Category: Publications

Fellowship

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, 1 John, 2 Corinthians, Book of Acts, Ephesians, Focus Magazine, Johannine Literature, New Testament, Old Testament, Paul's Letters, Psalms, Publications, Published, Spiritual Formation

When I was a young man, my mom would stress her concern to me regarding the person I was becoming. As a Central American mother, she would often say to me this Spanish proverb, “Dime con quién andas y te dire quién eres,” which means, “Tell me whom you are with, and I will tell you who you are.” She had good reason for concern. I was slipping into the world of street gangs, violence, and drugs. She was attempting to make me aware that the company I kept said a lot about who I was becoming.

In church-ese, we speak of those with him we share “fellowship.”

A Perspective

This word is typically reserved for formal relationships, it is not a word commonly used in everyday talk. Yet, what this word means is readily accessible. The English word “fellowship” tells us who or what we shape our life around. It describes certain boundaries that shape our lives, our relationships, and even our priorities. We could say it a fellowship is a circle we draw that includes certain relationships and excludes others. To make this more complicated, we may have many overlapping fellowships.

Our English New Testaments remind us that what we fellowship is important. For example, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11, English Standard Version). “Take no part,” this means Christians are called to be disassociated from what spiritual darkness creates. As light has no common ground with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14), Christians have no partnership with evil except to expose it for the spiritual corruption it is (Ephesians 5:7–10). This is what light does, it shines to expose what is hiding in the dark.

Light does not allow darkness to hide its contents, and neither should Christians allow spiritual darkness of sinful corruption to hide what it is doing in the world we live in. We may live in a world surrounded by corruption, but we are called to be disassociated from it.

Additionally, the apostle John provides a “test” of sorts to help God’s people realize that our fellowship with God comes with personal responsibility: “If we say we have fellowship with him [i.e., God] while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6). The claim to be in fellowship with God must be supported by a life living in the light, not darkness. Otherwise, our claim is a work of pure fiction. It is this truth that makes the Christian faith so consequential. It means our fellowship with God affects our lifestyle and our priorities, for it shapes the boundaries of what we will accept and what we must reject.

More positively, John follows up his caution with another maxim, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Our fellowship with God entails the redemptive and sanctifying gifts of God provided we “walk in the light” with God.

Being with Likeminded Kindred

Fellowship is a practical thing that God’s people do. Not only does it provide a boundary marker of godly living amid a corrupt world which sharpens our understanding of what a faithful life before God looks like. It also provides a clear way to share in the life of other like-minded kindred. The early church participated in “the fellowship” of those who devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching, the breaking of bread, and praying together (Acts 2:42).

As David proclaimed in Psalm 119:63, “I am a companion of all who fear you, of those who keep your precepts.” Christianity is not a lonesome religion. In this way, it stands against the trend within Western society of individualism, which is a form of thinking of ourselves in isolation from our community, our family, and our ancestors. This problem has only worsened in our post-pandemic world in which “going to church” is as easy as hopping online and clicking on a few buttons while still in our pajamas.

The in-person “fellowship” of God’s people, once a marker of togetherness, unity, and godly accountability, as a spiritual biome where God’s redemption is lived out has become a privatized novelty. Yet, when Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers, he reminded them, “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:9). The “you” in “you were called” is part of a plural verb. Christians experience the fellowship of the Son together as brothers and sisters, not in isolation together.

Ultimately, fellowship is a vital part of being disciples of Christ and a worshiper of God. Our fellowship with God guides us to make clear distinctions between us and corrupting evil in the world. It also has a practical communal part to it, as we join with other fellow believers in worship. The more we appreciate this, the better the language of the communal worship will penetrate our hearts: “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Psalm 133:1).

This article originally appeared in Think magazine. To subscribe click here. There are slight edits in this version.

Does God Exist?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Carolina Messenger, Christian Apologetics, Cosmological, Moral Argument, natural theology, Ontological, Publications, Teleological, Theology

There is no greater worldview question that divides humans so sharply than the following: does God exist? As a Christian, I believe there are many good reasons to assert that God does exist. This short piece offers a brief overview of these arguments for the existence of the Christian God.

The Case for the Christian God

The average Christian may think arguing for the existence of God is straightforward, but this is where we must get more specific. There are many worldview definitions of God/god that are distinct from how Christians have historically defined their Creator. Additionally, sometimes arguments for the existence of God only point to reasons to believe that a god exits, but not necessarily the God of the Christian faith. This is important because as a Christian casemaker, we do not merely argue that there are good reasons to believe a god exists, but that the God of the resurrected Christ exists.

For example, the apostle Paul employs well accepted natural theology to the Greek polytheistic mind and affirms this God resurrected Jesus Christ. In Athens, Paul affirms that the God of Israel (monotheism) is the god who is unknown to them in any specific detail (Acts 17:16, 22–23). They have knowledge of God in general terms: creator of the universe and mankind, manager of the world, and moral law giver (Acts 17:24–31a). This God will call all to moral account through Jesus, and he assures this expectation on the grounds of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:31b). With this move, Paul excludes all other gods.

Step One: Arguments for the Existence of God

Arguments from nature provide good reasons to believe in the existence of God. They do not stand or fall together, but they do provide a cumulative case for the reasonableness of the Christian worldview. The following groups (or families) of arguments are used to make this case. I will offer a simplistic definition for each and then provide an example or two of how they make their case.

Cosmological Arguments: the existence of the universe demands a cause, whether natural (random) or supernatural (intelligent). As Baxter reminds us, “the argument is based upon the general, universal observation that ‘Nothing comes from nothing’” (I Believe Because…, 53). There must be a cause. Being careful with our words, it is more accurate to say “nothing [physical, material] comes from nothing.” Here’s why. Some things do exist necessarily. The field of mathematics reveals that numbers, mathematical sets or entities are not caused by something else. But things like people, planets, galaxies depend on other forces to exist (Craig, On Guard, 56–57). Physical things are contingent on past forces and cannot exist by themselves. As Ralph Gilmore says, these are “iffy” things that only exist “if” certain events or states occurred. Otherwise, you are left with a series of never-ending origin stories–an equally challenging miracle!

The cosmological argument makes its case from effect (the cosmos) to a necessary cause (God). There are both narrow and broad forms of this argument. Thomas B. Warren in debate with atheistic philosopher Antony Flew (1976) argued the narrow form, affirming that the first human came about either by evolutionary forces or by supernatural means. The apostle Paul employs the broad form when he argues that the material things of the world that make plain that there is an invisible, powerful, and divine God who created the world (Romans 1:19–20). Another broad form is known as the KALAM cosmological argument. In short, the argument goes as follow: whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. This ultimate cause is not contingent, nor impossible, but necessary. We call this necessary cause God.

Teleological Arguments: the presence of design in, or of, the universe demands that the design have a designer who employed intelligent agency. As an argument from empirical evidence, the argument moves from a design to an intelligent agent. The process has an intuitive aspect to it, making it a very accessible family of arguments. Nevertheless, the secular worldview explains apparent design as the result of “enough time and some luck”–certainly not the result of intelligent agency. It is important then to be clear on how to identify intelligent agency in the form of design.

