Category: Published

The Public Reading of Scripture: Six Practical Suggestions

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Church Practices, Gospel Advocate, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Practical, Publications, Published, worship

Reprinted with permission from the March 2017 issue of Gospel Advocate Magazine.

A vital element to the worship assembly of the body of Christ in the first century was the reading aloud of the Scriptures (1 Timothy 4:13; Acts 13:15). Today, it is probably hard to imagine a time when God’s word was accessible only when assembled with God’s people; it was a communal experience. The proliferation of Bibles today has truly made reading Scripture an individualized practice; yet, this has not always been so. In fact, the meaning of “church” (ekklesia; “an assembly”) presumes a people gathered to hear, to commit to, and to act upon the Word of God (Matthew 16:18; Deuteronomy 4:10-11; 31:9-13). Thus, hearing God’s Word is part of who we are as “the church” (Acts 11:26; 14:27).

The church needs to elevate the importance of the Scripture reading assignment in our assembly (Act 13:15; 2 Corinthians 3:14). There is a tendency to be too casual about this assignment. Perhaps it is because we take literacy for granted, though the capacity to read words is not the same as understanding the words being read. In this connection, we may then take for granted that anyone can read the Scripture aloud to the church. In some societies, reading is still regarded as a technical skill, much as it was in Bible times.

If reading the Scriptures will make a child of God “complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 ESV) when read for private devotion, then the same God-breathed writings read aloud will provide the same effect for the congregation. In the Scripture reading, God is speaking to His people. For this reason, the public reading of Scripture is a crucial element of the worship assembly and should not be taken casually or lightly.

A Note on the Context

In fact, Paul anchored to this very core principle when he wrote to Timothy to provide a strategy for the faithful to protect themselves from a departure from the faith, which will consist of Christians “devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). The antidote against “irreverent, silly myths” (4:6-7) and any possible competitors to divine revelation is the healthy teaching from God (4:13). Public reading of Scripture inoculates against false teaching and invites faithful discipleship and commitment to God (Exodus 23:22; 24:7). It syncs us up with God.

Paul makes similar requests in other letters to the churches of the first century. When detailing the unveiling of the mystery of Christ, Paul anticipates and expects the church to share his understanding (Ephesians 3:4-6). After he writes on the supreme role of Christ in redemptive history, he expected the Colossian congregation to letter swap with Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). And, to the Thessalonians, he was quite strong when he placed “an oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers” (1 Thessalonians 5:27), for through the reading aloud of his letters they would be taught (2 Thessalonians 2:14-15). And in the final revelation of Jesus, the apocalyptic portrayal of divine victory through the gospel is framed as one that must be read aloud and safeguarded against addition and omission (Revelation 1:3; 22:16-19).

Reading Scripture aloud can bring the church into sync with God’s word. The more exposure, the better our biblical literacy; then, ideally, the healthier our churches will become. Let us switch gears, now, to provide practical suggestions for this powerful act of reading Scriptures aloud in our worship assembly.

Six Suggestions for Reading Scripture Aloud

There must be a spiritual gravitas connected to reading Scripture before the assembly. I had a mentor, Don W. Hinds, that would stop me when I misread a passage aloud. He would use the adage, “take heed how you read,” to instill in me the importance of properly reading the biblical text aloud. I would like to use this as a refrain as we consider some practical guideposts for reading the Scriptures aloud when the church is assembled for worship — although these suggestions can be applied in various settings of church life.

Furthermore, in many congregations, those who manage or arrange the various elements of the worship assembly (deacons, elders, etc) should seriously consider the points below as they select public readers of Scripture. We are worshipping God and engaging in spiritual and divine matters, we are not merely filling a roster. God’s word must be the centerpiece of our worship.

