jmyers104

[jmyers104]

A Biblical View of Happiness

Introduction: “How Happy”

            Occasionally, one might hear a person say something like, “I just want to be happy” or “I am living the blessed life.” Those who use the former statement are expressing a desire to experience emotional bliss. Those who use the latter are typically referring to material prosperity.  English translations of the Bible use terms like “happy” and “blessed” to refer to God-followers, but if the above-mentioned meanings are imposed on the biblical text, then there is a very strong chance that God’s Word will be grossly misinterpreted and misapplied. It is of great importance, then, that Christians seek to understand such concepts as described in God’s Word. This word study will unpack the meaning of the first word in the first Psalm – a word that is translated “happy” or “blessed,” depending on the translation.

Hebrew Word and Usage

           The Hebrew word used is אֶשֶׁר, and it comes from the root word אָשָׁר. It occurs twenty-six times in the Psalms – eight times in Book I (1:1; 2:12; 32:1, 2; 33:12; 34:8; 40:4; 41:10, five times in Book III (65:4; 84:4, 5, 12; 89:15), twice in Book IV (94:12; 106:3), and eleven times in Book V (112:1; 119:1, 2; 127:5; 128:1, 2; 137:8, 9; 144:15 [twice]; 146:5). It is also found in numerous Old Testament passages (Deuteronomy 33:29; 1 Kings 10:8; 2 Chronicles 9:7; Job 5:17; Proverbs 3:13; 8:32, 34; 14:21; 16:20; 20:7; 28:14; 29:18; Ecclesiastes 10:17; Isaiah 30:18; 32:20; 56:2; Daniel 12:12).

English Translations

Psalm 1:1 in the CSB reads, “How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers.” Many popular translations use the term “blessed” instead of happy (NASB, ESV, NKJV, NIV). The NLT seeks to convey the concept behind this word by using the phrase “Oh, the joys.” But what exactly does it mean to be “happy” or “blessed?” By what standard is this type of person blessed? These questions – and questions like them – can be answered not by placing every possible meaning of this word in a given context, but in examining the context and determining the meaning. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the immediate context, as well as the various ways the author uses this word.

Contextual Settings

           The immediate context provides further insight into the meaning and importance of the word אֶשֶׁר. Psalm 1:1-2 reads, “How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers! Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction, and he meditates on it day and night” (CSB). Here, the Psalmist provides two conditions for this state of happiness – one negative and one positive. Negatively, the truly happy person abstains from sinful activities and people. Positively, he is to enjoy the God’s Word. In other words, this is a happiness that stems from disassociation with the wicked and delight in God.

           Thus, this is not happiness as the world defines it. Though this word often translated “happy” in the CSB, it is more than a feeling or emotion. It is a deep-seated joy that is not fazed by adverse circumstances. It can be compared to the weather in a given region. Though the temperature can vary depending on the season (and sometimes vary even depending on the day), the climate is fixed. Likewise, the “climate” of this individual’s disposition is one of joy and contentment in God. Though there are times when this person may not feel blessed because of trying times, he is nevertheless a blessed individual from God’s perspective.[1] Additionally, this is not a happiness that is based on man’s merit, but on God’s goodness.[2] This is not necessarily material prosperity, though God may choose to bless an individual with wealth as he did the Psalmist. However, this blessing speaks of a prosperity of the soul.[3]

It is worth noting that the original audience had neither a New Testament nor a completed Old Testament. This was a reference to the Pentateuch and a handful of other Old Testament writings. The New Testament community of believers therefore has even more reasons for rejoicing, for through the completed canon one experiences a fuller revelation from God.

אֶשֶׁר Throughout Scripture

Book I of the Psalms (chapters 1 through 41) uses this word as bookends, so a closer look at this portion of Scripture in particular will reveal the various shades and nuances associated with this word. Chapter 1 shows that this blessed person enjoys this status based on two resolutions: disassociation with the wicked and delight in God. These two propositions are echoed throughout the rest of Book I. Delight in God is reiterated in 2:12. The blessed person also finds great joy in the forgiveness of sins (32:1). The nation that is chosen to be God’s possession is considered blessed (33:12). Those who take refuge in the Lord are blessed (34:8). Similarly, the one who has put their trust in the Lord rather than “turned to the proud or those who run after lies” is blessed (40:4).

The cohesive nature of these verses is evident. What brings blessing is not partaking in certain works or activities to gain God’s favor, but clinging to God, which in turn brings favor and protection. In climactic fashion, the Psalmist declares at the end of Book I, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen” (41:13). In this great reveal, God is the one who is blessed. The joyful contentment is bound up in the character of God. The state of blessedness that the believer experiences comes not from within himself. Indeed, it is not an inherent happiness, but a quality of life that is derived from the God of blessing. In light of this realization, the one who is blessed by God should regularly declare with the Psalmist, “Blessed be the Lord.”

Conclusion

It is no accident that Psalm 1 is placed right at the beginning of the book. Psalm 1 has long been seen as an introduction to the entire Psalter.[4] One author even refers to this Psalm as “The text upon which the whole of the Psalms make up a divine sermon.”[5] If one can grasp the meaning of Psalm 1, he will be able to more fully understand the book of Psalms, and therefore be able to rightly apply God’s Word. Such an endeavor begins (quite literally!) with a proper understanding of אֶשֶׁר. Though much more could be said about this theologically rich Hebrew word, it is this author’s hope that what has been said in this brief overview has constructed something of a gateway into the book of Psalms.

      Bibliography

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h835/csb/wlc/0-1/

Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. R. (Samuel R., & Briggs, C. A. (Charles A. (1906). The                      Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: from A                   Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and                      Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Boston; New York:                            Houghton, Mifflin and Company.

Spurgeon, Charles. The Treasury of David. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019.

VanGemeren, Willem. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI:                              Zondervan, 2008.

Wilson, Gerald. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,                      2002.

   [1] VanGemeren, Willem. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI:            Zondervan, 2008), 78.

[2] Ibid., 78.

[3] Spurgeon, Charles. The Treasury of David (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019), 2.

[4] Wilson, Gerald. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 92.

[5] Spurgeon, Charles. The Treasury of David (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019), 1.

[jmyers104]

Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29)

           At different times in my life, I have had opportunities to sit down with Mormon missionaries to discuss theology. I do not know if these times have resulted in any of them getting saved, but these times served to sharpen my theology. One doctrinal distinctive that Mormons hold to is the baptism of the dead. According to Reed and Farkas, “Using information gleaned from elaborate and detailed genealogical research, vicarious baptisms and even marriages are performed with the idea that the dead people whose names are invoked actually benefit from these ceremonies just as much as if they were live participants.”[1] 1 Corinthians 15:29 is the key verse Mormons turn to in order to support this practice. Are they right? At first glance, this may seem like a practice that is in line with what Paul is addressing, and the fact that there is not a clear consensus from the evangelical realm only complicates matters. However, I believe that the Mormon view is unbiblical and that there is a reasonable explanation for this verse.

           Why do I say that the Mormon view of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is unbiblical? Because it contradicts what Scripture says elsewhere about how a person can be saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 reads, “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift – not from works, so that no one can boast.” If we contributed something to salvation – whether it be ours or someone else’s – then a certain degree of “bragging rights” would be in order. However, it is Christ alone who saves, and once a person dies, the time for repentance is no more. As the writer of Hebrews tells us, “…it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment” (9:27). More Scriptures could be cited, but I believe these three verses are sufficient to close the door on this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29.

           Ciampa and Rosner note that over forty interpretations of this verse have been recorded.[2] Of the many interpretations that have been suggested, two stand above the rest as the most likely options. The first option suggests that the verse could be translated “baptism on account of the dead,” or “baptism because of the dead.”[3] Those who affirm this view note that especially in the early church, baptism was synonymous with salvation. That is not to say that they believed that baptism saves. They simply mean that baptism was to inextricably linked to salvation (e.g., it was the first great public profession of faith after salvation) that to speak of baptism was to speak of baptism). Thus, when the resurrection of the dead was proclaimed among unbelievers, many desired to convert to Christianity and show their devotion to Christ through baptism. In a similar vein, MacArthur writes, “Paul may have simply been saying that people were being saved (baptism being the sign) because of the exemplary lives and witness of faithful believers who had died.”[4] This is possible, but I find it unlikely. I would certainly never want to put Paul in a literary box, saying what he should have said and should not have said. However, if this interpretation is correct, then why would Paul not simply say this? Further, why do Bible interpreters not interpret the verse in a way that reflects this meaning? It seems that Paul was referring to a baptism of the dead. Rather than explain it away, we must tackle the issue head-on, making no excuses for either the human author or the Divine Author.

           That leads me to the second (and, in my opinion, more likely) interpretation. 1 Corinthians 15 is all about the resurrection of Christ and His people. Paul begins by explaining the central role of Christ’s resurrection in the gospel message (vv. 1-11). Next, he discusses the consequences of denying the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12-19). From there, he details the significance of Christ’s resurrection (vv. 20-28). Paul then offers an exhortation in light of the various responses to the resurrection of the dead (vv. 29-34) before answering objections to belief in bodily resurrection (vv. 35-49) and explaining the necessity of the resurrection (vv. 50-57). Finally, Paul concludes chapter 15 with an appeal in light of the affirmation of the resurrection.[5] Thus, if verse 29 is to be understood in light of the importance of the resurrection in Christian theology.

           All throughout this chapter, Paul uses I and we language. To Paul, this was a reality for those who were in Christ. Interestingly enough, the only time in this chapter that Paul uses they is in verse 29. Whoever they are, Paul sees them as standing in contrast to true believers. In other words, Paul seems to be saying is that even a group of unbelievers recognized the significance of the resurrection. Paul, however, sought to show the Corinthians the true meaning and significance of the resurrection. Thus, verse 29 serves as a contrast between false views on the resurrection and the resurrection as taught by Paul.

           This brings us back full circle. Mormons not only misinterpret this verse, but in sprinkling in human effort in order to obtain salvation, they devalue Christ’s atoning work and miss the point of the gospel. Such things should be rejected as heresy. However, in dealing with a verse as tricky as 15:29, there is room for grace when we encounter believers hold to a different interpretation than us. After providing his interpretation of this verse, MacArthur writes, “Whether this is the right interpretation of this verse we cannot be certain, but we can be certain that people often come to salvation because of the testimony of those whom they desire to emulate.”[6] I would like to conclude with two insights that I have gleaned from MacArthur’s quote. The first insight comes from the latter part of this quote. Christ’s resurrection and the believer’s future bodily resurrection should encourage the believer. In a world that seems to be getting worse by the day, Christians have hope, and as we live in light of this hope, Christ is made attractive to unbelievers. The second insight comes from the first part of the quote. MacArthur says that we cannot be certain about our interpretation of this verse. I know few people who are so unwavering in their defense of Scripture’s inerrancy, infallibility, and authority. If a man as dogmatic as MacArthur says that there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding this verse, then I know I had better show grace to those who interpret this differently (so long as they stay within the confines of orthodoxy).

[1] Reed and Farkas, 85.

[2] Ciampa and Rosner, 780.

[3] Ibid., 785.

[4] MacArthur, 425.

[5] Ciampa and Rosner, xii.

[6] MacArthur, 426.

[jmyers104]

Who is Jesus? (Matthew 21:1-11)

Introduction

             One of the most important questions anyone can ask is, “Who is Jesus?” Western civilization offers many answers to that question. Many of these answers are incorrect or insufficient. For example, one might say that Jesus was a good teacher or a prophet, and while Scripture demonstrates that He was both of those things, He is much more. To settle for just a good teacher or a prophet is to miss what Jesus says about Himself.

This is not a new dilemma. Many in Jesus’ day were expecting a number of different things from the coming Messiah. This is clearly seen in Matthew 21:1-11. There were many different groups in the crowd, each with their own expectations of Jesus. There were Jesus’ own disciples (cf. Luke 19:37) that includes the 12 with a larger group (Matt 27:55-56). There are also those who are not necessarily disciples of Jesus but the crowd who followed Him throughout His earthly ministry who were merely concerned with what Jesus could do for them. Then there are curious people who are drawn by the excitement of a crowd. Finally, there are religious leaders keeping a close eye on Him (cf. Luke 19:39),[1] for they feared that Jesus might usurp their authority and power. With so many views of Jesus floating around on this inaugural Palm Sunday, it can be easy to miss what Jesus says about Himself through the noisy crowd. What matters most is not what the Passover crowd said about Jesus, but who Matthew reveals Jesus to be through His use of Old Testament Scriptures, as well as His quotations from Jesus. According to this passage, Jesus is the humble Messiah who has come to fulfill Scripture and rescue humanity through His substitutionary death on a cross. He is indeed the Son of David and will one day fully bring every tribe, tongue, and nation to their knees in submission, but there is not conquering King without a suffering Servant – something that virtually everyone in the crowd seemed to miss. The identity of Jesus is revealed throughout 3 sections: the preparation (vv. 1-5), the procession (vv. 6-8), and the proclamation (vv. 9-11).

           To place these verses within their larger context, this passage marks the beginning of Passion, the last seven days of Jesus’ life.[2] This section begins a larger section in which Jesus demonstrates His authority over Jerusalem. The climactic arrival of Jesus (21:1-11), is followed by an incident at the temple (21:12-17), the cursing of the fig tree (21:18-22), the debates with the religious leaders (21:23-22:46), and Jesus’ “woe” declarations (23:1-39).

Preparation (vv. 1-5)

             Matthew 20:29 shows that the last stop before Jerusalem was Jericho. From here, Jesus would have to travel about 15 miles and ascend 3,000 feet – all through the desert.[3] This was not a leisurely stroll.[4] This was a path that was notorious for highway robberies (Luke 10:30-35), so they are pressed for time if they want to make it to their destination by nighttime.[5]

           As they approached Jerusalem, they came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives. Bethphage was a suburb of Jerusalem separated by the steep Kidron valley.[6] Rabbinic writings place it about a mile from Jerusalem on the southeast side of the Mount of Olives.[7] The Mount of Olives derives its name from the olive groves that were prominent throughout the grounds.[8] It was east of Jerusalem and had an excellent view of the temple.[9] The image of Jesus coming down from the Mount of Olives harkens back to Zecheriah 14:3-2, where the Lord fights against the nations from the Mount of Olives and ultimately liberates Jerusalem.

           Upon their arrival, Jesus sent a pair of disciples into town to acquire a young donkey. It is unclear whether He orchestrated this event with the owner of the donkey or this was a supernatural occurrence. What is clear is that He intends for this to be a messianic fulfillment and Jesus is exercising divine control over events. Matthew alone mentions the fact that there are 2 donkeys, but this does not imply a contradiction. Mark 11:2 says the colt had never been ridden, so it makes sense for the mother to accompany it, keeping him calm in the noisy crowd.[10] Wilkins adds, “An unbroken young colt is best controlled by having its mother ride alongside to calm it in the midst of the tumult.”[11] It is worth mentioning that riding the donkey was not a matter of fatigue, but a matter of fulfillment. Jesus walked all the way from Galilee, so this was not a matter of needing the ride because He was tired.[12]

           As the disciples seek to acquire the donkey, they are advised that the owners may question them. Jesus tells the disciples, “If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them” (v. 3). The word translated “Lord” is used in different ways. It speaks of an earthly master or a deity. Matthew uses it to describe God as the Lord of the harvest (9:38), vineyard (20:8), and heaven and earth (11:20, 25). Here, it reveals Jesus as “the one who sovereignly superintends those events.”[13] The meaning here is twofold: He is the donkey’s Master, and He can rightfully demand people’s property at any time, for He is Lord over all.[14] It has been suggested that the phrase “the Lord needs Him” was a password. More likely, and in keeping with the lordship of Jesus, this is a divine requisitioning in which the owner understands that the King is making use of something that already belongs to Him (this was a common practice known as angereia).[15] Jesus was the real owner of the animal.[16]

           Verse 4 is a fulfillment of Zecheriah 9:9, but the first clause is drawn from Isaiah 62:11, a verse that also anticipates the coming Messiah.[17] The significance of this particular fulfillment is that it signifies that He is not coming as a military leader. He is coming not to conquer the Roman government but to conquer sin. With these words, Matthew shows that Jesus’ entry signals not a show of force, but a triumph that comes from suffering and humiliation.[18] Isaiah points to salvation, while Zechariah points to judgment on Israel’s enemies. What is interesting is the omission of the phrase “righteous and having salvations” which is in Zechariah 9:9. What this means is that the opposition and rejection will lead to God’s judgment for rejecting God’s salvation in Christ.

Procession (vv. 6-8)

             Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem has been called “The crescendo of Jesus’ messianic ministry.”[19] Messianic excitement was common during the Passover. Messianic excitement was highest during Passover. With the recent raising of Lazarus in a nearby town, the crowd was electric as Jesus entered into town.[20] People crowded into Jerusalem from Palestine and the Diaspora. A city that usually housed 70,000 citizens easily swelled up to 250,000 during Passover. .[21]

             Jesus was essentially given the “red carpet” treatment.[22] “Palms symbolized Jewish nationalism and victory.”[23] A historical example would be when Judas Maccabeus led his followers in a revolt that saw them recovering the Jerusalem temple from Antionus (2 Macc 10:7). A lot of coins at the time had palms on them, which represented Jewish and Roman nationalism.[24]

           The picture here is one of celebration and honor – similar to Old Testament and intertestamental parades for victorious kings and generals (2 Kgs 9:13; 1 Macc 13:51). The crowd’s laying clothing and branches on the ground is further evidence that they are mistaken concerning the Messiah’s purpose.[25] The crowds recognize the messianic significance of Jesus’ entry into town, but its full meaning is lost on them. They failed to see the donkey because they were blinded by their desire for a messiah who would meet their selfish desires.[26]

Proclamation (vv. 9-11)

             As Jesus entered the city, the people cried out, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven!” Hosanna means “O save.” The title “son of David” is unmistakably messianic, especially when linked with “Hosanna.” This chant echoes Psalm 118:19-29, especially verse 25. However, the salvation Christ brought was not the salvation they were looking for. “The acclamation of the crowd of Galilean pilgrims streaming into Jerusalem is ironic in the sense that they have no awareness or appreciation for the truth, i.e., that the primary messianic act is suffering and death, they seek deliverance and victory but not the way Jesus intends.”[27] Osborne writes, “The people are calling out divine blessing on their expected deliverer, but they will be delivered by the suffering Servant rather than a conquering king.”[28] The same ones crying “Hosanna” here will be shouting “crucify Him” by the end of the week because He did not deliver on their expectations. This is ultimately why He weeps over the city (Luke 19:42-44).

           Galilee was primarily where Jesus ministered and revealed His identity, but Jerusalem would be the location of His greatest self-revelation, and it begins here as He enters into town, the people are in an “uproar.” The word in the Greek is “used of earthquakes and apocalyptic upheavals” (Matt 27:51; Rev 6:13).[29] Wild with excitement, some began to, “Who is this?”  This is not a question of unfamiliarity. Matthew is concerned with Christology. With so many expectations of Jesus in the crowd, the reader is pushed to consider this question.[30]

The crowd’s answer is truthful but inadequate. They understand Jesus to be a prophet, but He is much more than that. They refer to Him as the Son of David, but the fickleness of their confession is seen by the end of the week.

Conclusion

             In this passage, Jesus has been shown to be the promised Messiah who humbly enters into Jerusalem to atone for sins. The crowds wanted a Savior who would rescue them from the Roman government, and when it became clear that Jesus was not going to deliver them in the way they desired to be delivered, they crucified them. And yet, the crucifixion became the means through which Christ fulfilled His purpose as the suffering Servant. Wilkins writes, “With his sacrifice on the cross, the actual atonement for humanity’s sin is accomplished, which becomes the basis for the creation of a new humanity with the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.”[31]

                   Bibliography

 Beeke, Joel. Reformed Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.

Blomberg, Craig. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville, TN: Broadman &               Holman, 1992.

Cousland, J. R. C. The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Derek Dodson and Katherine Smith, eds. Exploring Biblical Backgrounds: A Reader in                             Historical & Literary Contexts (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2018), 179.

Frame, John. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg: P & R                 Publishing, 2013.

France, R.T. Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity                  Press, 1985.

MacArthur, John and Richard Mayhue Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical                     Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

Osborne, Grant. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Grand               Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.

Wilkins, Michael. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,                       2004.

 [1] Wilkins, 688.

[2] Osborne, 750.

[3] Wilkins, 684.

[4] Osborne, 753.

[5] Wilkins, 685.

[6] France, 300.

[7] Osborne, 753.

[8] Wilkins, 685.

[9] Ibid.

[10] France, 302.

[11] Wilkins, 687.

[12] France, 299.

[13] Wilkins, 686.

[14] Blomberg, 311.

[15] Osborne, 754.

[16] France, 301.

[17] Ibid., 302.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Wilkins, 684.

[20] Ibid., 686.

[21] Osborne, 755-756.

[22] Osborne, 756.

[23] Wilkins, 687.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Blomberg, 313.

[26] Ibid., 312.

[27] Osborne, 751.

[28] Ibid., 756.

[29] Blomberg, 313

[30] Ibid.

[31] Wilkins, 700

[jmyers104]

Calvinism vs. Arminianism: A Crash Course

Introduction

For the sake of this discussion board, the focus will be limited to the TULIP acronym (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints). Calvin did not create this acronym, but generally speaking, Calvinists hold to the above-mentioned doctrines and Arminians do not. After a brief comparison, Scripture will be surveyed to determine which view is biblical.

Explanation

Arminians deny the doctrine of total depravity. Human nature was affected by the Fall, but God has enabled the sinner to repent and place his faith in Christ. Man has free will and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. The Calvinist, however, affirms that all men are totally depraved. Not only is man incapable of saving himself, but he is neither willing nor able to believe in the gospel. He remains enslaved to his sin nature, and his only hope of salvation is for God to intervene.[1]

Concerning the doctrine of unconditional election, Arminians believe that God determined the elect by looking down the corridors of time and seeing who would respond to the gospel. Calvinists believe that such a view gives too much credit to man and devalues the doctrine of God's sovereignty.[2]

What about limited atonement? Arminians believe that Christ's atonement was a “potential” atonement. That is to say, Christ's atonement for sins made it possible for any man to be saved, but salvation is only put into effect if accepted. Calvinists, on the other hand, generally believe that Christ died only for the elect. This was not a potential atonement, but an actual one that guaranteed salvation for God's elect.[3]

Arminians affirm that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. Though He draws people towards salvation in Christ, man's free will can stifle His work and prevent their salvation. Calvinists maintain that when the Spirit draws someone, He cannot be resisted, and that individual will surely be saved. Making a distinction between a general call to salvation that goes out to everyone and a particular call that sees the Spirit drawing certain individuals, one author writes the following: "In addition to the outward general call to salvation, which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation."[4]

Arminians generally affirm that believers can lose their salvation, although there is some disagreement among Arminians on this point. Calvinists teach that those whom God saves will persevere to the end and see their salvation fully realized – not based on their efforts, but based on God's sovereign election. True, some abandon the faith, but such individuals were never saved to begin with (1 John 2:18-19).[5]

Examination

The important question to ask at this point is not which system seems to be the most air-tight, but rather which one is biblical? Each of the 5 points will now be examined in light of Scripture.

          Scripture describes man as spiritually dead. There are no truly righteous men (Rom 3:10). Showing the extent to which our nature is affected by the Fall, King David laments, "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me" (Ps 51:5). Before salvation, all men are dead in their trespasses (Eph 2:1). The parallel is clear: just as dead people cannot resurrect themselves, so spiritually dead people cannot give themselves spiritual life - dead people cannot do anything. The Fall has affected even our minds and hearts. Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood (Gen 8:21). The human heart is full of evil (Eccl 9:3); indeed, it is deceitfully wicked (Jer 17:9). In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus notes the specific manifestations of this evil: "For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, self-indulgence, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a person.” It seems clear from Scripture that man is unable to save himself and indeed cannot do so because he is spiritually dead.

What about the doctrine of election? The Old Testament describes how God chose a nation, but this is not the same as electing individuals for salvation. Logic would almost dictate that if man cannot respond to the gospel call because he is dead, then he needs a divine work to take place inside him. Does Scripture speak of this kind of election? Ephesians 1:4 says that God "chose us in him, before the foundation of the world." This election was an act of God that took place before man was even created, which implies that it was not based on man's actions. The Arminian may object, stating that God foresaw our actions and chose His people based on that, but the doctrine of total depravity shows that nobody would have responded were it not for God's work, and other Scripture verses support this view (Matt 11:27; Matt 24:22; Mark 13:20; Acts 13:48; Col 3:12). But how is it fair that God chooses some and not others? According to one author, " It would have been perfectly just for God to have left all men in their sin and misery and to have shown mercy to none. God was under no obligation whatsoever to provide salvation for anyone." The fact that God saves some and not others is not unfair, for anything less than hell is mercy.

Next is the doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinists and Arminians should all be in agreement on the fundamentals of the gospel: Christ died to atone for the sins of man, and Christ’s atonement is the only hope for salvation. Those who deny this truth are outside the circle of orthodoxy. The contention is centered on the nature and extent of the atonement (as seen above). God loves the world (the people, but not the sinful world system) and demonstrated his love by giving up His only Son so that those who believed in Him would have eternal life (John 3:16). Indeed, Christ died for the world (1 John 2:2). There are other Scripture’s that “reign in” any possible misunderstandings on this point; that there are people in hell is sufficient proof that salvation is not universal, but only for those who believe in Christ. Still there is a noticeable tension here; while Christ died for the world, Jesus explicitly states that He lays His life down for His sheep (John 10:11). Logically speaking, it is hard to fathom why Christ would die for the sins of those who are in hell. For Him to atone for their sins and still allow them go to hell seems like double jeopardy, but if this were the case, it would only further highlight just how depraved man is and how foolish it is to reject Christ. It seems as though either could be true, but here is what is certain: Christ’s atonement was sufficient to atone for the elect, and He was certainly capable of atoning for every sin that everyone ever committed. Regardless, everyone who is in heaven – and will one day enter heaven – will be there because Christ paid the penalty for their sins.

