Category Archives: Theology

The Work of Our Hands, the Wisdom of Our Hearts – Redeeming the Time: Psalms 90-91

Christopher Rush

Presented as a chapel message on Friday, May 20, 2011, culminating the theme of “redemption.”

Introduction

Forgive me if this perspective is redundant, but I thought that an appropriate focus for our final exploration of the topic of redemption this year is “redeeming the time.”  As we prepare to begin our summer break, which for some inexplicable reason for many of us portends to be even busier than the school year, a few final moments’ reflection on what it means to “redeem the time” are in order.  When one thinks of the phrase “redeeming the time,” perhaps what spring to mind immediately are the verses Ephesians 5:15-16: “Be very careful, then, how you live — not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil” in the NIV.  More archaic (in a good way) translations, such as The King James Version and the Darby Translation, phrase “making the most of every opportunity” as “redeeming the time.”  The parallel passage in another of Paul’s prison epistles, Colossians 4:5, phrases the notion “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.”  The contexts for the same thought are different, though: in Ephesians, we are to redeem the time in the way we live the entirety of our lives because the days are evil.  In Colossians, Paul enjoins us to redeem the time kairotically when we interact with non-Christians, making sure those opportunities to represent Christ well and accurately are not wasted.  These are certainly great verses on the importance of redeeming the time, but since I have spoken of them (at least Ephesians 5) at length in other settings this year, my focus this morning is on what may be considered a less-obvious passage that provides insight on both the importance of redeeming the time and some ways to go about doing it.  We all, by now, surely believe in the importance of redeeming the time, living our lives wisely and well, and surely we believe that the days are evil, despite the preponderance of advertisements to the contrary.  The question, then, is how do we do it?  Let us turn to Psalms 90 and 91 to find out.  I will read the NASB, to which you may compare your NIV translation.

Psalm 90

A Prayer of Moses, the man of God.

1Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations.  2Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.  3You turn man back into dust and say, “Return, O children of men.” 4For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.  5You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; in the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew.  6In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; toward evening it fades and withers away.  7For we have been consumed by Your anger and by Your wrath we have been dismayed.  8You have placed our iniquities before You, our secret sins in the light of Your presence.  9For all our days have declined in Your fury; we have finished our years like a sigh.  10As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years, yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; for soon it is gone and we fly away.  11Who understands the power of Your anger and Your fury, according to the fear that is due You?  12So teach us to number our days, that we may present to You a heart of wisdom.

13Do return, O LORD; how long will it be?  And be sorry for Your servants.  14O satisfy us in the morning with Your lovingkindness, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.  15Make us glad according to the days You have afflicted us, and the years we have seen evil.  16Let Your work appear to Your servants and Your majesty to their children.  17Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us; and confirm for us the work of our hands; yes, confirm the work of our hands.

Psalm 91

1He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.  2I will say to the LORD, “My refuge and my fortress, My God, in whom I trust!”  3For it is He who delivers you from the snare of the trapper and from the deadly pestilence.  4He will cover you with His pinions, and under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark.  5You will not be afraid of the terror by night, or of the arrow that flies by day; 6of the pestilence that stalks in darkness, or of the destruction that lays waste at noon.  7A thousand may fall at your side and ten thousand at your right hand, but it shall not approach you.  8You will only look on with your eyes and see the recompense of the wicked.  9For you have made the LORD, my refuge, even the Most High, your dwelling place.  10No evil will befall you, nor will any plague come near your tent.  11For He will give His angels charge concerning you, to guard you in all your ways.  12They will bear you up in their hands, that you do not strike your foot against a stone.  13You will tread upon the lion and cobra, the young lion and the serpent you will trample down.  14“Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him securely on high, because he has known My name.  15“He will call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him and honor him.  16“With a long life I will satisfy him and let him see My salvation.”

It is argued in certain Talmudic circles that since no superscription occurs before Psalm 91, the authorship is tacitly understood to belong to the most recently-named author.  If this were true, and certainly the content of both psalms are similar enough not to discredit such speculation, we may very well have a two-part meditation by Moses on God, man, the connection between the two, and how to make that connection meaningful and lasting.

I wish to focus today on two key thoughts from this passage as aspects of “redeeming the time”: the aspect of “confirming the work of our hands” from Psalm 90:17, and the aspect of “presenting to God a heart of wisdom” from Psalm 90:12, with verses from Psalm 91 as corroborations and elaborations of these main ideas.  Hopefully by the time this message is over, you will notice these two facets cover the two important aspects of life: doing and being.

The Work of Our Hands

I am not implying that Moses was wrong when he discussed wisdom before action; only that as gatekeeper of the Realms of Gold, I understand that being (genuine leisure) is ultimately superior to doing — but since faith without works is dead, doing is an integral aspect of the Christian life that should not be ignored.  Thus, what does it mean to have the Lord “confirm the works of our hands,” and how can we “redeem the time” through that?

Other translations indicate that “confirm” in verse 17 can also mean “give permanence to.”  If God is going to give permanence to the work of our hands, of course even that “permanence” will have its limits — all the great works of art, the magnificent architecture, the grandeur of all sunsets will one day come to a cataclysmic end when the heavens and earth are wiped away and made new.  So the “permanence” is naturally of a limited fashion.  Since you are an intelligent audience, we can skip right to the sorts of work upon which God would indeed be glad to shine His favor and give permanence to: Bible study, evangelism, discipling, the works of Acts 2:42 (heeding the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, prayer).  Certainly those are the overt, important mildly-flannel-board related works of our hands.  Any life committed to those would certainly receive the favor of the Lord.  That sort of behavior is not exhaustive, of course: the lists of spiritual gifts throughout the New Testament also model behavior that God would confirm: teaching, administration, faith, healing, helps, mercy, giving, service, celibacy, and others.  These get down to the day-to-day activities and lifestyles outside and around corporate church life.

What about going to a ball game, playing the piano, reading graphic novels, and playing video games?  Are those “non-spiritual” activities things upon which God could shine His favor, works of our hands He would confirm?  I’m not sure about going to a ball game — ice hockey, certainly — but definitely the rest of them are meaningful actions with tangible, permanent results.  The unifying element of the activities already mentioned is not that they are “super spiritual,” but that they reflect the heart of wisdom Moses urged in verse 12.  To genuinely have a heart of wisdom, one must pursue knowing God and reality accurately and fully.  The behaviors in which we engage demonstrate that ever-growing conception of and pursuit of God and His reality.  Playing musical instruments, composing works of literature, painting, sculpture, papier-mâché, reading great works of literature, including the better comic books and graphic novels, are not less real or less meaningful than going to youth group (in many cases, they might even be more important).  Can time spent playing video games be truly considered “redeemed” in the sense we are discussing? redeemed for the glory of God and the light of His favor?  Of course!  If they are the better games, that is – the kinds of games that instruct us, challenge us, encourage us to think through the important philosophical questions of life: what is real, what is good, what is evil, who is man, what is his purpose?  Playing Final Fantasy VI or ChronoTrigger (or others of that ilk) can be just as meaningful to your life as reading a great novel by Dostoyevsky.  Some may disagree, but they are wrong.  Trust me; I’m a published author.  And I play video games and read comic books and watch fine, quality television series.  So I know.

If everything we do we do for the glory of God, whether it’s building bridges in Uganda or inviting our unsaved neighbor over for some philosophical video game play and discussion (accompanied by appropriate tasty snacks), we are redeeming the time God has given us.  Stop thinking of reality as a compartmentalized series of “secular” and “sacred” subfunctions.  All created reality is an unnecessary demonstration of God’s love and beauty — stop taking it too seriously in the wrong way.  Underlying all this, as mentioned moments ago, is the importance of the heart of wisdom, to which we now turn.

The Wisdom of Our Hearts

According to Moses, the primary reason why need to redeem the time, or “number our days,” is that we may present to God a heart of wisdom.  Of course when we are judged at the end time we will be judged according to our deeds — the Bible makes that clear enough (it’s certainly not just whether or not you “believe in Jesus”).  The thing so many Christians seem to forget, though, is that without the proper heart of wisdom, no good deeds can ever be done.  In order for the work of our hands to be made permanent by God, they must be performed by a heart of wisdom.  If we don’t first secure proper standing with God, a right understanding of who God is and who we are, then what we want and why we are here, the bridges we build and the games we play will be for naught.  Psalms 90 and 91 give us a great picture of Who God is and how grasping that enables us to have a heart of wisdom.

Some translations say “Lord, You have been our dwelling place.”  A more literal term for “dwelling place,” though, is “hiding place” or “place of refuge.”  God is not just where we live, but where we escape from the not-of-God things of reality.  God gave birth to the world, the mountains, and man, and long before those happened, God is.  God’s sense of time is nothing like ours; the rise and fall of human epochs and civilizations is like the grass sprouting in a morning and fading away at dusk.  He knows all the actions and thoughts that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur — and a fair percentage of them rile His anger justly.  Yet He is the same God whose lovingkindness satisfies us (or should) freshly every morning, to which we respond with songs of joy and gladness.  While He tarries for our benefit, He makes us glad — despite the days of affliction and years of evil.  He is our refuge and fortress, the God in whom we trust — a God so powerful that when we abide in Him we are secure even in His shadow.  He is the God who delivers us from traps and pestilence, night and day.

Metaphorically, He is an encovering eagle, a shield, and a bulwark.  When you are secure behind His fortification, you see reality for what it is: you see the nature and purpose of evil, you see the recompense of the wicked.  When you know who God truly is, you understand the power of His anger and fury, and you give the reverential fear due to Him.  When you know who God is, when you have made Him your refuge and dwelling place (not retirement plans and post-graduate degrees), you understand the frailty and ephemerality of humanity.  Then, regardless of what evil and troubles will befall you (for they will indeed befall you), you will be able to accurately contextually that no evil will ultimately befall you — for you are under the protection of the angelic realm as well, empowering you to live the life you are called to live, treading upon the lions and serpents of post-Modernity and pragmatism.  When you know God accurately, you know that true security comes from Him and Him alone — that the love you have for Him must be so intense and consuming that the love you have for your family and friends looks like hate in comparison.  When you know God, you will be truly satisfied in Him, the source of your salvation and honor.

When you know God and understand His reality accurately (including who you are and your place in His cosmic design), then and only then will you be able to present to Him a heart of wisdom: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; knowing God is the end of wisdom.  Then, and only then, will the favor of the Lord our God be upon you, and then the work of your hands will be given permanence.

There’s no need to ask God to move in a new way — we come to know Him the way people have always come to know Him: meditating on the book of His word and the book of His work.  Through active participation in the Great Conversation from Thales to Sophocles, Socrates to Copernicus, Wittgenstein to Vonnegut, and everyone in between.  By knowing who you are, what you want, and why you are here.  By acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.  By rescuing Peach from Bowser and Zelda from Ganondorf.  By watching Londo and G’Kar forever at each other’s throats, Jack Shepherd finally figure out his purpose, and Adama realize why humanity is worth saving after all.

This is how you present to God a heart of wisdom so the work of your hands will be given permanence.  This is how you redeem the time.

What Does God Say About Slavery?

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

There exist a plethora of passages in the Bible about slavery and how it should be done. Jesus never condemns the act itself, and often gives rules for how it should occur, so it seems like it’s being advocated as moral! Here is the result of my personal research on the subject.

I first want to mention that since the culture the Old Testament was written in was so different from ours today, we have to interpret it as such. We cannot read passages about slavery and assume that the concept was exactly the same thousands of years ago. In order to see if the slavery of that culture was comparable to 19th century American/European version, we have to determine why slavery existed, how people entered into slavery, and how they were treated.

In the 19th century, slavery existed so the masters could have a better life through economic gain, but in the ancient civilization it was for the benefit of the slaves- to pay off their debt, for their OWN economic relief!

Hence Leviticus 25:35-37: “Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain. If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers.”

The last part of that passage leads into the next difference between the cultures in which slavery existed- in our day slavery is mandatory, and people are taken into captivity and forced to work without pay or possibility of freedom. In this ancient civilization the path into slavery was varied, and in many cases voluntary.

People who needed assistance with their debt may have turned to a form of voluntary servitude to get by, but the Bible had specific rules about them having to be released after their debt was paid, meaning their work was voluntary and for their own benefit.

Hence Deuteronomy 15:12-15.  :If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.”

Also, there were very strict Biblical laws preventing Hebrews from holding their fellow citizens as slaves against their will, or harming them:

Deuteronomy 24:7: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Exodus 21:20: “And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.”

The slaves in this culture were treated like family. How often were slaves in our culture were given fine foods and wine to enjoy like in Deuteronomy 15, and treated like family? This is completely different from what we see in 19th century America.

Slaves also had the right to purchase their freedom by simply paying their debt, or having it paid by their family:

Leviticus 25:47-49: “Now if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger’s family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him.”

If slaves were not treated properly by their masters, they could be set free.

Exodus 21:26-27: “And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.”

There really is little in common between the two versions of slavery. Of course Jesus never condemned slavery- as it was laid out in the Old Testament! But obviously the purpose of slavery, methods of entering into it, and treatment of slaves were completely different back then. There is therefore no connection to the idea of Jesus advocating the morality of slavery in our culture!

Aren’t All Religions Basically the Same?

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

Ever since 9/11 this has become a more and more important question.  A couple days after the event, George Bush called for a National Day of Prayer at the National Cathedral.  At the service, there were members of many different religions present — Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Judaists, Buddhists, etc.  They had prayers that addressed God collectively — as “The God of Abraham, the God of Muhammad, and the father of Jesus Christ.”  On Oprah a couple weeks later, the statement was made that “We all worship the same God.”  This raises the question.  Aren’t all religions basically the same?  Don’t they all lead to the same God, just through different ways?  It’s a question worth examining.

I think the objection that all religions are the same assumes little knowledge of religions in general.  If this idea is really researched, we find all religions are fundamentally different.  The main disputed idea between religions is also the most central — WHAT is God?  Does a being called God exist?  Is there one God, or many?  Many African religions believe there are many gods; some Buddhists believe there is no God.  The three main monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — agree that there is one God.  BUT they disagree on who He is and what He’s like.  Jews and Muslims believe God is personal — Christians believe that and more — that He is triune, three persons and one God.  Neither Muslims nor Jews agree that Jesus is God incarnate — and reject the crucifixion and therefore resurrection (the cornerstone of the Christian faith).  Most Buddhists and Hindus agree that God is not personal.  So not only can the world’s religions not agree on what God is, but who He is and what He is like, as well.

We could try to reduce these religions to commonality, even just for the three monotheistic religions.  They all believe in one God, and that we should be good to our fellow man.  That’s the basis of religion, right?  The fatal problem comes in that when we reduce religions to their “least common denominator,” we are robbing them of the distinctions that makes them what they are.  The reason Muslims do good is so they will be accepted by God — this is fundamentally different from Christians, who do good because they are already accepted and loved by God.  What is real and true is the foundation for what is good and right.  The fact that both religions attempt to follow the golden rule cannot be separated from the fact of WHY they follow it!  The difference there reveals the bigger difference of who they think God is (purely judgmental vs. loving and judgmental).  We cannot take those characteristics of God away in order to make the religions agree with each other for the simple reason that we are taking away core beliefs of each religion.  They are irreconcilable differences.

Now that we see how all religions cannot be the same, we face the objection that “even if they all contradict each other, they can all be equally true.”  This is simply not true.  A common objection to Christianity is that it is hateful to claim one religion to be true and all the others false.  Isn’t that unfair and judgmental?  The very nature of truth HAS to be exclusive.  For example, either God exists or He does not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  If it is true my pencil is red, then it is false it is blue, green, purple, pink, yellow, or any other color other than red.  That’s not judgmental; it’s simply the nature of truth.  All religions claim they have the truth that leads to God and by that must reject all other claims of truth.