First, the reading should be met with a respect for proper pronunciation and performance. This is the “oral” spiritual heritage of God’s people, to hear and understand God’s word (Nehemiah 8:1-8). Not only should one practice to read clearly and distinctly, but some types of Scripture (genre) require an element of performance (cf. Psalms). For example, we should not read a psalm of lament (Psalms 51) as if it were a genealogy. Take heed how you read.

Second, we should consider the verbal skill set of those who will read before the assembly. The goal is to instill an understanding of God and to invite the church to obedience. There is no verse that prohibits individuals with speech problems from publicly reading Scripture. We should both be sensitive and inclusive. Fortunately, audio technology facilitates what requires loud speaking in other settings. Still, as long as the public reading reaches its goal then it has accomplished its purpose. Take heed who will read.

Third, the reading selection should be long enough to understand the message. This is especially true when the selection is independent from the sermon. Some congregations may design their readings to go through a book (Psalms) or a large section of Scripture (Major Prophets). Other times, they are connected to the sermon. The readings must be of sufficient length to provide context and understanding and should have a natural and intended connection to the worship service. All things being equal, we may ask, “why read from the Song of Solomon when the sermon is on the ‘second death’ of Revelation?” Take heed what you read.

Fourth, the readings must be the Scriptures free from alteration. From time to time some like to add a few impromptu thoughts in connection with the reading of the Scripture. The points may be very excellent, but they run the risk to be of another variety. It is important to keep to the task at hand, which is to read the assigned portion of Scripture. There are many reasons for this. The most significant reason is to elevate the word of God over the words of men. As Revelation 22:18-19 warns, the text must be read without omission and addition. Take heed that you read.

Fifth, the reading of Scripture must be purposeful. There should be communication before hand to prepare those who will read aloud in worship. Sometimes we can displace others when we lean upon “good readers” in a pinch. With a purposeful schedule, we can give enough notice so that our readers can prepare, become familiar with the text, and develop a comfort level. Preparation and practice are the best helps to reduce “stage fright.” Take heed before you read.

Sixth, the reader should not cause a distraction by what they wear. It is true that God seeks and looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7; Matthew 15:8), but one should dress for the spiritual occasion (Matthew 22:11-14). While attire may sometimes be a distraction, it is more important that the reader’s lifestyle should not be a distraction. If those who pray in assembly should have “holy hands” (1 Timothy 2:8), what of those who read Scripture. Paul told Timothy that he should be an example; this would make an additional influence when he would read aloud the Scriptures to the church (1 Timothy 4:12). Take heed by whom you read.

Concluding Thoughts

The public reading of Scripture was an essential component of the first-century worship assembly. If in today’s time, the church seeks to be in conformity with the early worship practices of the New Testament church, then it will seek to incorporate this practice and develop those who will read. Moreover, the church will grow when she integrates the three-fold instruction given to Timothy: the public reading of Scripture, the exhortation, and the teaching (1 Timothy 4:13). In a day and time when so many church groups are seeking new and innovative methods to “enhance” worship, the age-tested and inspired method to read aloud God’s word must be in the forefront of our worship assemblies. Blessings to the reader, and blessings to the hearer.

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

To subscribe to Gospel Advocate, click here.

The Value of Godly Women to the Church

On 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. “theosébeia,” BDAG 452.
  4. “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 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

  1. Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (NY: Macmillan, 1952).
  2. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
  3. Maurice F. Stanely, Logic and Controversy (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2002), 192.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 146.
  8. Strobel, The Case for Christ, 146-47.
  9. Strobel, The Case for Christ, 147.
  10. 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.
  11. 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).

In the Beginning was the Word (John 1:1)

On By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Essays, Glendale Gleaner, John, New Testament, PublishedLeave a comment

It is a staggering idea to contemplate God choosing self-sacrifice in order to create the opportunity for reconciliation between Himself and his rebellious creation. In fact, Paul would word the matter in the following way: “God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor 5:19). The agent through whom this is accomplished is Jesus Christ in His death so that we (humanity – “us”) may potentially experience the reconciliation of God (2 Cor 5:14-21).

