Category: Theology

Are Miracles Possible?

On By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Early Christianity, Essays, Miracles, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Popular Essays, Resurrection, Talbot School of Theology, Theology2 Comments

The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,

 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)

If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.

The Creator-God

The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:

if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)

Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]

  • Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
  • Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
  • Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
  • Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).

These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.

A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.

Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring

In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).

Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.

The Resurrection

A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?

The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)

Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]

The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.

Conclusion

The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.

Endnotes

  1. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  2. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
  3. James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
  4. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
  5. James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
  6. Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
  7. Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  8. Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  9. William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.

Must I “Hate” my Family for Jesus (Luke 14:26)?

On By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

There are always those who jump at any opportunity to disparage the character of the Son of God. They pursue any apparent inconsistency and press it beyond anything resembling its biblical and original intent.

Such is the case with Jesus’s words in Luke 14:26. The passage reads:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ESV; emph. added)

An antagonistic critic of Jesus declared that these words makes Jesus a “cult leader” bent of intimidating his followers.

At first glance, the words are troublesome and it would be disingenuous to deny that the passage is disturbing. Nevertheless, the problem is skin deep, and is part of a larger flow of thought in which the Lord emphasizes the principle of focused commitment (Luke 14:28–32).

I will unpack this in two basic steps. First, I look at the context of the passage in the Gospel of Luke to see its big picture theme. Second, I show the term translated “hate” (miséō) has a broad spectrum of meaning and reflects a cultural hyperbolic expression of preference.

A Look at Context

In order to appreciate any passage of Scripture its context must be understood. No single verse reveals everything the Bible has to say on a given subject. It is easy to misunderstand a verse when read without getting a handle of the big picture of the passage.

The “big picture” gives us a proper perspective. This saying is found in the context of a dinner party that Jesus attended at the house of “a ruler of the Pharisees” (Luke 14:1). It is part of Jesus’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51) where he anticipates his rejection and crucifixion (Luke 9:21–22, 43b–45; 18:31–34).

It would be expected for the traveling rabbi to offer wisdom and instruction. The teaching done at dinner takes up a major part of this journey narrative (14:1–17:10) and provides some of Jesus’ strongest teaching on proper use of one’s life and material blessings for the good of others as members of God’s kingdom (search for the lost sheep, the lost coin; receive the wasteful son; live prudently; live generously, etc.).

Earlier in the dinner scene, inspired by a man with dropsy, Jesus initiated a discussion about the legality of healing on the Sabbath (14:2). Since the Bible experts (i.e., lawyers) and Pharisees “remained silent” Jesus went forward and healed the man (14:4). Jesus then pressed them with a question on compassion:

Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? (Luke 14:5)

Since there was continued silence (“they could not reply to these things”, 14:6), Jesus posed a series of parables to them.

The Parables. Jesus told the parable of honorable seats to the guests that searched for prominent seats at the dinner party to rebuke their sense of self-importance (Luke 14:7–11). He then pressed his host to welcome those who could not repay him, trusting in repayment “at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12–14). This led to the parable of “a great banquet” to which many were “invited,” but these made excuses for why they could not attend. So, “the poor and crippled and blind and lame” were invited to enjoy this banquet instead (Luke 14:15–24).

Clearly, Jesus challenged the hypocrisy of his host and fellow guests as they “dined” while surrounded by the crippled and the poor without so much of a concern for their needs. The rhetorical tool of the parable provided an image-rich narrative designed to teach a spiritual truth in an understandable and comparative way. In this way, he shows that grace of the kingdom of God is not for some future age (Luke 14:15) but an ethic to be practiced in the now.

The host’s table was supposed to be the theater of God’s kingdom. In the end, all they could do was grumble because Jesus ate with sinners (Luke 15:1–2).

The Kingdom of Commitment. The themes of the parables Jesus teaches are initially focused on a disparity between the high society of the Pharisees and scribes with those disenfranchised Jews seeking and needing the grace found in the kingdom of God. The main problem was misplaced loyalties manifested in a dereliction of responsibility.

