The Value of Wisdom (Proverbs 8:11)

On August 1, 2019April 9, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Ecclesiastes, Glendale Gleaner, Job, Old Testament, Proverbs, Psalms, Published, Song of Solomon, Wisdom Literature

For wisdom is better than rubies; And all the things that may be desired are not to be compared unto it.
Proverbs 8:11 (American Standard Version)

Every culture has its wise one. Every “hero’s journey” has its wizard or Jedi. These iconic figures in culture and fiction manifest the human need for guidance by those who have deeper insight and knowledge which affect our relationship with ourselves, our families, our society and our God.

Contrary to the notion that wisdom can only be gained through the school of hard knocks (trial and error) or some “inner voice,” the Bible speaks quite often that wisdom and insight are attainable by listening to the voice of God. For this reason, wisdom is said to be “better than rubies; And all the things that may be desired are not to be compared unto it” (Proverbs 8:11).[1]

The willingness to submit to Divine wisdom is the essential ingredient to a spiritual life and a right relationship with God. God has given wisdom instruction to the world through his people (Deuteronomy 4:5–6) to gain wisdom through meditation of it and to practice it (Proverbs 1:2–6). And, Divine wisdom must always be our daily companion —especially, when thinking about Jesus “the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:25). We will explore these ideas presently.

A Starting Place

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word hokmah —often translated “wisdom”— is found 149 times. Practical knowledge, coupled with godly fear of the will of God and the willingness to arrange one’s world on this basis is the dominant way in which biblical wisdom is portrayed, especially in the book of Proverbs.

While no single verse may indeed capture the entire thrust of a biblical topic, the tension found in Proverbs 1:7 provides a helpful theological mapping, observe:

“The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; But the foolish despise wisdom and instruction.”

These two lines of opposite thoughts are sewn together at the seam by inspired design in order to display that “wisdom and instruction” are accepted through personal submission to “Jehovah.” True “knowledge” does not emerge from the short-sighted, the arrogant, nor the spiritual loner who comes to their own realization or epiphanies.

Knowledge, wisdom, and instruction are the instruments through which God takes those who are humble and willing to learn the reframing power of the “fear of Jehovah” (9:10). In other words, the Bible is talking about what we may call today as spiritual formation, reframing life and its choices by the insight gained by wisdom (Proverbs 4:7) and acquiring the discipline to chose wisdom over folly, insight over forgetfulness, life over death. Here inlays the value and power of biblical wisdom, it is the wisdom that comes from above (James 3:17).

The Importance of Wisdom

The arrangement found in most Old Testament Bibles today places five poetic and wisdom books together. They are poetic in genre and style but offer the wisdom of God toward specific areas of godly living. Let us briefly look at Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon to appreciate their value.

Job. In 42 chapters, the book challenges a common notion that people only suffer due to their own failings and sins. In this life, sin does not always have immediate consequences of suffering; righteous living is no absolute protection from harm. The good do suffer, the unjust often thrive, but God will judge in the end. While injustice may never feel resolved from our vantage point, we must learn to trust in God’s grace and sovereign will.

Psalms. In 150 psalms, a host of prayers and praises are given to God. They demonstrate a complete spectrum of human emotion and devotion given to God. There is a place to come to the Lord in praise or confusion, in pain or joy, in anger or celebration. Prayer and praise are far more dynamic than “conventional wisdom” often suggests to us. The articulation of our heart and soul to God in prayer and praise is one of the greatest expressions of wisdom.

Proverbs. The training of spiritual leadership is the goal of the 31 chapters of Proverbs. In chapters 1-9, a father is providing a series of speeches to his son encouraging him to seek after wisdom like a devoted woman, while avoiding the seductive intrigue of folly portrayed as an adulterous woman. “Case studies” of wisdom versus folly are then laid out in a series of two-line wisdom collections (10:1, 22:17, 25:1, 30:1, 31:1).

Ecclesiastes. The twelve chapters provided by “the Preacher” (1:1) are framed much like an introspective journal as “the son of David” seeks to find meaning in this life “under heaven” (1:12-18). He pursued various forms of pleasure and materialism and walked away seeing these things are nothing more than an elusive mirage, “vanity” (hevel). In the end, he comes to understand that his relationship with God is the only things that make life “under the sun” complete (ch. 12).

Song of Solomon. In one of the most unique contributions in all of scripture, the Song highlights the wisdom and elevates the beauty of romantic, marital sexual intimacy. Although some Jewish and Christian circles have viewed this allegorically for the intimate love of God for his people, the book itself reinforces the unashamed pure intimacy that should exist within the “one flesh” of marriage (Genesis 2:18–25). The Song reinforces the wisdom saying, “drink waters out of thine own cistern” (Proverbs 5:15).

Wisdom is one of the most pervasive concepts used in Scripture for spiritual growth and development. While there may be segments found throughout the biblical canon, these core volumes provide various theaters of life in which wisdom is needed: the marital relationship, the workplace, the battles of everyday choices, the realm of worship and prayer, and our appreciation of justice and grace.

Don’t Leave Home Without Wisdom

In Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10 the first major section of the book (chapters 1–9) opens and concludes with the importance and value of wisdom, as it reflects the “deep-seated reverence and awe” that a person should have as an emerging wise person.[2] Like bookends, the section opens and closes with the reminder that wisdom apart from the “fear of Jehovah” is self-defeating; therefore, treat Divine wisdom like jewelry and take it everywhere with you (1:9; 3:21–22; 4:9).

Wisdom is valuable in many ways, observe: as a proclaimer warning against catastrophe (1:20), as precious treasures (2:4) to spend one’s energies to pursue, find and store up (2:7; 3:3); or, as a security detail (2:7–8), a caretaker (2:10–12), a life-extender like the “tree of life” (3:2, 18; 4:13), provides security and peace (3:23–25), as the wisdom and instruction of mother and father (6:13).

What is clear is that Proverbs offers wisdom for everyday living —emphasis on the “living” part of the phrase. We are invited to:

Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding: In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths.
Proverbs 3:5-6

Yet, if we do not understand that reframing our vision to see that everyday choices are spiritual choices it may prove difficult “trust in Jehovah.”

