Christianity Today, Dr. Ergun Caner, and Liberty

May 4, 2010

In light of yesterday's Christianity Today article, "Bloggers Target Seminary President," I thought I would share some of my thoughts. (If you are unaware of the events, articles, YouTube videos, or blogs surrounding Dr. Ergun Caner at the moment, it may be helpful that you read the Christianity Today article prior to reading my ramblings. [Update, 5/5/10. The Associated Baptist Press has release an article titled, "Liberty U. backs seminary president amid charges of misrepresentation." It is also worth a look.])  

I am not a Southern Baptist, nor am I presently (or was I ever) a Muslim.  And although it doesn't mean much, I am a student of the Distance Learning Program at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary where Dr. Ergun Caner is President.  In addition, my apologetics course used a textbook by Dr. Caner as well as his lectures and discussions on various topics specifically recorded for the course.  But none of this makes me qualified to discuss the controversy of Dr. Caner's past with any authority.  These are just my thoughts.

It seems some accusations were brought against Caner, first by a Muslim or a Muslim group.  They claimed that Caner's background might have been puffed up, exaggerated, or even fabricated.  While I have no idea if these individuals contacted (or attempted to contact) Caner directly, it is clear that there were blogs and YouTube videos making claims against him.  Then some Christian bloggers joined the Muslims, leveling their own claims.  I am unaware if any of these Christians approached Caner before making claims publicly on the Internet.

Jesus outlined what should be done when a brother sins against us.  In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus says,

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

This passage raises some interesting questions.  First, should a seminary be treated as the church?  How about the readership and purchasing base of Caner's books?  The YouTube community and blogosphere?  Second, when an individual is a public figure, such as Ergun Caner, who has he sinned against?  Is it against the public who have read his books which may contain incorrect information about his past?  Maybe; probably.  Close friends and brothers in his local church where he worships?  If nothing else, they could at least offer him some oversight and maybe insight.  But more significantly, there very well could be a sin against the school Dr. Caner is expected to represent.  His actions could hurt the reputation of the seminary and its students.

So then it seems that an individual at the school, likely in a position of authority, holds a responsibility to address Caner on these maters.  Based on the CT article, it looks as if this task fell to Elmer Towns.  The article also indicates that this matter was brought before others.  It reads, "The Liberty board has held an inquiry and directors are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate."  Towns adds, "It's not an ethical issue, it's not a moral issue," but doesn't clarify what kind of issue it is, if any. He then says in the article, "We give faculty a certain amount of theological leverage. The arguments of the bloggers would not stand up in court."  I personally find this statement concerning given that the secular standard of the court system is used rather than anything biblical.  (Using a secular system as the final authority is not what I have been taught at the seminary under Dr. Caner's direction.)

"Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."  [Titus 2:7-8, ESV]

However, being that Dr. Caner is a public figure and acts as the face of the seminary, I would find it rather valuable if the committee (or Caner) provided the information that proved that Caner was not in any kind of ethical or moral wrongdoing.  If they felt Caner had done nothing wrong, I trust that it was based on more than the poor quality of the charges against him.  I understand that the Bible dictates that charges of wrongdoing be brought by two or more witnesses, but I am not sure how that measures up regarding a public figure in the world of mass book publication and the Internet.  Whatever the case, this information would certainly put my mind at ease.  It would also help demonstrate Dr. Caner's credibility as an apologists, educator, and representative of the Christian community. 

On the other hand, if the Liberty board is not adhering to high biblical standards, instead condoning a fellow believer and colleague, they are hurting a brother in Christ, the reputation of the school, and themselves.  I would find it rather problematic if my fellow students were expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and credibility as we write papers and engage in study while the President was not an example of this same standard of moral fortitude.

I'd like to conclude with one final thought.  In January, I was sitting in a coffee shop with a pastor when the apologetic work of Dr. Caner came up in conversation.  It might have been something from one of his books or maybe from a recorded discussion.  At that moment, it seemed as if a rolling cloud of thunderous anger moved over the pastor sitting across from me in the booth.  "That man is a liar!" he shouted.  I asked him how in the world he could know, and this pastor friend said he had seen a YouTube video.  I would like to caution against this type of behavior.  I don't believe my pastor friend had ever spoken with Ergun Caner, nor had he done any further research on the matter (as far as I could tell).

The best thing here is to evaluate the evidence provided by those making accusations (and I'll admit it is compelling), and we must also evaluate the evidence (or statements) provided by (or in support of) Dr. Caner.  But first we need to see the evidence of all sides.  We should also remember that the inability to provide evidence serves as evidence as well.  Only then should we make statements with such certainty.  If it turns out that these other Christians have incorrectly slandered Ergun Caner, than they should be rebuked and restored in love.  However, if they are right and Dr. Caner has lied to the extent that they claim, it is my hope that Caner takes up a repentant heart and those around him support him back to restoration.

Dr. Caner and the leadership of Liberty remain in my prayers.  I also pray that this article acts as a reminder in my own life.  If there is anything that I might have exaggerated or misrepresented in areas of my life, I pray it is made know so that I may repent and faithfully represent Christ's gospel as honestly as I am able.  If given the opportunity I would appreciate any additional conversation on this, especially with Dr. Caner.

[UPDATE, 5/10/2010: Liberty University has formed a committee to investigate Dr. Caner's statements.  Dr. Caner has stated that he welcomes this process.]

*The above photo is taken from http://www.erguncaner.com/media/ and uses by implied permission.

Brothers Hitchens

Among the vocal, atheist-evangelists of the present day is a man named Christopher Hitchens.  Hitchens feels that the woes of society are caused by religion, and Christianity is potentially the worst proponent of all evil in the world.  He authored a book, among many books, titled God is Not Great.  He travels and speaks publicly but he spends most of his time authoring articles.  He is something of a hero among atheists, likely due to his level-headed debate and reasoning skills. 

A number of Christians have debated Christopher Hitchens publicly--Douglas Wilson even went to far as to jointly publish a point-counterpoint book with him called Is Christianity GOOD for the World? Then the two men went on to film a series of debates that appear in the film, "Collision."  An informal running debate between Hitchens and Ravi Zacharias is slowly playing out in print and interviews and maybe these two will eventually square off face to face.   

What's most interesting however, is that his brother, Peter Hitchens, has written a book in reaction to Christopher's work.  It's titled The Rage Against God.  Peter grew up in the same environment as his brother, Christopher.  And Peter too was an outspoken atheist.  However, at some point Peter reversed his position and now professes a faith in Christ.

I can't help but wonder what it might be like when these two brothers get together for a cup of tea.  Might it be time for a film simply called "Hitchens"?  Let them both speak, argue, and debate from the same background, the same blood.  They probably know each other like most brothers do, which may tear down some walls that otherwise are indestructible, or not.  They probably have sibling history.  Sibling rivalry.  An unspeakable connection.  And more than anything, these two brothers have a vested interest, maybe, in a longer term relationship than any other debating opponents.  Or not; it's difficult to tell.  Either way, this is a face off that has me interested.

Here's a clip from Peter Hitchens about his story and his new book:

Peter Hitchens Author Interview--The Rage Against God from Gorilla Poet Productions on Vimeo.
 Peter Hitchens, author of The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith

*I have no financial connection to any of the books or film mentioned in this blog. 

Chaplains on Mission

Here's a short AP video about three aspects of the Army chaplain's duties: Nurture the living, minister to the dying, and honor the dead. 

I'm in the process of applying for the Army Chaplain Candidate program.  (This ordeal has hit some bumps; in fact, it has been a bumpy road from the start, so your prayers are greatly appreciated.)

On occasion, I find myself sitting across from a pastor that has no idea what a military chaplain does. I enjoy trying to explain what I know (although admittedly my knowledge is limited to my observations while I served in the Army, my reading, and my classes).  This video paints a nice picture of some of the aspects of the chaplain's combat-zone mission.  What it does not show is the chaplain's effort to visit and minister to soldiers in outlying areas (Forward Operation Bases, FOBs) or the garrison mission, that is, the mission on a post or fort.  This video also neglects the chaplain's mission in military hospitals and the military prison duties.   

In addition, here's a good interview with CH (LT) Anthony T. Carr by Timothy Dalrymple, titled "Finding God at Gitmo."  Chaplain Carr is a chaplain is serving US sailors detailed with guarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Although Carr says "no matter the location, my role as a chaplain would be the same: to provide spiritual support to the sailors around me," he has a unique opportunity to minister sailors facing problems unlike what their counterparts on ships might see.

Tongues: Viewed Through the Lens of Acts 2:1-21

TONGUES:
AN ANALYSIS VIEWED THROUGH THE LENS OF ACTS 2:1-21

INTRODUCTION

It was a day of great significance for the Church, for in the most practical sense, it was its inception. The Holy Spirit had come just as our resurrected Lord had promised. “But you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit,” said Jesus, “not many days from now.”[1] Pentecost. Luke’s narrative—recorded in the second chapter of Acts—has become the subject of many sermons, poems, paintings, and songs, but also church splits, uneasy parishioners, and theological overemphasis. The events of that day and others like it are at the root of a complicated and divisive practice in today’s Church referred to as “glossolalia,” “speaking in/with tongues,” or simply just “tongues.” Some churches have taken to understand this as a second baptismal experience, a necessary and required sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a special “prayer language,” or some combination of the three. Debate circles around the nature of this language gift. Is it an earthly, know language, a language of angles, or something else? Is speaking in tongues a normative Christian experience? This post will certainly not end the debate, nor will it specifically address any events or experiences of tongues in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Instead, this paper will look at tongues as part of the coming of the Holy Spirit through the lens of Acts 2:1-13. (If you would like to read a more general theological look at the gift of tongues, please see "Tongues: A Spiritual Gift for Today?")

Through careful examination of Acts 2:1-13, one will see that at least some tongues uttered on Pentecost were not a prayer language, but rather, a witness of the mighty works of God uttered in a known language, or heard in the known language of the hearer. First, one must ask, “What happened on that day?” This post will attempt to answer this question through careful exegeses. Second, and effort to uncover the passage’s meaning will be offered, followed by Peter’s explanation given to the people seeking the meaning of that day. Then, once the lens has been established, this post will look through it to examine the other two tongues experiences in Acts and Paul’s teaching on the spiritual gift of tongues in First Corinthians 12-14. Before the conclusion of this post, a brief discussion about the other evidences of the power of the Holy Spirit’s coming will be offered.

PENTECOST: WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? (ACTS 2:1-13)

Jesus had died on the cross, sending his followers into a tailspin until he appeared to them after his resurrection. Then Jesus spent forty days with his disciples, “speaking about the kingdom of God.”[2] And when he was finished, he ascended to heaven, but not before instructing the disciples to remain in Jerusalem to wait for the “promise of the Father.”[3] While they waited, the apostles and many others, about 120 in all, committed themselves to prayer in the upper room where they were staying.[4] They also filled the apostolic void left by Judas.[5] This brings the reader to the opening of Acts 2.

“When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.”[6] As Chapter 2 opens, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, transitions to the day of Pentecost. Bruce indicates that Pentecost, or “the day of the first fruits” occurred seven weeks or fifty days after Passover.[7] “Pentecost,” writes Bock, “was one of the three Jewish pilgrimage feasts to Jerusalem during the year, which explains why people from so many nationalities are present in verses 9-11.”[8] “They were all” most probably refers to the entire 120 and not just the Apostles that take center stage as the narrative advances.[9] And while there is reason to think the place they were all gathered is the upper room mentioned in Acts 1, the text does not clearly identify the location as such.[10] Stott even points out that Luke “is evidently not concerned to enlarge on this.”[11] Theories in scholarly circles suggest that this place is simply identified as a house, and according to Brock, “Luke always refers to the temple (twenty-two times) as [to hieron.”[12] The place, wherever it might have been, was likely a public place given that a crowd could hear the sound and quickly gather, as indicated in verse 5.

“And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.”[13] Williams is quick to point out two significant aspects of verse 2: first, the sound came from heaven; and second the sound was “like” a mighty rushing wind. Given these two points, Williams concludes that this event was nothing but supernatural.[14] It is possible that it was this sound, and not the outburst of people speaking in tongues that served as the “sound” that attracted the attention of the multitudes in verse 5, however the text is not specific on this point. Taking liberty with the text, Calvin says of this moment, “The violence of the wind did serve to make them afraid; for we are never rightly prepared to receive the grace of God, unless the confidence (and boldness) of the flesh be tamed.”[15] And the fact that they were sitting leads Bruce to rule out that they were in the temple, lending more credibility that this event happened in a private residence as previously discussed.[16]

“And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.”[17] The scholars are divided on the “tongues of fire.” Some look to symbolism, while others look to what the physical appearance might have been. Significantly, most positions agree that the tongues were distributed and rested on all the believers present, not just the Apostles. Just as with the wind, Williams points to the “as of” to show that these tongues of fire were not actual fiery tongues, but like tongues of fire, and clearly supernatural.[18] Additionally, Kistemaker demonstrates that the fire fulfills John the Baptist’s prophecy recorded in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16, and, “fire is often a symbol of God’s presence in respect to holiness, judgment, and grace.”[19]

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear each of us in his own native languages?”[20] This passage introduces the reader to “tongues,” and it very well could be that the Pentecostal dominations take the term “Spirit-filled” from this passage, although similar usages of “filled with the Spirit” appear through both the Old and the New Testaments. Writing about “filled,” Marshal states, “Luke uses the word fill to describe the experience. This word is used when people are given an initial endowment of the Spirit to fit them for God’s service (Acts 9:17; Luke 1:15) and also when they are inspired to make important utterances (Acts 4:8, 31; 13:9). . . .”[21]

The word, glossa, most commonly means either ‘tongue’ or ‘language,’ although Strong suggests that it “sometimes refers to the supernatural gift of tongues.”[22] Perschbacher expands on this meaning, adding that in reference to Acts 2:11, 1 Corinthians 13:1, and elsewhere, glossa might be thought of as, “a language not proper to a speaker, a gift or faculty of such language.”[23] On the other hand, Samarin, a linguist, defines glossa as “a single continuous act of glossolalia,” compounding the simple definition previously provided.[24] Under this definition, what then is glossolalia? It is worth noting that a cursory search of the Greek New Testament for the Greek word glossolalia—the combination of the Greek words glossa and (lalia), meaning “speech” or “way of speaking”—turns up no usage.[25] Glossolalia, as defined by Samarin, is first, “a vocal act believed by the speaker to be a language showing rudimentary language-like structure but no consistent word-meaning correspondences recognizable by either the speaker or hearers; (in Christianity) speech attributed to the Holy Spirit in languages unknown to the speaker and incomprehensible without divinely inspired interpretation”; and second, “(loosely) unintelligible speech, gibberish.”[26] This definition fails to see that the hearers in Acts 2 heard this glossolalia “in his own language,” suggesting that at least some of the hearers in Acts 2 understood what was being uttered.[27] While glossa is the word often used in association of the Spirit gift of tongues in the Bible, it is the word glossolalia that is the activity thought of when understanding ‘speaking in tongues’ in the charismatic and Pentecostal churches today. Against the idea of glossolalia, Grudem, seeking to define the common understanding (even if it may not be his own understanding) of ‘speaking in tongues,’ states, “Speaking in tongues is prayer or praise in syllables not understood by the speaker.”[28] Grudem’s definition however, does not leave room for the possibilities of other activities that could have been spoken in tongues seen in Acts and Corinthians, such as actual communication of prophecy to foreign listeners. It should also be noted that the use of the Greek word, dialektoo in verse 6 and the Greek word glossa used elsewhere in Acts 2 should draw no distinction; they are interchangeable in this usage.[29] Stott concludes, “that the miracle of Pentecost, although it may have included the substance of what the one hundred and twenty spoke (the wonders of God), was primarily the medium of their speech (foreign languages they had never learned).”[30] And Bock argues, “God is using for each group the most familiar linguistic means possible to make sure the message reaches to the audience in a form they can appreciate. Thus the miracle underscores the divine initiative in making possible the mission God has commissioned.”[31]

“ Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God. And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, ‘What does this mean?’ But others mocking said ‘They are filled with new wine.’”[32] The list of nations provided by Luke gives the reader an idea of the native languages represented within the crowd, but Parsons suggests that this list is something more. According to Parsons, this list represents the various cultures and vast streams of tradition represented by within the Jewish people. And it is possible that the mission of the 70 (recorded in Luke 10) very well could have reached some, if not all, of these people groups; although this idea seems to have little to do with the narrative.[33] Brock’s idea that most of the people had come for the feast, lends support to Lea and Black's theory that visitors present on this day were responsible for founding the church in Rome, rather than missionaries sent out by Christ.[34]

Because some in the crowd thought the disciples were drunk, a few scholars suggest that not every disciple was speaking in a known language. However, Marshall points out, “. . . some people were ready to explain the speaking in tongues as a result of drunkenness; this would be a very natural explanation to offer if one heard people making unintelligible noises, as some of the sounds must have seemed to those of the hearers who did not recognize the particular language being used.”[35] Stott, in drawing differences between the events in Acts and Corinthians, suggests that the Holy Spirit was working in the hearers of the tongues, too.[36] This suggests that the tongues being spoken could have all be the same even, but the miraculous act of God was in the ear, not the mouth. Some also suggest that this moment signifies the reversal of the “curse of Babel.”[37] In trying to reconcile the tongues experiences in Acts and First Corinthians, scholars will often suggest that the “speaking in tongues” event in Acts 2 is somehow different than the “speaking in tongues” events elsewhere in the Bible. Lüdemann even goes so far as to suggest that tongues—as it is understood in First Corinthians—is the correct understanding of tongues and Luke simply misunderstood the Acts event.[38] Because the lens of this paper is Acts 2:1-13, little will be spend on this issue here; however, a brief discussion is offered in a later section.