God seeks those who will hear his invitation to relationship. This parable anticipates the rejection of God on the part of the Jews who delivered Jesus to Pilate, and the global outreach to the gentile world with the Gospel invitation. In connection with this parable, Jesus lays out four “loyalty arguments” (14:26–32):

  1. One must “bear his own cross” and follow him. This phrase foreshadows Jesus’ commitment to God’s redemptive plan to the point of his own execution on a cross. His followers are called to the same level of commitment in the choices they make (14:27).
  2. To build a structure one must first “count the cost” to complete the construction. This statement is parabolic, if not proverbial, illustrating thoughtfulness in commitment. What will following Jesus demand of me? What will be the tradeoffs to commit to the kingdom of God (14:28–30)?
  3. Before entering war one must “sit down first and deliberate.” What are my strength or weakness? Should I act towards war or peace? Jesus illustrates that decisive decisions are based on the awareness of things as they are (14:31–32).
  4. Jesus bookends his sayings with strong words of full total commitment. Jesus speaks of “hating” the closest of human connections (14:26), and “renouncing all” for him (14:33).

Jesus was rebuking the conduct of the Pharisees and scribes at the dinner. They showed no loyalty, commitment, or deliberate reflection to follow through in their service to God, only excuses and self-righteous pretensions. Jesus calls this failure out through hyperbole, an obvious and intentional exaggeration.

Hyperbolic Exaggeration

Jesus, in this setting, is speaking hyperbolically. He was using a common feature that overlaps with our own: exaggeration. Today might say to a long lost friend, “I haven’t seen you in a thousand years!” Or, we may even claim, “I’m so hungry I can eat a horse.” They are not literal statements. Hyperbole is, according to Elena Pasarello, a “grasping beyond what is necessary in order to describe a certain feeling, an experience, or response.”[1] We often forget Jesus speaks with similar conventions and this failure affects how we read Jesus’ words.

Clearly “to hate” is a verb with strong overtones. But whose overtones should we be concerned about? Ours, or that of the ancient setting in which Jesus spoke?

First, the hostile environment provides the right background for the use of hyperbole. Our expectations of hate includes with it ideas of “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury” or “to feel extreme enmity toward: to regard with active hostility” affect our reading of this text (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This is not what Jesus had in mind.

In Luke 14:26, the verb miséō is translated “hate” in nearly every major English Bible translation. Greek dictionaries also agree that it corresponds to a spectrum of meaning such as hate, despise, disregard and “be indifferent to” (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13).[2] Context, however, determines how the term should be translated. In the hostile dinner setting Jesus seeking to awaken the dinner party to their hypocrisy, their indifference to the poor and the outsider. God’s people must be woken up.

Second, Jesus is on record elsewhere in Luke that God’s people should treat their enemies with love. Earlier in Luke 6 Jesus teaches the following:

I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you... 32 If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them... 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:27–28, 32, 35–36)

Jesus teaches that God’s people should show a love that is kind toward those who hate them. Whatever miséō means in Luke 14:26 it must be read consistently with Jesus’ other teachings.

Third, Jesus knew, observed and defended the command to “honor your mother and father.” In one of his final encounters on his journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:44), Jesus reminds the rich young ruler of this command (Luke 18:20; cf. Matt 19:19: Mark 7:10, 10:19). In Matthew 15:1–20, Jesus defends this command against the subversive traditions and tactics of the Pharisees and scribes:

“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. (Matt 15:3–6)

Jesus is calling out the hypocrisy of the traditions of Pharisees and scribes, the very same guild of biblical scholars he is addressing in Luke 14. The non-exaggerated teaching of Jesus legitimately forces us to read Luke 14:26 in a different way. Jesus honored the commandments.

Fourth, parallel sayings of Jesus provide additional clarification evidence. In Matthew 10:37 Jesus provides another lens to understand “hate” in terms of “preference” or deep loyalty:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)

To the Jew this was a very common way to express that one’s loyalty to God was to surpass any human bonds of loyalty.

Another example is found in Matthew 6:24, which highlights a cultural way of expressing ideas of “preference” or “indifference”:

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despite the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

This probably explains why the Good News Translation (1992) renders Luke 14:26:

Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well. (emph. added)

While this is certainly the meaning of Jesus words, the softening of the language robs us of a significant fact. Jesus found value in targeted exaggerations to make a point.

Fifth, the ides of love and preference, or hatred and indifference are also seen in the Old Testament. For example, Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Gen 29:30), yet this preference is also stated as “Leah was hated” (Gen. 29.31).

Paul illustrates his affirmation of the justness of God to elect whom he wishes by his election of Jacob over Esau. Jacob elected/preferred over Esau based upon God’s sovereignty (Mal 1:2–3; Rom 9:10–13).