The Gospel of John provides a fuller detail as to how God was reconciling the world to himself. The record of John is, however, unlike Matthew’s Gospel which begins with the Hebrew genealogical table which emphasizes the Lord’s lineage from David and Abraham (Matt 1:1-17). It is unlike Mark’s abrupt mention of “the beginning” of the gospel, which is marked by Jesus’ ministry inaugurated by the baptism by John (Mark 1:1-14).

It is even unlike Luke’s historically grounded retelling, beginning from Jesus’ birth announcements to the unfolding of the universal gospel call as seen in Luke’s second volume Acts (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-9). John begins the narration of his Gospel Account from the very beginning. In this way John stands upon unique footing.

Jesus the Eternal Word

photo-1.jpg

Although not being distinct in its message and general outline, John’s Gospel Account is a maverick of sorts, focusing upon the cosmic drama mentioned above which grounds the gospel message. To provide his readers the needed perspective in order to appreciate all that proceeds, John pens the first line of his account with the following words:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1–3 ESV)[1]

This eternal “Word” is explicitly identified as the Father’s son – Jesus – who indeed “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14). John further affirms, “and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14; As an important side note stands the fact that the term “Father” is used approximately 107 times as the name for “God” in John’s Gospel).

This is a profound truth regarding Jesus’ nature and ought to inform our understanding of the Gospel message as well. Let us consider a few ideas from John 1:1, as expressed in three clauses: (a) “In the beginning was the Word,” (b) “the Word was with God,” and (c) “the Word was God.” The rich language of the first verse of John’s Gospel conveys the divine nature of “the Word” (Grk. logos), who in fact is the pre-incarnate Jesus (i.e. before he put on his human identity).

Many times the “beginnings” of Jesus of Nazareth are only considered from the standpoint of his birth and baptism; however, the implications of John 1:1 demonstrate that His beginnings are from eternity (Micah 5.2). As Jack Cottrell succinctly writes:

Each of these clauses affirms the divine nature of the Logos. The first asserts his eternity, since he was already there when everything else had its beginning (see vv. 2-3). The second asserts his eternal coordination with God. He is distinguished from God, yet placed alongside God. The third clause declares his identity or equality with God.[2]

In order to truly appreciate the gospel proclamation, it is a vital matter to understand that Jesus had an existence before he walked the rocky soil of Palestine in the 1st Century A.D. In fact, Jesus was/is an eternal divine being, namely God.

For this reason, the Gospel of John continuously makes reference to Jesus’ divine nature (5:16-17, 25-27, 6:41, 8:58), Jesus’ claims to divine authority and commission (2:16, 4:34), plus the difficulty held by those who heard Jesus make these claims (5:18, 6:42), and the rejection experienced because of this inability to accept both the human nature of Jesus and his claims to “God-hood” (2:16, 8:59). Nevertheless, it is clear from the very beginning of the Gospel of John, that his inspired Apostles believed and taught that Jesus was/is an eternal being who predates time and our universe, and has entered into His creation (John 1:2-3, 17:5).

Is Jesus “a god”?

It is a tragedy that there are groups which claim allegiance to Jesus and yet they deny the biblical doctrine of the eternal deity of Christ. One such group, the Jehovah Witnesses, offer the translation for John 1:1 in the following way:

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was the God, and the Word was a god. (brackets original)[3]

In the footnote to this passage, they refer to Appendix 6A which sets forth their justification for the translation “the Word was a god.”

The essential thrust of the argument is, according to them, a grammatical one. It is here, however, that the theological bias of the Watchtower New World Translation is evident. They argue that in New Testament Greek (koine) a noun with the article “points to an identity, a personality”, but a predicate noun without the article “preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.”[4] Accordingly, it is argued that “it does not identify him [Jesus] as one and the same as God himself.”