Of course, some people hold to the objection that truth really IS relative, meaning it is definable for each person — in that case it really would be judgmental to say that one person’s religion is right and everyone else’s is wrong.  First of all, the statement “All truth is relative” is itself absolute and therefore contradictory.  Secondly, if I decide my own truth then I decide my own morals.  Then there should be no laws against murder, rape, or child abuse.  After all … isn’t it my right to choose it is moral for me to murder someone?  In that case laws against such things would be unjust … and that’s obviously not the case!  We can’t create our own morals, and we can’t create our own truth.  The nature of truth is exclusive, so either Christianity is true and Islam is false, or Islam is true and Christianity is false — same with every religion.

Of course that does not mean tolerance is not important — there is a difference between arguing your position and killing someone for not accepting it.  Everyone has the right to his own opinion, and if you’re going to argue you’re right, I think you’d better have a good reason for it, while showing respect to the other position.  “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.” — Aristotle.

To examine this all from a Christian perspective, we can see though all religions are fundamentally different, it is undeniable some religions do have things in common — like believing there is one God.  From my perspective, it is evidence for Christianity that we see some bits of truth in other religions — because I believe that man is made in the image of God and reflects Him necessarily, even if only to a small degree.

Israel and the Church

Seraphim Hamilton

An error that drifts around Christian circles is what I call “hyper-supersessionism,” which maintains that, not only is the Church the New Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham are essentially irrelevant to biblical prophecy.  This is a false idea.  The Church is the organic continuation of old Israel.  The olive tree was not cut down and replaced, but those Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah were cut off for their apostasy, and those Gentiles who accepted Jesus as Messiah were grafted into the olive tree and became sons of Abraham by their faith in Messiah.

With this in mind, read the words of Christ and Peter:

Acts 1:6-8: So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”  He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

This seems to imply that the Lord will one day place the land back in the hands of Israel — true Israel.  At the moment the land is possessed by the apostate Jews who were cut off from true Israel because of their rejection of Messiah.  However, I believe that their return to the land does have some significance in biblical prophecy.

Zechariah 12:10-11: And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.  On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

The Prophet Zechariah writes that at some point the inhabitants of Jerusalem will look on the LORD, whom they pierced, and they will mourn.  They will plead “Lord, have mercy!”  This implies a turning to God on the part of the ethnic Jews.  Combine this with Romans 11:25-27: Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.  And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

So, at some point, ethnic Israel will cry out to the Lord and repent for rejecting their Messiah.  They will be grafted back into the tree of true Israel, and thus, the Nation of Israel will be converted to an Orthodox Christian state.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Seraphim Hamilton

I am by nature an argumentative person.  I love a good debate.  By debate, I mean debate, not fighting.  Fighting is yelling insults at each other masked as “arguments.”  A debate is a rational gunfight where logic and evidence are the guns.  Because of my nature, I invited missionaries from the Jehovah’s Witnesses over to talk to them about their faith.  For those unfamiliar with the Witnesses, their basic beliefs are:

1. God is one person, the Father.

2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God because he is the first creation of “Jehovah God.”

3. The divine name “Jehovah” [it’s really YHWH] is the proper name of God that should be used.

4. Jesus Christ was the Messiah sent by Jehovah, who was crucified on a torture stake, not a cross, providing for the salvation of mankind.

5. On the third day, Jehovah disintegrated Jesus’ body and raised Him to “spirit life.”  In other words, the resurrection was not a bodily resurrection, but Jesus was simply a spirit.

6. The 144,000 are a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses selected from eternity past by Jehovah to rule with Christ in the Heavenly Kingdom forever.

7. Other Jehovah’s Witnesses who have attained some level of salvation will live on an earthly kingdom.

8. Damnation is annihilation of the soul; there is no conscious suffering.

9. The Day of the Lord is imminent, where the world will be judged and the damned annihilated.

In addition, JWs use a special translation of 66 books of the Bible called the “New World Translation,” which has been translated specifically to support JW doctrines and to mask orthodox Christian doctrine.

Well, here’s how the argument went.  During the first meeting, we simply went over our present beliefs and they gave me a small book entitled “What Does the Bible Really Teach?”  This book is intended to prove that the Bible teaches JW doctrine.  I read the book for the next meeting, and we delved into what I really wanted to discuss: the deity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  As expected, they took me to Colossians 1:15, which says “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

According to JWs, this passage demonstrates that Jesus was the first creation of God the Father, thus “firstborn.”  In response, I pointed them to three things:

1. In the Hebrew Scriptures, The Prophet King David is called the “firstborn,” though we know that he was actually the youngest son.  This implies that “firstborn” is simply a title denoting the heir to the kingdom.

2. An ancient Jewish rabbi named Benchai refers to YHWH God as “firstborn.”  If firstborn really denoted that the figure in question was created, how could an Orthodox Jew use this title of the LORD Himself?

3. The Greek word used for “firstborn” here is prototokos.  If Paul wished to convey the idea of “first-created,” the much clearer Greek word would be protoktizos.

So, what was the JW response?  Move to another verse: “Well, in the Book of John, Jesus even says that Jehovah God is greater than he is!”  John 14:28: You heard me say to you, “I am going away, and I will come to you.”  If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.  “As we can see,” the Witnesses stated, “the Father and the Son are not the same.  And, on top of that, Jesus Christ proclaims that Jehovah God is greater than he is!”

In their argument I could see two clear misunderstandings of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.  “First of all,” I told them, “no Trinitarian argues that the Father and the Son are identical.  They are two distinct persons, as the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and Son.  The Trinity is one in essence, but it is not one in personhood.  Secondly, while the Son is functionally subordinate to God the Father, this does not refute His ontological equality with God the Father.  When Christ states that the Father is greater than He is, He is speaking of His functional relationship with the Father.”

Most Witnesses don’t understand what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is.  They tend to picture it as the modalistic heresy, which teaches that God is one person who simply manifests in three forms.  First proposed by the ancient priest Sabellius, it was condemned by the Church but has enjoyed recent revivals among certain sects of Pentecostals.  I could see that they were confused.  “Well, we really don’t see evidence from the Bible that Jesus Christ is equal with Jehovah God.”

I wanted to talk with them about their use of the divine name, and then I wanted to give them biblical support for Christ’s deity.  “In that New World Translation that you use, the name ‘Jehovah’ is used several places in the New Testament.  Why is that, considering that in no place in the original Greek New Testament is the divine name actually used?  The New Testament authors simply used ‘The Lord.’”

“The New Testament did use the divine name originally.  It was removed by biased translators.”

I asked them which manuscripts of the New Testament used the divine name.  “Considering that we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and none of them use the divine name, how could you say that?”  They told me that several manuscripts had the divine name.  “No, that is simply not true.  The tetragrammaton [the Hebrew divine name YHWH] is nowhere used in the Greek New Testament,” I replied.  “I have a book upstairs by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman called The Text of the New Testament, which deals in detail with the manuscripts of the New Testament.  Would you like me to get it and show you?”  They assured me that this was not necessary.

“Well, even though there may be no manuscript evidence of the divine name, it was clearly removed by biased copyists.”

“That’s untenable for two reasons.  First, there are many streams of textual tradition from a geographically diverse area, and none use the divine name.  The systematic conspiracy to destroy the divine name would have to spread across thousands of miles and be perfectly coordinated.  For a conspiracy of that magnitude to leave no evidence is impossible.  Second, even in the pre-Christian Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the divine name is replaced with ‘The Lord.’  This is because by ancient Jews and ancient Christians, the divine name was regarded as so holy that it was not usually written down.”

They decided to try a different tactic.  “Look at the Gospel of John,” they said.  John 17:25-26: O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.  I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.  “As we can see, Jesus states that he made known the name of Jehovah to the people.”

I responded, “That’s not what He says at all.  First, if Jesus was talking about the divine name, why is there no place in the Gospels where Christ actually uses that divine name?  Second, it is clear from the context that He is speaking of making the general knowledge of God the Father accessible to the people.”

Silence again.  I changed the subject.  “Let’s talk about the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ.”  They had to leave soon, but I wanted to give them two verses of Scripture that demonstrated that Christ was God.  “Well, first, let’s go to the book of Hebrews.  In heaven we can see a conversation between the Father and the Son.  The author quotes passages of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Father is speaking.  Hebrews 1:5: For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?  Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’?  As we can see, in this context, the Greek theos clearly refers to God, not merely a lesser angelic being.  The important thing in this chapter is when God the Father tells the Son: (Hebrews 1:8) But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.’  The same Greek word, as we can see, is used in the immediate context to refer to both God the Father and the Son.  The Father even addresses the Son as ‘God’ and speaks of His eternal reign.”

“Well,” the Witnesses replied, “Jesus Christ can be spoken of as ‘a god’ meaning that he is a very powerful being, but not as ‘Almighty God,’ because there is only one ‘Almighty God.’”

I could see that they still did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity.  “But you see,” I said, “I completely agree that there is only one Almighty.  In fact, the ancient creeds of the Orthodox Church use that precise terminology [I refer to the Athanasian creed].  The persons of the Trinity are one God in essence.  Secondly, this cannot refer to a lesser god because the author uses the precise same Greek term in the same immediate context to refer to both God the Father and God the Son.”

There were a few moments of silence, so, to break the awkwardness, I asked to move to the next verse.  They agreed.  I took them to the Book of Revelation: “Let’s look at the beginning of John’s Apocalypse.  The Apostle writes of God (it is unclear whether this is the Father or Son speaking): (Revelation 1:8) ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’”

The Witnesses agreed that this was clearly a reference to God.  I then took them to the end of the Apocalypse.  Revelation 22:12-13: Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.  “As we can see, the Apostle is actually using a framing device.  He opens the Apocalypse with a declaration from God that He is the Alpha and the Omega, and ends it with a declaration from the Lord Jesus Christ that He is the Alpha and the Omega.  We know that Revelation 22 has Jesus speaking because the speaker says ‘Behold, I am coming soon.’  There are three options.  One, there could be two Alphas and Omegas.  We know from the Bible that this is false.”  They agreed.  “Two, there could be two gods.  We know from the Bible that this is false.”  They agreed again.  “Or three, there could be one Alpha and Omega who exists in three persons.”

They were silent for a few seconds.  Slowly, they answered, “Well, we agree that in verse twelve, Jesus is speaking, but in verse thirteen the speaker changes to Jehovah God.”  I asked them how they came to that conclusion.  They replied that they knew from the rest of the Bible that Jehovah is not the same as Jesus, so that is the only logical conclusion.  I didn’t have time to reply, because they had to get to a meeting, so we said farewell and agreed to meet again in a few weeks.

Our next meeting only had one of them there.  We dove right into the discussion.  I had brought along a book called Putting Jesus in His Place, which is a systematic case by two New Testament scholars for the deity of Jesus.  I opened first to 1 Peter 3:14-15:…Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy….  “Let’s compare this passage of scripture to a passage from the Prophet Isaiah: (8:12-13) Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.  But the LORD of hosts, him you shall regard as holy.  Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.”  While these passages look somewhat different in English, the original Greek New Testament and the Greek Septuagint language is almost identical:

1 Peter 3: ton de phobon auton me phobethete mede tarachthete kurion de ton christon hagiasate

Isaiah 8: ton de phobon autou ou me phobethete oude me tarachthete kurion auton hagiasate

I showed him the Greek text.  “As we can see, Peter almost directly quotes the Prophet Isaiah, merely replacing YHWH with ‘Christ the Lord’ indicating that the Lord God and the Lord Christ are equal.”

The Witness responded, “Well, Peter is simply making the same point as Isaiah is.”  I asked him what that point was.  “Well, it’s to serve the Lord God.”

“Exactly!” I exclaimed.  “And that only works if the Lord Christ is God in flesh.”  He changed the subject.  I’m not sure what he was about to get at, but he began saying,

“Well, because Jesus used to be a man…”

“Wait.  Did you say, ‘used to be’?”

“Well, yes,” the Witness replied.  “He is now only a spirit, because as the Bible says, it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

I knew the exact verse he was talking about from arguments with secularists over Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection.  “Let’s go to 1 Corinthians 15 then.  The Apostle Paul states: (1 Corinthians 15:44) ‘It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.’  However, the Greek here for spiritual is pneumatikos. The suffix tikos indicates that Paul is talking about spiritual in orientation, not substance.  That is, it is a glorified, supernatural body, not an incorporeal spirit.  Paul uses the same Greek word in Galatians 6:1: ‘Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.  Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.’  Paul here mentions ‘spiritual people’ here, who are to counsel the others.  He obviously is referring to Christians in their local churches, not incorporeal spirits.  He means Christians who are filled with the Spirit of God.  This is what pneumatikos means.  It has nothing to do with the substance of the body.”

“But,” the Witness countered, “Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50 ‘I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.’”

“Well, Paul is using an ancient Semitic idiom here.  ‘Flesh and blood’ is an idiom that does not refer to physicality, but to corruption.  This is why Jesus says that He is made up of flesh and bone in the Gospel of John.  Paul is simply saying that corruption cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

I then asked him to turn to 1 Timothy 2:5.  We turned there: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  I explained, “The Apostle Paul states that the figure that presently mediates between God and men is in fact a man.  He uses the present tense, which demonstrates that Jesus Christ is in fact still a man.”

The Witness changed the subject.  He asked me to turn to 1 John 4:8 and read that passage: Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  “Now, your parents love you.  Would they want you to be confused?”  Not sure where he was going with this, I answered that they would certainly not.  “So why would God require one to do all this deep study to come to a true understanding of His Word?”

“Well, my answer is twofold,” I responded.  “First, God has not left us alone but has sent the Spirit of Truth into the Orthodox Church’s tradition so that it may guide us to the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture.  Second, it would actually be much more confusing if you are right.  The Bible clearly states that the Word was God.  It clearly states that the present mediator between God and man is a man.  It clearly states that Jesus rose from the dead in a body of flesh and bone.  If none of these things are actually true, it seems to require a lot more mental gymnastics for your interpretation of the Bible than it does for mine.”

The Witness answered, “I don’t really see that at all.”  In response, I told the story of Jewish Orthodox Christian Fr. James Bernstein.

“Young James had come to believe that Jesus was God’s Messiah, but he was not sure whether the New Testament taught His deity.  He wanted to see if the New Testament was clear enough that the New World Translation could not even mask it.  Thus, he purchased a New World Translation Bible and read the entire New Testament.  After reading it for himself, he concluded that even the NWT clearly taught the deity of Christ.  This is but one example of a man coming to the deity of Christ by himself without picking up over a hundred books on the subject.”

Silence again.  “Let’s talk more about the deity of Jesus,” I said.  He agreed to discuss it some more.  I brought out Philippians 2:5-11: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the nature of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

“Now, the Greek word for nature here is morphe.  Daniel Wallace, a highly regarded scholar of the Greek language, states that this is one of the strongest ways to express Christ’s deity.  Morphe refers to internal attributes and characteristics, and Paul says that Jesus possesses the internal attributes and characteristics of deity.”

“But,” the Witness countered, “how can Jesus be the same as God the Father if God the Father exalts him?”

“The first thing we must understand, as I’ve mentioned, is that God the Father and God the Son are distinct persons in one being, and therefore can communicate with each other and exalt each other.  Second, as Richard Bauckham explains [I had the book in front of me]: ‘The verb does not indicate that God has exalted Jesus to a higher status than he had previously occupied (whether in pre-existence or in mortal life), but that God has exalted him to a higher status than that of anyone or anything else, i.e., to the pre-eminent position in the whole cosmos.’  Basically, God the Father is eternally exalting the Son to the pre-eminent position in the universe, just as the Father eternally begets God the Son and eternally spirates the Holy Spirit.”