As with limited atonement, there is some common ground among Calvinists and Arminians. Both should agree that the Holy Spirit plays a vital role in salvation, but there is disagreement on the degree to which He draws sinners. It has already been established that man is dead in his trespasses. He needs to be brought to life, and God accomplishes such a spiritual resurrection by the Holy Spirit. Here is what we know from Scripture: “The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). All those led by the Spirit are God’s sons (Rom 8:14). In 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul writes, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” The Holy Spirit’s role in salvation is undeniable. The Father chooses people for salvation, Christ secures that salvation, and the Spirit applies that salvation to our lives.

Last is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and Scripture affirms this doctrine repeatedly (Jer 32:40; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 10:27-30; Rom 5:8-11). To say that a believer can lose his salvation is to fail to understand God’s salvific work, for He who began a good work will bring it to completion (Phil 1:6). If it were up to man, salvation would certainly be lost. But God has chosen a people to justify, sanctify, and glorify; and this new people group will worship and enjoy Him for all eternity. He will not fail in bringing this to pass. Therefore, I agree with Starling’s assessment of Pelagianism. While I never would have thought to refute his teachings using Deuteronomy, there is sound biblical truth contained in his chapter on Deuteronomy.

Conclusion

We would do well to learn from Charles Spurgeon, as he seemed to understand better than most the balance between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. To him, God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility “are two lines that are so nearly parallel that the human mind that pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth springs.”[6]

Ultimately, he recognized that his salvation was wholly a work of God. In thinking through God’s saving work in his own life, Spurgeon writes,

How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment: I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession: “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”[7]

Ultimately, it is God who gets the glory for our salvation. Whether one holds to the doctrine of free will or denies man’s ability to even respond of his own volition, all Christians must acknowledge that we are saved by grace through faith, not as a result of our works, but as a gift of God.

[jmyers104]

Hebrew Word Study: “Rebellion”

 Daniel 9:20-28 records a vision of the Lord to Daniel concerning future events. Verse 24 reads, “ Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city — to bring the rebellion to an end, to put a stop to sin, to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.” There is much more to the vision, but for the purpose of this assignment, special attention will be given to this verse – specifically to the word translated “rebellion” in the Christian Standard Bible. In order to determine the meaning of this word, attention must be given to its semantic range and its semantic field. Therefore, we will consider all the ways it could be used, and then we will briefly look at words related to “rebellion,” specifically the ones mentioned in verse 24. It must be noted, however, that just because the word “rebellion" can be defined a number of ways does not mean that it carries with it all of those meanings into verse 24. Therefore, we must take care to consider its context so as to determine the author’s intended usage. 

The word translated “rebellion” comes from the Hebrew word חַטָּאת֙ It is a masculine noun and is transliterated “pesha.” The Hebrew word חַטָּאת֙ commonly carries with it the idea of transgression. This can be transgression against individuals, a nation, a land, or even God. It can also refer to rebellious acts or to rebellion in a general sense. The verb form of this word means to rebel or transgress. Often times, when this word is used, it is done so in conjunction with the idea that God forgives transgressions. “Rebellion” is not the only way this word is translated. The KJV, NASB, and ESV all translate it “the transgression,” while the NLT falls in line with the CSB, translating it “rebellion.” This word is used 94 times in the Nestle Aland. Further, it is translated “breach of trust” once, “rebellion” 6 times, “rebellious” once, “rebellious act” twice, “rebellious acts” twice, “transgression” 37 times, and “transgressions” 45 times.

There are 2 other words in this verse that parallel this word “. The first is “sin,” which is a more general term than “transgressions.” “Iniquity” is the other term. Baldwin writes, “If there is progression and repetition in these parallel clauses, the last marks the climax.” Whether a distinction is to be seen among these three words, or the reader is to see this as a compounding of ideas, one thing is clear: when God deals with sin, it will be comprehensive and final. The word “atone” in this passage shows that this is done in a way that does not conflict with His holy nature. As members of the New Covenant, we recognize that Christ atoned for our sins on the cross, and when He returns, He will bring this age to an end, and with it the end of any and every type of unrighteousness. 

[jmyers104]

Hebrew Word Study: “Restore”

Verbs play a significant role in any language. If the various parts of speech were cast as stars in an action movie, the verb would take the leading role and get all the action sequences, while conjunctions and the like would play supporting roles. That is not to say that other parts of speech are insignificant. The point here is simply that verbs are what communicate action, and to remove verbs from any language is to essentially render said language inert.      

Because the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, the student of Scripture would do well to study the verbs in this language. Granted, there are many outstanding English translations on the market, but if one is to grasp all the nuances of a particular verb in the Old Testament, he would do well to study the Hebrew behind such words. The goal of this brief essay, then, is to put this into practice as one verb in Psalm 57 is carefully considered and the word “restore” is closely examined.

King David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam 13:14). And yet, there was a time in his life where he slid into sin and failed to repent, seeking to cover up his sin. God therefore sent Nathan to confront David, and David ultimately repented of his sin. Though he would face severe consequences for his actions, he rejoiced that he could once again truly enjoy the presence of the Lord in his life. It was in this context that David penned the words of Psalm 57. His penitent disposition is evident in the plethora of verbs used in just in verses 7 through 13: 

Purify me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice. Turn your face away from my sins and blot out all my guilt. God, create a clean heart for me and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not banish me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore the joy of your salvation to me, and sustain me by giving me a willing spirit. Then I will teach the rebellious your ways, and sinners will return to you (emphasis added).

The word “restore” comes from the Hebrew word חָדַשׁ and is transliterated chadash. Strong's concordance notes that this word means “to be new; causatively, to rebuild: - renew, repair.”[1] It is used twice here: once in verse 10 and again in verse 12. It will be further examined below as it is studied in its literary context.

This word is found 11 times in the NASB and is translated “restore,” “renew,” and “repair,” depending on the context. In 1 Samuel 11:14, Samuel said to the people, “Come and let us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom there.”  It said that the altar of the Lord was restored in 2 Chronicles 15:8. Josiah decided to restore the house of the Lord in 2 Chronicles 24:4. Carpenters were hired to restore the house of the Lord (2 Ch 24:12). Job 10:17a says, “You renew your witnesses against me.” In Psalm 51 it is translated “restore” both times it is used. This word is translated “renew" twice more in the Psalms. One time it is used in a metaphorical sense, speaking of youth that is renewed like an eagle (103:5), and the other time it speaks of God renewing the face of the ground (104:30). It is used in Isaiah 61:4 in reference to repairing ruined cities. Lamentations 5:21 reads, “Restore us to You, O Lord, that we may be restored; Renew our days as of old.” Interestingly, the words translated “restore" and “restored” here are not derived from חָדַשׁ, but “renew.”[2] Discussing why that is so is perhaps outside the scope of this brief study, but is something this author would be interested in exploring at a later date.

As seen from these examples, חָדַשׁ can be used in reference to repairing physical structures, or it can speak of the restoration of man. Context dictates the meaning. It is fairly obvious that David is speaking of spiritual restoration in Psalms 51:1, but a closer look at the semantic field (i.e., the related words in this passage) will show just how far-reaching this restoration is.

It is evident from this passage that David was wholly dependent on God to renew his relationship with Him. What exactly is David asking God to renew? A steadfast spirit, to begin with. The word “steadfast" (כּוּן) refers to something that is firmly established. [3]This is something that is secure and fixed. “Spirit" (רוּחַ) means many things in the Old Testament, but it this context, it is referring to David's inner man.[4] Essentially, David is pleading with God that He bring him back to the place he once was – that unwavering disposition and singular focus on God that kept him from falling into gross immorality.

Again, this word is found in verse 12, this time in reference to the joy of David’s salvation. Note that David has not lost his salvation. He is not asking God to restore his status as a God-follower. Rather he is asking that God restore the joy that comes from salvation – the joy David was unable to experience because he was loving in habitual sin. In line with this request, David asks that God would sustain him by giving him a willing spirit. This word for spirit is the same as the one in verse 10, but there are 2 other words that must be examined so as to better comprehend this idea of renewal and restoration. To “sustain” (סָמַךְ) is “to lean, lay, rest, support, put, uphold, lean upon.”[5] A rule of thumb in word study is to never assume that a given word carries all its possible meanings into a given context. Just because it can mean several different things does not means it does means all those things in its context. In this case, given then comprehensive nature of the restorative power of God, the idea of God sustaining David does include all of these definitions. If David is to refrain from sin, he needs both God’s thorough work of restoration and His sustaining power on His life. Finally, David’s spirit must be willing. That is to say, his disposition must be one that sees him delighting in the law of the Lord (cf. Ps. 1). When God was finished with this thorough cleansing process, David would be sure to instruct others concerning the righteousness of God.

What are some takeaways for the New Testament believer? First of all, one should learn from David’s sins so as to prevent a similar slide into immorality. Unfortunately, sin is inevitable in this life. All have sinned, and even post-conversion, there is something in every Christian that pulls him back towards certain aspects of the old life. This is why every believer must adopt David’s attitude of complete dependence on God to renew and restore the spirit of man. As the believer experiences this renewal, he must follow in David’s footsteps of proclaiming the grace of God to all who will listen.

[jmyers104]

Seeing our Lord in the Old Testament

Introduction

·       Title of my sermon: “Seeing our Lord in the Old Testament.” Our pastor has been preaching a series entitled “Seeing our Lord in Luke’s Gospel,” and I would like to supplement his messages by considering Jesus from another angle.

·       This title may seem strange for a couple of reasons.

o   Reason 1: If we are talking about the Old Testament, then why is the sermon centered around a New Testament passage? We are going to look at some OT Scriptures tonight, but tonight I want to focus on what Jesus says about the OT.

o   Reason 2: Jesus is not mentioned by name in the OT. But consider Luke 24:27. Jesus had just risen from the dead and was on the road to Emmaus with 2 disciples. “Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted for them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures.” Remember, the NT had not been written yet. This was referring to the OT, which tells us that the OT points to Jesus.

o   This does not promote Where’s Waldo theology where Jesus is hidden in the pages of Scripture and you have to unlock some secret meaning. You don’t spiritualize the text to make it say something that it doesn’t say.

o   What it does mean: Jesus is the focal point of the OT. The Bible is not a collection of stories to teach us how to live moral lives. The Bible is not primarily an ethical book. The Bible is God’s record of who He is and what He has done to redeem man through Jesus Christ.

o   If you don’t read your OT, you don’t know Jesus like you should. You may have enough knowledge to get saved, but you haven’t experienced Jesus as fully as you could.

o   My guess is the back third of your Bible has far more wrinkles than the front two-thirds. I commend you for reading your Bible at all. And believe me, I understand how difficult it can be to read and understand parts of the OT. That was the Ethiopian eunuch’s problem in Acts. Plus, I’m not aware of any devotional books that have been written on Leviticus or Numbers. But if you aren’t making a habit of immersing yourself in ALL of Scripture, then you won’t be able to love, know, and appreciate Jesus like you should.

·       What I want to do during our time together is not just help you to understand Matt 5:17-20, but I want to set you on a trajectory that has you reading, understanding, and delighting in the OT.

  Background and Context

·       Context: Jesus has just taught that we are children of God and citizens of the kingdom of heaven. Because of this, we are to live in such a way as to reflect God’s glory so that others may see it and be drawn to Him. But how? The Sermon on the Mount displays the type of life the Christian is to live. This passage serves as an introduction to that theme.

·       Rather than contradict the OT, Jesus points out implications that had not been understood.

·       There is a positive side and a negative side to this teaching.

o   Positive: In verses 17 and 18, Jesus’ teachings are in complete harmony with the OT Scriptures and do not contradict them in any way.

o   Negative: In verses 19 and 20, the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees are shown to contradict both Jesus and the OT.

The Role of the Old Testament (v. 17)

·       Its role is to point us to Jesus.

·       “Do not think.”

o   Jesus wants us to know that that what He is about to teach in vv. 21-48 is in no way at odds with the Law. That is why He starts with this passage. He is deepening the law, not attacking it or criticizing it.

o   For Jesus to attempt to set aside the OT would brand Him as a heretic. If fact, it seems that some were already beginning to believe that He was a heretic. So what Jesus does before He deepens their understanding of the Law is He sets the record straight.

·       We’ve got to define some terms before we get to the full meaning of this verse. First is the “Law.”

o   3 parts: moral, judicial, ceremonial.

o   Moral: 10 commandments, principles given by God.

o   Judicial: legislative law given to Israel for its peculiar circumstances at that time.

o   Ceremonial: burnt offerings, sacrifices, rituals.

o   Jesus is referring to everything the Law teaches about life, conduct, and behavior.

o   At the beginning of the year, I decided that I would spend the year working through the Psalms. Any time I sit down to do my devotional, I’m in the Psalms. Recently, I worked my way through Ps 119, the longest chapter in the Bible. I’m consistently amazed at how Scripture ties together, and I’m equally amazed at how what I’m studying at any given time ties in with what I’m learning or hearing in other places. Ps 119 complements today’s passage.

    We are to love the law so much that it dominates our thinking. Verse 97: “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.”

    Obedience to the law leads to understanding. Verse 100, “I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts.” “Precepts,” by the way, is just a synonym for “law.”

    Verse 89 echoes Jesus’ teaching on the lifespan of the law. It is not temporary. Verse 89 says, “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.”

    Love for the law leads to hatred for the things that run contrary to it. Verse 113, “I hate the double-minded, but I love your law.” Verse 128, “I hate every false way.”

    The motivation for keeping the law is that it brings peace. Verse 165, “Great peace have those who love your law.”

    We could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The law was of utmost importance to King David, and Jesus affirmed its importance as well.

·       The Prophets.

o   All the prophetic books of the OT (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.).

o   The prophets taught, applied, and interpreted the Law.

o   They would tell the nation of Israel how they had forsaken God’s Word and would seek to get them to repent and walk with God.

o   They spoke of the coming Messiah.

·       “Law” and “Prophets” sums up the entire OT.

·       “Fulfill”

o   Does not mean to complete, finish, add to what has already been started. It means to carry out.

o   Jesus came to fulfill the OT in the sense that He would give full obedience to it. He came to carry out everything that was written in the OT.

o   Fulfilling the Law for Jesus included obedience, but it was not limited to it. He gives the OT its clear and intended meaning.

·       The OT is just as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. It should still be studied and taught, not just referenced. Don’t let the back third of your Bible be the only part that gets wrinkles in the pages. We need to hear from Isaiah as much as we need to hear from Matthew.

·       The Law points to Jesus and is fulfilled in Jesus.

·       We could look at example after example in the OT, but for the sake of time, we will unpack just one OT passage.

·       Numbers 5:1-4

o   There is a practical purpose, a theological purpose, and a Christological purpose.

o   Practical

    God’s command to send them outside the camp may seem cruel, and it may seem hard, but it was for the good of the nation. Had they stayed in the camp, the disease could have spread like wildfire, effectively wiping out the nation of Israel.

o   Theological

    God is holy. God is present. God has spoken.

    He is holy. He is completely separate from sin. This shows us that God can’t be around defilement. In order to come in contact with God, we must be clean. Isn’t it interesting, though, that they aren’t told how to make themselves clean? They couldn’t make themselves clean. The priests could not make them clean. In fact, all the priests could do was declare someone to be clean or unclean.

    God is present. Even when the situation seems hopeless and we feel all alone, He is with His people.

    God has spoken. And when He spoke, His people listened. It’s amazing to me. In the face of something that may have seemed so unfair, the people obeyed God. They had not brought the leprosy on themselves. This was no fault of their own. I had to say goodbye to my own children when their mother asked for a divorce and moved to Hawaii. But even though I had to let them go, it wasn’t as painful as having to send them outside the camp because they were defiled. There’s going to come a time when you’re faced with some pretty awful circumstances. That’s when you’re really going to see if you believe this book.

o   Christological

    Luke 5:12-14

Ø  As you’re turning to Luke, remember that they were not told in the OT how to cleanse themselves of leprosy.

Ø  Read passage.

Ø  So Jesus encounters a leper. The leper falls at Jesus’ feet and asks for Him to heal Him.

Ø  You can feel the tension. You can hear the gasps of the crowd. You can hear the screams: “Don’t do it, Jesus! Don’t touch Him! You will be made unclean!” And Jesus reaches out…and He touches Him. And not only is Jesus not made unclean, He makes the leper clean! He did what the priests could not do. He did what the people could not do on their own. He makes the leper clean.

Ø  Heals physical lepers, but more importantly, He heals spiritual lepers.

Ø  You realize that apart from Christ, you’re a spiritual leper, don’t you? You are plagued with something much worse than leprosy, something far deadlier than HIV. It’s SIN. Because of our sin, because of our rebellion against God, we are spiritual lepers.

Ø  He isn’t made unclean when He comes in contact with us – He makes us clean!

Ø  How can He do this? The answer is found in Heb 13.

    Heb 13:11-13

Ø  How can He do this? He can do this because He suffered outside the camp on our behalf!

Ø  He can cleanse you of even the ugliest sins in your life. Maybe there’s a sin you’ve hidden deep in the lockbox of your heart. You haven’t brought it to Jesus. Maybe you’re saying, “Not that sin, Jesus. You can’t possibly cleanse me of that. I’ve gone too far. I’ve sinned too much.” And Jesus invites you, “Come and meet me outside the camp; I’ve already paid for that sin in full.”

Ø  Paul Washer: the most difficult challenge the child of God will ever face will be to look in the mirror of God’s Word, see how sinful he truly is, and still believe that God loves him as much as He says He does.

Ø  Christ makes us clean. He is the spotless Lamb. He suffered outside the camp and fulfilled the ceremonial law. That is why we no longer do animal sacrifices. The ceremonial law has not been abolished, it has been fulfilled.

·       If it seems that certain parts of the Law are “abolished,” it’s not because of their loss of status as the Word of God. And it’s not because the NT amended the OT. It is because their role has changed. The sacrificial system is no longer necessary because Jesus in our once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 8-10).

The Relevance of the Old Testament (v. 18)

·       This verse starts with the Greek work amen. It means “to verify a key teaching.” Used over 30(?) times in Matthew, and it is used at critical points (give the background of why it was so critical).

·       Iota…dot/jot…tittle

o   The iota is the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet.

o   The NLT reads, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.”

o   Even the smallest stroke of the pen will be fulfilled.

o   One commentator writes, “Scripture does not simply contain the words of God; the words of Scripture are the very Word of God.”

o   We don’t just seek to obey the “big” commands; they are all God’s words and we seek to honor Him in all of it.

o   God’s Law is absolute. It can’t be abolished, changed, or amended. Everything in the OT will be carried out, even to the smallest detail.

·       To show us that the OT is still relevant, Jesus gives us Matt 5:21-48.

·       Matt 5:21-48

o   Time will not allow us to flesh out everything Christ teaches in this passage. But there is one overarching principle that I want you to see.

o   Jesus covers several topics here (anger, lust, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and loving our enemies). In each of these sections, you see the formula, “You have heard it said…but I say…”

o   Jesus sets Himself up as the Authority. He hasn’t come parroting all the sayings of the scribes and Pharisees. He wants to affirm the OT, and more than that, He wants to expose the true meaning of the Scriptures. And in doing so, He sets the bar impossibly high. In fact, the bar is set at perfection. In order to keep the law, you must be perfect.

o   Some people say, “Man, I’m glad I didn’t live during OT times. Animal sacrifices, festivals…that would have been too much work. That life just seems too hard.” But if that’s the way you think, you’ve got it backwards. Maybe it would have been difficult, but it is nothing in comparison to the Christian life. It is nothing in comparison to Matthew 5. It is much harder to have a pure mind than it is to kill an animal. It is much harder to love your neighbor than it is to observe a feast. It is much harder to show mercy to those we don’t think deserve it than it is to do a purification ritual. You are to be perfect.

o   But here’s the problem: none of us are perfect. Your best fifteen minutes on this earth couldn’t get you into heaven. You at your best can’t keep all these commands. There has never been a time when you have obeyed these commands perfectly. Never. Not once. And yet there was never a time when Christ did not fully and perfectly keep the law.

o   David loved the law. But we know that as much as he loved it, he failed miserably. But Christ never grew weary in doing good works. Even on the cross, He was quoting Scripture. There were no 4 letter words coming out of His mouth, only words that gave evidence of a heart that was sold out to God.

o   Are you starting to see just how amazing our Jesus is? Hold on to your Bibles; we’re only halfway through the passage.

Our Relationship to the Old Testament (v. 19)

·       Jesus made both positive and negative statements. That is, He not only gave us doctrine, but He also criticized false doctrines. We can’t be afraid to do the same. Sometimes, we’ve got to drop the theological hammer. It’s not necessarily bad form to call out false teachers. There is a wrong way to do it (i.e. prideful heart), but faithful teachers expose erroneous doctrines. People that say you shouldn’t do this have probably never read the NT.

·       The Law is meant to be followed so long as this world exists.

·       Does “least” and “great” mean that certain people will enjoy a greater status in heaven?

o   God will reward you for your service on earth. Those who place a high premium on doing and teaching the Word will be rewarded. But I want you to consider a similar statement Jesus made so you will understand that every Christian will enjoy heaven fully. We sometimes have this picture of heaven in our minds where the great saints of the Bible are closer to the throne of God and the ones who sinned more and got saved later in life are in the nosebleed section and can only see Jesus on the Jumbotron. That is not a biblical view of the kingdom of heaven.

o   In Matthew 20:16, Jesus says that the last will be first and the first will be last. That is not a contradiction. That’s a circular way of saying that we will all finish in a dead heat. Salvation is freely and fully given to all who come to Jesus. If that doesn’t seem fair, it’s because you don’t understand how sinful you are.

o   Jesus saved the thief of the cross in his dying hour. He got all of Jesus.

o   Religious leaders like Nicodemus were not valued over adulterous women. If you don’t believe me, go read John 3 and 4. The preacher and prostitute will enjoy the same quality of life in heaven.

o   We deny the Mormon teachings on heaven. We deny that there are 3 levels of heaven, and the ones who did more good deeds are closer to God. We affirm that He took on our sin so we can be viewed as having His righteousness. We are therefore all equally righteous, because the law demands perfection. Jesus makes us perfect, and therefore God awakens us to enjoy Him fully. When we get saved, we get all of Jesus.

o   Heaven isn’t heaven because of crowns, it is heaven because of Christ.

o   MacArthur: “All the redeemed receive the same eternal life, whether they are young or old, respectable or contemptible, Pharisees or tax-gatherers. No one who comes to Christ is either preferred or slighted because of past experience. The same eternal life is offered to all.”

o   Objections to this teaching.

    “That’s not fair.” Believe me, you don’t want fair. Fairness means Christ stays in heaven and you go to hell.

    “Why live for Christ if this is true?” That just showcases your ungrateful heart. When you understand how much you have been forgiven, you will gladly live for Christ, even if it costs you.

    “If this is true, then I’ll wait to serve Christ. I’ll just live the way I want and get serious in my later years.” Play chicken with God if you want. You aren’t even guaranteed tomorrow. Take a stroll through a cemetery and you’ll see tombstones of 60 year-olds and 6 year-olds. Death can come for you at any moment.

·       Transition

 The Requirement Old Testament (v. 20)

·       Pharisee: means “separatist.” They had formed a code of laws stricter than the law of Moses. Because of their strict lifestyle, others looked to them as the models of virtue.

·       Scribes

o   Taught, interpreted, and preserved the law.

o   They were the professors and scholars of their day.

o   They were the ones whose sermons were broadcasted on Christian radio. They were broadcasted on WJEW and WWJD.

·       You mean to tell me I have to be better than them in order to get into heaven?

·       How can this be so? There is none righteous (Rom 3).

·       Do we have to do more good works than the scribes and Pharisees to get into heaven? Is this a salvation by works?

·       Also, notice that it does not say “match” or “equal.” It says we are to exceed or surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

·       But you see, the Pharisees’ ultimate goal was to honor himself, not God. He delighted in his performance, not the Prince of Peace.

·       You see, Pharisees look at others and rejoice that they aren’t like the sinners. Christians look at God’s laws and see their sinfulness and are brought low.

·       The Pharisees weren’t too concerned with “white collar” sins. That was true of the Pharisees back then, and that’s true of Pharisees today.

·       The problem with the Pharisees is the same in every religious movement: their concerns are the external, not the internal. They are focused on their behavior but not on their belief. They fail to realize that our beliefs shape and determine our behavior. That is why Paul begins his epistles with doctrine before moving to ethics. Doctrine is the foundation for proper ethical behavior.

·       Osborne: “The lifestyle God demands is of the heart, lived out in daily actions.”

·       Jesus transforms hearts, which in turn transforms our actions.

·       If the religious leaders in Jesus’ day were experts in the law and still failed, then what does Jesus require of me?

·       Jesus requires that you look in the mirror of God’s Word, see your sinfulness for what it is, repent of your sins, and follow Him. The law was never meant to save. The purpose of the Law is to bring us to Jesus!

·       We are to live righteous lives, but our external righteousness should be the evidence of our salvation, not the cause of it.

·       Pharisees keep commands strictly out of duty. Christians obey out of delight.

·       Someone once said that religion is that which a man does with his own solitude. What you do when you are alone will show who your god really is.

·       Now, the Pharisees had works with no faith. Our problem in the Bible Belt is that we claim to have faith, but yet we have no works to back it up.

·       MLJ, “The man who has been born again, and who has the divine nature within him, is a man who is righteous and his righteousness does exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.

·       So what is the requirement of the OT? Perfection. But because none of us are perfect, our only hope is to rely on someone who is perfect. (Matt 5:21-48 here?)

·       To have a righteousness greater than the scribes and Pharisees is to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit through repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ. That is something the scribes and Pharisees had not experienced (show where I get this from). How do I know this? Look carefully at the text. The fact that we have to have a righteousness greater than theirs to get into heaven implies that their righteousness was not good enough. They relied on their own merits to save them rather than on the merits of Jesus Christ.

·       The scribes and Pharisees were the religious cream of the crop. In the eyes of the people, they were the pinnacle of righteousness. Some of the most religious people in our churches will not be in heaven.