To illustrate, the fine-tuning of the universe argument affirms that the cosmos is life-permitting in the most basic scientific sense: “organisms […] take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce” (Craig, 110). This reality implies a Fine-Tuner. But could this be the result of chance and time? Is this feature necessary to the universe? How do we distinguish between these options? On pure naturalism there is nothing necessary to the universe that requires it to be life-permitting. To the contrary, any potential life-permitting universe is “fantastically improbable.” Instead, a life-prohibiting universe is far more likely. The odds are so bad against a fine-tuned universe we should believe the system was rigged (Craig, 112–20).

Thus, the evidence of a fine-tunned universe points to its Fine-Tuner. It is not the result (contingent) of unintelligent processes, neither can chance explain its complexity, and it exhibits specific patterns characteristic of intelligence (Dembski, Intelligent Design, 127–49). As a watch, a camera, or a painting point to their intelligent agent, so the eye, the human body, the life-permitting features of the universe point to its Intelligent Agent, whom we call God.

Moral Arguments: based on the moral order of the human experience, the Cause of this moral order must be moral and its lawgiver (God). The argument observes a fundamental reality of the human social experience, the expectation of moral obligation. Regardless of worldview we all seem to play by the same rule, there are things you “ought to do,” and there are things you “ought not to do.” This holds even when there is disagreement over specific “oughts.” It has been well said,

Wherever man is found, he is convinced there is a difference between good and evil. Men may differ as to where to make the distinction between good and evil, but all men agree that such a distinction is to be made.”

Bales, The Law in the Heart, 56

The human experience is conscious of an objective moral law; objective moral laws imply a moral lawgiver; therefore, there must be a supreme moral lawgiver (Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 16).

Morality is a transcendent reality, not centered within a person. The conscience may have subjective elements but ultimately, moral obligations are not personal preferences. For example, why are hate crimes against women (kidnapping, sex-trafficking, etc.) objectively wrong and not personal preferences? Or, consider how the center of moral justice has shifted towards one’s subjective “psychological self” (truth) from which the moral imperative is to liberate oneself from all oppressive (evil) power structures (Trueman, Strange New World, 157). Even here the rules are the same, something is wrong in the objective world. External, transcendent moral obligations exist grounded in an objective reality point to the Giver of this moral code.

Ontological Argument: God is a necessary being, not a contingent being, and the cause of all contingent things. The argument is based on the very concept of the being of God, it is not directly based on empirical evidence as the previous arguments (cause, design, moral). Some regard this as the weakest argument for God because it depends heavily on abstract thinking. However, it has the same logic behind believing that mathematical items, like numbers, necessarily exist. Nevertheless, it relies on the likelihood that God exists (from evidence in the world). Thus, if God exists, he necessarily exists as the First Uncaused Cause (“God is”).

Step Two: From God to Christianity

Presently, we have surveyed arguments for the existence of God. From this general case for God can a specific case for the God of the Christian Faith be made? The above arguments help us to make certain measured expectations about God. God is: infinite, singular and powerful (cosmological); intelligent, powerful with deep knowledge (teleological); personal and relational, loving and holy (moral); transcendent, great and eternal (ontological). It is reasonable to suggest that such a God would likely seek to have a relationship with his creation and this activity may be identifiable in history in supernatural ways.

Of all the various world religions which exist, the Christian faith provides the most evidential and testable historical claim that “Jesus of Nazareth [was] crucified and killed [and] God raised him up” from the dead (Acts 2:22–24; 17:32; 25:19). The historical figure of Jesus is well attested by early non-Christian sources, including the circumstances of his death by crucifixion (Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–64, 116–17; 20.200). The earliest Christian claim asserted that Jesus was resurrected bodily and appeared to his disciples, and to skeptics and hostile unbelievers who converted to the faith (1 Corinthians 15:1–8).

Although many naturalistic explanations have been offered to account for the rise of the Christian faith, none have the explanatory force of the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead by the power of God.

Conclusion

Does God exist? There are very good reasons to believe so. We must, however, take this a step further and affirm that there are very good reasons to believe that the God who rose Jesus from the dead exists.

Works Cited

Bales, James D. The Law Within Their Heart. Dallas, TX: Gospel Teachers Publications, 1981.

Baxter, Batsell Barrett. I Believe Because… A Study of the Evidence Supporting Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1971.

Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2010.

Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.

Geisler, Norman L., and Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Revised ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013.

Trueman, Carl R. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022.

This article originally appeared in The Carolina Messenger. To subscribe for FREE click here. There are slight edits in this version.

He is Preparing a Place (Revelation 20–21)

On By Jovan PayesIn Eschatology, Freed-Hardeman University, New Testament, Publications, Resurrection, Revelation, Theology

[This is a pre-publication version of my chapter submission for the 88th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Bible Lectureship (2024), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the lectureship book: Triumph of the Lamb: The Battle with Evil in Revelation  (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered here.]

When the famous New Testament scholar, A. T. Robertson (1863–1934), taught a course on interpreting Revelation, it’s been said that he walked into class with double armfuls of books which he thunderously dropped on the table and said, “Here are the various approaches to interpreting Revelation. Take your pick.”[1] Revelation 20–21 is a veritable asteroid field of perplexing questions. To minimize as much speculation as possible it will be important to consider the uniqueness of the book’s genre and its allusions to the Old Testament. God not only inspired the words but also chose the literary genre to communicate these words (2 Tim. 3:16–17; Russell 52–56). 

Additionally, it is essential to understand literary movements from the situation facing the first-century church (2:1–3:22), to the challenge of belief (13:1–14:) to the imagery of God’s judgment on his enemies (19:11–21).[2] We will the be ready to appreciate God’s judgment on Satan and his followers (20:1–10), the future fate of the Beast worshippers (20:11–15), and the final vindication of the redeemed in the heavens (21:1–27).

EXEGESIS

Genre, Allusions, and Literary Movement

First, some brief comments are needed with regard to genre. There seems to be no single genre that perfectly represents the complexity of Revelation. Suggested by its opening, it is necessary to accept the interplay between prophetic expectations, apocalyptic imagery, and its epistolary immediacy to the seven churches of Asia Minor (1:4–8; Carson and Moo 713–16). Prophetic literature appears to be the common genre assumption to the book due to its intertextual echoes of the Hebrew prophets (1:1; cf. Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah), but its drama is framed by visionary language (apocalyptic) not historical realism (Ryken 165–66). 

Apocalyptic language is a special type of visionary literature which graphically portrays the future vindication of God’s people. They typically suffer at the hands of God’s enemies, and are called to hope as God destroys the present order and establishes his kingdom (1:1; Placher, Mouw, Peters 347). Although the language is highly visual, it is not ahistorical. Finally, Revelation’s opening and closing demonstrates it functioned as an occasional circular epistle among a specific group of churches (1:4–9; 2:1–3:22; 22:18–20). John’s Apocalypse addressed real historical problems facing the first-century Christians of the western Asia Minor.