ACTS 2:1-15: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

As the people of Jerusalem heard the sound like rushing wind and witnessed the Galilean disciples telling of the mighty works of God in their own tongues, they asked, “What does this mean?”[39] And as one can work to discover what happened on that day, the significance is found in finding its meaning. Tenney simply says, “This tremendous manifestation of divine power marked the beginning of the church,” but while this is correct, this certainly cannot be the only meaning of the events of Acts 2.[40] And what of tongues? White reminds his readers that the event of Pentecost and every similar event following a conversion is a fulfillment of the prophecy of both John the baptizer (Matthew 3:11-12, Luke 3:7-17) and Jesus Christ (Acts 1:5).[41] But is the meaning only about the fulfillment of prophecy? No. German explains that Jesus promised that a Comforter and Counselor would come after he was gone. That Counselor is, “the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit ([John] 14:26; 15:26; 16:5). The Holy Spirit will dwell in the believers (John 7:38, cf. 14:17), and will guide the disciples into all truth (16:13), teaching them ‘all things’ and bringing them ‘to remembrance of all that [Jesus] said’ to them (14:26). The Holy Spirit will testify about Jesus, as the disciples must also testify (John 15:26-27).”[42] This event, according to German, was the transition moment, when the Holy Spirit no longer influenced people (as he did in the Old Testament) but actually indwelled within the believer.[43] Erickson calls this, and the entire book of Acts, a “transition period,” ushered in with the events of Pentecost.[44] Duffield and Van Cleave interpret Acts 2 as something of an equipping for special service. They note that Jesus himself received the Holy Spirit before the start of his public ministry and Jesus’ expected even greater works from his disciples. The Holy Spirit was the necessary power needed for these ministries.[45] However, all of these theologians place little focus on the tongues, but instead on the coming of the Holy Spirit. Could this be because the meaning has little to do with the tongues

ACTS 2:14-21: PETER’S EXPLANATION

Despite what the various theologians might say about the meaning of Pentecost, Peter was the first believer to offer commentary.[46] He stood with the eleven and answered the peoples’ question, “What does this mean?” Peter recited Joel 2:28-32. “In the last days,” the Spirit would be poured out “on all flesh.”[47] This day, as Peter understood it, was the moment the Spirit was poured out and the first day of the “last days.” Peter lists some signs and wonders as he recites the passage from Joel. (It is worth noting that speaking in tongues is not specifically mentioned among these signs.) The “last days,” full of signs and wonders, will play out before the “great and magnificent day” when the Lord comes.[48] Joel may have been pointing to the first coming of Christ or the second, but surely, Peter is pointing to the second. “What does this mean?” Peter explains that this magnificent moment during Pentecost was the ringing in of the last days. A new era had begun; a corner had been turned. And to launch into his evangelistic message, Peter ends his recitation of Joel saying, “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”[49]

What Peter does not discuss is the meaning of tongues. His explanation and sermon does not answer for us if tongues were (or are) a prayer language or a necessary sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In fact, he does not say a word about the disciples speaking in tongues other than that they were not drunk because it was only the third hour of the day.[50] Why? Because the question, “What does this mean?” was not a question about the tongues. Because tongues were not the focal point of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Because most of the audience heard the disciples sharing the mighty works of God in their own native language. Because the tongues were a sign for the audience, significant enough that the people listened to Peter’s message. And because Peter was not focused on the signs, but on the gospel.

OTHER NEW TESTAMENT TONGUES EVENTS

With an understanding of what happened at Pentecost and its meaning, a cursory look at the other tongues events and teaching in the Bible—juxtaposing them against Acts 2—might provide insight on the topic of tongues on the day of Pentecost. This section is not meant to exegete each passage, or understand them for their stand-alone meaning, but to examine if the tongues as understood in Acts 2 works in agreement with the other tongues events.

ACTS 10:1-11:18. Luke records that Peter was in Joppa when he saw a vision. In this vision, God commanded Peter to “kill and eat” but the animals were unclean under the law.[51] Peter argues with God, but in the end submits. Just as this vision concludes, three men sent by Cornelius from Caesarea ask Peter to come back with them. Peter goes to Caesarea and meets with Cornelius, a devout and religious man who happens to be a Gentile. Peter begins sharing the gospel with Cornelius, and “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.”[52] The Spirit had come to the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house. And they began “speaking in tongues and extolling God.”[53] When Peter reported to the other disciples in Jerusalem, he said, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.”[54]

If we look at this event through the lens of Acts 2:1-13, one should notice that there was no recorded rushing wind or tongues of fire. Although Peter says, “just as on us in the beginning,” he could be suggesting that the entire event was exactly the same; however, more likely, Peter is talking about the central event of the coming of the Holy Spirit.[55] The most obvious similarity is the presence of tongues. Here, there is no issue in assuming these tongues are like those of Acts 2, that is, that they are a known, earthly language and the words heard were praising God. Someone understood the language because Peter knew they were praising God. Stott calls this event in Caesarea the “Gentile Pentecost.”[56] Another alternative option for both this passage and Acts 2 is that the languages were unknown to all but that the give of interpretation was given to Peter or someone else in the group.

ACTS 19:1-7. Paul runs across twelve disciples who, it seems, either heard about Jesus before the coming of the Holy Spirit or heard about Jesus from someone who was not aware of the events at Pentecost. They were baptized into “John’s baptism,” that is, the baptism of repentance.[57] In fact, it is not even clear how much these men even knew of Jesus or the gospel. So Paul explains the complete gospel and they were re-baptized in the name of Jesus. Paul then lays his hands on them and the “Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”[58] The use of the Greek word, “and” kai between “speaking in tongues” and “prophesying” in the Greek manuscripts leaves the door open to the possibilities that the prophesying might have been through their speaking in a tongue or in their native and ungifted language. However, juxtaposing this event with the other two in Acts, there is no reason to think that the tongues they spoke were not a known language, just is in Acts 2. Or it could be again, that the event included the gift of interpretation in conjunction with the coming of the Holy Spirit, but this is not explicitly mentioned. It is also interesting to see that in this event, there was a laying on of hands, unlike in the other events. If these men were not yet actually believers of Christ prior to meeting Paul, it could be seen that their conversion and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit were simultaneous or very close in time.

1 CORINTHIANS 12-14: PAUL’S TEACHING ON TONGUES. Reconciling the gift of tongues between the various passages in the book of Acts is nearly seamless; but reconciling Acts and First Corinthians is not as easy. Many pages on this topic are bound in the bindings of volumes of commentaries and theology books. Most conclude that the tongues in Corinth were different in some way than those spoken in Acts. Bruce for example, writes, “The glossolalia cultivated in the church of Corinth, to judge from Paul’s references to it (1 Cor. 14:2-23), had a different character: whereas the effect of the pentecostal glossolalia in Jerusalem was better understanding on the part of the hearers, the Corinthian glossolalia was unintelligible (except to the speaker) without an interpreter.”[59] Indeed, this may very well be the case, but viewing these differently is not the approach taken by this particular post. Instead, this post seeks to look at the tongues spoken in Corinth through the lens of those spoken in Acts 2:1-13 in an effort to understand those in Acts 2. Therefore, the conclusion that seems to reconcile Acts with First Corinthians is found not in the speaker of the tongue or in the tongues themselves, but in the hearer. Acts 2:8-11 demonstrates a wide variety of hears, each with their distinct native language, present to hear prophesy and praises of God in the other tongues. However, if a speaker was given the gift of tongues but the hearer does not understand that particular language, an interpreter would be necessary. While only speculation, it seems that the congregation in the Corinthian church, although likely diverse in languages, was unaware of the languages of the tongues being used; meaning such a sign and gift of tongues was of little value without an interpreter or one who naturally understood the language. Unintelligible babble would require instruction and restriction of its use to maintain proper order in the church services. First Corinthians 12-14 offers just such an instruction.

OTHER EVIDENCES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ACTS 2

Often, the gift of tongues overshadows the other activities of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The most encouraging sign of the power of the Holy Spirit is seen in the radical change in the disciples. Duffield and Van Cleave write, “The disciples were transformed into different men after the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost. In John 20:19 they are seen huddled together behind closed doors ‘for fear of the Jews.’ That very same group of men could not be kept behind closed doors after the Day of Pentecost (Acts 5:17-20), and they became as bold as lions before the Jewish authorities in the power of the Holy Spirit.”[60] The other evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit is found in verse 41 of the second chapter of Acts, which reads, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”[61] Peter had concluded preaching his first sermon and 3,000 people gave their lives to Christ that single day, but this should only be credited to the work of the Holy Spirit. In addition, verse 43 indicates that the Apostles did many “signs and wonders,” and the last verse says, “And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”[62]

CONCLUSION

As this post has attempted to demonstrate, careful examination of Acts 2:1-13, shows that at least some tongues uttered on Pentecost were not a prayer language, but rather, a witness of the mighty works of God uttered in a known language. It is most probable that all of the languages spoken through the gift of tongues were a known, earthly language, which would only seem like babble to one not recognizing the language. It is also possible that none of the spoken tongues were known but the hearers were gifted with the ability to hear in their native languages. In addition, this view is a workable explanation of all of the tongues in the New Testament, even if it is not popular. That being said, many other believers have come to different conclusions. Certainly, a careful exegesis of First Corinthians 12-14 to be used as a lens to evaluate the tongues experiences in Acts might prove helpful in seeing tongues in that light. (It is the hope of his author to someday do this work and post it here.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids,

Mich: Baker Academic, 2007.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Grand

Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 18. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.

Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los

Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids,

Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.

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

Mich, Zondervan, 1994.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. New Testament commentary. Grand

Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1990.

Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message.

Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the

Church. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Book of Acts: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale New

Testament commentaries, 5. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002.

Parsons, Mikeal Carl. Acts. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2008.

Samarin, William J. Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism.

New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church & the World. The Bible speaks

today. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive

Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Williams, David John. Acts. New International biblical commentary, 5. Peabody, Mass:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.

[1] Acts 1:4b, ESV.

[2] Acts 1:3b, ESV.

[3] Acts 1:4, ESV.

[4] Acts 1:12-13.

[5] Acts 1:15-26.

[6] Acts 2:1, ESV.

[7] F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990), 113.

[8] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007), 95.

[9] Howard I. Marshall, The Book of Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, 5 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002), 68.

[10] Brock, 94.

[11] John R. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church & the World, The Bible speaks today (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 61.

[12] Brock, 94. This quote contains the Greek word, but for the sake of readers without the font, it has been removed from the statement.

[13] Acts 2:2, ESV.

[14] David J. Williams, Acts, New International biblical commentary, 5 (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 40.
[15] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 18 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 74.

[16] Bruce, 114.

[17] Acts 2:3, ESV.

[18] Williams, 40.

[19] Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1990), 76.

[20] Acts 2:4-8, ESV.

[21] Marshall, 69.

[22] James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 1599.

[23] Wesley J. Perschbacher, and George V. Wigram, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990), 81.

[24] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angles: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (New York: Macmillan, 1972), xvii.

[25] James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 1623.

[26] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angles: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (New York: Macmillan, 1972), xvii. Italics added for emphasis.

[27] Acts 2:6.
[28] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Mich, Zondervan, 1994), 1070.

[29] Bruce, 116.

[30] Stott, 66-67.

[31] Bock, 102.

[32] Acts 2:9-13.

[33] Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2008), 39-40.

[34] Brock, 95. Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message ) Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 390-391.

[35] Marshal, 71.

[36] Stott, 65-66.

[37] For example, see Bruce, 119.

[38] Gerd Lüdemann, The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005), 48-49.
[39] Acts 2:12b, ESV.

[40] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 899.

[41] Elwell, 137.

[42] Elwell, 569.

[43] Elwell, 569.

[44] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998), 894-895.

[45] Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008), 312-313. Incidentally, Duffield and Van Cleave also argue that this need for a “special power” is still relevant and necessary for ministry today.

[46] Technically speaking, the hearers of the tongues (including those accusing the disciples of drinking new wine) were the first to offer commentary.

[47] Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, ESV.

[48] Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20, ESV.

[49] Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, ESV.

[50] Acts 2:15.

[51] Acts 10:13b, ESV.

[52] Acts 10:44, ESV.

[53] Acts 10:46, ESV.

[54] Acts 10:15, ESV.

[55] Acts 10:15b, ESV.

[56] Stott, 196.

[57] Acts 19:3, ESV.

[58] Acts 19:6, ESV.

[59] Bruce, 115.

[60] Duffield, 313.

[61] Acts 2:41, ESV.

[62] Acts 2:47b, 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.

**The Photo is in the public domain.

The Tool in His Hand

"Strength is not found in the tool, but in God's hand holding that tool." -- Dr. Carl Diemer

In a lecture I recently listened to, Dr. Diemer taught about John Wesley.  Specifically, he discussed a significant moment in Wesley's life.  After a series of challenging events, Wesley, an Anglican, attended a Moravian church service.  On that particular day, the group was reading and studying Martin Luther's preface to his commentary on the book of Romans.  Something in this reading deeply struck Wesley, to the extent that it forever changed his life.  Some argue this was the moment of his conversion, but later in Wesley's life he himself wasn't so sure.  Either way, this reading jolted something significant deep within John Wesley.

Upon hearing Wesley's story, then student Diemer went to the library to read this moving preface.  Romans was the book that changed Luther's life; he was lecturing on it when he was convicted by the statement, “The righteous shall live by faith” in Romans 1:17.  The theology in the pages of Romans was so powerful that Luther was willing to die for his belief in the teaching found in Romans.  So Diemer thought this preface would be amazing, powerful.

But after finding the book and reading the preface, he came to this conclusion: "That was the most boring thing I had ever read!"

But here's the thing.  As Dr. Deimer went on to explain, the strength is not found in the tool.  The preface, the commentary, and even Luther himself,  are just God's tools.  Like an ax they can be sharp and like a mallet they can be strong, but without God's hand they have no movement, no strength, no power. 


* Photo by flicker user f1wbDClik, and is registered under a creative commons license.

Why I'm Over the "Emerging/Emergent" Movement

There was a time, only a few years ago, that I gravitated toward a movement of people seeking to change the way the Christian Church approaches the post-modern generation.  It's often called emerging or Emergent, or more generally, the emerging church.  But I'm over it now.  Don't get me wrong, I still believe the Church needs to continue to seek ways to better reach and minister to the post-modern community; just as the Church must continue to be more effective in reaching and ministering to senior-citizen communities, ghettos, gated communities, prisons, hospitals, college and university communities, military units, the homeless, singles and families, those in the South and those in the North, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, rich and poor, the blue collar and white collar and no collar, atheists and those of other religions, those within the Christian community, and every other culture of every nation around the world.

The emerging church movement identified some problems (correctly or not might still be up for debate).  The movement was mostly a reaction to what they argued was an unacceptable status quo.  It had promise, but this movement, as of yet, has failed to deliver; and without a course correction, probably never will.  The emerging/Emergent church movement has simply become another flavor in the 31-flavor ice cream store of Jesus-following Christian churches.   