10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 

Finally, in the culture of Jesus notions such as interest, disregard, and indifference are often expressed in terms of “love” and “hate” which do have very limited translations.[3]

On this point, consider the following observation:

[T]he Orientals [Eastern culture], in accordance with their greater excitability, are wont both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals [Westerners], with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing.

Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896)[4]

Scholar G. B. Caird observed similarly:

To hate father and mother did not mean on the lips of Jesus what it conveys to the Western reader (cf. Mark 7:9–13). The semitic mind is comfortable only with extremes –light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate– primary colours [sic] with no half-shades of compromise in between.

G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke (1963)[5]

Jesus is speaking in an exaggerated hyperbolic fashion to give some shock value to illustrate the kind of deep preferential conviction God’s people must have.

Conclusion

The big picture context of Luke 14:26 demonstrates that Jesus is in the middle of a series of instructive parables focused on proper discipleship in the kingdom of God. They are directed to the host, the guests, and the crowds that joined them. When Jesus speaks to the crowds he outlines the deliberative nature of would-be disciples and should be disciples. These are non-negotiable matters.

The idea of “hate” (miséō) as a cultural hyperbolic expression provides a proper understanding to Jesus’ meaning. Jesus did not violate the mosaic law to honor one’s parents, but he lived it and defended against any corruption by false piety. Instead, Jesus spoke in his own cultural semitic vernacular.

In the final analysis, misguided assaults on the character of Jesus backfire. This should also remind God’s people to take the time to examine the passage adequately.

Endnotes

  1. Elena Pasarello, “What is Hyperbole?” Oregon State University.
  2. Barclay M. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, rev. ed. (2010; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014), 119.
  3. BDAG 652.
  4. Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 415.
  5. G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke, Pelican New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. E. Nineham (1963; repr., Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974),178.

The Written Word of God

On By Jovan PayesIn Bibliology, Essays, New Testament, Old Testament, Popular Essays, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth, Theology

The word Bible is a transliteration of the Greek bíblos, meaning “book, writing.” In the New Testament, the word has a range of applications that refer to sacred and important literary roles, written documents we would call “books” today (Mark 12:26; Phil 4:3, Acts 19:19, Matt 1:1).[1] It seems embarrassingly simplistic but the Bible means “the Book,” probably in the sense of, “the Book par excellence.” It speaks to us God’s Word, it tells us God’s story of the creation of the world and the pursuit of His fallen creation to bring about reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

At times it is easy to put the Bible aside and replace its intended centrality for our spiritual nourishment with other spiritual disciplines. Worship and praise, although an important discipline and expression, do not nourish the soul with transformative power the way the Bible does. Doing good in the community is detached from its purpose and mediation of the kingdom of God when ignorant of the biblical story and message imprinted on its pages.

For this reason, I’d like to focus briefly on three points. First, God intended for his revelation to be put into a written—durative—form that would extend beyond its original setting down to you and me, and beyond. Second, God intended for his word to provide standardized teaching to transform the believer and the lost seeker. Third, God’s word is what shapes God’s people into a faithful and vibrant community where the gospel is embraced and enacted.

The Durative Written Word

Several years ago, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix made the argument that while God could have used angelic revelations, visions, and dreams, moral “oughtness,” or direct divine communication and intervention, God chose a permanent method to dispense his teaching and will – “the time-tested superiority of a written record of truth.”[2]

The value of a written record, particularly a religiously written record, is seen in Geisler and Nix’s concluding argument:

A written record has one additional advantage as well, namely, it can stimulate memory and conjure up within the individual’s imagination a host of personal implications that are latent within the given symbols or words of that record. Words, then, are not wooden as to prevent a “personal blessing” for the individual reader, particularly in light of the fact that biblical words are the objective vehicle through which the Holy Spirit applies truth personally and subjectively to each reader individually (cf. John 16:13; 1 Pet 1:11).[3]

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Moody, 1986), emph. added.

The Bible, then, is a written record –a durative witness– to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

A life that existed in eternity, was revealed in the sinless life of a human servant of God, and fully demonstrated to be divine in the death and resurrection of himself, Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1–3, 14; Phil 2:5–8; 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 1:1–4). This is a permanent record of the Greatest Story Ever Told.