Second, a significant feature of Revelation is its dense use of intertextual allusions to Old Testament texts and motifs. The imagery and story can stand on its own, but the allusions are highly informative for understanding its message. The book has more allusions to the Old Testament “than all other books of the NT put together” (Beale and Campbell 17). Some may be categorized as “clear allusions” based on their near identical language. For example, Isaiah’s “new heavens and new earth” is clearly taken to introduce the “new Jerusalem” (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Others may be categorized as “probable allusions” based on how uniquely traceable the idea and language is to the Old Testament. In Revelation 20:5–6, the martyrs are said to have experienced the “first resurrection” (c.f. 20:11–14). Resurrection is certainly found in the New Testament, but its motif is typically connected to Daniel 12:2–echoed by Jesus (John 5:29). The Holy Spirit guided John to establish these links to form the thought-world of Revelation to see their fulfillment, typology, or extend their meaning (Luter 463–65).[3]

Third, “structure guides the audience’s understanding of the text” (Lee 173). There are three noteworthy movements to pay attention to. The first of these movements is the “present situation” facing the first-century church exhibited in the letters “to the seven churches that are in Asia” (1:4; 2:1–3:22). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.] The churches were facing pressures of first century Greco-Roman political-religious life and these are directly bound to the language of the book (Mounce 84). The second movement is found at the structural center of the book (13:1–14:20). This section creates a “moment of decision” for the reader. Will one give allegiance to Satan and his Beast, or will one worship the Lamb? John makes it abundantly clear, one’s choice will be consequential. 

The final movement portrays Jesus (“the Word of God,” 19:13) riding triumphantly as the “Divine Warrior” on a white horse riding victoriously against Satan, his beast and false prophet condemning them to “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:11–21).[4] This movement seals the fate of Satan. The ending of the “old world” of persecution, deception, and unrighteousness are quickly replaced by the “new order” of God’s righteous kingdom. 

Revelation 20–21

The question of the nature of the eschatological millennium in Revelation is one of the most challenging interpretive debates throughout church history (McGinn 527–38).[5] This “end times” question is important, but not so much that it must distract from understanding the apocalyptic imagery of divine vindication, the fate of Satan and his followers, and the hope of a glorious “new” Jerusalem. Understanding the literary goal of the present chapters is our primary concern, afterwhich an approach will be offered to address the millennium question. 

Following the initial failure of Satan (19:11–21), John takes his readers through four visional experiences marked by the phrase, “Then I saw…” (20:1, 4, 11; 20:1). The first vision is of the millennial incarceration of the dragon (20:1–3), the second being the millennial reign of the martyrs with Christ interrupted by the failed final coup of Satan (20:4–10), and in the third vision John sees the final fate of the living and the dead who were not written in the book of life (20:11–14). The fourth vision takes in the visual grandeur of the new holy city of Jerusalem, in the new heavens and new earth, and its extraordinary features (21:1–22:5).

The Fate of the Satan’s Rebellion (Rev. 20:1–10) 

The first vision of the millennial incarceration of the dragon begins with the descent of another angelic figure from the host of heaven who carries the previously mentioned “key” to the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1) and a great chain. The imagery of the key is used three other times to represent control or access. The exalted Christ is said to possess the “keys of Death and Hades” (1:18) and “the key of David” (3:7). An angel of God who blew the fifth trumpet who was “given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit” and opened it (9:1–2). Throughout Revelation various angels appear to carry out various elements of God’s executive plans (Rev. 1:1; 5:11; 7:2; 8:3; 10:1; 12:7; 14:15, 17–18; 18:1, 21; 19:17). This angel chains Satan to the bottomless pit for “a thousand years” (20:2).

The idea of a “bottomless pit” reoccurs only a handful of times in Revelation but is a common trope of ancient cosmology of the underworld. References are found in the sheol references in the Old Testament (i.e., the grave, realm of the dead), non-canonical apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, and Greek myths of Hades and Titan myths. Such language appears in the New Testament regarding rebellious angels–complete with binding them in chains (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). Jesus declares the gates of the hadean realm would not prevail against his messianic mission (Matt. 16:18–19). Satan/the Devil, surprisingly, is cast in the pit temporarily for a thousand years to prevent further deception of the nations (20:3).

Satan (adversary, accuser; 2:9) and Devil (slanderer; 2:10) appear early in Revelation and are explicitly identified as “the great dragon… that ancient serpent…the deceiver of the whole world” cast down from heaven to earth with his angels (12:9). John’s recipients already knew that Satan had placed real political and religious pressure on their churches (Smyrna 2:9–10, Pergamum 2:13, Thyatira 2:24, Philadelphia 3:9), but John reveals that his deceptive and corruptive influence is everywhere. In Revelation, Satan operates through “nesting egg” avatars. The blasphemous beast from the sea (Nero redivivus?) who marveled the world over to worship him with his claim of a resurrection (13:1–4), gave rise to the miracle-working faux-lamb beast who initiated the cultic and political allegiance to totalitarianism by worship of the image of the first beast (the Caesar cult?; 13:11–18), who then gave rise to the false prophet and his miracle working demonic spirits to manipulate the kings of the earth to war against God (16:12–16). These have all been defeated. All that remains is Satan in exile, bound to the bottomless pit.

The martyrs of Christ, then, are resurrected to reign for a thousand years (20:4–6) but are interrupted when Satan initiates a failed coup resulting in his final demise in the lake of fire (20:7–10). This second vision begins with the preparation of a judgment scene reminiscent of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians in which he affirms that “the saints will judge the world… [and] angels” (6:2–3a). There are thrones reserved for those empowered to judge, but it is not clear who they are (Rev. 20:4). The proximity of this group to the resurrected martyrs lends strength to believe that the resurrected faithful of God will be involved in the cosmic judgment (20:4–5). This seems even more likely as the “rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended” as they did not experience “the first resurrection” (20:5). The resurrected martyrs will be judges, priests, and reign with God in this millennia (20:6). This outcome of victory is consistent with the letters to Thyatira and Laodicea (1:5b–6; 2:26–27; 3:21), and with the baptismal language of being raised and seated with Christ (Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:15; for the resurrection see end of section).

The release of Satan points to two related facts: God is in full control and Satan is always inferior in power (20:7; cf. Job 1:6–2:10). Yet, these inevitabilities never seem to bother him! At the close of the millennial reign Satan will re-emerge with the purpose “to deceive the nations.” This time he must recruit afresh. He plans to go to battle against God’s people like Gog the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, from the land of Magog (Ezek. 38–39). Gog and Magog are a shorthand for the ambition to “seize spoil and carry off plunder” from the vulnerable land of God’s people (Ezek. 38:10–11). God condemned Gog’s fate to be a burial in “the Valley of the Travelers, east of the sea” as a sign of his utter failure (Ezek. 39:11–16). So too, Satan/the Devil will attempt a coup but as he surrounds “the beloved city” fire from heaven consumes his forces, but he will be “thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur… tormented day and night forever and ever” (20:9–10). Satan, his avatars, nor his chicaneries ever appear again.

The Doomed Fate of the Beast Worshippers (Rev. 20:11–15) 

In the third vision, John sees the final fate of those who were not written in the book of life (20:11–14). The “book of life” is first introduced in the letter to the church in Sardis as a directory of those who walk with the exalted Christ and conquer over spiritual trials (3:5). Yet, God has always had such a book, exclusion from it was a sign of impending judgment (Exod. 32:33). In Revelation, it refers to those who have succumbed to the manipulation of the beast, worshiped it, rebelled against God, and lived unclean lives of moral and spiritual corruption (13:8; 17:8; 21:27). Their fate is to experience “the second death,” which is to be thrown into the lake of fire “forever and ever” with the beast, the false prophet, and Satan/the Devil (19:20; 20:10, 14–15; 21:8).