Our time was up; the JW had to get to a meeting.  We shook hands and he politely informed me that we are at a stalemate and that unless we come to an agreement, there is no real point in discussing this further.  He asked me to call him back if we ever came to agreement on this issue.  I understood his point here and accepted.  We bade farewell, probably for the last time.

Thus, folks, that is my experience with JW missionaries. I hope you’ve learned something from it.

Transformation of Our Minds: What is Reality?

Christopher Rush

Romans 12:1-2 is a continuation of the direction of Romans as a unified letter, especially its immediate context of chapter 11.  It is after the doxology of 11:33-36 that Paul refocuses our response to who God is and what He has done through our spiritual act of worship in 12:1 and our spiritual transformation of our minds in 12:2.  Before we can “dive in” to Romans 12:1-2 (as so many previous chapel speakers have done), it is important to get a grounding in the direction of Paul’s thought, especially since it concerns one of the most rudimentary and therefore essential questions: what is reality?

To an extent, the expression “the real world” is a contradiction in terms.  The universe, mankind, and all of the material world — and even the angels and demons — are artificial, in that they have been created; they have an origin external to themselves.  Thus, when you are eating “all natural food,” you are, in a way, eating something artificial.  The distinction, though, is admittedly tenuous here.  What God has directly created is certainly real: simply, it is important to understand metaphysically that God, a spirit Being with no origin, is ultimate reality, and thus what God is, in attribute and subsistence, is the “most real,” if you will allow the expression.  I am not advocating an ascetic dualism — the body and the material universe are both real and important.  An integral part of our identity/nature as people is our physicality and the sensuous ways we interact with and understand the created material world.  We will receive resurrected physical bodies as part of God’s master plan, re-incorporealizing our souls for eternity.  But as people created in the image of a non-material Being, what most connects us to God are our supernatural, non-physical attributes, those that connect us to what is originally (though without origin) “real.”

A moment ago, I mentioned that the expression “the real world” is a bit of an oxymoron, though only in a causal sense of secondary/created origin.  The world is real, yes, but the problem now is that most often it seems when people use the expression “real world,” they are not actually referring to the “real world.”  What do they mean?  “Once you graduate from high school, you are going to go into the ‘real world.’”  What?  If this is not real — if high school is not real -– why are you wasting your time with it?  I suspect that only those who did poorly at high school consider it not real in their later years; perhaps their high school thought education was something it is not – more in a moment on that issue.  The “real world,” they say.  “You gotta go to college so you can get a degree and training for a job so you can succeed in the ‘real world.’”  Total shash.  Again we see the misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of education but also the complete misunderstanding of “the real world.”  To these people, the “real world” consists only of fruitless, monotonous labor, purposeless existence, taxes, a job — not a vocation, but a job — and financial security.  Financial security!  Zeus is less mythological than “financial security”: let’s get that straight.

What else does the “real world” consist of to these people?  A substantial house that can fit all your needs with room enough for all your pseudo-necessary material things, a serviceable fleet of cars that can get you everywhere you need to get.  At least one graduate degree so you can afford more children and things to put in your ever-expanding house.  But mostly, again, to them the real world is taxes and bills and the need to work some job so you can pay your taxes and bills.  This, to them, is the “real world.”  Who are these people?  Maybe they live in your house.  Sorry about that.  Maybe they snuck into your house when you became a junior and replaced what used to be a reasonable, clear-thinking parent.  In my experience, the people who mistakenly and vociferously think taxes, bills, and a job constitute the majority if not the sum total of the “real world” are what the social scientists call “Baby Boomers,” at least the latter half and most likely the early half of Generation X as well.  The generation that still refers to them as the “Chicago Transit Authority.”  Those people.  The generation that grew up in the affluency of post-WW2 America, who, having grown up with no want other than not going to Vietnam, decided that the goal of life was “personal peace and affluence,” as Dr. Schaeffer so succinctly puts it.  And when they became the adults (and possibly your parents), their primary goal became their children’s happiness.  They feel they are “looking out” for the best interests of their kids because they want them to be safe, secure, successful, and happy.  Unfortunately, the standards of safety and security here are not God’s.  The abundant life Jesus came to impart in John 10:10 bespeaks nothing of opulence, affluence, material security, or even, really, happiness as a distinct, achievable, psycho-emotional phenomenon.

Interestingly enough, Jesus’ great comfort about the abundant life comes directly after, as a contrast, the nature of the Devil as the thief who comes to steal, kill, and destroy (the connection to the thief here in John 10 and the Devil in John 8 is too similar to be ignored).  What a better paraphrase in the 21st century for work of Satan?  “Steal, kill, and destroy” become “taxes, bills, and a job.”  That sounds funnier than I intended, but the point is the same.  Satan, the Father of Lies, desires to steal, kill, and destroy the abundant life given to us by the Good Shepherd — what better way to do it than by deluding us into believing (if not downright coveting) the idea that reality, and the abundant life, is merely about achieving enough social notoriety and material solubility to conquer taxes, bills, and a job?  If we can do that, our lives are a success, according to the puerile standards of the world and the Devil — even “well-intentioned” people.  You must pay your taxes, as Jesus clearly indicated in Matthew; you should pay your bills and be as debt-free as possible, don’t misunderstand me there.  As for a job — better to follow your God-given vocation than just “get a job.”  A job is something from which you can retire — there is no retiring from the Christian life, so we should focus our energies as soon as possible in following our God-given vocation of the connection between both what we do and who we are.  All these are real and important, but not the sum total of the real, real world.  Not even close.

What, then, is the “real world,” you ask?  An adroit question.  Paul addresses that in Romans 11:33-36, the predicatory basis for Romans 12:1-2.  In order to understand what he means in 12:1-2, though, we obviously have to approach it in its context.  The context of the three distinct parts of Romans 11:33-36 is, clearly, chapters ten and eleven.  The main subject of Romans 10 and 11 is the partial, temporary, spiritual hardening of the nation of Israel: “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25).  Paul tells his Roman audience about the unfulfilled destiny of Israel so they won’t be conceited or “wise in their own estimation” as the NASB puts it.  Who needs to hear that more than the inheritors of Seneca, Cicero, and Marcus Aurelius?  Israel, says Paul, is now what you, the Christians of Rome, used to be, but God is not done with them.  When he says in verse 26 that all Israel will be saved, we do well to remember earlier in Romans 9 that Paul made clear not all “Israelites” are Israelites in the sense Paul uses here.  The Israelites of the promise, here, in chapter 11, are demonstrating God’s mercy — we now have been grafted in to the root of Jesse.  But God is not done with the original plant source yet.  The real Israel, the “more real Israel,” if you will, will be shown mercy (11:31).  11:32 takes us back even further, to the Garden of Eden: “God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”  God did not desire sin, but He allowed it and justly punished mankind through its ambassadors in part, it seems here, to show mercy.  Our infralapsarian cousins will tell us this mercy became “emergency plan B,” but Paul disagrees.  The intentional, planned mercy of God of 11:31-32 (its intentionality is made clear by the progression of chapters 9-11) leads to the doxological outburst of vv33-36 — it is not just an interpolation but also a logical and emotional reaction to the mercy of God.  It is this doxology that defines the real world and lays the foundation for our proper spiritual responses in 12:1-2.

What makes it more than an interpolation? you wonder.  You are just rife with impressive questions today.  Paul intimates there is a causal chain in v32 — God desired to show mercy!  What an incomprehensible thought!  No wonder Paul follows up that causal chain (God’s creation sinned, God justly punished in order to show mercy) with a declaration of the inscrutable nature of God’s intellect.  Who but God would go through what He did to redeem mankind (man-un-kind, as e.e. cummings calls us) and show mercy even perfunctorily? let alone from a desire to do so!  Some might suspect that God created man free to sin with the hope he would sin so God could show this eagerly anticipated mercy, but Paul has already squashed that notion back in chapter six: should people keep sinning so God’s mercy can happen even more?  May it never be! says Paul.  Certainly the Bible continually reminds us God desires obedience.  In a paltry analogy, we may desire to be kind and generous to our friends, but we wouldn’t desire them to get into painful circumstances in which we can demonstrate that friendship.  Similarly (though more importantly), God punished mankind for his free will sin, not wanting it to happen though knowing it would, and continued “the plan” to begin His mercy, as inaugurated in the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15.  It is this paradox of God, the perfect union of otherwise mutually exclusive ideas, justice and mercy, that sends Paul into an outburst of praise.  Before looking more directly at this doxology that leads into our key passage on mental transformation, a brief look at what another inspired, near-Scriptural author tells us of mercy:

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:

’Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes

The throned monarch better than his crown;

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,

The attribute to awe and majesty,

Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

But mercy is above this sceptred sway;

It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,

It is an attribute to God himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God’s

When mercy seasons justice. Therefore …

Though justice be thy plea, consider this,

That, in the course of justice, none of us

Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;

And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy.

Perhaps no better commentary on mercy, and thus God’s mercy, exists.  This inscrutable conjunction of justice and mercy (which did not exist in Shakespeare’s Venice) takes Paul into his outburst of praise.  Now we are ready to examine Romans 11:33-36.  Please turn there now if you haven’t already done.  I will be quoting the NASB, to which you can compare your NIV.

v33 Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

v34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?

v35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again?

v36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.  To Him be the glory forever.  Amen.

Verse 33 tells us four things of the nature and source of the planned mercy of God:

1. deep riches of wisdom

2. deep riches of knowledge

3. unsearchable judgments

4. unfathomable ways

Having already discussed the riches of God’s kindness, tolerance, and patience in chapter 2, Paul now distinguishes God’s wisdom and knowledge.  Both are deep (so much so they are boundless) and are both described as riches, i.e., worth attaining and having.  Many have defined wisdom and knowledge as discrete mental/spiritual qualities, yet all remind us of their connection and mutual dependency.  Cardinal Newman reminds us that real knowledge is not simply a passing familiarity with the elements of reality as discrete, isolated events.  You don’t really have knowledge about a monkey wrench if you don’t know what distinguishes it from other tools or even how to use it (being skilled at using it is another issue).  Knowledge is a two-fold comprehension of the elements of reality both in their intrinsically valuable sense and in connection and relation to the rest of the created order of reality.  You don’t have knowledge bout biology if you don’t know what the purpose of life is and how life is part of the created cosmological ecosystem of metaphysical reality.  Knowledge is an understanding of relationships and interconnectedness.  This is the fundamental reason why contemporary post-secondary education in the West is a total failure.  And, probably, why most people think high school isn’t the real world — perhaps it isn’t, if their high school didn’t convey real knowledge.  More so than the permeation of Marxism, the emphasis on discrete courses and majors leading to overspecialization has destroyed our understanding of knowledge itself.  (This is also, incidentally, why watching most news programs today is a complete waste of time — read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman for clarification).  Knowledge is understanding how all of reality is connected, in both utility and aesthetics.  Wisdom is the proper use of knowledge: wisdom is knowledge in action.  Paul begins with action and ends with action in v33, reminding us that knowledge by itself is dangerous and ultimately futile, a kind of idolatry.  But while he reminds us that proper action is central to life, he emphasizes the superiority of the unseen — knowledge and judgments — the spiritual aspect of reality, since God is a spiritual Being (and Romans 12:1 tells us to worship spiritually — more we shall say in a moment).

Why does Paul describe God’s wisdom and knowledge as “rich”?  They certainly did not become rich after mankind needed mercy.  God was and is complete and sufficient.  Milton reminds us that God needed and needs no one or no thing.  God did not create man to worship Him because He needed it.  God’s “internal” attributes of wisdom and knowledge were rich before we came along.  They are valuable because they belong to God.  And because we too belong to God and are enjoined to become like Him, we need to value His wisdom and knowledge, undaunted by their bottomless nature.  To a degree, they are attainable, even though they direct and guide what we really can’t search out and fathom: God’s judgments and ways.  It’s possible that Paul distinguishes the wisdom and knowledge of God from His judgments and actions because we are to seek out one pair and worship/revel in the other.  I don’t want to press the point too firmly, since God’s thoughts and actions are connected just as ours are.  It is likely that Paul is setting out a challenge for us to pursue that which we won’t be able to complete but is regardless worth pursuing, since the whole section we are examining today is one long chain of ideas, whose connection will hopefully become more lucid in a moment.

Verses 34 and 35 give three reasons why God’s judgments and ways are inscrutable to us now, highlighting what are not yet in contrast to what His mercy tells us of Himself in v33 and who He is in v36:

1. knowers of God’s mind

2. His counselor

3. lender to God to make Him a debtor

We don’t know the mind of God yet — remember Paul is constructing a remarkable logic chain — hold on for a few more moments.  No one is counselor to the Wonderful Counselor — not then, not now, not to come, but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t want to talk to us.  Through Isaiah we are told God does desire rational discourse and intelligent conversation with us.  Part of the reason David was a man after God’s own heart was because he was after God’s own heart — through music, prayer, petition, and rational dialogue.  Simply, it is not our role to tell God what to do.  But this can get admittedly tricky: the Lord’s Prayer has no “please”s in it, no “please give us this day our daily bread” or “please forgive our debts.”  Jesus seems to welcome us to come boldly before the throne of God with requests: though I would urge two words of caution.  First, both the Old and New Testaments are painfully clear that God is eager to grant requests if they align with His will (which we will get to soon, I promise); second, remember that while you are approaching boldly, you are still approaching a throne – and you are not the one sitting on that throne.

I wonder, though, what God’s tone was like in Genesis 18.  You recall that God has told Abraham He is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham, knowing his nephew Lot was there with his family, gets downright uppity with the theophany visiting him on a social-turned-informative tête-à-tête.

v23 And Abraham came near and said, “Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

v24 “Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?

v25 “Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike.  Far be it from Thee!  Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

Pretty bold words indeed!  But God does not get defensive; He does not respond with, “Excuse me?  Who do you think you are?  Didn’t I just tell you what I was going to do and you are telling me ‘no, you’re not’?”  Based on how long the back-and-forth goes, I can almost imagine a sort of gleam in the tone of this pre-incarnate Christ: “Nope, not for 50.  45?  I can do 45.  40?  That would work.  You want 30?  I can do 30.  20 is no problem either.  10?  Sure, let’s go with 10.”  Perhaps Abraham was feeling bold because he had already enjoyed several occasions of walking and talking with the Lord of all the earth and had received direct promises of what God was going to do with and through him.  But even so, in his boldness, Abraham acknowledges his position: “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes,” he admits with no-doubt genuine sincerity in v27.  And the end of the chapter is especially telling: “And as soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed; and Abraham returned to his place” (v33).  God was willing to continue the conversation until He was finished, patiently (if not humorously) listening to Abraham’s bootless cries.  Yet, the last independent clause perhaps speaks to us on more than one level: Abraham went back to his place physically, having said what he wanted to say, but it’s also quite possible (without stepping too far into linguistic eisegesis) that Abraham “returned to his place” rhetorically as well, not just to his home but also his proper inter-relational spot as the doer of God’s deeds, not the advisor to God’s actions.

Later in the Pentateuch, Moses seems to change God’s mind on more than one occasion, essentially by using the same argument Abraham used above: clearly you aren’t going to punish the good with the bad and act contrary to your nature, are you God?  Perhaps Moses does change God’s mind, but I hesitate to acquiesce definitively.  When Paul asks “who has become God’s counselor?” he is quoting Isaiah 40:13, one of the most encouraging chapters in the whole Bible: “Comfort, O comfort My people” says your God.  It would be easy to say Abraham and Moses were able to talk to God like this because they were Abraham and Moses, and you aren’t them.  That’s too easy.  We are to boldly approach the throne of grace as I said before, but remember who we are positionally, as even the great men of faith Abraham and Moses did.  Reason together with God, but remember that no matter how great your ideas are, He is already enacting the best plan for the good of those who love Him.  It may seem messy and unjust to us at times, but Paul’s quotation of Isaiah here in Romans 11:34 leads to the commands of Romans 12:1-2, as we shall see soon.