A Pattern of Teaching

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:15–18 ESV)[4]

In a section focused on the conversion process (Rom 6), the apostle Paul frames it in terms of “dead to sin and alive to God.” Under the parody of death to slavery which releases one from “ownership” and then by means of a resurrection to life —legally free from slavery— Paul argues that one legally enters into voluntary slavery (Rom 6:15–19).[5] It is here that Paul rejoices: 

thanks be to God. that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching [typos didachēs] to which you were committed. (Rom 6:17)

It is here that a particular phrase emerges — “the standard of teaching [typos didachēs].”

Some feel that since Paul typically uses typos (standard, example, molding, etc) “is personal in nature” as in the following list:

  • Adam in Romans 5:14.
  • Paul and company in Philippians 3:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:9.
  • The Thessalonians church in 1 Thessalonians 1:7.
  • The conduct of Timothy (1 Tim 4:12) and the good works of Titus (Tit 2:7).

If so, then it is “highly probable” that Romans 6:17 is a personal reference to Jesus.[6]

On the other hand, it has been argued that Paul means typos in its metaphoric use as a molding and hence normative teaching which “shapes the [Christian’s] whole personal conduct” once obedient to it.[7] So which is it? Are we forced to make a hard-line distinction between these two proposals?

I do not think so, for they are too intimately connected at the theological capillaries. First, Jesus despite being an actual person is the incarnate Word. Thus, when one submits to the word of God, one is submitting to Jesus as the complete exposition of God’s revelation.

Second, when one submits to the teaching of the gospel and is formed by it, one is being formed and fashioned by Jesus. It seems that one should not try to split hairs here since to submit and to be fashioned by the One is to submit and to be fashioned by the other. And so, we can agree with Harrison when he says,

Though Paul had not founded the church, he could be confident that whoever did had taken the trouble to give teaching upon which he himself could build as he wrote his letter. This in itself presupposes a rather fixed norm of instruction.[8]

Everett F. Harrison, “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache,” BSac 119 (1962)

The concept of normative instruction is found throughout the biblical record. This supports our position that God intended to leave behind a reliable and trustworthy record of his message.

The Living and Active Word

Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 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. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:11–13)

I have always found this passage to be troubling. It is troubling because it is straightforward but surrounded by a perplexing description of the “word of God” (4:12).

But first, consider the context of this passage (Heb 3:1–4:13). Thematically, (a) the author elevates Jesus as one who is faithful to his appointment by God as a son over God’s house, a house which is built by God, which the writers says “we are” (3:1–6). (b) As a consequence (therefore), the writer calls the Holy Spirit’s message from Psalm 95:7b–11 a warning to members of this house to be faithful to God’s voice. Concepts such as rebellion, provocation, hardened hearts, and God’s promise of reward or punishment, rest or disbarment from divine granted rest (3:7–19).

(d) The principles of Psalm 95 are brought to a conclusion in an appeal to fear lest any should seem to have failed to reach rest (4:1–10). The writer presses, then, a connection between Israelite failure and Hebrew Christian failure to enjoy the rest; one by means of unbelief (3:19), the other by means of disobedience (4:7). Yet, in all of this, there is a desire to create an environment of obedience of faith where confidence and hope thrive (4:2; 10; 3:6). (e) Finally, the last section (4:11–13) adds an additional conclusion to the reasoning begun in 3:1. The exhortation is to enter the rest promised by the Divine edict, and the explanatory words of “falling” in the wilderness before rest are implied. The writer then connects this exhortation with the implied method of obedience by accepting our heavenly calling to listen to the Word of God (3:1; 4:12).

It needs to be observed that “the author speaks to all the readers but focuses on a concern that ‘any one’ of them fall short: the concern here is not an individual achievement but rather that ‘the people of God’ reach its goal intact” (emph. mine).[9] The word of God then has an integral role to play in the communal faithfulness of God’s people. Its capacity to meet this goal is outlined in four ways.

Luke Timothy Johnson provides an excellent discussion of these descriptions:[10]

  1. The word of God is living (zōn). “Hebrews applies the same quality of life that is normally associated with God’s being to God’s word.”
  2. The word of God is active (engergēs). “The translation ‘active’ (see RSV) is certainly possible, but while it captures well the sense of ‘energy,’ it fails to capture the nuance of ‘power.’”
  3. The word of God is sharper than two-edged swords. “The sharpness of the blade is revealed by its ability to cut to “the division between soul and spirit, joints and marrow.”
  4. The word of God discriminates between thoughts and conceptions of the heart. “As with ‘soul and spirit, joints and marrow,’ the discernment between thought and conception is the more impressive because the difference between them is so slight and unavailable to human perception.”