·       Is there any hope for scribes and Pharisees? Ask Paul. He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, and God saved him.

·       The kingdom of heaven is available to all who respond to Jesus.

Conclusion

·       Jesus did not come to abolish the law, or even replace the law. Rather, He came to fulfill the law and deepen it’s meaning. Therefore, if you don’t study the law, you will be limited in your understanding of Jesus, and your spiritual growth will be stunted.

·       The role of the OT is to expose our sinfulness and point us to Jesus.

·       The OT is still relevant today. While some elements have been fulfilled in Christ, we are to seek to fulfill the moral aspects of the law.

·       Our relationship as Christians to the OT demands that we study it, not just as a historical document, but as God’s Word. We are also to obey it, not so that God will bless us, but because He has blessed us and we delight in serving our King.

·       The OT requires perfection. While we can’t meet this standard, Christ already did. When we repent of our sins and put our faith and trust in Him, He cleanses us from unrighteousness and brings us into His kingdom. And as Christians, we strive to meet that perfect standard, stumbling along the way, but doing so with the realization that we will be with Christ one day.

[jmyers104]

A Brief Essay on Pastoral Ministry

Introduction

             This paper deals with the issue of the pastor’s call to ministry and the necessary qualifications for said call. If God has called a man into ministry, He will confirm that call, equip him with certain abilities, place in his heart a desire to serve His people, and sanctify him so that he may walk with integrity. Those whom God calls to pastoral ministry will also meet the qualifications outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Unfortunately, many men quit the ministry or are forced to give up their position because of egregious failure in one or more of these areas, but as long as the pastor walks in the light of God’s grace, he can rest assured that God will sustain him and bless his ministry. Along with this analysis of the call and qualifications, I will examine my own life and consider whether or not I am fit for such a calling.

 Call to Pastoral Ministry

             James M. George speaks of four aspects of the call to pastoral ministry. The first is confirmation (MacArthur, 81). If a man is being called into pastoral ministry, it will be confirmed by God. Though he will not hear an audible voice like Moses or Paul, and though he may not receive a heavenly vision in which he is being called into ministry, he will nevertheless sense this confirmation as God gives him a deep longing to serve the church. This longing will not fade, but will only get stronger with time. This calling will be further confirmed by God’s people as they recognize certain qualities, giftings, and traits displayed by the pastoral candidate.

I never envisioned myself as a preacher or a pastor; because I did have the ability to teach, I just assumed that I would never see the other side of the pulpit. In high school, I had been given opportunities to teach Sunday School and AWANA classes, but I did not have the ability to speak on a given topic for more than 5 or 10 minutes. After I graduated high school, I joined the Marine Corps. During my enlistment, I had difficulty finding a church that preached the Word; I wanted to dive deep into the Word, but the preachers and teachers seemed to keep us in shallow waters. I then reached out to my childhood pastor, explaining to him that I was hungry for the Word and needed resources that would aid me in my endeavor to better understand God’s Word. I read what he told me to read, and I bought an iPod Classic (yes, it was THAT long ago) for the sole purpose of downloading sermons and Christian podcasts. I had not experienced such joy since my conversion. I eventually came to the realization that if I had experienced such spiritual starvation, then others in the church were starving too. I felt a responsibility to share the things I had been learning. I began filling in for my pastor and for my Sunday School teacher, and my words were well-received by the congregation. I had gone from being timid young teenager who could barely formulate a complete sentence to a passionate expositor of the Word. Only God can be credited with such a drastic change.

           The second aspect deals with the necessary leadership abilities a pastor must possess. The pastor must be able to instruct, equipping the saints for service and for sanctification as he preaches and teaches God’s Word (MacArthur, 88). He must also be able to shepherd, leading God’s people with care (MacArthur, 89). Furthermore, he must possess administrative capabilities – not lording his authority over the flock, but exercising servant-leadership.

I have recognized these abilities in my life (although I must acknowledge that these are abilities that God has given me and is presently developing). As stated before, I began preaching and teaching during my time in my military, but my teaching abilities were very rough around the edges, so to speak. My education through Liberty University has helped to shape my thinking, codify my beliefs, and articulate biblical doctrines in a way that is understandable and easy to grasp. My time shepherding God’s flock has been limited, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunities I have had to either counsel Christians or simply explain questions that fellow believers have on given passages. Concerning administration, I have had little experience exercising this ability in the church, but God has blessed me with various jobs in management that have developed those skills. Further, I have closely examined my pastor’s life (who happens to be my stepdad) as he leads the church.

           Third is a strong desire to serve in the ministry. “This inner desire should be so single-minded that the aspiring leader cannot visualize himself as pursuing anything else except the ministry” (MacArthur, 90). This is a desire that has overwhelmed me for the last decade, and it has only gotten stronger over time. Regardless of my place of employment, I do my job to the best of my ability with the understanding that God planted me there. However, My desire is to find a church where I can serve God’s people full-time.

           The final aspect pointed out by George is a lifestyle of integrity. Though he will never be perfect in this life, the minister must avoid sin at all costs. He must live a life set apart from sin so that he may effectively serve Christ and exhort his church to do the same. This is a high calling, and one that Paul took seriously. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, he says, “I discipline my body and bring it under strict control, so that after preaching to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (CSB). The fact that one can be disqualified from ministry raises the question: what are the biblical qualifications for ministry? Paul answers that question in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

 Qualifications for Pastoral Ministry

             In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul lists over a dozen qualifications that are necessary for pastoral ministry; if the aspiring pastor is lacking in one of these areas, he is disqualified from this ministry. That does not mean that he is unfit for service of any kind, but it does mean that he is unfit for that level of service. Paul begins by saying that an “overseer” (CSB) must be above reproach. This is not referring to sinless perfection, but it does refer to a life that has demonstrated a consistent track record of godliness. Though he is imperfect, he cannot be guilty of any criminal activity or flagrant wrongdoing. This overarching quality is the umbrella under which all the others in this passage exist.

Going into the specifics, Paul says that the pastor must also be the husband of one wife (lit. “one-woman man”). For a number of reasons, this phrase has been a point of contention. First, there is debate about women as pastors. This verse automatically excludes women from pastoral ministry. That is not to say that women are not equal in God’s eyes, or that they are second-class citizens in the kingdom of God, or that men are superior to women (indeed, there are duties to be carried out in the church that women are often far better suited for than men are). When Jesus came to earth, He subjected Himself to the Father’s will, but we would not argue that He or the Spirit are lesser than the Father. Submission does not imply inferiority. Likewise, women are not inferior to men because Scripture does not permit them to be pastors. Second, this verse neither implies that a pastor is required to me married, nor that he is automatically disqualified from ministry because he is divorced. Though not every unmarried or divorced man should be considered for pastoral ministry, there are many single and divorced men who are not necessarily disqualified from being an overseer. Suppose that a certain pastor’s wife abandoned the faith and filed for divorce. This man sought counseling, encouraged her to attend counseling sessions with him, and continued to witness to her to no avail. This man is free from sin, and is in reality falls in line with the spirit of this verse more than the pastor who has been married to the same woman for 40 years but is committing adultery on the side. To affirm the latter and reject the former is to practice Pharisaism. The issue here is purity, not marital status.

This is a problem I have encountered on more than one occasion. Because I am divorced, many churches will not hire me. However, I do not believe my divorce disqualifies me because my wife left Christianity for Mormonism and divorced me. Ultimately, I could not save her or make her stay in a marriage she did not want to be in. Nevertheless, I believe God has called me into ministry, so I press forward in my seminary education and eagerly anticipate how He plans to use me for His glory.

Paul goes on to list several positive qualities that the overseer must possess. He must be self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, be able to teach, manage his household competently, and have a good reputation among outsiders. Rather than being controlled by sinful desires, he yields to the Holy Spirit. Negatively, he must not be an excessive drinker. Rather than be a bully, he must be gentle. Further, he must not be quarrelsome, greedy, or a new convert.

Without going into the specifics of my own sinful proclivities, I feel embarrassingly inadequate to pastor a church when I read these qualifications. The only trait I do not struggle with (and I pray that I never will) is excessive drinking, simply because I do not consume any alcohol. However, I am reminded that Paul said, “This saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance: ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’ – and I am the worst of them. But I received mercy for this reason, so that in me, the worst of them, Christ Jesus might demonstrate his extraordinary patience as an example to those who would believe in him for eternal life” (1 Tim 1:15-16). On the one hand, he struggled with sin like we all do (Rom 7:14-25). On the other, Paul could tell the Corinthians, “Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). This proves to be very comforting for me. As I struggle with sin, I can look to one of the heroes of the faith and be encouraged that the war against the flesh is one that even the best among us must wage. Further, I do not have to be perfect to exhort Christians to imitate me as I imitate Christ (although I must do so with humility). To be sure, if I am not walking in the light – if I am living in deliberate and ongoing sin – then I dare not utter such words or think that God will bless my ministry. However, as I plead with God to guard me from sin and work out my salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12), I can rest assured that He will cultivate these qualities in my life.

 Conclusion

               If God has called a man to pastoral ministry, He will confirm that call. It may be through encouraging words from fellow believers or inward promptings from the Holy Spirit, but if he has truly been called by God, he will be as sure of his calling as he is of his salvation. God will also supply him with the necessary abilities to both lead and serve God’s people. These gifts will develop over time, but they will indeed be present if God has called him. The pastor will also have a strong, unshakable desire to minister to his congregation. Though he may grow weary for a season, his life will be characterized by zeal for Christ and the work He has set before him. Along with the confirmation, leadership abilities, and desire to serve, he will be a man of integrity. Without integrity, he will eventually find himself lacking in the qualities Paul presented in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Considering the call to ministry brings me excitement because I have witnessed God developing me and preparing me for service in the church. However, considering the qualifications for ministry almost makes me tremble, for I fear disqualification. But if God calls, He equips; and if He equips, then He will sustain. So long as the pastor clings to Jesus, he will experience success in ministry. Though I consider myself weak and inadequate, I know my God is strong and His grace is sufficient. I look forward to seeing how He uses me to advance His kingdom.

[jmyers104]

Charles Spurgeon: The Life and Legacy of the Prince of Preachers

Introduction

If John Calvin was the church’s greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards the church’s greatest philosopher, and George Whitefield the church’s greatest evangelist, then Charles Haddon Spurgeon is certainly a contender for the title of the church’s greatest preacher.[1] What Spurgeon said of John Bunyan could also be said of himself: “Prick him anywhere, and you will find that his blood is Bibline.”[2] Charles Spurgeon was a Gospel-centered preacher whose life was driven by zeal for evangelism, a rock-solid belief in the sovereignty of God, and an unwavering commitment to the truths found in Scripture. This paper will show how these commitments shaped and influenced his life, how he articulated these truths in his preaching, and how his dedication to such truths saw him through the toughest challenge of his ministry – the Downgrade Controversy. The purpose of this paper is to give the reader a greater appreciation for God’s work in and through the life of Charles Spurgeon, a commitment to be available to God so that he may use the reader for his purposes, and a passion to stand firm for the truth and expose false teachings when necessary.

Early Life and Influences

Early Life

           Spurgeon grew up in a Christian environment. His mother was a godly woman. His father, John, and his grandfather, James, were ministers of Independent congregations.[3] At an early age, Spurgeon was exposed to Puritan works such as John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Richard Baxter’s Call to the Unconverted, and Joseph Alleine’s Alarm to the Unconverted. While Spurgeon developed an affinity for Puritan works early in life, it would be another decade or so before he actually became a Christian.

Conversion Experience

On January 6, 1850, young Spurgeon was making his way to a Sunday morning church service. Because a violent snowstorm prevented him from going to the church that he was planning on attending, he decided to attend a Primitive Methodist church. The pastor of that church was unable to make it to the service, so a layperson preached from Isa 45:22, “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth!” (NKJV). Recalling the events of this service some time later in life, Spurgeon emphasized that this speaker was a rather simple man with little or no biblical training. After about ten minutes of repeating and paraphrasing this verse, this man was “at the end of his tether.”[4]

It was at this point that something rather unusual occurred. Given the fact that this was a rather small congregation, visitors were easy to recognize from the pulpit. “Young man, you look very miserable,” the layperson shouted to this visiting teenager.[5] This startled young Spurgeon, as it would with any one of us. The speaker went on to say, “Young man, look to Jesus Christ. Look! Look! Look! You have nothin’ to do but look and live.” Spurgeon recalls, “I saw at once the way of salvation…I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard that word, ‘Look!’ what a charming word it seemed to me! Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked my eyes away. There and then the cloud was gone, the darkness had rolled away, and that moment I saw the sun.”[6] Prior to this experience, Spurgeon struggled with the idea that he would be punished for his sins. He simply could not see how a man as sinful as himself could experience full and total forgiveness for sins. Perhaps there were some decent people out there in the world who could attain such forgiveness, but Spurgeon did not think that he was one of them. However, after his conversion, Spurgeon could say with conviction and certainty, “I felt as sure that I was forgiven as before I felt sure of condemnation.”[7]

Because Spurgeon was so convicted of his sinful and hopeless state prior to conversion, he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was Christ who saved him. Moreover, he affirmed that Christ alone had the ability to save him. “My evidence that I am saved does not lie in the fact that I preach, or that I do this or that. All my hope lies in this, that Jesus Christ came to save sinners…I am loved with as much love as if I had always been godly, whereas aforetime I was ungodly.”[8]

Spiritual Condition of the Land

           The zeal and fervor experienced at conversion translated into his life. Like Paul in Acts 9, Spurgeon immediately began proclaiming Jesus. Unfortunately, the rest of his country did not share the enthusiasm Spurgeon had for the things of God. The people in Spurgeon’s day were not like the Corinthians in Paul time who were so overtly wicked and perverted. These people were much more dignified in their sinning. While they were externally religious, they were cold and hard-hearted. Like the church in Ephesus, they had abandoned their first love (Rev 2:4). A nation that had once been stirred to their depths by men like George Whitefield was now indifferent and apathetic towards God’s Word. Murray writes, “There was no scarcity of eloquence and culture in the pulpits, but there was a marked absence of the kind of preaching that broke men’s hearts.”[9] In quoting another contemporary writer, Murray writes concerning the typical church service: “Should the preacher let fall his handkerchief on the Psalm-book, or give one thump louder than usual with the fist ecclesiastic, that will be noted, remembered, and commented on, while there is all but total oblivion of the subject and the nature of the discussion.”[10] In a phrase, this was a land of lifeless traditionalism. These things were especially true of London and the Baptist Chapel and New Park Street.

           Spurgeon was the right man placed in the right placed at the right time. He preached the light of Christ in such a way as to obliterate the darkness of this lifeless traditionalism. For example, Spurgeon was known to say things such as this: “You have always taken an easy seat in the chapel. You never saw a revival; you do not want to see it.”[11] Members of New Park Street Chapel recognized Spurgeon’s talents early and invited him to preach at their church. Shortly thereafter, at the age of 19, Spurgeon became their pastor, and he remained their pastor until his death.

Numerical growth took place almost instantly. Their facility, which could hold roughly 1,200 people, had to be enlarged to seat 1,500 people. It was not long, however, before this too became insufficient. The congregation then began meeting in Exeter Hall, which could hold about 5,000 people, but even this facility became too small. Eventually, they built the Metropolitan Tabernacle, the largest Protestant house of worship in the world.[12]

Biblical and Theological Foundations

Priority of Preaching

           Spurgeon placed a high premium on preaching. He understood the importance of preaching for the sake of evangelizing the lost and sanctifying the church. Furthermore, he knew how crucial it was to not take the responsibility of preaching lightly. He once said, “It were better for me that I had never been born than that I preach to these people carelessly, or keep back any part of my Master’s truth. Better to have been a devil then a preacher playing fast and loose with God’s Word, and by such means working the ruin of the souls of men.”[13]

           Spurgeon would preach up to ten times a week. Because of his intense preaching schedule, some people grew concerned that preaching so often would damage his health. Spurgeon saw just the opposite scenario as his reality. Addressing these concerned people, Spurgeon once said, “We find ourselves able to preach ten or twelve times a week, and we find we are the stronger for it…‘Oh,’ said one of the members, ‘our minister will kill himself…That is the kind of work that will kill no men. It is preaching to sleepy congregations that kills good ministers.”[14] He considered it a joy to serve the Lord through preaching, even if it destroyed his health.

           Spurgeon could be classified as an “evangelistic expositor.”[15] He was an expositor in the sense that he drew his messages from books of the Bible, but unlike his predecessors who would preach through those books verse-by-verse, he would generally take a verse and use it as a catalyst to proclaim the Gospel. His unique presentation of biblical truths captivated audiences. According to Murray, “Spurgeon took ‘commonplace’ truths and subjects that had come to be regarded as somewhat dull and heavy, and presented them in such clear and forceful language that men could hardly prevent themselves from being gripped and stirred to their depths.”[16] People were gripped and stirred to their depths by Spurgeon’s preaching because he was first gripped and stirred to his depths by the Word that he was preaching.

           Perhaps the most important contributing factor to the success of Spurgeon’s preaching ministry was his dependence on prayer. “May God help me,” Spurgeon declared, “if you cease to pray for me! Let me know the day and I must cease to preach. Let me know when you intend to cease your prayers and I will cry, ‘O my God, give us this day my tomb, and let me slumber in the dust.”[17] Spurgeon could preach in a way that captivated men and women, as well as handle the Word with reverence and awe, because he was a man of prayer who urged his congregation to be people of prayer. He knew better than to rely on his gifts and talents alone for success in ministry.

           The priority of priority of preaching in the life of Spurgeon resulted in his founding of the Pastor’s College. During his lifetime, he saw almost 1,000 men trained for ministry in his college. Furthermore, his sermons were distributed across the globe. Lawson notes, “Through the printed page, Spurgeon’s congregation was estimated to be no less than a million people.”[18]

Centrality of Christ

           Spurgeon’s entertaining style of preaching may have been what attracted people, but it was the content of his sermons that transformed lives. The overarching theme in all of his sermons was his focus on Christ. Spurgeon believed that if we wanted to see souls converted, Christ must be preached in every sermon; there is no use in preaching if we are not going to preach Christ. But Spurgeon did not simply preach a text and add a Gospel invitation at the end of the service. He saw Christ in every passage and sought to make Him the focal point. Spurgeon himself said, “I take my text and make a beeline to the cross.”[19] To him, the sermon that does not point to Christ is the sermon “that will make the devils in hell laugh, but might make the angels of God weep.”[20] Specifically, Spurgeon preached concerning Christ’s nature, death, resurrection, and exaltation. Each one of these aspects will now be looked at in turn.

           Spurgeon preached Christ as the God-man. “He is not humanity deified. He is not Godhead humanized. He is God. He is man. He is all that God is, and all that man is as God created him.”[21] He clearly saw the importance of the Savior being fully God and fully man. Because man sinned, man had to pay the penalty. But no finite, sinful human could take away the sins of the world. That is why God the Son stepped down from heaven and put on human flesh. In order to solve the sin problem, He had to do it as a man. But although He was man, He maintained the full deity of God (Col 2:9) so that He could remain sinless and atone for sins. Furthermore, only an infinite God could atone for an infinite amount of sins in a matter of hours. To put it plainly, “If Christ was not God, we are not Christians…for nothing short of a divine Savior can ever deliver us fro, the infinite wrath of God.”[22]

           Christ’s sacrificial death was also a crucial element in Spurgeon’s teaching. “The heart of the gospel is redemption,” according Spurgeon, “and the essence of redemption is the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ,”[23] which took place on the cross. While all Christian doctrine was important to Spurgeon, he believed that the death of the Son of God was the most important.

           But if Christ had not been resurrected, Christians are to be pitied above all peoples (1 Cor 15:19), for without a resurrection, we do not have forgiveness of our sins. Spurgeon knew this, and he referred to Christ’s resurrection as “the cornerstone of Christian doctrine.”[24] He firmly believed that Christ’s sovereignty, our justification, our regeneration, and even our future resurrection all depend on the resurrection of Christ. His resurrection vindicated His crucifixion and ensures that no sins will ever be held against the true child of God.

           Now that Christ has been raised from the dead, He enjoys an exalted position at the right hand of the Father – the highest position of honor and authority. This was yet another important Christological truth that Spurgeon heralded throughout his ministry. Of course, this reality carries with it some significant implications for the Christian life. According to Spurgeon, “You cannot have Christ for your Savior unless you also have Him as your Lord.”[25] “A man who is really saved by grace does not need to be told that he is under solemn obligations to serve Christ. The new life within him tells him that. Instead of regarding it as a burden, he gladly surrenders himself – body, soul, and spirit – to the Lord.”[26]

Commitment to Calvinism

           Spurgeon sought to exalt Christ in every sermon. It is no coincidence, then, that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, for He saw in Calvinism the greatest expression of Christ’s supremacy. He did not teach Calvinistic doctrines simply because his heroes in the faith did, but because he saw these doctrines as biblical. In his own words, “We believe in the five great points commonly known as Calvinism. We look upon them as being the five great lamps which help to irradiate the cross.”[27]

           Prior to being converted, Spurgeon did not understand the “doctrines of grace.” When he first started following Christ, he believed that it was by his earnest seeking for Christ that he attained salvation. One night, as he pondered several questions, he came to understand that it was Christ who was seeking him:

How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment: I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession: “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”[28]

           This was not merely experiential for Spurgeon. He ascribed to Calvinist doctrines because he saw them as having biblical roots. These were not teachings that John Calvin innovated, but great pillars of the faith. To Spurgeon, to be a Calvinist was to say, “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9). Indeed, Spurgeon saw this as “the essence of the Bible.”[29]

           Naturally, as a staunch Calvinist, Spurgeon taught human inability (total depravity of man), election, particular redemption (limited atonement), effectual calling (irresistible grace), and final perseverance (perseverance of the saints). While holding fast to these doctrines, Spurgeon maintained a biblical balance by preaching man’s responsibility to come to God. To him, God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility “are two lines that are so nearly parallel that the human mind that pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth springs.”[30]

Enthusiasm for Evangelism

           Spurgeon strived to maintain a balance between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Lawson notes, “Spurgeon held these twin truths – divine sovereignty and human responsibility – because both are unmistakably taught in the Bible.”[31] There are dangers in emphasizing one to the neglect of the other, but Spurgeon was extremely successful in preaching both doctrines in a way that complemented each other. Many fail to see how these two truths can be reconciled. But Spurgeon states, “I never have to reconcile friends. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility have never had a falling out with each other. I do not need to reconcile what God has joined together.”[32] The result was a passionately evangelistic ministry. To quote Spurgeon, “We believe in predestination; we believe in election and non-election: but notwithstanding that, we believe that we must preach to men, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved,’ but believe not on Him and ye are damned.”[33]

           Soul winning was Spurgeon’s primary mission, and his desire for people to be saved can be seen clearly and vividly in his preaching:

If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unsprayed for.[34]

With this as his heart cry, he employed various means to ensure that as many people as possible would come to Christ. These means included open invitations; loving appeals; and, when necessary, severe warnings.

           Unlike his hyper-Calvinist contemporaries, Spurgeon would extend Gospel invitations to everyone. Arnold Dallimore observes of Spurgeon’s preaching,

Almost every sermon contained especially toward its close, an entreaty of this nature – warning, begging, pleading, urging the sinner to come to Christ…He did not ask people to walk to the front of the auditorium, raise a hand, sign a card, or perform any outward action. But throughout each sermon and especially as he drew it to a close, he pleaded with unsaved hearers to believe on Christ, and he expected them to do so then and there.[35]

These invitations were not cold or unloving. Spurgeon could not understand how ministers could deliver rigid discourses in an unloving manner as if they did not care for their hearers. It was with love that Spurgeon delivered his invitations to come to Christ.

           While Spurgeon lovingly called men and women to faith and repentance, he used severe language when necessary, for it is better to use harsh words and see hard-hearted people get saved than to use sugar-coated words that make them feel good all the way to hell. “I do not threaten,” said Spurgeon, “because I would alarm without cause, but in hopes that a brother’s threatening may drive you to the place where God hath prepared the feast of the gospel.”[36]

Foundations Applied in the Midst of Controversy

Background and Origin

The Downgrade controversy was the greatest conflict of Spurgeon’s ministry. The roots of this controversy can be traced back to 1873. During this time, the Baptist Union’s constitution moved from a doctrinal base to a more functional base. For years, conservatives were unhappy with the decline, but they did not have much of a voice until Spurgeon came along.

           There are at least two explanations for how the controversy got its name. First, in March 1887, Spurgeon’s paper, the Sword and Trowel, published an article entitled “The Down Grade.” According to McBeth, this article “painted a dismal picture of moral and doctrinal decay in the denomination, with prayerless churches, indifferent laity, and unbelieving pastors who spent their time in worldly pursuits like the theater rather than in Bible study and fervent preaching.”[37] While Spurgeon did not write this particular article, he would go on to write an article on this controversy almost every month until his death. Second, according to Steve Lawson, “(Spurgeon) compared the Baptist church to a train that had crested a high mountain pass and was barreling down the steep grade, gaining speed as it plummeted. The further it descended this slippery slope, he contended, the greater its destruction would be.”[38] While Spurgeon wrote a great deal concerning the Downgrade, his complaints could be boiled down to three specific issues: the decline of prayer meetings, worldly ministers, and the decline of doctrine. Of the three, the third became the primary issue.

Withdrawal from the Baptist Union

When he did not receive the support he thought he would, Spurgeon attacked the issue with even greater tenacity, saying things like, “A new religion has been initiated, which is no more Christianity than chalk is cheese.”[39] Why was so Spurgeon so adamant about pressing this issue? Because the saw it as an attack on the doctrines of the Savior whom he loved so dearly. Indeed, the Downgrade demonstrated that the Word of God was no longer the “rule of faith.”