Just as we are never in a position to truly counsel God, we are never in a position to be so generous to God that He becomes indebted to us.  Paul recalls a variation of Job 35:7 in this verse; Malachi 3:10 reminds us perhaps even more forcefully how incapable we are at overwhelming God with generosity.  No matter how generous we are to God (the only time we are encouraged to test God’s faithfulness is here in this issue), He is eagerly awaiting to overwhelm us with real generosity.  The basis for His ability to be generous is found in Romans 11:36, as Paul’s causal chain of logic grows ever stronger.  This verse tells us three central things about God in terms of the metaphysical ultimate reality where we began this investigation: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.  To Him be the glory forever.  Amen.”  In addition to the source and nature of God’s mercy, in contrast to who we are now, in relation to reality God is three things:

1. From: Creator/Originator/Giver of all things, spiritually and materially

2. Through: Director/Connector/Conduit of all things

3. To: Receiver/Worthy One who has earned and deserves all

With the implicit self-existing, uncreated ontology of God, v36 affirms for us ultimate reality.  All things had their origin in God, all created things come from God, and all of created reality is purposed to return back to Christ-who-is-God.  Clearly, we can’t be too generous in such a situation.  What do you give the God who has everything, who created the base materials from which all the so-called inventions have ever come?  Paul has anticipated that question in v36: not only do the entire created material and immaterial worlds return to God (though in diverse ways, for even the punishment of the fallen, unredeemed angelic world will accomplish this), but all the glory of the universe returns to Him, not once, not on major holidays, but for ever.  Reality has an intrinsic meaning in its position as the work of God, and it emanates glory back to its source.  Hopkins tells us “the world is charged with the grandeur of God”!  Clearly that is being accomplished in limited fashions as Paul has earlier told us in Romans 8 that the world is groaning in its sinfully damaged state now, waiting the restoration that will come in one sense in the millennial kingdom and more fully in the New Heaven and New Earth.  This, finally, is the real real world: that which has its origin, direction, and completion in Christ-who-is-God.   How much more significant and awesome than the bastardized version advertised incessantly on too many channels, stations, and sites!  Clearly life is not just about getting a job so you can pay taxes and bills and overflow a house with lots of stuff.  (A personal library is another matter, of course.)

Now we are ready to see how this causal chain grounded in ultimate reality culminates in Romans 12:1-2.  Paul reminds his audience of the central, incomplete work being done in Israel and how marvelous God’s grace is through the in-grafting of the Gentile world into that cosmically organic work.  But not just the importance of the deed itself; Paul contextualized the temporary hiatus of Israel as justice in contrast to the mercy of Gentile incorporation, and through the paradoxical intertwining of these apposite opposites, Paul grounds the work of Christ in the flow of His eternal nature and plan: through the disobedience of man-un-kind, God lavishly poured out His generosity in the incarnation of His Son (in part as an invitation to engage in a contest of generosity with His creation) — the embodiment of the logos to continue and redeem the much-missed dialogue between Him and His creation further valuing the physical demi-nature of mankind.  Through this hypostatic union of God and Man comes the hypostatic union of justice and mercy, a gift of unsearchable judgment and a sacrifice of an unfathomable action, grounded in bottomless depths of the valuably priceless wisdom and knowledge of God, who knows without counsel and gives without receipt as the Originator, Conduit, and Receptacle of all reality and all glory for all time.  That is reality and that leads Paul to the conclusion of his logic chain: what then should we do?  If we can’t counsel God, if we can’t give what He doesn’t need, what do we do?  What do we give the God who has everything?  Paul’s answer: the one thing He doesn’t yet have — yourself.

The NIV translation is, as you most likely have in front of you, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — this is your spiritual act of worship.”  Though Paul’s “therefore” may most directly refer to the juxtaposition of justice and mercy from 11:32, it is also a continuation of the thought we’ve just explored in the doxology of v33-36.  Because of God’s eager demonstration of mercy, our response to the Creator of all should be as follows.  Paul continues the heightened tone of excitement initiated by the awareness of God’s eager display of mercy, continued by his epideictic doxology, which he transforms into a hortatory response: now he urges us to respond appropriately and in kind.  Not just an “if you can get around to it that would be swell,” as we so often consider New Testament imperatives of conduct to be.  Not “please pencil this into your Franklin-Covey™ Day-planner when you get the chance”; no.  Paul urges us to do this, and we should obey immediately.

The next phrase is translated in a variety of ways, which is unfortunate, since it is an integral part of Paul’s exhortation.  Mostly it is an issue of preposition.  Many, if not most, of the hermeneutical uprisings in the history of exegetical warfare have been instigated over prepositions, the most notable being the rapture brouhaha centered in the preposition ek in Revelation 3:10.  Tyndale’s version, “I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercifulness of God, that ye make your bodies a quick sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God which is your reasonable serving of God.  And fashion not yourselves like unto this world: but be ye changed in your shape, by the renewing of your wits that ye my feel what thing that good, that acceptable, and perfect will of God is” … is quite lovely, but not terribly helpful.  The NIV, “in view of God’s mercy,” strikes one as passive at best, a complacent observation virtually synonymous with the just-mentioned “therefore.”  The NASB here says “by the mercies of God.”  It’s doubtful this connects to his motivation of urgency; he has already used the adverbial conjunction “therefore,” which the NIV repeats unnecessarily.  The “by” most likely does not mean “for the reason of.”  The “by,” instead, indicates a second effect of God’s mercy.  Not only does his demonstrated mercy counterbalance His justice and enable us to receive the abundant life in the first place (called “justification”), but it also here enables us to respond appropriately.  What, finally, is that appropriate response?  A free-will offering.

We are to present, firstly, our bodies to God.  V2 deals with the crucial mental aspects of genuine worship, but Paul must continue to develop the appropriate context and deal with the physical first.  Our bodies are to become gifts of sacrificial worship.  These gifts we present have three qualities: living, holy, and acceptable (“pleasing” in the NIV).  God made His preferences clear throughout the Old Testament, especially in the Minor Prophets, that burnt, dead, oily sacrifices are not terribly intrinsically interesting to Him.  God has always been desirous of living, authentic worshippers.  Living things grow, develop, and mature — worshippers must then be the same.  Static, one-time offerings are not what God wants.  In our new position of gifts of worship, we are to live as an offering, one that improves with age and use.  The second attribute, holy, has certainly developed a lot of mystical detritus around it.  It doesn’t mean “perfect,” it doesn’t mean “awesome” — even when spoken in a hushed and apprehensive timbre — it doesn’t mean nearly any of the kabalistic super-spiritual things people use it to mean.  It’s a much simpler and wonderful concept: distinct, set apart, unlike the rest.  Real “holiness” is very quiet.  Some like to say that God’s holiness is the main attribute that drives Him, but that is nonsense.  No one single attribute of God’s works better or more effectively than the rest.  We are to be distinct offerings, devoted solely to the purpose of living a worshipful, maturing life.  We are set apart from the one-use dead offerings replete throughout the Old Testament, surfeiting so much of the contemporary church.  Our lives should appear, in deed and action, since Paul is telling us to offer our bodies, to be doing things unlike what the rest of humanity is doing.  Our actions have a different purpose and a different goal.  Thirdly, these head-to-toe gifts we present are to be pleasing or acceptable to God.  The very existence of this third attribute should clearly remind us that “holy” is not an all-encompassing adjective.  What does it mean to live a life pleasing and acceptable to God? One simple answer is to read the rest of Romans 12.  Following an exhortation that these lives of worship are actually to be lived on one giant altar holding all Christians as one integrated body that need one another (much more than we like to remember), Paul presents a series of aphoristic commands, all of which are mostly subordinate clarifications of verse 9: Let love be without hypocrisy, abhor what is evil, cling to what is good.  We shall return to this list momentarily, as Paul oscillates between examples of physical acts of worship as inaugurated here by verse 1 and mental acts of worship as continuations of verse 2, to which we now turn.  That the NASB calls this gift a “service” of worship and the NIV an “act” of worship needs little further explication; they are quite similar, though “service” does tinge it with a bit more importance, reminding us of the One positionally worthy to be served.

In verse 2 of Romans 12, Paul arrives at the climax of so many chapters of doctrinal development.  Beginning back in chapter one with the pattern of the world, Paul reminds us it is time not only to do something different as holy offerings but to be and think differently as well.  Again the NIV and NASB have different perspectives: the NIV says “do not conform any longer”; the NASB says “do not be conformed.”  Clearly the NIV is more active and aware of the history of sin than the NASB seems to be, but the simplicity of the NASB gets to the heart of the issue a bit faster.  The remedy for dis-conformity is not external, remember.  Paul has transitioned to a different aspect of the worshipful life.  Just as worship is not a one-time has-been drop off, real transformation and sanctification come from the non-physical, from the invisible attributes that make us human, primarily … the mind.

We don’t need to go over what “the pattern of this world” is, do we?  I have a suspicion that most of you have a pretty good conception of what the “pattern of this world” is.  It comes at you incessantly, in sights and sounds and everything else.  We have already talked about the dangers of thinking the “real world” and its pattern is all about utilitarian education and an acquisitive lifestyle as the means to happiness and fulfillment.  Pursuing genuine education, an understanding of real knowledge as a complex of integrated relationship, not for material ends but as an end in itself, is to pursue the pattern of the real world, the spiritual world God created and originally embodied.

Paul is overt that two patterns exist: clearly not all kinds of living or belief systems are acceptable to Paul.  Some actions and beliefs are of the world, some contribute to a sanctifying transformation.  It’s always a dichotomy, isn’t it?  A juxtaposition of two opposing ideas, as we discussed two years ago.  Sometimes the dichotomy is simple: milk chocolate goodness or dark chocolate depravity? enjoying eating at McDonald’s or being a sad, confused moral wastrel? appreciating the nonpareil brilliance of Shakespeare and Homer or living and dying alone and unloved?  Sometimes the choice is easy.  Sometimes the choice is more important but still easy: to be or not to be — the answer is obviously “to be.”  Sometimes the choice is important but difficult: should I love this person who doesn’t care about me or not? and if so, how do I do that?  Life is always about choices, which Paul implies by his exhortation to choose the path of transformation instead of conformation.

The benefits of renewing our minds are two: freedom from the pattern of the world, which always ends in tears and death, and the ability to reason out and understand what God actually wants.  What could be more important than that?  Did you notice the distinction Paul makes between the two patterns?  I know some of you are going to disagree (even though disagreeing with what the Bible says is rarely a good idea), but Paul intimates that it is not the Christian life that leads to boring, mindless, static conformity.  Yes, I know — you were starting to suspect that Christianity is boring and mundane — not so, says Paul.  It is the world that leads to conformity, the safety and security of “fitting in,” being a part of the popular crowd, subordinating your own talents, desires, and individuality for the sake of some Rousseaean “will of the people.”  Remember: one of the primary reasons the world hated Jesus is because He did not fit in with their standards and values.  Despite the pretense and lauding of the James Dean image, the world does not love “the rebel.”  This is why, essentially, the world hates Christianity.  Christianity rebels against the pattern of the world; Christianity seeks renewal and improvement.  Liberalism, despite its own press releases, seeks homogeneity in every aspect of society.  True, the goal of the Christian life is conformity to Christ-likeness, but conformity to perfection and the source of creativity instead of conformity to the dumbed-down, forced egalitarian mindless pap of secular society is hardly comparable.  What is boring about refashioning oneself into the image of reality itself?  The worshipful life of spiritual service is an exciting commitment to endless renewal.  It truly is transformation, not conformation.

As a brief aside, a further word should be said about boredom.  If you are a Christian, you have no excuse for ever being bored, even if you are in math class.  Stop being so erotically attached to being happy and enjoying life and start seeing reality for what it is: a display of God’s glory.  Dr. Johnson reminds us that if you are afraid to be alone, with only your thoughts, unable to be apart from pleasing external stimuli and unable to find meaning and importance in your own minds and whatever situation within which you find yourself, the fault, dear Brutuses, is not in your stars, but in yourselves.  You have a mind given by God; if you are truly renewing your minds as God expects of you, you will never be bored.  If you are, you, not your circumstances, are to blame.  Back to Paul.

It has fascinated me for quite some time that Paul declares this transformation comes from the renewing, not of our spirit or soul, but of the mind.  Initially we might suspect that it should be “the renewing of our soul” — after all, isn’t that the special invisible eternal aspect of us that is going to go to Heaven when our mortal coil has finished shuffling?  I suspect Paul does not tell us to renew our souls because, frankly, we can’t, at least not directly.  Sure, we may talk poetically about Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach” reaching into our souls and wrapping it in peace, or we may feel that some aesthetically pleasing sunset or painting wraps our soul in newfound sublimity heretofore non-existent to human experience, but that is mostly just figurative language.  The real conduit to our souls, the primary means of understanding and discerning reality, and thus the primary means of engaging in authentic worship, is the mind.  Paul uses the imperative “be transformed” because of all the supernatural components to human metaphysicality, the mind is that over which we have the most control.  The Bible wouldn’t tell us to take every thought captive if it wasn’t possible.  Similarly, as regenerate Christians, by the never-ending mercies of God, we have the ability to renew our minds.  We can now think clearly and accurately about reality!  That is not to say we will always get every piece of datum correct: being a Christian doesn’t make you an expert on logarithms, character analysis, or even the age of the earth.  What it means is that we can now start the ultimate adventure: knowing God and His reality.

Moments ago we said that much of the remainder of Romans 12 is an elaboration on both what the life of true worship is from v1 and what the will of God from v2 is.  Perhaps it is a coincidence that both our gifts of life-long worship and God’s will itself are “pleasing” or “acceptable,” but I doubt it.  So often we, as Christians, spend too much time lamenting, “what is God’s will for my life?  Why doesn’t He just write down what He wants me to do?”  I’ve got good news for you, young Christian, if you have ever asked those questions.  If you have a Bible open to Romans 12, God’s will for your life is right in front of you.

God’s will begins with proper mental alignment with reality.  Know your role.  V3 enjoins us not to think of ourselves too highly — I take it Vitruvius and Petrarch didn’t read this passage.  Know how you are connected to everyone else: your actions affect others, your choices affect others, you are on the same altar of worship with every other Christian — live in harmony as you transform your thinking by beginning with proper self-awareness and self-understanding as subordinate to God and subservient to fellow Christians.  Whatever skills and abilities you have, you are to use them for the well-being and betterment of those around you.

The great shift to personal worship in v9, as we mentioned before, never strays far from the interconnected nature of Christians as members of one body.  Notice how the dominant theme of the authentic life of worship, instigated by the renewal of our minds, is love.  Whether it is in action or thought, life is all about love.  Perhaps highlighting the centrality of mental-spiritual worship, Paul begins with a list of mental worship commands in v10-12:

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.  Honor one another above yourselves.  Never be lacking in zeal or diligence, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.  Be joyful in hope, patient (“persevere”) in affliction, faithful in prayer.  True, prayer is an action, though genuine prayer (like all genuine actions, as Lennier reminds us) must come from the right mentality and so acts as a good transition to a short list of mostly action-worship commands in v13-20:

Share with God’s people who are in need.  Practice hospitality.  Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.  Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.  (Apparently God doesn’t want us to be happy all the time.  Reality is groaning in pain; if we are happy all the time, we are not paying enough attention to the world and people God loves.)  The NASB’s version of v16 connects the flow of thought better to v2: Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.  Do not be wise in your own estimation.  Returning to the NIV,

v17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

v18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

v19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

v20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.  In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

v21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

With this, Paul returns to verses 1 and 2.  The only way we can avoid conformity and the only way we can do anything substantial for the world is to exchange the old, sinful conception of reality for the even older, more accurate, godly conception of reality by doing good.  And we can only do good when we know what it is, when we no longer think inaccurately but engage in a continuous renewing of our minds, motivated always by love.