In America, and elsewhere, a shift is moving society toward a different way of thinking.  This shift is most often called post-modernity or postmodernism.  There's debate over when it started (somewhere between the sinking of the Titanic or maybe the end of World War II to the fall of the Berlin Wall or the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger or maybe 9/11, as most arguments go). Is the shift complete or still on the move?  That's tough to say.  Shelves are filled with books trying to describe what it is, especially in regard to religion and faith, but for the purpose of this post, I'll oversimplify it. 

Postmodernism is basically a rejection of objective, absolute truth.  Everything is relative.  What's true for one person might only be true for that person.  Perception is reality, so is perspective.  Postmodernism is more relationally driven, drawing much more from the nuances and ascetics.  Tolerance is valued over all else.  It is far reaching into design, art, music, literature, philosophy, and even into the inner-workings of day-to-day life.  And in many areas, it's a reaction to the long years of modernity.  The Church has responded to this shift in a myriad of ways.  Some ignore it, some deny it, some fight it, some are just waiting, some cautiously wade into it, and some have wholeheartedly embraced it. The emerging church movement has rightly decided to embraced it, facing it head on, or maybe running along side (it depends on your perspective). It's at the core of the movement.

In trying to "do church" in a postmodern environment, the emerging church has brought about some fantastic issues for the entire Church to grapple with, grow through, and understand.  The first is the elevating of the importance of cultural understanding.  There are many, many benefits to growing a stronger awareness of cultural, but this comes with two risks: 1. allowing the surrounding culture to become one's identity over and above one's membership in Christ's family, and 2. the risk of allowing the surrounding culture to infiltrate and overly influence one's theology. However, being acutely aware of the nuances of culture is vital to effective evangelism and ministry.  This might be the greatest strength of the the emerging church movement.

Another strength, although it comes out of reaction to modernism, is a stronger awareness that the gospel is timeless and should not be married to modern systems of thought, especially given that the entire Bible was written in the pre-modern era.

A third strength coming out of the emerging church is a greater appreciation of the beauty discovered through the narrative focal approach to Scripture.  God is an artist.  We, as part of his creation, are his art.  There's an idea that the big picture of the biblical narrative speaks to our hearts and therefore should never be neglected. Emerging church pastors have also redirected people back to some ignored aesthetic traditions that can help people enter a mindset of worship toward God--candles, stained glass, art, song, and the church calendar, for example.

Relationships are where our faith plays out in reality, where we grow and develop, where we serve one another.  The emerging church puts relationships at the heart of nearly everything it does.  This is church; we are Christ's body; not buildings nor programs--people, us.  Relationships in and out of the Church are essential.   

But the emerging church comes with baggage.

The emerging church, in many ways, grew out of a reaction to the American Church of the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's.  In the latter decades especially, many in the church have mistakenly married the church to the politics of the Republican party.  In some cases, the GOP is the bridegroom.  This is wrong.  The emerging church's reaction was to sever that relationship.  Divorce.  But today it seems that for among many in the emerging church movement the swing has gone too far.  The newly divorced church (which should be the bridegroom of Christ and not be on the dating scene) now seems to be picking up the party of the Democrats and social, liberal politics as a rebound mate.  The emerging church has traded one wife beater for another, and this is baggage.

A matching piece of luggage found among the emerging movement is the idea of finding identity from culture rather than Christ.  Many American church-goers of decades past treated the Church like a country club membership program.  It was the social club, the thing to do rather than the people to be.  On the other side, many in emerging church communities want to make church the cool coffee shop where friends hang out and nothing more.  It's the farmer's market, the social club of another flavor. Both sides are wrong here.  Church is not just another social club for the members; it's where we seek to meet Jesus face to face and worship him and to invite others to join us.  Although the emerging church made a valiant effort to be different, they've still not freed themselves from this baggage and in some ways are taking on more, just in a different color, a different flavor. 

A criticism of the status quo is that the local church looks like a suburb of Southern Baptist soccer moms.  This is fine if the community is all soccer moms of the Southern Baptist persuasion, but usually this is not the case.  The emerging church rightly cried out for more diversity in the Church.  But while diversity is praised, it's often not as present in practice.  The human default position is to self-segregate by anything and everything we can to draw lines between one another.  However, a reaction to one flavor of church was rectified by simply creating another flavor.  There's the flavor of soccer moms and the flavor of artsy types and the flavor of college rebels, and the flavor of the conservatives, and the flavor of those that want to go to church but don't desire to publicly identify themselves as worshipers of Christ.  Now the ice cream store is more diverse, to the credit of the emerging church, but we can still pick and choose the flavors we like and the flavors we avoid.  Baggage.  (I think few churches have figured out how to stop lugging around this heavy bag. And I must admit, I still stand in the ice cream store and decide which flavors I like more and which I like least, and I find myself thinking that there's no need for the flavors I don't like.  It's a sad part of being human.)

What started as an honest look at how Christians communicate seems to have turned into something twisted.  For example, we shouldn't use the term "Christian" or call ourselves "Christian" because Christians have hurt people in the past and it might conger up negative images for some.  Therefore, we should identify ourselves as "Christ-followers."  Don't call God "Father" because some people have had bad earthly fathers and will think of God in that way.  Don't be "evangelistic," be "missional."  Don't say "talk," say "dialog."  We don't "preach" or "teach," we have a "conversation."  It's not "church," it's "community."  Don't say "ministry" such as men's or women's ministry, say who knows what.  But it's not as if the definitions are changing in actual practice, just the words.  These changes may be necessary and are somewhat reasonable only if we take them on a case-by-case basis with individuals, but they are not helpful as blanket generalities for all of the Church.  In many cases the changes distort existing useful definitions simply by mixing up the understood names.  And at the end of the day, the new words will soon be tainted too, so even newer words will have to be selected or invented.  Eventually we'll run out of words and have to face the facts.  The alternative is to regain credibility back to the original words.  If the term "Christian" causes people to think negatively, work to change the negative impression rather than redefining the word.  People are smart and won't be tricked with a name game or a bait-and-switch.  This is baggage.         

The emerging church reacted strongly to the idol worship of many Christians--capitalism, the American dream, materialism, nationalism, and legalism, contemporary Christian commercialism, mass-popularity, just to name a few.  There was also a reaction to the laziness of the Church, that is, failing to reach out to those less fortunate at home and abroad.  This is a good reaction.  However, it seems many in the emerging church have simply traded these idols for others--literature, art, culture, angst, beer, coffee, or just being different for the sake of being different.  For example, social justice, while a very good thing, has become the god they serve (for some).  Community too has been elevated above Christ.  Here, old baggage as been traded for new baggage, old idols for new. 

The last challenge I will address (in this post, anyway) is the desire for the emerging church to keep everything in the abstract.  It's as if the avoidance to define anything keeps it relevant.  It might appeal to the postmodern generation, but only because without any definition there is no right or wrong or even sort-of-right and sort-of-wrong and therefore, no reason to act on anything.  If the Bible is timeless, it should not be subjected to such thinking.  The Bible is loaded with nuance and abstraction  but then it also brings the reader into clearly defined truth and focused reality.  The Bible often teaches that it's this or it's that and nothing in between.  The Bible also teaches that there's lots of 'in between,' but we can't have shades of gray if we don't first define the white and black, and even the gray.  So I find it somewhat unhealthy to all-together avoid settling on definitions or concrete meaning, determined only to remain in the abstract.  The Bible doesn't teach this way, nor should the Church.  This too is rapidly growing baggage.

I realize that I'm painting with a broad brush and this really isn't fair.  There are many good churches and solid pastors leading people and teaching the gospel in postmodern communities.  There are many wonderful strengths found in this movement. These pastors and churches are not the intended target of my criticism.  Instead, I am looking at those that feel the emerging/Emergent way to do church should be the only way to do church.  I'm tired of picking up books on the topic to find chapter after chapter identifying the problem with the status quo without providing any answers.  It's draining to watch people worship the movement rather than the God behind it.  How many more emerging/Emergent people will I meet that profess a faith in this movement, claiming to be an expert on how to do church, how to be community, how to reach out for God, how to be spiritual, how to journey, but than don't seem at all comfortable with Jesus, his teachings, and his bride--the Church?  

So what's the answer?

I guess there wasn't much of a question proposed, but I'll say this: There are many ways to do church and many ways reach and serve communities. No two situations are alike.  The idea that one way is far superior to another in every situation is a goofy notion.  And if we strive (as many books attempt to do) to offer a model for the whole world, or even all of America, we'll likely be left with a "one size fits nobody" situation.  The status quo has baggage, lots and lots of baggage, but that is because they've been in the trenches for a long time.  Some of this baggage should be dropped, but it's important to remember that the previous generations carried the torch this far and it did manage to arrive here even with the baggage, in the present.  Future generations should be thankful for the shoulders they stand upon, and we should remember that in a few years the emerging church will be the status quo that young, excited people are ready to reform through revolution.   

The Church is Christ's Church. Jesus said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).  So while we all look for ways to design church or ministry or worship (and I am guilty of this, too), it's important to remember that we must submit to the guidance of God the Holy Spirit and let Jesus build the Church.  Just because a church in the Pacific Northwest doesn't look like the one in the Western Desert or the one by the Great Lakes or the one in Mexico or Egypt, doesn't mean that it's not being built as Christ wants.  That's the beauty of Christ's bride. 


*Photo of labyrinth taken by Wiki-Commons user Daderot, and is registered under a creative commons license.Photo of candles taken by flickr user, a.drian, and is registered under a creative commons license.

Will Work for a Toilet?

Early each Thursday morning I have coffee with a small group of guys.  Presently, our meeting spot is a spiffy little coffee joint located inside a locally owned bookstore.  I typically order a large cup of the medium blend, and they usually fill the cup so full that not only can I not put in any cream, the act of carrying the cup to the table makes coffee spill over the side onto the saucer.  But it's a good cup of coffee and the place makes a nice meeting spot for us.

Not too long ago, I had a hefty glass of orange juice before heading out to meet the guys.  Then when I got there, I ordered my usual.  The conversation was good so when my brain received the warning from my bladder, I figured I still had a few minutes.  You know, I hit the snooze button.  When the alarm went off again I excused myself from the group and headed to the bathroom toward the back of the bookstore.

It was locked.

"No bro," said the barista-beatnik from behind espresso machine, "we don't have a key for the bookstore toilets; do you really think they'd let us have one."  The alarm went off again. 

Out the door I went.

Hitting Main Street, I figured there would be a good number of restrooms for my use.  The first one had a sign reading "For building residents only."  Ignoring the sign, I grabbed for the doorknob.  Locked; no light on under the door.  The next place had a key code on the door and the doorman wouldn't give me the numbers to unlock the room.  Another place had one of these key code entry systems too; maybe made by the same manufacture and maybe with the same code.

The alarm went off again and by this time I was three large blocks away from the coffee shop where I started.  Dancing the pee-pee dance into a business building I noticed an older man working a small coffee cart.  Behind him and slightly to the left was a men's restroom and yet there was another key coded door.  In my business shirt, tie, and slacks, I begged him to let me use the restroom.  I might have been holding my crotch like a three-year-old.  I don't remember.  Not understanding my urgency, he explained that the codes were to keep transient people from using the bathrooms.  "If you don't give me the code the to bathroom," I pleaded with the man, "I'm going to be forced to urinate in your planter box."  He gave me the code and I shouted a thank you as I ran into the bathroom.  (I considered buying a cup of coffee from him in appreciation, but my still pulsating bladder argued me out of it.)

But this is more than a story about a dude and the verge of wetting his khakis.  This is a story of understanding needs.

Living in America, with a job and a house and cable TV, it becomes easy to forget that people have needs, real needs.  For many, the idea of need is having to replace your iPhone headphones before getting on the evening train.  Just the thought of not being able to listen to music, being forced to sit in silence or strike up a conversation with the stranger in the next seat is enough of a need to motivate you to get over to the Apple store on your lunch break.  You need to replace your headphones, right?  I am just as guilty, if not a little more.  But there's something about the fear of peeing your pants, standing outside a locked, empty bathroom that brings the idea of need into crisp focus.

Now, imagine not having eaten for a day or two and sitting right outside Starbucks.  You see people casually reading a paper, nibbling on a seven-dollar pastry, sipping a twelve-dollar cup of chocolate soy foam.  They get up to leave and toss the remaining half of the pastry in the trash; $3.50, right in the garbage.  Imagine you haven't bathed in nine days.  Imagine it was 37 degrees last night and you slept on a metal bus bench with only two windbreakers and a bath towel to serve as blankets and a pillow.  You have no warm water, no internet, no car.  You don't have a cell phone in your pocket and you will not be having that dinner party this Friday night.  Do you think you might have needs?

The Bible talks about caring for the less fortunate.  (Here's an example.)  But this post is not about getting you to run down and serve at the Rescue Mission or buy a lunch for Elmer, the guy living on the bus bench outside your office.  No.  These are good things, but as you're reading this on your phone or at work, it is my hope that you think about what you really need and what you covet.  I'm working through this daily and it is not easy.  While living in America is a great blessing, it can be a black curse to correct thinking.

In a letter Paul wrote to the Philippians, likely from imprisonment, Paul says,

I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me (Philippians 4:10-13, ESV). 

It is my hope and prayer for you and for me, that we might learn, as Paul did, to be content in the highs and lows, plenty and hunger, and in abundance and need.  But please realize that I am not arguing that we should do nothing to meet our actual needs; because if that were true, I would've saved myself the time and trouble and just peed my pants.  Instead, I am encouraging you to think about the difference between need and good old-fashioned American want. . . . There is a difference, really.


* "Toilet" Photo is registered under a creative commons license:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lonelycamera/ / CC BY 2.0; "Will Work for Food photo is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/twicepix/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Origins of the New Testament Canon in the West

INTRODUCTION

Followers of Jesus Christ stand under the authority of new covenant Scripture, that is, the 27 collected books commonly called the New Testament.  Together with the Old Testament, this canon is to be the sole measure of absolute truth and authority for protestant Christians.  Separated from the Third Council of Carthage by over 1,600 years, some Christians today unknowingly seem to think that the biblical canon came straight from God in its final and complete form; however, Ronald Mayers expressed that those that hold to this view of the Bible “forget that it did come via man in history and did not fall from heaven en bloc.”[1]  Roger Olson, like Mayers stated, “Scripture was not dropped out of heaven as depicted on the cover of one book about the Bible that calls it That Manuscripts from Heaven.  Humans played a role in writing Scripture, selecting and closing the canon, and interpreting the Bible.”[2]  D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo on the other hand, argued, “It was not so much that the church selected the canon as the that the canon selected itself.”[3]  Understanding how the New Testament canon came to its present form is important if modern Christians are to rightly trust the authoritative books that make up the Bible most commonly published today.[4] 

Reviewing the development of the entire canon and understanding the duel nature of the human and divine authorship that gives the Bible the authority it holds over all other writings is an ambitious task, too much so for the scope of this post.  To focus on the development of the New Testament canon in the Western Church, some related topics will be avoided or given only light treatment, such as the development of the canon in the Eastern Church, the Apocrypha, and the pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal documents.  In addition, to avoid getting bogged down in another controversy, it should be assumed (even if only temporarily) that Carson and Moo were correct in arguing that the Old Testament canon was generally accepted and closed prior to the events that lead to the formation of the New Testament canon.[5]  In what follows, this  post will examine the meaning of ‘canon,’ briefly discuss the nature of divine authority and its relation to other documents, review canon criteria, and then survey the historical developments from the early known lists to the councils that eventually solidified the canon as it is accepted today.    

WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘CANON’?

            When referring to ‘the canon,’ Wayne Grudem’s simple definition is usually enough for today’s church or Bible study setting.  Grudem defined canon as, “a list of all the books that belong in the Bible.”[6]  Following this definition, the New Testament canon then, is simply understood as all the books that belong in the New Testament of the Bible.  Grudem’s definition, although good for specific settings, does not capture the background, nuances, and significance of the word itself.  In tracking the history of the word canon in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English, Bruce Metzger explained that this word is “used in a kaleidoscopic variety of senses.”[7]  According to Metzger, in the earliest Hebrew use, it meant ‘a straight reed’ or ‘rod.’[8]  The Greek usages follow suit.  “[F]rom this comes numerous derivative uses of the term,” wrote Metzger, “in many of which the ides of straightness is manifest.”[9]  Other early uses of the word canon indicate that it meant ‘plumb line’ and ‘level.’  Both in Greek and Latin, ‘canon’ also took on metaphorical uses, such as ‘criterion’ and ‘standard.’[10]  As Metzger explained, “Aristotle described the good person as ‘a canon and measure’ of the truth.”[11]  And in later years, canon, the word, was used for ‘role model,’ ‘a collection of classical works,’ a standard of perfection in sculpture and music, and even as “the schedule or ordinance fixing the amount of grain or other tribute to be paid by a province.”[12]

            Of the uses of the word canon by Christians, its most common uses fall within the scope of ‘rule’ or ‘norm.’  The word itself is rarely used in the New Testament, and even then only by the Apostle Paul.  Most of his uses are typically translated into the word ‘rule’; however, in 2 Corinthians 10:13, Paul seems to use the word in regard to an area, maybe identified by boundaries.  As the New Testament canon started to form into a fixed set of authoritative books from which to be read publicly, Metzger demonstrated that the word took on meanings more in line with “a list, index, or table—terms that carry the suggestion of something fixed and established, by which one can orient oneself.”[13]  Neil Lightfoot provided a good explanation of how Christians use the word today, writing of the word canon, “. . . and when so applied to the Bible denotes the list of books which are received as Holy Scripture.  Thus if one speaks of the ‘canonical’ writings, one is speaking of those books which are regarded as having divine authority and which comprise our Bible.”[14] 

AN AUTHORITY NOT FOUND ELSEWHERE

            If Lightfoot’s definition of ‘canon’ (mentioned above) is correct, an understanding of authority is necessary, specifically the authority referred to as ‘divine’ or ‘biblical’ authority.  “There is a difference between the canonicity of a book and the authority of that book,” wrote Lightfoot, “A book’s canonicity depends on its authority.”[15]  While Lightfoot’s statement, in part, addresses the criteria of inclusion into the canon (which will be discussed in the next section), it also implies a limited understanding of the authority of the documents.  What is this authority?  Are all books, on any subject, written by any person, in any time, equal; should the information they contain be given the same treatment, the same response?  The answer is another controversy that will be given only light treatment here.  In the simplest understanding, most Christians believe that God has reviled himself and his will to humanity.  People eventually recorded these events and experiences in written form.  Part of this belief also includes and idea that God guided and inspired these writings, himself becoming the duel and significant author of the text.  In one of these documents, Paul, writing to Timothy, stated, “All Scripture is breathed out by God . . .”[16] By exercising control over the documents that record his revelation and will to humanity, God gave these documents a greater position over others.  These God-breathed books, backed by God’s authority, are often identified as ‘scripture.’  Millard Erickson says about the authority of the scripture of the Bible, “By the authority of the Bible we mean that the Bible, as the expression of God’s will to us, possesses the right to supremely define what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves.”[17]  The next question is how to identify which documents are authoritative scripture and which are not, which is the topic of the next section.  But before examining various canon criterion, it is important to recognize the difference between the scripture and the canon.  Geoffrey Hahneman said, “Whereas the concept of canon presupposes the existence of scriptures, the concept of scripture does not necessarily entail the notion of canon.  It is entirely possible to possess scriptures without having a canon, and this was in fact the situation in the first few centuries of the Church.”[18]

MAKING THE CUT: CANON CRITERIA

            The first followers of Christ had none of the New Testament scriptures because these books and letters had not yet been written.  As each book or letter was authored, it was typically copied and distributed, but the circulated was a slow process.  Thomas Lea and David Black explained, “When the New Testament books did begin to circulate, many other writings, such as additional gospels, acts of Christian leaders, additional epistles, and apocalypses appeared.  Some groups accepted these additional writings; others rejected them.  Some of the writings now in the New Testament required a long time to gain acceptance throughout the church.”[19] 

Reading publicly from the various gospels and epistles along with the Old Testament canon became a common practice in Christian gatherings.[20]  The challenge, however, was understanding which writings were Scripture backed by the authority of God and which writings were not.  As individual church leaders worked to determine from which books should be publicly read and treated as God’s Word, the canon was starting to take form, although not at all unified it its early beginnings.  Carson and Moo wrote, “The church’s role is not to establish what books constitute Scripture.  Rather, the scriptural books make their own way by widespread usage and authority, and the church’s role is to recognize that only certain books command the church’s allegiance and obedience, and not the others—and this has the effect of constituting a canon, a closed list of authoritative Scripture.”[21]  To recognize and identify the authoritative Scripture from the collection of writing making its way through the early churches, criteria generally acted as the judge.  If the work passed evaluation, it was included with the library of Scripture that governed and guided the people of the church.  A book excluded from this library was not necessarily a bad book; it was simply not duel-authored by both man and God. 

            Each person or local church evaluating books and letters had a specific but individual set of criteria, giving weight to specific matters as was best seen fit; however, there are some general similarities among most the criterion.  Following Harry Gamble’s categorization, the first criterion is Apostolicity.[22]  This criterion is a reference to the author being one of the Apostles or being connected to one in some way.  However, this individual criterion alone might not have been enough; as Lea and Black indicated, “Christians did not use the criteria for canonicity in a mechanical fashion.  Sometimes one criterion was more important than another.”[23]  To make it into the canon, a work often had to soundly meet more than one criterion or fit well within a wide breath of criteria.  The other common categories of measurement were Catholicity, Orthodoxy (also known as regula fidei, or the rule of faith), and the one criterion that was applied later called Established Usage.[24]  In addition to these guidelines for establishing canonicity, John 10:27 should also be considered.

            Apostolicity suggests that a work written by an Apostle should be included in the canon; and this statement works if considering the work of John, Mathew, or Paul.  Metzger’s research added strength to this argument when he wrote, “When the writer of the Muratorian Fragment declares against the admission of the Shepherd of Hermas into the canon, he does so on the ground that it is too recent, and that it cannot find a place ‘among the prophets, whose number is complete, or among the apostles.’”[25]  But what about other works not written by Apostles that did find a place in the canon?  In the case of Luke and Mark, for example, a connection to an Apostle is present.  However, although only speculation, it seems reasonable that there were other writers connected to Apostles whose work was not included.  Polycarp, for example trained under the Apostle John, but his work is not among the canon.  Gamble said The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Barnabas, and the Gospel of Peter all claimed apostolic authorship but remained rejected.  And, according to Gamble, James, Jude (which could easily make a connection to at least one of the Apostles), and even 2 Peter were only accepted with hesitation.  Apostolicity, while a strong criterion, is not enough on its own to have warranted inclusion into the canon.

            Catholicity is the idea that the “document had to be relevant to the church as a whole and even so intended by its author.”[26]  However, even after providing the previous definition, Gamble concedes that this factor would have caused concerns for the canonicity for some of Paul’s writings.  This criterion however, might have held much less weight compared to Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy is the idea that the writing was consistent with the existing doctrine or belief of the community of Christians.  To modern Christians who turn to the canonized Scripture in order to determine and evaluate doctrine and belief, this criterion might appear circular in nature.  However, it is important to remember that the early Church was much closer to the events in question and was thoroughly dedicated to carrying on the faith and teaching of Jesus and the first generation of Christians.  As letters and books were beginning to circulate, witnesses who could validate the written work and author were, in fact, still alive.[27]  Unlike Orthodoxy and Catholicity, Established Usage came into consideration in the later years of the canonization process.  This criterion examined not the document itself, but how the document was used in the employment of worship and teaching across the many local churches.[28]  Given that enough time had passed, one could ask if the document were obscure or new, or rejected or accepted by a large number of believers from many different church communities. 

            One additional consideration comes from the book of John.  In recording the teaching of Jesus, verse 27 of chapter 10 reads, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”  In light of this passage, Grudem said,

It should not surprise us that the early church should have been able to recognize Hebrews and other writings, not written by apostles, as God’s very words . . . . It should not be thought impossible or unlikely, therefore, that the early church would be able to use a combination of factors, including apostolic endorsement, consistency with the rest of Scripture, and the perception of a writing as ‘God-breathed’ on the part of an overwhelming majority of believers, to decide that a writing was in fact God’s words (through a human author) and therefore worthy of inclusion in the canon.  Nor should it be thought unlikely that the church would be able to use this process over a period of time—as writings were circulated to various parts of the early church—and finally to come to a completely correct decision, without excluding any writings that were in fact ‘God-breathed’ and without including any that were not.[29]

It should be remembered that if indeed the works in question are authoritative and duel-authored by God, then the teaching within these writings is to be trusted and believed.  The New Testament canon includes teaching that the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer and serves to help and direct the church that Jesus will, and is building.  As the standard of truth, the New Testament canon has the ability to speak of its own identity and authority, regardless how circular this may seem to non-believers.

HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPING CANON IN THE WEST

            With an understanding of the general canon criteria, this post will now examine the result of applying general criteria to the various documents as the early church began to form what is now the commonly accepted canon of the New Testament.  Initially, the early canon was not straightforward.  People were forming lists of what should be included.  Many of these lists did not agree.  But over time, as more lists were developed and discussed, the canon of Scripture grew wider acceptance, eventually being confirmed by councils. 

It could be argued that the earliest Church Fathers were, unknowingly developing a canon of scripture simply by which books they quoted and treated as authoritative.  But ultimately, this reasoning does not provide a closed list of Scripture.  Another unintentional factor contributing to the canon was the codex.  Prior to the codex, books were written on scrolls with a maximum length of about 35 feet.[30] The longest scrolls could only contain Luke and Acts at best.  But the invention of the codex—a bound stack of pages—many more books could be assembled together.[31]  Where before the canon of scrolls would be cumbersome, the entire collection of documents considers Scripture could be bound in one book.  The bound leaf-books would start to reasonably indicate which documents belonged together and which should be excluded.  Carson and Moo argued that there is “early and widespread attestation of our twenty-seven New Testament documents being bound together in various configurations.”[32]  But still, these were not canonical lists of the Scripture as the canon is thought of today.

            Credited with being the creator of the first official canon list, Murcion, a man who was formally excommunicated in A.D. 144, developed a list of what he believed was authoritative Scripture.  His list was contained in a book he titled Antithese, which is lost to history.  All that is known of Antithese has been taken from works that wrote against it.  Form what can be determined, Murcion’s list contained stripped down versions of Luke and ten epistles of Paul, nothing more.  He rejected the Old Testament and removed all references to the Jewish God from the books he did include in his canon.[33]  As Metzger wrote, “It was in opposition to Marcion’s criticism that the Church first became fully conscious of its inheritance of apostolic writings.”[34]  Throughout the Church, lists began surfacing, mostly to combat the heretical ideas of Murcion and others.  The canon was developing.

            Three early lists worth noting are the Muratorian Fragment, a comprehensive list written by the Church historian names Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Easter Letter by Athanasius.  The Muratorian Fragment is a second century, 85-line middle section of a document, written in Latin, and named after the man who discovered it sometime before 1740.  From this document, there is evidence that a fixed canon boundary was in place, but there were still books that had yet been fully accepted throughout all of the Church.[35]  And the Fragment not only contained a instruction for which books were Scripture and should be read publicly, it hinted at some of the debate surrounding the developing canon.  Hahneman stated, “[I]n the Fragment it is acknowledged that some do not want the Revelation of Peter read in the churches (ll. 71-3) and that the Shepherd ought to be read privately, put not publicly (ll. 73-80).”[36]   The accepted books listed in the Muratorian canon are Luke and John (with Mathew and Mark assumed by the language describing Luke as the 3^rd Gospel and John as the 4^th), Acts, 13 of Paul’s works, a letter to the Laodiceans, a letter to the Alexandrians which might be Hebrews but this is disputed, Jude, and two letters from John plus his book of Revelation.  Peter’s Apocalypse is included, but as indicated above, there is mention that this book should not be read publicly and might be considers not a part of the canon.[37] 

In like manner, Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) places books in the categories of ‘definite Scripture without dispute (which he called “homolegumena”), books that are not fully agreed upon, and books that are in no way authoritative documents.  In Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius listed the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles (of which he includes Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1John, and Revelation as soundly part of the canon.  In the disputed but recognized list, Eusebius mentions James, Jude, two more of Peter’s Epistles and two more Epistles from John.[38]  However, it was Athanasius’ Easter Letter for the Alexandrian church written in 367 that included only the same 27 books found in the New Testament today.[39] 

            Over time, the books of the present New Testament canon had gained widespread acceptance, while others were clearly rejected.  In 363, the Council of Laodicia, in an effort against heresy, recognized the entire present canon with the exception of the book of Revelation.[40]  By the Third Council of Carthage in 397, little dispute existed to challenge the council’s reorganization of 27 books of Scripture, the duel-authored word of God.[41]  From this point forward, the canon has been generally accepted as it exists today.  And while the scope of this post is the development of the canon in the Western Church, it should serve as an additional conformation that the Eastern Church came to recognize the same 27-book New Testament canon.[42]    

CONCLUSION

            From what has been demonstrated here, Christians should feel confident knowing the New Testament canon is indeed the word of God, encompassing only the books that God intended to be viewed as new covenant Scripture.  The canon was not a creation of man but a process of time, discussion, and the work of the Holy Spirit to bring about (through man) a collective recognition and identification of Scripture by the early church, for the sake of all who came after them.  Carson and Moo were right in stating “It was not so much that the church selected the canon as the that the canon selected itself,” but it should also be added that the books that became the canon are the books of God’s word, authoritative, which all Christians should humbly submit to as the ultimate source of truth.[43]  

This post merely scratches the surface of a rich history full of lists and arguments regarding which books should have been included in the canon and which should have be left out.  There were many documents falsely attributed to apostolic authorship that were quickly rejected.  Some books were almost immediately accepted as the word of God.  There was a small collection of letters and books that were slow to gain acceptance but eventually found inclusion in the canon.  The criterion was disputed, some given more weight than others.  Arguments arose on the nature of divine authorship and by extension, authority.  Debate ensued.  And amazingly, the Eastern Church Fathers drew the same conclusions.  It is the hope of this author that additional interest will drive further studies in any of these facets of the New Testament canon development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bettenson, Henry, and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford

     University Press, 1999.

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

     Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Book III,

     http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html [accessed March 8, 2010].

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998.

Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Guides to biblical

     scholarship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol I. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

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

     Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.

Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon.

     Oxford theological monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003.

Mayers, Ronald B. “Both/and: the uncomfortable apologetic.” Journal of the Evangelical

     Theological Society 23, number 3 (September 1980): 231-241.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.

     New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Olson, Roger E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity.

     Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

---

     [1] Ronald B. Mayers, “Both/and: the uncomfortable apologetic,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 no 3 (September 1980), 232.

     [2] Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 90.

     [3] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 735.

     [4] “Most commonly published” refers to the protestant Holy Bible made up of 66 books, 39 of the Old Testament and 27 of the New Testament.  This Bible does not include the Apocrypha as the Roman Catholic Church understands the canon. 

     [5] Carson & Moo, 727-732. 

     [6] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 54.

     [7] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance) New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 289. 

     [8] Metzger, 289.

     [9] Ibid.

     [10] Ibid.

     [11] Ibid. 

     [12] Ibid, 290. 

     [13] Ibid. 

     [14] Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), 152. 

     [15] Ibid, 153.

     [16] 2 Tim 3:16.  All biblical references, unless otherwise indicated, will be taken from the New English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. 

     [17] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998), 267. 

     [18] Geofree Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford theological monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 73. 

     [19] Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 69-70.

     [20] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1 (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 62.

     [21] Carson, 741.

     [22] Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning, Guides to biblical scholarship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 67-71.

     [23] Lea, 72, 

     [24] Gamble, 68-70.

     [25] Metzger, 253. 

     [26] Gamble, 69. 

     [27] For example, see 1 Cor 15:3-8. 

     [28] Gamble, 70-71. 

     [29] Grudem, 63-64. 

     [30] Metzger, 109. 

     [31] Ibid. 

     [32] Carson, 734.

     [33] Metzger, 90-99. 

     [34] Ibid, 99. 

     [35] Hehneman, 89. 

     [36] Ibid. 

     [37] Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 31-32

     [38] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Christian Classic Ethereal Library, III-xxv, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html [accessed March 8, 2010]. 

     [39] Carson, 734-735.

     [40] Ibid, 735. 

     [41] Ibid.

     [42] Ibid. 

     [43] Carson, 735.


 *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.   The formatting and sentence structure was in accordance with a class specific crib sheet.
** Photo of 3 Bibles is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geowombats/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.  All other photos are in the public domain.