In 1887, Spurgeon withdrew from the Baptist Union. He addressed his withdrawal in the November 1887 edition of the Sword and Trowel: “It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretence of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin.”[40] The decision to leave the Baptist Union was not a rash decision; he “saw the Secretary and the President again and again…and only left the union when nothing could be done.”[41]

The Union Strikes Back

           In January 1888, four doctors of divinity from the Baptist Union’s Council met with Spurgeon to see what it would take to maintain the denomination’s unity. Spurgeon’s solution was that they adopt a definite evangelical basis of faith.[42] Spurgeon sensed that the men came with another purpose in mind. This feeling was affirmed when the Council issued a “censure” on him after hearing a report back from the four men. Lawson writes, “In a sad twist of history, it was seconded by his brother James, his co-pastor at the tabernacle, who mistakenly believed the motion was calling for reconciliation.”[43] Spurgeon was so grieved by the whole controversy that it ruined his health. In his final years, he is described as “a sad, isolated, and sick man.”[44] He died in 1892 at the age of 57, a few short years after he was censured by the Baptist Union.

Conclusion

           At his funeral, a Bible was placed on his coffin. The Bible was opened to Isa 45:22, “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth!” (NKJV). Lawson comments, “By this, even in death, Spurgeon pointed people to Christ. With his passing, he had fought the good fight, finished the course, and kept the faith.”[45]

           In summary, Spurgeon was a man with a gifted mind, captivating rhetorical abilities, and a deep joy for the things of God. Because of his devotion to Christ, he fought vigorously for God’s Word even when he was the minority. While not everyone has Spurgeon’s particular giftings, there is much to learn from him. May we strive to be Gospel-centered people who love Christ and share him with the lost. May we resolve to be unwavering and uncompromising when the world wants us to conform to our standards. And may we commit all our efforts to making God’s name famous among our families, co-workers, and anyone else who will listen so that they may look to the Lord and be saved.

       Bibliography

 Bebbington, David W.  Baptists Through the Centuries:  a History of a Global People.  

Waco, TX:  Baylor, 2010.

Bush, L. Russ, & Tom J. Nettles.  Baptists and the Bible.  Chicago:  Moody, 1980.

Dallimore, Arnold. Spurgeon. Chicago: Moody, 1984.

Elwell, W. A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book                              House, 2001.

Harmon, Dan. Charles Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers. Uhrichville, OH: Barbour Pub.                Inc., 1997.

Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon. Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                     Publishing, 2012.

McBeth, H. Leon.  The Baptist Heritage:  Four Centuries of Baptist Witness.  Nashville,

TN:  Broadman, 1987.

Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2012.

Nettles, Tom. Living by Revealed Truth: The Life and Pastoral Theology of Charles            Haddon Spurgeon. Scotland, U.K.: Mentor, 2013.

Partner, Daniel, ed. The Essential Works of Charles Spurgeon. Uhrichville, OH: Barbour                 Pub. Inc., 2009.

Spurgeon, Charles. Charles Haddon Spurgeon -Autobiography: The Full Harvest 1861-1892                    Volume 2. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1981.

 [1] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust      Publishing, 2012), 1.

[2] Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 35-36.

 [3] Elwell, W. A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book                                   House, 2001), 1146.

[4] Partner, Daniel, ed. The Essential Works of Charles Spurgeon (Uhrichville, OH: Barbour                Pub. Inc., 2009), 29.

 [5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 33.

[8] Ibid., 35.

[9] Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 21-22.

[10] Ibid., 22.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 8.

[13] Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 41.

[14] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 14.

[15] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 8.

[16] Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 31.

[17] Ibid., 37.

[18] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 8.

[19] Ibid., 2.

[20] Ibid., 102.

[21] Ibid., 91.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 93.

[24] Ibid., 96.

[25] Ibid., 100

[26] Ibid.

[27] Partner, Daniel, ed. The Essential Works of Charles Spurgeon (Uhrichville, OH: Barbour                Pub. Inc., 2009), 12.

[28] Partner, Daniel, ed. The Essential Works of Charles Spurgeon (Uhrichville, OH: Barbour                Pub. Inc., 2009), 54.

[29] Ibid., 58.

[30] Ibid., 65.

[31] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 22.

[32] Ibid., 62.

[33] Ibid., 63.

[34] Ibid., 84.

[35] Dallimore, Arnold. Spurgeon (Chicago: Moody, 1984), 80.

[36] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 83.

[37] McBeth, H. Leon.  The Baptist Heritage:  Four Centuries of Baptist Witness  (Nashville,

TN: Broadman, 1987), 302-303.

[38] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 15.

[39] McBeth, H. Leon.  The Baptist Heritage:  Four Centuries of Baptist Witness  (Nashville, TN:  Broadman,             1987), 303.

[40] Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 153.

[41] Ibid., 154.

[42] Although the Council did eventually draft an evangelical document, Spurgeon rejected it on the basis that it left room for those who did not hold the common interpretation.

[43] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 16.

[44] McBeth, H. Leon.  The Baptist Heritage:  Four Centuries of Baptist Witness  (Nashville,

TN:  Broadman, 1987), 302-303.

[45] Lawson, Steve. The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust                            Publishing, 2012), 17.

[jmyers104]

Mormonism: Another Denomination or a False Religious System?

Introduction

Joe got home from church one Sunday afternoon and was ready to eat lunch when he heard a knock at the door. As he looked to see who it was, he saw two young men with white shirts, black ties, and clean-shaven faces on the other side of the door. As he opened the door, both young men greeted him with a smile. One of the young men enthusiastically said, “Hello. We are here to talk to you about another testament of Jesus Christ.” Joe had grown up in a Christian home, and he read his Bible several times a week, but he was unsure how to handle this situation. “Another testament of Jesus Christ?” he asked himself. “Could this really be another testament of Jesus Christ?” Joe hesitantly welcomed them in. As the young men began to speak, Joe could not help but notice how “Christian” their presentation sounded. They spoke of Jesus, the atonement, and the importance of living righteous lives. At the same time, something did not quite sound right. These men spoke about a preexistence, new scriptures, and modern day prophets. While these things sounded odd to Joe, he was not sure how to confront these teachings (or if he should confront them at all). What was Joe to make of all this?

           While this specific scenario is fictitious, encounters like this occur every day. Mormon missionaries are very serious about sharing the “restored” gospel and converting people to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unfortunately, the Christian church as a whole is unprepared for such encounters. Some Christians are under the impression that Mormonism is simply another Christian denomination that has been thrown into the mix, while other well-intentioned believers shun the religion without knowing why exactly they are against it. This paper seeks to demonstrate that a thorough understanding of the Old and New Testament proves that Mormonism is a false religious system. Specifically, this paper will examine both the Mormon and Christian views concerning the nature of God, salvation, and Scripture.

The Nature of God

           When speaking about God, Mormons often use terms that sound strikingly Christian. However, although they speak of their Heavenly Father and the atonement of Jesus Christ, their understanding of the nature and work of God is not Christian in the biblical or historical sense. Consequently, if they preach a god that is different from the God of the Bible, then they preach a different gospel. And if they preach a different gospel, they are to be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). This section deals with the person and work of God the Father and God the Son.[1]

Heavenly Father and His Children

           Mormons typically refer to God the Father as “Heavenly Father.” This Heavenly Father created “the heavens and the earth all things that are in them” through Jesus Christ. The creation account tells us that we are made in His image. Mormons interpret this to mean that Heavenly Father gave us bodies like His, although His body is perfected and glorified.[2] However, while man was given a physical body during creation week, his spirit existed with God in eternity past (known as the preexistence) as his spirit children. Because we are all His spirit children, “we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities.”[3] But if we were in His presence in eternity past, then why would we come down to a sinful and fallen world? Because our “Heavenly Father knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left Him for a time.”[4] During this time, we would forget about our previous experiences in Heavenly Father’s presence, and we would be tested so that we might prove ourselves. Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to reveal this plan, and upon hearing it, we shouted for joy (Job 38:7).

           Christians, of course, understand that all three members of the Trinity played a part in creation (Gen 1, John 1:1-3). Christians also understand that mankind was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). However, the Christian understanding is that God is spirit (John 4:24), and that to be made in the image of God means to represent God and be similar to Him in certain ways. Wayne Grudem explains, “Both the Hebrew word for “image” (tselem) and the Hebrew word for “likeness” (demût) refer to something that is similar but not identical to the thing it represents or is an image of. The word image can also be used of something that represents something else.”[5] So what do we make of the instances when Scripture seems to be referring to God’s different body parts? When the Bible speaks of God’s righteous right hand (Isa. 41:10) or God’s face (Ex. 33:20), for example, those are to be understood as metaphors given to us so that we may better understand God’s character.

            Furthermore, Jesus’ teachings rule out the idea of a past life in which man dwelt with God prior to creation. According to Jesus, no one has seen God at any time (John 6:46). Consequently, all other teachings on the preexistence are moot points. But what do we make of Job 38:7, which says, “While the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” When one views this verse in context, it is hard to make the argument that this verse is referring to the preexistence, especially considering this doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in either the Old or New Testament. After all, why would anyone shout for joy upon hearing that they will be departing from the Father? How could coming to earth be better? The apostle Paul makes it clear that it is far better to depart and be with Christ than to be in this world (Phil. 1:23).

Moreover, those who say that man can somehow attain divine qualities not only misinterpret Gen 1:26, but also blaspheme God. To possess divine attributes is to be God, and there is but one God (Deut. 6:4, 1 Tim. 2:5, Jas. 1:19). Any person claiming to be able to acquire divinity is essentially saying that he can become a God. Such a sentiment betrays Scripture and commits high treason against the one and only true God.

Jesus Christ and His Gospel

           In Mormon theology, Jesus volunteered to be the Savior, and Heavenly Father chose Jesus and His plan over Lucifer and his plan. When Heavenly Father raised the question, “Whom shall I send?” Jesus responded, “Here am I, send me (Abraham 3:27).[6] Jesus wanted man to have the choice as to whether they would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments or reject them. “He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation.”[7] Lucifer’s plan was very different. According to Mormon scriptures, Lucifer said, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Under Satan’s plan, we would not have free agency. This plan was not pleasing to Heavenly Father, so He therefore decided to choose Jesus.

           While Jesus lived on the earth, He “qualified to be our Savior because He is the only person who has ever lived on the earth who did not sin.”[8] His sinless life is the reason He could atone for sins. This atonement, however, did not take place on the cross, but in the Garden of Gethsemane, where the agony of bearing man’s sin caused Him to bleed from every pore.[9] Therefore, when Mormons speak of placing their faith in Jesus, they are referring to a Jesus who volunteered to be the Savior, lived a perfect life, and paid for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane with the blood that came from every pore.

            But what is the nature of this faith? What does it look like? Does this faith secure eternal salvation for all those who possess it? According to Mormonism, one must have “perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God” (2 Nephi 9:23). Furthermore, in order to enter into the celestial kingdom, the highest kingdom of heaven, one must be baptized.[10] Other ordinances such as the sacrament and temple marriage can ensure one’s position in the celestial kingdom.

           This understanding of Jesus and His atoning work does not compare favorably with the Jesus found in the New Testament, despite the fact that Mormons use it to support their beliefs. To begin with, Jesus’ atoning sacrifice took place on the cross (1 Pet 2:24), not in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Mark 14, we find Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, praying that “the hour” might pass from Him. At first glance, it may seem that Jesus is referring to “the hour” He spent in the garden. However, after He was finished praying, Jesus said “the time has come,” or, according to the ESV, “the hour has come.” Therefore, while Jesus experienced extreme suffering in the garden, the time for Him to atone for sins was still a few hours away. It was when Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” that Jesus was bearing the wrath of God on our behalf. As Christians, we understand something of the guilt and pain that come about as a result of sin. The weight of our transgressions weighs heavy on our hearts, and our fellowship with God is hindered. King David admitted that when he failed to admit his sins, his bones grew brittle, God’s hand was heavy on him, and his strength was drained (Ps 32:3-4). The more we grow in holiness, the more that sin bothers the Christian. Grudem explains,

Now Jesus was perfectly holy. He hated sin with his entire being. The thought of evil, of sin, contradicted everything in his character. Far more than we do, Jesus instinctively rebelled against evil. Yet in obedience to the Father, and out of love for us, Jesus took on himself all the sins of those who would someday be saved. Taking on himself all the evil against which his soul rebelled created deep revulsion in the center of his being. All that he hated most deeply poured out fully on him.”[11]

 This is why Jesus cried out to the Father in agony. But when God’s wrath was satisfied, Jesus cried out, “It is finished” and gave up His life (John 19:30). The perfect, sinless Christ had satisfied the wrath of God; there was no more need to suffer. But the reason that Jesus could live a perfect life and satisfy the wrath of God was not that God chose him because He had a good plan. Rather, Jesus was the only choice because He was fully God and fully man.

Scripture is clear that Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:1,14). When crowds understood Jesus to be equating Himself with the Father, He did not correct their misunderstanding, for they rightly understood that He was equating Himself with the Father (John 5:18). Jesus referred to Himself as “I AM” (John 8:58), the name by which God designates Himself as the eternal existing One – the God who is the source of His own existence. When Thomas worshiped Jesus after the resurrection (John 20:28-29), Jesus did not rebuke Him for calling Him God like the angel rebuked John for worshiping Him (Rev. 22:8-9). This is because Jesus, being God, is worthy of worship. It was necessary for Christ to be punished on our behalf because only God could bear the infinite wrath of God in a finite period of time. The writer of Hebrews states, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word” (1:3). He goes on to refer to Jesus as “God” (v. 8). The Old Testament also points out the deity of Jesus Christ. For example, Isaiah 9:6 says,

For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on His shoulders. He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

 However, a man had to pay the penalty for sins because it was man that sinned. And yet, it had to be a perfect man, for if the sacrifice had any blemish, it could not be acceptable to God. Such was our dilemma when God the Son stepped down from heaven and clothed Himself in flesh. He lived a life that was characterized by total obedience and submission to God, atoned for sins, gave up His life, and was resurrected on the third day. Because of the finished work of Christ, we can have complete and total remission of sins.

How do we attain such a salvation? Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift – not from works, so that no one can boast.” Anything but faith is considered a work. If a man were able to work to earn his salvation, he would have a reason to boast. But according to this passage, we have no reason to boast because salvation is the Lord’s work. Furthermore, if salvation were a work of man, then man could potentially lose his salvation. Most importantly, to say that man can work to maintain a certain status in heaven is to say that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to cover all of our sins, and that God’s wrath was not satisfied by this work of Christ. In reality, salvation is from the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Faith is the basis for our salvation. Any good works done after salvation are merely evidence of God’s saving work.

Scripture

It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine all the false doctrines found in Mormon scriptures, as well as the biblical Scriptures that have been misinterpreted, a small portion of that line of work has been done in the previous section. This section of the paper will deal with authority and canonicity. Because Mormons claim that the book of Mormon is the most perfect book on earth, the focus will be on this book and not other Mormon literature. Furthermore, because of the allegations stating that “plain and precious” teachings have been removed from the Bible, special consideration will be given to this issue as well.

The Bible

           Should we be open to the idea that God is continuing to add to the canon of Scripture, or is the canon closed? Mormons hold to the former, as evidenced by the numerous books that have been added to their canon since the founding of their church. The inspired words of their prophets become scripture as well. Traditionally, however, Evangelical Christians believe in a closed canon and that there is substantial evidence to support this belief.

           Revelation 22:18-19 states, “I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, written in this book.” Of course, a similar warning is given in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. Moreover, in context, these words in Revelation are referring primarily to the book of Revelation. However, it is no accident that this warning appears at the end of the last book of the Bible. Grudem writes, “It is not inappropriate for us to understand this exceptionally strong warning at the end of Revelation as applying in a secondary way to the whole of Scripture. Placed here, where it must be placed, the warning forms an appropriate conclusion to the entire canon of Scripture.”[12] Furthermore, in light of Hebrews 1:1-2, we should not expect any additions to the Bible.

However, not only do Mormons believe in an open canon, but they also believe that the Bible contains errors. According to Articles of Faith 1:8, “(Mormons) believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.”[13] This raises an important question: who decides whether or not a particular passage has been translated correctly? According to Mormonism, God used Joseph Smith to expand our understanding of passages in the Bible. Moreover, “The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph to restore truths to the Bible text that had been lost or changed since the original words were written.”[14]

           However, it is extremely difficult to support such claims. Both the Old and New Testaments teach that the word of the Lord endures forever (Isa. 40:6-8, 1 Pet. 1:25). To say that certain Scriptures went missing is to imply that God somehow failed. At this point some Mormons argue that it is because of the sinfulness of man that God allowed for those “plain and precious” parts of Scripture to be removed. However, much of Scripture was written during times of extreme wickedness. 1 Corinthians was written to a church involved in gross immorality. The major and minor prophets show us that there was an abundance of wickedness at the time their words were recorded. Furthermore, when one considers the sheer volume of New Testament manuscripts, it is hard to imagine that any part of Scripture could have been left out. Craig Blomberg notes that there are over 5,700 New Testament manuscripts.[15] While there are discrepancies among these manuscripts, it is hard to imagine that anything could have been left out of the New Testament.

The Book of Mormon

           Compare these facts with the Book of Mormon. Allegedly, this book is a record of people who lived on the American continents between 2000 B.C. and 400 A.D. However, while there are well over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts, no ancient manuscripts Mormon manuscripts have been found. In light of this fact, it is not unreasonable to question the validity of this particular book, as well as the reliability of the man who supposedly translated the Book of Mormon into English – Joseph Smith.

Can this man be trusted? Mormons think so, for he is not only the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he is also their first prophet. The question becomes, then, is Joseph Smith a true or false prophet? Deuteronomy 18:20-22 offers this test for discerning whether or not a person is a false prophet:

But the prophet who dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods—that prophet must die.’ You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a message the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the Lord’s name, and the message does not come true or is not fulfilled, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (emphasis added).

             Was there ever a time when Joseph Smith spoke in the Lord’s name and his message did not come true? According to David A. Reed and John R. Farkas, the answer is “yes.” Smith once declared that the New Jerusalem would be built in Missouri during his generation.[16] While some may argue that the term “generation” was used to designate some time in the near future, it appears that Smith’s contemporaries understood him to be saying that this would occur during their lifetime.[17] Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s successor, also tried his hand at prophecy. Young once declared that the Civil War would not result in freedom for black slaves.[18] As history would have it, black slaves were freed, and Young got this prophecy wrong. Thus, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built upon a faulty foundation erected by false prophets.

           Some Mormons may object by saying that just because these men were wrong sometimes does not mean that they should be labeled false prophets. However, the question must be raised: how many times must a man murder before he is considered a murderer? Only once. Likewise, it only takes one false prophecy to be considered a false prophet. Besides, who would want to place their trust in a false prophet? The Old Testament prophets had a 100 percent success rate, thus validating their credibility and message. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 gives no disclaimer. If a person speaks a message he is not commanded to speak, he deserves to die.

Conclusion

           As detailed above, Mormons believe in an unbiblical view of God, a false system of salvation, and an erroneous view of Scripture. What then should Christians do with this information? How are we to treat Mormons? It is important to keep in mind that Christians should not view Mormons as enemies. We too were once dead in our trespasses until God made us alive in Christ (Eph. 2). Christians would do well to follow Christ’s example. Jesus was strikingly stern with the Jewish leaders who were externally righteous were inwardly wicked. Jesus labeled such people as whitewashed tombs (Matt. 23:27). These people actively opposed Jesus because He exposed the error of their ways. However, the gospel accounts never show Jesus treating the “sinners” in such a way. In fact, Jesus was known as a friend of sinners. This does not mean, however, that He overlooked their sin. Rather, He would expose it and invite them to believe in Him for salvation (John 4).

           Such should be our attitude. Generally, Mormons are not seeking to convert people to a false religious system. Rather, they are sincere in their faith and are seeking to do all they can to be found worthy and enter into the celestial kingdom. They are blinded by Satan and need the gospel as much as we do. The wise Christian will ensure that his words are seasoned with grace as he seeks to evangelize Mormons. Most importantly, Christians must pray continually for the salvation of those who are prisoners to this false system. Through prayer, God can give them spiritual sight and regenerate their hearts. When this takes place, Christians can enjoy true fellowship with these new brothers and sisters in Christ.

                     Bibliography

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Salt Lake City, UT: The             Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1981.

Gospel Principles. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,                   2009.

Blomberg, Craig L. and Jennifer Foutz Markley. A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Craig, William Lane. “Classical Apologetics.” In Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven B. Cowan, 25–55. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Elwell, W. A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book                 House, 2001.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.             Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand                      Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.

Reed, David A. and John Farkas. Mormons Answered Verse by Verse. Grand Rapids:             Baker Books, 1992.

White, James. The Forgotten Trinity. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.

White, James. Letters to a Mormon Elder. Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian                    Books, 2007.

 [1] While it is important to understand the differences between the Mormon and Christian views of the Holy Spirit and His work, it is simply beyond the scope of this paper.

[2] Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009), 10.

[3] Ibid., 9.

[4] Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009), 10.

[5] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 442-443

[6] Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009), 13.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 61

[9] Some Mormons believe that Jesus atonement for sins happened both in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, but there is no clear doctrinal statement in Mormon theology affirming this belief.

[10] Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009), 116.

[11] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand  Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 573.

[12] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 65

[13] Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009), 46.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Blomberg, Craig L. and Jennifer Foutz Markley. A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010),

[16] Reed, David A. and John Farkas. Mormons Answered Verse by Verse. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 92-93.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 94.

[jmyers104]

Matthew 5:43-48 Commentary

Introduction

 The Sermon on the Mount has had a profound impact on both Christians and non-Christians throughout the centuries. Mohandas Gandhi “was profoundly influenced by this Sermon as he established India’s freedom through a nonviolent revolution.”[1] For Martin Luther King Jr., the Sermon on the Mount served as the foundation for his political program and unwavering commitment to nonviolent, civil disobedience.”[2] The original audience also marveled at the power of Jesus’ words. Matthew 7:28-29 reads, “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, because he was teaching them like one who had authority, and not like their scribes.” In a day when Jesus is perceived as a “nice guy” who proclaimed some useful ethics, this response can be appreciated, for they affirmed that His words were as powerful as His works. However, such a response ultimately misses the mark. Anyone who reads the gospels should be amazed at the power and authority of Jesus’ words, amazement is not the same is acceptance. “Amazed” in the Greek does not denote saving faith.[3] Amazement should occur, but the goal is discipleship – submission to The Amazing One. Those who fail to move from amazement to discipleship have yet to through the narrow gate, which means that they are in danger of hearing those dreadful words from Jesus: “I never knew you. Depart from me, you lawbreakers!” (Matt 7:23b). With Matthew 7:43-48 as the focal point, this paper will seek to highlight the amazing power and authority of Jesus’ teachings, but will also seek to show how His speech actually points to Him as the authoritative Son of God who should be obeyed. First, however, some general comments must be made about the context in which this passage finds itself.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)

One of the key themes in Matthew’s gospel is the idea that the coming of Christ has inaugurated the kingdom of God on earth. Matthew 4:17 reads, “From then on Jesus began to preach, ‘Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near.’” Then, in 4:18-22, Jesus commissioned His first disciples. 4:22-25 documents Jesus’ teaching, preaching, and healing ministry in Galilee. The Sermon on the Mount is a sample of the kind of teaching Jesus presented and details the life experienced inside the kingdom that has just been inaugurated by Christ.

Matthew is particularly interested in Jesus’ teachings. That is not to say that the other gospel writers are unconcerned with His words, for they all record teachings from Jesus and conversations He had with individuals and groups. However, a large portion of Matthew’s gospel is devoted to Jesus’ words, ultimately providing the reader with 5 lengthy discourses (5:1-7:29; 10:1-42; 13:1-52; 18:1-35; 24:1-25:46). Preaching was a regular part of Jesus’ ministry. There were at least two times during His ministry that He preached to the multitudes all day (14:13-21; 15:32-38). Matthew concludes with the Great Commission (28:20), in which Jesus exhorts the disciples to teach all that He has commanded them. The blueprint for this instruction is found in the discourses. Thus, gospel readers should marvel at Jesus’ words, but ultimately His words are to be obeyed and taught.

Unfortunately, many people who heard Jesus’ words never moved from admiration to discipleship. The imperfect tense of the verb translated “were amazed” “depicts an ongoing feeling of wonder as they went home.”[4] Jesus’ words should have prompted the crowds to follow after Him, not return home. The Sermon on the Mount was not the only time that Jesus’ words prompted feelings of awe and wonder. Matthew 13:54 reads, “He went to his hometown and began to teach them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?’” Matthew 22:33 records that “When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.” His disciples, too, continued to be astonished at His words even after conversion (Matthew 19:25).

Part of the reason the crowds were particularly amazed at Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is because He was so unlike the scribes that they were used to (7:28). The scribes were the legal experts, lawyers, and teachers (2:14; 5:20). The Talmud explains that their habit was to repeat earlier teachings. Jesus did not depend on the teachings of man. “His teaching ‘fulfilled’ Torah and lifted it to a higher plane.”[5] Wilkins explains that the authority of the religious elite “came from their expertise in citing earlier authorities and in formulating new interpretations. But ironically, their practices had muted the authority of the Old Testament because they added so many traditions and legal requirements that the power of Scripture was defeated (e.g., 15:1-9). Thus, they could not speak with authority, for they had muted the only source of authority.”[6] So when Jesus came on the scene, they immediately recognized that He was not like the religious leaders. The contrast between the scribes and Jesus is seen very clearly in the six antitheses.

The Six Antitheses (5:21-48)

 In order to feel the full force of Jesus' words here, one must know something of the religious climate of the day. The religious leaders “held sway over the lives of the common people.”[7] The Pharisees had had essentially devised a religious system that called for a legalistic obedience centered on external behaviors but was unconcerned with the heart. They presented themselves and righteous and called others to be righteous, but Jesus described them as “whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of impurity” (Matt 23:27b).

