Tag: John 1:1-3

Devotional: May the Word be with You (John 1:1-3)

On By Jovan PayesIn Devotional, Gospel, Jesus Studies, John, New Testament

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 Corinthians 5:19)

The agent through whom this is accomplished is Jesus Christ. The means by which this occurs is His death, so that we (humanity – “us” 5:19) may potentially experience the reconciliation of God (2 Corinthians 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 (Matthew 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.

Although not being distinct in 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)

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; the term “Father,” Grk. pater, 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”

(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).

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. This truth becomes more profound when we see that the Word abides with his people who abide in Him (John 8:31–32).

Hymn: Lord, We Come Before Thee

The Humanity of Jesus the Son

On By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Graduate Work, Hope International University, Jesus Studies, Patristics, Theology

The phrases Jesus Christ, the Christ of faith, the Jesus of history, and Jesus the Divine Son all reflect significant themes pertaining to the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth. These concepts fall within a specialized area of theology known as Christology, which is a systematic “study of Christ” based on the full biblical picture derived from scripture.

A bit more formally, this field of study speaks to the Christian endeavor to map Jesus’ placement within “time and eternity, humanity and divinity, particularity and universality.” It answers how the life of a seemingly benign first-century Jewish rabbi could be so “relevant for all people and all times” (McGrath 2017, 207).

The present discussion maps Jesus’ Son-relationship in the triune unity of God, and the nature of his humanity. It then reflects on how the humanity of Jesus is relevant to the Christian’s personal walk before God.

Jesus the Son and the Trinity

The Trinitarian Formula

The divinity of Jesus is established in many passages of the New Testament. For example, Matthew closes with an appearance of Jesus where he affirms his authority “in heaven and on earth.” With this authority, he commissions his disciples for an international burden, 

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:18–19 NRSV). [All Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

Three themes are clear in this passage: Jesus’ divine authority, discipleship made in baptism, and the trinitarian language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the early generations of the church, the above trinitarian formula would represent a highly nuanced concept of monotheism affirmed to be in continuity with the “one God” of the Hebrew Bible.

What forced early Jewish Christians to accept this nuanced view of monotheism? The answer: the character and nature of Jesus did. It is not subversive of the “oneness” of God (Deut 6:4) but depends on the New Testament’s clarification that the “one God” is not a simplistic model. As the clarification argues, the Divine Son is not God the Father, nor is he the Holy Spirit. This raises tough questions that the historical church has discussed in earnest and in conflict for generations.

How do we map this out theologically?

The Divine Son Portrayed

We turn to the presence of Jesus and how He is portrayed in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In the first century, the prologue to the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–3, 14) affirms that the person and nature of Jesus is the driving force to reshape the whole biblical landscape of the concept of God (Gen 1:1; Exod 20:11). 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being... And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1–3a, 14)

Jesus not only pre-existed as the lógos at the time of creation (John 1:1), but he also “emptied” (ekénōsen) himself to take on the “form [morphē] of a slave”—a human (Phil 2:6–7). Leaning heavily on John 1:14, the Alexandrian theologian, Athanasius, concluded that this “human body” was taken by this same “Word of God” (Placher 2003, 184).

On this view, there was no room within this theology for Arius’ affirmation that Jesus the Son—the Word—was a created being who subsequently became divine. This view reduced Jesus to a creature impotent to redeem humanity (McGrath 2017, 217–19).

The Divine Association

As McGrath (2017, 214) chronicles, the divinity of Christ was one of the first major theological battles of the early church as it sought to hammer out its understanding of the contours of a very genuine human being in Jesus who, at the same time, was portrayed as being more than a mere human. The “battle” was not over the deity of Christ as such (that was established), but how to understand the relationship between his humanity and his divinity.