Ultimately, we need to understand that Jesus is the Wisdom (sophia) of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). The Old Testament provides considerable information about the importance of the word of God. This principle becomes clearer in the New Testament when Jesus is declared to be the Word who becomes flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1–3, 14). It becomes clear that the word of wisdom is from God (Luke 11:49), is the word which God gives as instruction and teaching, and is the word by which all things are created, and this Word is Jesus Christ.

The value which we should place on wisdom, then, is the same value we should place on Jesus Christ (and vice versa), who according to Paul is not only “the power of God” but also “the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24).

Final Thoughts

Wisdom is important for all aspects of life. Biblical wisdom is intertwined with a moral discipline that requires God-fearing souls to reject wickedness and uphold righteousness, to trust His plan over our own. Families, churches, and the world need more people seeking the wisdom of Jesus Christ. It may often look foolish but it will be wiser than the wisdom of men (1 Corinthians 1:25).

Endnotes

Unless otherwise noted all quotations are taken from the American Standard Version of The Holy Bible.
Kenneth T. Aitken, Proverbs (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1986), 14-15.

**This article was originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).** It is slightly expanded here.

God as Cause: The Cosmological Argument

On October 12, 2018October 15, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Apologetics, Christian Evidences, Cosmological, Glendale Gleaner, Published, Theology, Theology

I clearly remember my elementary school science lesson of “cause and effect.” For every effect, there must be a sufficient and adequate cause. It is one of those self-evident truths of the natural world. Yet, when applied to the origin of our universe the matter becomes a disputable principle. For some time now, some physicists, like Dr. Victor Stenger, are on record affirming, “Not everything requires a cause.”[1] Meanwhile, the Hebrews writer affirms, “For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God” (3:4 ASV).[2] Well, what about this “structure” —the universe— that houses “all things”? Is there an adequate cause to explain it? Is there reason to believe it was built by Someone? We, here, affirm that there is a reason to believe God exists.

There are four independent categories of arguments[3] used to provide a basis for believing a personal God exists, that we are not alone in the universe; and, more importantly, that our experiences have meaning and purpose. They all have their strengths, their appeal, and areas which the dispute naturally centers on. Yet, they are all valid reasons to make the case that God exists. Now, let us turn to the argument at hand.

Cosmological arguments are a group of arguments focused on establishing the “cause and effect” link between God (cause) and the universe (effect), by examining the effect and seeking an adequate and sufficient cause to explain it. In other words, it is based on a well established and self-evident principle of the world in which we live. Naturally, then, there are broad and narrow forms of the cosmological argument. A narrow form would be to focus on the origin of human beings as Thomas B. Warren did in his debate with then atheist Antony Flew.[4] We will be considering, however, the broad form, namely the origin of the universe (nothing too big).

First, we will reflect on the Bible’s cosmological affirmations, and then secondly, we will suggest a reasonable argument that affirms that the universe had a cause, and that cause is God.

Arguments from Revelation

The essence of the cosmological argument is found in the Bible. Consider a few examples. The very first line of scripture makes the clear “cause and effect” affirmation, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Some readers of Genesis think that since there are poetic elements to this creation narrative (i.e., “God said,” “God saw,” measured creation days, etc.) its historicity is questionable; however, as Old Testament scholar Clyde Woods points out the passage conspicuously lacks Hebrew parallelism, “the fundamental characteristic of Hebrew poetry.”[5] Nevertheless, while the passage is stylistically shaped, artistry does not by itself dimmish its historic claims. Would one question the historicity of the “Star Spangled Banner” commemorating the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812 simply because it is stylized? In a clearly “narrative” text, Moses affirms: “for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11).

The “Creation Hymn” psalms also offer cosmological affirmations. They extoll the power and greatness of God and display the sense of wonder, confidence, and admiration filling the psalmist.[6] In Psalm 19, David praises God:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1)

In Psalm 8, David reflects on both the universe and the status of humanity as part of this universe:

“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers… For thou hast made [mankind] but little lower than God [lit. heavenly beings]” (Psalm 8:3, 5).

The universe (i.e., “heavens”) exists because of the will of God. David praises God for creating the universe and for creating humanity (cf. 139:7–16). This emphasis on the universe and humanity, reflects both the broad (the universe) and the narrow (mankind) forms of the cosmological argument.

The New Testament likewise affirms the cosmological argument. A biblical faith accepts that the universe was made by God —ex nihilo— from nothing (Hebrews 11:2). The prologue of the Gospel of John affirms that Jesus is the agent of creation.

In the beginning was the Word… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (John 1:1–3; cf. v. 14)

The Father brought “all things” into being through the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus. In a very real sense, then, Jesus is the cosmological argument.

The apostle Paul employed the cosmological argument on several occasions. Acts records sermons where he affirms natural theology (Acts 14:15; 17:24) to Greeks and Romans building his plea from the God who made the world. In Romans 1:19–20, Paul pointedly affirms that the testimony of the visible world reveals the attributes of the invisible Creator, namely, “his everlasting power and divinity.” Those that reject such evidence, he argues, are “without excuse.” Finally, Paul lifts up Jesus as the one who created “all things” and presently holds everything together (Colossians 1:16–17).

Arguments from Reason

Providing reasons for our belief in a personal God from nature and reason is found throughout Scripture. It is an act of faith and a natural outflow of loving the Lord with all our heart and mind (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:26). We should be very clear, that God has provided sufficient witness in the world to point us back to him. Yet, when asked why we believe in God and have hope in Jesus (1 Peter 3:15), it would be wise to think outside “the book” since for many quoting the Bible is insufficient.

Even when fully convicted that truth is on our side, we must face the truth of Alvin Plantinga’s words, “there are no proofs of God that will convince all rational persons.”[7] But that has always been the story even among believers (Isaiah 53:1; Luke 16:27–30).