Thus, while Matthew 5:21-48 is commonly known as “the antitheses” it is not because Jesus contradicts the Old Testament itself; after all, He came to fulfill the Old Testament, not abolish it. The problem rests not with Scripture, but with the intent and motives of those who claimed to follow God. Therefore, He exposes the misinterpretations and misapplications that were so prevalent and pervasive in His day. Here, then, Jesus reveals the true nature of the Old Testament and lays bare the errors of the ones who were supposed to be the Old Testament experts.[8]

“You have heard it said…” (v. 43)

There are two common phrases that are joined with each antithesis. The first is “You have heard that it was said.” The verb translated “was said” points to God as the Divine Author relaying His message to the human author, who in turn communicated the message to God’s people.[9] Six times Jesus in 5:21-48 Jesus uses this phrase, and each time it is followed either by an Old Testament quote or a common saying propagated by the teachers of their day.[10]

           The first five antitheses deal with murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, and revenge. The sixth one deals with love – and in reality, all six are a love issue. This final antithesis, then, ties all six together and demonstrates that love is the key issue. This sixth and final time, He says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’” The first part of this phrase comes directly from the Pentateuch. Leviticus 19:18 reads, “Do not take revenge or bear a grudge against members of your community, but love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.” In Deuteronomy 6:4-5, the Israelites are commanded to “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” But the second part is not found in the Old Testament. Some scholars think that this attitude can be inferred from certain Scripture passages – specifically Deuteronomy and Psalms. For example, Deuteronomy 7:2 says, “When the Lord your God delivers them over to you and you defeat them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.” In Psalm 139:21-22, David says, “Lord, don’t I hate those who hate you, and detest those who rebel against you? Hate them with extreme hatred; I consider them my enemies.” Further, some believe that the imprecatory Psalms endorse and attitude of hatred towards one’s enemies.[11] However, Moses explicitly told the people to help enemies who are in need in Exodus 23:4-5: “If you come across your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must return it to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you lying helpless under its load, and you want to refrain from helping it, you must help with it.”

God does hate evil (Deut 30:7; Ps 4:5; 5:4: 139:21-22) but loves reconciliation. Christ’s atonement ensured salvation for those who were dead in trespasses and enemies of God. The Israelites were to be a light in the darkness to surrounding pagan nations so that they too might be reconciled to God, but they instead adopted a feeling of superiority as God’s chosen people. Thus, their pride resulted in an unrighteous hatred of others. They were the trusted sources, yet they failed to interpret Scripture properly.[12] True disciples are called to be like God. Therefore, disciples are to hate evil (including the evil inside their own hearts!) but love their enemies.[13]  

Jesus then shows them how the understanding that they are holding to is leading the people to wrongly apply God's Word. The scribes and Pharisees lacked love for God and love for people, while Christ possesses a perfect love for the Father. His atonement enables His to love like they should, and His teachings that are recorded in the gospels provide the specifics on how to express this love.

“But I say to you…” (v. 44)

The second phrase is “but I tell you,” and It is here that Jesus' directs their respective paths. This phrase points to the authority and deity of Jesus and shows how the understanding that His audience holding to is leading to a wrong application God's Word. The scribes and Pharisees lacked love for God and love for people, while Christ possesses a perfect love for the Father. His atonement enables His disciples to love like they should, and His teachings that are recorded in the gospels provide the specifics on how to express this love.

Unlike the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus did not merely quote other religious leaders, but spoke in such a way as to elevate His words to be on par with the Old Testament Scriptures. Blomberg writes, “Such preaching reflects either the height of presumption and heresy or the fact that he was a true spokesman for God, whom we dare not ignore.”[14] In reality, He was not a heretic but the Holy One who spoke Scripture into existence just as He spoke all of creation into existence. To be sure, He quoted the Old Testament in a way that showed that He was grounded in God’s Word, but He expounded on it without a dependence on others. Jesus’ authority is inherent, not derived. The Old Testament prophets would speak powerful messages, but their words would often be prefaced with the phrase “Thus says the Lord.” Jesus did not preface His teachings like this because He is the Lord. Thus, He placed His teachings on par with the Old Testament, thereby showing that His words are divine.[15]

The command to love one’s neighbor here is in the present imperative, “Stressing the ongoing need of such am attitude.”[16] The word translated “love" has a wide range of meaning depending on its context. Several commentators have offered up definitions for this particular context. According to Wilkins, love is “an unconditional commitment to an imperfect person in which I give myself to bring the relationship to God’s intended purpose.”[17] As defined by Carson, it is “generous, warm, costly self sacrifice for another's good.”[18]

There are 2 words here in particular that show how Jesus elevated love, and therefore the standard of perfection. The first is the word “enemy.” In verse 43 it is in the singular, but here it is in the plural, meaning that this is a universal command.[19] In other words, all who could be considered enemies are to be loved in this way. Leviticus 19:33-34 says, “When an alien resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him. You will regard the alien who resides with you as the native-born among you. You are to love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.” Luke 6:27-28 – a parallel passage – makes 2 additions: disciples are to do good to those who hate them, and bless those who curse them. Why should disciples love to such a degree? What is the basis for such love? Jesus answers that question next.

Rationale (v. 45)

Here, Jesus gives two reasons that disciples should love even their enemies. The first is “so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” This is not describing the means by which one becomes a Christian; one will know a disciple by their fruits (Matt 7). This concept is more fully developed as time goes on and the New Testament is written, but this kind of love is made possible when a person becomes a child of God and is given the Holy Spirit who enables believers to live righteous lives – something they could never accomplish on their own.[20]

Wilkins notes that “the inauguration of kingdom life does not enable Jesus' followers to obey merely the externals of God's commands, but it wakes them to the very core of the Old Testament's intent and motive so that they can obey God's will for the heart.”[21] On their own, humans lack the capacity to love as they ought, but when one becomes a disciple of Christ, he is enabled to do so because the infinite, loving God equips them to do so. Along these same lines, Wilkins writes, “God is love, and he is infinite, so he has an infinite supply of love. As we open our hearts to him, his love pours into our hearts and then overflows to those around us.”[22]

The second reason is that “he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” God is no respecter of persons. He bestows His common grace on all of mankind. If God can care for even the most vile man on the planet in this way, disciples can certainly follow that example.

Rhetorical Questions (vv. 46-47)

Next, Jesus illustrates His point with 4 rhetorical questions: “For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what are you doing out of the ordinary? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same?” Essentially, all four of these questions drive the same point home: even those that society deems the least likely to show love actually cares for those who are like them. Tax collectors were allowed to collect more than the necessary amount for taxes and pocket the extra change.[23] And yet, in spite of their unethical practices, even tax collectors would care for those who loved them. Likewise, tensions between Jews and Gentiles ran high. The Jews were known for being circumcised. Most Romans and Greeks found the procedure not only unnecessary, but detestable. Josephus recounts how Gentiles would mock and ridicule Jews because of their circumcision.[24] However, what could be said about the tax collectors could be said about Gentiles: though they were regarded as selfish, unclean, unloving people, they nevertheless cared for those close to them.

The love shown by disciples of Christ is to exceed this minimalistic display of love. Plummer writes, “To return evil for good is devilish; to return good for good is human; to return good for evil is divine.”[25] Jesus showed this “divine” aspect as He elevated love in a way that was unheard of at that time – certainly in a way that was not taught by the scribes and Pharisees. The religious leaders focused on external actions. Being a disciple begins with the heart, which in turn manifests itself in proper external actions. That is the reality of kingdom life.[26]

Greeting someone in this culture was more than a simple “hello.” This was an expression of one's heartfelt desires for his enemies' well-being.[27] The greeting a person received showed their status.[28] Scribes swooned at eloquent, verbose greetings. In Jesus’ own words, “They love the place of honor at banquets, the front seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by people” (Matt 23:6-7). Such care should be given even to enemies. Blomberg rightly points out that “people who love and greet their enemies and pray for their persecutors thus prove themselves to be those…who are growing in conformity to the likeness of their Heavenly Father.”[29]

The Bottom Line: Be Perfect (v. 48)

This verse serves as a fitting conclusion not just for verses 43 through 47, but for all six of Jesus’ antitheses. Additionally, the word “therefore” actually points to this verse as a summation of verses 21 through 47, even though the sermon carries on for 2 more chapters.[30] The word translated “perfect" means “to be mature or whole.” The word “perfect" (Gk. teleios) is also a reflection of the Hebrew tamîm, which normally referred to a sacrifice without blemish.[31]

What Christ is calling for is an ethical and moral perfection.[32] Walvoord notes that “while sinless perfection is impossible, godliness, in its biblical concept, is attainable.”[33] It is frequently the case in Greek that the tense of a verb affects the meaning of the verse in which it is situated, and that is certainly the case here. This is a future indicative,[34] denoting that disciples are to strive for this for the rest of their lives. Though they cannot be perfect in their own strength and volition, Morris comments that “Jesus puts His command in such a way that disciples may look for divine help as they press toward God's goal for them.”[35]

This command cannot be viewed rightly apart from the qualifying phrase “as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The Bible is a reflection of God himself,[36] and the disciple must study it in order to learn who God is so that He may worship Him rightly and grow towards this perfect standard. A distinction must be made between God’s communicable attributes and His incommunicable attributes. Disciples are finite creatures and cannot possess the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Again, the disciple is to pursue moral and ethical blamelessness – in a word, holiness. As the disciple, looks to the Bible’s depiction of God’s character, he will learn that God “has every good and admirable quality to the highest degree”[37] and that “His perfection is the goal for our thoughts and actions, for our relationships inside and outside the community.”[38] Indeed, “He embraces every degree of every perfection without any limitation.”[39] Though God has incommunicable attributes that He shares with no other being, His communicable attributes are reflected in His children. Disciples are neither called to simply be better versions of themselves, nor to be like another more mature discipline in their midst. Rather, they are to be like God. His ways are to permeate the minds of disciples, as well as shape their affections and dictate their actions.

And yet, one feels a great tension in this command. If one is to be perfect, how can anyone be a true follower of Christ? While this takes a conscious effort on the disciple’s part, it is only made possible by the atonement of Christ.[40] The doctrine of propitiation is not unpacked here, but New Testament disciples understand – especially with the help of the apostle Paul – that God made Christ a propitiation on our behalf (Romans 3:21-26) with the end result being that those in the crowd (in a manner of speaking) would become disciples by way of Christ’s righteousness being imputed into their account (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). Therefore, the perfection spoken of by Christ is only made possible by Christ Himself.

Conclusion

The miracles performed by Jesus demonstrated His deity and pointed to the fact that He was (and is!) the promised Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. All too overlooked are the power of His words, as they are often viewed as mere ethical statements that will enhance a person’s life if they are carefully considered. As has been shown above, the words of Christ demonstrated His Messiahship just as much as His miracles did. His words demonstrated that He was steeped in Old Testament knowledge. Though the scribes and Pharisees were well-studied, they had interpreted and applied the law incorrectly. Jesus showed the true nature of the Law, and in doing show showed that His words were authoritative. These words that were recorded by Matthew carry just as much weight today as they did then. Followers of Christ are to not only marvel at these words, but should also obey these words, confess Christ as the promised Messiah who demonstrates His lordship through the power of His words, and teach them to all who would follow after Christ.

       Bibliography

Beeke, Joel. A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage,                  2012.

Beeke, Joel. Reformed Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.

Blomberg, Craig. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville, TN: Broadman &               Holman, 1992.

Broughton, Geoff. "Interpretative strategies for Jesus' 'Sermon on the mount' (Matthew 5-7)." St.                 Mark's Review, No. 227, (Feb 2014). 21-30. https://search-informit-com- au.ezproxy.liberty.edu/documentSummary;dn=207860610991086;res=IELHSS.                                    Accessed August 6, 2020.

Cousland, J. R. C. The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Edwards, Richard A. Matthew’s Narrative Portrait of Disciples: How the Text-Connoted Reader                  Is Informed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997.

Elwell, Walter (ed.). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker 2001.

Frame, John. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg: P & R                 Publishing, 2013.

France, R.T. Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity                  Press, 1985.

Gladstone, Matthew. Murder, Anger, and Altars: The First Matthean Antithesis in Light of   Exodus 21:14 and its Early Rabbinic Interpretation. Novum Testamentum, Volume 59:    Issue 4, 339-354. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1163/15685365-12341576.             Accessed August 6, 2020.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:                     Zondervan, 1994.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13. WBC 33A. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Jones, Matt. "The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological                                         Commentary." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 61, no. 2 (06, 2018): 387-            9,http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com%2Fdocvi      ew%2F2109282031%3Faccountid%3D12085. Accessed August 6, 2020.

Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley (eds.). Theological Dictionary of                  the New Testament. 10 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

MacArthur, John and Richard Mayhue Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical                     Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

Osborne, Grant. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Grand               Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.

Viljoen, Francois P. Jesus' teaching on the Torah in the sermon on the Mount. Neotestamentica,                   40 no 1 2006, p 135-155. https://web-b-ebscohost                                                                                  com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=b5ab66f4-5dfa-432e-8a83-         fbb0b31d5f40%40pdc-v- sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=ATLA000155            1812&db=lsdar. Accessed August 6, 2020.

Viljoen, Francois P. “Righteousness and identity formation in the Sermon on the Mount.” HTS               Theological Studies, No. 1 (2013). 1-10.                                                                                         https://doaj.org/article/22b3cff4749e4bd3b2fdb7202dcab552. Accessed August 6, 2020.

Wilkins, Michael. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,                       2004.

[1] Wilkins, Michael. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 190.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 328.

[4] Osborne, 276.

[5] Osborne, Grant. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 277.

[6] Wilkins, 328.

[7] Ibid., 241.

[8] Ibid., 240.

[9] Ibid., 241.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Osborne, 212.

[12] Blomberg, Craig. The New American Commentary: Matthew (Nashville, TN: Broadman &                Holman, 1992), 114.

[13] Wilkins, 252.

[14] Blomberg, 134.

[15] Wilkins, 240.

[16] Osborne, 212.

[17] Wilkins, 266.

[18] Osborne, 212.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Wilkins, 253.

[21] Ibid., 255-256.

[22] Ibid., 266.

[23] France, R.T. Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 154.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Osborne, 213.

[26] Wilkins, 257.

[27] Blomberg, 115.

[28] Osborne, 213.

[29] Blomberg, 115.

[30] Osborne, 210.

[31] Wilkins, 255.

[32] Blomberg, 115.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Wilkins, 254.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Beeke, Joel. Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 520.

[38] Osborne, 214.

[39] Beeke, 640.

[40] Wilkins, 254.

[jmyers104]

Ephesians 2:11-22 Commentary

Introduction

             It has been said that Ephesians 2:11-22 is “perhaps the most significant ecclesiological text of the New Testament.”[1] This portion of Scripture focuses on the union of Jews and Gentiles who have been redeemed by Christ. Because of the blood of Christ, both groups are reconciled to God and now come together to form God’s household – the church.[2] This was a radical concept at the time it was written. Though Ephesus was a multicultural city, there existed an “extraordinary divide that separated many of the peoples.”[3] There were wealthy people living here, but slaves accounted for as much as 1/3 of the empire’s population. Arnold writes, “It is the heart and passion of Jesus Christ for His church to transcend the cultural and economic barriers that separate and divide.”[4] Jesus’ desire, will, and intent is to demolish racial, cultural, economic, and even gender-related divisions that hinder His work of peace.

From Hopelessness to Reconciliation (vv. 11-13)

 A Physical Description of Gentiles (v. 11)

             Paul begins this section with the Greek word Διὸ, which is best translated “therefore” or “for this reason.”[5] This word establishes a connection with the preceding verses. Ephesians 2:1-10 deals with the human plight – that is, spiritual alienation of mankind from God. Ephesians 2:11-22 highlights the Gentile plight – social alienation of Gentiles in particular, as Jews looked down upon them.[6] Having laid the foundation with verses 2:1-10, Paul commands them to “remember” (Gk., μνημονεύετε) their former life. This word is a common literary device that prompts the reader to recall their unfortunate past for the sake of appreciating their present status.[7] Here, this does not simply refer to a temporary, material gain, but to eternal blessings shared with God’s covenant people. How does one reconcile this call to remember their past with texts like Philippians 3:13-14, where Paul urges his readers to forget what is behind and reach forward to Christ Jesus? Why are the Ephesians to remember their past when Paul tells the Colossians to set their minds on what is above, not on earthly things (Col 3:1-2)? The answer is simple: Paul does not call the Ephesians to dwell on the details of their sinful past, but rather exhorts them to consider their spiritually bankrupt state apart from Christ for the purpose of appreciating what He has done for them. All three of these texts, then, are in harmony.

The word ποτὲ (“formerly” in the NASB, “at one time��� in the CSB) introduces a contrast. What Paul describes in vv. 12 and 13 is to be contrasted with verse 13(???). This former description pertains to life before Christ. Though they are now “in Christ,” they were “in the flesh,” characterized by and known for their uncircumcision (which, as Hoehner explains, “Is anarthrous and thus is given the qualitative force of contempt in this context”)[8] just as the Jews were known for being circumcised. Most Romans and Greeks found the procedure not only unnecessary, but detestable. Josephus recounts how Gentiles would mock and ridicule Jews because of their circumcision. Gentiles were viewed as inferior “just by what can be observed in the flesh.”[9]

Though labeling the Jews as the “circumcision” was meant to be derogatory, the Jews wore the label as a badge of honor.[10] In the ancient world, the Jews were widely associated with circumcision.[11] Circumcision obviously had its beginnings in the Old Testament (Gen 17:9-14), and for the Jew, to practice circumcision was to acknowledge God’s covenant faithfulness. The phrase “done in the flesh by human hands” is used elsewhere in the New Testament to contrast man’s work of constructing a temple with God’s nature and works (Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48. 17:24; Heb 9:11, 24).[12] This shows that they had come to rejoice not in God’s faithfulness, but in their elitism. This is further illustrated by the phrase “so-called” (NASB), which Paul uses to express distaste in the title they so proudly held. Why? After all, Paul had once taken great pride in his circumcision (Phil 3:5), but once he was in Christ, he had come to realize that circumcision was “religiously irrelevant”[13] (cf. Phil 3:7-10). What mattered to Paul was not circumcision of the flesh, but of the heart.[14] This was not solely a Pauline concept, but was rooted in the Old Testament (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4). Though circumcision of the flesh was a distinguishing characteristic of the Jewish male, this spiritual circumcision was available to Jew and Gentile, male and female. Elsewhere, Paul explains to the Colossians, “You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:11-12). Bruce writes, “In the new order which the gospel has been inaugurated there is no room for mutual disparagement between the circumcised and the uncircumcised.”[15] Christ had ushered in a new era, and Paul is now going to explain the Christian perspective (i.e., Christ’s plan) for Jew-Gentile relations.

  A Spiritual Description of Gentiles (v. 12)

 Being in the flesh had a spiritual meaning, as well. That their flesh had not been circumcised led to enmity with Jews. That their hearts were uncircumcised led to enmity with God. In this verse, Paul fires off 5 ways in which the Gentiles are at a theological disadvantage, with the fifth being summative and climactic.[16] First, Paul says that they were “without Christ.” Many (if not most) unconverted Gentiles were unfamiliar with the concept of Messiah.[17] Second, they were “excluded from the citizenship of Israel,” the nation whose king was God Himself and was revealed to them in a unique was. Third, they were “foreigners to the covenants of promise.” The fact that Paul uses “covenants” (διαθηκῶν) in the plural sense cannot be overlooked. This word is used 33 times in the New Testament. 30 of those are in the singular, while only 3 are plural (Rom 9:4; Gal 4:24; Eph 2:12).[18] Arnold believes that the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New covenants are in view.[19] Some, such as Hoehner, question whether the Mosaic covenant is to be included here.[20] In figuring out which covenants Paul had in mind, one would do well to consider the immediate context. In verse 11, the Gentiles are described as “foreigners.” One might then consider the covenants that pertain to land. The Gentiles were also without Christ. It would necessarily follow that whatever covenants are included are fulfilled in Christ. The Gentiles were excluded from Israel, which means that they did not have the benefits brought about by the covenants of promise. Since they are “of promise,” they most likely The Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants certainly fit this description, but it is hard to make a case for the Mosaic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant promises land, seed, and blessings (Gen 12:1-4; 13:14-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-21), and the Davidic (2 Sam 7:12-17; 23:5; Ps 89:3, 27-37, 49; 132:11-12) and New covenants (Jer 31:31-34; 32:38-40; Ezek 36:23-36) are unconditional. The Mosaic covenant does not promise any benefits, but condemns. Paul even separates the Mosaic covenant from the covenants of promise in Romans 9:4. Christ said that he came to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17) and the Mosaic covenant is described as “law” in verse 15. Therefore, it has served its purpose. Further, it was a conditional covenant, as it states that God would bless Israel if they would obey Him. Romans 4:13-17 and Galatians 3:6-4:31 contrast this with the New covenant.

Fourth, the Gentiles were “without hope.” It has already been stated that they were without Christ, and there is no hope apart from Christ. They lacked citizenship in God’s kingdom. Though God is the God of hope, they were doomed, which leads to the fifth description: the Gentiles were “without God.” This phrase comes from the Greek word ἄθεοι, which is where the term “atheist” comes from. This is the only place in the New Testament and LXX where this particular word is used.[21] In classical literature, it describes a person who either does not believe in the gods or expresses disdain towards them, or someone who is impious (or has apparently been abandoned by the gods).[22] This may seem like a strange indictment considering their polytheistic culture. Though Paul does not question their devotion to Zeus, Artemis, and the like, they failed to worship and submit to the one true God.[23] In spite of their many gods, they were a godless people.[24] This was not because God favored the Jews. God had not rejected them, for God shows no partiality (Rom 2:11). It was they who had rejected God (Rom 1:19-20).[25]

What Christ Accomplished for the Gentiles

             Here now is this passage’s key verse: “But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” The change in relations among formerly hostile parties is brought about by Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, made evident by the resulting peace (vv. 14-18). God’s new humanity not only enjoys a new and intimate relationship with Him, but also experiences a newfound unity among people groups who were once divided by sinful, superficial, and secular boundaries.

The phrase “but now” introduces the flip side of the comparison and offers good news for the Gentiles at Ephesus. Paul uses this Greek phrase (νυνὶ δὲ) to mark a change in a line of thought (Rom 7:15-17; 1 Cor 12:17-18; 13:12-13; 15:19-20) or a shift in circumstances (Rom 15:23, 25; 2 Cor 8:10-11, 22).[26] Often times he uses it to mark the dramatic contrast between pre-conversion and life in Christ (Rom 3:31; 6:21-22; 7:5,6; 11:30; Col 1:21-22; 3:5-8; Philem 11).[27] Grafting in the Gentiles “now” showcases the eschatological nature of this work. In the Old Testament, it seemed to point to a future time. Paul says that time is now, and it continues on into the present age.[28]

           The Gentiles are now “in Christ Jesus” (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ).  Once separated from Christ, they are now in Christ and are the recipients of the heavenly benefits described in Ephesians 1. Hoehner writes, “The name ‘Jesus’ is added to be sure that the Gentiles as well as the Jews would be cognizant that Christ the Messiah is identified as the Jesus who was on earth.”[29] (check quote). The Jews who had been looking for the Messiah needed to look no further than this Jesus.

No longer could these Gentiles be described as being “far away” from God and His blessings. In the Old Testament, the Gentiles were described as being far off (Deut 28:49; 29:22; 1 Kgs 8:41; Isa 5:26; Jer 5:15) and the Jews were the ones who were near (Ps 148:14). The Gentiles now have been brought into God’s household and enjoyed all the blessings experienced by the Jews.[30] Undoubtedly, Christ was the one who brought the Gentiles near.[31] This came at great cost to Christ. Just as Christ’s sacrificial death was the only means by which mankind could be redeemed, so it was the only way to bring about reconciliation with the Jews.[32] The cross brings both redemption (2:1-10) and reconciliation (2:11-22).[33] The Gentiles were not an afterthought in God’s plan of redemption. It was always His plan to redeem them and bring them into His household (Ps 22:27; 86:9; 117:1; 148:11; Isa 2:2-4; 56:6-7; Jer 3:17).[34]

While Christ brought the Gentiles near, He used Paul as an ambassador to spread this good news. In Acts 22:21, Paul was commissioned to go “far away” to the Gentiles, which carries both a geographical and a spiritual sense to it.[35]

From Enmity to Peace (vv. 14-18)

 The “for” (γάρ) here begins an expansion of verse 13. Why does Christ seek to end the hostility? Because He intends to create a new people and reconcile both Jews and Gentiles to God. He does this with peace as His weapon. He makes peace between God and man (2:1-10), but He also makes peace among humans; to be joined to God is to be joined to the saints. It is this “horizontal peace” that becomes the focus of these next 5 verses. While Isaiah 6 reveals the threefold holiness of God, Paul here describes the threefold peace of Christ: He is peace (v. 14), He establishes peace (v. 15), and He proclaims peace (v. 17). Establishing peace and proclaiming peace are just the results of Christ being peace. Thus, His peace is not merely an external display of piety, but an inward disposition; it is simply a part of His nature.

The process of becoming one people group in Christ is not accomplished by Gentiles becoming Jews, or even in adopting Jewish rituals. Paul vehemently opposes such things in Galatians 3 and Colossians 2. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. What results from God’s work of redemption and reconciliation is a “third entity,” called “God’s household” in verse 19 and the “church” elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt 16:18; 1 Cor 10:32).[36] Hoehner writes, “The law which was so important to the Jew could no [sic] longer be the operating principle, otherwise the old rift would reopen.”[37]

The peace of God is no small theme in Paul’s writings. In fact, it is a critical underpinning of both vertical and horizontal reconciliation (reword) (Rom 2:10; 5:1; 8:6; 14:17, 19; 15:33; 16:20; 1 Cor 7:15; 14:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Gal 5:17; Eph 4:3; 6:15; Phil 4:7; Col 3:15; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess 3:16; 2 Tim 2:22). What is the nature of this peace? Is this a subjective, inner peace? While it may include that, this does not fit the context. It this referring to peace with God? Such peace was covered earlier in the chapter. Peace here is contrasted with hostility, specifically between Jews and Gentiles. Christ is the glue that holds these relations together.[38] The peace mentioned here is objective in nature, focused on restored relationships and a new status in Christ.[39]

The word “our” indicates that this peace is available to all believers. Paul does not distinguish himself from the Gentiles, and he does not think himself better than the Gentiles because of his Jewishness or because of his status as an apostle to the Gentiles. Paul realizes his hopelessness apart from Christ, which is why he referred to himself as the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15).[40]

Paul penned these words during the time Caesar’s Pax Romana was in effect. This was a time characterized by a “cessation of hostilities,” as well as “economic growth, prosperity, and relaxation of tensions.”[41] However, any man-made treaty or pact is temporary and feeble at best. Such an edict can modify behavior, but it cannot change hearts. Only the peace of Christ can truly wipe away hostility between Jews and Gentiles. Though He does not promise economic growth and prosperity in this life, His atonement ensures spiritual growth and prosperity. Further, He supplies all needs according to His riches in glory (Phil 4:19).