If the church is to move in the direction of its mission and its calling, it must embrace the “deep tissue” work of the word of God to actively expose the areas that are strong and those areas that require Divine accountability and transformation.

Concluding Thoughts

Let us never ignore the great breadth and extent of the Word of God. God speaks in broad and generic terms through creation (Psa 19:1–2; Rom 1:20–21). God spoke through the oral preaching of prophets and apostles in the past. God spoke to selected individuals through dreams and visions. And most clearly, and finally, God has spoken through the very image of the Divine, Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1–3). Nevertheless, it is the sacred writings that Paul says we know of salvation and spiritual formation (2 Tim 3:10–17). Why? Because it is the very breath of God in a durative written record that provides us the pattern of the gospel message that makes us Christians and Christians only.

Endnotes

  1. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), 111.
  2. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986), 323.
  3. Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction, 324.
  4. All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016) unless otherwise stated.
  5. Francis Lyall, “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles,” TynB 32 (1981): 87.
  6. Everett F. Harrison, “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache,” Bsac 119 (1962): 120.
  7. Leonhard Goppelt, “túpos, antítupos, tupikós, hupotúpōsis,” TDNT 8:250.
  8. Harrison, “Some Patterns,” 120.
  9. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 131.
  10. Johnson, Hebrews, 133–35.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Revised and expand. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986.

Goppelt, Leonhard, “túpos, antítupos, tupikós, hupotúpōsis,” TDNT 8: 246-59.

Harrison, Everett F. “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache.” Bsac 119 (1962): 120-28.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. Edited by C. Clifton Black, et al. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.

Lyall, Francis. “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles.” TynB 32 (1981): 81-95.

Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.

Jesus: Only a Moral Teacher?

On By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, C.S. Lewis, Christian Evidences, Christology, Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Miracles, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

A few years ago the Barna Group published the results of 2014 survey of “2005 web-based and phone surveys conducted among a representative sample of adults over the age of 18 in each of the 50 United States.”[1] The results showed that while a strong 93% believed Jesus was a historical figure, they held various views of his nature:

  • 43% believed he was “God living among us”
  • 31% believed he was “uniquely called to reveal God’s purpose in the world”
  • 9% he “embodied the best that is possible in each person”
  • 8% he was “a great man and a great teacher, but not divine”

These are the signs of the time. Across generational lines people accept the historicity of Jesus rather than believe he never existed (See my research paper: “Regarding the Divide between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History“). The perception that Jesus is God, however, is questioned more by Millennials than their predecessors.

We have to come to grips with the reality that even some “Christians” believe Jesus as only a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders in human existence. They praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule) recorded in the Gospels. The New Testament, however, adds a unique dimension to his nature that make it impossible to accept his teachings while at the same time ignore the deity of Jesus Christ affirmed in its pages.

I will look at one historic figure who felt he could separate the ethical teacher, Jesus, from an enfabled supernatural Christ, and then demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching ministry was tightly interwoven with the miraculous.

The Case of Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), a “Founding Father” of the United States of America, is an interesting case study. He profoundly shaped the United States as drafter of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809). And while he was a self-proclaimed “Christian” and even promoted Bible literacy, Jefferson regarded all the miraculous elements in the Gospels as supernatural “rubbish” which must be removed from Jesus’ teaching, as one does “a diamond from the dung heap.”[2]

Jefferson was a theist and often used the language of Natural Theology/Philosophy (i.e., evidence in nature of a Creator-God) when speaking of his belief in God. For example, in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson appeals to “Nature’s God,” other times, “Infinite Power, which rules the destinies of the universe,” “overruling providence,” and a “benevolent governor.”

Jefferson did believe that God actively engaged in time, sustaining creation on an ongoing basis; yet, in his rejection of Biblical miracles and belief that natural laws were the language of God, he certainly is deistic.[3]

“Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

As a product of these tensions, Jefferson was a hybrid rationalistic-deist with a Jesus twist. There is God (without miracles), there is providence (without intervention), and there is the mind God gave humanity to bring about good into the world.