The Watchtower followers are determined to maintain the “oneness” of God as is traditionally understood as monotheism (Deut 6:4-5); however, they affirm the “oneness” of Jehovah at the expense of robbing Jesus of His eternal divine nature – His “God-hood.” They go so far as to affirm that the Word (Jesus) is a creation of God: “The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things.”[5] This is but a primer of their teaching on Jesus.

While an exhaustive response cannot be given here, the following two responses are enlisted which demonstrate the weakness – even blasphemy – of the Watchtower “reasoning”. First, the “no-article-a-god” argument based upon grammar is faulty at best, if not theologically biased at worst. As Frank Pack writes, when John writes “the Word was God” he is expressing “the quality or nature” of the Word/Logos.[6] John was not affirming that Jesus is the same person as the Father (“the Word was with God”), but that the Word was distinct in person, and yet shares the same Divine nature (Grk. theos; cf. John 20:28; Phil 2:5-8).

Second, the Gospel of John explicitly sets the “Word” as the agent through which “all things were made” (1:3). In fact, the Watchtower’s New World Translation words the last clause of verse 3 this way: “and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” It ought to go without saying that Jesus did not self-create himself. Moreover, John expands our understanding of the creation story and is purposeful in echoing Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (ESV). It is God (Heb. ’elohim) who said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26). Denying John’s placement of Jesus in eternity and at the beginning is a tragic failure to accept basic bible teaching.

Conclusion

John 1:1 is a powerful passage serving as a gateway to understanding Jesus and the gospel story. The Eternal Divine Agent of creation (John 1:1-3) put upon himself the nature of “flesh” (1:14) and became “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (1:30). May we, unlike those who deny the Lord’s deity, respond to Jesus as Thomas did and herald Him as our Lord and our God (John 20:28).

Sources

  1. Unless otherwise noted the translation employed is the English Standard Version (ESV) of the The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 236.
  3. (NWT) New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References, rev. ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1984). Recently, the 2013 revision of the Watchtower’s New World Translation still maintains the following rendition of verse 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The editors have removed the brackets; however, the online edition the footnote (*) on “was a god” reads: “Or ‘was divine.'” This is not a shift in their Christology, but it is a better translation than “a god”; furthermore, it is a step in the right direction by deriving understanding of Jesus based upon the language of the text first.
  4. “Appendix 6A,” NWT, 1579. The pages for these notes have been reproduced here for those wishing to see the actual Watchtower source.
  5. Aid to Bible Understanding, 919.
  6. Frank Pack, Gospel of John 1:29; cf. Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 139-40

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

Of Sheep and Shepherds

On By Jovan PayesIn Essays, Leadership Ethics, Published, Words of Truth4 Comments

Background Bible study is fascinating and is perhaps one of the most important parts of biblical research. Obtaining a “behind-the-scenes” look into the biblical documents will “contribute to a more precise comprehension of the Word of God.”[1] This observation can be said about the shepherd motif found in Scripture. Since it is dangerous to paint half a picture of anyone or anything – especially biblical topics; we stress, then, that this is but a footnote to the beautiful motif of the pastoral profession (i.e. the shepherd) often employed by the biblical authors.

Shepherds in Israel

Shepherding was a great profession in the culture of the Ancient Near East, and so far as it relates to Israel’s history, pastoral work was a constant aspect of nomadic life (cf. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). Even when they conquered and settled into Palestine, the end of the nomadic life did not stop pastoral work (e.g. David in 1 Sam 16:19; Amos 1:1, 7:14).[2] The widespread awareness of this profession “made motifs of sheep and shepherding apt descriptions of human and divine roles and relationships.”[3]

Notice one Old Testament example. God through Jeremiah pronounces a “woe” upon the leadership of Judah using the pastoral motif:

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: ‘You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD.’” (Jer 23:1-2 ESV)

The “shepherds” failed to maintain the pastoral relationship with God’s flock; consequently, the sheep were scattered. Jeremiah, looking to post-exilic times, promises that God will restore the proper care to his flock with faithful shepherds (Jer 23:3-4).