All we can do is present our reasons hoping that the “accumulated weight” of such arguments will be hard to ignore. After all, as biochemist Dr. Joseph DeWeese (Lipscomb University) once said,

“Creationists and evolutionists don’t have different evidence… we have different filters through which we understand and interpret that data.”[8]
Joseph DeWeese, “Why I am a Creationist.”

We share our “filter” in hopes it will persuade them to see that the universe points us to “clues” which point to God as the only adequate answer to existence.

Apologist Dr. Ralph Gilmore (Freed-Hardeman University) stresses that the heart of the cosmological arguments centers on three key concepts: causality, necessity (necessary existence), and contingency (contingent existence).

Causality stresses the cause and effect connection between A and B (A causes B, or B is caused by A). This is the causal relationship.
Necessity means that A necessarily exists due to its essence which makes A impossible to not exist.
Contingency points to the dependency B has upon another for its existences, it has an “iffy” existence (B only exists “if…”). Thus, contingency points to non-eternal things or existence and implies the need for another to bring it into existences.

So, if the universe exists (and it does), its existence must be explained. It is as simple as that.[9] It is either here by necessity or contingently. Does it necessarily exists —is it eternal? Is it dependent upon itself —did it create itself? Did something outside of itself bring it into existence —God? Many have tried to side-step the force of this issue, but not without breaking away from the rules of proper thinking and established scientific knowledge.

The cosmological argument presented here stresses in the simplest terms that the universe began and has a cause for its existence. It is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument and was developed by Arabic philosophers of the late Middle Ages (kalam means “Arabic philosophy”).[10] One of these Arabic philosophers was the twelfth-century theologian Al-Ghazali, and his argument has been employed by theists of various persuasions ever since. It is considered one of the foundations of modern Christian apologetic approaches to establishing a positive philosophical case for the existence of God.

In his volume, On Guard, Apologist William Lane Craig summarizes Al-Ghazali’s argument into three simply stated premises:[11]

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig asserts that this is a “logically airtight argument” because in order to deny premise 3 (“the universe has a cause”) one must prove that the first two premises are false. Though the issues are complex we will examine some of the objections made against premises 1 and 2.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Craig affirms that in order to deny premise 1 two things must be argued: (1) that contrary to experience something can come from nothing and (2) that the universe broke into existence for no reason whatsoever – that is, without a cause.

To invalidate premise 1, some have appealed to subatomic particles (or, virtual particles, elementary particles), which are the basic building blocks of “all matter.” This includes elements which are “various self-contained units of matter or energy”[12] such as electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., and even the smaller parts which make them up. Some have argued that such can appear and disappear from nothing. From this, it is then argued that premise 1 does not always hold true.

Craig reminds us that these particles, however, emerged in a vacuum which is not the same thing as “nothing,” for “in physics, the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure.”[13] It has contours so to speak. Nothing, on the other hand, has no properties at all. Zero. Meaning, then, that nothing remains to be nothing; whereas, something can emerge in a vacuum.

This is not a controversial assertion. In a 2013 article posted on the Scientific American website entitled, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” Charles Q. Choi discusses the Casimir Effect, which was predicted in 1948 by Hendrick Casimir and measured in 1996 by Steve K. Lamoreaux.[14] This “effect” is a measurable phenomenon in quantum field theory. It basically says that the vacuum is not empty space but is full of virtual particles and their electromagnetic wavelengths which leave behind measurable effects.[15]

These subatomic particles have a “quirky” nature. However, though they seem to appear and disappear from nothing, in reality, they are emerging from the complex structure of the vacuum governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Consider Choi’s words:

Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle’s position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence. These virtual particles often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. (Italics added)[16]
Charles Q. Choi, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” ScientificAmerican.com

If someone were then seeking evidence that something can come from nothing and without cause, subatomic particles, it appears, is not that evidence. They do not emerge from nothing, they emerge from the vacuum.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist

The focus of the denial of premise 2 centers on denying that the universe began. Those that deny that the universe had a beginning appeal to concepts which are a bit complex. Case in point, some have said that the universe must be potentially a part of an infinite series of finite (contingent, “iffy”) causes.

In other words, looking backward, the universe has a whole series of causes, but no ultimate cause. There is no real line to separate a time from when the universe did not exist to when it began to exist. The same is true when looking forward. There is no real moment when the present causes will cease with the end of the universe.

Craig raises two problems to this approach. First, an infinite series of finite (contingent) causes cannot be potentially infinite at the same time. let me add another element to this claim. We must keep in mind that this infinite series of causes is made up of finite, or contingent causes. As Gilmore reminds us above contingency points to non-eternal things or existence, and this implies the need for another to bring it into existences. This denial has not solved the problem for it only further extends the dependent state of the universe indefinitely. This is not a solution.

In addition, it is significant to understand that the mathematical concept infinity (symbolically as ∞) is just that — conceptual; it does not exist in reality.[17] This is not controversial mathematics. Physicist Dr. Tom Hartsfield’s article, “Infinity is Not Real,” from the blog Real Clear Science (6 Aug 2013) outlines how problematic infinity would be if it were real.[18]

In summary, Hartsfield explains that while the concept of infinity is incredibly valuable for fields such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy, when brought into our world of measurable things it ruins all mathematical comparisons. It would require rewriting the rules for counting and division. For example, 6/2=3 and 6+2=8. Makes sense. Now observe infinity in the following mathematical sentences: 6/∞=0 and 6+∞=∞. Makes no sense in our world. “Compared to infinity,” Hartsfield points out, “every other number is nothing.” He concludes:

In our material, measurable world, though, infinity is never a real, physical quantity; it is only an abstraction. A mathematician can tell you about an infinite set of numbers, but as much as he wishes, he can’t find you a cup of coffee with infinite joe. That “bottomless” cup of coffee eventually runs dry.[19]
Tom Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real,” BigThink.com

The universe cannot exist due to an infinite set of causes in the past or the future, because actual infinities do not grow or shrink. Thus, you cannot drink infinite coffee out of a cup of infinite coffee, and still, have the same amount of infinite coffee left over. Infinity does not shrink or grow. This well-established application of infinity, then, supports that the universe began to exist and is not the result of an infinite set of causes.

