Living Your Strengths by Winseman, Clifton, and Liesveld

Introduction

            In the introduction of their book Living Your Strengths: Discover your God-given talents and inspire your Community, Dr. Albert Winseman, Dr. Donald Clifton, and Curt Liesveld argue that a spiritual leader will be more fruitful if he or she focuses on his or her existing natural strengths rather than on present weaknesses or even a potential God-given future strength(1). The implication is that an essential quality of a leader is the ability to keep his or her focus on, and lead out of, his or her strengths. “You will be most successful in whatever you do,” they write, “by building your life around your greatest natural abilities rather than your weaknesses”(2).  Winseman, Clifton, and Liesveld’s concept from this Gallup Press project and others like it(3) have found their way into Christian leadership books and articles; but are they right?  This is an important question for the faithful minister seeking a fruitful ministry.  Is there a time or an event that necessitates that the minister need be more than merely aware of a personal weakness and instead expend energy shoring it up?  Is there a possibility that one could, through various means, develop a ministry strength that is not presently manifested within the minister?  Or might God call a minister to a task in which the minister will receive the talent, skills, knowledge, and ability to fulfill this calling at a later time?  If Winseman, Clifton, and Leisveld are correct, the answer is clearly no.

            This review will examine Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s thesis.  In doing so, differing contemporary works on this leadership concept will be surveyed.  The Bible will also be consulted to examine the texts Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld appeal to for support. Furthermore, this review will conclude that while there are convincing reasons to avoid expending too much energy on one’s weaknesses, there are indeed times to address weakness.  In addition, it is possible that present natural abilities will not necessarily determine the path to the greatest success and present natural strengths may not be the best tools to fulfill God’s call upon one’s life. While focusing on one’s strengths is a leadership quality, understanding the right focus is essential of any leader.

Understanding Winseman, Clifton, and Liesveld

            To open their case, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld go on the offensive against what they call the ‘weakness prevention’ model.  This model, according to Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, dictates, “to become strong, successful, or truly serve God and the world, you must ‘fix’ your weaknesses” (4).  They go on to explain that the weakness prevention model demands that one is not ready to serve God until he or she has better developed his or her areas of personal non-talent.  Their conclusion: “That thinking is just plain wrong” (5).  Instead, 30 years of Gallup’s research is consulted.  Drawing from the interviews of more than two million people, they resolve, as previously stated above, “Your will be most successful in whatever you do by building your life around your greatest natural abilities rather than your weaknesses.  Your talents should be your primary focus!”(6).  This echoes a similar line of thinking from a book Clifton wrote with Marcus Buckingham titled, Now, Discover Your Strengths, which states, “Each person’s greatest room from growth is in the area of his or her greatest strength”(7).

            Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld define strength as, “the ability to provide consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity. This ability is a powerful, productive combination of talent, skill, and knowledge”(8).  In addition, they have developed 34 themes of talent and offer the Gallop Clifton StrengthFinder test to help individuals identify which themes best represent their personal, natural talents.  These 34 themes are the various strengths they argue one should remained focused upon and an inability in any of these talent themes is the implied definition of weaknesses.   “The key to building strength,” Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld argue, “is first to identify your dominant themes of talent, then delve into those themes to discover your greatest talents, and finally produce a strength by complementing those talents with knowledge and skill related to the task” (9).  Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld define talent as, “naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied.  Unlike skills and knowledge, talents naturally exist within you and cannot be acquired.  They are your inborn predispositions” (10).

“Your talents are a precious gift from God,” write Winseman, Clifton, and Leisveld, “They influence how you see, experience, and make your contribution to the world” (11).  Preaching, teaching, apologetics, musical or artistic ability, athletic tendencies, or showing hospitality with joy for example, are not the kind of talents or strengths Winseman, Clifton, and Leisveld are getting at.  Instead, the StrenghtFinder test identifies the talent or strength themes as achiever, activator, adaptability, analytical, arranger, belief, command, communication, competition, connectedness, consistency, context, deliberative, developer, discipline, empathy, focus, futuristic, harmony, ideation, includer, individualization, input, intellection, learner, maximizer, positivity, relator, responsibility, restorative, self-assurance, significance, strategic, and woo (12).

            It is clear from Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s definitions, that talents are fixed throughout life and are not subject to change.  If one were to develop a talent later in life, it might actually be suggested that he or she merely discovered a talent held from birth that had not previously been explored. “From a spiritual viewpoint,” Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld write, “when we deny our talents and instead focus on our weaknesses, on some level, we are telling God that we know best and that God somehow made a mistake in gracing us with our unique mix of talents” (13).  It is unclear how Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld might explain those talents (or personality traits) that are developed or lost through a dramatic life event, such as a disability instigated by a physical accident or illness, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ.  It is clear however, how Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld feel about engaging in areas that do not reside in one’s list of greatest talents.  They coach, “Whenever possible, avoid using your areas of lesser talent.  A lesser talent becomes a weakness only when you try to use it” (14).  Instead of attempting to use any lesser talents, one should find ways to manage these weaknesses through support systems, much like a person might depend upon eyeglasses for sight, or through complementary partnerships with others (15).

A final method Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld offer to deal with weaknesses is to leverage talents over weaknesses.  They provide a case study taken from a man named Robert.  Robert volunteered as a counselor although he was not talented in the theme area of Empathy.  “But his talents in the Restorative and Strategic themes make up for this and enable him to be involved in a ministry he is really is passionate about,” write Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld (16).  This case study is troubling, however.  They express that Robert was not a touchy-feely type of guy.  It seemed that counseling would not be a good fit but Robert jumped in and really enjoyed it.  He received positive feedback and is passionate about it.  The implication presented here is that Robert is counseling from other talents and that Robert can develop a counseling skill but cannot ever hold or demonstrate a talent in the theme of Empathy if he was not naturally born with Empathy.  According to Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, it is impossible to learn how to or become naturally talented in the theme of Empathy, regardless of time or outside circumstances.

An Examination of Other Work in the Field

            Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld are not the only ones to argue that the minister should focus on his or her strengths rather than weaknesses. It may be helpful to examine of those who have differing views of this essential leadership quality.  Dr. Peter Drucker, a managing consultant and writer for example, developed a system for feedback analysis.  Based on the results, he suggests the most valuable thing a person can do is to, “concentrate on your strengths.  Put yourself where your strengths can produce results” (17).  He further encourages his readers to, “work on improving your strengths” (18).  Drucker, unlike Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld however, does not suggest that zero effort of any kind should be invested into weaker areas.  Instead, he suggests that a person identify those areas where there is little to no chance of even becoming mediocre.  In these circumstances he encourages that, “One should waste as little effort as possible improving areas of low competence.  It takes far more energy and work to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence. […] Energy, resources, and time should go instead to making a competent person into a star performer” (19).  While Drucker appears to be in agreement with Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld about focusing on strengths, he is not as ridged on the ability to grow and improve.  Drucker simply argues that energy should be used effectively to produce the greatest results, which is not the case when energy is invested into serious weakness.  In addition, Drucker provides room for adjustment when one’s greatest strengths or talents are not inline with his or her values.  In this case, one should seek to develop and improve strengths that work in tandem with held values (20).  And finally, Drucker does not identify a ridged list of strengths or talents but seems to leave that determination up to the individual.   

            John Maxwell, a respected leader in the area of leadership development is in close agreement with Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, even citing the work of Buckingham and Clifton.  In his book, The 360̊ Leader, Maxwell argues, “Every job required a particular set of skills that employees must possess in order to be really successful.  Even someone with great personal strengths and a great ‘fit’ will not truly be working in his strength zone if he doesn’t have all these skills.  As a leader, it is your job to make sure your people acquire what they need to win” (21).  This argument centers on a leader’s role in best positioning the strengths of a person within an organization, but when assisting the leader to find his or her focus, Maxwell looks at some specific questions that differ from Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s approach.   Maxwell first asks, “What is required of me?” (22).  The answer to this question should help the leader identify what only he or she can do in the organization.  This does not necessary come out of the leader’s strengths or even a list of 34 talent themes.  It may simply have to do with the requirements of the leader’s role within the organization.  The second question Maxwell asks is, “What gives me the greatest return?” (23).  Here the end, not the means is the focus.  One may be extremely talented or skilled in a particular area or talent theme but if it is not producing the most fruit, than focus should be placed elsewhere, even if it is not the leader’s strongest ability, skill, or talent.  And Maxwell’s third question is, “What is the most rewarding?” (24).  While it is reasonable to think most people gain the most reward by doing something they are good at, this may not necessarily always be the case.  Maxwell believes, “Our best work takes place when we enjoy it” (25).

            Some Christian authors on leadership take a slightly different approach.  They see the ministry calling from God as the source of strength rather than solely on natural gifting or personality traits.  Dr. Reggie McNeal writes, “Spiritual leaders cannot be understood apart from their call because it tells them what game they are playing and keeps them in the game, even when they are discouraged” (26).  He goes on to say, “Unlike many people and leaders who are naïve about their talent, self-aware leaders know what they are good at.  They know what they bring to the table (and what they don’t).  This gives them permission to be intentional with their energies and time, always playing toward their talent” (27).  McNeal’s statement is within a broader conversation regarding God-given talent and gifting above mere talent traits.  While McNeal seems to agree with Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, he offers far more credit to God for the leader’s source of strength and talent than they do and he appears open to a wider range of talents.  

Dr. J. Oswald Sanders also greatly credits God in regard to spiritual leadership, stating, “Spiritual leadership requires superior spiritual power, which can never be generated by the self.  There is no such thing as a self-made spiritual leader.  A true leader influences others spiritually only because the Spirit works in and through him to a greater degree than in those he leads” (28).  Sanders, unlike Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld suggest that the Christian minister’s strengths are not his or her own, but instead made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.  There is a tremendous difference between the strengths of the secular leader and the pastor serving the Lord as an ambassador. According to Sanders, “[S]piritual leadership transcends the power of the personality and all other natural gifts.  The personality of the spiritual leader influences others because it is penetrated, saturated, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.  As the leader gives control of his life to the Spirit, the Spirit’s power flows through him to others” (29).  

Dr. Dave Earley likewise sees calling as the indicator of where a pastoral leader should place his or her primary focus.  Regardless of natural strength, talent, or even personality, Earley argues that the majority of the pastor’s energy and effort should be put into the three things a pastor must do: pray, teach the Word, and equip and mentor leaders (30).  Obviously, Earley would draw a clear distinction between the pastor as a leader and the secular leader and his argument suggests that if a pastor is called to ministry as a leader, these three things must either be his or her strengths or become his or her strengths.