To Jefferson, then, one of the greatest harms that ever happened to Jesus was the corruption of his teaching with the additions of “fabrications… of their own [i.e., disciples’] inventions [of miracles].”[4] This conviction led Jefferson to “edit” the Gospels by cutting out–literally–the teachings, sayings, and discourses of Jesus and then pasting them into his “wee little book.”[5] This project finalized in The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820), today known as, The Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson affirmed that his work was “proof,” as he wrote to Charles Thomson, “that I am a real Christian… a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”[6] However,

In neither the eighteenth century nor today would most people consider a person with [his] views a “Christian.”[7]

“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

Certainly not an orthodox Christian. The problem with Jefferson’s estimation of Jesus as a moral reformer is its inconsistent denial of all the accompanying miraculous elements the Gospels often safeguard interwoven with his mission, nature, and instruction. As I shall illustrate below.

The Authority of the Son of Man

The Gospels reveal that the teaching ministry of Jesus cannot be divorced from their miraculous components without doing damage to our understanding of the nature and mission of Jesus.

The story of the healed paralytic is one of the most touching miracle stories in the Gospels. This miracle in Galilee event is recorded in Matthew (9:1–8), Mark (2:1-12), and Luke (Luke 5:17–26). Jesus had returned to his home in Capernaum, Galilee (Matt 4:13, 9:1; Mark 2:1) where crowds found him once again and flooded the domicile as he was preaching (Mark 2:2). As there was no room, the friends of a certain paralyzed man creatively removed the tiles of the roof so they could drop the man down for healing (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3–4; Luke 5:18–19). What happened next was a game changer: Jesus doesn’t heal the man, he forgives him (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20).

This episode instructs on the authority and divinity of Jesus. The narrative provides an unexpected conclusion in the first act (forgiveness): forgiveness of the invisible ailments of paralyzed man; after all, they came for healing. This declaration, however, raised the ire of the “scribes and the Pharisees” who were offended at the very idea. This was a blasphemous scandal: 

“Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21 ESV; Mark 2:6–7; Matt 9:3)

Jesus had committed a spiritual offense of highest magnitude in the eyes of the “scribes and Pharisees.” By declaring forgiveness he claimed a Divine prerogative to forgive sins (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33, Jer 31:34). Remember, for the scribes and the Pharisees Jesus was just a freelancing rabbi, nothing more than a Jewish man.

In the second act (miracle), Jesus called out their inner monologue regarding his sacrilege (Matt 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 5:22), and then raised the stakes. Jesus has entered into the spiritual “kill box” of Jewish orthodoxy: a human cannot forgive sins, only God does that; a human cannot claim deity or Divine prerogative, to make the claim is to blaspheme. Jesus then utters an “either…or” challenge like the prophet Elijah against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20–40).

“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (Luke 5:23)

The rhetorical question answers itself. If he can do the “harder” thing that requires an empirical/visible demonstration (“rise and walk”), then he can do the “invisible thing” which is to forgive sins. The entire ethical validity of Jesus’ teaching depends on this challenge. In a public demonstration Jesus tells the paralyzed man: 

“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home.” (Luke 5:24)

The miracle was immediate (Luke 5:25), the crowd was amazed (Luke 5:26), and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possesses both the ability and right to forgive sins!

Therefore, in this instance, Jesus exercises his privileges showcasing his God-nature. In the third act (reaction), the people respond with:

“We have seen extraordinary things today.” (Luke 5:26; Mark 2:10; Matt 9:8)

This miracle shows just how impossible it is to sever the miraculous from Jesus’ teaching ministry. Jesus taught and preached on moral excellence, this much is true, but he acted clearly as one who is more than human. As John says it, Jesus is “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The New Testament documents, if they are going to be read properly, must be read on their terms not what we think has happened to the text.

Lunatic, Liar, Lord… Legend?

We conclude this piece with a challenge from C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) in his work, Mere Christianity. Lewis goes into considerable length in calling attention to a problem of viewing Jesus as “a great moral teacher” and rejecting “His claim to be God.” As Lewis sees it:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[8]

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan)

Lewis offers three basic options when it comes to Jesus: He is either (1) a lunatic, (2) a liar, or (3) the very Lord and God revealed in the documents of the New Testament. In Jesus’ words, he affirms his own claim: “unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Jefferson, and many who follow in his footsteps, however, would suggest at least a fourth option about the Jesus of the New Testament: (4) legend. If the disciples embellished his divine nature, then, why not embellish his teaching ministry, his compassion, or for that matter his ethics? I wish to press this clearly, one must receive Jesus en toto–that is, completely (miracles and all)–for to accept him partially (only a moral teacher) is to have no Jesus at all.