Shepherds in the New Testament

There are several related New Testament words used to the work of shepherding. The noun form is poimein, and refers to a shepherd, herdsmen, or pastor,[4] and hence it is a metaphor describing a guardian-leader. The third translation option probably receives the most attention from among the three, and this is due to its connection with the eldership of the New Testament (Eph 4:11, here teaching-pastors), and its erroneous, but popular, usage in denominational circles.[5]

However, the New Testament uses the term significantly in its normal sense. Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” in John 10:1-18 to distinguish himself from the leaders who had oppressed or neglected the house of Israel. Luke narrates the story of the shepherds, in the field with their flock, who were told of the arrival of the Messiah (2:1-20). Jesus warned his disciples that when he is handed over to the Jews, that they would be scattered like sheep when their shepherd is harmed (Matt 9:36 = Mark 6:34).

But perhaps the most vivid pastoral scenes are of those moments that relate to our relationship with Jesus. The Lord is described as “the Shepherd and Overseer” of our souls (1 Pet 2:25; cf. Heb 13:20), who receives straying sheep as any good shepherd does. Another vivid scene using the shepherd motif is the Day of Judgment when Jesus “will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matt 25:32). This is taken from an understanding that sheep and goats were “pastured together” in Palestine, but at certain appropriate times they “require separation.”[6] The figure is given Christian meaning as a metaphor of the judgment upon faithful and non-faithful Christians.

Learning from the Sheep and the Shepherds

There are so many relationship lessons that God has taken from pastoral care, we would do well to reflect upon it more. For example: at the birthing of a new lamb, the shepherd “guards the mother during her helpless moments and picks up the lamb and carries it to the field. For the few days, until it is able to walk, he may carry it in his arms or in the loose folds of his coat.”[7] Could we not make an application from this? The shepherd and the lamb have a wonderfully tender relationship, and we would strengthen our fellowship in taking a lesson from this behavioral motif.

Truly, we can see that a pastoral care for Christians will encourage us to help in the development and care of new converts. It will stimulate us to help heal wounded sheep, and protect them as they are nourished to good health. And more personally, perhaps we would be more receptive to the prodding and care by our shepherds in the church. The “pastoral” mentality is not only for the elders, we would all do well to lead on, or be led, ever so gently (Gen 33:14).

Conclusion

In the Christian age, it is quite common for New Testament students to think of shepherd-pastors as only in terms of the office of a bishop/elder as mentioned in 1 Timothy 3. However, the imagery of a shepherd has a wide application to both describe religious leaders and the effects of their ministries upon their religious constituents, and it also describes how the Lord Jesus and the Father are both presented as providers and keepers of our souls.

May we  take from these lessons, practical ways, to reflect a pastoral concern for ourselves, our fellow believers, family, and our friends.

Sources

  1. Wayne Jackson, Background Bible Study, revised ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 1999), 1.
  2. Madeleine S. Miller, et al., Harper’s Encyclopedia of Bible Life, 3rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1978), 142.
  3. D. Johnson, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, et al. (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), DJG 751.
  4. William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1986), 2:462, 569.
  5. Despite popular usage among denominations as a term for “minister,” a usage which J.P. Louw and Eugene Nida’s lexicon continues to perpetuate (L&N 53.72), typical passages used to support this idea are misapplied. Specifically, Ephesians 4:11 where there are four groups of leadership types (not five) set forth as recipients of the temporary “gifts” which enable the Christians to obtain maturity (Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 13:10). See J. Jeremias in TDNT 6:485-502.
  6. Jack P. Lewis, Matthew (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:137.
  7. J. Patch, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1943), ISBE 4:2764.

This is a reformatted version of the article which originally published in The Words of Truth (Montgomery, AL: 6th Ave church of Christ).