            Some secular thinkers in the field of leadership disagree with part or all of Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s premise.  For example, Jim Clemmer argues for improving leadership ability by taking the talents one is good at and becoming great in that talent area.  “And it doesn’t matter which competencies we choose;” writes Clemmer, “So we can pick those that are natural strengths, are most relevant to our job, and we’re most energized about developing further” (31).  Crammer’s argument stands in sharp contrast to Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld suggestion that by focusing on weaknesses, even if trying to improve upon it, one is telling God that He made a mistake. He also suggests that one can pick a talent area based on the requirements of the job or personal interest.  This stands in sharp contrast to Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s example of Robert, the man who served as a counselor but would never learn how to be more empathetic.

Dr. Robert Kaplan and Robert Kaiser stand in disagreement with Buckingham and Clifton, saying, “This approach is associated with the book Now, Discover Your Strengths and its self-diagnostic tool, the StrengthsFinder.  Like any successful movement however, the strengths movement drove a single issue and inevitably left out a lot” (32).  Kaplan and Kaiser do concede however, that Buckingham and Clifton’s idea, the same one championed by Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld is reasonable in light of the “unhealthy fixation on weakness when it came to performance reviews;” but they further argue that “it turns out you can take strengths too far” (33).  Kaplan and Kaiser developed the Leadership Versatility Index and used it in a great deal of research that measured vitality, in which they include team morale, engagement, and cohesion, and they measured productivity in areas of both quality and quantity.  “We found that taking a strength to an extreme,” writes Kaplan and Kaiser, “is always detrimental to performance, but even a mild tendency to over do it can be harmful.  Be a little too forceful, for instance, and your team’s output may improve some – but vitality will take a hit, and weakened morale will eventually undercut productivity. Be a little too enabling, and you may shore up vitality – but productivity will suffer over time, which will in turn erode moral”(34).  According to Kaplan and Kaiser, it appears that building ones life entirely around strengths and functioning too much from these strengths may be detrimental to working with, or building strong teams.  Kaplan and Kaiser further conclude, “There is power in focusing on your strengths, but it derives from acknowledging them in their totality, from having a keen, finely-tuned awareness of both the good and the harm they can do.  Becoming a better leader, then, is not a matter of indiscriminately playing to your strengths, but of continually adjusting their volume to just the right setting for every situation” (35). 

            Finally, Dr. Jack Zenger examined 6,000 leaders’ strengths and weaknesses and developed a scheme for when a leader should or should not work on a weakness.  If the leader’s weakness is a “fatal flaw” Zenger says, “This leader should not spend time working on developing strengths at this time but first correct the obvious flaw.  Only then is it useful for this person to work on developing a strength” (36).  Zenger conducted an experiment at a packaged food company and found that those who were instructed to focus on their weaknesses made a 12 percent improvement; however, those instructed to further develop their strengths improved by 36 percent.  This clearly demonstrates the value of focusing on strengths, but Zenger also found that, “In general, fixing weaknesses is harder than building strengths; but motivated people with low scores need only do a few new things to begin to change those perceptions into positive territory” (37).   The key to this may be found in the level of fun to be had in improving strengths rather than correcting weaknesses.  Zenger did not engage further into this specific detail but he did notice “people smile when they think about [working on strengths] and frown when they think about working on weakness” (38).

An Examination of the Bible

            Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s intended readers are Christians.  The subtitle of their book is “Discover Your God-Given Talents and Inspire Your Community” (39).   Their thesis seeks to apply to Christian leadership; therefore, the contemporary writers in the field are not enough—the Bible must be consulted.  If Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld are correct, one should hope to find various examples of strength-focused leadership in God’s Word.  In addition, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld argue that a person’s strengths and talents are found within the 34 talent themes and those strengths and talents are God-given.  If this is true, it is reasonable to seek biblical support for the 34 talent themes as well as biblical support that one cannot acquire strengths from additional themes outside of those granted at birth.  

Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld offer Moses’s discussion with God about his inability to speak well to Pharaoh as an example of strength-focused leadership.  The Apostles’ solution to a disparity in the distribution of bread serves as a case study for strength-focused leadership.  And Paul’s discussion on both the Spiritual gifts and his teaching on the diversity among the Body are intended to serve as support for strength-focused leadership as well.  To better understand Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s position, these texts and how they are used in support of the leadership quality of strength-focus will be examined.  Unfortunately, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld offer no biblical support for the list of 34 talent themes and one would be hard pressed to find much biblical support that these specific talents or personality traits are fixed for life.

Moses and Aaron (Exodus 4)

            Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld look to Moses as an example of a leader who built a team in order to cover his weaknesses.  They cite Exodus 4:10, which reads, “But Moses said to the Lord, ‘Oh my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue’” (Exod. 4:10, English Standard Version).  On its own, this verse may support Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s assessment of Moses. “So,” they argue, “God found Moses a partner—Moses’ brother Aaron” (40).  This fact is correct, but their appraisal of the Moses’ motivation and God’s intention seems slightly off when taken into the appropriate context.  They conclude, “Moses had the talent for leading and for devising strategy, but he couldn’t wow a crowd with his oratory or stand before kings and summon the appropriate words.  Aaron could.  And together, Moses and Aaron made a great team” (41).  Had Moses taken the StrengthsFinder, he would most likely not score high in Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s theme of Communication.

Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld fail to continue reading the narrative.  In verse 11, the Lord responds to Moses, rhetorically asking, “‘Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind?  Is it not I, the LORD’ Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak’” (Exod. 4:11-12).  God’s response seems to suggest that God will provide the words and the skill to Moses.  Moses, however, continues to plead with God saying, “‘Oh, My Lord, please send someone else’” (Exod. 4:13).  God’s response should not leave the reader thinking that Moses was wisely focusing on his strengths and getting someone else to fill in for his weaknesses.  Had this been wisdom on the part of Moses, it is unlikely that God’s ager would have been kindled against Moses (Exod. 4:14).  Cyprian points out, “It is not difficult for God to open the mouth of a man devoted to him and to inspire constancy and confidence to in speaking in one who confesses him, who in the book of Numbers made even a female ass speak against Balaam the prophet” (42).  Not only does this text fail to support Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s thesis, it also suggests that God can give a man a skill or talent that he previously does not possess.

The Twelve Apostles and the Deacons (Acts 6)

            Another biblical situation Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld appeal to comes from Acts 6:1-7.  A complaint is raised claiming that the daily bread given to the widows was being unfairly distributed.  The twelve apostles opted to raise up seven wise, Spirit-filled men of good repute to distribute the bread fairly.  In doing so, the apostles said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. […] But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2, 4).  This seems to suggest that the apostles remained true to their task as Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld propose, but it does not clearly insinuate that the apostles’ greatest natural strengths were prayer or the ministry of the word.  But prayer and ministry of the word were not what Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld see as talents, but rather their leadership and administration.  “At first, the apostles tried to lead andmanage,” argue Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, “which is how they found themselves in this predicament in the first place” (43).  However, there is little in this text to suggest that the apostles had anything to do with the distribution of bread or its administration prior to this event. In addition, the apostles were fishermen and tax collectors.  Their natural strengths and talents were not likely prayer or the ministry of the word.  A survey of the Gospels leaves one thinking the twelve apostles did not understand the Word well and Jesus even pointed out the natural inability of Peter, James, and John to stay awake to remain devoted to prayer (44).  Some of the apostles might have been rather skilled at accounting, especially those who where previously tax collectors.  Twice the twelve took part in serving bread to large numbers of people, even accounting for the collected bread afterward (45).  In addition, if the apostles were acting out of a talent theme of Connectedness, Empathy, Maximer, Restorative, or Strategic all along, there is no picture of forgoing a weakness and focusing on a strength as Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld suggest is the case. 

            It seems more likely that those in the office of apostle were expected to fulfill their calling by remaining devoted to prayer and the ministry of the Word.  In this case, it is much more about their calling than their natural strengths and talents.  In addition, these strengths and talents, that is, prayer and the ministry of the Word, may have been God-given when the apostles received their calling.  In the first chapter of Acts, Jesus said to the apostles, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).  It may be that the power mentioned has something to do with ability, skill, talent, and strength but at a future time as Jesus said, “you will.”  When Jesus gave this instruction they might not have had what they would eventually receive. 

Paul, the Spiritual Gifts, and the Body (1 Corinthians 12)

            Perhaps the strongest biblical support for Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s thesis comes from Paul’s analogy of the diverse body (46).  Here Paul reasons that the Church, like a physical human body, needs many parts to function well.  The various parts do not function in the same way and it would be wrong for a foot to say it does not belong because it does not function like a hand.  The foot however, should be a productive foot and function well within the body. However, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld do not use this text to demonstrate the need for strength-based functioning in leadership. Nor do they use this text to provide support that the 34 talent themes are God-given. Instead they use the text, to press on the need for a strengths-based congregation where each member works from his or her talent themes among a unified but diverse body.

            Paul’s body analogy is sandwiched between a discussion of the bestowing of gifts from the Holy Spirit and the giving of offices for the Church.  Strangely, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld ignore the end caps and instead draw a distinction between one’s Spiritual gifts and his or her strengths and talents.  “Identifying your talents isn’t intended to take the place of identifying your Spiritual Gifts,” write Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, “but rather, it can be a powerful way to enhance your Gifts and calling.  Spiritual Gifts help you find what the ministry is that God wants to see you accomplish; your talents are God’s way of showing you how you will accomplish it” (47).  It seems however, that their statement may be more appropriate for the Church offices rather than the Spiritual gifts.  For example, how is the Spiritual gift of wisdom intended to help a minister determine to which ministry he or she is called?  Spiritual gifts seem to serve the church as well as to assist the individuals who are fulfilling the offices.  On the other hand, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s 34 talent themes seem to be more like personality traits that may be used righteously or sinfully, and for nearly any purpose, to include benefiting the Church, or not.

In drawing this distinction between the Holy Spirit’s bestowing of gifts upon the believer and the 34 talent themes, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld seem to weaken their claim that God provides his creation one or more of 34 talent themes. They attempt to argue that the concept of talents and strengths is correct because it just “feels right.”  They claim that this truth resonates deep within the individual.  “It is as if our spirits react to this discovery,” Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld argue, “with a resounding, ‘Yes! This is the way it is supposed to be – this is who I was created to be’” (48).  Unfortunately, this argument greatly breaks down within our society when men and women use the same argument for such things as selfishness, arrogance, violence, sexual lust, or homosexuality. Paul, who penned the same text Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld appeal to, likely believed that it felt right that he was an aggressive, violent, Pharisee.  Jesus, however, greatly changed Paul, from his attitudes and desires to his personality and talents.  Paul still kept some personal traits, skills, and knowledge, but he was given additional traits, skills, and power from the Holy Spirit and other traits seem to have been taken from him.