This lake of fire is the final and permanent act of divine judgment. Previously an angel declared, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark  on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (14:9–10). While some Christians reject the idea of eternal conscious torment for the lost and rebellious, this language could not be understood otherwise. The passive verb (tormented, basanídzō), the temporal language, and the heavenly witnesses suggests an eternal conscious experience. Granted, the portrayal is framed in the apocalyptic vision, but as stated above this does suggest that such a judgment will not happen.

The order of events leading to judgment is noteworthy. A bodily resurrection precedes standing before the throne of judgment, as they were exhumed from the sea and hadean realm (20:12–13). As the cosmos was laid bare, there was no terrain or hiding spots from God’s eye, as “earth and sky fled away” from him (20:11). This post-millennial resurrection (“come to life”) of exclusively beast worshippers was accomplished by God’s power (20:5). It is thought provoking to consider that a bodily resurrection of the wicked precedes being cast into the lake of fire to experience an eternal punishment for evil done in the body. Perhaps Jesus’ words are not exaggerations for effect when he said, “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [gehenna]” (Matt 10:28; 18:8–9). It is startling to see that not only the wicked and lost, but even the “containers” of disembodied spirits (Death and Hades), are thrown in the lake of fire. Revelation affirms, then, that hell is God’s ultimate answer of holy justice to the corrosive problem of moral and spiritual evil. Nothing associated with evil survives the second death.

The “New” Fate of the Lamb Worshippers (Rev. 21:1–27)

The fourth vision takes in the visual grandeur of the founding and features of the new holy city of Jerusalem, in the new heavens and new earth (21:1–27). The transition is as quick as the blink of an eye. This transition is an anticipated feature of apocalyptic literature. The old world in which God’s people suffer has fallen and God will replace it with his “new” kingdom imbued with peace and righteousness (21:1). The “holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” had been anticipated since the letter to the church in Philadelphia (3:12; 21:2). The garden in Genesis and the tabernacle reveal, for example, God’s desire to dwell with his people provided they walk in holiness with him (Gen. 2:1–3:24; Exod. 25:8; 29:45–46; Lev. 16:16). In the new Jerusalem, “the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev. 21:3). God will share his intimate presence with his people by comforting, protecting, and ensuring the “former things have passed away” (21:4).

“New” appears in Revelation eight times. Four appear between verses 1–5. John sees the “new heavens and a new earth” (21:1), the “new Jerusalem” (21:2; 3:12), and hears God affirm “I am making all things new” (21:5). This “new” creation originates out of heaven and comes down to the plain of existence which has lost all of its features due to the immanent presence of God (20:11; 21:1).[6] Clearly, the old “heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) has “passed away” along with its sea (Rev. 21:1). Nothing of the old order remains except for those who have faithfully worshiped the lamb (21:7–8, 27). It is “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” who declares, “It is done!” (21:6; Gen. 2:1–3). The new creation is not tenuously “very good” (Gen. 1:31; 3:1), every one evil will be in judgment (Rev. 21:8; 14:9–10).

In Revelation 16:17–17:18, there is also a declaration that God’s work is “done” (16:17). This is followed by an angel showing John the judgment of “the great prostitute” who reigns over many waters and the kings of the earth (17:1, 18). In this section, an angel from earlier reappears to lead John to see that the only city left is the “new Jerusalem,” equated as the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (21:9). The dueling women of Revelation (the prostitute and the bride) materialize the divergent outcomes of the dueling women of Proverbs 1–9 (Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly). John saw the combined beauty of its materials used, its impressive protective boundaries, the explicit knowledge of its citizens’ names inscribed, and the work of the apostolic office serving as its foundation (21:11–14). The materials of the new holy city are made from the various streams of the scheme of redemption woven into a tapestry of the gospel that can only be related visually by the glittering brilliance of precious jewels and stones (21:15–21). The city is pure and beautiful, and is the refreshing end of our pilgrimage (22:1–5; Heb. 4:9–10; 11:10).

Several elements seem to have surprised John about the new Jerusalem all of which are the result of the immanent presence of God (21:22–26). The Jerusalem temple where the Spirit of God dwelt has been replaced by the actual presence of “the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). Creation itself will lack the sun and never have night again, as God and the Lamb are its source of light (21:23). Light is the natural extension of the character of God (John 1:4–5). In this “new heavens and new earth,” as in its Isaiah counterparts (65:17; 66:22), humanity and creation will experience peaceful living and will generate glory for the express purpose of God’s praise (21:24–27; Beale and Campbell 492). 

ILLUSTRATIONS

First-Century Persecution

Revelation points to a first-century church experiencing persecution. The New Testament provides evidence that like their master, the early Christians experienced rejection and religious persecution. Jesus’ death on the cross was the result of a calculated rejection by the Jewish religious establishment. The Lord told his disciples, “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours” (John 15:20). The apostles certainly experienced persecution for their claims that Jesus fulfilled the anticipation of the messiah, and were often used as political trophies to appease the rank and file anti-Christian Jew (Acts 12:1–3). This was mostly infighting among Jews that rejected Christ and Jews that accepted Christ. Historically, Emperor Claudius (r. 41–54) expelled Jews from the city of Rome over their ongoing instigations over a certain Chrestus (i.e., Christos, Christ; Suetonius, Claudius 25; Acts 18:1–2).

Nevertheless, as Christianity expanded throughout the Greco-Roman world other forms of problems emerged. Social and religious tensions emerged as former pagans no longer participated in the placating of the gods, which made the Christian stand out (1 Pet. 4:1–19). Texts like 1 Peter reveal there were consequential reactions by the local community Christians found themselves in for not participating in traditional cultic practices, there did not seem to be a top-down Roman policy of persecution. Instead, persecution at that level was sporadic and episodic. Two notable figures were Nero in A.D. 64 and Domitian in A.D. 96. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote of Nero’s actions to blame the Christians for the great fire of Rome. Tacitus wrote, he “fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians” (Annals 15.44). Domitian, on the other hand, persecuted Christians as a side-effect from their rejection of the imperial cult which affirmed that “Caesar is Lord” (McFayden 46). Such situations play into the Roman paradigm which Revelation subverts.

APPLICATIONS

The Resurrection of the Body

Scripture forces the Christian to see the bodily resurrection as an essential component of the “end times.” The language of resurrection in Revelation 20:4b–5 is particularly uncomplicated. The resurrection of the dead (beheaded) martyrs simply occurs when they “came to life” (20:4b). In Daniel, the general resurrection is framed as when many who “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (12:2; cf. John 5:29). In Ezekiel, a grotesque vision of dry bones reassembling underscores not only affirms God’s creative power to make these bones live again, but also to resurrect the Judahite state dead in captivity (37:1–14). 

In the history of the church, the procurator Festus summarizes the Christian claim that, “a certain Jesus, who was dead… Paul asserted to be alive” (Acts 25:19; Acts 17:32). In the early fifties, Paul likely provides the earliest Christian explanation of the bodily resurrection of Christ and its future implications for the believer (1 Cor. 15:1–8). Christ’s resurrection made him the “firstfruits” from the dead, providing hope the Christian will likewise “bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:20, 49). It is impressive that the language of bodily resurrection spans the prophetic, the epistolary, and the historical genres of Scripture. 