A second problem is found in this arguments rejection of the established thermodynamics laws of nature. These laws clearly establish that the universe had a beginning. Dr. Don B. DeYoung calls them, “the two most basic laws in the entire science realm.”[20] He summarizes them as follows:

The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life…

The second basic law of nature also involves energy. It describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves the transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear, but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. Stated in another way, everything deteriorates, breaks down, and becomes less ordered with time.[21]
Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days (2001)

The second law, known as entropy, says that “unless energy is being fed into a [closed] system, that system will become increasingly disorderly.”[22] Imagine an unopened carbonated bottle of soda. Over time the soda in the bottle will lose its fizz and go flat. That analogy reflects the effects of entropy on the universe.

This implies a few things. First, eventually all the energy in the universe will eventually spread itself evenly throughout the universe, and the usable energy will decrease and the universe will “flatline” like the soda analogy. This is a fixed issue.

Second, since we are not in a present state of disorder, and energy is still available, then our universe has not had an infinite past. As Craig points out, “we’re in a state of disequilibrium, where energy is still available to be used and the universe has an orderly structure.”[23] Since an infinite set of events is a complete number of events, we should be experiencing entropy (equilibrium), but we are not.

And third, this “running down” (entropy) of our universe implies that it had a beginning. Even the late Stephen Hawking affirmed:

Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.[24]

Whether one’s cosmology (view of the origin of the universe) includes the Big Bang model or not, the universe had a beginning. In order to have a “running down” ending, there must have been a point when all the available energy was at its peak. Much like our cell phones, the fact that the battery will die implies that it was fully charged at its beginning. For our universe, then, the fact that it will “flatline” in what is called the “heat death” points to a time when it was new and full of energy.

Premises 1 and 2, then, still hold firm, and they should be upheld as formidable arguments that the universe and all that is in it had a beginning. It had a beginning and was brought into being (Premise 3) by a Cause Who necessarily exists due to His essence, namely God.

Concluding Thoughts

At times, well-meaning Christians do not feel compelled to enter debates like this, yet the apostle Peter told his Christian readers to be “ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At other times, well-meaning Christians see the damage often done when entering such discussions. As my friend Jeremy Marshall cautions, “preachers tell the story of the home [the human story] while scientists tell the story of the house [the natural world]; preachers err when they try to tell the story of the house, and scientists err when they try to tell the story of the home.” I agree, but Someone brought both the house and the home into existence, and these point us back to Him (Romans 1:19-20).

Let us remember one significant point to all of this:

[I]f there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, for nothing produces nothing but nothingness! Since something does exist, it must follow logically that something has existed always [namely, God].[25]
Wayne Jackson in Surveying the Evidence (2008)

Endnotes

Qtd. in Jeff Miller, “Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?“
All Scripture references are taken from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
The ontological, cosmological, teleological, and the moral/axiological.
Thomas B. Warren and Antony N. Flew. The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1977. The link leads you to the video version of the debate.
Clyde Woods, “Concerning Creation —Genesis 1,” in New Beginnings: God, Man and Redemption in Genesis, ed. David L. Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2001), 488.
Roland E. Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (2000; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 44.
Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008), 128, italics added.
Joe Deweese, “Why I am a Creationist – Joe Deweese, Biochemist.” Youtube.com.
Wayne Jackson, et al., Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 24–25.
Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 68–69.
William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2010), 74.
Christine Sutton, “Subatomic Particle,” Encyclopedia Britannica.
Craig, On Guard, 74.
Charles Q. Choi, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” ScientificAmerican.com, 2013.
Choi, “Something from Nothing?”; Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, “What is the Casimir Effect?,” ScientificAmerican.com.
Choi, “Something from Nothing?”
Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 103.
Tom Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real,” Real Clear Science; BigThink.com.
Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real.”
Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, ed. John F. Ashton (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 342–43.
DeYoung, “Physics,” 342–43.
Craig, On Guard, 93.
Craig, On Guard, 92.
Qtd. in Keller, The Reason for God, 128, italics added.
Wayne Jackson, Surveying the Evidence, 25–26.

Defining Gospel: A New Testament Glance

On April 20, 2017January 31, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bible Study, Glendale Gleaner, Gospel, New Testament, Publications, Published, Theology

Words are strange creatures. Often, they mean what we want them to mean. It has been said that words are the patterns by which people think. Since words frame our thinking world, it is really important that we correctly shape our ideas with properly defined words. In the case at hand, understanding the meaning of the Christian word gospel depends on understanding how the word gospel is presented in the New Testament.[1]

The English word Gospel most likely derives from the Old English word gōd spell, which meant “good story” or “good message.” William Deal points out that gōd spell meant a good mystery, doctrine, or secret, something hidden which was being brought out.[2] And the gospel is definitely a mystery revealed (Ephesians 3:1-14). The words translated gospel is, however, roughly the result of the combination of two Greek words: eu (good) and angelia (message, news). It roughly approximates “a good message,” but even this is not enough to tell us how the word is shaped by the New Testament.

Within the 27 New Testament volumes, the gospel is connected to three focuses: (1) “the gospel” as a message (euangelion), (2) the action of “preaching/bearing the gospel” (euangelizo), and (3) those individuals who proclaim the gospel (euangelistes). These words have a combined total of 133 instances, scattered over 20 of the 27 New Testament books.[3] The only books that do not use these words are the Gospel of John and his three Letters, and James, 2 Peter, and Jude. These books tend to use other words which emphasize the same ideas (cf. truth, proclaiming, hope, light, the message, etc.).

Let us consider a few lines of thought that will help us define and shape an accurate understanding of the gospel message.

How do you Define Gospel?