Related Post: "Scripture: Divine and Human?"

The Huge Value of Small Groups

April 12, 2010

Some churches call them 'small groups,' others go with 'life groups,' or you might see them as 'community groups,' or even 'house churches.'  A pastor friend of mine calls them 'SOMA Life.' What are these groups?
 
Usually these small groups work in balance with the larger mission of the whole body of Christ's Church.  While the local church typically meets together in a formal, corporate worship setting (most often on Sunday), it's difficult to live life in the trenches with each other, getting to know the community in an intimate way.  Therefore, smaller groups will meet, usually mid-week and sometimes more than once a week, to study, worship, serve, and live out life together.  Some churches use these groups merely as small-setting classes or discussion forums, often not cutting through the facade we use to hide our personal ugliness.  In other churches, the small group is the foundation or lifeblood of the church.  Churches that do not have any kind of small group activity are greatly missing something.  The church my 'SOMA Life' friend pastors, "prays to be a church of small groups -- not a church with small groups."

Sometimes the groups will work through a study guide from the previous week's sermon, other times a group might have a specific teaching purpose, or shared growth objective.  They're typically set in people's homes, so some groups are shaped by geography.  People that get the most from this format of church actually see these groups as little churches within the larger context of the Church and even the local church body.  Not only do small groups sometimes work though study questions, they might share a meal together, sing and praise God, read Scripture, pray, cry, laugh, learn, grow, and some will share in the Lord's Supper.

Pastor Kyle Costello (right front in the above photo) and Pastor Kevin Rogers (standing on the fireplace hearth taking the above photo), took some time last Sunday to discuss their experiences in past small groups.  Their past groups were extremely strong communities, akin to family.  They then set out to share their vision of a church plant in Salt Lake City just now trying to take root.  This little plant is starting as a single 'house church.' It's community at its prettiest ugliest.  The idea is to rip off the pretty mask we wear with others and get to the real, sometimes ugly, us. Then the real us, living together like family, can move together in the sanctification process.  In the coming weeks, they will continue to outline how they believe this community house church will take shape.  If you're interested, please check out the Salt Lake City Project. 

On occasion, I've heard that the house church format is what the New Testament actually intends the church to be.  This is primarily based on how the Church took shape in the Book of Acts.   While it is true that we see first century churches meeting in houses rather than in a communal building, this is not necessarily normative.  We should remember that the environment was rather different than ours.  They may have met only in homes out of necessity.  (I especially like that once Paul determined he was gaining no ground in the Synagogue in Corinth, he started a house church in Titius Justus' home right next door to the Synagogue. See Acts 18:4-7.) Not long after Constantine converted to Christianity, the church was free to transition to formal, communal buildings.  Interestingly, while it may have been persecution and resources that required house churches, it is apathy today.  It is also important to remember that the Book of Acts records the believers meeting daily and tells story after story of the believers living difficult, real life together.  If anything, it would have been more problematic for them to meet everyday.  It makes sense that they would not have recorded their shortcomings and ugliness in the Bible, yet they did and for good reason.  So we should learn a great deal from their actions.

Community should not (in fact, it is not) defined simply by meeting in a communal building for 2 hours each Sunday.  Yes, we should be meeting corporately, often, weekly, maybe more; but we should also be living and meeting together in a small group community of some sort, seeing each other, maybe daily, as we live like Christ's community of believers.  We should long to live out life with each other.  Small groups are part of a life that encourages this.

When a Church Gets it Right

April 10, 2010

In a conversation over coffee with a couple friends, the question was raised, "What was the purpose of the early local church, specifically the Acts churches; and what is the purpose of the local church today?"  One friend said, "To be Jesus."  The other answered, "To experience God" and then added "in community."  But these are the kinds of answers that can't remain unexplored.  They're too ambiguous.  What do these answers mean in real life?  Then and Today? What do these answers look like in practice?

What is the purpose of the local church?  How do we know when a church is successfully achieving that purpose?

I believe my friend's answers were correct; and when we see church communities getting it right, we say of them what my friends said about local churches.  But I'm still hesitant to put some kind of bullet-point list together (for good reason).  For example, if I say "friendly," I can find friendly in the grocery store, the Church of Scientology toxic scanning booth at the state fair, and in any number of other non-Christian environments.  If I say "charitable," I can find this among atheistic philanthropic groups. Some Churches even go to the extent of using the number of attendees or the annual count of baptisms as their way of measuring success, but I don't think I need to get into that issue here.

So if we can't make a clear list of what successfully being the local church looks like, how do we know if a church is getting it right?

When the US Supreme Court was trying to answer the question, What is obscene?, Justice Potter Stewart said, "I know it when I see it" (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964).  I think this might be the only way we can identify a local church that's getting it right.

Based on this criteria, I'd like to tell you about a church that is getting it right.  I hope they don't mind me sharing my observations; I didn't ask.  (This does not me they are not without their flaws, no church is perfect, but it seems that there's something right about what they're doing.)

For two months, our new friends coming from Portland to plant a church in Salt Lake City spent their Sundays sampling the local flavors of church in Salt Lake City.  Being local, Lisa and I took this time to visit Holladay Baptist Church in Holladay, Utah (an area just Southeast of Salt Lake City proper).  We had never been there but we know one of the pastors and thought we'd check it out.  After the first visit we liked it so much we went back a second and third and forth and fifth time.  There we celebrated Good Friday and Easter.  We are joyfully anticipating our return this Sunday.

Indeed, the people at Holladay Baptist Church are friendly, and not just the ones that are assigned to say hello at the door.  It seems the general idea is that everybody is happy to approach an unknown person, saying "I don't believe we've met" and then strike up a conversation.  Most of them ask if they can pray together.  Not often does someone simply say "How are you?" in passing, only allowing enough time to hear the answer, "fine."  After dropping my son off at his Sunday school class (which he loves), an eight or nine-year-old girl said to me, "I don't think I know you, I'm so-in-so."  And nobody seems to leave when the service is over.  Instead, everybody stands around chatting with each other, and us.  If the local church should feel like family, from the beginning this local body of believers says to people, "you are welcome in our family."

Another thing is that this community of believers prays.  It's not uncommon to have the pastor encourage the congregation to silently pray for the people sitting to their right and left and even those not present.  And the pastors typically pray that God would speak through them, bringing forward God's will and word, not their own.  The service is filled with times of prayer.  Sometimes they even have mid-week gatherings designated purely for prayer and worship (in addition to their "family/community meetings" and classes).  And this church encourages a program they call "Pray and Watch" where it is expected that people will be praying for their neighbors by name and faithfully watching for God to move.  

The people helping with the children are amazing servants!  Unlike any church I've previously attended, they change diapers and feed babies.  (Obviously this is not the best system in small groups or certain environments, but for the Sunday services, these dedicated servants want to provide some uninterrupted time for parents to seek the Lord.) I'm not aware of a paging system and there's no number screen to continually check my tags against.  So parents are not paged for every little thing, instead personally sought out for any major issues.  And my eldest son loves his teacher and his class.  He gets along well with the other kids and actually is learning stuff in the lesson time.  He brings home fun projects too. 

I get the feeling that I would easily fit in with this body of believers because their family has young and old, men and women, hip and not-so-hip, educated and uneducated, and so-on, all worshiping together.  The elderly believers seem happy to be imparting wisdom and knowledge to the younger, up-and-coming leaders; and the younger men and women appear grateful. 

I could go on-and-on, but here's the most important thing:  They love the Lord and together they earnestly seek to be close to him.  They teach from the Bible, working through passages of Scripture, not avoiding specific books or difficult texts.  The Bible is their bottom line for everything  The preaching is not a feel-good message, but instead it teaches, rebukes, convicts, and encourages.  There's honesty from the pulpit, and love, and truth.  The Holy Spirit is moving among these people.  The pastors seem extremely happy to be reflecting Jesus, as is every person serving.  And many, many among the congregation are earnestly striving to use their lives to point to others to Christ and serve in love.  This church is reflecting Jesus in all that they do; and in doing so, they are wonderfully experiencing God. . . in community.

Dear Holladay Baptist Church,
May God continue to grant great blessing upon your church. Thank you for your example. 

Advancing Toward the Protestant Reformation

     Too often, people assume that the Protestant Reformation started with Martin Luther, when in reality it was a developing movement that started long before Luther hammered his Ninety-Five Theses to the door at Wittenburg.  I'm not going to get into too many details, but here is a very brief overview of the other developments that contributed to the Reformation. 

      Paul wrote to the Galatians that, “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”[1]  What Paul probably did not understand without the advent of the microscope is that the yeast actually grows and reproduces itself as it consumes the sugars in the dough.  Eventually there are no more sugars and the dough is cooked.  The events leading up to the Protestant Reformation were much like a batch of dough full of bad yeast.  The papacy was declining and corruption among the church leadership was rampant.[2]  The Great Schism had split Europe, followed by a new crop of religious leaders more interested in the Renaissance than the gospel.[3]  The church was no longer viewed as the defender of the poor.[4]  And there were wars.

      Working against this bad yeast—but growing in the same fashion—were men and movements who felt the church had lost its way, such as Wycliffe and Huss and their followers.[5]  In addition, education was on the rise and more people were learning Greek, “who could now compare the Greek text of the New Testament with the commonly used Latin Vulgate.”[6]  Erasmus and the humanist reformers were long working to see a reformation of the church.[7]  The feudal system was crumbling, as was the economy of the masses.[8]  Given these conditions, the sugar was nearly consumed and the dough was about to feel the heat of the coming Protestant Reformation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, Vol II. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

---

     [1] Gal 5:9, NIV.

     [2] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, Vol II (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 6.

     [3] Ibid, 6.

     [4] Ibid, 9.

     [5] Ibid, 7-8.

     [6] Ibid, 7. 

     [7] Ibid, 10.

     [8] Ibid, 8-9.  
 

*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.

Radically Unchurched by Alvin Reid

Critical Book Review

Of

Radically Unchurched: Who They Are & How to Reach Them by Alvin L. Reid

Bibliographical Entry

Reid, Alvin L. Radically Unchurched: Who They Are & How to Reach Them. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002.

Author Information

Born in 1959, Alvin Reid is a self-proclaimed product of the Jesus Movement.  He received a B.A. from Samford University, and a M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southwestern Seminary.   Since 1995, Reid has served as Professor of Evangelism and Student Ministry at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Although much of his leadership experience comes from his time serving the Southern Baptist Convention he believes his teaching on culture and evangelism transcend denomination (p. 13).  In addition, Reid is the founding Bailey Smith Chair of Evangelism at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary an in he was recognized in Who’s Who of American Teachers.  According to his ministry web site, alvinreid.com, Reid is a member of the Evangelical Missiological Society, the Academy of Evangelism in Theological Education, the American Society for Church Growth, and the Evangelical Theological Society.  

Reid has authored over 200 publications on evangelism, spiritual awaking, and church growth.  His many books include, The Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers in an Emerging Culture, Join the Movement: God Is Calling You to Change the World, Firefall: How God Has Shaped History Through Revivals, Raising the Bar: Ministry to Youth in the New Millennium, Raising Up a Generation to Live Radically for Jesus, and Introduction to Evangelism.  He has publicly spoken in nearly every state and on every continent, in over 2,000 churches and colleges.  He has a passion for the inclusion of youth and says, “In times of revival, evangelism is a priority, often fueled by the zeal of youth” (p. 97).  He and his wife have a son and a daughter, both college aged.  And, Alvin L. Reid has an unusual passion for large snakes.

Content Summary

             Radically Unchurched is a book that identifies a present cultural trend in America and then shares methods and ideas to reach the unchurched of the culture.  As Reid explains, “Part 1 of this book addresses why we should seek to penetrate the unchurched culture.  Part 2 addresses how to go about it.  Many books cover the subject of part 1.  Far fewer move into the practical implementation of "strategies or methods" (p. 107).  In Radically Unchurched, Reid attempts to do both. 

           Part 1 opens with a description of who the radically unchurched are.  As most authors on the topic do, Reid shares a story that describes one of these individuals, but the character he describes is not a perfect portrait of the radically unchurched so he goes on to provide a definition.  “The radically unchurched,” writes Reid, “are those who have no clear personal understanding of the message of the gospel, and who have had little or no contact with a Bible-teaching, Christ-honoring church” (p. 21).  He goes on to say that approximately 41% of America’s population falls into this definition (p. 21).  Even more surprising is that “To some of the radically unchurched McDonald’s golden arches present a symbol that has more meaning than does the cross” (p. 22).  It is explained that most of the radically unchurched are post-moderns, but it is a mistake to think that they all are (p. 31).  Once he has defined who the radically unchurched are, Reid takes a number of pages to express his observations of the problems that arise when so many are not connected to Jesus in an intimate way.  Much of these individuals are seeking spirituality, now more than ever before (pp. 26-27).

            Reid than uses the remaining chapters of Part 1 to discuss what the church’s evangelistic efforts look like, what the unchurched look like, and what the Church really aught to look like given the unchurched culture today.  In many ways, these chapters are more of a lesson from Reid’s observations of the world outside the safety of the church bubble.  The general theme of these chapters is to get out of that bubble and get into the culture for Christ.  “We must penetrate the culture of darkness with the gospel of light” says Reid (pp. 80-81).  One specific observation worth noting is Reid’s ideas of how the church deals with culture.  He suggests that the church can evade, pervade, or invade (pp. 37-39).  By evading, he means that the church “avoids the world at all costs” (p. 39).  To pervade is to “overpower the word politically” (p. 39).  Both of these approaches “can be good” writes Reid (p. 39), but to invade is to be most like Jesus.  To invade is, according to Reid, to “penetrate the culture with the gospel” (p. 39).

            As Reid enters into Part 2, the “how to” portion of his book, he pours a few things into the foundations he builds everything else upon.  The first is that the clear message of the gospel must be built upon sound doctrine.  “We are in a doctrinal dumbing-down period unprecedented in American history,” writes Reid, “It is apparent that more doctrine should be taught, not less” (p. 113).  The next foundational item is that we need to use the narrative, that is, we need to tell stories.  Reid believes that “This culture has moved from being propositional in nature to being more narrative in focus” (p. 130).  Third, corporate worship is extremely important because “Worship, in the simplest of definitions, means to meet God and leave changed” (p. 146).  Worship, claims Reid, brings the church to a place where they are filled with the Spirit and ready to reach the world with the gospel (p. 146).  Next, although “Finding new, creative means to communicate the timeless message offers a significant challenge” (p. 158), the church must be ready to face the challenge, seeking new ways to deliver the same, consistent message of the gospel.  And finally, the church must intentionally plant new churches where the unchurched are.  Reid contends that church planters must get out of the Bible belt in exchange for unchurched areas of America.  On this basic message, Reid builds his case for how to reach the unchurched.  He fills in gaps and provides examples, continually to encouraging his readers along the way.

Evaluation

            While insightful and informative, much of Reid’s “Part 1” is not unlike most every other book on reaching the postmodern culture.  This is not to say this first portion is unneeded, just that it adds very little new information to the conversation for one who has read a few books on the topic.  If anything, it says that Reid’s observations are inline with the broader observations of many other evangelical authors writing on the same topic.  In many ways, “Part 2” is the same, except that fewer books on evangelism in the post-modern culture get into the “how to” information as Reid has.  That being said, Radically Unchurched still offers encouragement and motivation for the reader to be more aware of the unchurched and get involved in sharing the gospel with them.  Evaluating Reid’s stated purpose for the book, “My prayer is that these pages will encourage you to abandon yourself to live for God, but not you alone.  I pray that the light of your spirit and that of others like you, fed, by the Spirit of God moving in you, will flame together and penetrate the darkness of the unchurched in America” (p14), it is difficult to tell if he has achieved his purpose.  However, this reviewer finds it easy to speculate that Reid has indeed achieved his purpose in the hearts and minds of at least some of his readers.  And if some of his readers are pastors, evangelists, or teachers, it is quite possible that they have imparted the spirit and idea of Radically Unchurched on to others that have never heard of Reid or his book. 

