The other day, Fanny and I were discussing the genealogy of our Lord recorded in Matthew’s gospel and the profound significance it has in connection with the first Advent of our Lord in history. In the next few posts, I'll share some of those observations.
Matthew 1:1 is a flag, evoking in the readers’ hearts millennia of salvation history. Approximately 2000 years before, God covenanted a people for himself. Through the loins of Abraham would come One through whom God would bless “all nations” (Gen 22:18); and through this coming One, Abraham would, with all his spiritual children “inherit the world” (Rom 4:13). Matt 1:1 is the cry that salvation history was climaxing...the coming One had come!
If the Promise-Fulfillment paradigm for understanding the unity between the Old and New Testaments is taken up, few verses could challenge the sheer volume of that motif when compared to Matt 1:1.
From v. 2 through v. 16, Matthew gives us a detailed catalogue of names. The Advent of the Messiah was not happenstance; it was sovereign Providence. Furthermore, despite a history of bitter warfare and all the best efforts of the “seed of the serpent,” the “Seed of the woman” (Gen 3:15) had arrived; he had come to take possession of the “gate of his enemy” (Gen 22:17). This covenant promise of God to Abraham, that his seed would posses the gate of his enemy, was also a blessing over Isaac’s—“the son of Abraham”—bride, Rebekah (Gen 24:60). In it’s fulfillment, the same blessing is given to Jesus’—the Greater “Son of Abraham”—bride, the Church (Matt 16:18).
How often do we slog and plod through this genealogy (if not simply skip it altogether) in order to get to the “good stuff”? But this is the “good stuff”! Matthew did not include this list merely to prove Jesus regal right to David’s throne. That’s one purpose to be sure, but that’s not all.
From the time of Yahweh’s special, redemptive promises and purposes, beginning in his sovereign election of Abram (Gen 12), til the climax and fulfillment of that covenant in the Person and work of Jesus, the epinarrative of history—historia salutis—was being wrought by God through the micronarratives of the lives behind these names. This is Gospel! This was the soil in which the Seed of the woman, of David, of Abraham would be planted; from this loamy heritage the “Root of Jesse” would shoot forth his branches, creating a plant so great that “all nations” would come and find their eschatological Rest beneath its boughs (Matt13:32).
The chapters immediately preceding the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham (Gen 10, 11) and his Seed is the table of “all the nations” in rebellion to God, God’s judgment and his turning from “all nations” to one nation—one family, Israel. Matthew’s genealogy takes us from that great turning point and its Promise to the Great turning point and its Fulfillment, when God’s Kingdom would turn again. Thus in the chapters that follow Matthew 1, we see God through Jesus turning from that one nation in judgement to again adopt and baptize “all nations” (Matt 28:19) into his one family, the New Israel.
And who is at the center? Christ Jesus our Lord, King of Israel, King of Kings, King of Glory. Promise at one foot and Fulfillment at the other, they bow and kiss the Son:
A. Abrahamic Covenant (Promise – Gen 12 – 22)
B. Davidic Covenant (Promise – 2 Sam 7; Ps 89)
C. “Jesus Christ, the son...” (Matt 1:1a)
B'. “...of David...” (Fulfillment – 1:1b)
A'. “...of Abraham.” (Fulfillment – 1:1c)
Matthew’s genealogy, therefore, is a list of those who “all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar...And all these, though commended through their faith, did not received what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb 11:13, 39—40).
“And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). And through your adoption “in Christ Jesus you are all son’s of God, through faith!” (3:26).
Therefore, the names we too often slog and plod through are the first half of the Great Drama of Grace, the story of redemption; it’s their story and it’s our story too. In Christ, the Center, their promises are ours, and his fulfillment becomes theirs. We share their history, they share our future. It’s the history and the future of a people created and redeemed by God, for his glory. Christ, the Center, is Father’s gift to us; we are the Father’s gift to him, the Bride of his choosing.
Redemptive history is not over; it’s accomplished in Christ, being fulfilled by the Holy Spirit daily in our micronarratives and throughout the world in God’s epinarrative. “Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham” is at the center of the latter, by grace, O’ Lord, let him be at the center of the former!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
They're all about choice, right?!?!?
Woman's Lawsuit: She Yelled Stop, Practitioner Continued With Forced Abortion, Flint, MI
(LifeNews.com) -- Alberto Hodari owns six abortion centers in Michigan and LifeNews.com has delivered multiple reports on how he has three of them up for sale. A new lawsuit from a woman who says he forced her to have an abortion could explain why Hodari is quickly moving to divest himself of his abortion business.
Hodari, who has killed at least two women in botched abortions, put a for sale sign on his Flint, Michigan center last week and also on his facilities in Livonia and Southgate.
Today, Operation Rescue president Troy Newman provided LifeNews.com with more details of the lawsuit based on the records filed in court.
Bruce filed a suit against Hodari and his assistant, "Victor" on June 17 over an incident that took place at Hodari's Flint abortion center in April 2008. Bruce alleges that she went to Hodari's clinic seeking an abortion, but, before the abortion began, she changed her mind, decided against it and told Hodari. However, Hodari and his assistant forcibly restrained Bruce and held her down, according to her suit.
Bruce screamed "Stop, stop, I don't want this," but her mouth was covered to muffle her pleas while Hodari forced her to have the abortion. See full story here.
(LifeNews.com) -- Alberto Hodari owns six abortion centers in Michigan and LifeNews.com has delivered multiple reports on how he has three of them up for sale. A new lawsuit from a woman who says he forced her to have an abortion could explain why Hodari is quickly moving to divest himself of his abortion business.
Hodari, who has killed at least two women in botched abortions, put a for sale sign on his Flint, Michigan center last week and also on his facilities in Livonia and Southgate.
Today, Operation Rescue president Troy Newman provided LifeNews.com with more details of the lawsuit based on the records filed in court.
Bruce filed a suit against Hodari and his assistant, "Victor" on June 17 over an incident that took place at Hodari's Flint abortion center in April 2008. Bruce alleges that she went to Hodari's clinic seeking an abortion, but, before the abortion began, she changed her mind, decided against it and told Hodari. However, Hodari and his assistant forcibly restrained Bruce and held her down, according to her suit.
Bruce screamed "Stop, stop, I don't want this," but her mouth was covered to muffle her pleas while Hodari forced her to have the abortion. See full story here.
Thoughts from Irenaeus on the Incarnation
It never fails. Tis the season to hear from every facet of the media, both local and national, attacks on the miraculous birth of our Savior and King. Inevitably, toward the end of most of the letters, columns, articles, or interviews, the author will make a vain attempt at consolation, concluding their drivel with Gnostic-like remarks about how one needn’t believe the reality and/or historicity of the event of the Incarnation to see the ‘real spiritual message and meaning.’
Hear this word from Irenaeus against the Gnostics of his day (...and ours as well):
“And, if one does not accept His birth from a virgin, how can he accept His resurrection from the dead? For it is no astonishing, nor marvelous or extraordinary thing if, without being born, He neither rose from the dead; moreover we cannot even speak of the resurrection of one who is unbegotten, since one who is unbegotten is also immortal, and one who has not undergone birth will neither undergo death—for one who has not had the beginning of a man, how is he able to assume his end? So, if He was not born, neither did he die; neither was He raised from the dead; and if he was not raised from the dead, death is not conquered nor its kingdom destroyed; and if death is not conquered, how are we to ascend to life, having fallen under death from the beginning?” (Demonstration on the Apostolic Preaching, 38—9)
Irenaeus got it right. For those who deny the time-space reality of the Incarnation, there is still a ‘real spiritual message and meaning’ left for us to hear, namely that we all remain “fallen under death from the beginning.”
So, as Christmas season rushes upon us, let us be all the more convinced of the hard, earthy realism of our most holy Faith, of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Who “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” (Phil 2:7—8); the eternal One, who “became flesh and dwelt among us,” and so became the Self-same historical One (Jn 1:14). And let us, “being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him (the devil) on behalf of the weak” (Justin, On the Resurrection, 1, read in full here), following in the steps of the Master whose appearing was to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8)!
Hear this word from Irenaeus against the Gnostics of his day (...and ours as well):
“And, if one does not accept His birth from a virgin, how can he accept His resurrection from the dead? For it is no astonishing, nor marvelous or extraordinary thing if, without being born, He neither rose from the dead; moreover we cannot even speak of the resurrection of one who is unbegotten, since one who is unbegotten is also immortal, and one who has not undergone birth will neither undergo death—for one who has not had the beginning of a man, how is he able to assume his end? So, if He was not born, neither did he die; neither was He raised from the dead; and if he was not raised from the dead, death is not conquered nor its kingdom destroyed; and if death is not conquered, how are we to ascend to life, having fallen under death from the beginning?” (Demonstration on the Apostolic Preaching, 38—9)
Irenaeus got it right. For those who deny the time-space reality of the Incarnation, there is still a ‘real spiritual message and meaning’ left for us to hear, namely that we all remain “fallen under death from the beginning.”
So, as Christmas season rushes upon us, let us be all the more convinced of the hard, earthy realism of our most holy Faith, of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Who “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” (Phil 2:7—8); the eternal One, who “became flesh and dwelt among us,” and so became the Self-same historical One (Jn 1:14). And let us, “being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him (the devil) on behalf of the weak” (Justin, On the Resurrection, 1, read in full here), following in the steps of the Master whose appearing was to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8)!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Our Absolute-Personal God!