Conclusion

            Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld ‘s claim, “You will be most successful in whatever you do by building your life around your greatest natural abilities rather than your weaknesses” is both true and false (49).  Actually, true and false do not accurately describe what is going on here any better than right and wrong or correct and incorrect.  After examining the work of contemporary thinkers as well as the biblical claims, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s thesis appears simply to be mis-qualified.  The drive to focus on, and lead from strengths in ministry has great support and is a very reasonable idea; however, Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld have incorrectly defined strengths and talents. Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s biblical arguments do not offer enough support to conclude that the list of 34 talent themes is a sufficient understanding of God-given strength.  And they have provided no biblical support to suggest that one cannot change or grow in weaker talents.  However, with an adjustment to these definitions, and a shifting of the focus, their premise serves to articulate an essential leadership quality.

The various contemporary thinkers agree, but not to the extent that one should build his or her entire life around a strength or talent, and not to the point that one cannot learn or grow in lesser strength or talent areas.  Zenger’s research is convincing.  Growth is more efficient when energy is expended in our areas of strength rather than weakness.  However, it is clear that Clemmer is right in that a minister must deal with fetal flaws first if he or she is to have any chance of ministry success and growth.  There is indeed a time when weakness needs to be addressed. Maxwell and Earley are convincing in their respective positions that there are indeed times when the God-given task will dictate the necessary God-given strengths needed to achieve such a task.  Likewise, Jesus statement in Acts 1:8 suggests this to be true.  

            Finding the correct focus is the essential key.  Had Moses trusted that God would provide him with the necessary skill and instead kept his focus on trusting God and faithfully following his calling, he would certainly have been successful, regardless of his weaknesses. The apostles kept the right focus when they installed seven men to serve bread so they could remain true to their calling of prayer and the ministry of the Word.  And Paul’s teaching on the various Spiritual gifts keeps the focus on the One who empowers the worker for the work rather than on the gift (or strength, talent, or skill) itself.  Although Paul does encourage his readers to further develop their gifts, his primary argument is to keep the focus right. 

            When we remove Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld’s strict definition of strengths and talents and simply allow them to be identified as the gifts God has granted to his people for the work of the ministry, statements like Dr. Jeff Irog’s become more helpful.  Iorg writes to the future minister: “You can also have confidence in God’s call because your abilities are suitable for the job he assigns.  Most leaders are aware of their inadequacies.  […] Instead of focusing on your shortcoming, focus on your strengths and the contribution you can make by answering God’s call” (50).  

            The essential leadership quality that leaders need to demonstrate is the ability to identify and live by the right focus.  Rather than building one’s life around his or her greatest natural abilities, one will have the most ministry success if he or she centers his or her life around the right focus: God’s calling and the God-given gifts given to achieve that call.

End Notes

[1] Winseman, Clifton, and Leisveld draw a distinction between the Spiritual gifts and 34 natural temperaments or talents that they identify as God-given strengths.

[2] Albert L. Winseman, Donald O. Clifton, and Curt Liesveld, Living Your Strengths: Discover your God-given talents and inspire your Community (New York, NY: Gallup Press, 2008), 2.    

[3] A similar idea is often quoted in leadership books comes from the companion book, Now, Discover Your Strengths (Free Press, 2001) by Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton.

[4] Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, 1.

[5] Ibid., 2.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton, Now, Discover Your Strengths (New York, NY, Free Press), 2001, 8.

[8] Ibid., 7.

[9]Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 152.

[12] Ibid., 153-220.

[13] Ibid., 12.

[14]Ibid., 25.

[15] Ibid., 28.

[16] Ibid., 28-29.

[17] Peter F. Drucker, “Managing Oneself,” Harvard Business Review 77, no. 2 (March 1999): 64-74, accessed August 26, 2014, Business Source Elite, EBSCOhost, 66

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid., 66.

[20] Ibid., 69-70.

[21] John Maxwell, The 360̊ Leader: Developing your influence from anywhere in the Organization (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson), 2011, 240.

[22] John Maxwell, Developing the Leader Within You (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson), 1993, 25.

[23] Ibid., 26

[24] Ibid., 27.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Reggie McNeal, Practicing Greatness: 7 disciplines of extraordinary spiritual Leaders (San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass), 2006, 26.

[27] Ibid., 26-27.

[28] J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership: Principles of excellence for every Believer (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers), 2007, 28.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Dave Earley, Pastoral Leadership Is. . . : How to shepherd God’s people with passion and Confidence (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing), 2012, 9-10.

[31] Jim Clemmer, “Leadership Competency Models: Why many fall short and how to make them Flourish,” Leadership Excellence 31, no. 2 (February 2014): 28-29, accessed August 26, 2014, Business Source Elite, EBSCOhost, 28.  

[32] Robert E. Kaplan and Robert B. Kaiser, “Fear Your Strengths: Strength can become Weakness,” Leadership Excellence 30, no 5 (May 2013): 17-18, accessed August 26, 2014, Business Source Elite, EBSOhost, 17.

[33] Robert E. Kaplan and Robert B. Kaiser, “Stop Overdoing Your Strengths,” Harvard Business Review 87, no. 2 (February 2009): 100-103, August 26, 2014, Business Source Elite, EBSOhost, 100.

[34] Ibid.,” 101.

[35] Kaplan and Kaiser, “Fear Your Strengths,” 18.

[36] Jack Zenger, “Strengths or Weaknesses: Resisting the lure of the wrong Choice,” Leadership Excellence 26, no. 5 (May 2009): 14-15, accessed August 26, 2014, Business Source Elite, EBSCOhost, 14.

[37] Ibid., 14.

[38] Ibid., 15

[39] Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, dust jacket cover.

[40] Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, 26.

[41] Ibid., 26-27.

[42] Joseph T. Lienhard, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament vol. 3, ed. Thomas C. Oden, (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press), 2001, 27.

[43] Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, 42.

[44] See Matt. 26:36-45. 

[45] See Matt. 14, and 15.

[46] See 1 Cor. 12.

[47] Winesman, Clifton, and Leisveld, 30.

[48] Ibid., 10-11.

[49] Ibid., 2.

[50] Jeff Iorg, Is God Calling Me?: Answering the question every believer Asks (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing), 2009, 73.

* This post comes from portions of a paper written for the partial fulfillment of a DMin at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.  It has been redacted and modified for this website. ** Purchases from this website help support this ministry. 

Angels

Angels are a source of great fascination.  Speculation, personal desire, and artists' renderings seem to dictate most of what society thinks about angelic beings.  The Bible offers us some insight, but not much.  Many ask why the Bible doesn't give us a better idea on the topic of angels; however, it's important to see that the Bible is the story of God's redemptive history of fallen man.  The Bible is the revelation of God and shows his desire to be in relationship with us.  In this story, angels are just the extras, the bit parts. They play a supporting role in God's plan and what we need to learn from the Bible is not necessarily everything about angels, but as much as we can about the God who loves us and sent is only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to die so all who believe in him will have life rather than death.

That being said, Angels are in the Bible and there is an entire field of biblical study on the topic of angels called angelology.  (Much of angelology is spent knocking down misconceptions held by society.)  While most of what the Bible says about angels could be handled in a single post, this post will only deal with a couple questions.

What, or who are angels?

Angels are beings created by God.  Often they are unseen, but when seen they look like lightning or fire, or they seem to have the ability to look like humans (2 Kings 6:15-17, Genesis 18:2-19:22; John 20:10; and Acts 12:7-10 for example).   Hebrews 13:2 even suggests that they can blend in and be completely mistaken for humans.  In these cases, it seems that angels don't have wings; however, we must also remember verses like Isaiah 6:2 where an angelic being called a seraphim is said to have six wings.  In other accounts we see an angelic being called a cherubim.  This is the being that's waiving a flaming sword back and forth to prohibit man's reentry to the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:24).  The cherubim is also the same creature God commanded the Hebrews to sculpt on top of the Ark of the Covenant. These cherubim had wings that touched each other (Exodus 25:17-22).   Demons are fallen angels, cast out of heaven and waiting for the final judgment and not granted forgiveness or salvation through repentance (see 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).

There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that angels were ever human.  We do not become angels when we die and our deceased loved ones are not angels looking over us.  In addition, angels do not become humans; they are not our future family members in some kind of preexistence waiting for a body on earth.  The Bible does not speak of angels or humans in this way and there's nothing suggesting that humans were in a preexistence with God.  These ideas are simply creations of human thinking.  The Bible teaches that humans are the pinnacle of God's creation, not angels (to see this, start reading in Genesis 1 and stop after Revelation 22).

What do angels do; this is, what is their purpose?

Just as is the purpose of man, angels were created to glorify God.  We often see angels worshiping God (Psalm 103:20-21, Psalm 148:2, and Isaiah 6:1-7 for example).  Sometimes they act as God's messengers such as in Daniel 8-9 and Luke 1. They protect God's people (Psalm 34:7; Psalm 91:11,  and Acts 12 for example).  Matthew 18:10 seems to suggest that children have an angel watching over them and Luke 16:22 might suggest that angels have a responsibility at the time of a believer's death.  And most importantly, angels usher in and proclaim Christ at his birth, resurrection, and return.  Angels don't die and they they do not marry (Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:35-36).

Too often, people get hung up on the work of angels.  In doing so, they completely miss the bigger work of God as he is redeeming his creation.  Looking to angels, they do not look upon Christ.  In order to see angels rightly, it is best to first see Christ for who he is.  (If you have questions, I am happy to answer them and chat more about this with you.  You may contact me here.)   


* Photo of mourning angel at the churchyard of San Miniato al Monte (Firenze) in Firenze, Italy was taken by Mark Voorendt, April 2001 and is registered under a creative commons license.

Praying Boldly

If God were to grant you all of your prayer requests, what would change for God's Kingdom?  Would lost people get found?  Would a broken world be redeemed?  Would God's glory be seen in mighty ways?  How boldly are you praying?  

I'd like to encourage you to pray boldly, for the glory of God!  

Prayer is Partnering with God

God asks us to ask him for the things we need, yet he already knows what we need before we ask him. (James 4:2, Matthew 6:8 for example.)  This seems paradoxical.  Yet, God's desire is for us to partner with him; not because he needs us, but because we need him. 

When we pray, we are partnering with God. Prayer helps us join in God's mission and will. We see this in Genesis with guys like Noah, Abraham, and others.  How about the partnership with Moses in Exodus? Nehemiah? The disciples in the Acts?  God brought his people into his plan for their own good even though he did not need to.  Even today, God brings you into his plans as a partnership for your good. But it is important to remember that this is the most unequal partnership we could imagine.  We bring nothing to the table and God brings everything.  It's almost shocking that we hesitate to partner with God.  