            The strength of Reid’s work is that his style provides a conversational feel that is both believable and convincing.  By mixing examples with more expository information, the reader sees the Reid’s ideas in both theory and what appears to be practical application.  The work is written to anybody with a passion to reach the lost, and due in part to Reid’s word choices and style, the book is not too difficult or overbearing while at the same time convicting.  The weaknesses of the book, although sparse, are found primarily in the minor details.  For example, Reid uses examples of television shows, popular songs, and artists, with little explanation.  Some of these television shows are no longer on the air, the songs no longer popular.  If the reader is not aware of the content of a popular television show, songs, or artists, he or she may miss the point (see p. 166, or the many references to Marilyn Manson).  This traps the book in a time that parallels the pop culture Reid is using for examples.  Another example is found in the Internet section of chapter nine.  Reid published Radically Unchurched in 2002 when some aspects of the Internet were seen as uncharted waters.  He discusses the speed at which the Internet is changing but then shares some thoughts on “Internet Evangelism” (pp. 168-171).  Chat rooms are not used as much today as they may have been.  Also, his suggestion to send touching e-mails to a large database of e-mail addresses is generally frowned upon and nicknamed “SPAM.”  Such was probably the case even when the book went to market.  Given the rapid rate of change the Internet sees, Reid might have been best served to keep these details in the realm of generality rather than specific.

            Radically Unchurched is a valuable and relevant work for the Church today, specifically for evangelists with a desire to reach the lost in today’s culture.  This book might make for a good selection for study in the small group setting as well as an appropriate selection for a seminary class.  Used in conjunction with a book like Concentric Circles of Concern by W. Oscar Thompson, Jr., anyone can learn how to become an effective evangelist in today’s culture.

*I have no material connection to this book.  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.

Jesus is the Truth

[I realize this post is extremely long and will likely only be read by other seminary students looking for some angle for a paper, or maybe by a die-hard who doesn't have a TV or a girl friend.  However, I still wanted to post it here in the off event that the material in this lengthy post might actually help someone or point a reader toward at least one truth about Christ.]

JESUS IS THE TRUTH:

DECLARATION, CORRECTION, AND ILLUMINATION SEEN THROUGH THE BOOK OF JOHN

INTRODUCTION

 “Truly, Truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal live.”[1]

          

Twenty-five times in the book of John, Jesus begins a statement with the words “Truly, truly.”  The author of John is the only gospel contributor to use this combination of words, likely employing the phrase for greater emphasis[2].  What generally follows is a statement from Jesus providing clarification, or—more often than not—a declaration of Jesus’ Truth.  Many of Jesus’ spoken words throughout John are lengthy proclamations or corrections, often addressing misunderstandings of the messiah and his connection to God.  Through this technique, the author of John portrays Jesus not only as the Messiah, but also as the Truth.  John strings these conversations into a larger interconnected narrative that illustrates this theme.  Accordingly, readers of John can learn much through Jesus’ declarations, corrections, and illuminations of the Truth.  After providing a brief summary of the authorship and background of the book of John and then a survey of the many Christological declarations demonstrated together through the pages of the book, this study will examine the interconnectedness of the John’s Gospel by looking at portions of three narratives of Jesus’ declarations in order to seek a greater understanding of Jesus as Truth. 

About the Book: Its Author and Purpose

            In a time when students of the Bible often ignore libraries filled with scholarly work on the author and purpose of the book of John, one might ask why it is necessary to include this information here.  While certainly a reasonable question, it overlooks the historical reliability of the book and neglects what might be learned by understanding the narrative through the perspective of the person who wrote it.  In addition, “If we can feel that there are good grounds for thinking of an eyewitness,” writes Leon Morris, “and specifically of John the Apostle, as being behind [the book of John] our view of what it says will be one thing.  But if we see it as written by a second-century Christian who had never set eyes on Jesus it will be quite another.”[3]  If Morris is correct, than the reader is well served by understanding who the author is and the purpose behind his work.

            Tradition has long held that a man named John is the author of the Gospel that bares his name, although it is important to remember, as Colin G. Kruse asserts, that “the titles that appear in the NT today were added by early editors of the NT cannon.”[4]  This particular John is often thought to be the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, and a Jew who witnessed the ministry of Jesus.  Although not free of dispute, the more common external evidence in favor of the Apostle John as the book’s author includes the writings, verbal transitions of tradition, and testimony of Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Eusebius, and Irenaeus, who, Kruse argues wrote the “clearest affirmation of the writing of the Forth Gospel by the apostle John.”[5]  In his work identified as Against Heresies iii, Irenaeus suggest that John was the man who reclined on Jesus—written in John 13:23—and “published a Gospel.”[6]  Internal evidence, as examined with the use of the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Revelation, and letters understood to be penned by Paul and John strongly suggests the Apostle John as the book’s author, although nothing in these biblical documents implicitly attributes John as its author.  Therefore, although there is substantial debate regarding the authorship of the book of John, for the sake of brevity, this study will accept the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, as the author of the book and therefore examine it on the “good grounds” that it is written by an eyewitness. 

            John tucks his purpose toward the end of his Gospel, writing, “Now Jesus did may other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”[7]  By his own words, belief in Jesus, it would seem, is John’s objective.  “More than anything else,” writes Kruse, “it is the emphasis of the Fourth Gospel upon the need to believe in Jesus and the stories of people who did so that suggest its primary purpose is evangelistic.”[8]  Francis J. Moloney would likely agree, but also argues that the book of John is not purely evangelistic.  He suggests that the first eighteen verses comprise a tremendous claim of “remarkable truths.”  This is not, as Moloney proposes, a book for those who have never heard of Jesus.  “The Prologue completely unveils the Evangelist’s understanding of who Jesus is and what he does,”[9] states Moloney.  “The reader is left with no doubt concerning the Evangelist’s beliefs about Jesus.  Whether or not he or she accepts them is another matter.”[10]  From verse 19 of the first chapter through the last word of the book , John’s effort is to further persuade those who may not have accepted his opening claims.  D.A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo write, “John’s work is a gospel: all the movement of the plot is toward the cross and the resurrection.  The cross is not merely a revelatory moment: it is the death of the shepherd for his sheep (John 10), the sacrifice of one man for his nation (John 11), the life that is given for the world (John 6), and victory of the Lamb of God (John 1), the triumph of the obedient Son, who in consequence bequeaths his life, his peace, his joy, his Spirit (John 14-16).”[11]  And as will be demonstrated in this paper, John often presents Jesus in dialog with those who, it may be argued, either do not recognize Jesus as the Truth or outright reject this notion.  The implied idea is that the reader may see these narratives as a whole and feel compelled to side with either those who do not believe or with Jesus.

What is Truth: A Survey of Jesus’ Delectations

            From the middle of the second chapter when Jesus cleanses the temple,[12] first claims God as his father,[13] and then makes a bold declaration answering the Jew’s demand for a sign[14] to Jesus redirecting Peter’s concerns about John[15] five verses from the end of the book, John is filled with narratives of Jesus correcting people and making bold statements about himself and his purpose, but never clearly defining what is Truth.  However, John provides twelve key conversations that demonstrate a unified purpose regarding Jesus as the Truth, collectively and individually serving to persuade the reader to make a decision.  By John’s design, each conversation is structured to sway the reader toward a belief in Jesus and a greater understanding of the Truth.  The Truth is a major theme of John’s Gospel and where this study places its focus. 

            Provided below, a brief identification and summary of Jesus’ key conversations should provide an overview of the subject matter and where they fit within the larger theme.  In the section following this one, three passages—selected specifically to demonstrate the collective theme—are examined in detail.

            3:1-21.   A member of the Sanhedrin and a Pharisee, Nicodemus seeks out Jesus by cover of darkness.  He opens with a statement that appears to beg Jesus for more information: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that do unless God is with him.”[16]  What follows is remarkable conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus that outlines how one may become a child of God.  Nicodemus then asks, “How can these things be?”[17]  Unlike the rest of the key conversations, the reader is given no clear indication of Nicodemus’ reaction to Jesus’ statements.  One sees that Nicodemus does not understand, but whether he rejects Jesus’ Truth is difficult to determine.  It is as if John intends to deposit Nicodemus’ question into the mind of the reader so that it might resurface as each conversation builds upon the Truth.  This passage is one of the three that will be examined in detail in a subsequent section of this study.

            4:5-30.   In what might be one of the quickest exchanges of the key conversations, Jesus goes to Samaria where he encounters a woman drawing water at Jacob’s Well.  After Jesus asks her for a drink, she questions how it is that he, a Jew, would ask anything of a Samaritan, let alone a woman.  He turns it around with a conversation about a living water that he can give which leads to eternal life.  Jesus then demonstrates a supernatural knowledge about the woman’s marital status and she decides that he is a prophet.  The woman asks Jesus about the proper location of worship.  To which Jesus corrects her understanding, stating that soon, neither Jerusalem nor the mountain she identified will be the required place of worship.[18]  Jesus adds, “But the hour is coming when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.”[19]  Following one more exchange, Jesus shares with her that he is the Messiah and she believes. 

            5:2-47.  After Jesus heals a long-time invalid on the Sabbath, the Jews find fault with first, the healed man carrying his mat on the Sabbath, and second, Jesus healing that same man on a day that the Law (under their understanding of the law) allows for no work.  Jesus and the Jews enter into a one-sided conversation, whereby Jesus identifies himself as God, or, at least equal with God, stating, “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.”[20]  Andreas J. Kostenberger points biblical students to Old Testament Scripture and other Jewish writings[21] when he says, “The OT and Second Temple literature concur that raising the dead and giving life are the sole prerogatives of God.  Jesus’ contemporaries therefore did not believe that the Messiah would be given authority to raise the dead.”[22]  Jesus again teaches the common thread through the key conversations when he says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”[23]  Following this statement, Jesus lambastes the Jews for their rejection of his Truth, arguing that they do not hear the voice of the Son of God and will not have eternal life.  Interestingly, John identifies that the Jews, at this point, are plotting to kill Jesus before the lengthy diatribe on their disbelief, potentially to plant a preconception in the mind of the reader.

            6:22-71.  Before this selected passage, Jesus feeds five thousand men with five barley loaves and two fish.  The following day, Jesus enters into a discussion with his disciples about Moses, belief, and eternal life, all wrapped up in the symbolism of the bread.  Then Jesus declares himself the “Bread of Life.”[24]  The Jews who heard him speaking question Jesus; which Jesus, again, declares that he is God.  Drawing on imagery of the Israelites eating manna in the wilderness, Jesus says, “If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.  And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”[25]  As the conversation continues, many disciples choose to discontinue following Jesus, rejecting his Truth.  However, when Jesus asked the Twelve if they too were going to leave him, “Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”[26]  They believed.  And through this narrative, John places the reader in a tough spot: walk away, or believe as Simon Peter and the Twelve do.

            7:1-51.  Wasting no words, John immediately starts another narrative to pull the reader to a decision point.  This time, John shows the audience from the perspective of those trying to understand the Truth.  Jesus’ brothers challenge Jesus to go to the Feast of Booths, but the passage says, “For not even his brothers believed in him.”[27]  Eventually, Jesus does go to the temple and begins teaching.  Some in the temple were arguing about the nature of Jesus when the Jews asked Jesus where he had studied.  He provides them an answer (which dictates that his teaching are from God and are true) and then turns the tables on them, bringing up the Law of the Sabbath and their desire to kill him.  As Jesus is speaking, some of the people of Jerusalem start asking themselves if Jesus could be the Christ.  They are weighing the facts and considering the signs.  At this point, the Pharisees send for the authorities to arrest Jesus.  A prediction of Jesus own death is given and then Jesus again teaches on the living waters.  John uses the remaining chapter to show the Pharisees debate with one another about Christ Jesus.  Interestingly enough, Nicodemus is mentioned by name and seen arguing the law regarding witness testimony in favor of Jesus, although there is still no mention of what Nicodemus believes about Jesus. Most of the other Pharisees can be easily identified as rejecting Jesus even to the point of wanting him arrested.

            8:12-59.[28] Mirroring chapter 5, verses 2-47, Jesus again converses with the Pharisees about Truth, Light, and the deity of the Messiah.  This is a turning point of the key conversations as John ratchets up the intensity of the rejection from the Pharisees.  Through this narrative, the reader sees some believe and some disbelieve; and by the end of the passage, those rejecting Jesus are picking up stones to throw at Jesus.  Portions of this passage will be discussed in detail later in this paper.  

            9:1-41.  Chapter 9 centers around a blind man.  The disciples ask Jesus about the cause of blind man’s sin.  Jesus point out that the question as to whose sin is responsible for the blindness (the blind man or his parents) is misguided and clarifies their thinking saying, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”[29]  After Jesus heals the man, John follows the blind man now healed to show the reader his perspective.  And as the Pharisees try to figure out what happened to this man, he confesses that it was Jesus who healed him, resulting in the man being barred from the synagogue.  The reader now sees that those rejecting Jesus and the Truth are also rejecting any person who believes.  Significantly, John shows the reader that Jesus seeks out the rejected man, individually and asks him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”[30]  In what follows, the man says, “Lord, I believe” and the scripture indicates that he worshiped Jesus.[31]  After this, Jesus draws upon parallels about himself and the ability to see.

            Although the next passage, 10:1-21 is addressing the Jews rather than the Pharisees, it seems to follow the previous one.[32]  Now, John shows the reader that a decision about Jesus’ Truth is becoming more necessary.  Using a parable of a sheep pen and a good shepherd, Jesus explains that anyone not entering by the door of the pen is a thief or robber but the person using the door is the shepherd.  “To him the gate keeper opens,” says Jesus, “The sheep hear his voice and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.  When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”[33]  As Jesus continues, he says that the sheep will not recognize a stranger’s voice.  He also identifies himself as the door.[34]  Jesus (again declaring himself as the Messiah) says, “I am the good shepherd.”[35]  As Morris suggests, “It makes an instant appeal to the depths within man, even though man may be a citydweller and have never seen a shepherd in his life.  But the thought of the care for the sheep that is involved in the title is plain enough.”[36]  A prediction of his own death and resurrection follows and ties to this parable; after which, John shows the reader that “There was again division among the Jews because of these words.”[37]  Some, it would seem, felt that there was no reason to listen to Jesus and that maybe he had a demon in him, while others felt the quite the opposite.

            10:22-42.  John has now completely shifted away from the inquisitive fact-finding style readers see in the first conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.  In this key conversation, Jesus is walking in the colonnade of Solomon when the Jews ask Jesus to tell them whether he is the Christ.  The reader should remember that John the Baptist was also asked this direct question in the first chapter of the book of John and he answered, “I am not the Christ.”[38]  Jesus’ answer to the same question: “I told you, and you do not believe.”[39]  They are not part of his flock, and again, Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”[40]  Then, answering their question whether he is the Christ or not, Jesus plainly states, “I and the Father are one.”[41]  Infuriated, the Jews reject this answer, grab stones, and are ready to stone Jesus for blasphemy right there in the colonnade of Solomon.  Jesus escapes however, and crosses the Jordan where, as John draws sharp contrast, “many believed in him there.”[42]

            11:1-53.  Enough talk, enough debate; John has brought the reader to what might well be the initial point of decision.  This is the pinnacle of conflict, the moment of no return as far as the narrative is concerned.  Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.  John tells this portion of the story through action, with only a few direct words from Jesus.  After Lazarus has died, Jesus tells his disciples, “Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe.”[43]  After arriving at Lazarus’ home, Jesus tells Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life.  Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”[44]  Then Jesus adds something significant.  Jesus asks Martha, “Do you believe this?”[45]  According to Donald A. Carson, “...he is not asking if she believes that he is about to raise her brother from the dead, but if her faith can go beyond quiet confidence that her brother will be resurrected at the last day to personal trust in Jesus as the resurrection and the life, the only person who can grant eternal life and promise the transformation of resurrection.”[46]  Carson’s commentary seems correct when one looks at Martha’s answer: “She said to him, ‘Yes Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”[47]  As John’s narrative continues, the reader sees Jesus pray to the Father, saying that he prayed as he did so that the people may believe.[48]  Lazarus is raised, and John completes this key conversation indicating that “Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.”[49]  And the Pharisees, fearing that everyone might believe in Jesus, which could bring about the loss of “both our place and our nation,”[50] plot to kill Jesus.

            Three key conversations remain, but after this passage, the remaining two should only served to help the reader settle into one side of belief of the other.  After Martha’s confession, there is little else for John to present to his reader before entering into the Passion phase of his Gospel.