Understanding the Millennium

Revelation 20:1–10 is one short but it has become the center for many systems of belief about the end times. Revelation 20:1–10 tends to “wags the dog” of interpretation for the Apocalypse if you begin the interpretation process with an unchecked eschatological (end times) assumption(s). For this reason Frank Pack (1916–1998) observed, “The question of the millennium… has made this the most difficult portion of the Book of Revelation to understand” (45). These visions of John are “not intended to map out a linear future timeline of history but to inspire people who are suffering for their faith to persevere, whatever the time” (Tidball 244). Nevertheless, the three broad approaches have locked horns throughout church history. 

The three most common are premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism (cf. McGrath 442–43; Tidball 244–45; Pack 45–48). While the most popular, premillennialism anticipates Christ’s return before the millennium inaugurated by the rapture and tribulation. It relies on a literal treatment and unnatural proof texting of scattered prophetic literature and encourages speculation of the end times contrary to Jesus’ words (Matt. 24:36, 42). Postmillennialism rose to prominence in the nineteenth century as an optimistic alternative, seeing the evangelistic mission of the church vital to the coming of Christ but it has fallen out of favor in the aftermath of the world wars. Finally, amillennialism does not hold that there is any period of history that should be marked as “the millennium,” but instead typically sees it as symbolic of the entire Christian age. This is likely the better reading of the language of Revelation than the previous two.

APPLICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Why are the words and the literary genre important for God’s inspired purpose in writing Revelation?
  2. Does the rich apocalyptic language suggest that there is no historical foundation behind the image? Where does Revelation point to its historical setting?
  3. What story do you find in contemporary media (books, movies, etc.) that is compelling in the way it outlines good and evil? Which one would you use to illustrate evil vs. good to someone you know?
  4. What is a fair speculation as to why God temporarily bound Satan and allowed him to try for one more attack on God’s people?
  5. Eternal conscious torment of the wicked and lost is a hard topic to talk about. How does justice play a role in understanding this topic?
  6. The new city of Jerusalem in the new heavens and new earth is said to be free of evil and corruption. Why do you think free moral beings will be able to live in a place like that and not sin?
  7. The resurrection of the body is part of Revelation’s picture of the new heavenly existence. How does Paul’s explanation help think about the resurrection of our bodies and the end times?

ENDNOTES

  1. Boyd Luter, “Interpreting the Book of Revelation,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David A. Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 474.
  2. This approach to Revelation is based on the literary chiastic structure developed in Michelle V. Lee, “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation,” Novum Testamentum 40.2 (1998): 164–94.
  3. A short list of other allusions: Genesis 1:1 as the basis for “new” heavens and earth (Rev. 21:1); Isaiah throne room motif of the thrice-holy God (Isa. 6:1–7; Rev. 4–5; 20:4, 11); in Daniel, God victoriously vindicates his saints against the beasts (7:1–28; Rev. 20:7–10); the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21:6) alludes to similar ideas in Isaiah (44:6; 48:12); Ezekiel 37–39 as important imagery for the Gog and Magog siege of Jerusalem (Rev. 20:7–9).
  4. David E. Aune marks this passage with strong Christological implications for the exalted Christ portrayed as the Divine Warrior who is designated with the following four “names” (317–18): (1) “Faithful and True” (19:11), (2) “he has a name written that no one knows but himself” (19:12), (3) “the Word of God” (19:14), and (4) “King of kings and Lord of lords” (19:16).
  5. Students of the outline of Revelation will observe that 20:1–22:5 is the proper closing of this unit, as John is shown the central placement of “the river of the water of life” in the new Jerusalem sourced from the throne of God with whom they will have an unmediated communion.
  6. John’s language here does not perfectly align with Peter’s (2 Pet. 3:8–10), but the difference can be accounted for by their different audience and purposes, but more particularly by the ways they compartmentalize different aspects of the end of the present age.

WORKS CITED

Aune, David E. “Stories of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 292–319 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

Beale, G. K., and David H. Campbell. Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Logos electronic edition.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Lee, Michelle Vidle. “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation.” Novum Testamentum 40.2 (1998): 164–94.

Luter, Boyd. “Interpreting the Book of Revelation.” Pages 457–80 in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: B&H, 2001.

McFayden, Donald. “The Occasion of the Domitian Persecution.” American Journal of Theology 24 (1920): 46–66.

McGinn, Bernard. “Revelation.” Pages 523–41 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. 1987. Reprint, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. NICNT. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Pack, Frank. Revelation, Part 2. Austin: Sweet, 1965.

Placher, William C., Richard J. Mouw, and Ted Peters. “Where Are We Going? Eschatology.” Pages 329–65 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Russell, Walt. Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000.

Ryken, Leland. How to Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Tidball, Derek. The Voices of the New Testament: Invitation to a Biblical Roundtable. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.

Soul-Winning for Jesus: Obedience of Faith

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Carolina Messenger, Conversion, Discipleship, New Testament, Old Testament, Paul's Letters, Practical, Publications

Many phrases summarize Paul’s letter to Rome such as justification, righteousness, gospel, or God’s sovereignty. Another important phrase found in Romans is “obedience of faith” and bookends the letter at its beginning (1:5) and at its close (16:26). This is the desired result (“to bring about”) of the Father’s work of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Those seeking to enjoy the redemptive blessings of God’s righteousness and salvation are called to respond with a faith in God that is obedient to his call and his word (Rom 1:16–17). Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4, “The righteous shall live by faith” (1:17), further establishes his point. This is the nature of biblical faith and when sharing the gospel it is imperative to remember that faith is not biblical if it is not obedient. This has significant implications to the Christian’s efforts to share the victory message of the gospel with their neighbors.

The Shape of Faith

Words are the patterns by which people think. It is key, therefore, to clear the air on a common misconception. For some, faith resembles a blind leap into the dark. It is a gut feeling devoid of reason. Taken in this way, the only relationship between faith and reason is that they are on opposite poles that never touch. Furthermore, faith in God, the Bible as the word of God, or in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension are purely a feeling. It is pure fideism. Biblical faith is a response to evidence (Heb 11:1).

Biblical faith is both relational and responsive. Paul explains that the gospel of God is supported by a series of lines of evidence. The gospel was promised prophetically in the Old Testament (1:2) and centered on the Davidic lineage of Jesus (1:3) whose claim to being the Son of God is established by the resurrection from the dead (1:4). On this basis, the apostles are commissioned to share the gospel designed to induce an obedient faith from the world and the church (1:5–6). Faith relates to the worthiness of the evidence of the gospel message that God acted in the world through Jesus and his cross (2 Cor 5:18), and responds with actions that reflect that trust in God and the gospel.

Living by Faith

In Romans 1:16-17, Paul explains that faith is not only a first response to the gospel but also frames the lifestyle of the Christian. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Roman letter hangs on his quotation of Habakkuk 2:4, “The righteous shall live by faith.” Paul evokes the contrast God makes in his response to a frustrated Habakkuk. The wicked live faithless and so digress into immorality (Hab 1:12–2:5). By contrast, the righteous organize their life by what faith in God requires (2:4). Two things are affirmed here: (1) faith is anchored in God’s actions and word, and (2) faith reshapes one’s priorities and actions. Let us explore these two points a bit further.

