vague” articular participle, “he who began a good work in you…” The context begins with “God” (1:3). “God our Father” is always connected to the work of Jesus Christ (1:1). Even in the context of 4:10-13, Paul calls upon God to “supply every need” of the Philippians “according to this riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (4:19) as part of his gratitude for their gift (4:18). But it is God who is the source of our salvation (1:28) and the exaltation of the Lord Jesus (2:9). It is God who consummates the work He begins in His children at the day of Christ (2:13-16).
So contextually, the “vague” articular participle, “he who began a good work in you,” goes back to “God” in 1:3. This is a parallel to 4:13b and leads me to conclude that Paul is not being vague, elusive, or unspecific.
In both cases, Paul leads with God or the Lord, then references back with an articular participle. It is God “who began a good work in you” (1:6) and it is the Lord through whom Paul can “do all things” (4:13). These participles are functioning as anaphoric abstract adjectives for God and for the Lord.[18] In other words, it points back up the text and to a previous referent (God, Lord).
Concluding Words
In seeking an answer to the textual variant in the Greek text of Philippians 4:13b, we walked through some history of the text in the early church. Christians seem to have needed a stronger sense of the one through whom Paul was empowered to endure all things. Was it a slip of the pen? Was it a theological harmonization with other passages using so many similar words? Hard to say.
But the history of the text shows a few things. Theologically, the variant is insignificant because all three variant readings are essentially harmonious. They say the same thing just with a difference in nuance.
Still the question remains: why so vague Paul? The answer is most likely a matter of convention. It is not that Paul is purposely elusive as if he wishes the Philippians to guess. We see a parallel in 1:6 and 4:13 using the articular participle to tell us more about God and Jesus.
So what Paul wants his readers to know is that Jesus is here, in his life, manifesting the power of the resurrection and it gives Paul (1) insight to be content in the face of real challenges and (2) the capacity to endure all things that come his way (Phil 3:7-11, 4:10-13). This is the grace and source of strength for all those whose citizenship is in heaven (Phil 3:20).
References
The Greek texts and apparatuses used are the following: (NA28) Barbara Aland, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012); (UBS5) Barbara Aland, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament, 5th revised ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 11*; Jack P. Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked about Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 1991), 91; David Alan Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 396-97.
Dowell Flatt, “Can We Be Certain of the Text? —New Testament,” in
God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture,
eds. Don Jackson, et. al (Kusciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 103-04.
Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked about Bible Translations, 100.
Michael W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001), 46.
Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 396-413; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999); Michael W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” 46-73; Frank Pack, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” Biblical Interpretation Principles and Practice: Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis, eds. F. Furman Kearley, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1986), 214-25.
“A geographically widespread reading is more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one locale” (Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 404).
Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 13*-14*.
NA28, 59*.
Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 404.
Jacobus Johannes Müller,The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 147; Archibald T. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians (New York, NY: Revell, 1917), 256; Alfred Plummer, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Roxburghe, 1919), 102; Frederick F. Bruce, Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 151. Compare this variant of Philippians 4:13 (to endunamounti me Christo) with(a) 1 Timothy 1:12, endunamosanti me Christo Iesou, (b) 2 Timothy 4:17, endunamosen me, and (c) Ephesians 6:10, enedunamousthe en kurio.
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 550.
After evaluating the variants, the footnote in NET Bible has this comment: “But this kind of reading is patently secondary, and is a predictable variant. Further, the shorter reading is much harder, for it leaves the agent unspecified.”
The * in Aleph* and D* (Claromontanus*) refers to the original hand of a given manuscript. That is to say, it is the reading in the main body of the manuscript text, versus a correction of the text in the margins.
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1983), 201; William Hendrickson agrees (Exposition of Philippians [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962], 206); Handley C. G. Moule labels this variation (A) “a true ‘gloss’” (Studies in Philippians [1893; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977], 118).
Walter Grundmann, “dunamai, et al.,” TDNT 2:284-317.
Albrecht Oepke, “en,” TDNT 2:541. Albrecht Oepke observes that en kurio is a formula that is “not found prior to Paul” and is “rare outside the Pauline corpus.”In fact, Oepke speculates that not only is this formula “peculiar to Paul,” but that such constructions perhaps find origin with him. The phrase en kurio “characterizes an activity or state as Christian.”
Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 98-104.
On one occasion in the ministry of our Lord, Jesus accepted a dinner invitation from a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:40); interestingly, a woman with a reputation for being a “sinner” had heard of Jesus’ arrival and interrupted the dinner by cleaning his feet with her tears and hair and anointing them with oil (Luke 7:36-38).
Simon recoils at the woman’s act, and has an internal monologue that essentially questions the validity of the Lord’s ministry:
If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner. (Luke 7:39)[1]
As in other occasions, Jesus answers this unspoken criticism (Luke 7:40; cf. Matt 9:4, Mark 2:8). The Lord responds with a “parable of two debtors” (Luke 7:41-43), which has as its main thrust the point that “our sense of forgiveness will evidence itself in love and service.”[2]
There are points in the narrative that suggest that the woman and the Lord had known each other previously. The woman’s act of service and love (Luke 7:44-46) is a demonstration of her gratitude. This gratitude is based upon the fact that her sins “are forgiven” (Luke 7:47-48).