The divinity of Jesus was therefore accepted as true as his humanity—as affirmed in Chalcedon (AD 451)—which means that the question left to map out was the relationship between Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The only way to do this is by evaluating Scripture (Jenson 2003, 194). Despite certain reservations, Jenson argues clearly that Peter’s application of the divine title “Lord” from Joel 2 (kyrios LXX) to Jesus in Acts 2:33–34 (kyrios) demonstrates that

the risen Christ, without violation of God’s singularity, does what only the God of Israel himself does, and that he does this precisely by virtue of his situation with the God of Israel. (2003, 194)

Jensen in Essentials of Christian Theology (2003)

Jensen points out that the emerging notion of association that comes from the word “with” points to the “inescapably observable fact” that the biblical narrative is framed by three divine characters in its drama (2003, 195): the God of Israel, Jesus his Son, and the life-giving Spirit of God.

Agreeing with Jenson (2003, 196), Jesus should not be viewed as a mere successive mode of God’s presence in time (modalism) or as the Father’s subordinate agent with the Spirit in time (subordinationism). Instead, Jesus maintains an eternally mutual and reciprocal relationship with the Father and the Spirit. For this reason, ancient Christians used an analogy inspired by the theater, that is to say, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit although three in persona (mask) are one in Divine substance. Another model is found in Martin Buber’s I-You relationship model (McGrath 2017,179–80).

Understanding the Humanity of Jesus

What, then, goes into mapping this theological tension of the Son and the Trinity?

Mapping the nature of Jesus’ humanity—in balance with his divinity—requires great caution. The traditional doctrine of the incarnation (literally, “becoming bodily”) affirms both the full humanity of Jesus and his divinity. Any attempt to isolate what is organically interwoven in the person and work of Jesus runs a high risk of distortion.

Overcompensating to account for the humanity of Jesus has typically been met with the “stamp” of heresy. Three, in particular, are Ebionism, Arianism, and Docetism (McGrath 2017, 214–20). 

The roots of Ebionism are Jewish. It framed Jesus through the lenses of a human prophet, as called and anointed by the Holy Spirit. As a low Christology, Jesus is only a “spiritually superior” human. This does not align with the picture of his eternal pre-existence as Creator.

Plotted on another point on the map is Arianism (named after Arius), which called into question the “fully divine” and “fully human” affirmation due to an irreconcilable application of the Greek notion of divine impassability and the doctrine of the incarnation. God cannot be both changeable (fully human) and transcendent (fully divine), therefore, the incarnation strikes at the perfect nature of the one God. Jesus must therefore be a “superior created being” with nothing divine to report. This failed to account for the actual testimony of the gospels where in fact this is possible.

Meanwhile, Docetism affirmed, with its hardline separation of God and the present evil world of matter (due to its gnostic foundation), the divine incarnation of John 1:14 was nothing more than “pretend.” The heresy’s name (or tendency) is derived from the Greek word dokéō (“to seem”) affirming Jesus only “seemed” to have a body in which he suffered and died, making the incarnation “into a fake” (Placher 2003, 183). Scripturally, the work of Christ is dependent on the fully human (Luke 24:38–39) and fully divine Jesus manifested in the death of the cross and resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3–4).

Similarly, the opening line of 1 John affirms the humanity of the “Word of Life”: “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands” (1:1).

Likewise, in the second century CE, Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35–ca. 110) stressed his concern to the Christians of Trallia that they should guard against (“be deaf,” kōphóthēte 9.1) anything which undermines the humanity of Christ with the following words:

Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, who was the son of Mary; who really was born, who both ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified and died while those in heaven and on earth and under the earth look on; who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his Father raised him up, who—his Father, that is—in the same way will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life. (“To the Trallians” 9.1–2)

Ignatius of Antioch, “To the Trallians” 9.1-2

The example of Ignatius is interesting because it is early and strongly affirms Jesus’ human form, “who really” (hos alethōs) an adverb repeated four times to assert what is true, actual because it corresponds to what is really so (BDAG 44). For Ignatius, Jesus actually was born, ate and drank, persecuted, crucified and died, and raised from the dead. Ignatius saw denying the humanity of Christ as subversive to the soteriological (the saving, redeeming) and eschatological (end times, fulfilling) work of Christ.