One of the most fundamental and unique doctrines of confessional Christianity is the absolute personality of God. Only biblical religion presents humanity with a God who is both absolute and personal; and this we have in the Trinity.
Not unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, God as the personal-absolute cannot be reduced to neat and tidy little propositional proof-texts. Nevertheless, one doesn’t have to read too many pages into the Bible to come face to Face with the One who is completely independent, Self-existent and wholly Self-sufficient. Or to use the arcane Latin term, God has aseity. This is the God or Elohim of Genesis 1, who merely wills and speaks and creates the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing and over against nothing. However, unlike the gods of Unitarian religions, such as deism, Islam, Judaism and the Watchtower Society, our God is not only absolute, but also personal; he can enter into relationship with his creatures while retaining his absoluteness. This is the personal, covenanting God of Genesis 2, whose name is Yahweh.
Likewise, Psalm 19 presents us with a similar portrait of God, this time in only 14 verses. The first 6 verses magnify the revelation and glory of God in creation, extolling his power or absoluteness. In these verses, like in Genesis 1, the author uses Elohim. From v. 7 through 14, the psalmist refers to God as Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, who graciously reveals himself to his people through his Word, the interpretive lenses through which humanity is to view and understand the world God created. Here, then, he is presented as personal; he’s relational.
So, whether it’s the opening two chapters of Genesis or the shorter 14 verses of Psalm 19, we meet a God who is Creator and Controller; he’s absolutely sovereign over all his works. And as Absolute, he speaks with absolute authority. He needs nothing outside of himself for knowledge of either himself or of his creation, since in one eternal act of knowing he comprehensively knows himself, and thus knows all things and events, as they are the result of his plan and power.
While God’s absoluteness is what grants him the authority, it is his personality that makes him able to speak to us. For eternity, the Persons of the Trinity have been in a loving, communal Fellowship. So, the triune God by definition is personal. Unlike other gods, then, our God did not have to change substantially, thus losing his absoluteness, in order to speak.
Lastly, while there aren’t any “proof-texts” that give us some cursory statement of this doctrine, I believe the concept is intended by John in the opening verses of his gospel. In verses 1—3 of chapter 1, John structures the concepts by way of chiasm, having five members. Let me illustrate.
A. (Absolute) In the beginning was the Word, (v. 1a)
B. (Personal) and the Word was with God, (v. 1b)
C. (God) and the Word was God. (v. 1c)
B' (Personal) He was in the beginning with God. (v. 2)
A' (Absolute) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (v. 3)
You can see the structure: Absolute-Personal-God-Personal-Absolute. This text is generally understood to be teaching us the deity of the Word, Jesus. Indeed, and even more! It speaks to us about the very kind of God he is--the Absolute Personality!
This doctrine cannot be stressed enough. For evangelism, apologetics and Christian life and practice, few other doctrines are as important or as practical (I’ll try to unpack this some in future posts ;).
Blessings
Not unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, God as the personal-absolute cannot be reduced to neat and tidy little propositional proof-texts. Nevertheless, one doesn’t have to read too many pages into the Bible to come face to Face with the One who is completely independent, Self-existent and wholly Self-sufficient. Or to use the arcane Latin term, God has aseity. This is the God or Elohim of Genesis 1, who merely wills and speaks and creates the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing and over against nothing. However, unlike the gods of Unitarian religions, such as deism, Islam, Judaism and the Watchtower Society, our God is not only absolute, but also personal; he can enter into relationship with his creatures while retaining his absoluteness. This is the personal, covenanting God of Genesis 2, whose name is Yahweh.
Likewise, Psalm 19 presents us with a similar portrait of God, this time in only 14 verses. The first 6 verses magnify the revelation and glory of God in creation, extolling his power or absoluteness. In these verses, like in Genesis 1, the author uses Elohim. From v. 7 through 14, the psalmist refers to God as Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, who graciously reveals himself to his people through his Word, the interpretive lenses through which humanity is to view and understand the world God created. Here, then, he is presented as personal; he’s relational.
So, whether it’s the opening two chapters of Genesis or the shorter 14 verses of Psalm 19, we meet a God who is Creator and Controller; he’s absolutely sovereign over all his works. And as Absolute, he speaks with absolute authority. He needs nothing outside of himself for knowledge of either himself or of his creation, since in one eternal act of knowing he comprehensively knows himself, and thus knows all things and events, as they are the result of his plan and power.
While God’s absoluteness is what grants him the authority, it is his personality that makes him able to speak to us. For eternity, the Persons of the Trinity have been in a loving, communal Fellowship. So, the triune God by definition is personal. Unlike other gods, then, our God did not have to change substantially, thus losing his absoluteness, in order to speak.
Lastly, while there aren’t any “proof-texts” that give us some cursory statement of this doctrine, I believe the concept is intended by John in the opening verses of his gospel. In verses 1—3 of chapter 1, John structures the concepts by way of chiasm, having five members. Let me illustrate.
A. (Absolute) In the beginning was the Word, (v. 1a)
B. (Personal) and the Word was with God, (v. 1b)
C. (God) and the Word was God. (v. 1c)
B' (Personal) He was in the beginning with God. (v. 2)
A' (Absolute) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (v. 3)
You can see the structure: Absolute-Personal-God-Personal-Absolute. This text is generally understood to be teaching us the deity of the Word, Jesus. Indeed, and even more! It speaks to us about the very kind of God he is--the Absolute Personality!
This doctrine cannot be stressed enough. For evangelism, apologetics and Christian life and practice, few other doctrines are as important or as practical (I’ll try to unpack this some in future posts ;).
Blessings
“Talking Back” to Mcloughlin
This post is one of many editorial letters that we have written in response to a particularly zealous and outspoken atheist who lives near Lynchburg. He’s another Village Atheist who parrots the hate-filled verbiage so common with popular level writers, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. In many of his letters, he’s not been above calling Christians and Christianity “a virus that is infecting our species.”
The introductory paragraph offers some context, so I hope you find it helpful.
The following is another response to a past letter submitted by David Mcloughlin. The dilemma he proposed in that letter was that Christians are inconsistent in maintaining that Exodus 21:17, for example, which reads, “Whoever curses his mother or his father shall be put to death,” is an inspired word from God, and yet at the same time aren’t killing their children for—as he puts it—“talking back.” Nevertheless, is this a true dilemma?
Mcloughlin’s challenge, in large measure, depends on a wrongheaded understanding of the term “curse,” taken to mean “talking back.” Indeed, especially in modern English parlance, “curse” can denote verbal abuse; however, this verse is simply a negative expression of the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and mother...” (Ex 20:12). In this case the term “curse” is the opposite of “honor,” which is surely not meant to convey mere verbal honor. Rather, “curse” means to repudiate, disesteem, despise, disregard.
This meaning of the term is clearly evidenced by a statement made by God in I Samuel 2:30. Therein the same Hebrew words behind the English words “honor” and “curse” are used in an ancient literary devise known as a parallelism: “[F]or those who honor (same Hebrew word used in the fifth commandment) me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (or “disgraced,” the same word for “curse” in Exodus 21:17). The force of the statement depends on “honor” and “lightly esteemed” (“curse” in Exodus 21:17) being antithetical, contrary to one another; and “lightly esteemed” and “despise” being synonymous. Therefore, the term “curse” has to do with one’s attitude toward and treatment of one’s parents, not merely “talking back.”
We see that a right understanding of the term “curse,” as how one treats parents, not what they say, eliminates half of Mcloughlin’s argument. But what about the seemingly difficult penal stipulation, “Whoever curses...shall be put to death”? What are we to make of this?
It first needs to be recognized that the temporal, retributive action of this command is part of a larger covenantal framework, were God has become the King of the new theocratic nation Israel, by means of his graciously delivering them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 20:2). After the peoples’ voluntary agreement to the terms of the covenant, it was ratified by blood and became the law of the community, under their new King (Exodus 24:7—8). Secondly, with the exception of first degree murder, there is evidence that there were “ransom/redemption” options available for those who committed crimes worthy of capital punishment under the covenant (e.g., Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31). Moreover, the “cursing” child was not subject to the whimsical disposition of the parents, for there was a due process. This is clear from the “rebellious son” section in Deuteronomy 21:18—21.
This passage indicates three important points. The first is that it is adult children that are in view. In both Jewish and pagan cultures official right and responsibility under the Law (or laws in pagan contexts) came at an age which inaugurated manhood (e.g., the bar mitzvah in Jewish tradition). Therefore, the breeching of this commandment entails much more than sassy talk from a small child. Moreover, in the ancient Near East, the eldest son of the household was given full rights over the family’s estate long before the death of the parents. It was then the responsibility of the “firstborn son” to insure the provision and well being of the parents and the whole family. This is largely what is meant by “honoring” the parents; with “cursing” its opposite. This is exactly how Jesus himself interpreted both Exodus 20:12 and 21:17. He quoted them in order to demonstrate that the Jewish leaders of his day had “left...rejected...made void the word of God,” namely the two commands we are considering, in order to hold on to a tradition that prevented adult children from caring for their aging parents (Mark 7:1—13).
Secondly, there was a due process in which the entire community was involved, because the foundation and structure of the entire community was in jeopardy through such flagrant disregard of the covenant which bound them to one another and their covenant King, Yahweh. Last, and thirdly, titling a son of the covenant “a glutton and a drunkard” was an official and legal charge that warranted death. This much is clear and is important for understanding certain words of Jesus himself.