First, the gospel is not the result of religious evolution and philosophical development. In the ancient world, a number of religions and beliefs often blend into each other or break out into their own religions. For example, the far eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism resulted from a philosophical and religious reaction to their view of social order (the caste system) and how to become one with the ultimate reality of the universe. This development of ideas is not along parallel lines with how the gospel message is defined in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Second, the gospel is not the result of social progress. One of the modern concerns in the industrial world is that of social concern for equality. These social concerns tug at our values, and our ethics. Equality is the hallmark (gospel) of the modern social order, and because of it, we are seeking ways to save everything. Yet, as the late atheist and satirical comedian George Carlin quips against this elevation of self-importance:

Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. […. explicit deleted] Save the planet[?], we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet […][4]

I would argue that here inlays the problem of a socially derived “good news”; The gospel must be defined by other means. Humanity needs help from the Creator.

Third, the gospel is the result of divine revelation (Galatians 1:11-17). The authors of the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular assume and argue that their religious instruction is not the result of human philosophy or development. For example, Paul affirms his source is Jesus Christ:

For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. (1:11–12).[5]

The contrast between “not after man” and “through revelation of Jesus” is clear. The gospel of the New Testament is, by definition, from God and not from the insights of humanity (1 Corinthians 2:1-16).

The New Testament Gospel

But how should we understand the word gospel? In its basic sense, the word gospel is focused on something positive being announced (military victory, news, etc). This meaning is older than in New Testament times but it is found in a few verses. For example, Paul writes to the Christians in Thessalonica about the good feelings they felt for him and his ministry, he writes,

when Timothy came even now unto us from you, and brought us glad tidings [euangelisamenou] of your faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see us, even as we also to see you. (1 Thessalonians 3:6).

The report of Timothy was positive, a good report, an enjoyable announcement (cf. Galatians 3:8, proeuangelizomai).

More significantly, when the Gospel of Mark —a biography of Jesus’s ministry— opens we read, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). This tells us something about the story of Jesus. It starts out by anticipating a message to embrace as a celebration and victory (Matthew 11:5). The content of the gospel not only includes the ministry and message of Jesus, but also his rejection, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Jesus.

The four Gospel Accounts (Matthew-John) are so named because they provide the “building blocks” of what is to be proclaimed as the message of the gospel (Mark 1:14-15), by those whose role it is to proclaim it and bear it to the world (Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Mark 16:15). At the beginning, Jesus proclaimed a message based upon the kingdom of God, repentance, his role as the son of God, and the gospel’s role to change people’s lives (Matthew 4:23; 9:35). Later, after the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel is to be proclaimed on behalf of Jesus throughout the world (Matthew 24:14, 26:13; Colossians 1:23).

It is not surprising, then, to see the apostle Paul in Athens described by onlookers as one who “preached Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). Paul made it a ministry goal to “to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man’s foundation” (Romans 15:16, 19-20). Indeed, he explains his “aim” as a sense of indebtedness to mankind to share this message (Romans 1:14-15). For this reason, he affirms clearly:

I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16-17)

Paul would seek to pass along this conviction to his protégé Timothy (2 Timothy 1:8-10). It is the responsibility of every Christian to boldly share this victorious good news (2:2).

The Earliest Gospel “Statement”

Among the New Testament writers, the earliest statement of the content of the preaching of the gospel is found in Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul’s activity in ancient Corinth is around the early fifties of the first century AD, and this letter is dated to this timeframe no later than AD 55.[6]

In this letter, Paul presents a lengthy discussion —and definition— of the gospel message that he preached. The passage of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 can be outlined based upon key elements of the gospel message:

(1) the preaching of the gospel word provides salvation to the believer (15:1-2),

Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.

(2) the compelling force of the gospel is from the foretelling of events fulfilled in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (15:3-4),

For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

(3) the gospel is based on the eyewitness testimony of those who witnessed Jesus, resurrected bodily from the dead (15:5-8), and

and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.

(4) the gospel is based upon God’s offer of unearned grace and humanity’s response of faith (9-11).

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

The passage is significant, first, because Paul has an early and authentic message. Paul even “checked in” with Peter in Jerusalem and at some point compared notes regarding the gospel (Galatians 1:18). Second, the outline of this passage is significant because of its point-by-point details. Thirdly, it shows that the gospel bridges the gap between earth’s history and God. The victory message of the gospel is based upon the supernatural events firmly established in the historical life, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation as Lord and God (John 20:24-29).

Concluding Thoughts

In short, to understand the gospel one must understand Jesus, the purpose of his teaching and his ministry, the death-burial-and-resurrection of Jesus, and the life-changing message of the kingdom of God. It is not insignificant to point out that gospel obedience is described as an imitation of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in baptism. In this way, the gospel is lived out in the Christian life manifested in obedience (Romans 6:1-10; Colossians 3:1-3).

Endnotes

See, Doug Burleson, “Gospel,” in One Word Study Guide, eds. Chad Landman, et al. (Mt. Juliet, TN: Mt. Juliet church of Christ, 2016), 134-36. Burleson provides a perfect snapshot of “good news” in the Hebrew Bible (besorah) and the New Testament (euangelion).
William S. Deal, Pictorial Introduction to the Bible, 3rd ed. (1982; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 246.
Figures worked out based upon calculations from the Logos Bible platform’s “Bible Word Study” for euangelion (76), euangelizo (54), euangelistes (3).
George Carlin, “The Planet is Fine” routine in the 1992 HBO George Carlin: Jammin’ in New York Comedy Special (Cable Stuff Productions).
All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
This is argued on the basis of two points:
First, the Book of Acts recounts his trip to Corinth (18:12-17), during which time he stands for religious accusations before the tribunal of the governor (proconsul) of Greece (Achaia), one L. Junius Gallio. Because this was a matter of Jewish religion and not Roman law, Gallio lets Paul go.
Second, an inscription was found from Delphi with Gallio’s name on it. Most likely it refers to his proconsulship from July 51 to July 52, which means Paul’s year-and-a-half stay began a year or so before this time (ca. 50-51). This is often regarded as one of the surest historical points of New Testament chronology. A few years later, Paul writes to the Corinthians. This would be no later than 55 AD. See, Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 545-86. For an online source see Mark Cartwright, “Corinth,” Ancient History Encyclopedia.