Love drives these actions and thoughts, love for one’s enemies (the people and their needs, not the worldly pattern they embrace), love for fellow Christians (as evidenced by the commitment to be devoted to one another and of the same mind), and love for the God who created the universe, knowing what His role is and what ours is.  If we do these actions and think about ourselves and reality in these ways, we will be doing the will of God, a will that can be understood and proven through the renewing of our minds, which then guides are actions appropriately.

How do we, finally, renew our minds?  These actions and mental attributes at the end of chapter 12 are effects to the cause, since if we don’t have the proper mindset, we certainly aren’t going to see any point to, let alone actually do, any of the actions we’ve just read.  The entire year has been emphasizing this notion that we have to renew our minds: the theme has been transformation.  Practically, if this is transformation, we must go from some mentality to another.  We know what the world’s pattern is, how the world thinks, what the world values.  We know what God’s pattern is, how God thinks, what God values.  How do we get from A to B?  Death to life?

You can probably guess where I’m going with this.  In order to transform our thinking to God’s, we must enmesh ourselves in his Word.  The blessed man delights in the law of the Lord, upon which he meditates day and night, says Psalm 1.  Once you have committed to studying, memorizing, and meditating on God’s Word, you will be ready to engage in the Great Conversation, the one that takes place in the Realms of Gold — you know, what we spend most of English and Bible class time doing.  The one listed on the summer extra credit pages: begun with Achilles, refashioned by Hamlet, rejected by Julian Sorel and Leopold Bloom, and culminating (essentially) with Londo and G’Kar, the Great Conversation, grounded in the Word of God, is how we think clearly, and how we know who we are, what we want, and why we are here.  I encourage you, as Paul encourages us still through his epistle to the Romans, transform your life by renewing your mind.  Plant yourself by the River of Life in the Realms of Gold: meditate on God’s Word day and night and participate in the Great Conversation.  Read the great works of all time and contribute through your own written responses and creative works.  It is never too late, my friends, to seek a newer world.

But remember: we don’t read to learn about ourselves.  We read the great books not to find “the answers.”  If we did, there wouldn’t be so many of them.  We read, we write, we engage in the Great Conversation because we are to engage in the spiritual and mental conflict of reality.  We are to renew our minds, not our bodies, because, as Paul says in Ephesians, our battle is not against flesh and blood but a continuous battle against the spiritual forces of evil who will try to take you captive through deceptive philosophy.  That doesn’t mean you should avoid it — far from it.  How will you wage a successful defense if you do not know the intellectual terrain upon which the battle is being fought?  We need to read to engage in the ideas of the world — we need to know what they have said, what they consider true.  And the more we read, the more we will understand the nature of the battle, and all the more we will be driven back to the only book that gives real answers to the genuine questions about reality all the other books ask.  A classical education is based on asking questions.  A Christian education is based on the existence of all the right answers to all the right questions.  This education does not end in high school: it is only just beginning.  Explore forever the Realms of Gold, but always return to the Word of God, both incarnate and inspired, the gold standard of what is true, what is beautiful, and what is real.

This essay is adapted from a chapel address given May 21, 2010.

Counterpoint: Scripture Alone – A Biblically Supported Truth

Tanner Rotering

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura or “Scripture Alone” is one of the most controversial subject matters between the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Church and the Protestant Church.  Because the source from which one derives truth is the foundation of one’s belief system, the positions which these churches hold to concerning this issue determine their positions on countless other doctrines as well.  Thus, a correct understanding of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures is vitally important to every Christian, and, as a result, I feel it necessary to address the doctrine after the grossly inaccurate representation of the issue by my well-intentioned colleague, Mr. Hamilton.

Before delving into the heart of the issue, it would be beneficial to clear up a few things concerning the history of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  First of all, Martin Luther did not contrive the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as justification for his separation from the Roman Catholic Church as if he needed an excuse for his actions.  Instead, his belief in the principles of Sola Scriptura was actually one of the reasons why he was separated from the church in the first place.  He had realized the importance of relying solely upon God’s Word for truth long before he was separated from the Roman Catholic Church.  In addition, he did not choose to separate himself from the Roman Catholic Church, but instead he was forced out of it.  Luther actually wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church from the inside, but he was not given the opportunity to do so, being excommunicated by the pope.  So instead of developing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in order to justify himself for his separation from the Roman Catholic Church, his adherence to it was one reason why he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.

Next, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is in no way “repulsive” to the scriptures.  The scriptures clearly testify to their own authority.  Let us start with the Old Testament’s authenticity as the inspired word of God.  By the time of Jesus, the Old Testament had already been firmly established and accepted by the Jews as divine authority.  Michael J. Vlach, a Ph.D. in systematic theology, says in “How Did the Old Testament Become the Old Testament?” the following about the books of the Old Testament:

There are twenty-four books in the Hebrew canon.  These twenty-four books correspond exactly to the books in the English Protestant Bibles that numbers thirty-nine.  The difference is in the enumeration of the books.  (For example, the Hebrew Bible does not divide Samuel into 1 and 2 Samuel.  The same goes for the Kings.)

By the time of Jesus, all of the books of the Old Testament had already been compiled and agreed upon by the Jews.  They consisted of the very same books in our Bible today.  There are various reasons why we can know that they are all authoritative.  First of all, Jesus himself refers to the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which in turn correspond to the three divisions which the Jews divided the scriptures into: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Vlach).  In Luke 24:44 Jesus says, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”  Luke 11:49-51 is another instance where Jesus’ words indicate that the Jewish compilation of the Holy Scriptures was complete.  Jesus says,

Because of this, God in his wisdom said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.”  Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.  Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Note that the murder of Abel and the murder of Zechariah are the first and the last murders recorded in the Old Testament, recorded in the first and last books of the Jewish Old Testament, Genesis and Chronicles (see Genesis 4:8 and 2 Chronicles 24:20-22) (Keller 134).  In addition, in John 5:39-40 Jesus says, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life.  These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

If Jesus knew that the Jews’ compilation of the Old Testament was faulty in some way, he likely would have told them so, but instead of telling them that their compilation was faulty, he tells them that the scriptures they study are the very scriptures that testify to him.  If they were not divinely inspired would Jesus have said that they testify to him?  Jesus does not refer to any errors in the Jews’ compilation in Matthew 5:17-18 when he declares,

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Not only is the Jewish Old Testament referenced as a whole, but, as Brian R. Keller says in his book Bible: God’s Inspired, Inerrant Word, “All the books of the Old Testament canon are in some way quoted or alluded to in the New Testament except for the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs” (137).

It is also evident from Scripture that the 39 books of the Old Testament we use today are the infallible word of God.  In 2 Peter 2:20-21 Simon Peter makes this very clear: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

The Old Testament (and the Bible as a whole for that matter) is not simply the writings of men.  Scripture is inspired.  Or as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed….”  Paul also confirms the divine origin of the Old Testament in Romans 3:2, when he says, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?  Much in every way!  First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.”  Thus, it is evident from Scripture that we not only possess the appropriate compilation of the Old Testament books, but that they are also God’s word.

The 27 books of the New Testament as appear in the Protestant Bible are also the appropriate canonical books to be regarded as Holy Scripture.  They are not canonical because the Church declared them to be canonical.  God’s word does not rely upon the “Church Fathers” or anyone else to establish the truth of the Bible.  While it is true that the Church recognized the 27 books of the New Testament to be canonical, the church did not impart any authority to scripture nor did it gain any authority by recognizing it as scripture.  In fact, while we may look to the early Church Fathers for confirmation of what we believe, we should not look to them as anything greater than what they are: mere men.

So how can we be assured that the 27 books of the Bible are God’s word?  To start, the canon was based on the teaching of the apostles.  The apostles were those closest to Jesus, and they were promised the Holy Spirit.  In John 14:26, Jesus tells his apostles, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”  Later in John 16:12-15, Jesus tells them,

 I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.  All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.

The letters of Paul, though not one of the twelve, also can be taken as Holy Scripture as 2 Peter 3:15 and 16 indicates.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.  His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Richard L. Gurgel in This We Believe notes that “Peter’s fascinating reference reveals that already while Peter was alive the letters of Paul were gathered and recognized as inspired portions of Holy Scripture.”  David Kuske in Biblical Interpretation: The Only Right Way notes that “[t]he apostles often reminded believers that their words were the spirit’s words” and “[t]he apostles indicated that the words they spoke were, therefore, on par with the Old Testament Scriptures.”

In 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 Paul states, “What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.  This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.”  Perhaps even more emphatic is 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.”

Gurgel also says the following about the New Testament canon.

The books of the New Testament come from the first generation of Christians- those who lived at the time of Jesus.  Our faith is founded on the teaching of the apostles themselves.  The long life of the apostle John also helps verify the list of books in the New Testament canon.  John lived to about A.D. 100 and was a reliable witness to the authenticity of any letters that claimed to be inspired apostolic writings.

There were doubts about the authenticity of some of the New Testament books during the time of the early church, specifically Hebrews, James, Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.  These books (along with those of the Old Testament books whose canonicity has been questioned) are referred to as the antilegomena, while those that were well established as canon were called homolegoumena.  The antilegomena were doubted usually either because of their content or their authorship (Kuske 33).  These doubts were put to rest by 300 a.d.

While the position of the early church concerning these antilegomena confirms the canonicity of these books, once again, this does not mean that the early church has any divine authority.  The early church simply lived closer to the times of the apostles; they were better able to verify the authenticity of the scriptures.  This does not mean that they created the canon, simply that they recognized it and were instrumental in sharing it with future generations.  This is a critical distinction.  Keller points out, “The chosen apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ either wrote or approved every book of the New Testament canon” (141).  Apostolicity is still the historical guiding factor because, as the Bible says, the apostles were divinely inspired.  Therefore, the Bible’s canonicity is still rooted in the Bible.

Yet, there is an even more crucial way in which we as Christians recognize the true canon of scripture.  Because the truly canonical books are truth from God, they are self-evident.  As the “Statement on Scripture,” in Doctrinal Statements of the WELS puts it, “The Canon, that is, the collection of books which is the authority for the Church, is not the creation of the Church.  Rather, the Canon has, by a quiet historical process which took place in the worship life of the Church, imposed itself upon the Church by virtue of its own divine authority.”  This statement seems like a very bold thing to say.  The books of the Bible proved themselves to be canonical?  While the church councils publically recognized the canonicity of the New Testament, the Bible had been showing itself to be canonical.

Hebrews 4:12 supports this idea, demonstrating the power of God’s word.  “For the word of God is alive and active.  Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

The authority of the Bible is demonstrated by the Bible itself.  The books themselves illustrate the reliability with which they can be accepted as God’s Word.  Romans 10:17 testifies to the power of God’s Word, saying, “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.”  Jeremiah 23:29 says, “‘Is not my word like fire,’ declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’”  1 Peter 1:23 shows us that it is by God’s Word that we are born again: “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.”  Romans 1:16-17 confirms this idea as well:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.  For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed — a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Thus it is evident that both the Old and New Testaments of the Protestant Bible are both canonical and divinely inspired.  Because the Bible is divinely inspired, it is one hundred percent true.  In John 17:17, Jesus prays to the Father “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”  Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”  Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.  Does he speak and then not act?  Does he promise and not fulfill?”  Furthermore, this canonicity and divine inspiration is evident from the Bible itself.  This is essentially to say that not only is the Bible completely authoritative, but also it is completely authoritative of its own merit; the word of God does not need any external authority to establish its authenticity.  The Holy Scriptures verify their own authority.

The Word of God is infallible, but is it possible that any other source has equal or greater authority?  The answer from the Bible is a resounding “NO!”  How could anything be as or more authoritative than God’s Word?  Isaiah 8:20 illustrates the insufficiency of any other source.  “Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning.  If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”  The Bereans of the New Testament recognized this fact.  Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”  The Scriptures are completely sufficient as well.  We know that it is sufficient because it contains all that we need to know concerning salvation.  As Keller points out, “John 20:31 explains why we have the words of Scripture.”  John 20:30-31 say, “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”  As shown previously in Romans 10:17 and Romans 1:16-17, faith comes from hearing the gospel.  The Scriptures are the only source we possess where we can read God’s Word, therefore only Scripture ought to be looked to for doctrinal truth.

Keller makes this point blatantly clear.

No one has the right to add to God’s Word.  No one has the right to subtract from God’s Word.  No one has the right to change the meaning of God’s Word in any way.  That is the case for every pastor, teacher, or layperson.  That is the case for the pope too.  It is wrong to add human ideas or traditions to the Bible and consider them God’s Word.  It is wrong to try to brush certain teachings of Scripture under the rug because they are not very popular today.

Keller then goes on to point out two more key verses concerning this idea.  Deuteronomy 4:2 says, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.”  Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

Now we come to the issue of “tradition.”  Mr. Hamilton does well to make the distinction between the tradition of God and the tradition of men.  On that point I most heartily agree with him.  Our interpretations of what those traditions are and what their implications are for us are the real points of contention.  The “apostolic traditions” referred to in Mr. Hamilton’s two key support passages, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and I Corinthians 11:2, are simply the gospel teachings.  As R. C. H. Lenski says concerning Second Thessalonians 2:15’s use of the Greek word for “tradition,”

The use of paradoseis does not contain something rabbinic, for this term is used in the Gospels and also by Paul in Gal. 1:14 and Col. 2:8 to denote Jewish and human “traditions.”  Here and in 3:6 and in I Cor. 11:2 the word = the gospel teachings, “truth” (v. 13), “the truth” (v. 10, 12), the plural to indicate the different parts of the gospel truth.  The word itself points only to transmission: the things given or handed over from teacher to pupil.  Romanists have appropriated it and refer it to teachings handed down in the church and not recorded in the Scriptures; but this late Romanish use has nothing to do with Paul’s use.  In I Cor. 11:2 Paul also has the corresponding verb (443).

 The NIV translation makes this point more clear.  It reads, “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”  The written teachings passed on to the Thessalonians (i.e. the letters) are Holy Scripture, and the teachings delivered by the word of mouth most definitely were in agreement with their letters.  Thus these passages in no way refute the weight with which Christians recognize the Holy Scriptures as having.  Even if one was to claim the possibility that some additional teachings were issued by the apostles’ word of mouth besides that which is recorded in scripture, there is no way that we can know what these doctrines are since they were not recorded.  If they had been recorded and shown to be authentic, they would have been recognized as scripture, but the early church recognized no such writings as divinely inspired except that which they included in the canon.  Some may claim that they were passed on by oral tradition and recorded later, but there is no way to verify the accuracy/authenticity of these oral transmissions.  Therefore, we must still adhere to Sola Scriptura.

Let me again clarify.  I am not denying that the traditions (i.e. the teachings) of the apostles were not divinely inspired.  No, in fact, I agree that the teachings of the apostles were divinely inspired.  As demonstrated earlier in this article when discussing the criteria of Apostolicism for canonicity, the Holy Spirit spoke through the apostles.  What I am saying is that the apostles taught the same gospel both in their letters and in their word of mouth, and that we only have access to the written teachings of the apostles (the Bible).  The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not deny that there is truth that is not recorded in the Bible (like in some of the Apostles’ oral dissertations); it only says that Scripture is the only inerrant, authoritative, doctrinally foundational source of truth that we have access to, and that it is completely sufficient.