Most importantly, the peace of Christ reverses the hopeless plight of man through His blood. The atonement led to the tearing down of the dividing wall of hostility. “Tore down” (λύσας) is in the aorist tense, signifying a completed action.[42] This wall is further described as a “fance” (φραγμοῦ) and “enmity” (ἔχθραν). According to Arnold, “This combination of descriptive terms and metaphors strongly emphasizes the source of division between Jews and Gentiles.”[43] Scholars disagree on the nature of this wall.[44] It has been suggested that it is the temple curtain separating the holy place and the holy of holies, but this does not fit the context – the  most obvious reason being that it was a curtain and not a wall. Additionally, this curtain separated all men – with the exception of the high priest – from the holy of holies, whereas this dividing wall separated Jews from Gentiles.[45] Others have suggested that this could be a cosmic wall that is spoken about in some Gnostic texts. However, such a wall this is referring to heavenly bodies, not separation and hostility between Jews and Gentiles.[46] A more intriguing suggestion is the soreg, a 4 ½ foot wall in the Jerusalem temple that “separated the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites and the court of the women and kept Gentiles from even nearing the sanctuary.”[47] There was an inscription in Greek and Latin that threatened death for those who were not permitted to pass into the court of the Jews.[48] Because this barrier caused problems for Paul in Acts 21:27-36, it is no stretch to suggest that Paul had this wall in mind when he penned these words.[49] However, Paul does not explicitly mention the Jerusalem wall here. Additionally, the Ephesians were likely unfamiliar with this wall, and it was still standing at the time of this letter.[50]

Still others have posited that this could simply be a metaphor for the Torah.[51] The Jews were to maintain strict obedience to the law, which meant that they were not to intermarry or even eat with Gentiles (One can imagine how some Gentiles might have taken offense to this). Tensions were heightened further when some Jews adopted an attitude of superiority. This “wall” caused great “hostility.” The word translated “hostility” (ἔχθραν) is used 20 times in the LXX to speak of hatred towards individuals, groups, or entire nations. It is also used similarly in the New Testament, except that it can also refer to hatred towards God. Here in verse 14, the hostility is between two groups of people: Jews and Gentiles.[52] In this sense, improper attitudes and beliefs concerning the Torah resulted in a religious and sociological wall between the two parties,[53] which Christ abolished. After all, it was man’s misunderstanding and misapplication of the law that led to hostility, not the law itself.

“Abolished” is a common translation for καταργήσας (NASB, ESV, NIV). This is not the best translation in this context, for Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it (Matt 5:17). In fact, Paul says elsewhere that we are to uphold the law (Rom 3:31). The CSB carries the proper sense with the phrase “made of no effect.” It carries with it the idea of something being released or rendered inoperative.[54] In Romans 7:2 and 6, it speaks if a wife being released from her marital contract when her husband dies. That is the sense in which it is used here, but is made stronger by the words “tore down” (v. 14) and “put…to death” (v. 16).[55]

How then is the New Testament Christian to view the law? Thielman writes, “The Paul of Ephesians did not think that Christ had set aside the need for ‘commandments’ within Christianity, nor did he think the Mosaic law had been ‘nullified,’ if that word is taken to mean that the Mosaic law is no longer useful for believers.”[56] Taking a slightly stricter stance, Hoehner believes that Christians are obligated to only obey the parts of the law that are repeated in the New Testament. In defense of this viewpoint, he cites Romans 7:1-6, reminding the reader that Christians have died to the law. It follows, then, that he makes no distinction between civil and ceremonial aspects.[57] When then study the law? Because it shows the reader the need for Christ. Rituals, regulations, and festivals are no longer at the forefront. The Christian life centers around the cross of Christ and is energized by the empowering work of the Holy Spirit. Some take the addition of “regulations” to mean that the ceremonial aspects of the law are what have been abolished. Calvin writes, “From this we may infer that Paul is here treating exclusively of the ceremonial law; for the moral law is not a wall of partition separation us from the Jews, but it includes teaching which concerns us no less than the Jews.”[58]

The word “new” (Gk., καινὸν) is not like a new car that has come off an assembly line but is rather something that is new in kind and quality.[59] In Genesis 1, God creates man. In Ephesians 2:1-10, God recreates man. Similarly, here in verse 15 Paul is describing a brand new community in Christ. These are not Jews and Gentiles who just happen to be Christian. Such distinctions are irrelevant in Christ – just as irrelevant as the ordinances mentioned by Paul. The blood of Christ restores broken fellowship. He makes a new humanity in which the only time factions take place are when members fall prey to sin. As long as believers are walking in the Spirit (word like 4:3), they will enjoy perfect unity.[60]

It should be noted that this verse does not teach universal redemption. Only Jews and Gentiles who have been saved by grace through faith (1:15; 2:8-10) are redeemed and reconciled. Therefore, the reconciliation is not applicable to unbelievers. Scripture makes clear that there will always be enmity between the world and God’s household. The order of events should also be noted: in 2:1-10, man is reconciled to God. In 2:11-22, man is reconciled to man. It must be in this order, for there is no true peace apart from God’s saving work.[61] Reconciliation to fellow man is the result of reconciliation to God, and the cross of Christ is what makes both possible.[62]

Sin alienates man from God, but Christ’s death reconciles man to God. This truth dominated Paul’s thinking (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:19; Col 1:20) and is evident in verse 16. Man is reconciled in “one body.” Some see this as a reference to Christ’s body on the cross, but this is not likely. Verse 15b speaks of making the two into one person, so this follows that line of thinking.[63]

           When did Christ proclaim peace? Given that peace characterizes who Christ is, the message of peace was often on His lips; after all, He began and ended His earthly ministry speaking about peace (Matt 5:44; John 14:27). But is there is a specific instance Paul is referring to? Several answers have been proposed – Christ’s earthly ministry, death on a cross, resurrection, His entire saving work, the 40 days following the resurrection, and His speaking through His apostles by the Spirit after He ascended into heaven.[64] It is that final proposal that Paul has in mind here. Therefore, this is not referring to His earthly ministry because the gospels do not record Him preaching specifically to the Gentiles during this time. It must have been after the crucifixion, because the cross is the basis for the proclamation of peace.[65] Verses 19 through 22 support this view and Ephesians 3:5-6 affirms it. When He sent the Spirit (cf. John 15:26), He empowered their testimony and led them to preach to the Gentiles, resulting in an astounding work of salvation (e.g., Acts 2:41).

           The idea of a new community in Christ is reinforced here. It is not just the “far” (Gentiles) who needed this message for peace; the “near” (Jews) needed it as well, and upon believing in this message they are added to the new community. His people are now expected to proclaim His message of peace, and the hope is that souls are saved and the “building grows” as God continues to destroy worldly and sinful divisions and advances the unity among His people, resulting in vertical and horizontal peace.[66]

           The word translated “access" comes from the Greek word προσαγωγὴν. It is used only two other times in the New Testament, both by Paul (Rom 5:2; Eph 3:12). All 3 of these instances refer to the Christian’s access to God.[67] It is hard to realize how big of a paradigm shift this was. Bruce writes, “To us the abolition of the barrier separating Jews and Gentiles may not be so revolutionary as it was for Paul and his associates; but there are other divisions within the human family which are equally irrelevant in the sight of God and ought to be irrelevant in his children's sight.”[68]

The phrase “to the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα) should not be glossed over. Christ’s work of peace means that man can have a friendly relationship with God. Everyone has a personal relationship with God, but only the redeemed can approach God with the assurance that He hears their requests and cares for them as His children. Here we see all three members of the Trinity playing an active role in this work of “horizontal reconciliation.” Hoehner writes, “The imitation and continuation of a person’s relationship to God involves all three persons of the Trinity.”[69]

From Alienation to Citizenship

(vv. 19-22)

             In verse 15, walls come down. In its place, God build the structure that He wants (vv. 21-22). Three aspects of this building are described here: the temple’s foundation (v. 20), the temple’s formation (v. 21), and the temple’s function (v. 22).[70] This “temple” is a structure in which God chooses to dwell, and the imagery of God dwelling in a temple is rooted in the Old Testament.[71] In this temple, Christians are to be united, and yet they are not uniform; there is both unity and diversity in God’s household (cf. 1 Cor 12:14-26).[72]  

Summary and Contrast

 Jew and Gentile converts are now joined together in Christ, and Paul discusses this new society in Christ using kingdom, family, and temple imagery.[73] While there are distinctions and differences in God’s household, there is neither inferiority nor superiority in His eyes.[74] The Gentiles who were once strangers and aliens are now citizens in God’s kingdom. ξένοι describes a stranger in a foreign land, while πάροικοι is a resident alien. Neither are citizens, and both therefore lack the privileges of citizenship.[75] Such classes if people lacked the full rights that a citizen had and were often deemed socially unacceptable by those in their community.[76] Though negative on its own, Paul sets up a decidedly strong contrast with the phrase “but now” (ἀλλὰ).[77] The atonement ensures that Gentiles are no longer outsiders – and they are not second-rate citizens, but full-fledged members of God’s economy.

What is clear from the verses preceding this one is that Gentiles are not merely an addition to Israel. What God has produced is something new. This is a new man (v. 15) and a new body (v. 16).[78] They are first described as ἁγίων (“saints") in this passage, but this is not the first time Paul uses this word to describe them; indeed, it is found numerous times throughout this epistle (1:1, 15, 18; 3:8; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18). Here, as in other places, it refers to “believers without ethnic distinction.”[79] They are not simply joining the Jewish Christians; all believers “form one citizenry with all other believers.”[80]

God’s Household

             This citizenry is built upon the apostles and prophets who form the foundation of God’s household. There are two points here that have caused a bit of a commotion among scholars. First, some have seen a contradiction between this verse and 1 Corinthians 3:11, where Christ is said to be the foundation. However, one must remember that this is a metaphor, and must therefore take care not to stretch it too far. Simply put, Ephesians 2:20 just further unpacks what is said in 1 Corinthians 3:11.

The second issue pertains to the identity of the prophets mentioned in this verse. It is fairly clear who the apostles are. Hoehner defines an apostle as “one who is sent out on a mission with fully delegated authority by his master Jesus Christ, as the original disciples whom Jesus selected were sent out to minister.”[81] But who are the prophets? These are not the Old Testament prophets, for the atonement had not yet taken place and the church had not yet been formed. Further, Paul likely would have reversed the titles (“prophets and apostles”) if he was speaking about Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the like. The most likely solution is that the apostles and prophets here are one and the same, for the prophet’s job has always been to communicate divine revelation,[82] and this is what the apostles did when the church was established.

However, the apostles and prophets are not the most significant part of the building, even though they form the foundation. Christ – who is the cornerstone – is the most significant. The parallels between Christ and the cornerstone are stunning. αὐτοῦ here is referring to Christ, signifying that “he is the one by which all things are measured.”[83] In ancient times, buildings were structured around the placement of the cornerstone.[84] The builder would take great pride in placing the cornerstone in the proper place, as it “tied the walls firmly together.[85] Likewise, God took great pride in placing Christ in history in the fulness of time (Gal 4:4). The cornerstone was a “place of refuge” during times of crisis (e.g., flood damage). Snodgrass notes that “He is the promised place of security on which the community of God is built.”[86] Additionally, “Cornerstones in ancient buildings were the primary load-bearing stones that determined the lines of the building.”[87] Jesus Himself called the weary and heavy-laden to Himself so that He may give them rest (Matt 11:28). He alone is worthy to be the cornerstone, and His place as the cornerstone distinguishes His from the apostles, both in prominence and in purpose. There is no building without a foundation, but even the foundation is reliant on the cornerstone being set properly.[88]

There is, however, a lack of consensus regarding the nature of this stone. Translations regularly label it as a cornerstone, while some believe “capstone” would be a more fitting translation. However, “cornerstone” is most fitting in this context. In the LXX, the word for “cornerstone” is only used once (Isa 28:16), and it refers to a foundation stone. Wherever this word is found in the New Testament, it is in reference to Isaiah 28:16.[89] Ephesians 2:14-18 speaks of the starting point of the church, and a builder never starts with the capstone. The capstone is placed at the end of the project, but the building is currently being built. He is household’s most important stone, and context makes it clear that Paul intends for us to see Him as the cornerstone. At the same time, He will be the one to complete the building at the end of the age. No one else is worthy to be the capstone. The question at this point, however, concerns Paul’s intended meaning, and it is clear from context that here he intends for us to see Christ as the cornerstone. As the building is in conformity with this stone, so the church should conform to Christ.

One final proof that this is a “cornerstone” spoken of hear is Paul’s usage of “fitted together” (συνοικοδομεῖσθε). This “refers to the careful joining of every component of a piece of furniture, wall, building, or other structure. Every part is precisely cut to fit snugly, strongly, and beautifully with every other part.”[90] It is hard to fathom the difficult nature of this process, especially considering how simple it is today. Hoehner writes, “Today the process of fitting stones together is rather simple because mortar is used. In that day with no use of mortar, there was an elaborate process of cutting and smoothing the stones so that they fit exactly next to each other…If ancient masons used an elaborate process to fit the stones together, one can be assured that God, even more, by his grace is carefully fitting together the individuals who are a part of his building.”[91]

Paul closes this section by showing that all three members of the Trinity play a crucial role in this process. Christ is the cornerstone, and God the Father dwells in this building in the Spirit. All three are active in building the household, and they do so in perfect unity. This unity is to be reflected by believers as they live among each other.

  Conclusion

           Apart from Christ, mankind is hopeless, at enmity with God and one another, and alienated from God’s household. Praise be to God that, through the cross of Christ, God made a way to reconcile man to Himself. In doing so, He joined all believers to one another for the purpose of worshipping and enjoying God, fellowshipping with one another, and partnering in gospel ministry. As Christians remember the desperate plight that Christ saved them from, their hearts are filled with gratitude for their salvation and love for fellow believers who have experienced this same love. Further, Christians long for the day when God adds the final brick to the structure and Christ returns to judge creation, for at that time, believers will be able to experience and enjoy fellowship with both God and man like never before.

                        Bibliography

 Arnold, Clinton. Ephesians. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids,     ��            MI: Eerdmans, 1984 295.

Frame, John. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg: P & R                 Publishing, 2013.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:                     Zondervan, 1994.

Hoehner, Harold. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002

Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley (eds.). Theological Dictionary of                  the New Testament. 10 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

MacArthur, John. Ephesians. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1986.

MacArthur, John and Richard Mayhue Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical        

Snodgrass, Klyne. The NIV Application Commentary: Ephesians. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,                       1996.

Thielman, Frank. Ephesians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010.

   [1] Snodgrass, Klyne. The NIV Application Commentary: Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,     1996), 123.

[2] Hoehner, Harold. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 351

[3] Arnold, Clinton. Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 176.

[4] Ibid., 177.

[5] Hoehner, 353.

[6] Thielman, Frank. Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010), 151.

[7] Arnold, 147.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 354.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Hoehner, 354.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Bruce, 293.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Thielman, 151.

[17] Arnold, 154.

[18] Hoehner, 358.

[19] Arnold, 155.

[20] Hoehner, 359.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Arnold, 156.

[24] Ibid., 150.

[25] MacArthur, John. Ephesians (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1986), 74.

[26] Thielman, 158.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Snodgrass, 128.

[29] Hoehner, 362.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Bruce, 295.

[32] Hoehner, 363.

[33] Bruce, 295.

[34] Snodgrass, 128.

[35] Bruce, 295.

[36] Hoehner, 379.

[37] Ibid., 366.

[38] Ibid., 368.

[39] Snodgrass, 153.

[40] Bruce, 295.

[41] Arnold, 158.

[42] MacArthur, 77.

[43] Arnold, 159.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Hoehner, 369-370.

[46] Ibid., 370.

[47] Arnold, 159.

[48] Hoehner, 369.

[49] Bruce, 297-298.

[50] Hoehner, 369.

[51] Arnold, 159.

[52] Hoehner, 371.

[53] Ibid., 370.

[54] Ibid., 375.

[55] Thielman, 168.

[56] Ibid., 169.

[57] Hoehner, 376.

[58] Arnold, 162.

[59] MacArthur, 78.

[60] Arnold, 164.

[61] Bruce, 300.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Hoehner, 382.

[64] Arnold, 166.

[65] Hoehner, 384.

[66] Ibid., 386.

[67] MacArthur, 80.

[68] Bruce, 301.

[69] Hoehner, 389.

[70] Ibid., 397.

[71] Ibid., 396-397.

[72] Snodgrass, 153.

[73] Arnold, 169.

[74] Ibid., 396.

[75] Ibid., 391-392.

[76] Thielman, 179.

[77] Hoehner, 392.

[78] Ibid., 168.

[79] Thielman, 169.

[80] Ibid., 169.

[81] Hoehner, 399.

[82] Ibid., 403.

[83] Ibid., 407.

[84] Ibid., 406.

[85] Arnold, 171.

[86] Snodgrass, 138.

[87] Ibid., 138.

[88] Ibid., 138.

[89] Ibid., 137.

[90] MacArthur, 83.

[91] Hoehner, 409.

[jmyers104]

Bible Translations

Introduction

             Currently, there are over 50 English translations of the Bible on BibleGateway.com. While we should consider ourselves blessed to have even one English translation, the sheer volume of translations has caused concern for many people. Why do we need more than one English translation? Why are translations so different? Why not stick to the King James Version of the Bible? Christians have used the KJV for hundreds of years, so why change it up now – especially considering how modern translations omit verses found in the KJV, and is that not a violation of Revelation 22:18-19? This paper will seek to answer these questions as it considers translation theory, exegetical decision making, and text-based decision making.

 Translation Theory

             What is translation? Simply defined, “Translation is nothing more than transferring the message of one language into another language.”[1] This is a necessary work, for very few people know Greek and Hebrew, and if we desire to see souls saved and believers sanctified, then God’s Word must be made available in their native tongue. But how can two English translations read so differently? The main reason is that translation committees operate under different philosophies – some opting for a formal translation of the Scriptures, while others adhere to a functional model. Formal translations are more word-for-word, while functional translations are more thought-for-thought, or phrase-for-phrase. Different translations fall along the spectrum at different points. The NASB, NKJV, and ESV are popular formal translations, while the NIV, NLT, and GNB lean towards the functional side of the spectrum. The HCSB falls in between these two categories, aiming for “optimal equivalence.” Seeking to strike a balance between the formal and functional models, the HCSB seeks to be faithful to the original language while also maintaining a high level of readability. What this means is that it is aims to maintain the original structure unless it compromises readability, in which case it will opt for a more natural-sounding rendition. It makes for a good compromise, but it still lands on the same spectrum.

Translation is tricky business, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both of these approaches. While formal translations stick to the structure of the original manuscripts, they can be rather awkward in their wording. Functional translations tend to be more readable (though this is subjective), but because the translators take more liberties, the authorial intent can be obscured. The fact of the matter is that interpretation is involved in both formal and functional translations.

In addition to translation philosophy, another factor that makes translations different is the target audience. Different translations are designed with a specific audience in mind, and different translations are written at different reading levels. For example, the KJV is written at a 12th grade level, the NIV is written at a 9th grade level, and the NIrV is written at a 3rd grade level.[2] When I was in 5th grade, I was using a KJV my parents bought for me. I would read it occasionally, but I struggled to understand it. Before I started the 8th grade, I got saved at a Christian camp and bought my first Bible. I began reading the gospels and immediately fell in love with God’s Word. I thought that perhaps I could understand it all of a sudden because God had opened my eyes to spiritual truth. While that was certainly a factor, the translation I purchased was a NLT, which is far more readable than the KJV. I could understand because it was written on a level that was easier to comprehend.

Having seen some of the reasons why translations are different, consider how different translators present Roman’s 3:23-25. Keep in mind that the examples below move from formal to functional:

 NASB: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.

 NKJV: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.

 HCSB: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.

 NLT: For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past.

 One point of interest is how the NLT has more sentences than, say, the NASB. This is because the NASB seeks to maintain the original Greek structure, which sometimes means using run-on sentences. Functional translations are less concerned with maintaining the original structure and more concerned with making sure the original idea is conveyed in a readable fashion.

 Exegetical Decision-Making

 Whether formal or functional, interpretive decisions must be made. Beyond philosophy of translation, there are many issues translators must wrestle with. For example, there is the problem of ambiguity. When the original language is unclear, what does the translator do? Those on the formal side are more inclined to leave it alone, allowing the reader to see the original structure and make the interpretive decision for himself. On the functional side, translators seek to bring clarity, and in doing so, make certain decisions for the reader. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:14a in the NASB reads, “For the love of Christ controls us.” Is this Christ's love for us, our love for Christ, or love we have for others now that we are in Christ? The NLT translation committee makes their opinion clear in their interpretation: “Christ’s love controls us.”

Another issue arises when dealing with euphemisms: should the translators use veiled language so as to avoid crude speech, or should they be explicit so as to convey the sense of the original? Compare how the following 4 translations deal with 1 Kings 18:27:

NASB: “It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.” 

 NKJV: And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

 HCSB:  At noon Elijah mocked them. He said, “Shout loudly, for he’s a god! Maybe he’s thinking it over; maybe he has wandered away; or maybe he’s on the road. Perhaps he’s sleeping and will wake up!”

 NLT: About noontime Elijah began mocking them. “You’ll have to shout louder,” he scoffed, “for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming, or is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!”

 In all four of the above examples, the idea is clear: Elijah is mocking these people for believing in a false god who will not come to their aid. The NLT, however, is not afraid to employ the “giggle factor” in their effort to use colorful language. The translators get the point across, but the more interpretive liberties that are taken, the more translators run the risk of drifting away from the original message.

  Textual Basis Behind Translation

 These differences still do not account for entire phrases, sentences, and passages missing from modern translations. Why do some translations omit portions of Scripture? The primary reason is that they are working from a different collection of manuscripts. The KJV (and by extension the NKJV) was translated from the textus receptus, or received text. KJV translators “worked from an inferior Greek text constructed from only a few, late New Testament manuscripts.”[3] We now have many more manuscripts at our disposal, and many of these have been dated back to the 2nd century. Concerning one of these recent discoveries, Duvall and Hays write, “In 1947 Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament books were discovered in the caves of Qumran near the Dead Sea.  The Dead Sea Scrolls, as they were called, contain a portion of almost every book of the Old Testament. Prior to the discovery of the Scrolls, the Old Testament manuscript dated to the ninth century AD. In other words, some of the copies found in 1947 were a thousand years older than previously known.”[4]

An issue that is often raised is how there are “errors” in these texts, but this can be easily resolved. Yes, there are variants; this happens when things are copied by hand. There was no computer software to catch the mistakes scribes made. Mistakes are made when lengthy handwritten copies are being made; it is human nature to make such mistakes. But the more documents that are available (currently, there are around 6,000 manuscripts), the more certain we can be of the original. Further, “the best safeguard for the preservation of the Bible rests in the fact that textual variants exist among biblical manuscripts and that through the service of textual criticism we have the means and the opportunity to engage in fair-minded analysis of the text.”[5] Concerning passages that are found in the KJV and the NKJV but not modern translations, there is no scandal or cover-up on the part of the translators. They want to be faithful to the original. There is simply not enough textual evidence to include such passage. One such passage (1 John 5:7-8) has been listed below:

 NASB: For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 NKJV: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

 HCSB: For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood – and these three are in agreement.

 NLT: So we have these three witnesses – the Spirit, the water, and the blood – and all three agree.

             The question here is not whether or not the additional wording is true; it is. However, just because a statement is true does not necessarily mean that it is Scripture. As stated above, when “extra wordings” are omitted from current translations, it is because there is a lack of a textual basis for it. I have previously written on this passage and have included my take on the passage below:

Some of the biggest controversies in the early church centered around the nature of the Trinity. In the early third century, a man named Sabellius taught what came to be known as Sabellianism, the belief that God reveals Himself in different modes. Rather than three beings of the same substance that exist simultaneously, God merely revealed Himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times in history.[6] Around the same time, the rise of Arianism threatened the church with the teaching that “Christ has to be a created being, made out of nothing by God, first in the created order certainly, but of it.”[7] Ultimately, God caused the early church to prevail over these false teachings as they tested the spirits and saw them to be false. Although Sabellianism and Arianism still exist today in the forms of Modalism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, respectively, the church realized that such teachings were contrary to what God revealed in Scripture.

If the extra wording was in the original, you might be inclined to think that the early church would have used it to refute these teachings, but that is not the case. Not once do we see the early church fathers using this wording to combat either of these heretical doctrines. Why? Because of the 6,000 New Testament manuscripts we have uncovered, only eight have this additional wording, and four of those just include it in the margin.[8] Is the statement true? Yes. Was it part of the original, inspired autograph?  The evidence would lead us to say “no,” which is why many translations have omitted it. Does this make the KJV a bad translation? No. It was the standard for centuries, and with good reason. Provided that you can understand it, I would commend it to you. However, I prefer more modern translations like the CSB, because as more and more (and earlier) manuscripts have been discovered, they have been taken into consideration by the translators.

  Conclusion

             With so many translations available, which one is the best? Formal translations such as the NASB and ESV are suitable for serious study, and functional translations such as the NLT are great for children, new believers, and devotional reading. The reader would do well to find both a formal and functional translation they are comfortable with and read both regularly, also consulting other translations along the way. Translations such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT should be avoided, but generally speaking, most translations on the shelf at the local bookstore are safe choices. The important thing is to pick up a translation of God’s Word and read it regularly, for “translation is what opens the window, to let the light in. It breaks the shell, so that we may eat the kernel. It pulls the curtain aside, so that we may look into the most holy place. It removes the cover from the well, so that we may get to drink the water.”[9]

 [1] Duvall, Scott and Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 23.