**This is a reformatted and expanded version of the article originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).**

The Value of Godly Women to the Church

On May 7, 2016April 16, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Book of Acts, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Discipleship, Glendale Gleaner, Leadership Ethics, Published, Theology, Women Studies

Define value. Dictionary definitions notwithstanding, John Keats (1795-1821) begins his poem, “Endymion,” with the words, “a thing of beauty is a joy forever.” Keats speaks to the power that people —their character and actions— have in retrospect. “That, whether there be shine or gloom o’ercast, They always must be with us, or we die.” The Scriptures show, however, what is “a joy forever”; in a word: godliness. Paul writes, “for bodily exercise is profitable for a little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim 4:8). [All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

Nothing is more valuable and potent in this world than “godly seed” (i.e., offspring; Mal 2:15). Humanity, after all, was made to bear the image of God on the earth (Gen 1:26-31): “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” While there is tremendous learning to be gained from understanding the binary nature of humanity (“male and female”), we wish to pursue a study on the value of godly women to the cause of God as it is manifested in the NT church in the past and today.

Godliness is a Matter of Character

Godliness is reflected in the content of a person’s character and conduct. The church is an amazing place full of potential when it reflects the character of its godly women. There is no greater influence in the Lord’s church than godly women. For example, David once said,

know that Jehovah hath set apart for himself [she] that is godly: Jehovah will hear when I call unto [her]. Stand in awe, and sin not: Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.[1] (Psalm 4:3-4, ASV edited)

The Hebrew word (hāsîd) for “godly” (holy) one implies a “kindness” that extends grace toward others because they have at one point received grace.[2] The word is used with great regularity in the Psalms. Godliness is seen, then, as a matter of character, of piety.

Godliness is fundamental to Christian conduct (2 Pet 1:6-7, 10-11). Paul writes that Christian women are to profess godliness through good works:

that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

The Greek word (theosébeia) for “godliness” speaks to a reverence for God manifested in a set of beliefs and practices.[2] Christian women are to ground their value in their character and reverence for God (1 Tim 4:7-8; 6:11; 2 Tim 3:12; Tit 1:1, 2:12; eusébeia).[3]

Godly women of such character are of inestimable worth to the church. They leave an indelible mark upon everyone they touch. When they show divine kindness to their neighbor when they extend grace to others because they have experienced it as well, and when godly women focus on the content of their character and faithfulness to God, then the world will understand the value of godly women to the cause of Christ. Any home, company, and the church know the powerful influence of such godly women for they cast a beautiful shadow of faith and devotion, service and evangelism, determination and selflessness. This value is seen at the end of Proverbs 31 (10-31), “a woman that feareth Jehovah, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; And let her works praise her in the gates” (30-31).

Examples of Godly Women in New Testament

Let us consider a few examples of the value women have to the church. Women disciples have always been a part of Jesus’ ministry (Matt 27:55; Mark 15:41; Luke 10:38-42; John 4:1-26).

Financiers

Luke’s Gospel Account provides a note on some of the financial supporters and companions of Jesus as he and the twelve went throughout cities and villages “preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God” (Luke 8:1-3).

Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means. (Luke 8:1–3)

Among these many women were named three in particular: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna. They served Jesus and the twelve from their own possessions and property (“their substance”). After being healed from infirmities and evil spirits, they served as continuous financial supporters of Jesus presumably to bring the same “good tidings” into the lives of others.

Disciples

The Gospel accounts reveal that the women disciples of Jesus were the first to witness and share the resurrection event of Jesus with the disciples. Matthew recounts the encounter of Mary Magdalene and the “other” Mary who came to Jesus sepulcher and were greeted by the angel who had rolled back the stone of the tomb (28:1-10). Mark adds that the “other” Mary is the mother of James and that a third woman was them – Salome (16:1-8). Luke adds that there was a second angelic man, and several other women including Joanna that were greeted with, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (24:1-12). John’s Gospel shows Mary Magdalene confused over the empty tomb, comforted by Jesus himself, and told to say that Jesus would ascend to the Father (20:1-18). At a time when the prevailing cultural theory was that a woman’s testimony was inferior to a man’s, the earliest witnesses to the empty tomb of Jesus are the women disciples of Jesus.

Message Sharing

Luke continues to demonstrate the value and influence of women in the early church. The Acts of the Apostles demonstrates at every turn the value of godly women to the church. Women (including Mary, Jesus’ mother) were among the disciples in the upper room as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus (1:14), and Peter declares the prophetic words of Joel (2:28ff) that “your daughters shall prophesy… and on my handmaidens… will I pour forth of my Spirit” (2:17-18).

And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17–18)

Paul himself would abide with Philip the evangelist who “had four virgin daughters, who prophesied” (21:8-9; 1 Cor 11:5).

Doing Good

Luke, by the Spirit, give ample attention to a disciple named Tabitha who “was full of good works and alms deeds” who had fallen ill and died (9:36-37). Peter would be summoned by the church to be with them during this time. Her good works and influence were demonstrated by those who grieved at her death because “all the widows stood by him weeping, and showing the coats and garments” she made “while she was with them” (9:39). Caring for others —particularly widows— has always been an important demonstration of pure religion before God (Jas 1:27). Paul would instruct on the importance of the church and women of faith to care of widows (1 Tim 5:1-17; Acts 6:1-7).

All Encompassing

As the Hebrew writer says (11:32), “for the time will fail me” to continue tell of Christian women who were patrons, fellow workers for the truth, founding members of congregations and “house church” hostesses (Acts 16:11-15). They corrected false teachers (Acts 18:24-28). They raise up godly men to be evangelists (2 Tim 1:3-8, 3:12-17). They loved their husbands and children and demonstrated administrative skill in their homes (1 Tim 5:14; 1 Pet 3:1-6). Finally, Romans 16:1-16 demonstrates that many sisters served in the Lord as servants of God, evangelistic collaborators, teachers and financiers. Christian women ministered the gospel to the first-century world without hindrance.