What Does This Mean?

What then does it mean for the Christian that God became flesh to redeem us in the person of Jesus Christ? Two extremes must be cautioned against here. One extreme is to moralize the life of Jesus (1 Pet 2:21), and as such reduces Jesus to a mere good teacher. Another extreme is to make Jesus’ life and teaching into a disjointed symbolic presence of God (i.e., Paul Tillich).

The humanity of Jesus provides me with a great deal of assurance as a believer that God knows through Christ the human plight. Jesus has “assumed all” and can, therefore “heal all” of humanity (Placher 2003, 184). When the “name” Immanuel (“God is with us”) is given to Jesus (Matt 1:23) the associated promise is that “he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21). God’s presence in the human child to be born provides a personal locus that can be isolated to time, space, and history.

For all humans, it then becomes quite clear that God is joining the human continuum to reconcile not only “us” but also “the world to himself” in Christ (2 Cor 5:18–19). Paul’s application has massive personal repercussions, 

“if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (5:17)

The humanity of Jesus is not simply a modal expression of God, but God entering into time and space to save, forgive, reconcile, and renew humanity and creation.

It provides the seedbed to take the particular localized Jesus and affirm his enduring value for all humans for all time. As Ignatius wrote, God “will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life” (“To the Trallians” 9.2).

Truly, the humanity of the God-Man Jesus is relevant for the Christian’s personal walk before God because it is the seedbed for all our hopes, especially, hope for the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12–19).

Bibliography

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, W. F. Ardnt, and F. W. Gingrich. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Ignatius. 1999. “The Letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.” Pages 128–201 in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 2d edition. Edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Jenson, Robert W. 2003. “Does Jesus Make a Difference? The Person and Work of Jesus Christ” Pages 191–205 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville, Kent: Westminster John Knox.

McGrath, Alister E. 2017. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th edition. Maldon, Ma: Wiley Blackwell.

Placher, William C. 2003. “Does Jesus Make a Difference? The Person and Work of Jesus Christ” Pages 183–91 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville, Kent: Westminster John Knox.

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.

The Value of Wisdom (Proverbs 8:11)

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Ecclesiastes, Glendale Gleaner, Job, Old Testament, Proverbs, Psalms, Published, Song of Solomon, Wisdom Literature

For wisdom is better than rubies; And all the things that may be desired are not to be compared unto it. 

Proverbs 8:11 (American Standard Version)

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

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

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

A Starting Place

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Wisdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Leave Home Without Wisdom

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

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

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

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

Proverbs 3:5-6

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

Endnotes

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

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

God as Cause: The Cosmological Argument

On 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).

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).

So Close: Jesus, the Pharisees, and His Divinity (Luke 5)

On By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, Articles, Christian Evidences, Christology, Gospel, Luke, New TestamentLeave a comment

By the language of the text, it appears to have been an average day during the Lord’s ministry in Galilee. The multitudes had flocked to the Good Master wishing to hear him speak and to request him to heal their infirmities. In this particular case, the Lord was teaching in a house and a paralyzed man was dropped down through the roof by his inventive and determined friends.

They trusted that Jesus could heal him, but it seems safe to ponder that they did not expect the Lord’s gracious response. Luke chronicles the narrative in the following manner:

And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." (Luke 5:18-20 ESV)

The Lord’s first response was to give the paralyzed man a pardon. Jesus canceled the man’s transgressions. He overrode the situation and removed the burden of the man’s sins. What a profound event!

Many today wonder why the Lord forgave the man of his spiritual infirmities first, instead of meeting the principal need for which the man was brought – physical restoration. It could be the case that He had already intended to substantiate his Divine claims to forgive sins by means of a miracle, but we simply do not know why with any degree of absolute certainty.

In some sense, the question is irrelevant because the Lord’s activities are interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees. This gives rise to a unique situation where the Lord boldly argues for and asserts His Divine prerogative to forgive sins.