[2] Mounce, William D. Greek for the Rest of Us (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 21.

[3] Duvall and Hays, 29.

[4] Ibid., 25.

[5] Fuhr, Richard Alan and Andreas Kostenberger. Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2016), 62-63.

[6] Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 785.

[7] Ibid., 95-96.

[8] Akin, Daniel. The New American Commentary: 1, 2, 3 John (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 198.

[9] Duvall and Hays, 28.

[jmyers104]

The Interpretive Journey: Understaning and Applying God’s Word

Historical-Cultural Awareness

             In order to successfully interpret Scripture, one must gain an awareness of the historical and cultural circumstances concerning the passage being studied. Ignoring this step can lead to incorrect interpretation, which ultimately leads to a wrong view of God and a misapplication of the biblical text. Whether someone willingly ignores the historical context or just has not been taught the importance of understanding the historical backdrop, the signs are often easy to spot. A common phrase in many Bible studies and Sunday School classes is, “What this passage means to me is…” The desire to make Scripture relevant is understandable – and even admirable. However, we do not make Scripture relevant because it is always relevant. Paul tells us that all of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16, ESV), a description that highlights the living nature of God’s Word. It never goes out of date. Rather than speaking of making God’s Word relevant, we are to seek to understand its relevance. Somewhat paradoxically, the best way to do this not to bring it to the 21st century, but to go back in time to when it was written. Others write themselves into the narrative, replacing names in the Bible with their own names.

           Duvall and Hays write, “Since we live in a very different context, we must recapture God’s intended meaning as reflected in the text and framed by the ancient historical-cultural context. Once we understand the meaning of the text in its original context, we can apply it to our lives in ways that will be just as relevant.”[1] Along those same lines, Kostenberger and Patterson write, “Christianity is a historical religion, at whose heart is a historical event, the resurrection of Jesus Christ…Unless Jesus rose from the dead historically, we are not saved but remain in sin (1 Cor 15:16-19).”[2] God did not give us a manual, but rather a living and breathing document – a document that unfolds God’s work throughout redemptive history. When we read our Bible, we are not reading an older version of Aesop’s Fables. God actually created the earth, man actually rebelled against God, and God actually sent Jesus to earth in order to atone for our sins. One day soon, Jesus is actually returning to earth, not to continue His atoning work, but to judge the nations and to restore creation. Understanding the historical developments and the cultural trends of the biblical peoples will guard us from erroneous interpretations and enhance our understanding of God’s living Word. Studying Scripture without having and awareness of the historical context is like starting a movie with only 30 minutes left until the credits roll. You will catch bits and pieces of action and necessary information, but you are left in the dark concerning what has already happened. In order to truly understand what is happening (and in order to enjoy it more fully), one must go back to the beginning and see it through the author’s eyes.

 Canonical Consciousness

             Gaining an awareness of the historical-cultural context is the first step, but there are other important factors to consider if we are to get a firm grasp on the meaning and implications of God’s Word. The next step is to consider the passage’s place in the canon of Scripture. What exactly is meant by the “canon” of Scripture? Coming from a Greek word that “refers to a group of books acknowledged by the early church as the rule of faith and practice.”[3] Early Christians did not make the 66 books in the Bible authoritative, but rather saw recognized the authoritative nature of these books and compiled them into what is now known as the Bible. Every book in the Bible was almost unanimously viewed as authoritative by God’s people. But before the canon was even completed, key figures like Peter recognized that God was adding to the canon of Scripture. Speaking of Paul’s epistles, Peter says, “He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16, CSB, emphasis added). At this point in time, it was understood that the Old Testament was (and is) the Word of God. What is interesting is that Peter puts Paul’s writings on par with the Old Testament, recognizing how God spoke through Him in order to add to the canon. When we come to the end of the final book in our Bibles, we find these words: “If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, which are written about in this book” (Rev 18b-19). This serves as a fitting end to the canon: as stated above, God created the world and called it “good.” Man sinned, wrongfully and selfishly concluding that God’s creation was not good enough. God judges sin, but also seeks to redeem mankind through His Son Jesus Christ. Our sins have been atoned for by the perfect and sinless Lamb of God, and He is presently ruling at the right hand of the Father. Now, we wait expectantly for the day when He will return. Though we face many uncertainties, God has demonstrated His sovereignty in showing us how He will bring this age to a close and usher believers into His presence. There is nothing to be added, and in fact, to do so would result in serious judgment. Each book of this canon presents different aspects of this salvation-historical work, and while we would do well to keep the “grand story” in mind, we would do well to consider each book’s unique contribution to Christ. Like a beautiful diamond with 66 facets, the Bible is a precious jewel comprised of 66 books that shed light on the person and work of Christ in their own unique way.

 Sensitivity to Genre

             When we go to the movies, there are certain understandings and presuppositions we take into the theater with us. We expect comedies to make us laugh, and we expect thrillers to shock, surprise, and even scare us. Nobody goes into a Star Wars movie thinking that they are about to watch a rendition of an actual battle that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far away. The genre dictates our viewing experience.

           When baking a cake, most people do not seek to find some hidden meaning in the instructions. However, when reading a mystery novel, they may look for a hidden meaning in a character’s words. The type of reading material dictates how we approach the reading material. Lexicons are read differently than love letters, and we expect certain things from superhero films that we do not expect out of romantic comedies. The same thing could be said of Scripture

           We have seen each book has historical and cultural aspects that must be taken into consideration. We have also seen that each book in the canon is authoritative and has something unique to teach us. Now we turn our attention to the idea that genre affects how we approach the text. Biblical genres include narrative, poetry and wisdom, prophecy, parables, and apocalyptic. Just as we would approach a mystery novel differently than we would a historical account of World War II, so we must approach narratives differently than we would apocalyptic passages. For example, generally speaking, the details that make up narrative accounts are to be taken literally; there is no need to look for some secret meaning or try to decode symbolism in the text. When we approach the apocalyptic sections in Revelation, we do so understanding that the author is conveying literal truth, but he is doing so with unique – at times, almost poetic – language. Neither is the truth to be discarded or ignored because of the symbolism, nor is the symbolism to be taken literally in the apocalyptic passages. Nevertheless, God has spoken, and when if understand the unique nature of each genre, we have added yet another useful tool that will help us in the interpretive journey.

 Literary and Linguistic Competence

             The student of Scripture must take care to examine the language of the Bible very carefully if he is to interpret it correctly. This seems like an obvious statement, but there are several barriers that make the task more complicated than it seems. To be sure, paying close attention to the immediate context resolves many (if not most) interpretive issues. Anyone can pluck a verse out of its context and force it to say something it does not mean, but such foolish interpretations can be dismissed rather quickly when the surrounding verses are examined. For example, Revelation 3:20 says, “See! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (CSB). I recently heard someone use this verse to defend the view that our country should build a wall at Mexico’s border. According to this interpretation, immigrants should stand at the door of our country and knock politely until we let them in (no, this was not a Babylon Bee article!). Reading this verse in its immediate context (Rev 3:14-22) shows that Jesus’ focus was not on politics. Jesus was not addressing the government, but the church. Here, Jesus is calling a wayward church back to Him. The church at Laodicea thought they were self-sufficient, but in reality they were spiritually bankrupt. They deserved judgment, but Jesus was calling them to repentance.

           While Revelation 3:20 is not speaking about a physical barrier, there are several kinds of linguistic barriers that are more subtle and nuanced and require a little more “know-how.” One of the most obvious is the fact that the Scriptures were not originally written in English, but were actually written in Hebrew, Greek, and even a little Aramaic. No two languages are alike; every language has its own rules, and not every word shares a word with the exact same meaning in other languages. For example, Paul refers to himself as a doulos of Christ in several of his epistles, but English translators are divided on how best to convey this word. Often this word is translated “servant,” demonstrating Paul’s humble service before Christ. Perhaps the biggest problem with this word choice is that servants are hired hands who can “clock out” and the end of the day and go about their business because they are not owned. Other translators therefore have chosen to interpret doulos as “slave,” for slaves are purchased and belong to their master. The reason that “slave” is not consistently used by all translators is because of the negative connotations that American slavery conjures up. Translators who believe “servant” to be the best word choice feel that consistently translating doulos as “slave” would both repel and repulse many readers. So while the original manuscripts are inerrant, translations are not. Even formal translations require a degree of interpretation, making the reader subject to the biases of the translators. Thus, it is crucial that we gain an understanding of the original languages. The ideal is to learn the languages, but if one is to engage in serious study, he must learn how to use language tools such as concordances and lexicons.

 A Firm and Growing Grasp of Biblical Theology

             In order to have a firm and growing grasp on biblical theology, two questions must be addressed: 1) What is theology? And 2) How is biblical theology distinct from similar disciplines such as systematic theology? These questions will be answered in turn.

In simple terms, theology is the study of God. Some say that the study of theology is boring and irrelevant, but this could not be further from the truth. God gave humans taste buds, humor, and sexual intimacy (to be enjoyed by a husband and a wife), and the giver is always greater than the gift. Further, theology is always applicable, not just because it is the root of correct application, but because the more the Christian learns about God, the more he will love Him and desire to apply Scripture to his life in ways that are pleasing to God.

           While systematic theology is concerned with what the entire Bible says on a given topic, biblical theology is “The organization of Scripture thematically by biblical chronology or by biblical author with respect to the progressive revelation of the Bible.”[4] Biblical theology aims to understand a given passage in its historical context before questions are raised concerning how it is relevant today.[5] For example, when seeking to learn more about God’s character, the systematic theologian might conduct a survey of God’s incommunicable attributes, noting every place in Genesis through Revelation where such attributes are mentioned. The biblical theologian, by contrast, might do a study of John’s use of “light” and “love” to describe God’s character in his first epistle. Noting the literary structure, he may observe how “God is light” starts off the first half of the epistle, while “God is love” begins the second half. From there, he may take note of the defining characteristics of “light” and “love,” and how those traits are displayed throughout their respective portions of the book.

           As the heading above suggests, one must possess a “growing grasp” on biblical theology – always progressing, and always learning how to make better use of lexical aids, original language studies, and historical documents that may supplement one’s understanding of the text. The student of Scripture will never “arrive;” just as sanctification is progressive, so will the believer’s knowledge be.

           Before moving on, a word of caution is in order: while we should see Christ in every passage, biblical theology dictates that we first understand theology in its historical setting. Charles Spurgeon once said that regardless of the text he was preaching, his goal was to make a beeline to the cross. This should always be the goal, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36, CSB). However, this is the end goal.

When listening to a well-written symphony, there are many peaks and valleys, crescendos and decrescendos, high points and low points. Every musician plays a crucial role in the grand scheme (even the triangle player!), and all the musicians work towards specific climactic moments in whatever piece they are performing. Imagine if just one trumpet player skipped ahead and played one such climactic moment when he was not supposed to. If he was a payed musician, he likely would not be any longer! Similarly, each of the 66 books of Scripture play a crucial role in the grand story of the Bible. While today’s student of Scripture can look back on the law and the prophets with New Testament lenses, one must be careful to first consider the book the passage is a part of, as well as how the book fits into the big picture; the student cannot sound the interpretive trumpet too soon!

  Application and Proclamation

             By necessity, this step comes last. As stated above, we jump to application too quickly, we may miss the author’s intended meaning. There are other pitfalls to watch out for as well. One common misapplication is ignoring the literary context. This is something that is regularly practiced in cults like Mormonism. For example, 1 Cor 15:40 says, “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another” (KJV). Mormons use this verse to support their view that there are 3 levels of heaven: the celestial level, the terrestrial level, and the telestial level. However, a look at the surrounding verses show that this is not the case. The overarching theme of 1 Cor 15 is resurrection. Thus, what Paul is teaching is not different level of heavens, but different bodies – our resurrection bodies will be different than our physical bodies.

Another common pitfall is forcing unnecessary divisions on a text. Preachers occasionally face the temptation to have a sermon with 3 alliterated points, but such divisions often obscure the natural structure of the passage being preached. 3-point alliterated sermons can be good when they are naturally derived from Scripture. When preaching on 1 John 3:4-10, the preacher could speak on sin’s definition (v. 4), deception (v. 7), and destruction (v. 8). The important thing to remember is that the text must dictate the pastor’s outline, not the other way around. We must not be like the preacher who said, “I have got a great sermon! Now all I need is a Scripture verse to go along with it.” “We are to preach the Word, not use the Word in our preaching.”[6] Yet another common pitfall is allegorizing the text at the expense of its plain meaning. True, one must ask, “What is (the text) communicating beyond the brute facts of history?”[7] The sermon should never be reduced to a history lesson. However, interpreters and Bible teachers must preach what is found in the pages of Scripture and not venture off into ideas and concepts the original authors did not intend. Even when one has arrived at the proper interpretation an applied Scripture rightly, the student can fall into another ditch if he does not actually seek to apply it. Indeed, proclamation will have little effect if the one doing the proclaiming is not applying the message to his own life. Kostenberger and Patterson rightly point out that “Knowledge apart from application leads to hubris. But overt obedience is impossible without knowledge.”[8]

           We conclude by considering some guidelines for proper application. First, one must determine the author’s intended purpose. This is accomplished by employing historical-grammatical exegesis. Ultimately, the goal should be to relay the message in such a way that if the original author were listening in, he would say, “Yeah, that is what I meant.” It is also important to “evaluate the level of specificity of the original application(s),”[9] as well as identify cross-cultural principles. A good question to ask is, “Does this conclusion/application fit with what the rest of what Scripture says?” Finally, one should “Find appropriate applications that employ broader principles.”[10] When we utilize these 6 tools, we can interpret Scripture more accurately, love God more deeply, and apply His Word faithfully.

[1] Duvall, Scott and Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 100

[2] Kostenberger, Andreas and Richard D. Patterson Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011), 95.

[3] EDOT, 155

[4] MacArthur, John and Richard Mayhue. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 35.

[5] Kostenberger, Andreas and Richard D. Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011), 697.

[6] Kostenberger, Andreas and Richard D. Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011), 753.

[7] Ibid., 747.

[8] Ibid., 784.

[9] Ibid., 790.

[10] Ibid., 793.

[jmyers104]

A Review of Spurgeon’s “Lectures to My Students”

Bibliography

Spurgeon, Charles. Lectures to My Students. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979.

Summary

            In the classic Lectures to My Students, Spurgeon addresses a plethora of important issues in pastoral ministry. Although many topics are covered, much of his content can be placed into one of two categories: the minister’s private life, and the minister’s public ministry. Both of these with be discussed in turn.

            Spurgeon unpacks several crucial elements of the minister’s private life, the chief of which is prayer. The minister “is always praying” (Spurgeon, 43). Even though the minister is not always physically on his knees in prayer, his spiritual posture is one that expresses dependence on God. Spurgeon writes, “All our libraries and studies are mere emptiness compared with our closets” (Spurgeon, 44). Far from discounting the importance of Bible study, here he is highlighting both the importance and effectiveness of prayer. Our study of Scripture is intended to point us to Christ and drive us to our knees in prayer, and the minister who fails to pray regularly will see little fruit in his life and ministry.

            Another crucial element of the minister’s life is his “self-watch” (Spurgeon, 9). Rather than relying on his own abilities, the minister is to seek strength from the Strong One (Spurgeon, 17). The minister must also reject the notion that he is “on the clock.” There is no timecard to punch at the end of the day; he is at all times an ambassador of Christ, seeking to honor God every moment of the day and serving the flock when needs arise. “A policeman or soldier may be off duty,” Spurgeon writes, “but a minister never is” (Spurgeon, 172).

            Vigorous piety must characterize the minister’s life. Two quotes from Spurgeon drive this point home. First, “We had need live very close to God, if we would approve ourselves in our vocation” (Spurgeon, 15). Second, “We have need of very vigorous piety, because our danger is so much greater than that of other believers” (Spurgeon, 15). Indeed, the minister is not immune to temptation. In many ways, the minister faces temptations that arise with greater frequency and force. Thus, it is critical that he examine his life regularly to ensure that he is living a life pleasing to God.

Moving to the topic of public presence, Spurgeon highlights the critical nature of pulpit ministry. When preaching, the minister must be clear and unmistakable in his delivery of biblical content. Though he must be thorough, he must package the content in a way that the audience can digest. Citing a fellow minister, Spurgeon wrote, “Make your sermons like a loaf of bread, fit for eating, and in convenient form” (Spurgeon, 80). Regardless of the passage being preached, ministers must “be sure incessantly to bring forth the soul-saving truth of Christ and him crucified” (Spurgeon, 79). Indeed, “He (Christ) is the whole gospel” (Spurgeon, 82).

When he descends from the pulpit, the minister must take care in how he converses with his fellow man. In Spurgeon’s day, there seemed to have been a problem among the clergy in which they were “trying to be too much a minister” (Spurgeon, 171). In our day, the opposite error is prevalent, as ministers go to great lengths to “fit in.” Spurgeon’s assessment of the minister’s character serves as a remedy for both errors. Ministers are to be earnest in zeal for God’s Word and work; if the minister is not passionate about God’s kingdom, he cannot expect his congregation to be (Spurgeon, 326). They are to be sociable (even if they are introverts), and they more they come to love God and His people as a result of their private life, the more natural it will be to socialize. The minister is to have a face that says “welcome,” not “beware of the dog” (Spurgeon, 173). He is also to cheerful; assuming he is indeed spending the time in prayer, study, and self-examination that he should, his cheerful disposition will come naturally. Such a man will not have to adorn a fake smile because he wears heaven in his face (Spurgeon, 175). 

Critique

            This author only finds disagreement with Spurgeon only on one point, and that pertains to Spurgeon’s words on choosing a text to preach on. In reading the chapter On the Choice of a Text, it seems that Spurgeon was not keen on preaching straight through books of the Bible. In fact, he was actually critical some preachers who planned out a series of sermons. In recalling one sermon series on Hebrews preached by another preacher, Spurgeon writes, “Paul…exhorts us to suffer the word of exhortation, and we did so” (Spurgeon, 98). Granted, there is danger in preaching through a book in the Bible, in that the preacher can begin to lose focus and meander through passages at the expense of clarity. However, in such instances, the problem is with the messenger rather than the message. There are many Bible expositors in our age that have blessed the church beyond measure. Many have been captivated, for example, by Dr. John MacArthur as he spent over four decades preaching through the entire New Testament. Spurgeon, however, seemed to prefer topical preaching over expositional preaching. While the danger with expositional preaching is to lose focus and get lost in a fog, the danger with topical preaching is that the preacher runs the risk of taking a verse out of context and preaching a message that was not intended by the author. Further, when a preacher exclusively preaches topical sermons, there are certainly doctrines that fall to the wayside. Expositional preaching ensures that no doctrines are neglected. The preacher would do well to utilize both forms of preaching, as they both have their benefits.

            To be fair, Spurgeon does mention that preaching through books is not always something the congregation “suffers” through. Still, to Spurgeon, “the exceptions are few, for it is even said of that wonderful expositor, Joseph Caryl, that he commenced his famous lectures upon Job with eight hundred hearers, and closed the book with only eight!” (Spurgeon, 98). His point is well-taken, but there is no denying that there are definite benefits in preaching through books of the Bible. Spurgeon no doubt believed this as well, as demonstrated by his magnum opus Treasury of David, but it unfortunately seems that he saw little use for an expositional series in the pulpit.

            Beyond this one critique, this author finds no fault with Spurgeon’s lectures. More than that, this work is a delight to read, as Spurgeon is a master wordsmith, crafting illustrations to emphasize his points, and even injecting humor when discussing more lighthearted matters. On more than one occasion, this author laughed audibly when reading certain portions of Spurgeon’s lectures. To give but one example of Spurgeon’s beautiful use of the English language, consider Spurgeon’s advice to the minister concerning arguing with others: “Try to avoid debating with people. State your opinion and let them state theirs If you see a stick that is crooked, and you want people to see how crooked it is, lay a straight rod down beside it; that will be quite enough. But if you are drawn into controversy, use very hard arguments and very soft words” (Spurgeon, 178).

Evaluation

            Spurgeon’s delivery of his content leads to the evaluation portion of this paper. This book makes some significant contributions to the field of pastoral ministry. One of the most important aspects of this book as a whole is Spurgeon’s delivery of his material. The lectures are extremely readable, theologically profound, and immensely practical. The structure of the book is well-organized, and his train of thought is easy to follow throughout each chapter. This is an important lesson for the minister as he prepares his own lesson plans. Many books in the academic world provide facts about the Bible but lack a certain pastoral warmth. Spurgeon’s lectures definitely challenge the mind, but not at the expense of nurturing the heart and calling the minister to action; indeed, he is well-balanced in his appeals to the whole man. In observing Spurgeon’s mode of teaching here, the reader can learn how to relay God’s Word in a way that will stir the affections of his hearers.

            Another notable contribution to the field is Spurgeon’s teachings on the Holy Spirit. There are many “how-to” books available on ministry, teaching how to prepare sermons, study the Bible, grow a church, and other various topics. Unfortunately, many of these books miss the mark in a sense, as they fail to mention the Holy Spirit’s role in the life of the minister to ensure his success. Spurgeon does not allow us to make this mistake. He writes, “If we had not believed in the Holy Ghost we should have laid down our ministry long before this, for ‘who is sufficient for these things?’ Our hope of success, and our strength for continuing the service, lie in our belief that the Spirit of the Lord rests upon us” (Spurgeon, 196). This author wholeheartedly recommends Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students to any Christian serious about their walk with the Lord.

[jmyers104]

An Exposition of Philippians 1:12-18

           In 1553, “Bloody Mary” ascended the throne of England. During her reign, she had hundreds of people executed for their religious convictions (most of them were burned alive). One of her first acts as Queen was to arrest Bishops Ridley and Latimer. After serving time in the Tower of London, they were taken to Oxford for examination by the Lord's Commissioner in Oxford's Divinity School. Ridley was asked whether or not he believed the pope was Peter’s rightful successor to the foundation of the Church. He rejected this notion and affirmed that Christ was the rightful heir to the church, not any man. The papacy in Ridley’s eyes  was about seeking its own glory rather than God’s. His position was rather scandalous and offensive, at it ultimately led to both their deaths. As the fires were lit in 1555 in Oxford to burn the English reformers, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, for their faithful witness to Christ, Latimer shouted, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle by God’s grace in England as I trust shall never be put out!”

           It is often the case that the church is at its strongest when it is facing persecution. History shows us that when believers are threatened, they seem to proclaim gospel truths with more tenacity than ever before, and conversions occur at a rapid pace. While I do not wish for persecution, it seems that the religious freedom we have experienced in our country has lulled us to sleep. Ours is a soft, comfortable Christianity that desires man-centered worship services and fun programs with no regard for what God wants from us. Churches want games, not gospel; concerts, not Christ; entertainment, not exposition; politics, not preaching; fun, not fellowship. We are losing the theological soul of our churches, and the results are catastrophic. Because we desire comfort, we do not evangelize. We pursue happiness, but we lack joy because we are not living as God intended. God did not save us so we could be comfortable. He saved us to make us holy and blameless. His purpose for us on this earth isn’t to pursue happiness through worldly means, but to proclaim the gospel of Christ. When we submit to God’s authority and dedicate our lives to proclaiming the gospel of Christ, we will experience true and lasting joy.

           With this in mind, we turn to Philippians 1:12-18. This text describes the power of God unto salvation in even the worst of circumstances – a power that results in joy for Christians as lives are changed and God is given praise and glory. The proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ results in salvation for the lost and joy for the believer. Further, The proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ occurred in various ways with various motives, all with the result of strengthening believers who, in turn, continue to proclaim the gospel.

            First, we learn that gospel proclamation occurred throughout the entire prison. Verse 12 reads, “Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually advanced the gospel.” Paul wants us to know something. There are some things we simply cannot know. You may have heard the fictional story of Albert Einstein sitting next to a college student during a long flight. Einstein introduced himself and said to the young man, “Let’s play a game…I will ask you a question, and if you don’t know the answer, you pay me $5. Then you will ask me a question, and if I don’t know the answer, I will pay you $500.” The young man agreed to the terms. Einstein began by asking the young man, “What’s the distance from the Earth to the Moon?” The young man thought for a few moments but came up with nothing. He reached into his pocket, pulled out $5, and handed it to Einstein. Now, it was his turn to ask Einstein a question. He asked, “What goes up a hill with 3 legs and comes down with 4 legs?” He could see that the wheels were turning in Einstein’s brilliant mind, but he wasn’t saying anything. Five minutes go by…ten minutes go by…after an hour, Einstein shakes his head and hands the young college student $500. Einstein inquires, “Well young man, what goes up a hill with three legs and comes down with four?” The young man reached his pocket and gave Einstein $5. There are some things that even the brightest minds cannot know. There is some knowledge that is beyond our reach because we are finite beings. However, there are things that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt. God has revealed truth to us. We can know the gospel. We can know how God rescues us from our sins, and how He intends to use us to spread His message. That is precisely what Paul wants us to know here.