Godly Women in the Church Today

The Lord-God envisioned an invaluable and elevated place for women in the world. These divine truths hold true today despite the ongoing debate over social gender expectation of men and women. Godly women have tremendous value to the church today, because their roles are still as invaluable as ever. Godly women continue to manage their homes, whether they are a full time stay-at-home wife/mother, work from home, or go to the office. They embrace their domestic role in the home as wife and mother (1 Tim 2:15).

Single women, however, bring a singleness of zeal to the church. Paul says they are “careful for the things of the Lord” (1 Cor 7:34). The breadth of their valuable influence is tremendous. They lead ladies’ Bible classes and workshops, are congregational Bible class teachers, write books and blogs, and contribute to academia. They mentor other disciples.

Our sisters minister to the widows and widowers in senior/assisted living homes, and they comfort the sick in hospitals —some even being/training to be hospital chaplains. Some with a medical background participate in medical-evangelistic campaigns. Others enter the world of missions, focusing their energies on evangelistic pursuits. Many have been brought to Christ due to the teaching efforts of godly women who teach overseas through Bible teaching correspondence courses.

Concluding Thoughts

May the church always embrace the ministries women have in the kingdom of God. This being said I am struck with the climate which often arises in the necessary discussion concerning the ministry of women in the church. I often feel the discussion is filled with much angst and the second guessing of motives when it comes to the reconsideration of my beloved’s sisters’ role in the world. Unfortunately, I think some roadblocks also lie in gender expectations which are culturally driven (“perceived” roles) rather than biblically driven (“biblical” roles). Nevertheless, this brief essay is about extolling the influence of godly women to the church and I believe it has succeeded to reach our goal.

Endnotes

I have replaced the masculine for the feminine in brackets [] simply to express the point of this essay, which is to emphasize the godliness of women.
William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 196; R. Laird Harris, “hsd,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, et al. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980), TWOT 1:305-07.
“theosébeia,” BDAG 452.
“eusébeia,” BDAG 412.

This is a reformatted and slightly expanded version of the article which was originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).

Is Jesus a Poached Egg?

On December 29, 2015October 15, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, C.S. Lewis, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Essays, Glendale Gleaner, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Published, Theology

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 rationalize Jesus 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 either Jesus is the Christ or He is just “a great moral teacher.”

If Jesus is the Christ, then his teaching is absolutely true.

If Jesus 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).

(3) Thinking disorders (e.g. cannot think logically)

(4) Demonstration of unsuitable behavior.[8]

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).

Modesty in Speech: Reflecting God’s Image in What We Say

On August 24, 2014April 1, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Discipleship, Glendale Gleaner, Kingdom Ethics, PublicationsLeave a comment

Introduction

Do words matter? Framed in another way, is there a fundamental connection between speaking and God? Again, is there a spiritual component to communication? Consider the following. The Bible asserts that the universe came into existence at the command of God, “God said” (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29). The Hebrew writer asserts,

By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear.
Hebrews 11:3 (All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted)

In fact, both the origin and the dissolution of the universe is subject to the declaration –“word”– of God (2 Pet 3:5-7). Communicating is, then, a core activity of God; in other words, God speaks His Mind.

There are people in this world who seek for a chance to hear God speak to them. God has spoken, in his wisdom, through two monumental venues. The first is creation; the second, are the Scriptures. In Romans 1:20, Paul affirms,

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.
Romans 1:20

The world essentially speaks of a powerful supernatural eternal being Who is the origin of all that is seen; in a nutshell, the “heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psa 19:1).

Second, God has spoken his mind and has preserved it in the Scriptures. It is written,

For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
1 Corinthians 2:11-12

In fact, the unveiling of God’s mind is the cause which brought about the Scriptures. It is written, “Every scripture inspired of God” (2 Tim 3:16). God has spoken his unique message through his prophets, who have committed those oracles to print (Eph 3:1-6; 2 Pet 1:19). King David once said of himself, “The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, And his word was upon my tongue” (2 Sam 23:2).

What this discussion points to is a fundamental truth about God. Inasmuch as God is the source of love, it is equally true that God is the source of disclosure. In other words, communicating and disclosing the eternal mind is fundamental to the nature of God. This is important for a proper understanding of human communication because humanity is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). God’s people are expected to reflect their Creator’s nature. In fact, Peter writes,

but like as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy.
1 Peter 1:15-16

Little wonder that Peter would further admonish, “if any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God” (1 Pet 4:11). Every aspect of godly living is to be set apart for God’s purposes (Rom 6:17-18), and this includes how a person speaks.

Speaking is a process which discloses the thoughts and movements within a person’s heart; it reveals what is in the heart (Matt 6:22-23; Mark 7:20-23). All things being equal, regardless of the truths or lies a person speaks, it derives from the inner workings of the heart. Since communication is a spiritual matter and reflects one’s heart, it is not surprising that Jesus would state the following: “And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt 12:36-37; cf. Rev 21:8; Rom 14:12, 10-12; 2 Cor 5:10; Eccl 12:14; Acts 17:30-31).

What a person “says” matters because it reflects a spiritual truth about a person’s heart. The heart is the touchstone upon which Jesus makes his case for a higher level of spirituality as addressed in the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-37, 43-48). When someone tells the truth, or lies, or uses a swear word, there is a corresponding spiritual truth which points to how one reflects the image of God. If one wishes to be a faithful child of God, one must “adorn” God’s teaching on modest speech (Tit 2:10). Our speech must reflect that we are made in the image of God, and it must exemplify the gracious and righteous nature of the gospel message.

Our Speech is to Reflect the Image of God

In writing to the Christians in Colossae, Paul walks through the conversion process (Col 2:10-3.4). They went through “the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism” (2:11-12). In this “working of God” they were “raised with him” (2:12), and made “alive together with him” for forgiveness (2:13). To reinforce their commitment, Paul urges them to “put to death” their past vices:

now do ye also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth: lie not on to another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him.
Colossians 3:8-10

A child of God should so speak from the heart that it reflects God’s image rebranded upon them. There is a deep truth here to unpack. The Lord Jesus warns and instructs how Christians are to treat others. One should not insult his brother (“Raca” Matt 5:22); instead, Christians are to be “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Matt 5:13).