Prayer is entering into a partnership with God. Be praying!

Interconnectedness of the Bible: 1 Chronicles 28:9

"It's clear that the Bible is too superintended to be a random collection of books," a pastor friend once said to me.  I agree.  Like watching a good flick, reading the Bible a few times opens up a fascinating realm of things missed on a first or second pass.  This exploration can continue for a life time if you just keep reading the Bible.  It's a supernatural interconnected single story, woven together through the merciful revelation of God to his creation over the course of about 2,000 years through forty or so human authors.  (More technically, the Bible is God's divinely authored revelation of himself to his people, written through his people.  It's a complex dual authorship!)  And it is the Holy Spirit who illuminates new things as you read, learn, and grow; therefore,  as you keep reading you grow more and more convinced of the truth of God's Word, the Bible.

Evidence of the Bible's interconnectedness abounds.  I've not done a formal study or count, but I'd venture a guess that there are thousands of passages that point to other passages in one way or another and they all point toward Christ.  We'll use 1 Chronicles 28:9 as an example.

Chapter 28 of 1 Chronicles opens with David, the king of Israel, giving a speech to the officials assembled in Jerusalem.  He tells them that he had a heart to build a temple for God but God had not allowed him to do so.  He also expressed that Solomon, his son, was chosen by God to be his successor and it will be Solomon who will build the temple.  At verse 9 David shifts his speech directory toward Solomon.  He gives him a charge and some instruction.  "And you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father and serve him with a whole heart and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought.  If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever" (ESV).

I found well over 100 cross references for the various aspects of this passage, but for the sake of this post, I'll only deal with a couple parts of this very loaded verse, and even in that, I'll only provide a small sample of interconnected verses. 

First, much of the Old Testament talks about God in terms of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, or in other terms--the God of our fathers.  Many times the God of one's father becomes one's own God, as if there's a transition from one to another or a personal acceptance or relationship as the son grows and begins to know the God of his father for himself.  God is no longer the God of someone else, but personal.  This talk of the God of our fathers as well as the transition can be seen in verses like Genesis 28:13, Exodus 3:16, and Exodus 15:2.  In 2 Kings 21:22 Amon walks away from the God of his fathers, whereas Josiah does walk in the way of the God of David, that is, the God of his fathers (1 Kings 22:2). This language is found over and over again until Christ walks among his people and actually calls God his Father! No longer is the worship and service to the God of our fathers, but the Heavenly Father himself. Then, because of Jesus, we too are able to call God our Father because we are adopted into his family (Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; and Ephesians 1:5).  

Next, as early as Genesis 6:5, the Bible indicates that God knows the thoughts and intentions of man.  1 Samuel 16:7, at the time when they boy David was being identified as Israel's king, it is said that God does not look at the outward appearance, but at man's heart.  Psalm 7:9 identifies God as one who tests minds and hearts. Psalm 139:2 says that God can even discern these thoughts from a distance.  The idea of testing thoughts and intentions is present again in Jeremiah 11:20 and again in Jeremiah 17:10.  So it should help us see that Jesus is God when he has this very ability.  In John 1:47 Jesus looks into the deep of Nathanael. Repeatidly, Jesus knew what the Pharases were thinking as well as his disciples (see: Matthew 9:4; Matthew 12:25; Luke 1:51; Luke 5:22; Luke 6:8; and Luke 11:17).  And the disciples new and believed that God searches the heart as is evident in Acts 1:24.  Paul also writes about it in Romans 8:27.

Jeremiah 29:13 says that seekers of God find him.  Jesus, as the Messiah and God, repeats the same seek and you will find  theme in Matthew 7:7-8, and in Revelation 3:20 he extends an invitation for a relationship.  Throughout both the Old and New Testaments there are repeated invitations to enter into a relationship with God, no longer serving the God of our fathers but the Heavenly Father himself.

It is because of the interconnectedness that we use the Bible to interpret the Bible.  The more plain passages help us understand the more complex ones.  The connections between the books, the players, and various smaller stories help us understand the larger story of God's redemption.  It's all interconnected.  It's one story woven together like a beautiful basket.

*Photo of weaved basket by Damian Gadal is registered under a creative commons license and is used with permission.

Hebrews Relationship with the Old Testament

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult for a student of the New Testament to miss the significance of the Old Testament. These two sections of the Canon are like two acts of a play that depend upon each other for the proper presentation of the plot, conflict, and resolution. Character development—a necessary tool for any successful play—usually spans from the first raised curtain to the final curtain call. To properly understand the conclusion, one must understand the beginning. Like the two-act play, the New Testament depends upon the foundations set in the first act, which is typically called the Old Testament. Hebrews, probably more so than any other New Testament book is a second-act book that is highly dependent upon the first act. Its author demands that the reader know the Old Testament in order to fully understand the claims made by the book.

Hebrews, written to an audience with an old covenant background, makes heavy use of the Old Testament. George Guthrie writes of the book, “Thirty-five quotations from the Greek translation of the Old Testament and thirty-four allusions work to support the development of Hebrew’s argument. In addition, the writer offers nineteen summaries of Old Testament material, and thirteen times he mentions an Old Testament name or topic, often without reference to specific context.”[1] Carson and Moo write, “[T]he author cites the Greek Old Testament as if he assumes his readers will recognize its authority.”[2] Clements believes that the original readers are “men and woman who are assumed to be fully familiar with the scriptures of the Old Testament, although they themselves are Christian.”[3] Regardless of the exact identity of the original readers (which will be discussed below), George Guthrie argues, “The author assumes his audience has an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament. Of all the writings of the New Testament, none is more saturated with overt references to the Old Testament. The author so filled his discourse with Old Testament thoughts and passages that they permeate every chapter.”[4]

The Hebrews author exhorts that the new is better than the old. “His line of approach,” according to Donald Guthrie, “was that everything in fact was better – a better sanctuary, a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better covenant. Indeed, he aims to show that there is a theological reason for the absence of the old ritual, glorious as it may have seemed to the Jews.”[5] And Scott contends, “The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly affirms that because the final age (‘these last days,’ Hebrews 1:2) is present, the new covenant has made the former obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear; (Hebrews 8:13).”[6] Thus, to understand the thing that is better, it seems that the reader must have some familiarity with the former.

In an effort to understand the exhortation of author of Hebrews, this post will examine the author’s of use of the Old Testament. First, a brief discussion of the potential identity of the author and the most likely original audience should serve to provide an appropriated backdrop for the author’s Old Testament usage. Once the background is set, specific passages will be explored; however, for the scope of this post, not every reference to the Old Testament will be mined for additional understanding. In concluding this post, attempts will be made to understand how dependent the book of Hebrews is upon the Old Testament. Can the key points of Hebrews be understood by a reader with no previous knowledge of the Old Testament passages cited or alluded to in Hebrews? Does Hebrews require further study of the old covenant or does the author provide enough background information that right new covenant understanding can come from the book of Hebrews alone? How should a present-day teacher or preacher approach Hebrews in light of the examination of this post?

AN AUTHOR AND HIS READERS

The author of Hebrews is a mystery. Most introductions contain convincing arguments on why the author was not likely Paul, who wrote Romans and many other Epistles, despite that P46 places Hebrews behind Romans in the Pauline corpus.[7] And it may have been an Eastern Church belief that Hebrews was associated with Paul that allowed it its inclusion in the Canon. Even with the support of Jerome and Augustine, after the forth and early fifth centuries the idea of a Pauline authorship was drawing fire.[8] Today, Carson and Moo write, “The Greek of Hebrews is more polished than that of Paul, and the consistent quality of the rhetoric is quite remarkable.”[9] Hagner points to Hebrews 2:3 as proof that Hebrews was not written by Paul because the author claims to have only second-hand knowledge of the gospel but in passages like Galatians 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul claims to have learned directly from God.[10] And Davies contents, “It would be very unusual to find a modern scholar holding this view, for there are no positive reasons for it, and strong reasons against it.”[11] But if Paul is not that author, who might the author be?

Luther first proposed that Apollos might be the author. Hagner provides a case for this authorship pointing to Acts 18:24, which states that Apollos was a “learned man” and held a “thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.” And Apollos would know Timothy enough to reference his release from prison (Hebrews 13:23).[12] Tertullian supported Barnabas as the author. Hagner lists that Barnabas was a Levite and would be interested in the livitical system, he was from Cyprus, and was likely influenced by Hellenistic culture.[13] Other suggested authors include Clement of Rome, Priscilla, Jude, Philip, and Silvanus.[14] Presently however, only aspects of the author can be gleaned from the text but there is still no clear evidence—internal or external—that leaves scholars with any solid suspects.

The audience on the other hand is shrouded in slightly less mystery. From Hebrews 10:23, it is fair to assume that the author had some specific people in mind when writing his Epistle.[15] There is silence on the temple, and the Old Testament is quoted from polished Greek, leaving one to conclude that either author or the audience did not know Hebrew. The audience was either not in Jerusalem or if in Jerusalem, they were most likely Greek-speaking expatriates.[16] And while there is no clear identification of who the original audience was, Hagner argues, “the early church was very probably correct in understanding the first readers to have been Jewish Christians. The vast majority of modern scholars have agreed with this conclusion from analysis of the content of the book.”[17]

EXAMINING THE OLD TESTAMENT IN HEBREWS

As one tries to understand how the Hebrews author uses the Old Testament, one must first ask how the author viewed the Old Testament. Yisa believes that the author was not arguing against the Old Testament, but rather building upon his position with a strong trust and understanding of the Old Testament. He writes, “At surface level, it may seem that the author of Hebrews uses the Old Testament in an allegorical and fanciful way. However, that is far from the truth. A closer examination of the book proves that the author shared the Jewish and early Christian presuppositions and exegetical principles of the literal and natural sense of the text, a high view of Scripture, and the divine inspiration of the Old Testament as the Word of God.”[18] Like Yisak who essentially argues that the author of Hebrews holds to a Christocentric hermeneutic, Hagner writes, “Christ is seen to be the key to the real meaning of the OT as it can now be understood in this era of fulfillment. From this point of view, all of the OT points directly or indirectly to Christ, who is by definition the telos (goal) of God’s saving purpose.”[19] And Yisak rightly points out, “[The author] intended to teach that Jesus is the unifying factor of Scriptures.”[20]

Also worth noting is the source (or sources) from where the author drew his information. “In quotations,” writes Hanger, “the author regularly follows the Greek (LXX) rather than the Hebrew (or Masoretic) text that has come down to us.”[21] Bruce identifies two Greek texts that are in agreement with the author’s quotations (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus), but twice as many quotes are in agreement with Alexandrinus than Vaticanus. Interestingly, some of the quotations agree with neither.[22] Bruce explains, “[The author] may have selected his variants (where he knew more readings than one) for interpretational suitability. These variants were sometimes borrowed from the other parts of the Greek Bible or from Philo, but appear for the most part to have been introduced on his own responsibility. It has been argued on the basis of his use of certain Old Testament quotations that he was familiar with the interpretations of Philo and used some quotations in such a way as to counter these interpretations.”[23] And it may even be argued (as Bruce does) that the author of Hebrews actually influenced other Greek texts.[24]

From the broad background, this post will now adjust the attention to some specific Old Testament passages found in Hebrews. One way to outline Hebrews by major themes is to look at Chapters 1-10 as an argument that Christ is superior. In nearly every case, the inferior items are something argued from the Old Testament. Christ is superior to angels, Moses, the previous priesthood, the previous sacrifices, and even the entire old covenant. The remaining three chapters are centered upon the necessity and superiority of faith. To understand the thing that is better there is a necessity to understand the previous thing, and the author often reminds his readers of the Old Testament to make his case. Examining the book of Hebrews in this fashion will not give equal treatment to every Old Testament quote and allusion found in Hebrews, and in fact, some quotations will be neglected all together; however, this approach should provide enough examples to support the thesis of this post.