The Old Testament Law was not merely a legal code, it also pointed to something progressive, something beyond itself. Jesus, in Matthew 5:17 said that he came to “fulfill” the Law. Now in Matthew the term “fulfill” always has prophetic connotations; that is, the Law pointed forward to something greater, namely Jesus himself. So also in Matthew 11:13 Jesus states: “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John (the Baptist).” In 11:19 Jesus indicates what law he had in mind—Deuteronomy 21:18f—the ‘rebellious son’ passage. For he quotes his opponents as laying against him the official, legal charge of being “a glutton and a drunkard,” presenting it as further justification for their desire to put him to death. Jesus’ radical deeds and claims failed to “honor” the Jewish elders’ traditions and disrupted the Jewish community. Thus, Jesus was declared the “rebellious son.”
This part of Deuteronomy (21:15—23) was crucial for the New Testament authors’ understanding and exposition of Jesus’ work and function in God’s unfolding plan of redemption. Verses 15—17 concern the inheritance rights of “the first born.” Something important for understanding Jesus’ relationship to both the Father and his creation/new creation (see: Psalm 89:26f, Romans 8:28; Colossians 1:15—20; Hebrews 1:5—6; Revelation 1:5, etc). Then just after the “rebellious son” passage is the law regarding hanged criminals (Deuteronomy 21:22—23). These verses became precedents for understanding the Cross of Jesus, for Paul cites v. 23 in Galatians 3:13 saying, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” Hence, Deuteronomy 21 helps to interpret even the vicarious, atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross for all who believe him.
Finally, in one historic confession of the faith it is recognized that while the judicial penalties of the case laws (Exodus 21—23) were for the theocratic structures of ancient Israel, they still have “general equity” applicable in the modern world (WMC XIX:III). For instance, our topic is expressed as such in I Timothy 5:3—8. Here Paul says that children and grandchildren should demonstrate their godliness by caring for their widowed mothers, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is simply understanding and applying the “general equity,” that is, the principle meaning of the Old Testament laws we have been considering, and taking them from the temporal realm to the eternal, in light of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ.
This has shown that Mcloughlin’s hope of exposing Christians as living with contradictory beliefs is absurd. The term “curse” has next to nothing to do with “talking back.” Adult children rightfully caring for their aging parents is what is in view with regard to the punitive statutes. Because of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and his resurrection, those who trust him alone for their redemption can consistently live out the principle equity of such laws in the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Mcloughlin’s challenge has no bearing upon the Bible’s inerrancy or Christian life and practice. In other words, it is irrelevant to the discussion of both! Nevertheless, surly the question is reversible.
Mr. Mcloughlin, given your perspective, the evolutionary process of time and chance acting upon “eternal” matter, what justification do you have for even questioning parents killing their young. What is the basis for morality in the context of your view of the world? If “survival of the fittest” is the case, then it seems that both the “reality” and logical consistency of your worldview would demand the death of the younger and weaker, in order to eliminate their competition for food, mates, etc. Perhaps you should deal with the “beam” that is stuck in the eye of your own worldview before questioning the “speck” in that of others!
The introductory paragraph offers some context, so I hope you find it helpful.
The following is another response to a past letter submitted by David Mcloughlin. The dilemma he proposed in that letter was that Christians are inconsistent in maintaining that Exodus 21:17, for example, which reads, “Whoever curses his mother or his father shall be put to death,” is an inspired word from God, and yet at the same time aren’t killing their children for—as he puts it—“talking back.” Nevertheless, is this a true dilemma?
Mcloughlin’s challenge, in large measure, depends on a wrongheaded understanding of the term “curse,” taken to mean “talking back.” Indeed, especially in modern English parlance, “curse” can denote verbal abuse; however, this verse is simply a negative expression of the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and mother...” (Ex 20:12). In this case the term “curse” is the opposite of “honor,” which is surely not meant to convey mere verbal honor. Rather, “curse” means to repudiate, disesteem, despise, disregard.
This meaning of the term is clearly evidenced by a statement made by God in I Samuel 2:30. Therein the same Hebrew words behind the English words “honor” and “curse” are used in an ancient literary devise known as a parallelism: “[F]or those who honor (same Hebrew word used in the fifth commandment) me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (or “disgraced,” the same word for “curse” in Exodus 21:17). The force of the statement depends on “honor” and “lightly esteemed” (“curse” in Exodus 21:17) being antithetical, contrary to one another; and “lightly esteemed” and “despise” being synonymous. Therefore, the term “curse” has to do with one’s attitude toward and treatment of one’s parents, not merely “talking back.”
We see that a right understanding of the term “curse,” as how one treats parents, not what they say, eliminates half of Mcloughlin’s argument. But what about the seemingly difficult penal stipulation, “Whoever curses...shall be put to death”? What are we to make of this?
It first needs to be recognized that the temporal, retributive action of this command is part of a larger covenantal framework, were God has become the King of the new theocratic nation Israel, by means of his graciously delivering them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 20:2). After the peoples’ voluntary agreement to the terms of the covenant, it was ratified by blood and became the law of the community, under their new King (Exodus 24:7—8). Secondly, with the exception of first degree murder, there is evidence that there were “ransom/redemption” options available for those who committed crimes worthy of capital punishment under the covenant (e.g., Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31). Moreover, the “cursing” child was not subject to the whimsical disposition of the parents, for there was a due process. This is clear from the “rebellious son” section in Deuteronomy 21:18—21.
This passage indicates three important points. The first is that it is adult children that are in view. In both Jewish and pagan cultures official right and responsibility under the Law (or laws in pagan contexts) came at an age which inaugurated manhood (e.g., the bar mitzvah in Jewish tradition). Therefore, the breeching of this commandment entails much more than sassy talk from a small child. Moreover, in the ancient Near East, the eldest son of the household was given full rights over the family’s estate long before the death of the parents. It was then the responsibility of the “firstborn son” to insure the provision and well being of the parents and the whole family. This is largely what is meant by “honoring” the parents; with “cursing” its opposite. This is exactly how Jesus himself interpreted both Exodus 20:12 and 21:17. He quoted them in order to demonstrate that the Jewish leaders of his day had “left...rejected...made void the word of God,” namely the two commands we are considering, in order to hold on to a tradition that prevented adult children from caring for their aging parents (Mark 7:1—13).
Secondly, there was a due process in which the entire community was involved, because the foundation and structure of the entire community was in jeopardy through such flagrant disregard of the covenant which bound them to one another and their covenant King, Yahweh. Last, and thirdly, titling a son of the covenant “a glutton and a drunkard” was an official and legal charge that warranted death. This much is clear and is important for understanding certain words of Jesus himself.
The Old Testament Law was not merely a legal code, it also pointed to something progressive, something beyond itself. Jesus, in Matthew 5:17 said that he came to “fulfill” the Law. Now in Matthew the term “fulfill” always has prophetic connotations; that is, the Law pointed forward to something greater, namely Jesus himself. So also in Matthew 11:13 Jesus states: “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John (the Baptist).” In 11:19 Jesus indicates what law he had in mind—Deuteronomy 21:18f—the ‘rebellious son’ passage. For he quotes his opponents as laying against him the official, legal charge of being “a glutton and a drunkard,” presenting it as further justification for their desire to put him to death. Jesus’ radical deeds and claims failed to “honor” the Jewish elders’ traditions and disrupted the Jewish community. Thus, Jesus was declared the “rebellious son.”
This part of Deuteronomy (21:15—23) was crucial for the New Testament authors’ understanding and exposition of Jesus’ work and function in God’s unfolding plan of redemption. Verses 15—17 concern the inheritance rights of “the first born.” Something important for understanding Jesus’ relationship to both the Father and his creation/new creation (see: Psalm 89:26f, Romans 8:28; Colossians 1:15—20; Hebrews 1:5—6; Revelation 1:5, etc). Then just after the “rebellious son” passage is the law regarding hanged criminals (Deuteronomy 21:22—23). These verses became precedents for understanding the Cross of Jesus, for Paul cites v. 23 in Galatians 3:13 saying, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” Hence, Deuteronomy 21 helps to interpret even the vicarious, atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross for all who believe him.
Finally, in one historic confession of the faith it is recognized that while the judicial penalties of the case laws (Exodus 21—23) were for the theocratic structures of ancient Israel, they still have “general equity” applicable in the modern world (WMC XIX:III). For instance, our topic is expressed as such in I Timothy 5:3—8. Here Paul says that children and grandchildren should demonstrate their godliness by caring for their widowed mothers, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is simply understanding and applying the “general equity,” that is, the principle meaning of the Old Testament laws we have been considering, and taking them from the temporal realm to the eternal, in light of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ.
This has shown that Mcloughlin’s hope of exposing Christians as living with contradictory beliefs is absurd. The term “curse” has next to nothing to do with “talking back.” Adult children rightfully caring for their aging parents is what is in view with regard to the punitive statutes. Because of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and his resurrection, those who trust him alone for their redemption can consistently live out the principle equity of such laws in the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Mcloughlin’s challenge has no bearing upon the Bible’s inerrancy or Christian life and practice. In other words, it is irrelevant to the discussion of both! Nevertheless, surly the question is reversible.
Mr. Mcloughlin, given your perspective, the evolutionary process of time and chance acting upon “eternal” matter, what justification do you have for even questioning parents killing their young. What is the basis for morality in the context of your view of the world? If “survival of the fittest” is the case, then it seems that both the “reality” and logical consistency of your worldview would demand the death of the younger and weaker, in order to eliminate their competition for food, mates, etc. Perhaps you should deal with the “beam” that is stuck in the eye of your own worldview before questioning the “speck” in that of others!