First, when sharing the gospel it is imperative to anchor a person’s faith in God and his word. Biblical faith in God does not emerge without believing God exists and acts in history (Acts 14:15–17, 17:24–31), the Bible provides divine truth (Eph 3:4–5), and has sent his son as demonstration of his love (Rom 5:6–8). Indeed, this “obedience of faith” is reflected in the Genesis story of Abraham. Paul, by the Spirit, picks up on this in Romans 3–4, when he parallels the justifying faith of Abraham with the faith of the person who comes to obey God and walks before him in faith (3:21–26).

Indeed, “Abraham believed God” (Rom 4:3; Gen 15:6). Abraham was “fully convinced” that God was “able to do what he promised” (Rom 4:21). Until a person has a conviction in God and his word, saving faith has no fertile soil to blossom from (Rom 10:6–13; Mark 16:15–16).

Second, faith reshapes one’s priorities and actions. The words of Habakkuk are quoted two other times in the New Testament (Gal 3:11; Heb 10:37–38). In each passage, there is an emphasis that biblical faith — saving faith — reshapes the Christian’s priorities. In Galatians, Paul argues that faith provides access to the gift of the Spirit. In Hebrews, the writer affirms that because of faith the converted believer can endure hardships because their priorities have changed. It is written, 

“And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11:6).

Personal faith is nurtured through the study of the scriptures and leads gospel obedience (Rom 6:17–18; 1 Thess 2:13). As Jesus affirmed,

 “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).

Concluding Thoughts

In order to show the difference between “agreement” and “faith,” evangelist Windell Fikes learned to asked: (1) “Do you believe what the Bible says?,” (2) “Do you want to do what the Bible says?,” and (3) “Do you want to do what the Bible says right now?” In other words, biblical faith is expressed in obedience to God’s word.

Jesus would say, 

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46).

Jovan preaches for the Highland congregation in Bakersfield, CA.

This article originally appeared in The Carolina Messenger. To subscribe for FREE click here.

Mind Your Business

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Peter, Articles, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, General Letters, Gospel Advocate, Johannine Literature, Luke, Mark, New Testament, Peter's Letters, Publications, Published

Reprinted with permission from the June 2018 issue of Gospel Advocate Magazine. Slightly revised edition.

I am not a fan of church politics, but I know they exist. Sometimes it reminds me of walking through the streets when I was a kid. You always had to have enough “friends” with you; you had to make sure you were stronger than the “other guy” and never get caught walking alone, especially in an alleyway. It saddens me to admit that “brotherhood alleyways” do exist. It appears in the form of the public shaming of preachers or schools; it appears in certain back channels where preachers or churches are undermined every step of the way due to a difference of opinions. In a word, brethren, we get consumed with the actions of others, and we seek to control them. We can’t seem to mind our own business and be about our Father’s business to love our community with the gospel.

It seems appropriate to begin this discussion with a brief look at the conjoined issue of ego. Jesus always found a way to check the egos of His disciples when they interfered with the priorities of the kingdom of God. Three examples from Mark 9–10 are helpful to point this out. In Mark 9:33–37, the Lord had to refocus the whispers and debate among the Twelve regarding who was “great” in the kingdom of God. Greatness is measured by service, not by wielding power (cf. Luke 22:24–28). In Mark 9:38–41, Jesus corrected the disciples’ sense of managerial entitlement when they failed to stop a “nameless” disciple’s ministry. What matters is Jesus’ authority, not that of the disciples.

A little later, in Mark 10:13–16, the disciples impose their opinion on when Jesus was ready to provide ministry. Jesus undoes their harm by demonstrating that the kingdom of God is to be at the disposal of the vulnerable. I would argue that the actions of the disciples probably emerged from a good place, but these moments should remind us that personal ego often gets in our way of manifesting the kingdom of God. I truly believe the church is the place where our egos are supposed to die (Rom 6:1-10), but sadly they often resurrect.

We need to hear afresh the challenge from three letters: Jude, 1 Peter, and 3 John. At the heart of our church politics problems is that we have, at times, misapplied what it means to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), become meddlers (1 Pet 4:15), and have failed to curb our egos (3 John 9).

Contending for the Faith

Many an article, sermon, blog, and petition have been published under the premise to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3). This is a very honorable goal. But at times the methods we use “to contend” lack Christian substance. The verb “to contend” (epagōnízomai) may be taken to mean, “to contend about a thing, as a combatant”[1] and give some legitimacy to a “war-time” church culture; but the metaphor should be taken in its natural direction. It may refer to “the intense effort” of an athlete to overcome the challenges of a sporting contest.[2] In this case, “to contend” is about self-discipline in the face of exertion, continuing the struggle for the sake of the faith.

Jude is the voice of reason the church needs to hear today. A careful reading of Jude does not support a “Cry ‘Havoc!,’ and let slip the [spiritual] dogs of war” agenda to demoralize and humiliate our brothers when we disagree theologically. In fact, Jesus warned that such tactics would endanger us with the fire of Gehenna (Matt 5:22). Instead, Jude writes that a proper response to the perversion of the gospel and subversion of Christ’s authority (v. 4) is to stay faithful to the content of the faith (v. 3), to trust in God’s Word, to trust the Lord will judge false teachers (vv. 5–9, 14–16), to trust that such people will self-destruct (vv. 10–13) and to maintain a Spirit-centered culture of grace, mercy, love, and redemption within the church (vv. 17–23)—all while affirming a distinction exists between the faithful and the ungodly false teachers and their corruption of the gospel itself (v. 12).

Jude does not shy away from revealing the errors of false teachers and the dangerous consequences that flow from their influence. The effort Jude speaks of is not to be spent on attacking the defectors, but instead, the exertion must be spent within our own souls, within our own congregations. We must resist the temptation to enable an ungodly inhospitable war-time church culture. With precision, Jude makes this little letter a rich description of the inhospitable environment the false teachers created in the church by their influence (vv. 12-13): they hinder love and community, they consume what others need, they withhold what is needed for life, and create a disappointing chaotic and unreliable spiritual incubator for the people of God. That is not what Jesus has called us to be.

Jude does not authorize intrusive efforts to “defend the faith.” Some among us have thought for quite some time that if they publicize an error long enough; generate enough brotherhood support; vilify the names of brethren or institutions; act like church “newscasters,” showing us the cold fronts of error among us; guide us through “connect the dots fellowship”; or act like church “J. Edgar Hoovers,” then we have contended for the faith. We have been so wrong. In truth, Jude’s brief message is bent on moving Christians to “exert effort” in embracing God’s wisdom, God’s sovereignty, and the Christian call to continue to be a fellowship of grace and mercy, love and forgiveness while affirming a distinction between ungodly false teachers and their corruption of the gospel itself (Jude 12). Those are quite different responses.

Jude concludes his letter by saying,

“But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (vv. 20–23).

This is the work of contending. Today, we need to learn that many times the best way to deal with false teaching is to focus on the work of our local congregation, be patient with our brethren, and be gracious to those struggling rather than entering into a shouting match, in other words, staying busy with our own work and minding our own business.