            12:20-50.  As John, again, attempts to bring the reader back to his opening eighteen-verse premise, this passage serves as something of a threshold.  It begs the question of the reader, Are you a disciple or are you not?  Do you or do you not believe?  As Jesus is speaking to some Greeks and explaining that the hour of his glory has come, a voice from heaven speaks.  The people are amazed and Jesus tells them it came for their sake.  It is here that John shifts away from the narrative toward his own commentary, explaining that the people have seen the signs and still do not believe.  In addition, John quotes Old Testament prophecy to demonstrate even more of their unbelief.  Verses 42-43 show the reader a picture of one who believed but was fearful to confess this belief.  This person says John, “loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.”[51]  Likely, this is a foreshadowing the next key conversation with the disciples.  When John resumes the narrative, the reader finds Jesus restating the message, the Truth—essentially, Jesus is the Light of the World and all who believe in him will have ever lasting life.  What more could be said that hasn’t already been said? 

            14:1-16:33.  Chapters 14-16 are drastically different than the previous ten key conversations.  It is here, that John, in direct language, lays out what Jesus teaches to his disciples, to those who believe.  However, this is not simply a handbook for believers or John could have concluded his book without the Passion.  Instead, this is a confirmation for the believer and a teaching tool to prepare the believer for tough times ahead.  And while it may seem at this point that the reader should have already found a position on one side of belief or the other, John demonstrates that this decision is just not that easy.  At the conclusion of this long dialog, John writes, “His disciples said, ‘Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.’”[52]  But Jesus’ response suggests that belief is not as easy as one may think.  There is something more.  Richard C. Lenski writes, “But even as the disciples had said that Jesus knows all things so he now adds the severe trial that already awaits their faith.”[53]  Jerome H. Neyrey takes it a step further stating, “The time notation indicates that they are not finished with their liminal period of learning and discipleship; moreover, the testing of their belief will prove that they do not measure up to the grade.  Despite their claims, they are still in a time of figures, not plain speech.”[54]  This is the reason John’s book records Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.  And now, after John’s first eighteen verses of Truth and then eleven key conversions to encourage the reader to a position of belief, John tells his reader that the belief can not be like those who believed without confession for fear of being put out of the synagogue.  John has now brought his readers to the point of decision.

            18:33-38.  The final key conversation is John’s way of forcing the reader to come to some kind of conclusion.  Jesus is standing before Pilate being judged (and himself judging as some argue), as symbolically the reader is judging for oneself.  Pilate asks if Jesus is a king and Jesus discusses his kingdom.  For the second time, John discusses kingdom issues, the first being during Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus.  It is also in this passage that John records Pilate’s timeless question, “What is truth?”.[55]  This, being the other bookend of John’s evangelical argument, is the third selected key conversation that will be examined in depth in the next section.

John’s Evangelical Argument: Jesus is the truth

John records Jesus words, saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”[56]  But what is this truth?  In chapter 17, while praying, Jesus says, “Sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth.”[57]  And in John’s opening, he writes, “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,”[58] and once more, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”[59]  But again, one must ask, what is truth?

The Greek word John uses in the previously mentioned passages is aletheia, meaning “truth, truthfulness, corresponding to reality.”[60]  Guy Duffield and Nathaniel M. Can Cleave suggest that “Because God is truth, His Word is true.  It is the true revelation of His nature, His will and purpose for man, and His plan of salvation.  His promises and covenants are made in truth and are unfailingly dependable.”[61]  Wayne Grudem argues, “God’s truthfulness means that he is the true God, and that all his knowledge and words are both true and the final standard of truth.”[62]  And Titus 1:2 states that God never lies.[63]  But what does John say about Truth?

John’s Gospel, one will find, discusses truth often but never clearly defines the Truth that is Jesus.  The only way to understand this Truth is through the narratives of the previously mentioned twelve key conversations and Jesus responses, declarations, and corrections aimed at misunderstandings.  It is in these narratives that Jesus’ Truth holds meaning and comes to life.  All twelve of these key conversations deserve an in depth study, but for the purpose of this paper, only specific portions of three will be examined: Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (3:1-21), which serves as the opening discussion; one of Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees and Jews (8:12-59); and Jesus’ discussion with Pilate, which serves as the close of John’s evangelical argument.

In what might be the most well known declaration of Jesus’ gospel, Jesus tells Nicodemus why he came into the world; however, at this early point in the book of John, Jesus does not clearly tell Nicodemus that he is the Son of God.  John on the other hand, has identified Jesus as the Son of God in the opening of his Gospel and the reader should make the connection through Jesus’ monologue on light and darkness.[64]  The light of John 1:9 is “the true light.”  Carson states, “The word for ‘true’ (alethinos), here and often in John, means ‘real,’ or ‘genuine.’”[65]  He points out that John characteristically applies this word to, “light (here), worshippers (4:23), bread from heaven (6:32), the vine (15:1), and even to God himself (7:28); 17:3).  Other persons or institutions may claim to be the light, to be worshippers, to be the vine, to be bread from heaven, even to be ‘god’; John sets out to present the true light, vine, bread and so forth.”[66]  Thus, Johns’ statement, “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world”[67] is a reference to the Word, which became flesh, that is, the Son of God, “full of grace and truth.”[68]  The light Jesus discusses with Nicodemus is the same true light John opens with in the beginning of his book.  Therefore, the connection to the true light connects the previous declaration in verses 3:16-21 to the Truth and the Light.  Jesus, therefore makes his first and most significant declaration of Truth, and it is this truth-statement that is echoed through the rest of the conversations: “...that whoever believes in him should not parish but have eternal life.”[69]

In the second selected section of dialog, one finds Jesus arguing with the Jews and the Pharisees.  Craig S. Keener suggests that how chapter eight looks today is probably not how John wrote it.  “In the likelihood that 8:1-11 is not part of the context,” writes Keener, “8:12—10:21 still takes place on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2, 37).”[70]  If this is indeed the case, when Jesus says, “I am the light of the world”[71] he could have been drawing on the imagery of the lighting of the lamp stands during the celebration; but looking at the larger reading, one sees the use of true light employed by Jesus and the author John on more than just this occasion.  Alan Culpepper and Gail O’Day argue that there is more imagery than the lamp stand alone.  “The use of light symbolism in the Fourth Gospel provides the final context within which to place Jesus’ words in 8:12a,” writes Culpepper and Day, “In 1:4-10, light is the central image for the presence of the Word in the world.  ‘Light’ (phos) and ‘life’ (zoe) are identified in 1:4 as two ways in which the Word expresses itself in the world.”[72]

Another passage worth noting (although there are many verses in this key conversation that show an interconnectedness, space limitations restrict this study to only a few examples) is verses 31-32.  Here Jesus says, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”[73]  Those who hear him say this think he is talking about actual slavery, not realizing that Jesus is talking about slavery to sin and the condemnation that comes from sin.  As Morris put it, “The truth of which John writes is the truth that is bound up with the Person and the work of Jesus.  It is saving truth.  It is the truth which saves men from the darkness of sin....”[74]

            As one looks to the final key conversation, that is Jesus’ discussion with Pilate, two declarations by Jesus draw from the previous conversations throughout the book of John.  These two statements seem to complete John’s evangelistic effort.  The first is Jesus’ kingship and the Kingdom of God.  Kostenberger points out that, “Apart from 3:3 and 3:5, this is the only instance of ‘kingdom’ terminology in this Gospel, which stands in stark contrast with the Synoptics, where the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ is exceedingly common.  In both cases in the present Gospel, the use of the term seems to be constrained by the specific encounters of Jesus with Nicodemus and with Pilate....”[75] Looking back to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, one sees that both times Jesus is telling Nicodemus how to obtain entry into the Kingdom of God.  In the latter conversation, Jesus tells Pilate that this kingdom is in fact his kingdom, one that is “not from the world.”[76]  And based on Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, it would seem that one must be “born again” to enter this kingdom.  To be “born again” this conversation suggests that one must believe in the Son of God, that is, the King of the Kingdom.

            The second statement of Jesus’ of which to give special attention should be familiar to the reader, only now it is very clearly spoken.  Pilate hears Jesus talking about a kingdom and inquires, “So you are a king?”  Here it would seem, that Pilate doesn’t fully understand Jesus purpose.  “Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king.  For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth.  Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”[77]  To the reader that hears, or is starting to hear Jesus’ voice, this should sound extremely familiar.  This reader should see the Truth.  But Pilate simply (or maybe even flippantly) asks, “What is truth?”[78]

Conclusion

            This study has attempted to demonstrate how John portrays Jesus as the Truth through several key passages of his book.  John 1:1-18 is a gospel of Truth; it is the gospel of Jesus.  Everything that follows is John’s evangelistic effort to share that Truth.  Additionally, through Jesus’ recorded declarations and corrections, one can come to find a better understanding of what that Truth is.  Certainly, more than three passages can be examined in detail to further demonstrate how the interconnectedness of John’s Gospel tells the larger narrative of Jesus’ Truth, and it is this author’s desire that these studies are indeed conducted. 

Bibliography

Carson, Donald A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.

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

Michigan: Zondervan, 2005

Culpepper, R. Alan, and Gail R. O'Day. The Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John. The new

interpreter’s Bible. Volume IX. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1995.

Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los

Angles, California: Foursquare Media, 2008.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,

England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill:

InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Kostenberger, Andreas J. John.  Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004.

Kruse, Colin G. The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New

Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2003.

Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message.

Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.

Lenski, Richard C. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg

Publishing House, 1961.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Boston, Massachusetts: Brill Academic Publishers,

2005.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans,

1971.

Neyrey, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. New Cambridge Bible commentary. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive

Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001.  

---

[1] Jn 6:47. All biblical references, unless otherwise indicated, will be taken from the English Standard Version.

[2] James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), 1590.  In the Greek, the word is amen (amen) #281, meaning “the truth, a formula of solemn expression of certainty.” 

[3] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1971), 8.

[4] Colin G. Kruse, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2003), 27.

[5] Ibid., 25.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Jn 20:30-31.

[8] Kruse, 21.

[9] Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Boston, Massachusetts: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005), 6.

[10] Ibid.

[11] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 277.

[12] Jn 2:13-16

[13] Jn 2:16.

[14] Jn 2:18-20.

[15] Jn 21:21-22.

[16] Jn 3:2.

[17] Jn 3:9.

[18] Jn 4:21.

[19] Jn 4:23, emphasis added.

[20] Jn 5:21.

[21] Dt 32:39, 1 Sm 2:6, 2 Kgs 5:7, Tb 13:2, Ws 16:13

[22] Andreas J. Kostenberger, John, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 187.

[23] Jn 5:25.

[24] Jn 6:35.

[25] Jn 6:51.

[26] Jn 6:68-69.

[27] Jn 7:5.

[28] Because much debate is centered on Jn 8:1-11, there is the possibility that this conversation and the previous one are actually one single conversation interrupted by a passage that might not belong where it is.  However, for the sake of this paper, this author will treat this section as a separate conversation.

[29] Jn 9:3.

[30] Jn 9:35.

[31] Jn 9:38.

[32] Morris indicates that the opening of “Verily, verily” suggests that this is not the opening to a new discourse, but a continuation of the previous one.  Morris, p. 501.  Certainly the Jews questioning Jesus’ ability to heal a blind mind (Jn 10:21), ties chapter 10 to chapter 9.

[33] Jn 10:3-4.

[34] Jn 10:7.

[35] Jn 10:11

[36] Morris, 509.

[37] Jn 10:19.

[38] Jn 1:20.

[39] Jn 10:25.

[40] Jn 10:27.

[41] Jn 10:30.

[42] Jn 10:42.

[43] Jn 11:14-15

[44] Jn 11:25-26.

[45] Jn 11:26.

[46] Donald A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), 414.

[47] Jn 11:27, note the connection between this narrative and the John’s opening through the use of “coming into the world” here and in Jn 1:9.

[48] Jn 11:42.

[49] Jn 11:45-46.

[50] Jn 11:48.

[51] Jn 12:42-43.

[52] Jn 16:29-30.

[53] Richard C. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 1110.

[54] Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, New Cambridge Bible commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 275.

[55] Jn 18:28

[56] Jn 14:6.

[57]  Jn 14:17.

[58] Jn1:14.

[59] Jn 1:17.

[60] Strong, 1589.

[61] Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, California: Foursquare Media, 2008), 81.

[62] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 195.

[63] Ti 1:2.

[64] Jn 3:19-21.

[65] Donald A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), 122.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Jn 1:9.

[68] Jn 1:14.

[69] Jn 1:16b.

[70] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 285.

[71] John 8:12.

[72] Alan R. Culpepper and Gail R. O'Day, (The Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John. The new interpreter’s Bible. Volume IX. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1995), 632.

[73] Jn 8:31-32.

[74] Morris, 457.

[75] Kostenberger, 528.

[76] Jn 18:36.

[77] Jn 18:37.

[78] Jn 18:38.

*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. 

Easter: To Dance with the Creator

April 4, 2010

Easter is the celebration of something so spectacular that words can't represent the magnitude of Jesus' love for us.  No doubt, many people will visit a church this Easter to appease relatives, assuage their guilt, or mistakenly believe that their presence in a church building will somehow grant them salvation.  Most churches will present the gospel of Jesus to these people with the honest hope that they may hear it, see it, feel it, and find themselves reaching for the salvation found only in Jesus Christ.

This dance by Rachel Morreale is a spectacularly moving presentation of the gospel.  I hope you will take a moment to watch it.  Whether you've been dancing with Jesus for many, many years or you've never before danced with the Creator of the Universe, I pray that Rachel's performance stirs your heart again, or for the first time, to dance with Christ.

I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have about Jesus Christ or share how you can become his dancing partner.  Please feel free to contact me.

In Christ,
Bryan Catherman
   

God in Good Friday

April 2, 2010

Today, Christians remember the death of Jesus of Nazareth.  He died at the hands of Romans, under the order of Pontius Pilate, through crucifixion on a cross.  Before being nailed and hung to the beams, naked, he was severely beaten.  The Roman charge against him was insurrection; but many Jews were upset because Jesus claimed he was God.  It was for this claim that others worshiped him.  It is for this reason that I worship him.

The physical end of Jesus' life was not any more spectacular than that of the thousands of other people that Romans killed on crosses.  In fact, two of them were hung next to Jesus.  Certainly men and woman have endured greater physical torture than Jesus did, many of them in his name.  Paul, one of Jesus' followers claimed in his second letter to the Corinthians to have received the 39 lashes (like the punishment Jesus received) five times.  Three times he was beaten with rods.  Once he was even stoned and left for dead.  (2 Cor 11:23-28).  In 1527 Michael Sattler, a man professing a faith in Jesus, had his tongue cut out so he could no longer proclaim Christ.  Then he was drug through town behind a mule cart with occasional stops to have his flesh pierced and torn off with hot pokers.  After this, he was attached to a pole and lowered into flames.  But at the point when most people being burned at the stake are about to die from suffocation and smoke inhalation, Sattler would be pulled out long enough to take a breath or two and then dropped back into the fire until he eventually died.

Could this day's importance be because Jesus was innocent of the Roman charge?  He was indeed innocent, but no, the significance has little to do with Roman law.  No doubt the Romans got it wrong on more than this occasion; it's highly likely that other innocent men and women found their end on a cross.

What then makes Jesus' crucifixion worth honoring on a day like Good Friday?

It was not merely the physical death of Jesus.  If that were all, we've already seen that there are probably more spectacular deaths worth talking about.  No, it's about more, much more.

It is not just that Jesus was innocent of the Roman charges or falsely accused by the Jewish religious leaders; it's that he was innocent of sin.  He had never once committed a crime against God.  He had never acted in a way that went against God's desire.  Nothing in the life of Christ would require exclusion from God's presence.  He was not like you or me; he was perfect.  However, for the salvation of man, Jesus bore all the sins of all people.  The wages of sin is death, physical and spiritual.  God, being just, must pour out his wrath upon sin and Jesus took that wrath on behalf of you and me and all people.  However, there is no way any created person could endure such wrath.  We can't even endure the punishment of our own sins, let alone those of others.  So God, being love, entered the world as a man, Jesus, lived a perfect life, and bore the wrath in our place.  Therefore, it is not just the physical death of Christ being remembered today; but instead it is that our loving God would intervene for us to take the punishment we rightly deserve.  This is why we celebrate.   

But it does not end here because if Jesus had simply died he would not have overcome the eternally destructive power of sin and death.  However, Jesus lives!  On Sunday, we will celebrate Easter, the day Jesus Christ rose from the grave, alive.  Forty days after his resurrection, he ascended into heaven, never again having tasted death, to sit at the right had of God.  Scripture tells us that if we turn from our sin and surrender our lives to the authority of Jesus, we too can live with Christ forever.  And that is worth celebration!