John 3:16...”so”?
One would think that after nearly 2000 years we’d have John 3:16 figured out. This beloved and most memorized summary of the Gospel has shaped Western culture for millennia. Recent paraphrastic versions of this verse, however, seem to be shaping the Gospel to fit the culture.
The bone I’m picking here has to do with the little term “so,” which translates the Greek, houtō.
Solid modern translations follow the King James Version’s ambiguous rendering—“For God so loved the world.” Undoubtedly, this is partly to retain the ring and resonance of how millions of saints have read it, heard it, and ingested it for centuries; and this is great. I also appreciate the ambiguity of the “so.” Ambiguity leads to one of two things. On the down side, it allows room for the reader (or worse, preacher) to impose their misunderstandings into the text. Nevertheless, the up side is that ambiguity often drives the reader to do some study of their own, to dig and try to spiral into the mind and heart of the author, which is where the meaning resides.
So, what does this “so” mean? And how could it make that much difference?
The immensely popular paraphrase, the New Living Translation has sought to expunge any ambiguity for the reader by making clear that the “so” is qualitative or quantitative in its connotation. It reads,
“For God loved the world so much that...”
This emphasis on the magnitude, depth and breadth of God’s love for a world of wayward rebels is as theologically faithful as his love is wide. For instance, John, writing in his first Epistle, makes this point when he says,
“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the Children of God; and so we are” (3:1).
But the question remains, Is this what John was meaning in 3:16?
If the New Living Translation’s emphasis on the “so” isn’t enough to convince, then consider the Amplified Bible’s indulgent treatment of the verse.
“For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that...”
Okay, come on, the “dearly prized” is a bit over the top, don’t you think?. But this does reveal a shift in emphasis on the part of the translator. It seems to place the stress of the verb, “loved,” on its object, “the world.” This gives the sense that the world as such is inherently lovable, an object worthy of God’s love. Whether or not someone thinks this observation is fair, there’s little question that 99% of Western readers hear Jn 3:16 this way.
However, the term “world” (Gk. kosmos) never carries these connotations in John’s writings. John uses “world” in one of two ways. It’s either “the world,” and that the world is so big; e.g., the “world” doesn’t have the capacity to shelve the books that could be written on the words and deeds of Jesus, the Son (Jn 21:25). Alternately, it more often means “the world,” and that the world is so bad and thus antithetical to God’s love (1 Jn 2:15—17); it’s in a constant state of cosmic treason against its Creator. Nowhere does John give us the sense that the world is something that is so “dearly prized” by God.
So, back to “so.”
In the 20-plus times that John uses the term, houtō always carries the instrumental sense, e.g., “in this way or manner..” Likewise, the reader could supplant “so” with its synonym, “thus.” “God loved the world ‘thus’...” In this sense, with “so” John is communicating the “how” of God’s love for the world; it emphasizes what it was that God did to make the “Way” (Jn 14:6) for his love for us and our reciprocation of responsive love to him. The English Standard Version offers this alternate reading in a text note.
“Or For this is how God loved the world"
The Holman Christian Standard Bible is not so cautious. It translated the verse this way:
“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son...”
Therefore, whether one thinks that Jn 3:16f are the words of Jesus or they’re John’s concluding summary of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus, the “so” of v. 16 is telling us the Way of God’s plan to rescue from death a wicked world in rebellion against its Maker, the “How” of his plan and purpose.
For those who have always assumed the qualitative sense of “so,” as “so much,” the above observations and subsequent interpretation could come as a shock. If so, first consider Nicodemus’ experience, if indeed this is what the words meant. Yahweh’s supreme demonstration of love wouldn’t be cloistered to a people within the walls of the temple nor even the boundaries of Palestine, as Nicodemus assumed; the crowning act in redemption has the entire cosmos in its scope, Jew and Gentile. In Jesus, the Son, his being incarnate, being “lifted up” unto death and subsequently raised from the dead, every tribe and tongue and people and nation—all those born of God, born again—will enter the Kingdom. This is the mirthful new wine of the New Covenant and the provisional categories of the Old Covenant (infinitely less Second Temple Judaism) is an old wineskin. God loved the world in this way: the Son!
Does this interpretation somehow diminish the emphasis on the quality or quantity of God’s love in this passage? On the contrary! If John means “the world” in the sense that it’s so bad, as I’ve briefly argued, and he meant “so” in the sense of “thus, how, or in this way,” then this interpretation would help to make clear that God does not love the world, individually or collectively, because he finds it so lovely. But, rather, in spite of the world's unloveliness, he gave and delivered up to death his only Son. “In this way,” then, God in Christ was faithful to his command to us: “But I tell you, love your enemies...” And love has no greater one than this, does it?
The bone I’m picking here has to do with the little term “so,” which translates the Greek, houtō.
Solid modern translations follow the King James Version’s ambiguous rendering—“For God so loved the world.” Undoubtedly, this is partly to retain the ring and resonance of how millions of saints have read it, heard it, and ingested it for centuries; and this is great. I also appreciate the ambiguity of the “so.” Ambiguity leads to one of two things. On the down side, it allows room for the reader (or worse, preacher) to impose their misunderstandings into the text. Nevertheless, the up side is that ambiguity often drives the reader to do some study of their own, to dig and try to spiral into the mind and heart of the author, which is where the meaning resides.
So, what does this “so” mean? And how could it make that much difference?
The immensely popular paraphrase, the New Living Translation has sought to expunge any ambiguity for the reader by making clear that the “so” is qualitative or quantitative in its connotation. It reads,
“For God loved the world so much that...”
This emphasis on the magnitude, depth and breadth of God’s love for a world of wayward rebels is as theologically faithful as his love is wide. For instance, John, writing in his first Epistle, makes this point when he says,
“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the Children of God; and so we are” (3:1).
But the question remains, Is this what John was meaning in 3:16?
If the New Living Translation’s emphasis on the “so” isn’t enough to convince, then consider the Amplified Bible’s indulgent treatment of the verse.
“For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that...”
Okay, come on, the “dearly prized” is a bit over the top, don’t you think?. But this does reveal a shift in emphasis on the part of the translator. It seems to place the stress of the verb, “loved,” on its object, “the world.” This gives the sense that the world as such is inherently lovable, an object worthy of God’s love. Whether or not someone thinks this observation is fair, there’s little question that 99% of Western readers hear Jn 3:16 this way.
However, the term “world” (Gk. kosmos) never carries these connotations in John’s writings. John uses “world” in one of two ways. It’s either “the world,” and that the world is so big; e.g., the “world” doesn’t have the capacity to shelve the books that could be written on the words and deeds of Jesus, the Son (Jn 21:25). Alternately, it more often means “the world,” and that the world is so bad and thus antithetical to God’s love (1 Jn 2:15—17); it’s in a constant state of cosmic treason against its Creator. Nowhere does John give us the sense that the world is something that is so “dearly prized” by God.
So, back to “so.”
In the 20-plus times that John uses the term, houtō always carries the instrumental sense, e.g., “in this way or manner..” Likewise, the reader could supplant “so” with its synonym, “thus.” “God loved the world ‘thus’...” In this sense, with “so” John is communicating the “how” of God’s love for the world; it emphasizes what it was that God did to make the “Way” (Jn 14:6) for his love for us and our reciprocation of responsive love to him. The English Standard Version offers this alternate reading in a text note.
“Or For this is how God loved the world"
The Holman Christian Standard Bible is not so cautious. It translated the verse this way:
“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son...”
Therefore, whether one thinks that Jn 3:16f are the words of Jesus or they’re John’s concluding summary of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus, the “so” of v. 16 is telling us the Way of God’s plan to rescue from death a wicked world in rebellion against its Maker, the “How” of his plan and purpose.
For those who have always assumed the qualitative sense of “so,” as “so much,” the above observations and subsequent interpretation could come as a shock. If so, first consider Nicodemus’ experience, if indeed this is what the words meant. Yahweh’s supreme demonstration of love wouldn’t be cloistered to a people within the walls of the temple nor even the boundaries of Palestine, as Nicodemus assumed; the crowning act in redemption has the entire cosmos in its scope, Jew and Gentile. In Jesus, the Son, his being incarnate, being “lifted up” unto death and subsequently raised from the dead, every tribe and tongue and people and nation—all those born of God, born again—will enter the Kingdom. This is the mirthful new wine of the New Covenant and the provisional categories of the Old Covenant (infinitely less Second Temple Judaism) is an old wineskin. God loved the world in this way: the Son!
Does this interpretation somehow diminish the emphasis on the quality or quantity of God’s love in this passage? On the contrary! If John means “the world” in the sense that it’s so bad, as I’ve briefly argued, and he meant “so” in the sense of “thus, how, or in this way,” then this interpretation would help to make clear that God does not love the world, individually or collectively, because he finds it so lovely. But, rather, in spite of the world's unloveliness, he gave and delivered up to death his only Son. “In this way,” then, God in Christ was faithful to his command to us: “But I tell you, love your enemies...” And love has no greater one than this, does it?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Presuppositionalism Applied I: Village Atheists and Ethics
He’s a little dialogue I had with a village atheist on a forum of a local rag, the Lynchburg News & Advance. I was watching the thread for a while; “Cosmo” and several others had be expressing their hatred for Christians and Christianity relentlessly. It demonstrates the strength of a presuppositional approach.