Christ is superior to the angels. The book of Hebrews wastes no time with an introductory opening and is quickly arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels. To make this argument, the author appeals to Deuteronomy 32:43, 2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 2:7, Psalm 45:6-7, Psalm 102:25-27, and Psalm 110:1. Most of the entire first chapter is actually comprised of Old Testament quotes. Davies points out that all the Scripture appealed to in this specific argument is ascribed to God as the speaker, showing the author’s belief of divine authorship of the quoted passages.[25] Also worth noting is how short many of the quotations are. Most of them are one sentence, and of those, the first four quotes are rather short sentences. It is as if they are to serve as merely a reminder rather that a first-time presentation of the material. And the reader must already trust these statements as God’s Word, that is, divine Scripture, or there is no value in using the passages to support the argument for Christ.

Christ is superior to Moses. In Chapter 3, the author compares Jesus to Moses, saying, “For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses […].”[26] And while the author provides a little glimpse of who Moses was in verse 5 when he says, “Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant,” he provides very little about Moses the character. It is as if the reader must already be aware of Moses or the author wants to the reader to do some research. In providing commentary on this passage, Bruce discusses aspects of the golden calf, the relationship with Aaron, and even the unfavorable report from spies.[27] None of this is mentioned in the Hebrews passage, but Bruce seems to feel the need to express it to explain the comparison. Guthrie feels that he must do the same thing in order to explain the rebellion in verse 8.[28] In order to see a complete picture of Moses, one must read the Old Testament, and it seems the author understood this and expected it of his readers, just as Bruce, Guthrie and many others have done.

Christ is superior to the Old Testament priesthood. Much like the author’s argument about Jesus’ superiority to Moses, he also argues that Jesus is superior to any present priesthood system. This argument spans from the tail end of Chapter 4 through Chapter 7 with some minor breaks. For this argument, the author specifically only quotes Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4, but he alludes to the order of the Melchizedek priesthood and even of the high priest system that his readers would likely be familiar with. But unlike the Moses argument, the author provides some background on the mysterious person called Melchizedek. It is as if he expects the readers to be slightly less informed of Melchizedek—maybe aware of the person but not the magnitude of meaning wrapped up in him— because Hebrews 7:1-10 offers an explanation of who Melchizedek was before the author compares Melchizedek and Jesus. One might point out that the author of Hebrews provides enough information that the reader may not need to do additional research to understand the comparison, and this is a valid observation. This demonstrates the author’s awareness of his original audience and his awareness of the common understanding of Moses compared to that of Melchizedek. When likened to the author’s treatment of Moses, there is an indication the author must teach where necessary but depend upon the audience’s knowledge of the Old Testament where he can afford to do so.

Christ is superior to the old covenant. In making the argument that Christ as the new covenant is better than the old covenant, the author appeals briefly to Exodus 25:40 and extensively to Jeremiah 31:31-34. In appealing to Jeremiah, the author cites what might be the largest quotation from the Old Testament found in Hebrews. Hagner suggests that this citation is “of major importance to the epistle,” and “the explicit reference to the new covenant in this text makes it ideal for his purpose.”[29] This Old Testament passage is so useful in the argument in fact, that is quoted again in Hebrews 10. And just as with the previous uses of the Old Testament, little is outlined or summarized of the old covenant. It seems that the original readers must already hold some understanding of the old covenant, or at least the author assumed they did. And there must be some foundational information the author is assuming because the author is making an appeal that Jesus is better than the thing the reader already knows. What is different here compared to previous passages is that the author is using the Old Testament to demonstrate that the new covenant is actually spoken of in the Old Testament. The new covenant is actually inline with previous writings and the author wants his readers to see what they may have missed.

Christ is superior than the old sacrifices. In Chapter 10, the author argues that Christ is the ultimate sacrifice and writes, “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”[30] Like the argument about the better covenant the author is using the Old Testament to demonstrate that his point has already been made in the Old Testament. The readers should have seen the perfect and final sacrifice in Jesus. In this section, the author turns to Psalm 40:6-8 and again to Jeremiah 31:33-34. Here, the Old Testament supports the displeasure of the old sacrifices and then commentary is offered by the author. He states, “[E]very priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”[31] The author finds not only support in the Old Testament, which is treated as if spoken by God, but also boldness from within God’s Word.

So great a cloud of witnesses. The latter portion of the book of Hebrews argues for the superiority of faith. While many Old Testament allusions and quotations may be examined here, the cloud of witnesses proves most interesting. In a single chapter, the author uses 16 characters from the Old Testament as examples of 14 faithful men and two faithful women. This “great cloud of witnesses” includes Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel.[32] Some background is provided for some of these figures, but hardly more than a sentence. And Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel are lumped together in the explanation. Clearly, the author believes his readers know who these individuals were and need only a simple reminder. But to get a better understanding, the reader could consult Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Ruth, where the accounts and writings of these individuals are found within the Old Testament. The author also includes many unnamed people who have suffered and then he said of them, “And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”[33] With the exception of the unnamed and more recent faithful witnesses, it is almost a requirement for one to know at least some of the names listed if one is to truly understand the better thing that God has in store. After all, how can one understand the thing that is better without first seeing the thing it is compared to?

CONCLUSION

John Patrick’s stage play, “The Hasty Heart” (1945), takes place in a World War II allied field hospital. In Act I, the hospital patients learn that a Scotsman named Corporal Lachlan "Lachie" MacLachlan is being transferred to the spare bed in their recovery area. Lachie sustained a wound to his kidney and had to have it removed; however, his other kidney is not functioning properly and within about four weeks, Lachie will die of the toxins in his own unfiltered blood. He has no family and he is a bitter, angry man. The commander in charge of the hospital felt that it would be best if Lachie did not know of his condition. While he informed the other patients in the hospital, he asked them to keep it a secret. He also asked the patients and floor nurse to befriend this lonely transfer patient in an effort to improve the quality of his short remaining life. The drama that unfolds shares a remarkable story of the condition of the heart. However, if a theatergoer were to enter and find her seat at intermission between the first and second acts, there is almost no way she would understand the activities playing out before her. In many ways, the play would make no sense. While many things could be learned about Lachie, Yank, and Sister Parker, the overarching plot and conflict would be rather hazy at best. The development of the characters would be only half the story. The same is true of many New Testament books, most especially the book of Hebrews.

As much as the author of Hebrews depends on the specific Old Testament passages, he depends even more upon the reader’s understanding of the scrolls from where those quotes were drawn. Like a playwright, the author is expressing the second act of a two-act play. This is where the conflict is resolved, the plot is concluded, and the character’s development is show to its full capacity.

Hebrews teaches the world much about Jesus; but if the student of the book is to gain the understanding the author intended, it is almost demanded of the student to turn back a few pages and examine the Old Testament. The student must see to what the author is alluding. He or she must observe what was before so there is a solid understand of what is better. In most cases, the author does not provide enough of a summary. The original readers were most likely Jewish Christians and it is assumed that they had the background knowledge of the material. This may not always be the case for modern-day readers; which is why pastors and teachers should be prepared to provide the summary that most students need in order to gain the two-act understanding.

Reading Hebrews a number of times and even studying the Old Testament verses will not fully plum the depths of this rich book. In its pages there is much to be learned, applied, and lived. There is an amazing Savior to be loved. Many commentaries provide additional insight into the author’s use of the Old Testament and these may serve as additional material for further study. However, it is the recommendation of this author that further study consist of starting with Hebrews 1:1 and reading line by line. At any point a quote or allusion to the Old Testament is presented, place a bookmark in Hebrews and explore the passage from where the quote came. Once the Old Testament passage has been read and studied to the point that a good understanding is achieved, turn back to Hebrews and continue where the reading left off. When the end of the book is reached, try it again and see what was not seen the first time. Chances are, this will take years and the journey will move the reader through much of the Old Testament. But the reward will be well worth the journey. It is the prayer of this author that this post is not where the investigation ends, but rather, this post has only served as an appetizer to such a rich reading of the book of Hebrews and even of the Old Testament upon which Hebrews depends.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised). The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

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

Clements, Ronald E. "The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews." Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (September 1, 1985): 36-45. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2011).

Davies, J. H. A Letter to Hebrews. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London, Engl: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, Illi: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.

Guthrie, George. Hebrews. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zonderan, 1998.

Hanger, Donald A. Hebrews. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.

Scott, Julius, J., Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1995

Yisak, Suru. “The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: Understanding the interpretive method of the writer of Hebrews.” Th.M. diss., (2007) Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dissertations & Theses: Full Text [database on-line]. http://www.proquest.com (publication number AAT 1450952; accessed April 24, 2011).

END NOTES

1 George Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1998), 19.

2 D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 610.

3 Ronald E. Clements, "The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews" (Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1, September 1, 1985: 36-45, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost) [accessed April 23, 2011], 36.

4 Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, Illi: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), 19.

5 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1998, 32-33.

6 J. Julius Scott Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapid, Mich: Baker Academic, 1995), 327.

7 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 600.

8 Donald A. Hanger, Hebrews, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass: Henderickson Publishers, 1990), 8-9.

9 Carson, An introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 601.

10 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 9.