Whenever discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura another point of contention that almost invariably arises is the authority of the Church.  What type of authority does the church have and what type does it not?  Is the decree of the visible church infallible?  If so, which visible church is infallible?  What are the powers and responsibilities given to the Church?  All of these are relevant questions when addressing the relationship between the church and scripture.

Let us review the distinction between the visible and invisible church.  The invisible church is comprised of all believers, while the visible church is comprised of all who confess to be believers.  The term “invisible church” refers to what we generally think of as the Church.  The invisible church is “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession” (1 Peter 2:9).  It is comprised of the “family of believers” (Galatians 6:10).  It is Christ’s body (Ephesians 1:23) and “God’s household” (1 Timothy 3:15).  Galatians 3:26-27 says, “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”  Romans 11:20 clearly shows you must have faith to be in the invisible Church.  Ephesians 4:3-6 puts special emphasis on the unity of this invisible church: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.  There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

“Why do we call all believers in Christ the invisible church?” you may wonder.  We call it invisible because man, unlike God, cannot judge the heart.  No one can definitively ascertain whether anyone else is a believer or not.  While it is true that all faith should invariably lead to good works or “fruit” as the Bible tells us, this still does not mean man has the ability to judge who is saved and who is not.  Luke 17:20-21 says, “Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, ‘The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, “Here it is,” or “There it is,” because the kingdom of God is in your midst.’”  Note that an alternate translation for “is in your midst” for this passage is “is within you.”  The reason we call the body of all believers the invisible church is simple.  Edward W.A. Koehler in A Summary of Christian Doctrine says, “Because faith, by which men become members of the Church, is invisible to human eyes, therefore the Church itself is invisible to man” (239).

It is important to mark the distinction between the invisible church and the visible church.  Koehler says, “Briefly stated: The invisible Church is the total number of those who HAVE true faith in their hearts; the visible Church is the total number of those who PROFESS the faith.  The invisible Church is hidden in the visible church.”  Koehler also notes,

The faith, by which men are members of the Church, is itself invisible (Luke 17:20.21) but it manifests itself in various ways.  All true believers will confess their faith; “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10); (Matt. 10:32).  They will also prove their faith by a godly life, letting their light shine before men, that they may see their good works and glorify their Father in heaven (Matt. 5:16).  They will nurse their spiritual life by making diligent use of the means of grace; “he that is of God heareth God’s Word” (John 8:47); (1 Cor. 11:26).  Thus by their confession of faith, by their godly life, by their attendance upon public worship the believers become recognizable to others; these things are the outward evidence of their invisible faith.…  The total number of those people whom we must regard, on the basis of their confession in word and deed, as Christians, constitute the visible Church (244, 245).

There are many organizations which form the visible church, which we refer to as churches or sometimes as denominations.  While we refer to these as churches, many of these are not true churches since they do not teach only true biblical doctrines.  As James F. Korthals writes in his article “The visible church” in the January 2009 issue of Forward In Christ, “A true visible church is one that not only knows the truth but also proclaims the truth of God’s Word in its entirety.”  It is important to recognize, however, that this does not mean that no one within one of these heterodox visible churches is a member of the invisible church.  Nor does it mean that everyone within a true visible church is a member of the invisible church.  Koehler summarizes this relationship between the visible and invisible church very poignantly.

The invisible Church is the only saving Church.  Since faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ is the only thing that saves (John 3:16), and since the Church embraces all those who have this faith, it is apparent that membership in this Church saves.  Whoever rejects the faith, by which one is a member of this Church, cannot find salvation in any other religion.  It is not true that every one is saved in his own fashion, no matter what his faith may be.  Christ says: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6).  However, no visible church body, or denomination, may claim that it is the only saving church, as the Romish Church does.…  According to the Bible teaching “no salvation outside of the Church” applies to the invisible Church alone (241).

It is evident that the visible church can be further subdivided into true and false (or orthodox and heterodox) churches as well.  In addition, the New Testament warns us of false teachers and deceivers.

Considering what we know about the visible and the invisible church, what can we say about the authority of the church?  As Mr. Hamilton points out, 1 Timothy 3:15 says, “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”  Does it then follow that “the Orthodox Catholic Church” can “define the revealed truth”?  Of course not!  First, we must ask ourselves whether “church” here means the visible or the invisible church.  It is clear that we could not consider heretics and false teachers to be part of the pillar and ground of truth, therefore we must assume that the church being referred to is the invisible church, the body of believers, the body of Christ.  While it is true that these true believers are part of the visible church, they are not the only ones within the visible church, and therefore the visible church as a whole is not the pillar and ground of truth.  R. C. H. Lenski says the following about the meaning of the Greek concerning the word “household” in 1 Timothy 3:15.  “Οἶκοs = ἐκκλησία = not the family in a house but the ‘assembly,’ the church members themselves.  They are this ‘house,’ which is called ‘house’ because God dwells in them.  This is one of the many beautiful expressions for the unio mystica, in this case it is collective with the reference to the church” (606).  Thus this is not a reference to any church body but rather the church as the body of believers.  It is not “the Orthodox Catholic Church” that is the pillar and foundation of truth, but rather all believers.

Next we must consider what it means that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.  It does not mean that the church is given the authority to establish what God’s word means in some form of divinely ordained privilege to give life and meaning to the scriptures.  The Church has no authority over Scripture; rather the Scriptures are the guide for the Church.  Each and every member of the church is able to understand and believe in Scripture because of the Holy Spirit’s work in his or her heart.  First Corinthians 2:13-16 says,

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.  The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.  The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”  But we have the mind of Christ.

Likewise, in John 8:47, Jesus says, “Whoever belongs to God hears what God says.  The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”  The gospel is that truth of which the church is the pillar and foundation, and we find that gospel in the Scriptures.  Lenski says,

 The gospel = “the truth.”  As ἀλήθεια, “reality,” this truth exists independently and is dependent on no pillar, foundation, or other kind of support.  Every reality, and above all this eternal one, is simply there, and that is all.  Yet this Gospel truth which God sent into the world is not just there to be there, i.e., in existence; it is to save men, and thus men it has saved, the living God’s church, bear it as a pillar, yea as a foundation bears its superstructure.  The church thus bears God’s saving truth for all the world.

Because believers are able to believe and understand God’s word through the work of the Holy Spirit, they have the responsibility to study, apply, guard, and spread this news.  In this sense they are the pillar and foundation of the truth.  The Church has no authority to establish the meaning of the Scriptures; it simply has the ability to correctly interpret them, but only because of the Holy Spirit.  It has the authority to teach, but only that which is rooted in Scripture because God’s word is the ultimate authority.

The Church has no authority to teach anything except that found in scripture.  1 Timothy 6:3-4a says, “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing.”  The Church has no authority to claim anything but what the Bible teaches.  Everything else would be such “traditions of men” (cf. Matthew 15:1-9).  Jeremiah 23:30-32 says,

“Therefore,” declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me.  Yes,” declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare, ‘The Lord declares.’  Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” declares the Lord.  “They tell them and lead my people astray with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them.  They do not benefit these people in the least,” declares the Lord.

No one, not even church leaders such as pastors or priests have the authority to teach anything except what is found in Scripture.  These leaders derive their authority only from Scripture.  They have no authority of their own (Koehler 254).

In fact, there is no such thing as the “Apostolic Priesthood.”  Koehler notes that “[t]he keys of the Kingdom were not given to Peter alone (Matt. 16:19), but to the Church (Matt. 18:18).  Peter never claimed primacy or lordship over the Church for himself (1 Peter 5:3); he calls himself just “an apostle” “also an elder” like the others (1 Pet. 1:1; 5:1)” (254, 255).  It is interesting to note that Mr. Hamilton makes reference to Matthew 18:18 as a proof passage showing that Jesus gave the keys to the Apostles, but if you read the chapter in context, it does not specify “the twelve” nor does it use any other terminology that would imply that this is being addressed only to the twelve apostles.  Instead, verse 1 only refers to the disciples which could include anyone who was following Jesus (which included more than just the twelve apostles).  Koehler says,

A comparison of [Matt. 16:19] with Matt.18:18 clearly shows that the power to bind and to loose is given to the church or the local congregation.…  In the case of the incestuous person at Corinth, action was taken by the congregation (1Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:6-10).  Although hypocrites within the congregation externally participate in the exercise of this power, they do not share in the right of possessing it, since it properly belongs to those only who have received the Holy Ghost (John 20:22-23), and who by faith are the royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9) (255-256).

Mr. Hamilton uses Acts 1:20 as a support passage for the “Apostolic Priesthood” as if the passage somehow supports the continual selection of successors for the Apostles.  It is evident from the context of the passage, however, that this passage is referring only to the replacement of Judas.  Peter himself notes that “the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas” and not about every apostle.  The fact that this reference is referring only to the replacement of Judas is made even more abundantly clear in verses 21-22 where Paul notes the purpose/criteria of this replacement: “Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.  For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”  In addition to the fact that nowhere in Scripture is a continual replacement or succession of the Apostles ever mentioned, no one would be able to meet the criteria of being a witness to Jesus’ resurrection as was the case in Judas’ replacement for very long.

Finally, Titus 1:5 is even less of an appropriate support passage than Acts 1:20.  That elders were to be appointed does not mean that these elders were successors of the apostles or that they were infallible.  Koehler notes, “The prophets and apostles are infallible teachers of the Church, because they spake under the inspiration of God (Eph. 2:20; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Corinthian 2:13)” (255).  Our religious leaders, on the other hand are not.

I would like to bring up one final point concerning the alleged “Apostolic Priesthood.”  Though Mr. Hamilton does not present this specific argument, many will claim that Matthew 16:18 supports such an “Apostolic Priesthood” because of Jesus’ words, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”  The “rock” which Jesus states that he will build his church on is not Peter.  The word for Peter used in the Greek is Petros, while the word used for the rock upon which Christ will build his church is petra.  Despite what the Catholic Church may have believed the Greek to have indicated, two distinct words are used in this passage, and the rock upon which Jesus said he would build His church is actually the confession made by Peter in verse 16: “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’”  Thus the theory of the “Apostolic Priesthood” can hardly be considered scriptural and we must again conclude that the only authority for Christian doctrine is Scripture.

Some will claim that this concept of the sufficiency of Scripture is a relatively new idea that began with the Reformation.  In reality, however, even the early Church Fathers recognized this foundational principle of the Christian faith.  Gregory L. Jackson, in Catholic/ Lutheran/ Protestant: A Doctrinal Comparison of the Three Christian Confessions, provides several quotations from the early Church Fathers.  He says, “The tactic of arguing for the insufficiency of Scripture (and therefore the necessity of another source, whether it be the book of Mormon or Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health) is old rather than new, and countered long ago.”  He provides the following excerpt from the writings of Irenaeus.

When they are proved wrong from the Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct and were without authority, both because they speak now one way, now another, and also because the truth cannot be found from Scripture by those who do not know the traditions; for (so they say) the truth was not given through the epistles, but through the living voice, etc.

Jackson also provides a quotation from St. Augustine:

If you believe the report about Christ, see whether this is a proper witness; consider what disaster you are headed for.  You reject the Scriptures which are confirmed and commended by such great authority; you perform no miracles, and if you performed any, we would shun even those in your case according to the Lord’s instruction Mt. 24:24.  He wanted absolutely nothing to be believed against the confirmed authority of the Scriptures, etc.

Some will claim, in spite of such quotations, that the early Church Fathers actually promoted the Orthodox/Catholic idea of Apostolic Tradition.  While it is true that the early Church Fathers did adhere to a form of Apostolic Tradition, it is very different from the form advocated by the Orthodox and the Catholic theologians.  The “Apostolic Tradition” was simply the teachings found in Scripture.  Thus the “Apostolic Tradition” of the early church was actually in support of the sufficiency of Scripture.  Irenaeus said: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

William Webster explains the truth of the matter:

The word tradition simply means teaching.  Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.  Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches.  From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture.  There was no doctrine in what they refer to as Apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.  In other words, the Apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture.

Webster also quotes Church historian Ellen Flessman-van Leer from Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church.

For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible.

There are many other quotations from by the Church Fathers affirming the fact that the early church relied solely upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures.  St. Athanasius said, “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”  St. Gregory of Nyssa affirmed the importance of every doctrine being in compliance with Scripture when he says, “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”  He also said “we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please.  For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine.  Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.”

St. Augustine of Hippo is also in agreement with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura saying,

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem declared,

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.  Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.  For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

St. John Chrysostom said, “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast,” and also, “They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way.  But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err.  I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.”

St. Basil is yet another early Church Father who confirmed the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  He also makes the place of the “traditions of the fathers” clear saying, “We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.  What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”  The fact that only doctrines from scripture ought to be taught is also made clear in this quotation from St. Basil.

What is the mark of a faithful soul?  To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions.  For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin (all quotations in this section taken from Angelfire).

Though the testimony of the early Church Fathers should not be considered as divinely inspired or authoritative, the fact that they recognized that the Scriptures ought to be recognized as the only authoritative source of Christian doctrine is supportive of the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scripture has been around since the earliest years of the church even if the doctrine was not referred to as “Sola Scriptura.”  After all, it is clearly supported by the Bible.

The emphasis on the doctrinal principles of “Scripture Alone,” though largely neglected by the Catholic Church, soon blossomed in mainstream Christianity with the advent of the Reformers.  The fact that Sola Scriptura was neglected by the majority of professing Christians during the height of Catholicism, however, in no way reduces the authority of the doctrine.  Jesus said in Matthew 24:24, “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”  We can be assured, however, that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the church.  Matthew 16:18 says, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”  Some will say that because the gates of Hell will not overcome the church, Protestants cannot hope to justify their beliefs, drawing attention to the extended period of time between the early church and the Protestant Reformation.  In other words, these people construct an argument that follows the general logic chain “because there can never be a time when the church is nonexistent, and because the protestant church was nonexistent during the Middle Ages, the Protestant church cannot be the true church.”  There are several major flaws in this line of argumentation, however.

First of all, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the two usages of the word “church.”  There is both the visible church and the invisible church, as discussed previously.  Therefore, despite the fact that there may have not been an orthodox visible church during the Middle Ages, it is not then true that the invisible church was therefore nonexistent during this time period as well.  Even if not a single completely correctly teaching visible church existed during the Middle Ages, this does not mean that believers were not present.  Romans 11:1-6 presents an outstanding example of a time when, despite what the situation appeared to be, God had preserved a remnant.

I ask then: Did God reject his people?  By no means!  I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.  God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.  Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah — how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”?  And what was God’s answer to him?  “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”  So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.  And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Secondly, we know from Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hell will not overcome the church, and thus that the invisible church will always exist, but scripture does not say that there will always be perfect doctrinal understanding within this body of believers.  Thus, even if there were periods of time where no believers accepted doctrines like Sola Scriptura, that does not then necessitate that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.  Because it is possible to be a believer but not believe in Sola Scriptura, this doctrine may have not been held by anyone during the Middle Ages, but this does not mean that there were not any believers during this time.  Thus the truth that the gates of Hell will never overcome the church is still compatible with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Some also argue Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory because it is not found in the Bible.  While it is true that the Bible does not say the words “Scripture Alone,” it is clearly a biblical principle as illustrated above, and thus not self-contradictory.  Just as Christians believe that there is one God in three (and only three) persons even though the Bible does not say the word “Trinity” or “there are only three persons in the Trinity” because such a doctrine is scripturally supported, so we also believe that there is only one source of God’s Word we can use for doctrinal truth.