I like this dialogue as an illustration of the method, especially because most Christians are accustom to challenging unbelieving worldviews in the area of morality. Most apologetic systems stress this point. One feature that makes presuppositionalism different is that it seeks to press unbelievers to justify not only morality, but every other sphere of their worldview. For instance, the following arguments are equally effective when applied to the area of epistemology (one’s theory of knowledge), metaphysics (one’s theory of ultimate reality), anthropology, history, etc. Also, because all these areas are ultimately related more or less coherently within one’s worldview, to pick at one is to shake the whole web.
Here’s one illustration, then, in the area of morality or ethics...We'll pick up at this point in the discussion.
I write:
Cosmo said, “Did anyone see the show on PBS last night about the good Christians in Dover Pennsylvania? Snuck “Intelligent Design” books into the classroom and then lied under oath about doing it. The Judge threw the book at them and fined the town BofE $1,000,000.”
Strange, Cosmo, it would appear that you believe that lying is morally wrong. What standard of morality are you using to condemn their lying? Is this merely arbitrary?
Cosmo responds:
Poor Kevin asks me ...“ What standard of morality are you using to condemn their lying?“...
I’m not. The Judge did when they were caught red handed in contradictory testimony.
It’s OK Kevin. This is still Lynchburg and, at least here, you are safe from science.
Fred.. Do not try to fool Kevin.. he is too sharp to fall for any of your “science” stuff. He knows it’s only “theories”. Theories never produced one useful thing.
Satan’s tricks.
All the facts he needs are in the Bible. Don’t pester him today. He has packing to do for the Ark expedition.
I must ask myself how it could never have occurred to Kevin that treating other people how you would like to be treated is a “good thing”. Perhaps, Kevin is one of those people who NEEDS a threat of horrible punishment in order to control his impulses. Ergo: he needs religion like a wild dog needs a cage.
I respond:
Cosmo wonders, “I must ask myself how it could never have occurred to Kevin that treating other people how you would like to be treated is a ‘good thing’.”
Boy, this is original Cosmo. And, yes, it has occurred to me, Jesus told me; that’s who you ripped it off from as well (Matt 7:12).
See, this proves the point I’m ever trying to make plain to you. You can’t make sense of ethics (or science, or logic, etc) in terms of your own professed presuppositions, so when pressed a bit you wind up stealing bricks from the Rock-solid foundation of the Christian worldview in order to build your sand castle (Matt 7:24—27).
So, of course doing “unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a good thing, because like “loving your neighbor as yourself” such commands are based on the perfectly good and unchanging character of God himself, who alone has the right to exact moral behavior from anyone. Moreover, love, which you reduce to opiate-like brainsquirts, is display on and measure by the cross of Christ. So, for me the concepts of love, good, evil, right and wrong make perfect sense; they have a meaningful reference point in God himself. Therefore, for you to simply call something ethically “good” is to beg the question, and my question for you is not difficult to understand.
What we want to know is this: In the terms of your own worldview, without stealing Christian capital, how can you meaningfully call anything or state of affairs “good” or “evil,” “right” or “wrong?”
That’s all I’m asking of you: Explain how morality makes sense in terms of evolutionary atheism.
Cosmo responds:
Kevin can you be so ignorant of world religions as to not know that “The Golden Rule” predates Christianity by a thousand years at least? Is that possible?
Do you think that Jesus came up with the idea and people said….“Jeepers, I never would have thought of that!“...
Altruism is CLEARLY a survival trait. Sorry, I forgot, everything just “Poofed” into existence.
Here is one for you (Kevin), since you NEVER address anything I ask of you anyway…
Give us all some evidence that religious people—Christians—commit less crime. Since the Bible Belt leads the country in a long list of things like incest, pedophilia, divorce and so on… Show us you have more than empty words. Show us your morality stats.
Why am I even bothering with you? The world is full of religious fanatics just like you. They ALL have the only TRUE answer and the only REAL God. Problem is, they ALL disagree.
Go pester them.
I respond:
Cosmo asks, “Kevin.. can you be so ignorant of world religions as to not know that “The Golden Rule” predates Christianity by a thousand years at least?”
Two points:
1) While there may be many “Silver” or “Bronze Rules” in various religious traditions that predate Christ, you won’t find any “Golden Rule” among them. The difference is that the Golden Rule is a positive precept, whereas all others are negative. That is, rather than commanding to “DO unto others…” the others say “Don’t do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” The latter is almost as easy as breathing in light of the former. If you wish to squabble with this, please remember to cite your source; “thus saith Cosmo” won’t cut it.
2) Your statement above only strengthens my point. When asked to offer an ethical standard in terms of atheistic evolution, you first offer Christ’s Golden Rule. Then, when trying to argue against the fact that you had to rob from the Christian Treasury to pay the bill, the best you can do in only point back another 1000 years into religious tradition! You’ve said: “Religion, any religion, has nothing to do with it” (Posted by [Cosmo Wafflefoot] on January 11, 2009 at 7:04 am). But, your “atheistic” answer is only what theologians have been teaching for 3000 years! And whose science is stuck in the stone ages?
Now if you allegedly deduced this answer from your decades of study in the field of neuroanatomical science, then again, imagine, we are made in the image of God, and thus hard wired with his laws in our consciences. On this count, you’re about 6 to 10K years behind the times.
You said, “Altruism is CLEARLY a survival trait.”
Okay, here is your attempt at a definition of “survival trait.”
You've stated: “I have the ability, thanks to my evolved neurology, to “put myself in the place of other forms of life”. That, and that alone, forces me to treat others as I would wish to be treated. When I don’t, uncomfortable chemicals are released in my brain resulting in feelings I don’t enjoy… It’s clearly a survival trait. Empathy pays off… It “feels good” because it WORKS to perpetuate my genes. It’s a survival trait… Clearly, it is genetically advantageous for me to do so… Extending that empathy to all humans and beyond, to all living things, produces the very same brain chemicals I produce in “feeling” empathy for my children, grandchildren, clan…People “lacking” this ability are generally not viewed as valuable to those around them” (Ibid.).
First, it’s our evolved neurological impulses that “forces” us to “treat others as we wish to be treated.” Fine, but this isn’t morality; it’s A-morality, which is another way of saying not-morality. Your materialistic determinism completely eliminates virtue and vice, right and wrong, good and evil. So far from establishing morality, you annihilate it! This also reduces human behavior to that of brute beasts, and no one can say that one dog that has killed another has done any moral wrong; thus neither can any moral judgment be made of humans who respond in the same way to their forced neurological impulses—both are merely predetermined causal events. Therefore, your being “forced” to treat others as you wish to be treated is no better, nor virtuous than the one who is being “forced” to rape small children simply because “It ‘feels good’...and because it WORKS to perpetuate [his] genes,” thus it’s “genetically advantageous for [him] to do so” because “It’s a survival trait.”
According to you, then, “survival trait” is utterly narcissistic and amoral, in a word, SELF-centered.
Now, then, what about “altruism”? Here is a fair and simple definition: selflessness; an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
Do you sense some real tension here? Well, really, an out right contradiction in terms!?! This is like saying “Left is CLEARLY right” or “Black is CLEARLY white”! So, I guess things aren’t as “CLEAR” as they seemed, are they?
Well, a few things are clear:
1) You have to steal the ethical capital from religious traditions in order to argue against them. Thus, you must sit on God’s lap in order to slap his face.
2) When attempting to account for morality, on your own terms, it leads you to the contrary, which is what I keep trying to tell you.
3) Therefore, since you have no basis what so ever for making any value judgments, I am under no obligation to offer you evidence of Christians’ behavior for you to sit in judgment on. (However, if you could offer anything close to an objective morality, by which you could judge another’s behavior, I’d be glad to answer. But, you can’t, and that’s been “CLEARLY” demonstrated!)
Cosmo responds:
Go find a Hindu to pester.
I like this dialogue as an illustration of the method, especially because most Christians are accustom to challenging unbelieving worldviews in the area of morality. Most apologetic systems stress this point. One feature that makes presuppositionalism different is that it seeks to press unbelievers to justify not only morality, but every other sphere of their worldview. For instance, the following arguments are equally effective when applied to the area of epistemology (one’s theory of knowledge), metaphysics (one’s theory of ultimate reality), anthropology, history, etc. Also, because all these areas are ultimately related more or less coherently within one’s worldview, to pick at one is to shake the whole web.
Here’s one illustration, then, in the area of morality or ethics...We'll pick up at this point in the discussion.
I write:
Cosmo said, “Did anyone see the show on PBS last night about the good Christians in Dover Pennsylvania? Snuck “Intelligent Design” books into the classroom and then lied under oath about doing it. The Judge threw the book at them and fined the town BofE $1,000,000.”
Strange, Cosmo, it would appear that you believe that lying is morally wrong. What standard of morality are you using to condemn their lying? Is this merely arbitrary?
Cosmo responds:
Poor Kevin asks me ...“ What standard of morality are you using to condemn their lying?“...
I’m not. The Judge did when they were caught red handed in contradictory testimony.
It’s OK Kevin. This is still Lynchburg and, at least here, you are safe from science.
Fred.. Do not try to fool Kevin.. he is too sharp to fall for any of your “science” stuff. He knows it’s only “theories”. Theories never produced one useful thing.
Satan’s tricks.
All the facts he needs are in the Bible. Don’t pester him today. He has packing to do for the Ark expedition.
I must ask myself how it could never have occurred to Kevin that treating other people how you would like to be treated is a “good thing”. Perhaps, Kevin is one of those people who NEEDS a threat of horrible punishment in order to control his impulses. Ergo: he needs religion like a wild dog needs a cage.