11 J. H. Davies, A Letter to Hebrews, The Cambridge Bible Commentary (London, Engl: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 10.

12 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 10.

13 Ibid.

14 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1998, 23.

15 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 608.

16 Ibid.

17 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 2.

18 Suru Yisak, “The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: Understanding the interpretive method of the writer of Hebrews,” Th.M. diss., 2007 (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dissertations & Theses: Full Text [database on-line. http://www.proquest.com, publication number AAT 1450952; accessed April 24, 2011), 83.

19 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 15.

20 Yisak, 2007, 62.

21 Hanger, Hebrews, 1990, 15.

22 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised), The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990), 26.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 27

25 Davies, A Letter to Hebrews, 1967, 22.

26 Hebrews 3:3a.

27 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1990, 91-92.

28 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1983, 102-104.

29 Hanger, Hebrews, 1990, 122.

30 Hebrews 10:18.

31 Hebrews 10:11.

32 Hebrews 12:1.

33 Hebrews 11:39-40.


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.

Team Ministry

I'm presently serving in a church the is heavily involved in and encourages team ministry.  While team ministry is not always easy, it is good for the work we are doing.

The Bible provides many pictures of team ministry, so it is surprising that more pastors don't share the workload, but ego aside, and strive to labor in a partnership-style team when it comes to ministry.  Of course, this is in regard to the ministry at the church, not the ministry in the home. Hopefully, the ministry in the home is already a great team ministry. 

* The above video was made to be used as part of a community group leadership process on The City.  This video, others like it, and many other resources are available here.

Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same.  

Sea of Reeds?

Sometimes it's actually harder to remove the miraculous from the Bible than to believe that God intervened in history.

I suppose there must have recently been another documentary about Moses and the exodus on TV again because a co-worker raised the swamp argument.  Because of a technical issue with the Hebrew words that are translated into English, some argue that the Red Sea in the Book of Exodus might actually be the Sea of Reeds.  The argument then suggests that the Israelites crossed a dried up portion of a swamp rather than over dry ground through the middle of the Red Sea.  Some even suggest that the mud was at just such a state that a person walking could move across it but the Egyptian chariots and horses would sink.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that Moses and some estimated 30,000 Israelites did cross a reed swamp instead of the Red Sea. 

If this reed theory is true, why did the waters have to be divided so they could walk on dry ground? Was there still a miracle of divided waters? If so does it make a difference if the miracle was in a swamp or a sea?

"Lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go through the sea on dry ground" (Exodus 15:16, ESV).

How big was this swamp? Big enough to warrant the imagery of a wall of water on both sides? Clearly this doesn't make sense if there was no miracle and the 30,000 people walked across that mud that could hold them but not Egyptian horses. 

"And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left" (Exodus 15:22, ESV). 

If this was a swamp with reeds growing up through it, how is it that when the waters came back not one Egyptian soldier was able to survive?  Not one was able to wade or swim out of the swamp.  If the first few soldiers of this huge and mighty army were sinking in, why did the entire rest of the army follow? Instead of sinking mud, it seems that they were out in the middle and the waters returned.  

"So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal course when the morning appeared. And as the Egyptians fled into it, the Lord threw the Egyptians into the midst of the sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen; of all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea, not one of them remained" (Exodus 15:27-28, ESV).

The Israelites wrote a song about the event.  One of the lines seems a little odd for a swamp because it suggest that there is some depth to this body of water.

 “Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea,
and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea.
The floods covered them;
they went down into the depths like a stone" (Exodus 16:4-5, ESV).  

 Regardless if you believe or not that God parted a body of water to protect the fleeing Israelites, and even if you feel the Exodus account is fiction, what looks like the most obvious meaning: a swamp of reeds or the Red Sea?  What is the author suggesting it was?

We can split hairs all day long, but if we try to take the miracles out of the Bible we'll have to neglect reading the larger narrative in order for it to make sense.   In reality, sometimes it is easier to believe the author (which in the case of the Bible, is man and God).  Sometimes it's actually easier to accept the miracle than to try to accept the long way around God's involvement with mankind. 

*The photo is in the public domain.

One Christian on Capital Punishment and Abortion (Part II)

In an earlier post, I introduced a  question:  How can a Christian be against abortion but in favor of capital punishment?  In Part I, I explained that I am against both, and I discussed what the Bible has to say about the issue of capital punishment.  In this post, I am shifting to the topic of abortion.  I admit that neither Part I or Part II are exhaustive discussions on the matter, but hopefully they contribute to the conversation and offer some food for thought and encouragement toward further study.

Before I get started, I should offer my bias and position right up front.  I am against abortion.  I'm against the practice and I do not approve of the US government supporting or funding the practice.  In addition, my wife and I tried to conceive a child for many years.  The one time we did conceive resulted in a miscarriage, which greatly shaped the way I think about life and children prior to birth.  We have since adopted two boys who I love very much.  Although I do not have biological children and really can't know for sure, there is no way I could love children who share my DNA any differently then I do these two boys. 

My wife's miscarriage was extremely hard on she and I, but the reality is that miscarriages have been around almost as long as pregnancies.  Sadly, miscarriages were not a foreign concept in the Old Testament (see Job 3:10-11 or Exodus 22:26 for examples). I believe the miscarriage might be a part of the curse of sin that came with the fall of man in Genesis 3.  In verse 16, God said to Eve, the woman, "I will surely multiply your  pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children" (ESV).  It is often thought that this in reference to the birth process itself, which it probably is, but it can also be all the other pain women feel for children, born or unborn.  But what about the intentional termination of a viable pregnancy?  (For the purposes of this post, I will use this as the definition of 'abortion.')  It seems that this idea--although not appearing as a medical service preformed by people in scrubs and white lab coats--was not foreign either.  In the book of Jeremiah, the author's lament seems to suggest that his life could have been intentionally ended in the womb.  Jeremiah 20:14-18 reads,

[14] Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed!   [15] Cursed by the man who brought the news to my father, 'A son is born to you,'  making him very glad. [16] Let that man be like the cities that the LORD overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, [17] because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb forever great. [18] Why did I come out from the womb to see toil and sorrow, and spend my days in shame?

In Exodus 20:22-25, the legal code made provision for the event of a pregnant woman getting hit in such a way that labor is induced or the baby is lost.  The punishment for the loss of the unborn child's life would result in a penalty of death for the person who struck the woman.   (It's interesting to note that verse 23 reads, "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life," indicating that the unborn child was a life.)  Now, in fairness, it could be argued that this passage assumes that the mother and father want the baby opposed to the idea that the mother desiring to terminate the pregnancy.  In response, we should start not with the desires of the mother and father to have a child, but instead ask what is life and when does it begin? 

What is life? This is a fairly large discussion, but I'll boil it down to some simple points.  First, God  is the source and creator of life.  We can see this in the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2; but another example is found in 1 Samuel 2:6 that says, "The LORD kills and brings to life" (ESV), and Deuteronomy 32:39 in part says "I kill and make alive" (ESV).  Job 1:21 quotes Job saying, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return.  The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (ESV).  Job, in 10:8 says to God, "Your hands fashioned me." Isaiah 68:8 says, "But now O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand" (ESV).

Second, we have a general understanding of what is alive and what is not.  Plants--alive.  Rocks--not alive.  Dinosaur  bones--once living tissue, but now, not alive. Of course we can draw a distinction between living tissue and 'life.'  Skin is made of living tissue but we are more likely to see it as part of a system that requires other tissues.  We can look at skin cells under a microscope and see that there's some kind of life activity there, but we don't tend to think of skin as a stand-alone life. However, there is a difference between a single skin cell and a single-cell organism.  That single-cell organism is life.  If we find it on Mars, we will declare that there is life on Mars; but if we find a skin cell we will say we've found evidence of life (and then declare there is life on Mars anyway).  So life, it seems, is a living system, be it one cell, a plant, an animal, a human. Where this gets really interesting is when we think of a seed.  It might be dry and appear dead, but in the right conditions it shifts from that dead-looking thing to life.  If I crushed a seed nobody would say I killed it, but if it had a little white or green shoot growing from it and I failed to give it water or if I put it out in too much sun and it dried up and withered, you would say I killed it. To kill it, it must have had life.

In the debate on the legality of abortion, one issue of contention is the parents' right (specifically the woman's right) to terminate life, if indeed there is any agreement that an unborn child is life, that is, a thing in the womb that can be killed.  I will deal with this more in a moment.  

When does life begin? This is the other issue where a difficulty of the abortion debate resides. This, like the right to terminate life, is the other big question item where differences are found.

Luke, a first-century doctor and writer of one of the four gospel accounts, made a detailed investigation in order to write his Gospel.  In the opening of the book, he records a fascinating event. When Elizabeth greeted Mary (both of whom were pregnant), the baby in Elizabeth's womb leaped.  Elizabeth, being filled with the Spirit, understood this to be caused by the presence of the baby in Mary's womb and proclaimed,

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!  And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy." Luke 1:42-43, ESV.

While we don't know exactly how far along either of these women were in their pregnancies, this passage suggests that it was more than just developing cells void of life in their wombs.  The Greek word used for these babies in utereo is berphos, which we is translated 'child.' Twice Luke uses the same word for the baby Jesus (post birth) in chapter 2.  I think in today's society, we would be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue that life starts at the point of the doctor's spanking that gets the baby to cry.  I can think of nobody that would say a baby that has been in the womb for 9 months and is making his or her way down the birth canal is not life. Anyone, myself included, that's seen and heard the heartbeat on the monitor is overwhelmed by the awe of life there in the womb.  Where the challenge comes is in answering the question, when (maybe even before the heartbeat) does life begin? 

If we back up to the point of a sperm cell and an egg, we see that we have cells that seem to be more a part of a system than a single-celled, stand-alone organism.  After these to come together, an interesting thing starts to happen.  The little glob of sperm and egg create a cell that can divide and multiply.  Soon, there's an 8 celled organism, then 16, then 32, and so-on.  Is this life?  Maybe.  Is this like the little plant shoot that I killed earlier in this discussion?

God had us in mind before the creation of the world (but do not confuse this with the idea that we were all created and stored in some "pre-existence" before the creation of the universe), but this doctrine does not give us a practical answer as to the moment life begins in the womb.  Some argue at conception, some at the first heartbeat, and some even at viability outside the womb.  The first two arguments bear weight, but the viability argument is greatly flawed.  Here's why:  What is viability?  A full-term baby cannot survive, free of help and care, outside the womb for long on his or her birthday.  If we start looking at 'viability' being earlier and earlier in the pregnancy we have to start looking at the technology that aids in keeping the baby alive.  Therefore, our definition of the beginning of life under the viability definition seems dependent upon outside technology.  This would mean that we define the start of life by our advancements in medicine.