Will you celebrate with me?

I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have about Good Friday and Easter, or tell you more about Jesus, or share how you can become a follower of Christ.  Please feel free to contact me.

In Christ,
Bryan Catherman


*The image used in this post is licensed under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyz/ / CC BY 2.0

Augustine of Hippo by Peter Brown

CRITIQUE OF

Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

INTRODUCTION

Born in Thagaste in 354 and buried in Carthage in 430, Augustine of Hippo’s life was more than the “rich thought” he put to paper or the theological legacy present-day Christians still seek to understand; his life, as Peter Brown attempts to capture, was a life of constant flux in an “age of rapid and dramatic change.”[1] In his work, Augustine of Hippo, Brown attempts to “seize that crucial area where external and internal changes touch each other.”[2] His initial efforts received the attention of New York Review of Books, American Historical Review, London Times Literary Supplement, and New York Times Book Review. Today, most of the many reviews of Augustine of Hippo identify Brown’s work as some of the best on the man called Augustine. Brown—presently Philip and Beulah Rollins Professor of History at Princeton University—specializes in the medieval and late antiquity periods.[3] Some of his other books include The World of Late Antiquity (1971), The Cult of the Saints (1982), The Body and Society (1988), Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: towards a Christian Empire (1992), Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman World (1995), The Rise of Western Christendom (1996, 2003), and Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (2002).[4]

BRIEF SUMMARY

            Where most summaries start at the beginning, this one will start at the end. Turn to the bibliography and one will find a commanding list of references including books written in English, Latin, German, and French. Brown supports his findings and ideas with the strong frame work of previous scholarship; and he informs his readers, “that many authors to whom I constantly refer, are for me far more than names, whose views support or complement my own: they are the giants on whose shoulders I have been honored (sic) to perch.”[5] Brown organizes his book into five periods of Augustine’s life and within each period he addresses themes of the period rather than dredging along a strict time line. For example, in Part I he discusses Monica, Augustine’s mother, and her influence upon him, which can been seen in his later life. In Part II one thematic focus is upon Augustine’s effort to write Confessions; and in Part IV an engaging investigation of Augustine’s conflict with Pelagianism. Life to death is still covered, but Brown, through this method, is able to capture the subtlety of change and the causing factors rather than simply reporting the dry facts, from one to the next, as many other biographers are so tempted.  

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK

            Having been this reviewer’s first biography of the life of Augustine, the format of dealing within themes initially was challenging. The lack of a typical overarching view of the time line and a solid understanding of where Brown was going next meant that certain aspects of the theme are lost on the reader. For example in the chapter titled “Monica” (found in Part I), Brown writes, “Whenever one of her sons went astray, ‘She acted as if she was undergoing again the pangs of child-birth.’”[6] And a little later, the reader learns that young Augustine slipped out in the middle of the night to avoid facing his mother’s guilt.[7] However, not understanding the time line or what their future might look like left many unanswered questions on the matter of the mother-son relationship, only some of which are answered in subsequent chapters.

            Although the lack of strict adherence to a typical time line seems challenging at first, the advantages are quickly realized. By working in themes, Brown is able to provide a deeper look at the aspects of life that brought about change, and how that shaped Augustine’s behavior and thought. It is extremely easy to imagine Augustine writing by candlelight in a high tower isolated from the world, but as Brown’s work demonstrates, Augustine lived in a volatile world, full of physical and theological hostilities and hardships. Through this vantage point, it becomes easier to understand the influences of Manichaeism or friends or growing wiser through change or moving through self-reflection.

            A final point of strength found in Brown’s work is his many references and citation style. To allow for a smoother reading, Brown removed the clunky format so readily found in academic work. The referenced data blends with Brown’s own words like a woodcrafter’s dovetail joint. At one point for example, Brown seamlessly writes, “For the first time in his life, Augustine was acclaimed as a truly international figure by another: conditorem antiquae rursus fidie. He had ‘set up anew the ancient faith.’”[8] With only a simple superscript and a highly abbreviated footnote, each page reads like one found a novel, one page after another.

CONCLUSION

            Augustine of Hippo is an interesting work capturing the life of Augustine instead of just a chronological list if facts and happenings. Brown’s expertise rises to the surface through what he chooses to spend pages addressing and what he leaves to the shelves of other Augustine biographies. While this was only my first biography on Augustine, other reviews have left me with the thought that few (if any) biographies have captured Augustine in such a way as to come alive in the mind of the reader. After reading Brown’s book, I am now driven to learn more about the Forth Century the man I felt I met reading Augustine of Hippo.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley, Calf: University of California Press, 1969.
Princeton University, “Department of History: Peter Brown,” http://www.princeton.edu/history/people/display_person.xml?netid=prbrown (accessed February 27, 2010).

---

[1] Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley, Calf: University of California Press, 1969), 9.

[2] Ibid, 9.

[3] Princeton University, “Department of History: Peter Brown,” http://www.princeton.edu/history/people/display_person.xml?netid=prbrown (accessed February 27, 2010).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Brown, 10.

[6] Ibid, 30.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, 363. 



*I have no material connection to this book.  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.  

An Analysis of the Evidential Apologetic of Natural Theology

Introduction. Natural Theology, according to Walter Elwell, is the idea that “Truths about God [can] be learned from created things (nature, man, world) by reason alone.”[1] Thomas Aquinas championed this approach to recognize the existence of God as the Church encountered Jews, Muslims, and pagans that rejected the authority of Christian scripture.[2] John Calvin and other reformers, however, rejected Natural Theology in favor of initial enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.[3] In analyzing Natural Theology, this post will argue that a hybrid is necessary. While an evidential apologetic of Natural Theology creates a bridge from believers to unbelievers, it cannot be an effective method of apologetics or evangelism without a dependence upon both the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

Strength of Natural Theology: Its Necessity. Aquinas—potentially the father of Natural Theology—developed a process to argue in favor of the existence of God with the same scientific tools as Greek philosophy and logic; thereby, insisting that the Truths of God could be demonstrated by evidence found outside of Scripture.[4] Aquinas drew his support from Romans 1:20-21.[5] Of Natural Theology, Erickson writes, “It maintains not only that there is a valid revelation of God in such spheres as nature, history, and human personality, but that it is actually possible to gain some true knowledge of God from these spheres—in other words, to construct a natural theology apart from the Bible.”[6] The thrust, Erickson goes on to argue, is that it is possible to come to a knowledge of God without any authoritative writing or church body.[7]

Weakness of Natural Theology: No Dependence on the Holy Spirit and Scripture. While Aquinas used Romans 1:20-21 for support, many Protestant Reformers argue that the passage must be read in context, showing that “the pagan’s natural knowledge of God is distorted and turned only to his judgment.”[8] They find support in First Corinthians 2:14-16. Additionally, Erickson holds that Calvinists and Augustinians reject the assumption that, “Neither humanity’s natural limitations nor the effects of sin and the fall prevent humans from recognizing and correctly interpreting the Creator’s handiwork.”[9] Timothy Paul Jones, in summarizing John Calvin seems to agree with Erickson, arguing, “For Calvin, no one can, furthermore, begin to understand the Scriptures until the Holy Spirit enlightens him or her.”[10] Calvin, while not specifically arguing that the Scripture is a necessity for apologetics, demands that the Holy Spirit’s initial granting of faith most certainty is an essential requirement.[11]

Conclusion. No doubt, modern Natural Apologists like Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, and Gary Habermas place their trust in the work of the Holy Spirit and in the authority of Scripture. Listening to and reading their work, one finds that Natural Theology is only the bridge to bring the unbeliever to hear the Word of God. Therefore, at the risk of oversimplification, a hybrid combination of both positions is reasonable when one accepts that Natural Theology is the tool used by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe than anyone can come to faith in Christ Jesus without the work of the Spirit and Scripture; however, any evidence suggesting otherwise is at least worth evaluating.

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids,
     Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.
Jones, Timothy Paul.  “John Calvin and the Problem of Philosophical Apologetics.”  
     Perspectives in Religious Studies, 23 no 4 Wint 1996, p 387-403.


[1] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library, Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 815.
[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998), 182.
[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 12-14, 26-29.
[4] Elwell, 816.
[5] Elwell, 816.
[6] Erickson, 181.
[7] Erickson, 181.
[8] Ewell, 816.
[9] Erickson, 181.
[10] Paul Timothy Jones, “John Calvin and the Problem of Philosophical Apologetics” Perspectives in Religious Studies, 23 no 4 Wint 1996, p 387-403, 398. (Jones’ use of the word “Scripture” is in relation to understanding anything about God.)
[11] Calvin, 26-29. 
 
*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.
** The painting depicting  Thomas Aquinas was painted by Carlo Crivelli and is in the public domain.

Share Jesus Without Fear by William Fay

 Critical Book Review

Of

Share Jesus Without Fear by William Fay, with Linda Evans Shepherd

Bibliographical Entry

Fay, William, and Linda E. Shepherd. Share Jesus Without Fear. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.

Author Information

            Author of a series of products related to Share Jesus Without Fear, William (Bill) Fay is a graduate of Denver Seminary and talk show host of “Let’s Go,” an internationally syndicated radio program.  Prior to accepting Christ in to his life, Fay's father was a vice president with General Foods, successfully introducing a product of frozen foods called Birds Eye.  Fay was raised on a silver spoon.  Eventually, he had ties to the mafia and ran Fantasy Island, one of the largest houses of ill repute in the United States.  At sixteen, he fathered a child.  Fay admits he cheated his way through college and as a professional gambler he also cheated at cards. He is presently on his fourth marriage, three of which were before his confession of faith.  After accepting Jesus, his life was flipped for God’s Kingdom.  Today, he travels around the world, teaching and equipping Christians to be successful evangelists.  Share Jesus Without Fear has been translated into Spanish and Fay has created a selection of booklets, journals, workbooks, and CDs to accompany the book.  His website boasts that over five million copies of his booklet “How to Share Your Faith Without an Argument” are in print.  William Fay lives with his wife, Peggy, in Ft. Myers, Florida.
 
             Linda Evans Shepherd has authored over twenty books, mostly targeted at female audiences including The Potluck Club series.  She too travels around the nation publicly speaking in an effort to teach and encourage her audiences.  She is a frequent guest on both radio and television talk shows and she co-founded Jubilant Press.  Longmount, Colorado is the home of Shepherd and her family.

Content Summary

            Share Jesus Without Fear is Fay’s systematic method to more effective evangelism.  With scripture and his personal experience, Fay[1] encourages his readers to shed preconceived ideas of evangelism and utilize his method of sharing Jesus with those around them, loved ones and strangers alike. 

           Fay opens his work with an encouragement to his readers.  Success in evangelism, he argues, comes simply from sharing one’s faith, not, as most think, from seeing a person come to Christ (p. 2-3).  Then he shares his vision, specifically that saved people will return to the community of the unsaved to lead others to salvation rather than only finding comfort in their new community of believers.  In his vision he uses an analogy of people drowning in the ocean and those saved on an island.  Fay presents his concept of the “Sin of Silence” (p. 6-7), followed by statistics and information about how most come to salvation.  Because only ten to fifteen percentage of people come to Christ through an “event,” and only five percent of Christians share their faith with others, Fay argues that this “Sin of Silence” is a major problem.  After making his case for a need of all believers to also enjoy and active lifestyle of evangelism, Fay moves to addressing the root of most objections to sharing Jesus—fear.

            Once his foundation is in place, Fay begins outlining his “sharing” system starting with some probing questions designed to feel out what the Spirit is doing in the subject person.  The questions are,

1. Do you have any kind of spiritual beliefs? 2. To you, who is Jesus Christ? 3. Do you believe in heaven or hell? 4. If you died, where would you go? And, 5. If what you are believing is not true, would you want to know?

As instructed, when the witness gets a yes to question number five, Fay says it is time to get to the scriptures. Here, he argues that the scriptures do the convincing and the Spirit is working on the person.  It is not the work of the witness; the witness is merely in the business of turning pages (p. 45).  He also gives the reader some responses to work with objections to the Bible.

As he progresses through his program, Fay provides specific scriptures, questions, and things to mark a sharing Bible that help lead a person to Christ.  The suggested scriptures are Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, John 3:3, John 14:6, Romans 10:9-11, 2 Corinthians 5:15, Revelations 3:20, although Fay suggest to use others if the participant has other preferred verses.  Trust in the power of the Scriptures is vital according to Fay, and generally, any scriptures will have convicting power if the Holy Spirit is working in the person's life.  

  

            After working through his evangelical system, Fay shares what do to in the event that his method is successful and the subject person is ready to make a decision for Christ.  A basic explanation of the Sinner’s Prayer is outlined along with some confessional questions for the subject person.  After sharing a couple personal stories about people coming to Christ, Fay offers a number of reactions to potential objections.  In addition to this chapter, an appendix is provided on the same objections, and nearly a third of the book consists of this chapter and appendix covering the same topic.  To conclude his work, Fay shares how to make and keep friends with non-believers, how to pray for those believers, and a challenge to his reader to put the contents of Sharing Jesus Without Fear to practice.  Fay dedicated many pages of appendixes—most of which are review and boiled down instructions—and his testimony. 

Evaluation

            William Fay set out to help readers shed the fear they carry when it comes to sharing their faith.  From the very first pages, he succeeded in this endeavor.  By first defining what evangelism successes and failures are, followed by some statistics designed to drive home his point through a little guilt, he is able to successfully convince his reader that the need is huge and there is little reason to be fearful to share Jesus.  However, if the reader has any doubts, Fay takes one more opportunity to address them by following up with a chapter set on overcoming the assumed objections of the reader.  This first section of his book is the strongest and most convincing portion of his work.  If all he set out to accomplish was to motivate his reader to action by eliminating fear, he has succeeded.  However, this is only one third of the book.

            The next portion of the book is on the sharing system itself.  Had Fay published his work twenty years ago, his suggested five probing questions might have been the best questions to ask in order to determine if a person was ripe for hearing the gospel; but as the world shifts into postmodernism, only the first question seems to address the non-believer today.  With some rewording, the second question might be more effective.  Question three and four come across like something said of a traveling salesperson, and question five could use some updating.  The concept behind the questions, that is to determine someone’s ripeness, is a sound and timeless concept, so the wording of these questions does not adversely affect Fay’s premise. 

            Keeping a special sharing Bible and writing specific notes is a valuable teaching to the evangelist that doesn’t have an arsenal of memorized verses at his or her disposal.  Fay’s idea has simplified the sharing process, and in turn, reduced fear even more.  However, he only offers two responses for objections to the authority of the Bible.  He assumes that the non-believer will accept the authority of the Scriptures once the issues of multiple translations and error are overcome.  Here again, the postmodern non-believer often is looking for more, be it background, feeling, or something else.  Fay does little to address the potential issues here.

            What follows the demonstration of the sharing program is to be expected.  Sections on what do to when a person objects and what do to when a person accepts.  An author writing on evangelism could hardly expect to be taken seriously if he or she neglected a “what now” section.  Fay’s book is no different.  There is little if anything outside of what would be found in any other book on this topic.
 
            While Fay’s definition of success is valuable and much needed in a time when most Christians are debilitated by it, he tends to oversimplify evangelism.  He is correct in saying God does the work and we are just page turners, but his system does not encourage the evangelist to continually prepare him or herself through study of the Bible, study of the people groups of the community, and prayer.  Nor does he encourage authenticity in his pre-programmed system.  This might be, in part, Fay’s effort to reduce fear but it potentially comes at a cost.  Should the reader fearlessly engage in a bold but unauthentic evangelistic effort that does not look like the picture Fay painted, he or she may be more discouraged than before.  On the other hand, there is a reasonable chance that the activity will look exactly like Fay’s understanding of evangelism and the reader will be even more encouraged.  Either way, the reader has engaged in Fay’s primary purpose of evangelism even if he or she is ineffective.  According to Fay, rightly, he or she has been successful in obeying God’s call to evangelism. 

            Christians who are inexperienced in evangelism techniques should read this book and use it to build a foundation of experience upon, modifying as they go.             

By this book on Amazon.com by clicking here.

---

[1] While Share Jesus Without Fear is authored by both William Fay and Linda Evans Shepherd, it is clear that this method and idea predominantly belongs to Fay. For this reason, authorship of the ideas will be attributed only to Fay.

*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.  Any purchases through this website help support the ministry of Saltybeliever.com 

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