I respond:
Cosmo wonders, “I must ask myself how it could never have occurred to Kevin that treating other people how you would like to be treated is a ‘good thing’.”
Boy, this is original Cosmo. And, yes, it has occurred to me, Jesus told me; that’s who you ripped it off from as well (Matt 7:12).
See, this proves the point I’m ever trying to make plain to you. You can’t make sense of ethics (or science, or logic, etc) in terms of your own professed presuppositions, so when pressed a bit you wind up stealing bricks from the Rock-solid foundation of the Christian worldview in order to build your sand castle (Matt 7:24—27).
So, of course doing “unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a good thing, because like “loving your neighbor as yourself” such commands are based on the perfectly good and unchanging character of God himself, who alone has the right to exact moral behavior from anyone. Moreover, love, which you reduce to opiate-like brainsquirts, is display on and measure by the cross of Christ. So, for me the concepts of love, good, evil, right and wrong make perfect sense; they have a meaningful reference point in God himself. Therefore, for you to simply call something ethically “good” is to beg the question, and my question for you is not difficult to understand.
What we want to know is this: In the terms of your own worldview, without stealing Christian capital, how can you meaningfully call anything or state of affairs “good” or “evil,” “right” or “wrong?”
That’s all I’m asking of you: Explain how morality makes sense in terms of evolutionary atheism.
Cosmo responds:
Kevin can you be so ignorant of world religions as to not know that “The Golden Rule” predates Christianity by a thousand years at least? Is that possible?
Do you think that Jesus came up with the idea and people said….“Jeepers, I never would have thought of that!“...
Altruism is CLEARLY a survival trait. Sorry, I forgot, everything just “Poofed” into existence.
Here is one for you (Kevin), since you NEVER address anything I ask of you anyway…
Give us all some evidence that religious people—Christians—commit less crime. Since the Bible Belt leads the country in a long list of things like incest, pedophilia, divorce and so on… Show us you have more than empty words. Show us your morality stats.
Why am I even bothering with you? The world is full of religious fanatics just like you. They ALL have the only TRUE answer and the only REAL God. Problem is, they ALL disagree.
Go pester them.
I respond:
Cosmo asks, “Kevin.. can you be so ignorant of world religions as to not know that “The Golden Rule” predates Christianity by a thousand years at least?”
Two points:
1) While there may be many “Silver” or “Bronze Rules” in various religious traditions that predate Christ, you won’t find any “Golden Rule” among them. The difference is that the Golden Rule is a positive precept, whereas all others are negative. That is, rather than commanding to “DO unto others…” the others say “Don’t do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” The latter is almost as easy as breathing in light of the former. If you wish to squabble with this, please remember to cite your source; “thus saith Cosmo” won’t cut it.
2) Your statement above only strengthens my point. When asked to offer an ethical standard in terms of atheistic evolution, you first offer Christ’s Golden Rule. Then, when trying to argue against the fact that you had to rob from the Christian Treasury to pay the bill, the best you can do in only point back another 1000 years into religious tradition! You’ve said: “Religion, any religion, has nothing to do with it” (Posted by [Cosmo Wafflefoot] on January 11, 2009 at 7:04 am). But, your “atheistic” answer is only what theologians have been teaching for 3000 years! And whose science is stuck in the stone ages?
Now if you allegedly deduced this answer from your decades of study in the field of neuroanatomical science, then again, imagine, we are made in the image of God, and thus hard wired with his laws in our consciences. On this count, you’re about 6 to 10K years behind the times.
You said, “Altruism is CLEARLY a survival trait.”
Okay, here is your attempt at a definition of “survival trait.”
You've stated: “I have the ability, thanks to my evolved neurology, to “put myself in the place of other forms of life”. That, and that alone, forces me to treat others as I would wish to be treated. When I don’t, uncomfortable chemicals are released in my brain resulting in feelings I don’t enjoy… It’s clearly a survival trait. Empathy pays off… It “feels good” because it WORKS to perpetuate my genes. It’s a survival trait… Clearly, it is genetically advantageous for me to do so… Extending that empathy to all humans and beyond, to all living things, produces the very same brain chemicals I produce in “feeling” empathy for my children, grandchildren, clan…People “lacking” this ability are generally not viewed as valuable to those around them” (Ibid.).
First, it’s our evolved neurological impulses that “forces” us to “treat others as we wish to be treated.” Fine, but this isn’t morality; it’s A-morality, which is another way of saying not-morality. Your materialistic determinism completely eliminates virtue and vice, right and wrong, good and evil. So far from establishing morality, you annihilate it! This also reduces human behavior to that of brute beasts, and no one can say that one dog that has killed another has done any moral wrong; thus neither can any moral judgment be made of humans who respond in the same way to their forced neurological impulses—both are merely predetermined causal events. Therefore, your being “forced” to treat others as you wish to be treated is no better, nor virtuous than the one who is being “forced” to rape small children simply because “It ‘feels good’...and because it WORKS to perpetuate [his] genes,” thus it’s “genetically advantageous for [him] to do so” because “It’s a survival trait.”
According to you, then, “survival trait” is utterly narcissistic and amoral, in a word, SELF-centered.
Now, then, what about “altruism”? Here is a fair and simple definition: selflessness; an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
Do you sense some real tension here? Well, really, an out right contradiction in terms!?! This is like saying “Left is CLEARLY right” or “Black is CLEARLY white”! So, I guess things aren’t as “CLEAR” as they seemed, are they?
Well, a few things are clear:
1) You have to steal the ethical capital from religious traditions in order to argue against them. Thus, you must sit on God’s lap in order to slap his face.
2) When attempting to account for morality, on your own terms, it leads you to the contrary, which is what I keep trying to tell you.
3) Therefore, since you have no basis what so ever for making any value judgments, I am under no obligation to offer you evidence of Christians’ behavior for you to sit in judgment on. (However, if you could offer anything close to an objective morality, by which you could judge another’s behavior, I’d be glad to answer. But, you can’t, and that’s been “CLEARLY” demonstrated!)
Cosmo responds:
Go find a Hindu to pester.
Hypocrisy: a great reason to be a Christian
While at work this afternoon, I was able to catch bits and pieces of an interview with Carrie Prejean, former Miss USA, on a conservative talk radio program. (I’ll take for granted that you’re aware of the firestorm of controversy surrounding this young lady.) In part, the program seemed to be a plug for her new book, Still Standing. According to what Miss Prejean said, the book is an exposé of sorts, explaining how she has bravely weathered the persecution from the Leftists, due solely to her stand for traditional marriage, which is the only reason in her mind.
The whole issue of Prejean’s new role as the Right’s poster child for political persecution notwithstanding, the interview evoked some thoughts of on the topic of hypocrisy, particularly of those times when the unbeliever raises the classic “so many hypocrites in the Church” as an objection to coming to believing obedience in Christ.
Douglas Wilson, in one chapter of his artful book, Persuasions, faces the problem of hypocrisy in the Church with an interlocutor named Dorothy. Dorothy feels that she could not lower herself to be on the same team with so many losers, so many hypocrites, and thus join herself to the Church. Wilson makes two salient counterpoints.
First, Wilson affirms that hypocrisy in completely inconsistent with Christian ethics. He subsequently demonstrates that between God and man the relationship is either for or against, reconciliation or enmity. After a question or two, Wilson leads Dorothy to the concession that God is against hypocrites. In Wilson’s insightful style, he explains to Dorothy that she’s actually on the hypocrites’ team already, as God is against unrepentant sinners, those who rebel against his Lordship and scorn his offer of grace and mercy in Christ Jesus. Wilson drives the point home by ironically concluding that hypocrisy in the Church is precisely why he could never be an unbeliever; unbelievers share the roster with hypocrites—God is against both.
In a slightly more indirect manner, he reveals the irresolvable paradox Christians face under the merciless scrutiny of the unbelieving world. One the one hand, if a believer is in wonton sin or scandal, and his/her church exercises ecclesiastical discipline in order to restore the believer to the high moral standard of the kingdom of Christ, then Christians are immediately labeled by unbelievers as being self-righteous and bigoted, lacking feeling and empathy.
On the other hand, if the Church fails to address open sin among its people, then the charge is always, “What a bunch of hypocrites!” The point here being, whether the Church takes action or passively tolerates sin in her ranks through inaction or indifference, the unbeliever’s sword of criticism always cuts both ways.
The other day Steve (see Steve at stevegalt.blogspot.com) and I were discussing this very topic. He recalled a response he once used in a dialogue. Essentially, he began by admitting that all believers are hypocrites at one point or another in their pilgrimage, this much is as undeniable as it is inexcusable. However, he invited his friend to examine the high moral calling of the Gospel; pointing out that because of the holiness of the One setting the standard, Christ simply cannot say, “Oh, sin just a little and you’ll be fine.” No, rather, the standard for the Christian is no less than Perfection—Jesus himself.
Steve then asked his friend to examine the demands of the ethical options open to the unbeliever. Because the rejection of biblical law leads directly to moral relativism, the only moral standard available to the unbeliever is the one self-imposed. That is, they simply get to set their own standard. Apart from the absolute morality of God’s Word, all value judgments are reducible to emotive expressions: “That is evil!” becomes “Yuck! I don’t like that!”
Now, Steve’s point was that even people who arbitrarily set a moral standard for themselves still live lives that are very often inconsistent with that low standard they’ve set. They too are hypocritical.