The strong reliability of the transmission of the New Testament demonstrates that the miraculous elements of the Gospels are original to their presentation of Jesus, which strengthens the internal eyewitness testimony of the New Testament’s message about the Deity of Jesus. Furthermore, the small interval between the events of Jesus life to written accounts is too brief for legend to so transform the “truth” of the historical Jesus. The legend claim is simply not enough.[9]

A Concluding Plea

The biblical accounts leave the issue clear that Jesus pre-existed before coming to minister on this soil. From the outside, he looked and lived as a human; but, inwardly and also through demonstrations showed himself to be the Divine Word (John 1:1–3).

So what will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Give Him one real, genuine inquiry. He will not disappoint you.

As for me, I will serve Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). May the Lord bless you in your quest to learn about Jesus and his message, and the salvation that he alone can offer.

Endnotes

  1. “Jesus: Man, Myth or God?,” Barna.com, accessed: 26 January 2021.
  2. “Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org (Charlottesville, VA: Monticello and the University of Virginia), accessed: 25 January 2021; “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed: 25 January 2021.
  3. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
  4. “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819.”
  5. “Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816,” Founders Online, National Archives.
  6. “Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816.”
  7. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
  8. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (repr., New York: Macmillan, 2001), 53.
  9. To read a succinct argument in support of these statements, read John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law, and Christianity (1964; repr., Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 3–44.

God as Cause: The Cosmological Argument

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Apologetics, Christian Evidences, Cosmological, Glendale Gleaner, Published, Theology, Theology

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

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

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

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

Arguments from Revelation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments from Reason

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

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

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

“Creationists and evolutionists don’t have different evidence… we have different filters through which we understand and interpret that data.”[8]

Joseph DeWeese, “Why I am a Creationist.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

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

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle’s position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence. These virtual particles often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. (Italics added)[16]

Charles Q. Choi, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” ScientificAmerican.com

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

Premise 2: The universe began to exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real,” BigThink.com

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

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

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

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

Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days (2001)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

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

Let us remember one significant point to all of this:

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

Wayne Jackson in Surveying the Evidence (2008)

Endnotes

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

Suggested Reading

Ashton, John F. Editor. In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001.

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

Choi, Charles Q. “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light.” ScientificAmerican.com. 2013.

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

Dickson, Roger E. The Dawn of Belief. Winona, MS: Choate Publications, 1997.

Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.

Jackson, Wayne, Eric Lyons, and Kyle Butt. Surveying the Evidence. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008.

Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008.

Lewis, C. S. God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Edited by Walter Hooper. 1970. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

Miller, Jeff. “Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?” ApologeticsPress.org.

Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. 3rd edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Moreland, J. P. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997.

____. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. 1987. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988.

Morris, Henry M. Compiler. That Their Words May be Used Against Them: Quotes from Evolutionists Useful for Christians. San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1997.

Reucroft, Stephen, and John Swain. “What is the Casimir Effect?” ScientificAmerican.com.

Shelly, Rubel. Prepare to Answer: A Defense of the Christian Faith. Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 1990.

Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. 5th edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.

Sutton, Christine. “Subatomic Particle.” Encyclopedia Britannica.

Warren, Thomas B., and Antony N. Flew. The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1977.

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

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.

Be the Gift (1 Peter 4:10-11)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Peter, Articles, evangelism, General Letters, Kingdom Ethics, New Testament, New Testament Background, Peter's Letters, Theology

It is a staggering thought when you think about it. Christians have gifts to share with their neighbors. Much like the old nativity hymn of the three orient kings, who came from the far east with rich gifts for the newborn king Jesus, Christians have gifts to share with the people they come in contact with every day. In a word, we have a calling. It is greater than Toys for Tots, it is greater than Secret Santa, it is greater than the presents carefully wrapped and laid under the Christmas tree. The gifts Christians have are those which come from God, they are packaged by him and must be shared.