In conclusion, because the Holy Scripture (the canonical sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible) is God’s word, and because God’s Word is inerrant, the Holy Scripture is one hundred percent accurate.  In addition, because the Holy Scripture is the only divinely-inspired source God has given to us, we must rely solely on the scripture for doctrinal issues.  This doctrine is clearly supported by the scriptures themselves.  The church is only authoritative insofar as its teachings are based upon scripture.  If they are not in congruence with scripture, they are nothing.  Thus, Christians ought to affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in order to avoid the many snares and pitfalls the world sets up against us.  It should be a comfort to Christians to know the Bible is completely sufficient, and we have all that is necessary for salvation.  Let us never forget the significance of the words of Psalm 119:105: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (KJV).

Works Cited

The Ancient Fathers on “Sola Scriptura.” Angelfire. 06 Mar. 2011. Internet.

BibleGateway.com. 20, 26, 27 Feb. 2011. Internet. Note: Unless taken from a quotation or otherwise indicated, all scripture references were taken from the NIV found at BibleGateway.com.

Berkley , Warren E. “2 Thessalonians 2:15 — Stand Fast & Hold the Traditions.” Interactive Bible Home Page. July 1996. 27 Feb. 2011. Internet.

Gurgel, Richard L. This We Believe: Questions and Answers. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2006.

Jackson, Gregory Lee. Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant: a Doctrinal Comparison of Three Christian Confessions. St. Louis, MO: Martin Chemnitz, 1993.

Keller, Brian R. Bible: God’s Inspired, Inerrant Word. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2003.

Kiecker, James G. “Fading Power.” Editorial. Forward In Christ. Oct. 1994. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS): Northwestern. 27 Feb. 2011. Internet.

Koehler, Edward W. A. A Summary of Christian Doctrine; a Popular Presentation of the Teachings of the Bible. St. Louis: Concordia, 1971.

Korthals, James F. “The Visible Church.” Editorial. Forward in Christ. Jan. 2009. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS): Northwestern. 26 Feb. 2011. Internet.

Kuske, David P. Biblical Interpretation: the Only Right Way. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1995.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

Vlach, Michael J. “How Did the Old Testament Become the Old Testament?” TheologicalStudies.org. 20 Feb. 2011. Internet.

Webster, William. “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church — What Did the Early Church Believe about the Authority of Scripture?” Christian Answers® Network™. 06 Mar. 2011. Internet.

Point: Tradition

Seraphim Hamilton

In Martin Luther’s break from the Papal Church, he was forced to develop a doctrine that allowed him to legitimately break from the institutional church.  This doctrine, known as Sola Scriptura, is hailed by many today as divine truth.  In short, Sola Scriptura suggests that Scripture is the supreme witness of divine truth, to be held above the Church’s tradition.  In a more extreme variation, Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that only the Scripture reveals divine truth, with all other church tradition being worthless.

Both of these doctrines are repulsive to the Scripture itself.  Denying the Tradition of the Church does not exalt the Scripture any more than denying God the Son exalts God the Father.  In supporting their doctrine, Protestants often appeal to the Lord’s words in Mark 7:8, where Christ rebukes the Pharisees, saying, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”  And likewise, in Matthew 15:3, Jesus asks the Pharisees, “Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”  From these passages, it can seem to the lay reader that the Bible speaks forcefully against tradition.  However, one must take into account the whole of Scripture.

St. Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”  And likewise, in 1 Corinthians 11:2, it is written, “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.”  Yet, St. Paul also writes in Colossians 2:8, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition….”

What does one make of these seemingly contradictory passages?  The answer is to simply look at the qualifiers attached to tradition.  When the Lord speaks negatively of tradition in the Gospel, He does so against the Pharisaic tradition, the tradition of men, which had corrupted the word of God.  However, it is simply illogical to then infer that there is no divinely inspired tradition.  The Gospel of Thomas is a false and heretical “scripture.”  It does not follow, however, that the Bible is not divinely inspired.  Likewise, there are traditions that corrupt the word of God.  However, there are also traditions that are the word of God.  When St. Paul speaks of human tradition, he is clearly speaking of the former kind.  Again, we see that there is no statement that all tradition is uninspired, only the “human traditions.”

On the contrary, we saw in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 a clear portrait of the status of Tradition.  St. Paul wrote that Christians are to keep the Apostolic Traditions, contained in their writings and in their spoken preaching.  Hence, St. Paul implies that not all of the apostolic faith is contained within their writings.  The Apostolic Writings later became known as the New Testament.  The teaching of the Apostles that was not written in Scripture is known colloquially as “tradition.”  More properly, however, Tradition is the entire deposit of faith, made up of the written Scriptures as well as the rest of apostolic teaching.  Christians are to maintain the tradition of the Church as delivered by the Apostles as steadfastly as they maintain Scripture.  Neither is supreme over the other, because both are divinely inspired.  To say that one is superior is like saying that St. Mark’s Gospel is more inspired than St. Matthew’s.

The final authority on the interpretation of Scripture is not the individual reader.  Rather, it is the visible, united body of Christ, the Orthodox Catholic Church.  It is written in 1 Timothy 3:15, “If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.”  It is then the Church of God that is the pillar and ground of divinely revealed truth.  It is the Church that is to guard and define the revealed truth.  Christ endowed his authority to the Church with the keys of the Apostolic priesthood, which He promised to give in Matthew 18:18, where the Lord says to the Apostles, “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.  Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Christ endowed the Church with the divine authority to render judgment on men and justified this authority by endowing the Apostles with the keys to bind and loose.  Lest the Church lose its authority, the Apostles endowed the grace of the priesthood upon others, as it is written in Acts 1:20, “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’ and ‘Let another take his bishopric.’”  And likewise in Titus 1:5, it is written, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint priests in every town as I directed you.”

For 40 years the Church existed without a complete New Testament.  How then could the New Testament be a requirement for the existence of the Church?  The New Testament did not build the Church.  God built the New Testament through His Church.  The New Testament is recognized Scripture only because the Church has decreed it so.  In the synods of Rome and Carthage, the Church ratified the canon of the New Testament as containing 27 books.  Hence, for a Protestant to use the Bible is in itself a subtle acknowledgement of the authority of this Church, and hence, a refutation of Sola Scriptura!

Sola Scriptura is in itself a tradition of men.  Protestants must abandon this corrupt tradition and get in line with the Word of God.

Romans 9

Seraphim Hamilton

The centerpiece of Reformed argumentation is their interpretation of Romans 9.  They read Romans 9 as a discussion of unconditional predestination unto salvation.  However, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart notes that according to the plain reading of the text, and according to the Greek Fathers, Romans 9 has very little to do with individual election unto salvation at all.  Rather, it has to do with the separation and ultimate reconciliation of Israel and the Church (77).

Let us therefore look closely at the ninth chapter of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans that we may see and understand what it really teaches.  St. Paul begins in verses one through five by identifying his own love for Israel, and that they are honored with the Old Testament Scriptures and prophecies, that they are honored in that the Messiah Himself — God incarnate — comes from their people.

They have been chosen as the covenant people, St. Paul says, and that is their honor.  The question that he deals with, then, is, “how in the world can Jesus be the Messiah if His own people reject Him?”  St. Paul begins his answer in verses six and seven.  He states, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’”

We therefore see the point that Paul is making.  Those who believe not in Jesus as Messiah are not truly part of Israel.  To prove that not all who are descended from Abraham are under the covenant, St. Paul points to the first child of Abraham who was not under the covenant — Ishmael.  Therefore, because not all children of Abraham in the beginning were necessarily under the covenant, the same can be true of the modern fleshly descendants of Abraham.  St. Paul seals this argument in verse eight.  He writes, “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”  Thus, we see that covenant status is not dependent on fleshly inheritance.

St. Paul continues his argument in verses nine through thirteen, key passages in Reformed theology.  He writes, “For this is what the promise said: ‘About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.’  And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad — in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call — she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’  As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

What does St. Paul mean by this?  Is he talking about election unto salvation?  We see that he is not.  First of all, when St. Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 in saying that “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated,” it is not talking about lack of divine love.  Rather, the Old Testament is using hyperbolic covenant terms.  Douglas Moo writes to this effect, “The verbs ‘love’ and ‘hate’ in Malachi are covenantal terms. They do not express God’s emotions…but his actions….  We might paraphrase, ‘Jacob I have chosen, but Esau I have rejected’” (58).

We see something very important in St. Paul’s quotation of the prophet.  If one examines the immediate context of Malachi 1:2-3, one sees that the prophet is not speaking of Jacob and Esau as individuals.  Rather, he is using them as symbols for the nations which they bore — Israel and Edom.  Thus, St. Paul is speaking of the covenant election of corporate bodies for the purposes of God’s plan — not individual people unto salvation.  Furthermore, we see later in the book of Genesis that Esau is reconciled to his brother Jacob and forgiven.  Because we know that at least one Edomite (Esau) was saved, we know that St. Paul is not speaking about election unto salvation.  Edwards states likewise, “In the present context Paul is not discussing the eternal salvation of individuals, but God’s purposeful choices in history from Abraham to Christ” (231-2).  Witherington concurs, writing, “The discussion of election in chs. 9-11 is a discussion of corporate election, in the midst of which there are individual rejection by some and selection for historical purposes of others” (246).

In Romans 9:15, St. Paul quotes Exodus 33 in proving the justice of God, where God says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.  While Calvinists have viewed this as explaining God’s lack of mercy for some, this does not fit with what God is actually saying in Exodus 33.  If one reads Exodus 33, God is actually discussing the abundance of His mercy, and that He will have mercy on people even if Moses would rather He not do so.  That is to say, St. Paul is demonstrating that God is free to have mercy on the Gentiles if He so wishes, despite the protests of the Jews.

In Romans 9:17, St. Paul draws our minds back to God’s dealings with Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.  He therefore concludes in verse eighteen that God is free to harden whomever He will.  This is a difficult passage, and we must therefore undertake a study of hardening in the Bible.  St. Paul right now is giving us an example of someone not part of God’s covenant people.  We note that, first, Pharaoh hardened his own heart first in Exodus 8:15, 32, and 9:34.  This is why St. Paul says in Romans 1:22-25 that, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!  Amen.”

We see that God turned them over to their own sin in response to their continuous rebellion against Him.  The cause and effect is that the people rebel against God, and God says “Thy will be done” and turns them over.  This is precisely the relationship described between God and Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.

One must always remember the subject of Romans 9 is explaining the relationship of fleshly Israel to God in the present time.  They are not presently under the divine covenant, because they have rejected Christ.  St. Paul gives an example of one who was not in a covenant with God, paralleling the Jews who reject Christ.  We see that God has now turned fleshly Israel over to their own darkness and unbelief, for St. Paul writes in Romans 11:7-8, “What then?  Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking.  The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’”

Israel has been hardened due to their unbelief.  If Reformed theology were true and this hardening refers to predestination unto reprobation, it is not going to be reversed.  On the contrary, St. Paul later says in Romans 11:26 that all Israel will be saved!  With that said, turn your eyes back to Romans 9 for a moment.  The chapter discusses God’s purposes in corporate elections.  He elects corporate bodies according to His own will and wisdom in order to bring about salvation for the maximum number of people.  Why, then, has God not elected fleshly Israel?  Why has He now elected the body of the Church?  St. Paul answers this question in Romans 11:11, saying, “So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall?  By no means!  Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.”

Yet, God still desires salvation for Israel, and thus their jealousy will ultimately lead to salvation, as it is written in Romans 11:26 and in the Prophet Zechariah.  The prophet writes in Zechariah 12:10, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”  Thus, God has wisely elected the Church in this present day that salvation may flow to the Gentiles, making Israel jealous, leading to Israel’s rejoining of the olive tree.  How great is the wisdom of God!

In Romans 9:19-21, St. Paul analogizes God to a potter, molding things into whatever He wishes.  St. Paul is alluding to a passage from the Prophet Jeremiah, where the Lord says through the prophet, “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord.  Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.”  As we can see, this is still dealing with corporate groups, rather than specific individuals.

Some Protestant translations translate Romans 9:22 as saying, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.”  However, Witherington notes in his commentary on Romans that 9:22 can be translated, “Although God desired to show his wrath and to make known his power, He endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (257).

This makes much more sense with verse twenty-three, which says, “in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.”  That is, God endured the unfaithfulness of Old Israel in order to bring about salvation within the New Covenant Church.

How does one deal with the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?  This is not an example of God unconditionally predestining individuals to reprobation.  Actually, the vessels of wrath are preparing themselves for destruction.  According to Witherington, “Paul uses two different verbs when talking about the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath….  Katertismena, used of the vessels of wrath, is a perfect passive participle.  Proetoimasen, used of the vessels of mercy, is an aorist active indicative.  This change cannot be accidental, and it suggests that Paul means that the vessels of wrath are ripe or fit for destruction.  Indeed, one could follow the translation of John Chrysostom here and understand it in the middle voice: “‘have made themselves fit for’ destruction” (258).

With this point made, St. Paul’s quotation of Jeremiah makes perfect sense.  Jeremiah is discussing God’s relationship to the house of Israel, those descended from Jacob according to the flesh.  He has a right to do with them what He wishes.  Then St. Paul explains that God endured the wickedness of the people of Israel as long as He did because it enabled Him to make known His mercy within the New Covenant Church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

We have seen thus far two very important things.  First, St. Paul is not speaking about salvation.  Second, St. Paul is not speaking about individuals, but covenant groups.  With these things proven, St. Paul’s argument is this: God’s covenant was never with a fleshly body.  Rather, he elected covenant nations according to His own wisdom and purpose.  Who can question the will and wisdom of God?   He has a right to mold His covenant people into whatever He wishes.  He has never broken His promise to true Israel, for true Israel is now all who are faithful to Jesus the Messiah, that is, the people of the Church.  God has elected the Church rather than fleshly Israel in order to save Gentiles, and eventually to bring salvation full circle so that all Israel may be saved as well.  Gentiles are now a part of true covenant Israel, and hence St. Paul quotes the prophet in verse twenty-five, saying “As indeed he says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call my people, and her who was not beloved I will call beloved.’”

Works Cited

Edwards, James. Romans: New International Bible Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity. London: Quercus Books, 2007.

Moo, Douglas. Romans. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 3: Romans to Philemon. Clinton E. Arnold, Gen. Ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Witherington, Ben. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Two Kinds of Wisdom: James 3:13-18

Christopher Rush

This year, during our consecrated times together, we will be exploring the cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, justice, moderation, as well as the three foundational Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.  While it might appear to a cursory examination that these will be disparate messages relating in no way to one another, that is certainly not true.  When I say that this message concludes the subject of wisdom and that next week we will discuss courage, do not think that you will be allowed to forget about wisdom.  As Mr. Moon said earlier, wisdom is the foundation of all the virtues we will examine throughout the year.

In math class, when you have advanced so far as to leave even numbers behind, regardless of the complexity of the calculations you and your calculator will be computing, you will never leave the basic principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  In English class, when you have advanced so far that you can analyze patterns and themes from any literary era or movement, interpreting metaphors, ironies, and symbols with the ease of an Inkling, you will never leave the basic principles of grammar, mechanics, and usage.

Wisdom is the goal, as well as the commencement.  Last week Mr. Moon exegeted for us the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of that list is the fact that the first and last categories of people both receive the same reward.  “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:3).  “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10).  Eternal life is the beginning of the Christian experience; it is also its end.  Even so, wisdom is the beginning of these virtues and will also be their end.  So do not think that while we are talking about courage or justice or faith that we aren’t talking about wisdom — we are always talking about wisdom.