At the end of the day, the objection from hypocrisy is an ad hominem attack; it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the claims of Christ speaking in the Scriptures.
We must also ask, What right does an unbeliever have to make value judgments, particularly against the Faith? When they make the judgment that it’s wrong to live without integrity, what standard are they assuming in their valuation? Without assuming that law of Christ, they’re simply imposing their self-made standard on others...something else they complain we Christians do. We’re too intolerant of the perspectives of others, they say. Just ask Perez Hilton, he’s so tolerant. Ah, more hypocrisy!
Therefore, hypocrisy is everyone’s problem. As Wilson put it, it’s another great reason to never become an unbeliever.
The whole issue of Prejean’s new role as the Right’s poster child for political persecution notwithstanding, the interview evoked some thoughts of on the topic of hypocrisy, particularly of those times when the unbeliever raises the classic “so many hypocrites in the Church” as an objection to coming to believing obedience in Christ.
Douglas Wilson, in one chapter of his artful book, Persuasions, faces the problem of hypocrisy in the Church with an interlocutor named Dorothy. Dorothy feels that she could not lower herself to be on the same team with so many losers, so many hypocrites, and thus join herself to the Church. Wilson makes two salient counterpoints.
First, Wilson affirms that hypocrisy in completely inconsistent with Christian ethics. He subsequently demonstrates that between God and man the relationship is either for or against, reconciliation or enmity. After a question or two, Wilson leads Dorothy to the concession that God is against hypocrites. In Wilson’s insightful style, he explains to Dorothy that she’s actually on the hypocrites’ team already, as God is against unrepentant sinners, those who rebel against his Lordship and scorn his offer of grace and mercy in Christ Jesus. Wilson drives the point home by ironically concluding that hypocrisy in the Church is precisely why he could never be an unbeliever; unbelievers share the roster with hypocrites—God is against both.
In a slightly more indirect manner, he reveals the irresolvable paradox Christians face under the merciless scrutiny of the unbelieving world. One the one hand, if a believer is in wonton sin or scandal, and his/her church exercises ecclesiastical discipline in order to restore the believer to the high moral standard of the kingdom of Christ, then Christians are immediately labeled by unbelievers as being self-righteous and bigoted, lacking feeling and empathy.
On the other hand, if the Church fails to address open sin among its people, then the charge is always, “What a bunch of hypocrites!” The point here being, whether the Church takes action or passively tolerates sin in her ranks through inaction or indifference, the unbeliever’s sword of criticism always cuts both ways.
The other day Steve (see Steve at stevegalt.blogspot.com) and I were discussing this very topic. He recalled a response he once used in a dialogue. Essentially, he began by admitting that all believers are hypocrites at one point or another in their pilgrimage, this much is as undeniable as it is inexcusable. However, he invited his friend to examine the high moral calling of the Gospel; pointing out that because of the holiness of the One setting the standard, Christ simply cannot say, “Oh, sin just a little and you’ll be fine.” No, rather, the standard for the Christian is no less than Perfection—Jesus himself.
Steve then asked his friend to examine the demands of the ethical options open to the unbeliever. Because the rejection of biblical law leads directly to moral relativism, the only moral standard available to the unbeliever is the one self-imposed. That is, they simply get to set their own standard. Apart from the absolute morality of God’s Word, all value judgments are reducible to emotive expressions: “That is evil!” becomes “Yuck! I don’t like that!”
Now, Steve’s point was that even people who arbitrarily set a moral standard for themselves still live lives that are very often inconsistent with that low standard they’ve set. They too are hypocritical.
At the end of the day, the objection from hypocrisy is an ad hominem attack; it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the claims of Christ speaking in the Scriptures.
We must also ask, What right does an unbeliever have to make value judgments, particularly against the Faith? When they make the judgment that it’s wrong to live without integrity, what standard are they assuming in their valuation? Without assuming that law of Christ, they’re simply imposing their self-made standard on others...something else they complain we Christians do. We’re too intolerant of the perspectives of others, they say. Just ask Perez Hilton, he’s so tolerant. Ah, more hypocrisy!
Therefore, hypocrisy is everyone’s problem. As Wilson put it, it’s another great reason to never become an unbeliever.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Battle of the books
Here’s a fun little allegory to commemorate the sad 150th anniversary of the publishing of Darwin’s Origin of the Species.
One brisk November afternoon, two gentlemen stood opposite one another at an intersection. Each had a book in his hands; and each was determined in his direction of travel...
“Good day there, sir. Beautiful afternoon isn’t it?” Christian began.
“Indeed, indeed.” Mr. Wiseman responded. “I see you have a book there. Are you off to the gala to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its publishing, as I am?”
“Sorry, Mr....?”
“Wiseman. Worldly Wiseman.”
“Greetings. My name is Christian. No sir, I’m going to no gala; rather, a wedding banquet. And as for my little book, we celebrate its publication every Sunday.”
“You don’t mean to say that you still carry a Bible do you?!?” Mr. Wiseman retorted incredulously.
“Indeed! Real history and timeless truth—The Omnibus.” Christian happily shot back. “What’s the book you have there?”
“Why, it’s Darwin’s Origin of the Species, the object of today’s festive gathering. I’d invite you to join me, Mr. Christian. Perhaps the speakers could cure your superstition.” Making his point, Wiseman continued, “As one of them has said, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.’”
“Satisfied you say?” Christian inquired. “To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet (Prov 27:7).”
“Typical pious-sounding response there, Mr. Christian.” Wiseman chuckled. “You fundamentalists always act threatened when Darwin’s theory’s mentioned—it’s like a phobia!”
“You confuse our fear of the irrational with irrational fear.”
“Whatever could you possibly mean, Christian?!?”
“Well, you believe that book gives you a reason for scorning this book.” Christian contended earnestly.
“One doesn’t have to believe the silly myths in the Bible, such as creation, to appreciate the moral teachings of Jesus!”
“But Jesus’ moral teachings are grounded in a literal understanding of Genesis as real time-space history (Matt 19:4—6), so also the forth commandment (Ex 20:8—11). You’re being arbitrary; you’re not living up to your name, Mr. Wiseman.”
Perceiving that the conversation was moving in a direction that made him uncomfortable, Mr. Wiseman took advantage of a passing vehicle to gather his thoughts and redirect their attention back to his book. With new determination, Mr. Wiseman asked, “Mr. Christian, seriously now, you’re not insinuating that you don’t believe evolution are you?!? Because, it’s been proven that...”
“Forgive my interruption, Mr. Wiseman. Please, one thing at a time. ‘Do I believe in evolution?’ That is your initial question, correct?”
“That’s right.”
“I must first ask you a question: Whatever do you mean by ‘evolution’?”
“Good sir, I mean ‘change over time.’ That’s incontrovertible.” Wiseman insisted.
“To be sure, change from Poodle to Pit Bull is one thing; however, change from particles to people is entirely another. The distinction I’m asking for is between so-called microevolution and meta-evolution. I believe you’re guilty of equivocating the two.”
“Such distinctions are unnecessary in theory.” Proclaimed Wiseman.
“Good. Let’s assume the truth of your theory for discussion’s sake and see where it leads.” Putting his hand to the plow, Christian sought to break-up the fallow ground. “If all you mean is microevolution—that changes occur within a given genus—then you have no evidence to contradict my book, since God decreed the law of biogenesis some ten times in the first chapter. No one questions microevolution. But if instead you mean to interpret the world in terms of meta-evolution—only time and chance acting on matter—then your theory cannot be true.”
“Re...Really?” Wiseman stammered. “I’d like to hear your argument for that!”
“Let me ask you another question, Mr. Wiseman. If you stood there shaking a bottle of soda and I stood on this side of the road shaking a bottle of soda, then we finally popped the tops, would you think it reasonable to ask which of our bottle’s fizz was true?”
“Absurdity, you simpleton!” Shouted Wiseman.
“I couldn’t agree more,” said Christian, “but if Darwin’s book is true, then each of our brains is just a random collection of atoms, which sometimes experience electrochemical reactions—like the sodas—that we feel are thoughts and reasons. So why do you believe that your fizzing is truer than mine? Fizz can’t be true or false; fizz just is. I fizz creationism and you fizz evolutionism. So, as you said, our debate would be absurd—if, that is, your book is true. Hence, Mr. Wiseman, you began this discussion believing that Darwin’s book gave you a ‘reason’ to object to my book; but if Darwin’s book is true, then you have no reason at all, just fizz.”
“Accordingly, you believe that only if your book is true that we can have reason?” Wiseman asked.
“You’ve followed the argument well, friend. Therefore, even the possibility of reason would make sense if only what you argue against were true.”
“I still object, you know.”
“Sadly, I thought you might.” Christian said with condolence. “But, before you believed you had an intellectual reason for rejecting it. That’s sort of fizzled, if you will. If you were to change your view of origins, you’d have to change your view of God, and if that, then your view of yourself too. Therefore, impetus for scorning the Bible is moral in nature, and the Bible even explains that!”
With sincerity Christian asked, “Mr. Wiseman, would you consider stepping over to my side of the road and ponder these problems over the pages of my book and a cup of coffee?”
One brisk November afternoon, two gentlemen stood opposite one another at an intersection. Each had a book in his hands; and each was determined in his direction of travel...
“Good day there, sir. Beautiful afternoon isn’t it?” Christian began.
“Indeed, indeed.” Mr. Wiseman responded. “I see you have a book there. Are you off to the gala to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its publishing, as I am?”
“Sorry, Mr....?”
“Wiseman. Worldly Wiseman.”