When the apostle Peter wrote to the beleaguered Christians in the northeastern Roman provinces of Asia (1 Peter 1:1), he wrote to encourage them to embrace the slander and the social persecution with the reminder that they walk in the footsteps of Jesus (1 Peter 2:21). For example, should they suffer unjustly —as did Jesus— the suffering will bring about the opportunity to extend grace to the world. Furthermore, the Christian must not focus on the momentary suffering but instead upon God’s validation and vindication. As God vindicated the suffering servant Jesus, so will He vindicate his suffering people (4:1).

As You Have Received God’s Gift

As an extension of this moral encouragement, the apostle goes on to address very practical aspects of Christian living in chapter 4. Here is an excellent moment to pause and reflect upon the truth that doctrinal purity is important, but these Christians are called to practice godliness in the face of persecution. In one of the summarizing passages of this exhortation, Peter writes the following:

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10–11 ESV)

A point that is not readily notable from the English version is the connection between gift (charisma) and grace (charitos) in verse 10. They are built on the same word root, which was interconnected at the social level. It portrays God as a benefactor —a gift giver— for his people and asks them (us) to also be gift-givers (benefactors) as well.

This makes the term “good stewards” (oikonomoi) equally enlightening. It is a word that has domestic and political usage, and this usage is seen in the New Testament documents. In the ESV, the word is translated as “manager” of domestic affairs (Luke 12:42, 16:1, 3, 8; Gal 4:2), and once as “treasurer” which would have been a political office in Rome (Rom 16:23). As here in 1 Peter 4:10, “steward” in passages that emphasizes a conservatorship over a given responsibility (1 Cor 4:1-2, Tit 1:7). It was a well known Greco-Roman phenomenon that members of a benefactor’s household were also “brokers” of the gifts of the head of their household. The imagery of Peter’s message is parallel to this type of behavior.

Christians as members of God’s house are blessed by their Father’s gifts so that they may be brokers of God’s grace. We are in a very real way representatives of God’s house and what we offer in a variety of ways is the very gift of God — Jesus Christ and the gospel message. We are to teach it, we are to proclaim it, but most importantly we are to live it. Below, we will consider the points left behind in this section by the Spirit through Peter in verse 11.

Whoever speaks…

One of the overarching themes of the film, Waiting for Superman, a 2010 documentary on the American education system, is that many within the system are waiting for someone to fix it, to do the hard work to shore up its failures. Instead, such systemic problems will only be fixed by teachers and educational leaders working together and initiating helpful and creative programs. There is no one person who can fix the educational system of America, all resources must come together. The same is true with sharing the gift of Jesus and His gospel.

Every Christian (woman and man) must remember that our gift is a gift of words. Not just words, but words of God. For this reason, when a Christian shares the gospel it truly is God’s gift of grace we are sharing. We must not speak our words. We must not speak from our own anger. We must not speak our theories of the word. We must not speak our “pet” religious opinions. We must not speak from any other basis other than from the depository of God’s word — found only in the Scriptures. Our words must be as if it were God talking. God’s word is the only true gift (1 These 2:13).

Whoever serves…

Christian activity is always dramatically presented as services rendered as one who waits on tables, doing as told by their superior (Acts 6:2; John 2:5). Every Christian (woman and man) must remember that our gift is also a gift of action — of service. Christians broker God’s grace with others with the service we render to other people. Edgar Guest was spot on with this passage when he penned the opening lines of his poem, “I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I’d rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way” (“I’d Rather See a Sermon Than Hear One Any Day”). Indeed, there is no greater opportunity in life than to serve as an example of God’s grace to others.

Words can be misunderstood. Actions, however, are less so. But, serving others often comes with a tall price. Service is not convenient emotionally, or physically. It is perhaps for this reason that Peter says that Christians who serve others do so and are empowered by the strength supplied by God. We do not serve others based on our own merits. It is a hard lesson for so many of us, but we need to trust in God for Him to be God when we are serving others. Whether it is food, clothing, or shelter that we offer as expressions of God’s varied graces, we do so, trusting that God will make our service His gift and that alone should empower us to serve.

Concluding Thoughts

Whether it’s the best of times or the worst of times, Christians can make a mark in the world and in the times in which they live. My prayer for all of us is to be the Christians we are called to be. Be the best gift you can be to your family and friends in word and service. Let it be the kind that brings glory to God and not to self. Remember, to say, “it’s not about me… it’s about Him.” “To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” (4:11).