As we sort-of-but-not-really conclude our time with wisdom, it occurred to me that a practical passage on wisdom would be of great benefit to all of us.  This is an odd occurrence, since I usually despise practical sermons.  In my day I have visited a diverse panoply of church bodies and heard a variety of speakers.  Often, in my experience (which, if it differs from yours, good for you), practical sermons and series do not require the church attendee to open a Bible.  An odd thing, isn’t that, for a gathering of Christians in an official “body of Christ” situation to neglect?  If I had to pick one thing that I hoped of all graduates of Summit Christian Academy after they leave my humble tutelage — just one thing — it would not, I must admit, be the chiastic structure of The Iliad, or great symbols of the Mississippi River in Huck Finn, or even that they purposed to commit the Shakespearean canon to memory.  The one thing, if I must choose only one thing, that I hope for all students of Summit, is that you love the Word of God (both written and incarnate), and cling to it desperately as you go out to a world that passionately hates you.  So today, without apology, we will be reading from the Word of God.  And, conveniently enough, it is both doctrinal (my personal favorite) and practical.  Bonus.

The Book of James is a superbly practical book.  Last year, the Men’s Ministry Team spent much quality time reading this book, and we examined its dozens of explicit commands on how to live the Christian life.  Throughout his letter, James makes many of his points using a great literary device known as juxtaposition.

Juxtaposition places two opposite ideas or characters next to each other to compare and contrast their attributes.  This technique has been used throughout time in many areas, from literature to music to general entertainment.  Homer places the greatest warrior of Greece sulking in his tent; next to him, Homer places Hector, Troy’s last, best hope for victory.  Taking both of his works together, we see the warrior mentality of Achilles contrasted with the strategic guile of Odysseus.  When opposite characters aren’t enemies but friends, they are sometimes called “foils.”  Hamlet has his Horatio, Darcy has his Bingley, and Holmes has his Watson.  I didn’t realize it when I first thought of these three examples, but upon further reflection it occurred to me that Hamlet, Darcy, and Holmes are all silent, brooding thinkers, while Horatio, Bingley, and Watson are all resolutely loyal to their often-sullen friends.

Many songwriters have also employed juxtaposition to get across their points, usually within about three minutes:

Well I would walk a million miles

To give her all that she needs

She would walk a million more

To do well as she pleased

Once upon a time I was fallin’ in love

Now I’m only fallin’ apart

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Back in the day when comedians were funny because they were funny and not because they were vulgar, some of the greatest comedians of the 20th-century came in pairs — not pairs of comedians, but pairs of entertainers.  One was the comedian; the other was the straight man, often, but not always, a singer.  If you don’t know Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis, or Hope and Crosby, then you probably don’t actually know what comedy is.  No offense.

Though many of the previous examples of juxtaposition were opposites, they were complementary opposites (except for the music — funny how that happens).  Holmes and Watson and Abbott and Costello needed each other for success.  The juxtapositions James puts forth in his letter, however, are not complementary.  Most of his juxtapositions are either one choice or the other.  One choice is for life, the other for death.  And, like Romeo and Juliet, life and death can’t really spend a whole lot of time together.

In chapter 3, James gives the classic exhortation on taming the tongue.  He concludes by pointing out the inconceivability of the same water source producing both salt and fresh water and the unimaginable situation of a fig tree producing olives or a grapevine producing figs.  From those logical impossibilities James turns to the subject of wisdom.  And, as his wont, he juxtaposes two kinds of wisdom in James 3, verses 13-18:

13Who is wise and understanding among you?  By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.  15This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  18And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

(English Standard Version)

As we have seen throughout this month, wisdom, according to the Bible, has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement.  Pride, boasting, and self-serving behavior are not acceptable by-products of wisdom.  In his classic commentary, Matthew Henry says, “[t]hese verses show the difference between man’s pretending to be wise, and their being really so.  He who thinks well, or he who talks well, is not wise in the sense of the Scripture, if he does not live and act well.  True wisdom may be known by the meekness of the spirit and temper.”  People who boast about their knowledge may in fact know a great deal of information.  Wisdom, however, they lack.  Wisdom is meek and allows the wise to live well.  Of the two kinds of wisdom, let us focus on the negative then turn to the positive.

Earthly wisdom is, in fact, no wisdom at all.  We may think we are being wise or intelligent when we plan and perhaps even succeed under our own strength or ability.  When we focus on ourselves, though, we can’t but help to think that all people are focusing on themselves.  So when we succeed, as James intimates, on our own power we boast and brag since it is something we have done by ourselves — no one helped us, not even God.  “Look at what great things I have done,” we say, perhaps only to ourselves.  Maybe our boasting is internal, and the world around sees nothing but a smug smile on our faces.  But James warns us that we have not in any way actually succeeding at anything.  We are, in fact, “being false to the truth.”  When we are consumed by selfish ambition and boasting about our accomplishments, we completely fail to see who has done the actual work or given us the ability to accomplish anything.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, when we are so wrapped up in selfish ambition, leaving no room for thoughts about others, not even God, we are forced to assume that all people around us are succeeding on their own merits and abilities.  This does not allow us to be glad for other people when they succeed, especially if it is against us.  If we are trying to win even something so inconsequential as a game with our selfish ambition and we lose, do we feel glad for our conqueror?  Of course not!  Our skills and abilities fell short, so we are deficient.  James readily acknowledges that a mind of selfish ambition cannot think positively about others.  Instead, as he says, we regard others with bitter jealousy.

Too many churches and too many Christians despise each other not because of doctrinal error or truly abhorrent practices, but because we are ensconced in selfish ambition and so are bitterly jealous of others when they succeed.  “Oh, well, if we lived in California and had Rick Warren as our head pastor, of course we’d have a huge, growing church!  Obviously if we had Chris Tomlin as our worship leader no doubt our worship times would be alive and meaningful — but we don’t have them!”  Utter preposterousness, as if God made a mistake when placing you here and now and not then and there!  Envying other churches because they have a success outreach campaign and we don’t?  This is certainly not admirable.  We aren’t to be jealous of Christians as if their success came from their strengths and abilities.

Selfish ambition is not new to the church.  Moments after Jesus restores Peter three times, according to the rule of three, Peter has the supreme dullness to look back at John and ask the Christ about what is going to happen to him.  Based on Jesus’ emphatic response, we can believe that Peter was not asking out of genuine concern for his fellow believer.  He was asking out of selfish ambition.  Jesus, knowing that could only lead to bitter jealousy, responded wonderfully.  “What is that to you?!  Don’t you concern yourself with what I have appointed for him.  YOU FOLLOW ME.”  Selfish ambition is lost in its focus and has no possibility of success or glorifying God.  The cure is to change our focus.  Follow Christ and His purposes.  Realize that we can do nothing on our own for good.  Any intelligence, any physical ability, any skill or talent we have did not originate within us!  Sure, we may have practiced and honed those skills and talents, but we did not endow them into ourselves when we were born.  All these things — our reasoning abilities, our strength, our very life — have come from above.  When we think we have done something we are mistaken and are being “false to the truth.”

Verse fifteen helps to clarify the nature of this selfish ambition.  When we believe that we are capable of success or goodness on our own, we are not truly employing wisdom.  The “wisdom” that enables bitter jealousy, boasting, and falsehood is not a heavenly wisdom; it is of this sinful earth — perhaps James is making the point that this kind of thinking is akin to the level of thinking done by a rock or a tree (not very complimentary).  Matthew Henry says of this verse

Those who live in malice, envy, and contention, live in confusion; and are liable to be provoked and hurried to any evil work.  Such wisdom comes not down from above, but springs up from earthly principles, acts on earthly motives, and is intent on serving earthly purposes.

Not only is it of this world, but James continues to describe its true origin: it is an unspiritual kind of thought process.  I would doubt that he is arguing for Monism, as if thoughts are merely chemical reactions to external stimuli and are simply mechanical functions of a material brain.  Instead, I believe he is trying to say that this kind of thinking is as far from God’s thinking as can be, a point he drives home in the last of his list of three: this thinking is demonic.  Now we get to the source of this “wisdom.”

Most people I’ve met, at one time or another, tend to get confused.  Well, about many things, but in particular, we all seem to believe that there is this thing that exists we like to call “what I want to do.”  Perhaps we phrase it like, “when I graduate and move out I’m going to start doing what I want to do, and my parents can’t do anything about it.”  “As soon as I get to college, boy, I’m going to do what I want to do.”  Unfortunately, though, and while I may be mistaken, I’ve come to believe that this thing we like to call “what I want to do” doesn’t actually exist.  There are really only two choices: what God wants me to do and what Satan wants me to do.

Now, please don’t misunderstand.  I am not in any way arguing, and I don’t believe James is arguing, for aggregate Dualism.  There are not, as some faiths posit, two eternal superpowers one we call “Good” the other “Bad” or “God” and the “Devil” (or both called “Lazarus”) constantly at war and neither is stronger than the other, but they are both equal and locked in mortal combat and we sometimes get caught in the crossfire.  That’s not what I’m saying: Satan and God are not equal in power or authority.  I’m saying that those are the only two alternatives we have by which to live our lives: God’s way or Satan’s way.  James, as mentioned before, does not give us a third option, usually.  We have a dilemma: whom will we follow?  What kind of wisdom will we employ?  There is no “my wisdom” or “what I want to do.”  Perhaps seeing the outcomes of both wisdoms will aid our choice.

Verse sixteen shows us the end of demonic wisdom: if we wrap ourselves in selfish ambition and jealousy, what do we find at the end?  Happiness?  Prosperity?  Never-ceasing fountains of root beer and skittles?  No.  We find “disorder and every vile practice.”  Selfish ambition and bitter jealousy are not easily sated.  In fact, I doubt they ever are.  Has Satan grown tired of doing what is evil yet?  I don’t think so.  And he’s very adept at it, too.  Jealousy can’t wish well-being on others and is not content to watch others succeed.  Selfish ambition does not promote harmony and cooperation but disorder and every vile practice.  I think we have all had enough experience at being alive that we need not go into detail about that phrase.  James, too, knows it is enough to say it before he moves on.  And so shall we.

The only other option before us is “the wisdom from above,” in verse seventeen.  This wisdom is “first pure.”  Have you ever had a cold glass of filtered water?  It is remarkable: no color, no taste, no additives — simply unadulterated refreshment.  It is no wonder that the best food and drinks that enable us to live a salubrious life are those that are pure.  Purity is essential.

Wisdom is peaceable.  Opposed to the disorder of selfish ambition and bitter jealousy, genuine wisdom is calm, quiet, serene, and harmonious.  The purity of a single glass of water expands to the tranquility of a placid lake in the cool of the late afternoon, sitting in a chair sipping fresh water reading Ivanhoe.  Peaceable wisdom acknowledges that God is the author of ability, intelligence, and success and needs not be jealous of others, since God is doing His work through others.  Peaceable wisdom knows that any achievements we do are because He has allowed and enabled them, not because we are self-sufficient.

Wisdom is gentle.  Certainly there is the time for righteous indignation accompanied by swift and concentrated justice.  Yet, wisdom is habitually gentle.  There is no boasting or bragging with wisdom.  College professors who bludgeon you with their lectures and ignore queries do so because they do not have wisdom.  They merely have a repository of knowledge and have no idea what to do with it.  Wisdom is calm and tender.  Jesus is the Lamb who was slain, silent before His shearers, benevolently taking the malevolence of sin upon Himself for us all.  Wisdom is honey to the lips, sweet and soothing.

Wisdom is open to reason.  Unlike the professors who allow for no argument or diverging opinions, wisdom from above seeks rational, intelligent discourse.  “Come, let us reason together,” calls the Lord.  We were created by and in the image of a rational Being who desires reasonable responses and interactions.  We could have been made mindless automatons who know of nothing but worshipping God, yet we have the choice and ability as Christians to reason with Him, to understand Him and His ways as much as we can.  God desires that.  Your teachers desire rational discussions and interactions with you because wisdom is open to reason.

Wisdom is full of mercy and good fruits.  Not Fruit Snacks, but real, pure fruit.  A pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable attitude might be good enough from our perspective but not for the wisdom from above.  A bounty of mercy is almost too good to be true.  Wisdom from above understands the nature of fallen beings and the being-sanctified-but-not-yet-glorified nature of justified beings.  We need mercy, not just at the cross, but frequently, yea, daily.  Moment by moment, in fact.  Mercy does not obviate justice.  Just as the gentleness of wisdom allows for anger in its time, mercy does not let things go just to let things go.  Mercy has already paid the penalty for our transgressions, and mercy rebukes the Accuser when he tries to bring up forgiven debts.

Wisdom’s “good fruits” are the subjects of the remainder of our chapels this year, in the remaining cardinal virtues and the Christian virtues.  No doubt, too, they are the “fruit of the Spirit” Paul recites in Galatians.  James possibly also has in mind what he said in verse thirteen, that wisdom is shown in action.  Wisdom, some have said, is the right application of knowledge.  Having previously discussed earlier in chapter three that the same water source cannot produce both salt and fresh water, neither can the wisdom from above produce anything but good fruits.  The actions of the wise are good fruit.  Have you ever picked fruit from trees or vines?  It doesn’t take much effort to collect ripe fruit.  Actions done from wisdom are no struggle to perform and only benefit those who receive them.  Matthew Henry says this: “Those who are lifted up with such wisdom, described by the apostle James, is near to the Christian love, described by the apostle Paul; and both are so described that every man may fully prove the reality of his attainments in them.”

Wisdom is impartial and sincere.  According to Matthew Henry, “It has no disguise or deceit.  It cannot fall in with those managements the world counts wise, which are crafty and guileful; but it is sincere, and open, and steady, and uniform, and consistent with itself.”  Wisdom pays no attention to nationalities or gender.  It is consistent regardless of who needs it because it is pure.  In sincerity, wisdom never does anything “because it has to,” because it was assigned as homework, or “if it feels like it.”  Wisdom does what is right fully and whole-heartedly every time — all the time.

Then the good fruits of wisdom become an entire harvest of righteousness, and the peace that passes all understanding sows a bountiful reward for those who are blessed by the wisdom from above.  Genuine wisdom makes peace — how could it not?  It is pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, and sincere.  It does not “keep” the peace, placating tempers and symptoms while ignoring the sin and contention.  Wisdom solves conflict by bringing resolution, often by exposing sin and leading one to repentance and then, ultimately, peace.

How do we know which of the two kinds of wisdom we follow?  Our deeds will show us.  It is that simple.  If we are sowing a harvest of righteousness in peace, if we are pure, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, sincere — we are wise with the wisdom from above.  If we are selfishly ambitious, bitterly jealous of others, always looking down and thinking about the things of this world, we are suffocating in the wisdom of this world, which is, in truth, a demonic distortion of wisdom.

The goal is wisdom, yet it is also the beginning.  I am reminded of the words of a not too-old spiritual, perhaps you may have heard it before.  This version I’m thinking of, though, is not the original, but the occasional live rendition performed years after its initial composition, done by the same artists, perhaps modified to reflect the growth and introspection after several years of performance and life:

You broke the bonds and

You loosed the chains

You carried the cross

You took my shame

You took the pain

You know I believe it

But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.

Just as in the Beatitudes with the kingdom of Heaven being the initial and final reward, just as eternal life is something we can have now and can have in greater fullness in the next life, so, too, is wisdom the beginning as well as the goal.  While it may seem like we are done talking about wisdom and that we are moving on to another topic, we will find throughout this year that the more we talk about courage, justice, moderation, faith, hope, and love, we are really talking about the “good fruits” of wisdom.  It is always what we are looking for, no matter how much we may find it, no matter how well we experience it and live it out.

As a benediction, I will close with one final quotation from Matthew Henry’s insightful commentary on James chapter 3:

May the purity, peace, gentleness, teachableness, and mercy shown in all our actions, and the fruits of righteousness abounding in our lives, prove that God has bestowed upon us this excellent gift [of wisdom].

This essay is adapted from a chapel address given September 28, 2007.