Unfortunately, some are so good at the craft of sarcasm and caustic acidity that though they have not transgressed moral boundaries with their vocabulary, they are quite adept at verbally abusing their brethren. Instead, Christians should “receive one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God” (Rom 15:7).

Our Speech is to be Exemplary

In writing to his protégé, Paul extends to Timothy an encouraging word for his ministry in Ephesus. He admonishes, “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an ensample to them that believe, in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim 4:12). The nature of Timothy’s “youth” (neotatos) is a matter of speculation, but based on inscriptional evidence he may have been in his twenties if not early thirties.

He needed this instruction to dissuade those that would be critical of Timothy’s ministry due to his age; namely, Timothy’s moral and spiritual reputation would be established by the moral pattern of his “word” (i.e. “speech”). Timothy’s speech is to be exemplary, a template. In these words to Timothy, when it comes to their speech Christians are enjoined upon to be a “model citizen.”

Does this mean that one is required to always speak as if they were a graduate from a charm or etiquette school? Hardly, but it does mean that God’s people should be proactive in speaking appropriately. There is room to be culturally flexible provided it is moral. Paul writes,

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one.
Colossians 4:6

Ultimately, a Christian’s speech and vocabulary ought to create an attractive environment to their neighbors so that all may feel welcomed in their presence. The obvious illusion is to create an atmosphere where evangelism may occur (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:14). Since it is God’s goodness that leads people to repentance (Rom 2:4), then it is also true that a Christian’s goodness can point others to their good God (Matt 5:16).

Concluding Thoughts

The biblical evidence shows that speaking and communicating the thoughts of one’s heart is an important spiritual component to being created in the image of God. Communication comes with a great challenge,

If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.
James 3:2

The entire course of one’s future can be directed by the outpouring of the thoughts and intentions of the heart when spoken (Jas 3:3-12). The most important aspect of what a person can do is to use one’s words to praise God and his son Jesus the Christ. As it is written,

Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:9-11

This is a slightly reformatted version of the article which originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).

Three Blessings for Every Christian (Eph 1:4-5, 13-14)

On February 18, 2014March 6, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Ephesians, Essays, Glendale Gleaner, Holy Spirit, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual GrowthLeave a comment

Much of the New Testament speaks to the blessings of God’s divine goodness and mercy. When God is in covenant with another, He blesses those who are His in a uniquely different fashion.

Instead of the everyday blessing such as fitting in His providential care of all humanity (Matt 5:44-45), to those who are His through Christ, there are extended “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3).

Let us consider some of these particular blessings as developed in the Ephesian letter which is uniquely given to the Christian.

The Blessing of Consecration

In Ephesians 1:4, Paul describes the kind of people that God chose to be his, those who would be “in him” (i.e., in Christ). As a consequence of being united with Christ, we experience the working of God to be made “holy and without blemish.”

These two terms showcase an important implication of union with Christ: in coming in contact with the redemptive Christ, His holiness and purity has been transferred to us.

This may seem to be a difficult concept to accept, but there is a biblical precedent. In Exodus 29:37 the statement is made that “whatever touches the altar shall become holy” (Lev 6:18). This is in keeping with atonement.

In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the “propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2), which reflects the fact that Jesus “is the personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner.”[1]

Union with Christ, and his holiness, implies that we have been identified with a righteousness that is not our own (Phil 3:8-9).

The Blessing of Adoption of Sons

In Ephesians 1:5, the apostle continues to enumerate another blessing that comes from union with Christ (i.e., “in Christ”). Paul declares God intended that through Christ the Christian has been included in the “family” of God.

Adoption implies a change of relationship; in fact, “sonship” is extended and forged in Christ. The apostle uses this language in critical moments to establish the intimate union with the Heavenly Father through Christ.

In Galatians 4:5-6, he speaks of redemption. This is not simply a matter of emancipation, it is the act to incorporate an outsider and make them an intimate member of the family with all the rights with which such an effort comes.

As a result of being integrated into the family of God, fear of spiritual slavery is removed by “the spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (ESV). Christians have membership in the family of God.

The Blessing of Being Sealed with the Holy Spirit

In Ephesians 1:13-14, the Apostle stresses the blessing of God’s faithfulness by using the language of “seals” and “pledges” used to mark that Christians are His.

The words of a Stevie Wonder song, “signed, sealed, delivered, I’m yours” would be right in keeping with the words of these verses.

Much discussion has been brought to the nature of the Holy Spirit as this seal and pledge, but it seems that the best way to appreciate the language is in the following view:

The Holy Spirit is metaphorically the anointing (1 John 2:26f.), the sealing, and the first installment of eternal life. Full payment is made in the resurrection of life and consummated at the” coming of Christ.[2]

God dwells with the Christian, and this is an exclusive blessing that demonstrates the Lord’s faithfulness. This blessing was extended to us in order to stress that we are under the Lord’s protection.[3]

Concluding Thoughts

Forgiveness is a vast subject and is the result of the atonement made on behalf of sin. The Bible develops a rich concept of all that is needed to experience forgiveness, and it also outlines tremendous blessings.

And while we have not exhaustively considered the subject of forgiveness, enough of the concept has been surveyed to appreciate the blessing forgiveness actually is and the blessings which are available to the Christian.

Consecration, “sonship,” and the faithfulness of God’s provision to keep us in His care are all tremendous blessings owing to our union with Christ.

They should make any curious soul searching for God, move towards union with His Son in immersion so that they may realize “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3).

References

William E. Vine, et al., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words(Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1986), 2:494.
George Goldman, “The Spirit Within: A Seal and Guarantee – Ephesians 1.13-14; 3.16,″ Exalting Christ in the Church: Unsearchable Riches in Ephesians and Colossians, ed. David L. Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2002), 129.
Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storm of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2009), 22. Morton has an excellent discussion on this section of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, explaining rather well the background of the seal common to this part of the ancient world (21-25).