The other two arguments, that is, at conception or at the first heartbeat seem compelling.  No matter how much I think about it, I struggle with the idea of life beginning at the moment of conception.  It seems a little like the seed. There's  something there, but it doesn't seem like life. . . but I am willing to be wrong.  And I'll admit, it is spectacular that something (or more rightly, someone) gets the heart pumping.  That first beat seems like a magic moment for an organism that requires a heartbeat as a sign of life.  The reality however, is that it could be at either of these moments or at some point in between.  The Bible does not clearly identify at what moment  life begins, so I argue it is probably better to lean on the side of caution, closer, much closer to conception.

So, what about the practice of abortion?

We have two issues in tension when it comes to abortion: when life begins and the right, as an individual, to terminate life.  I would like to argue that in practice, the point when life begins is almost irrelevant with the exception of specific types of birth control such as the morning after pill.  To the best of our ability, we should err on the side of caution.  The real issue at hand is the attitude the leads one to have an abortion.

If we can agree that at some point, either at conception or at the heartbeat, life has begun, it seems that terminating that life is killing the life; it's murdering another human being.  "But wait, what about capital punishment?" you might ask.  There are two differences.  The first is that capital punishment is administered by the state, not an individual.  The second is that the life in the womb has not violated a law of the state.  (If for some reason being conceived was against the law, this law would be unjust in that the violator, in his or her very creation, would have absolutely no ability to not violate the law.  The violation and punishment should really fall upon the man and woman who conceive the child.)       

When a woman learns that she is pregnant, time has already passed.  We are now flirting with the very real reality that was is growing in the womb is life, more specifically, a human being.  So to think that one has the ability and right to terminate this life, especially out of mere convenience, is a serious act of self-worship, placing oneself in the position of God.  It says "my rights are more important that the rights and sanctity of the life I'm carrying."  1 Corinthians 6:19-20 reminds us (especially those who are in Christ) that we are not our own; our bodies are not ours because we were bought with a price.  We, to include our bodies, belong to Christ.  This runs into direct conflict with the argument that a pregnant woman has the right to terminate a life simply because she is not ready to care for an image barer of God.  

The truth is we do not clearly know the exact moment life begins, so there is the very real potential that an abortion at any point after conception is killing a life.  Abortion is wrong.  The attitude that typically drives abortion is wrong.  And to celebrate abortion as some kind of family planning tool is akin to spitting on the very face of God's creation.

If you would like to leave a public comment, you may do so here.  If you would like to contact me privately, click here.

* Photo/drawing by Leonardo da Vinci is in the public domain.

One Christian on Capital Punishment and Abortion (Part I)

I was recently asked how Christians can take a position against abortion and stand in favor of capital punishment.  I found this question rather interesting considering that I’m a Christian and I’m against both abortion and capital punishment.  However, I thought this would be a good opportunity to look at these issues in light of what the Bible has to say. 

This is a large subject so I’ll be dealing with it in two parts.   Let’s start with capital punishment.

There are three key issues that I’d like to address.  The first issue is the government’s right to administer capital punishment—and I do believe governments have the authority to administer a death penalty.  The next issue is how this right fits within the 6^th commandment found in Exodus 20:13, “thou shall not kill” (KJV). And the final issue is the citizen’s responsibility within his or her government, specifically in the United States.

Paul, writing during a time of Roman oppression (and possibly great persecution) tells the Christians in Rome that they are to submit to the civil authorities because God installed those authorities to this position.  In Romans 13:1-7, he writes,

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.  Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?  Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for his is God’s servant for your good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.  For he is the servant of God, and avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.  [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.  [6] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.  [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to who revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Romans 13:1-7, ESV).

His readers probably didn’t like taxes or oppression or the political opinions of the dictator in charge, and they lived under harsh and corrupt circumstances the like we Americans have never known.  Much can be said here, but my point is that God installs the civil governments of the world and expects that we will submit to them.  (Now, there are exceptions.  For more on the exceptions read the book of Daniel.)

Civil governments, it seems, are given the ability to create laws and keep order.  Even Jesus was subject to these laws when he was tried under Pilot, the Roman official who ordered his crucifixion.  We never see Jesus argue that the law that sentenced him and the two criminals next to him to death was unjust.  Jesus was innocent of the charges but the authority of Pilot to order his execution is never challenged.  In addition, we find many instances where God’s law for the Hebrews includes a physical death penalty.  It is part of the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:6.  In Exodus 21 (the chapter after God gives the 10 Commandments), God lays out some laws for the Hebrew people, giving a number of crimes that will result in a penalty of death (see Exodus 21:12-28).  This is seen throughout the Books of the Law (that is, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch).  Therefore, given that God installs governments and gives them the right to administer laws, and even that in the laws God gave to the Hebrews capital punishment existed, and considering that the New Testament doesn’t challenge the existing civil laws of the day, I believe that governments today have the right to administer capital punishment.  Now, you might be asking why I’m opposed to capital punishment considering what I’ve just presented.  I’ll get to that in a moment. 

But first let’s deal with Exodus 20:13, the 6^th Commandment. 

The translation of the Bible called the King James Version, translates Exodus 20:13 like this: “Thou shall not kill.”  This translation has filled our vernacular to the point that some people take this to mean not to kill in battle, and still others understand it as not to kill even animals for food.  But the problem is the word “kill.”  Our English meaning of this word is something to the effect of, ‘to cause the death of’ or, ‘to terminate the life function of.’  But that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word that the KJV translated.  In the Hebrew—the original language of the Old Testament—the word is ratsach, which is to murder.  In other uses of this word, including non-biblical uses found in ancient literature, this word is most used for intentional or negligent murder much like we would use the words murder or manslaughter today.  The Septuagint (LXX), which was the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek a couple hundred years before the incarnation of Christ, translated this word as phoneuo, which in the Greek also means murder or more specifically ‘to murder.’  This is the word used by Jesus when quoting the Old Testament when he gave is famous Sermon on the Mount.  Looking through many other translations, I’ve found Exodus 20:13 is almost always translated, “You shall not murder,” some simply say, “Do not murder.”

But just for a moment, let’s say all we have is the King James Version.  How can we understand what God is meaning by his command not to kill?  If we continue reading the conversation between God and Moses, we find that in just a few hundred words later, God gets into some specifics about this killing stuff.  In Exodus 21:12-28 (which I also mentioned above), God outlines when a person should be put to death for killing another and when that is not okay.  For example, if a man does not lie in wait, that is, he plans to kill another, but instead it is something of a fight gone bad, the killer should be allowed to live.  “But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning” says Exodus 21:14, “you shall take him from my alter, that he may die” (ESV).  Simply striking your parents was enough of a reason to face the death penalty, as was being in possession of an illegally gained (or kidnapped) slave.  And surely killing in battle must not be the same because thought out the Old Testament God orders his people to attack other nations.  He gives the faithful boy, David, the ability to kill the warrior, Goliath (1 Samuel 17), and David is highly honored and loved by God.  And if you were thinking about becoming a vegan based on the 6^th Commandment, you should probably read the book of Leviticus first.  Leviticus outlines just how animals were to be slaughtered for sacrifices and feasts.  Obviously, even if we have a bad translation of the word ratsach (thank you KJV), we can see that this does not mean every form of the word ‘kill.’  Therefore, we must ask ourselves if capital punishment falls inside or outside the idea of the biblical discussion of murder.  It seems to me, that capital punishment, that is, execution administered by the state and regulated by the law, is not the same as murder.  The Bible is not against capital punishment. 

Yet, I am against capital punishment.  Why?

After working in the American legal system, I am concerned that we could get it wrong. Our society is such that we would rather let a guilty person go free than punish an innocent person.  This  idea echoes Exodus 23:7, which reads, "Be sure never to charge anyone falsely with evil.  Never sentence an innocent or blameless person to death, for I never declare a guilty person to be innocent" (ESV).  At times, I feel capital punishment does not reside in the spirit of this attitude, especially considering that we have seen new evidence overturn incorrect rulings.  Death is final.  There is no overturning capital punishment. 

But if the Bible is not against capital punishment and I feel God gives governments the right to administer the death penalty, how can I be against it? 

As Americans, we are a part of our government.  Actually, we are the government.  Our collective voice is intended to be what grants our various local, state, and federal governments the ability to make laws (This right is ultimately granted to us and other nations by God, as discussed above, and we should be thankful).  As citizens of the USA, our opinions matter and we vote to make our opinions known.  We can be opposed to, or in support of laws because our government system allows us to take part.  The Bible doesn’t say governments must to have capital punishment.  The governments of the Bible did, but while this punishment is allowable, it is not required. This is how I can say the Bible allows governments to engage in capital punishment but I don't want our government to do so.

In Part II, I will address the topic of abortion. Continue to Part II.

If you would like to leave a public comment, you may do so here.  If you would like to contact me privately, click here.

* Photo of "Old Sparky" is in the public domain. Photo of protesters is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28544227@N08/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Adoption

February 9, 2010

Going before a judge today to finalize the adoption of my son has me thinking a great deal about adoption.  This is second time I've faced a judge and expressed my love for a child that's not the biological product of Lisa and I. Both of my children are adopted and words can't express the depth of my love for them.

It's strange how our society treats adoption.  "Will you," asked the attorney before the watchful eyes of the judge, "love and care for this child in every way the same as you would if he were your natural, biological son?"  The flawed assumption of the question is that shared DNA somehow equals a level of love that adoptive families should strive to attain.  Before my youngest was born, people would ask me the big "what if" questions.  "What if the mom did drugs?" "What if the baby has a hereditary disease?" "What if. . ."  Really, these questions are founded in the incorrect assumption that a non-adopted baby is born perfect, free of "problems" or "complications."  And my favorite question (although I admit I myself have wrongly worried about this question) is: "What if the birth mother wants her baby back?"  Flawed question!  Do parents ever have to deal with losing their biologically born children to things like divorce or kidnapping or death?  And taken away from who?  Do we own our children?  Are only adopted children on loan, or are all children? I like to think that God has put children--adopted or not--in our care only for a time.  Psalm 127:3 says "children are a heritage from the Lord" but Genesis 2:24 says that "man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife," that is, the child, a gift of God, will grow up and become a family of his own.  It's only for a time; sometimes only a very short time.