           One of the things we can know is how the gospel changes our identity. Before Paul gets to what he really wants the Philippians to know, he calls them “brothers and sisters.” Paul is not writing to his biological siblings, but a congregation who was radically transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. In order to gain a better understanding of who Paul was writing to, we need to back up a few verses. Here is the full greeting, starting in verse 1: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus: To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul is writing to believers. His original audience was the Philippian church, but by extension, he is writing to all those who have trusted in Christ alone for salvation. Paul tells us that we are at once servants, saints and sons. I do not want us to lose our focus on the passage at hand, but if we are to gain a better understanding of the gospel we are to proclaim, we would do well to briefly consider these three roles. The word “servants” comes from the Greek word doulos. Some translations use the word “slaves” instead of “servants,” and I believe that the word “slaves” better captures the idea that Paul is conveying here. Servants are not owned, but slaves are. If you belong to Christ, you were bought by His blood. You who were once dead in their trespasses (Eph 2:1), but because of the cross of Christ, you now belong to God. God placed your sins on Christ – the One who knew no sin – so that you could become the righteousness of God. To put it more plainly, according to the gospel, when Christ bore the wrath of God on your behalf, Christ’s righteousness was transferred to you. Now when God looks at you, He does not see your sins. Rather, He sees the righteousness of Christ. Because He is such a good. That is why we can be called saints. We have not attained such a status through good works, but have been made saints through Christ Jesus. That does not mean that we can go on sinning. In the next chapter (Phil 2:12), Paul instructs believers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. The gospel does more than ensure a seat in heaven for us. God’s power is made manifest through the gospel in how He enables us to do good works, but also in how He implants in us a desire to work out our salvation. On the one hand, Paul tells us to work out our salvation. On the other hand, the says that He who began a good work in us will bring it to completion (1:6) We don’t strive for holiness so that God will save us, but because God has saved us, and we do so in the power of Christ. As saints, we are to be who we now are: holy and blameless. Paul’s prayer for them is that they grow in knowledge and discernment so that they may be holy and blameless. That is the key to working out our salvation in fear and trembling – in living life as a servant and a saint. Because we are servants who have a good Master, we long to honor and obey Him. Because He has made us saints, we have the ability now to obey His words. We were not saved from God’s wrath so that we could continue in our sin. Gospel transformation ensures that we are separated from our sin and given over to the life God wants us to live. Our heart of stone is removed and we are given a heart that loves what God loves and hates what God hates. We look like Him because we are His children. And if we are His children, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We have been brought into everlasting fellowship with God and with each other. That is why Paul cares so deeply about these people. That is why he prays for them, and that is his motivation for writing them.

           And the reason he writes is to tell them about his imprisonment. We might expect Paul to disclose the details about the imprisonment. What is the condition of the jail? Is he receiving adequate food and water? How long do they intend to keep him locked up? Paul doesn’t answer these questions because that is not his purpose in writing. Rather, he writes about how God has used Paul’s imprisonment to advance the gospel. There are at least three reasons why Paul takes this approach. First, his partnership with the Philippians is based on the gospel. Philippians 1:5 reads, “For you have been my partners in spreading the Good News about Christ from the time you first heard it until now.” Second, the gospel is what mattered most to him; the conditions of the jail are merely peripheral to Paul. Third, Paul sought to encourage his brothers and sisters who were presently suffering. Paul says in verse 28, “Don’t be intimidated in any way by your enemies. This will be a sign to them that they are going to be destroyed, but that you are going to be saved, even by God himself.” They were therefore in need of comfort, and if their imprisoned leader could find joy in the midst of his circumstances, certainly he could encourage them to do the same.

            How amazing it is that Paul’s imprisonment actually caused the gospel to advance. What man intended for evil, God used for good; Paul’s circumstances didn’t keep the gospel from spreading, but actually gave Paul opportunities to evangelize that he would not have otherwise had. Paul was a pioneer going into uncharted territory, and as servants, slaves, and sons in Christ, we are to follow in Paul’s footsteps, advancing the gospel wherever God places us. That is our identity in Christ, but it was that identity that led to Paul’s imprisonment.

            Our second point is that gospel proclamation occurred because of Paul’s identity. Verse 13 says that the gospel has advanced “so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard, and to everyone else, that my imprisonment is because I am in Christ.” Being in Christ was the reason Paul was in prison. How easy it could have been to throw in the towel and say, “Well, that’s it. My ministry is done for.” But Paul knew that He was placed there by God. His ministry was far from over. Being in prison was a temporary assignment, but being in Christ was his permanent identity, and just as God began a work in Paul’s life and would bring it to completion, so God would use Paul as a vessel to begin that good work in the lives of those in the prison.

            The imperial guard mentioned here was the most elite group of Roman soldiers – about 9,000 in total. At all times, Paul would be chained to one of these soldiers. As one guard finished his shift, another would be there to relieve him of his duties. Paul saw this as the perfect opportunity to spread the gospel. He would share the gospel with one of these soldiers, and every time they changed shifts, he had a new audience. Though Paul was in physical chains, these guards were in spiritual chains. They were the true prisoners! Paul did not slide into depression because his joy was not based on his location, but on his Lord and Savior. He did not fear the guards because he feared what would happen to them if they never heard the gospel. We must adopt that same attitude. Every day, we encounter men and women who are on their way to hell, and God has placed us in their way so that if they are to go to hell, they must leap over our bodies. And yet more often than not, we put our heads down and keep on walking. Maybe that is why you have no joy. Maybe that is why your life seems meaningless: you are not living the life you were created for! God has made us servants, saints, and sons. And now, he desires to use you to bring others into the kingdom. There is no plan B; you are it! It is not exclusively the pastor’s job to evangelize. God seeks to use you in the process of releasing sinful men and women from the bondage of sin.

            Do not let this task overwhelm you. You do not need to draw a crowd on a street corner and give a full-blown presentation on Christian apologetics. Paul witnessed to one guard at a time, and before he knew it, the gospel had spread to the whole imperial guard – all 9,000 of them! It starts with one. Who is your one?

            Perhaps you are confused as to what exactly you should say. Situations vary, but the content remains the same. One commentator constructed a conversation Paul likely had with one of the guards. He writes, “Imagine a guard coming on duty to watch Paul. He has no idea who Paul is. So he asks Paul the most common question directed at prisoners, ‘Why are you in chains?’ Paul’s answer is Christ-centered: ‘I am in chains because I belong to Christ. I serve Christ. Jesus Christ in humility and in obedience to God’s will died for our sins on a Roman cross under Roman power. Jesus Christ is not the risen and exalted Lord above all powers. Christ called me to proclaim the good news about him among the nations. Christ is the Savior of all who trust him. One day everyone will recognize and worship Christ as the Lord of all’ Undoubtedly, something like this would have been Paul’s answer.” At the core, it must always be a Christ-centered message. You may not know every answer to every question they have, but you have the answer to their greatest problem, and that is Christ. He is enough.

            And what if they do not respond favorably to your message? Concern yourself with faithfulness, and let God take care of the results. Just as the wind blows all across the globe and cannot be confined to a single location, so the gospel spreads and cannot be contained to a jail cell. The only way you can keep the gospel from spreading is if you keep your mouth shut.

            Paul was confined to his quarters and chained to an imperial guard at all times, and yet God still used him to spread the gospel. So I ask you: who is your imperial guard? Where are your quarters? Perhaps you work in a cubicle. God is calling you to proclaim the gospel to your co-workers in that office. Maybe you are a stay-at-home parent. God is calling you to teach your children the gospel and live it out. Wherever God has placed you, allow Him to use you the way He desires to. In doing so, the gospel will spread and your joy will increase. There is no need to fear. Because God is working through us in all things, we are therefore free to proclaim His Word fearlessly.

            In fact, that was the result that Paul’s message had on fellow believers. Our third point is, Gospel proclamation was proclaimed fearlessly because of Paul’s witness. Look at verse 14: “Most of the brothers have gained confidence in the Lord from my imprisonment and dare even more to speak the word fearlessly.” Paul’s imprisonment stirred up a boldness in the believers that caused them to proclaim Christ, even though human wisdom might have suggested that they keep their mouths closed. The word “dare” comes from a Greek word meaning to show boldness or resolution in the face of danger, opposition, or a problem. This does not imply that they initially lacked boldness altogether, but that there was a noticeable increase in their boldness. Opposition and potential persecution could not keep them from proclaiming the gospel.

            Such a boldness was characteristic of so many believers facing persecution in the early days of the church. Around 162 A.D., a man named Marcus Aurelius Antoninus began a great persecution against the church. He was known as being “sharp and fierce” towards Christians, as was evidenced by the terrible ways he killed Christians. Polycarp, a disciple of John and a bishop at the church in Smyrna, was one of the many Christians who suffered under this tyrant. Just before he was burned at the stake, he was given the opportunity to recant and deny Christ. “Swear, and I will release thee; – reproach Christ,” the proconsul urged him. Polycarp replied, “Eighty and six years have I served him, and he never once wronged me; how then shall I blaspheme my King, Who hath saved me?” As a father in the faith, Polycarp had come to know and experience the love of Christ in such a powerful way that he could look past the fiery death that awaited Him and focus on the glory of Christ that blazed even brighter. History is full of such heroes in the faith. If you lack courage, look to them. If God can embolden men like Paul and Polycarp to dare proclaim the gospel under such horrid circumstances, then He can do the same for us.

            Our fourth point is, gospel proclamation occurred with conflicting motives. Motives matter. For example, When I ask my children to do something, I care not just that they do it, but I care about their reasoning and disposition because it reveals their motives. I want them to do it because they love me, not to make their siblings look bad because they did the task better. Likewise, God wants us to do the work He sets before us with motives that are pleasing to Him. There were essentially two groups that were preaching the gospel. One group was preaching with good motives, the other with sinful motives.

            There were essentially two groups that were preaching the gospel. One group was preaching with good motives, the other with sinful motives. We will first look at the “good” group; it is much easier to recognize the counterfeits when we are familiar with the real deal. Paul points out three characteristics about the good group. Paul moves from the general to the specific. Starting in verse 15b, Paul says that these believers preach “out of good will. These preach out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.” So Paul is saying here that their good will is demonstrated by love for the gospel, as well as love for Paul. They were not blind sheep following their leader to the ends of the world. There are many preachers who gain a following, fall into sin, and end up being exposed for charlatans, but a faithful few continue to follow them. These believers had a correct knowledge of Paul. Unlike Job’s friends, they knew that Paul wasn’t being punished by God. Yes, sometimes we bring hard times on ourselves because of our stupid decisions, but they knew that wasn’t the case with Paul. God placed him in the midst of an unreached people group, and the fact that Paul continued to defend the gospel motivated them to do the same. They were not competitors, but comrades.

            I always look forward to Christmas, because that is the one time that my whole family is able to get together. For years, it was just my mom, my two brothers, and me. About four years ago, my mom remarried, and I gained a stepdad and three stepsiblings. My stepdad is my pastor. One of my stepbrothers pastors a church in Virginia. Another one of my stepbrothers is a youth pastor. My stepsister is married to a youth pastor. When we get together, we talk about two things: Alabama football and theology (as a Calvinist, I am more bothered by the fact that they aren’t Dawg fans than I am by the fact that they are Free Will Baptists!). My favorite time of year is getting together and talking about the gospel and its impact on every area of our lives. If I find myself to be discouraged, meeting with these brothers always lifts my spirits because they point me to Christ. There is no competition among us. We are fighting together, defending the gospel and edifying the church. Likewise, many of these brothers understood that this was the case for them.

            Unfortunately, others did not see it that way. Verse 15a says, “To be sure, some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry.” Verse 17 reads, “the others (that is, those with sinful motives) proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, thinking that they will cause me trouble in my imprisonment.” Five negative qualities are listed to describe these believers. And yes, they are believers, not heretics.

            We might be inclined to think that these are false teachers, but that is not the case. Paul reserves his harshest words for those who are distorting the gospel, and for those who are being persuaded by their message. Paul wrote to the Galatians because a group of people known as the Judaizers were teaching them that they must be circumcised in order to be saved. Plain and simple, that is works righteousness. Paul did not begin his letter with any sort of commendation. Even the sexually immoral Corinthians were greeted with kind words in the letters Paul wrote to them, but that was not the case with the Galatians. In Galatians 1:6-9, he writes, “I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him!” He warns the Philippians of this grave error as well. In Philippians 3:2, he says, “Watch out for the dogs, watch out for the evil workers, watch out for those who mutilate the flesh.” If these rivals in chapter one were false teachers, Paul would likely be far more stern. Instead he actually describes them as fellow Christians. Notice how he lumps them in with the believers of good will: some of them (i.e., the believers mentioned in the previous verse) were preaching out of envy. Paul does not scold them as he did the Judaizers because Christ was still being preached.

            Why does it matter whether they were believers or unbelievers? Because their identity carries implications for us today. If these believers could fall prey to a lifestyle characterized by sin, so can we. Further, we learn from this passage that external righteousness do not gain us favor with God. Preaching Christ is a noble act, and we are all called to evangelize, but even their righteous needs were corrupt because their hearts were sinful. It is only when we think and feel rightly about the gospel that we can live rightly.

           As already mentioned, five negative qualities are mentioned here. The first two are listed in 15a: they were characterized by envy and rivalry. They were seemingly jealous of Paul, and now that Paul had fallen on tough times, they took this opportunity to belittle him. They were also characterized by selfish ambition. This might seem strange considering they were preaching the gospel, but many today use the gospel for selfish gain. We are all too familiar with TV preachers who promise wealth and prosperity to people if they have enough faith…and also send them money. But it can be far more subtle than that. Many preachers (often young preachers who gain popularity early in their lives) get a taste of success and begin to preach in a way that exalts themselves rather than Christ. They may not even be aware that they are doing it, but because they fail to examine their own hearts, they fall prey to this sin. Preachers aren’t the only ones, by the way. It’s not always wrong to be ambitious. Maybe you want to make enough money to provide for your family, and that is a good thing. But when you begin to think about money more than you think about Christ, or when you want a promotion so you can have more possessions than your neighbors, or when you desire a promotion so you can lord it over others in your company, you have become selfishly ambitious.

            These rivals were also insincere and seeking to cause trouble for Paul. It wasn’t enough that he was out of the picture; they had to kick him while he was down. They were vultures, swarming around Paul waiting for his ultimate demise. This is the inevitable result of envy. Sinful desires never stay stagnant. They will always grow and give birth to greater manifestations of sin. James 1:14-15 says, “But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death.” These Christians did not just roll out of bed one day and say, “You know what? I think I’m going to make Paul’s life miserable.” We don’t know all the details because Scripture doesn’t provide them, but we know how sin operates in our lives. It may have started with a sermon. “Wow! Paul sure can preach! I wish I could preach like that…” They may have paid lip service to Paul, even patting him on the back. However, on the inside, there hearts were darkening towards him. “Why is he getting all the attention. I am a great preacher, too.” Then it gets a little more personal as they move from his actions to his character. “Ok, seriously, why is this guy preaching this Sunday and not me? I’m more qualified than he is. After all, I’m not the one who murdered hundreds of Christians.” Finally, Paul is arrested, and they rejoice because their opponent is out of the picture. Now they can seize this opportunity and discredit Paul. “If God was really working through Paul, then why would He allow Paul to be arrested?!” That’s one of the many problems brought about by sin. It distorts our thinking to the point where reason is flipped on its head. The truth of God is exchanged for a lie. No doubt they thought they were in the right, but their spiritual vision was so impaired that they were harming their brothers and sisters. We must regularly examine our hearts, asking God to reveal our hidden sins. We must pray that God would allow us to see ourselves as He sees us. As we proclaim the gospel, we must also take care to preach it to ourselves, for the greatest way to combat the sin in our lives is looking to the perfect and sinless Christ who died for our sins so that we would be holy and blameless.

            Regardless of motives, Paul could rejoice, and that leads to our fifth and final point: Gospel proclamation led to Paul’s joy. How easy it would have been to grow bitter and angry in this situation. Put yourself in Paul’s sandals: You’re in prison. You’re chained to a guard. You cannot come and go as you please. There is no unwinding with Netflix at the end of the day. You don’t get to tuck your children in bed and pray with them. And to make matters worse, your brothers on the outside are seeking to ruin your reputation. What is Paul’s response? In verse 18, Paul says, “What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.” Paul is essentially saying, “These brothers are seeking to cause me harm. So what? What do I care? It really doesn’t matter because Christ is being proclaimed.” When the gospel is under attack, Paul fights for the faith. But when Paul is under attack, he sees no need to defend himself. He is a picture of what he commanded in 2:3. Gospel proclamation is not a competition. Paul was not attempting to build a megachurch or gain a huge following. His life was all about preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

            Paul is not only rejoicing at the time he wrote this letter, but he resolves to rejoice in the future, regardless of circumstances. His joy is tied to the person and work of Christ, and because Christ is unchanging, Paul’s joy is unfading. If you do not experience joy like this, perhaps you are pursuing satisfaction in things other than Christ. People look for happiness in all kinds of things – money, sex, power…the list goes on and on. The problem is, when we live for anything other than Christ, that thing ultimately becomes an idol and will be our destruction. It may bring momentary happiness, but it will not bring us ultimate satisfaction. Only Christ can do that.

            We have learned five important things about gospel proclamation from this passage. Gospel proclamation occurred throughout the entire prison. God will at times place His children in difficult circumstances, but He will use these trials to advance His kingdom and increase our joy. Gospel proclamation occurred because of Paul’s identity. To be a saint is to suffer. If we are in Christ, the world will oppose us. But blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God. Gospel proclamation was proclaimed fearlessly. Paul said that to live is Christ and to die is gain. We live for Christ, which brings us joy. But even if we lose our lives because of persecution, we can rejoice because that just brings us into Christ’s presence. Gospel proclamation occurred with conflicting motives: some good, some bad. In either case, Christ was being preached, and this leads to our joy.

            When I think of bold, fearless preachers, I think of Martin Luther. On April 18, 1521, Martin Luther stood before some of the most powerful religious leaders in the world. Their demand was clear enough: recant, or face severe punishment. He has been issued that command the day prior, and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the moment, he asked for time. He returned the next day and responded with these now-famous words: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen.” As we look to Paul’s example, may we be strengthened, emboldened, and filled with joy. And in the face of trials, tribulations, and suffering, may we stand with Martin Luther, proclaiming with our mouths the gospel of Christ and proclaiming with our hearts, “I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen.

[jmyers104]

Calvin and Edwards as Educators

John Calvin

Student

John Calvin’s parents placed a high premium on education. “Calvin received education through his father’s efforts to secure aristocratic patronage.” As a young boy (around 11 or 12), Calvin was sent to College la Marche, where he was greatly influenced by humanist Mathurin Cordier, who stressed to Calvin the importance of learning to read and write proficiently. However. because he desired a more conservative education, Calvin soon transferred to College de Montaigu – “a place that combined rigorous academics with an austere lifestyle.” Every morning, Calvin would wake up at four and commence with a day full of prayer and rigorous study. This became a habit that he would follow for the rest of his life. Calvin would eventually find himself studying at College Royal, where Calvin would immerse himself in the study of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages.

           Though Calvin was demonstrating that he was gifted with a great mind, he was not at this time using it for God’s glory. That would change quite suddenly in 1533. In Calvin’s own words, “God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame…Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not leave off other studies, I pursued them with less ardour.” The following year, Calvin moved to Basel, where he continued his rigorous study of the languages, but his focus was now on God’s kingdom.

Pastor

Calvin desired to live a quiet life as a scholar, but God had other plans for him – and so did a man named Guillaume Farel. While Calvin was traveling through Geneva one night, Farel found him and strongly urged him to stay in Geneva to help with the reformation cause. Calvin declined the offer, but Farel was not willing to accept “no” for an answer. In no uncertain terms, Farel cursed Calvin’s studies, which troubled Calvin to the point that he conceded and moved to Geneva. He became a preacher, and under the tutelage of Farel and Pierre Vinet, Calvin learned to do the work of a pastor. Unfortunately, he was forced out of the church after two years there, though they would ask for him to return three years later. Those three years away from Geneva proved to be a great time of spiritual formation for Calvin. He stayed in Strasbourg and was mentored by a man named Martin Bucer. Calvin did not return with hard feelings toward his congregation. In fact, rather than dwell on the situation, he picked up where he left off, preaching from the passage of Scripture where he had left off three years prior.

           Given that this was the time of the Reformation, the church was still in theological and doctrinal darkness. Calvin’s solution was to centralize God’s Word in the life of the church and emphasize the teaching of Scripture as the foundation of theological education. The church, as Calvin viewed it, was the “school of Christ,” and Christianity is a religion founded on the knowledge of God.

Author

           Throughout his life Calvin would write several books. Prior to his conversion, he wrote “a critical edition with commentary of Seneca’s De Clementia.” Though it was an impressive work (especially for a 23 year-old), it was not as successful as he had hoped. Still, God certainly used this time to shape and prepare Calvin to write his most notable work, Institutes of the Christian Religion. In 1536, the first edition of Institutes was published. It provided “an overview of biblical doctrine for French protestants” that proved to be rather popular. It would see eight Latin revisions before its final edition was published in 1559. What started as something of a catechism ended up representing “a sum of religion in all its parts.”

           Though comprehensive, Institutes was not written to replace biblical exposition, but rather to supplement it. Calvin thus wrote a series of commentaries that was “Meant to work hand in hand with his Institutes.” Like his Institutes, these commentaries are thorough without forsaking brevity. An important note on these commentaries is that Calvin steered clear of unnecessarily allegorizing the biblical text, but rather sought to interpret Scripture in a natural, literal sense.

Teacher

           Towards the end of his life, Calvin became involved with the Geneva Academy, a school opened by a friend of his. Here, Calvin would give lectures on various books of the Bible three times a week. Unfortunately, Calvin passed away not too long after he began working with the Geneva Academy, but his legacy as an educator has far outlasted many of his contemporaries.

Jonathan Edwards

Student

           It seems that there was never a time when Christian education was not a part of Jonathan Edwards’ life. His father Timothy was a pastor, as well as a schoolmaster who headed up a college preparatory school in the church parsonage. His mother Esther was the daughter of prominent pastor Solomon Stoddard. Before he even went to college he could read Latin and Greek. Edwards went on to be a student at what is now Yale University, where he graduated at the top of his class. Three years later, he graduated with an M.A. 

Pastor and Teacher

           Following the completion of his formal education, Edwards began pastoring the church at Northampton. The people in his area were spiritually malnourished. Edwards’ remedy was to preach a series on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He affirmed that justification is “the way of the gospel…the true and only way.” This is a doctrine that was critical in transforming the hearts and lives of people during Reformation times. Now, with an ocean and two centuries between Edwards and the Reformation, God was once again using this crucial doctrine to spiritually awaken people. His teachings on justification served as a catalyst for both spiritual and numerical growth for years to come. This gospel transformation was not confined within the four walls of the Northampton church. Just like in Philippians 1:12-18, where an imprisoned Paul was crucial in spreading the gospel, so God used this one man to minister to one congregation who served as a witness to the surrounding communities. As a result, revival would soon break out in the surrounding areas.

           Edwards would certainly not take all the credit for this growth. He viewed education as critical, but he also knew it has its limitations. Edwards depended on the Holy Spirit to change the hearts of men. He observed how the Spirit would use his sermons as a vehicle to work “wonderfully” and “suddenly” among the congregation. Thus, education was not discounted just because the Holy Spirit was at work, but was rather viewed as the means through which He would work. According to Edwards, “Reason can demonstrate that something is true, but only the Spirit of God can create an affectionate desire or delight to it.” With this foundation in place – Edwards’ devotion to Christian and his dependence on the Holy Spirit – the stage was set for the Great Awakening. Edwards became pastor of the Northampton church in 1729. In 1734, a great revival broke out in his church and the surrounding areas. In 1740, a more widespread revival took place that is now known as the Great Awakening, and at the center of that movement was a man devoted to theology and dependent on the Holy Spirit.

           Shortly after the Great Awakening, Edwards had to leave the church due to a doctrinal disagreement. He moved to Stockbridge, MA, where he pastored a church and ministered to Mohawk, Mohican, and Iroquois Indians. Contrary to what some believed in his day, Edwards was convinced that the Indians had the “right to a proper education by qualified teachers” and fought to make this a reality. About seven years later, he accepted a position as the president of what is now Princeton University, where he remained until his death.

Author

           While it is undeniable that the Holy Spirit was transforming lives during the Great Awakening, there were also many false works; where true conversion is taking place, Satan will seek to produce counterfeits. Thus, it was important for Edwards to educate people on how to differentiate between a work of the Spirit and a work of false spirits. He therefore penned The Distinguishing Marks of the Spirit of God, which centered around 1 John 4:1. This book contained three parts: First, Edwards discussed nine “negative signs” to look for concerning false spirits. Second, he described five “positive evidences” of the true Spirit’s work. Third, he made a contemporary application based on the text.

           Another one of Edwards’ most notable works is A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. It is rather easy to fall into one of two theological ditches. The first is that one can become consumed with the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake and become rather cold in their disposition. There other is that one can become consumed with emotionalism, forsaking theology and advocating what “feels good.” Edwards shows that there is not to be such a divorcing of head and heart. “True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections,” and our affections are informed by sound theology.

Teacher

           Edwards employed a method of teaching that worked for children just as well as it did for college students. This method stemmed from a problem that Edwards recognized: children were memorizing facts, but they were not learning. Put another way, they were not internalizing the information. Therefore, Edwards employed a dialogical approach: he would ask questions, and the students were encouraged to ask questions in return. For the child, learning would “cease to be a dull, wearisome task, without any suitable pleasure or benefit.” Edwards also saw positive results at the collegiate level using this method. Edwards also realized that the children were seeing the biblical narrative as a series of disconnected stories and sought to remedy this problem by exposing them to the larger narrative. This would ensure that they would not lose the forest through the trees.

Comparison

           There are many striking similarities between Calvin and Edwards. Both men were taught the value of education from an early age. Both men spent a great deal of time learning other languages. Both were wounded and sent away by their congregations. Both had careers in academia that were, from a human standpoint, cut short. However, the similarities go much deeper. These were men who were profoundly dedicated to Christian education, and sought to expose them to the glory of God through preaching, teaching, and writing. God blessed their ministries with spiritual and numerical growth, and even today God is using their publications to bless His people. Though Edwards was not a reformer in the sense that Calvin was, he nevertheless carried on in the spirit of reformation as he educated the people under the sound of his voice. In his own words, the “easiest way of reforming a people in the world is by education.”

           Interestingly, it was not until after Edwards completed his undergraduate studies that he got saved. During his undergraduate studies, he would have been exposed to the theological writings of John Calvin and the like. Perhaps God used those writings to work in the heart of Edwards and move him towards conversion. Christian education is never complete. God raised up Calvin to do His work, and he used Calvin’s work to bless Edwards and shape his thinking. As we continue to study men like Calvin and Edwards, may our affections for the knowledge of God be stirred, and may we continue their dual work of reformation and education.