Meddlers and Bullies

Meddlers. In 1 Peter, the apostle Peter addresses a number of Christian churches undergoing a forceful front of localized persecution of “shaming” in the northern provinces of Asia Minor (1:1; 2:12; 3:13; 4:4). Peter reminds them to respond to such shame-based threats by providing a kind and respectful verbal response, explaining their hope in Jesus as Lord (3:14–15). He further exhorts them to refrain from “clashes” with the community due to punishable crimes (murder, thievery, evil-doing, meddling; 4:15). Indeed, the only clash that will glorify God is when Christians are unjustly persecution for the name of Christ (4:16).

We need to give thought to Peter’s word, “meddler” (ESV, NIV). It is listed among the four offenses Christians must avoid. English translations show the difficulty of rendering this compound word (allotri + episkopos), the New Revised Standard Version has “mischief-maker”; the New King James Version, “busy-body”; and New American Standard Bible, “troublesome-meddler.” Quite possibly, Peter coined this word because it is found nowhere in Greek literature before him. At the core, the “meddler” is someone who apparently takes or seizes control of the affairs of others. Peter condemns Christians controlling others “tactlessly and without social graces.”[3] Too many times Christians think their duty is to control the choices of our neighbors. I suspect it is because we seek the right outcome of godliness. This, however, becomes a “no win” scenario. The local church is a fertile field for this temptation. Many cultish tactics have been used in the name of “discipling” our brethren. Pulpits are used not only to “persuade men” but to “meddle” in the affairs of our members. Elders cross the line separating overseeing and control. But those with more daring egos can emerge to be “the overseer” of brotherhood affairs with ungodly force and shame to establish control. Peter reminds us to “mind our own business.”

Bullies. In 3 John, the aged apostle John writes to Gaius an embattled faithful Christian leader, who is part of the collateral damage of a church bully named Diotrephes. The church setting was desperate, requiring his own personal touch (vv. 10, 13–14). The issue? False teaching? Nope. The tension was about control over mission work (vv. 5–8). Traveling preachers were part of early church culture. Over a period of time, John had commended several to this church for support, anticipating their needs would be supplied to reach the next leg of their journey. Instead, he found a polarizing church culture had matured, manifesting in Diotrephes and Gaius.

Maybe Diotrephes began this journey with a proper concern for church autonomy in matters of missions or with a desire to serve the church. The only motive explicitly given in this letter is that he “likes to put himself first” and his rejection of apostolic authority (3 John 9). The outcome, however, was wickedness, suppression, and subterfuge. He created an inhospitable and volatile church culture where suspicion reigns and alternative opinions are silenced and ousted (v. 10). It was all a bit like an Orwellian 1984 dystopia. Diotrephes was the “thought police.” He thrust his voice into areas beyond his authority, and in order to do so, he imposed his opinion by force and manipulation.

There is no question that ego became a problem, and behind that lay sin. Diotrephes became a mission-killing church bully because he chose self over the kingdom of God. He chose “preeminence” (KJV, ASV), “to be first” (NET), “to be in charge” (ISV), “to be number one” (Plain English NT), “to have first place” (FHV), “to be first in everything” (Phillips). Third John shows us the damage rendered by elders and preachers who dominate others like an “intolerant general” when something is not done their way. A church bully by any other name would still reek of wickedness. Brethren, we need to humble our pride and “mind our own business.”

Conclusion

I’ll be honest. Sometimes I feel like an outsider, even after being a part of the church for now over twenty years. But I have seen church bulletins as subtle tools for shaming congregational members and even preachers from outside of the congregation. I’ve known preacher friends receiving a copy of a brotherhood “journal” with a post-it note attached as a “friendly” reminder of how “misguided” they are for their views. Brotherhood magazines have been leveraged to do excessive numbers of exposés about this school or that preacher rather than teaching what the Bible says. For what purpose? To establish unity? None of this brings unity; instead, such actions seem designed to permanently polarize. Church, we can, and must, do better (John 13:35). Part of the solution is to be about our “local work” and to “mind our own business” (Romans 14:4).

Endnotes

  1. W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), 2:125.
  2. E. Stauffer, s. v. “agōn,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:134-40. [In addition: BDAG 356, “The primary semantic component in the use of this verb in Jd 3 is the effort expended by the subject in a noble cause.” It gives “expression” to the Greco-Roman “ideal of dedication.”]
  3. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 224-25.

Jovan Payes preaches for the Highland Church of Christ in Bakersfield, California.

To subscribe to Gospel Advocate, click here.

The Word of God among the Denominations

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Gospel Advocate, Hebrew Bible, Introduction, New Testament, Old Testament, Publications, Published, Revelation, Theology1 Comment

Reprinted with permission from the February 2018 issue of Gospel Advocate Magazine.

20180124_150851.jpg

Hebrews affirms, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:12 ESV). This is part of a warning in Hebrews, which affirms that Christians who defect from God will fail to meet their rest as their Israelite counterparts did (vv. 1-11). God holds his people —and His creation— accountable by His presence (“sight”) in the word of God (Hebrews 4:13). This is a raw incontrovertible truth.

This passage makes no caveats; it makes no attempt to remedy a distinction between God’s word and God’s presence. They are both manifested at the same time. God is involved with real life (time and space) with Israel and with Christians. God makes promises and keeps his word regarding their “rest,” and God holds His people and creation accountable to His word. God is Lord of heaven and earth and everything in between, and He holds it together by the power residing in Jesus (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17). The word of God is connected not only to the authority of God but also to His nature and how He reveals Himself to the world.

Let me say the above in a differently. Our God, who is beyond time and space (God’s transcendence), enters our earthly “realm” bound by time and space (God’s immanence) with His divinity and authority (sovereignty) intact; furthermore, God enters into relationship with His creation (Abraham, Israel, Christians) by revealing Himself in creation and in His word. God is active both in creation and in His word. Creation reveals God’s existence and hints at elements of His attributes (natural theology), but it is His word that reveals God and His “will” so that humanity can enter into covenant with God. The word of God was both proclaimed orally through particular spokesmen (patriarchs, prophets, kings, apostles), but the prophetic word was not only through oracles but also in written communiqués embedded with the same divine authority (2 Peter 1:16–21). These writings reveal the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:11–16), His purposes and mystery (Ephesians 3:1–6), His involvement in human events (Acts 17:26–27), and the righteousness by which He will bring justice to the world (Acts 17:30–31).

To say it bluntly, the Bible is the word of God set in a permanent written form. Paul declared, “all scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Scripture bears the character of God and is no “dead” codebook, for it transforms every “man of God” into a competent, equipped servant (2 Timothy 3:17). The profitability of all Scripture is due to its quality as “God’s breath.” There is no pecking order between the spoken or written word of God. The inspired written word is as inerrant as God’s character. There is no source outside of the Holy Spirit-given Scripture that speaks God’s transforming work since it is the depository of the gospel’s message. What the word of God promises, God will do; what God proclaims, God’s holds His creation accountable to (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The above may seem to belabor the point, but as anticipated by the title of this piece, we will sketch how the word of God is handled among Liberal (Modern) and Neoorthodox influences. It is essential for the church to reflect on these twentieth-century influences because dialogue is healthy, truth has nothing from which to hide, and any redefinition of biblical Christianity must be given due consideration (Galatians 1:6-7).