We continue Luke’s narrative:

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the man who was paralyzed—"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home." (Luke 5:21-24)

The miracle was immediate, the crowd was amazed, and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possess the ability and right to forgive sins!

On the Divinity of Christ

Tremendous amounts of energy and ink have been spent discussing the Divinity of Christ. The canonical documents are quite clear as to the Lord’s divinity. John 1:1-3 describes the existence of the Word, who was the agent to create the universe at the beginning (Gen 1:1; cf. 1 John 1.1). In conjunction with these thoughts are the words of John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (cf. Phil 2:5-10). The divine Word has made a human and his habitation was among mankind: he was a living and breathing human (in form and substance) capable of dying.

Paul speaks of the supremacy of Christ by saying that in Jesus the universe stands in “perfect equilibrium,” for in him it is “held together” (Col 1:17; Grk. sunistemi). If Jesus pre-existed in eternity, and then became human, and lived a human life in preparation for his divine ministry, it is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus incorporates the miraculous in His ministry. And though we cannot precisely and neatly slice Jesus into his divine and human sides, this is the great mystery of God in the flesh (1 Tim 3.16).

Yet for some who initially beheld his ministry, this was difficult to absorb. The scribes and the Pharisees, the noted Jewish leaders of the day, heard the words of Jesus, “your sins are forgiven you,” and immediately cataloged His action as blasphemous. How did they come to this conclusion? They properly reasoned “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” If Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary, then it is logical to assume that Jesus is only human.

They were so close! The presupposition of the scribes and Pharisees is correct. Their working knowledge of biblical data and their perception of the situation is, at face value, true. This act of Jesus of Nazareth was therefore viewed as an arrogant hostile takeover of the prerogative of God (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33; Jer 31:34, etc.).[1]

Had Jesus simply been a mere mortal, they would be completely correct; however, they were dealing with a unique situation – Jesus is no mere mortal. He is the “Everlasting Father” (Isa 9:6), a Hebrew idiom meaning that he has an eternal existence (Micah 5:2; John 1:1).[2] Jesus is Immanuel, which means God among us (Matt 1:21-23). The Lord forgave the paralyzed man of his sins because He had the authority to do so. His authority is derived from His Divinity.

Was Jesus a Moralist?

Many have stumbled and erred regarding the nature of Jesus. To some, he is a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders of human existence. They over-emphasize his humanity and praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule). However, they cannot view him as a wonderful teacher of ethics and morals and at the same time deny his claims to divinity.

He was not a mere moralist who “inherited” and “perfected” a preexisting moral tradition from the Jews! And those who are so persuaded to think of Jesus in this light, C. S. Lewis stressed the inconsistency of this view:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. 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.[3]

We believe that the Pharisees and Scribes held a similar view that many hold  – that Jesus was a just great teacher. They were so close, but still so tragically far away from the real nature of God-Man Jesus.

Are You Close, or Yet so Far?

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 – actively or inactively – and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Again, we ponder over this decision with the words of Mr. Lewis:

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.[4]

The is a passage in the Gospel accounts that is often nicknamed “the Great Invitation.” It is in Matthew 11.28-30. In it, Jesus invites all who believe in him and his teaching.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

He promises that the life that he promises stems from his gentle and lowly heart, and promises rest for your soul. Someone has wonderfully said, that in verse 30 the pressure to successfully live out the teaching of Jesus “fits just right” according to each person’s burdens. We finally ask you: will you come so close to the truth of Jesus and his claims to divinity, or will come so close but yet stand so far off from the good life he promises. The answer is left in your hands. God bless you to do the right thing.

Endnotes

  1. Note: Special thanks to Dr. Earl D. Edwards, Head of the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Bible, for introducing me to this observation in a Bible class. It is not enough to simply observe that the Pharisees and scribes were wrongly charging the Lord with blasphemy, we must also appreciate that they had correctly reasoned that a human did not have this right or power – this was the sole possession of God.
  2. Wayne Jackson, Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1991), 25.
  3. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 52 (emphasis added).
  4. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 53 (emphasis added).