In the first instance, Jesus speaking to Simon the Pharisee states that this woman’s sins “stand forgiven” (v. 47). The phrase is one word in the original and is in the perfect passive indicative form. The verb reflects that her sins were forgiven at some point previous to their encounter at Simon’s house, and remain to be so. This would explain her great demonstration, of which Simon was critical.
In the second instance, Jesus turns to the woman and speaks the exact same phrase (v. 48). This time, the Lord encourages her – your sins remain to be forgiven. The woman “stands saved” (Grk. sesoken) because of her faith in the Lord; consequently, the Savior could send her into a life of “peace” (v. 50). The Lord emphasizes the abiding results of her forgiveness received prior to this dinner.
Moreover, Jesus concedes the point that the woman’s life had been ravaged by sin: “her sins, which are many” (v. 47). This strikes at one of Simon’s criticisms raised by the woman’s action, and Jesus demonstrates his full knowledge of the situation. He knew “what sort of woman” she was. Now, she is different; now, she is saved and forgiven, commissioned to live a new life embraced by the peace of God (Rom 5:1).
If Service is the Symptom… Stay Sick
It ought to go without saying that this encounter with our Lord is one that should pull at our hearts, for we share, as Christians, the same plight as this woman. Knowing the debt of forgiveness we owe to our God, knowing that the Lord went behind enemy lines to rescue us from a calamity worse than death, we too should be of similar passions to show our love through service.
The idea of service is not an abstract notion that we subscribe to, service is an expression of love. It is a symptom of our love for God. Consequently, if service is a “symptom,” then love and gratitude generated by salvation is the “infection.” And in this analogy, we would rather be sick than cured.
Christians, therefore, should never be complacent in their service to God. Packed pews look nice, but if that is all we offer to God, we have failed. Service, as demonstrated by this woman, sacrifices time, resources, and energy, and offers it to her Lord. Can we do any less?
When there are cards to mail, people to visit, broken hearts to help mend, and souls to invite to our Father’s promises in the Gospel, it should be done by our hands – not by the hands of another. The most natural explanation for this behavior is our gratitude and love for our Lord.
Lessons to be Learned
Besides the principle emphasis from this passage that forgiveness leads to a sense of gratitude which showcases itself in acts of love and service, there are a few other lessons that may be observed.
(1)This passage highlights the divinity of Jesus, bearing witness that He has the right to forgive sin.
Jesus’ claims to divine authority are well documented in the New Testament, and even as a basis for the plots against his life (John 5:17-18; 7:1).
In Luke, Jesus declared that the woman’s sins stand forgiven (7:47-48), and this offended the group of Pharisees at the dinner party. They reasoned, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” (v. 49). They understood Jesus’ claims were not idealistic (mere wishful thinking), but were literal claims to divine authority (cf. Luke 5:17-26).
(2)A person’s new life may be overshadowed, for a time, by their past moral failures.
We know virtually nothing about this woman only that she is labeled as “a woman of the city” (v. 37) and “a sinner” (vv. 37, 39). This is not just a note from Luke, the narrator, but this was Simon’s understanding of who this mysterious woman was.
Nevertheless, critics will come and go, but the peace of God lasts forever (v. 50). The unrelenting critics who so often affirm, “you’ll do it again”, will be silenced and shamed by service to God (1 Pet 3:13-17; 2:11-12). We do not serve to prove others wrong, we serve to love God. The motivation behind our service must be fueled by our gratitude; as it is written:
Now which of them will love him more? Simon [the Pharisee] answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." (Luke 7:42b-43)
(3)A life troubled by the ravages of a sinful life can become a life of peace devoted to godly service to God.
The change of life brought about by a new way of thinking in light of God’s forgiveness has the overwhelming power to transform a person (Acts 2:38; Rom 12:1-2). Experiencing the grace of God, understanding that we who were once dead are now made alive in Christ brings tremendous peace, for our Lord never leaves us (Heb 13:5-6; 1 John 1:7).
Indeed, Paul writes,
...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:17)
This new birth (John 3:4-5) brings with it “the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension” (Phil 4:7); moreover, this peace guards our hearts and minds. In this new life, in true appreciation of the grace of God, we are qualified not only to experience a heavenly reward (Col 1:12) but are also sanctified for service (Eph 2:10; 1 Cor 6:19-20).
There is no person that God cannot use in holy service, especially his children whom he has “delivered… from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved son” (Col 1:13).
Concluding Thoughts
I remember seeing an article entitled, “Sluggish Slumbering Saints,” and the essence of the piece was to wake up Christians and call them to their responsibilities as servants of God to serve their Lord (Rom 6:16-18). Indeed, perhaps one of the more critical questions we must ask is this: if the lack of service is the symptom, then what is the infection? The sad answer is a lack of love and gratitude for all of God’s demonstrations of love.
This spiritual malignancy will only go into remission once we see afresh the great debt we owe our Lord. Should it be that a renewal of this kind is needed in the Christian’s life, then we are to seek Him in repentance and faith knowing that He will receive us and reward us (Heb 11:6; Acts 8:22).
You can be a servant like this wonderful woman, who despite her sin-filled past has been immortalized in the pages of God’s book for posterity so that all may see their own story of salvation and love, and be moved to faithfully serve Him from whom all blessings flow.
Sources
Unless otherwise noted all Bible quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
Wayne Jackson, The Parables in Profile: Exegetical Outlines of the Parables of Christ, rev. ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 1998), 70.
biblicalfaith.online 