The following historical sketches will probably not satisfy everyone, but they will be enough to see their direction and how they redefine significant elements of historic Christian beliefs and their tendency to subvert scriptural authority.

Liberalism/Modernism

The word “liberal” is a very loaded word. It is often used with contempt to show disapproval of someone else thought to be progressive (instrumental music, expanded role of women, etc.). But this is not the historic sense of the word. Liberalism emerged in the late nineteenth century through the interplay of many players, thinkers, and philosophical trends. The influence of Liberalism, or Modernism, is seen in three levels: (1) revelation is not the final answer to reality, (2) naturalism is the key to reality and religion, and (3) since the Christian documents are built on ancient myths and superstitions, the historic supernatural claims of Christianity is immaterial. To be a “Christian” is a matter of experience and the “essence” of its teaching.

Liberalism, as an intellectual revolution, is a child of the Age of Reason (the Enlightenment). The “Age” saw the elevation of human reason over the institutional “church,” which wielded divine revelation. It was “the church” that dictated to the people what to believe about reality. Divine revelation was the final answer to determining truth and what really happened in the past. This was displaced with rationalism, scientific history (criticism), and naturalism as final answers to genuine and authentic history and truth. In essence, as Stanley Grenz and Roger Olsen point out, the maxim “I believe in order that I may understand” was turned to “I believe what I can understand.”[1] Faith was overturned by a reason informed by modern findings — thus, this point of view is called “Modernism.”

Everything that was received as genuine knowledge, now, was shaped by the natural world. This was further supported by what is called “the principle of analogy,” popularized by the liberal theologian Ernst Troelsch (1865–1923), which argued that the present is the best way to understand the past. The consequence was detrimental in the extreme on the trustworthiness of Scripture. The supernatural elements interwoven in Scripture are, by definition, myths and superstitions. This meant that there are no miracles, no supernatural interventions by God, and no resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, many new schools of “criticism” emerged to study Scripture with mixed results.

This naturally led to an embrace of “the essence of Christianity” so long as reason and experience allowed. “Liberals” are open to the modern findings from the natural world, open to a religious humanism and science —in particularly embracing Darwinian evolution as the process by which God created. If God exists, He could only be revealed through religious “experience.” It was also immaterial if the events of Scripture happened or not because religion is a condition of the heart. Yet, the apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that if the resurrection event has not occurred, both our preaching and faith are in vain and we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

Another arm of Liberalism is the demythologizing of the New Testament pioneered by the “Form Critic” Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976). Bultmann argued that historic person of Jesus is built on untrustworthy sources. The New Testament is Christian propaganda shrouded in the imagery of the Greek myths and Roman legends. As such, they are not relevant for faith nor spiritual truth claims. It is the symbolism that matters. Today, one only need to watch the latest “history” programming to find modern theological liberals interviewed. Theological liberalism has significant questions that need to be answered, but it brings Christianity to a logical dead end.

Neoorthodoxy

The Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) ignited a movement when he published his commentary on Romans in 1919. It charted a new theological direction away from Liberalism/Modernism. Barth (pronounced “bart”) was not fond of the misnomer “neoorthodoxy,” but his strand of thinking regarding the meaning of “revelation” and “the word of God” would rival the prevailing traditional belief held historically by the church. As a consequence, many regard Barth as one of the great theologians and the father of modern theology.

Orthodoxy affirms the teaching of historic Christian truth based on Scripture. This includes, for example, the following concepts: the inerrant inspiration of scripture, the triune Godhead, the deity and virgin birth of Christ, the historic creation and fall of humanity, the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ, the return and final judgment. Barth argued, on the other hand, that “revealed truth” was not written, but was the outcome of an encounter (an experience) with God. Thus, instead of scripture as being the objective word of God, Barth argued for a subjective experience with God initiated by reading the Bible.

Barth was offering a completely different course of thought altogether. “Revelation” does not appear in the form of propositional truths. Arguing book, chapter, verse, or appeals to the very words of scripture is insufficient to reveal God. Revelation (the word of God), it is argued, is an “event” in which God acts in history (God’s immanence). Barth even argued that revelation is not found in natural theology (Acts 17; Psalm 19; Romans 1) but, instead, in events like the call of Abraham, the exodus, and the resurrection. Millard Erickson is spot on when he classifies Neoorthodoxy as an illumination theory divorced from an objective standard.[2]

Although Neoorthodoxy is not a unified movement, there are three interconnected witnesses (modes/forms) that shape its view on revelation.[3] First, Jesus is the word of God in the truest sense, for He reveals God in the event of His incarnation, life, ministry, death and resurrection. This is true revelation, the very gospel. Second, Scripture points to Jesus but it is a flawed human (read “errant”) attempt to provide a witness to divine revelation. It is instrumentally God’s word but not properly. Third, the proclamation within the faith community —Barth preferred “community” to church— is likewise instrumentally God’s word. The Bible, then, only becomes God’s word when God uses it to reveal Jesus Christ in the encounter, contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16.

In fact, Neo-orthodoxy is quite a popular approach to handling the Word of God, even among churches of Christ. A popular theological branch of this movement is “Canonical Criticism,” popularized by the late American scholar Brevard Childs (1923–2007). It seeks to broadly bypass much of the liberal destructive criticism of the twentieth century by accepting the texts of Scripture as literary units. Nevertheless, this point of view struggles, as did Barth’s, to embrace the Bible as a very human (errant) book while appealing to its authority for theological thought as if they were inerrant. They seek, in the words of one sympathetic Abilene Christian University professor, to “articulate a doctrine of Scripture that recognizes human flaws in it.”[4] Treating the Bible as an inerrant text is simply a form of bibliolatry.

Keeping the Faith

Today, the phrase “Word of God” means different things to different believers, and that includes preachers. Liberalism ultimately rejects a supernatural Christian faith, and is at home with amputating its historic claims of a resurrected ascended Lord Jesus, in exchange for a subjective diluted Christianity. Neoorthodoxy, on the other hand, embraces a supernatural Christian faith, but it rejects the supernatural origin, inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures which undergird its claims. The Word of God has always been a manifestation of God’s presence in our lives, in His proclamation, and in His Scripture without pecking order. Let us join Paul who declares, “Let God be true though every one were a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Notes

  1. Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olsen, 20th Century Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 17.
  2. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2013), 220–21.
  3. Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, trans. G. Foley (New York: Holt, 1963), 26–36.
  4. Christopher Hutson, “Scripture as the Human Word of God: Why Faith Contradicts Inerrancy,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 44.1 (2011): 210–21. Hutson serves as a professor of ministry and missions at Abilene Christian University.

To subscribe to Gospel Advocate, click here.

Defining Gospel: A New Testament Glance

On 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

  1. 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).
  2. William S. Deal, Pictorial Introduction to the Bible, 3rd ed. (1982; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 246.
  3. Figures worked out based upon calculations from the Logos Bible platform’s “Bible Word Study” for euangelion (76), euangelizo (54), euangelistes (3).
  4. George Carlin, “The Planet is Fine” routine in the 1992 HBO George Carlin: Jammin’ in New York Comedy Special (Cable Stuff Productions).
  5. All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
  6. 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).