The Israelite law of the biblical Old Testament made no legal provision for adoption.  There were provisions for orphans; and in situations of infertility, there was polygamy and the use of slave concubines. However, examples of adoption are found in the Bible.  While Abram was still childless, he had it in mind that Eliezer of Damascus would be is heir. (Genesis 15:1-4)  In that time, the heir was to be the first born son and would receive all that the father had.  But in the case of Abram, a non-biologically born person was chosen (although God had another plan for Abram).  And of course there's Moses.  At a time when the male Israelite slave babies were killed at birth by the Egyptians, a mother desired to save her baby.  This Levite woman placed her baby boy in a basket and floated him down the Nile river, sending the baby's big sister to watch from the bank to see what might happen.  Pharaoh's daughter found the baby and took him in as her own. (Exodus 2:1-10) And even Esther was raised by her uncle Mordecai, who, the book of Esther tells us, "had taken her as his own daughter." (Esther 2:7, 15)


Jesus was adopted by Joseph (and Mary, depending on your theology).  Jesus, the Son of God, was conceived in Mary's womb apart from any sexual encounter or inheritance of any sin nature; instead by way of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:35).  Like most ordinary men would, when Joseph learned Mary was pregnant he had in mind to divorce her, that is, until an angel appeared to him and explained the situation.  (Matthew 1:19-20)  But we can read in Luke 2:33 that Joseph was called Jesus' father.  However, only a few verses later (48), Mary asks the boy Jesus, "Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress" and Jesus seems to correct her statement. Clearly there's an interesting earthly verses spiritual adoption dynamic here because Jesus points out that he is in his father's house, meaning in the house of God, claiming that he was the Son of God.  And yet, when Jesus, now a grown man, came back to his home town and proclaimed he was the Messiah, the community asked, "Is not this Joseph's son?" (Luke 4:22)  So while we can't know if Joseph loved Jesus like the biologically born children he and Mary had together, we do see that he took on the earthly role of father.  It seems Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, loving him in the same way a father today would love his adopted son.           

Often when we think about adoption, we overlook the birth mother.  Think about Moses' mother.  She could have tried to hide the baby, and if she succeeded she would have been able to remain close to her son.  What did she have to lose? If she gave the baby up, he would die; if she tried to hide the baby but failed, he would die.  But she chose a better option for the baby.  And in another situation, recorded in 1 Kings 3:16-28, two prostitutes come before King Solomon.  One had rolled over on her baby, killing it, so she kidnapped the child of the other woman and claimed it as her own.  When both women made claim to the baby, Solomon suggested cutting the baby in half so each woman could have equal portions of the child.  But when the mother of the child heard this, she pleaded with Solomon to let the other woman have the baby.  She pleaded to let the other woman "adopt" the child.  On the other hand, the second woman was content to see the baby cut.  And it was in this great love for her child--so great that she would give the baby up so the baby would live--that Solomon saw the rightful mother.  When a birth mother gives up her child, she should be honored for making a selfless sacrifice, as well has having love for her child and concern for the baby's future.  Lisa and I are extremely thankful for both of our boy's birth mothers.  What a great thing they did for us and for their babies!

But there is something else that should shape our thinking about adoption.  In Galatians, Paul writes, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.  And because you are sons, God as sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba!" Father!" So  you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God" (Galatians 4:4-7).  We are God's creation, but through faith in Christ Jesus, God's Son, we become children of God through adoption, able to see God not as some far away being, but as our "Daddy!" And for those who believe, trust, and submit to King Jesus, the Son of God, we become heirs of the Kingdom and receive eternal life.

The Word of God, Hebrews 4:12

A deist is one who believes that God created the world and set it in motion, but does not interact with his creation; or if there is interaction, it is extremely rare, and only in the miraculous. The analogy of the clockmaker is often used; that is, that God is like a clockmaker that created a clock, wound it up, and then set it on a shelf never to touch it again. But the Bible does not teach that God has walked away from his creation, uninterested.  In fact, there are hundreds of stories, thousands of scriptures, that demonstrate the opposite. And while we could look at many, many scriptures, today we'll examine Hebrews 4:12.

 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  (Hebrews 4:12, ESV)

Here, we see that the Word of God is alive and doing something in this world, in us.  In this verse, the Word is dividing "soul and spirit" and "discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." The NIV translation says "it judges the the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, NIV). But what is the Word of God that is alive and active?

The "Word of God" has several different meanings throughout the Bible.  The word "word" is translated from the Greek word (the language the New Testament was originally written in) logos.  The word itself has many possible meanings, which is why the phrase can carry multiple meanings.  The Word of God could mean the speech of God or maybe God's decrees (Genesis 1:3, for example).  It could be the actual words spoken to a person or people, like when God spoke to Moses (Exodus 20:1-3) or when God spoke to the crowd at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:17).  There are many Old Testament instances of God speaking through a human prophet; Deuteronomy 18:18-20 explains how God spoke through these men.  And of course the Word of God can mean the written scriptures, that is, the Bible.  (Please see Joshua 24:26 or 1 Corinthians 14:37.) And there are rare Scriptures that indicate that the Word of God is also Jesus Christ.

(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3, ESV)

Here we clearly see that the Word was with God but was also God.  The reference to "the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 when God was creating the world. This is not simply spoken words or the Scriptures.  And we see that all of creation was made through the Word.  But what or who is this Word.  John 1:14 gives us the answer:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, ESV)

Clearly this Word is not like the aloof clockmaker; this God entered flesh and walked among the creation.

Getting back to Hebrews 4:12, it is most likely that the Word of God is the Scriptures (although it is beautiful to see the deeper connection between the Scriptures and the Christ).  Often the Holy Spirit uses what is written to convict us, to show us where we have blemishes in our intentions and attitudes.  And through this conviction we find we can turn to Jesus Christ, who has made a way for us to escape the punishment of sin and dwell with God eternally.  If, however, God is like the clockmaker, why do our thoughts and attitudes need investigation?  Why even leave man with the living and active Word of God at all? No, this God is not like the clockmaker.  This God is living and active in the lives of his creation.  

How does God Organize People for Effective Action?

           
        Many first-time church planters find themselves thinking about church governance.  What should church government look like?  Should it be an Episcopacy, that is, a system where bishops, presbyters, and deacons have a hierarchical form of leadership with specific duties and control given to individuals?  Or Presbyterianism, where a committee or body of elders jointly directs and leads the local church?  Or how about Congregationalism?  Here, the body votes on the issues, leading by the collective wisdom of the members.  All three find support in the Bible.[1]  In reality, each has its own strengths and weaknesses and when selecting one (or a hybrid combination of the three) the best form of organization should be utilized to best achieve success in the task.  Throughout the Bible, God uses a number of different organizational structures to bring leadership and direction to his people.  Delegation is usually required to achieve God’s mission, so that is usually built into his organizations as well.  Having a strong understanding of how God structured his people and his church will help not only the first-time church planter identify the best organizational structure, but any pastor, teacher, or ministry leader organizing people for effective action.  
                        
            Until Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, the leadership consisted of the patriarch of a family, leading and directing the affairs of the small clan.  But in Exodus 18, we find that Moses—who now is directing not a small clan, but thousands and thousands of people from twelve tribes, each made of smaller family groups—is judging disputes between these people all day long.  He is tired.  In verse 20, Moses’ father-in-law advises Moses to teach the people the statutes and laws.  Then he tells Moses, “Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.  And let them judge the people at all times.  Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves.”[2]  It is reasonable to think that the structure was such that the man overseeing thousands had the other judges (overseeing hundreds, fifties, and tens) under his charge, much like a military structure.  In overseeing the large number, he would see to the large tasks, delegating the smaller tasks down the leadership line.  And as indicated in Scripture, if he had to judge a more serious issue, he too would take it up the line to Moses.  Through Moses’ example, we see that a leader must be able to allow others to join in his burden of leadership and be given the authority to do the job appointed to them.

            A similar arrangement is found in the New Testament.  Acts, Chapter 6 tells of a complaint brought about from the Hellenists.  They were concerned that the Hebrews were not treating their widows fairly in the daily distribution of food.  The twelve called a meeting of all the disciples and instructed them to “pick out form among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.”[3]  The Twelve already had their mission—to devote themselves to prayer and ministry to the world[4]—and they knew they could not be distracted from it to “serve tables.”[5]  They recognized there was a problem, appointed qualified men to deal with it, and then gave them the authority to do so.  Most importantly as leaders, they recognized their role and realized they need others to fill other responsibilities.  In addition to simply delegating men to handle this problem, the Twelve were diligent to select the right number of men through a measured nomination process.

            Besides delegation, God also uses structure.  Numbers 2:1-34 is one of many examples of God using an organized structure to achieve his desired result.  Here, God has kept the people from becoming a haphazard mob as they camped and moved.  God starts by placing the Tent of Meeting in the center of camp.  Around it are the Levites, who have been instructed to protect, care for, and move the Tent of Meeting. Verse 2 says, “The people of Israel shall camp each by his own standard, with the banners of their fathers’ houses.  They shall camp facing the tent of meeting on every side.”[6]  Then, God divides the twelve tribes into four teams of three tribes.  Each team is then given a specific side of the camp, and as we see in verse 2, instructed to camp together as a tribe in the larger function of the team.  The order of march was established in much the same fashion, with the Tent of Meeting in the center and the same established three-tribe teams in some order of the caravan.  This structure serves as a protection, kept the people groups together and under their tribal leadership, and it served as a consistent communication tool—people knew where they were to camp and when they were to head out in regard to all the other people.  There should have been no traffic jams or squabbles over which tribe was going to camp where.

            In the gospels, we find that Jesus appointed twelve men as apostles (the same Twelve previously mentioned with the exception that Matthias had not yet replaced Judas), giving them power to do what he has called them to do.  They served as the earthly leadership of the Church once Jesus ascended into heaven.  We often see that even among the Twelve, Jesus also had a closer key group of three: Peter, John, and James.  In Luke 10, we learn that Jesus sent out thirty-six pairs of disciples to go into the cities ahead of him.  Jesus had a system of organization; he led and he appointed and he empowered and he even delegated, multiplying the results and scope of his mission.

            In conclusion, through the biblical examples, we see that God had (and continues to have) a clear objective.  To obtain that objective, he requires the use of delegation.  In addition, the people of God’s organizations find themselves in a structured system with clear instructions and the authority and power to achieve the desired action.  They are called to, or given a mission and the mission is clear, so they are not easily distracted.  As we see in these examples, many leaders throughout the Bible followed God’s pattern, and today’s leaders would be well served to do the same.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids,
     Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.

---

     [1] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker reference library, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001), 256-257.

     [2] Exodus 18:21-23, ESV.

     [3] Acts 6:3, ESV.

     [4] Acts 6:4.

     [5] Acts 6:2, ESV.

     [6] ESV  


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  
** Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/leandromise/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0