“Greetings. My name is Christian. No sir, I’m going to no gala; rather, a wedding banquet. And as for my little book, we celebrate its publication every Sunday.”
“You don’t mean to say that you still carry a Bible do you?!?” Mr. Wiseman retorted incredulously.
“Indeed! Real history and timeless truth—The Omnibus.” Christian happily shot back. “What’s the book you have there?”
“Why, it’s Darwin’s Origin of the Species, the object of today’s festive gathering. I’d invite you to join me, Mr. Christian. Perhaps the speakers could cure your superstition.” Making his point, Wiseman continued, “As one of them has said, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.’”
“Satisfied you say?” Christian inquired. “To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet (Prov 27:7).”
“Typical pious-sounding response there, Mr. Christian.” Wiseman chuckled. “You fundamentalists always act threatened when Darwin’s theory’s mentioned—it’s like a phobia!”
“You confuse our fear of the irrational with irrational fear.”
“Whatever could you possibly mean, Christian?!?”
“Well, you believe that book gives you a reason for scorning this book.” Christian contended earnestly.
“One doesn’t have to believe the silly myths in the Bible, such as creation, to appreciate the moral teachings of Jesus!”
“But Jesus’ moral teachings are grounded in a literal understanding of Genesis as real time-space history (Matt 19:4—6), so also the forth commandment (Ex 20:8—11). You’re being arbitrary; you’re not living up to your name, Mr. Wiseman.”
Perceiving that the conversation was moving in a direction that made him uncomfortable, Mr. Wiseman took advantage of a passing vehicle to gather his thoughts and redirect their attention back to his book. With new determination, Mr. Wiseman asked, “Mr. Christian, seriously now, you’re not insinuating that you don’t believe evolution are you?!? Because, it’s been proven that...”
“Forgive my interruption, Mr. Wiseman. Please, one thing at a time. ‘Do I believe in evolution?’ That is your initial question, correct?”
“That’s right.”
“I must first ask you a question: Whatever do you mean by ‘evolution’?”
“Good sir, I mean ‘change over time.’ That’s incontrovertible.” Wiseman insisted.
“To be sure, change from Poodle to Pit Bull is one thing; however, change from particles to people is entirely another. The distinction I’m asking for is between so-called microevolution and meta-evolution. I believe you’re guilty of equivocating the two.”
“Such distinctions are unnecessary in theory.” Proclaimed Wiseman.
“Good. Let’s assume the truth of your theory for discussion’s sake and see where it leads.” Putting his hand to the plow, Christian sought to break-up the fallow ground. “If all you mean is microevolution—that changes occur within a given genus—then you have no evidence to contradict my book, since God decreed the law of biogenesis some ten times in the first chapter. No one questions microevolution. But if instead you mean to interpret the world in terms of meta-evolution—only time and chance acting on matter—then your theory cannot be true.”
“Re...Really?” Wiseman stammered. “I’d like to hear your argument for that!”
“Let me ask you another question, Mr. Wiseman. If you stood there shaking a bottle of soda and I stood on this side of the road shaking a bottle of soda, then we finally popped the tops, would you think it reasonable to ask which of our bottle’s fizz was true?”
“Absurdity, you simpleton!” Shouted Wiseman.
“I couldn’t agree more,” said Christian, “but if Darwin’s book is true, then each of our brains is just a random collection of atoms, which sometimes experience electrochemical reactions—like the sodas—that we feel are thoughts and reasons. So why do you believe that your fizzing is truer than mine? Fizz can’t be true or false; fizz just is. I fizz creationism and you fizz evolutionism. So, as you said, our debate would be absurd—if, that is, your book is true. Hence, Mr. Wiseman, you began this discussion believing that Darwin’s book gave you a ‘reason’ to object to my book; but if Darwin’s book is true, then you have no reason at all, just fizz.”
“Accordingly, you believe that only if your book is true that we can have reason?” Wiseman asked.
“You’ve followed the argument well, friend. Therefore, even the possibility of reason would make sense if only what you argue against were true.”
“I still object, you know.”
“Sadly, I thought you might.” Christian said with condolence. “But, before you believed you had an intellectual reason for rejecting it. That’s sort of fizzled, if you will. If you were to change your view of origins, you’d have to change your view of God, and if that, then your view of yourself too. Therefore, impetus for scorning the Bible is moral in nature, and the Bible even explains that!”
With sincerity Christian asked, “Mr. Wiseman, would you consider stepping over to my side of the road and ponder these problems over the pages of my book and a cup of coffee?”
Unloading the Debate
To what might we compare the debate between the Christian and Naturalist worldviews? We can liken it to a tractor-trailer driver delivering to Georgia Pacific in Big Island.
As Debbie, our driver, descended southward down route 501, something on a nearby mountainside caught her attention. Approaching the plant, Debbie recognized the mountainside diversion as a series of large rocks arranged to read, “WELCOME TO BIG ISLAND.”
Debbie thought to herself, “There are really only two hypotheses that can account for how those rocks obtained their arrangement on the mountainside. Either they came to rest in that position by means of purely impersonal, non-purposeful natural causes; or the rocks are the result of a personal, purposeful agent who works according to a good plan.”
Setting the bigger question aside for a moment, Debbie knew that whatever their cause, the rocks confirmed that she had finally reached her destination.
While being unloaded, Debbie met Greg, another driver. Soon their conversation turned to the rocks.
“You know,” Greg started, “before I drove a truck, I was in the construction business, and anyone who has the ability pull off something like that has my greatest respect. I know people might say, ‘Big deal, it’s just a bunch of rocks,’ but something like that requires intelligence and skill that very few have.”
“Greg,” Debbie interrupted, “I don’t mean to contradict, but before I started driving, I went to grad school and minored in geology. If you think that something like that overgrown rock garden can’t exist but for personal design, then you just need to go to the library a little more. There are many things in nature much more complex than that rock-pile that are caused by purely natural means.” She concluded, “A naturalistic explanation is quite possible.”
“In theory, I suppose the natural explanation might be possible,” Greg concurred. “Nevertheless, simply because something is theoretically possible, it certainly doesn’t follow that the theory is true. Whether either of us is willing to admit it or not,” Greg continued, “we’re assuming the truth of our respective hypotheses, even when arguing for them. You actually start with the non-purposeful, impersonal conclusion you’re supposed to argue for; and I begin assuming the truth of the personal, purposeful explanation that I’m to argue for. It would seem therefore that neither will convince the other of their position.”
“Well, then,” Debbie said with resolution, “I guess we’ve reached an impasse. You believe the rocks are the result of some imaginary person; and I think that we needn’t venture beyond the ‘fact’ of the rocks, looking for some mysterious purpose or person. The naturalist view tells us all we need to know about the rocks!”
Optimistically, Greg pressed a bit. “Debbie, I think we can resolve our disagreement. Well, at least resolve which hypothesis is the rational one.”
Debbie, seeming a bit skeptical, agreed to consider the solution. “I’m all ears, Greg.”
“One question is all that’s needed to determine which hypothesis is rational. So let me ask you, Debbie: When you finally arrived here, did you think that the arrangement of stones communicated something independent of themselves?”
“I don’t follow your logic, Greg.”
“Put simply, if you hold that the rock arrangement is merely the result of natural causes, without any intelligent, personal plan behind it; but then, when you saw the rocks you believed that they communicated an intelligible, reliable message—that you were in fact entering Big Island—then your belief in the naturalistic hypothesis is silly, in a word, irrational. Is that better?”
“Interesting,” Debbie said, “well, look, we’re both unloaded…It’s been nice talking, Greg.”
So it is also with the debate between atheistic Naturalism and Christian theism. Both worldviews come to the ‘facts’ of experience interpreting them through their respective pre-commitments. The former, Naturalism, argues that the universe is ultimately impersonal, non-purposeful and random. The latter, Christianity, begins with its fundamental commitment to the absolute-personal Creator-Controller-Redeemer God. Both argue that their worldview fits the facts of human experience, not least, the fact that our sensory organs give us true and intelligible information about the world of experience (independent of themselves), and that our reasoning ability provides a reliable means of ciphering and systemizing that information, that message (which we believe exists independent of our minds).
However, without even skirting the questions, Naturalists simply presume these things and then go on to use them (rationalism) to build a worldview that makes them impossible (irrationalism). For if Naturalism’s the case, then human sense perception and reason are simply part of an infinite series of non-purposeful, impersonal, unguided accidents. But if that’s so, there is quite literally no reasonable grounds for believing that our senses and reason provide any meaningful information about anything.
Therefore, as Greg said in other terms, atheistic Naturalism is simply irrational.
Kevin
As Debbie, our driver, descended southward down route 501, something on a nearby mountainside caught her attention. Approaching the plant, Debbie recognized the mountainside diversion as a series of large rocks arranged to read, “WELCOME TO BIG ISLAND.”
Debbie thought to herself, “There are really only two hypotheses that can account for how those rocks obtained their arrangement on the mountainside. Either they came to rest in that position by means of purely impersonal, non-purposeful natural causes; or the rocks are the result of a personal, purposeful agent who works according to a good plan.”
Setting the bigger question aside for a moment, Debbie knew that whatever their cause, the rocks confirmed that she had finally reached her destination.
While being unloaded, Debbie met Greg, another driver. Soon their conversation turned to the rocks.
“You know,” Greg started, “before I drove a truck, I was in the construction business, and anyone who has the ability pull off something like that has my greatest respect. I know people might say, ‘Big deal, it’s just a bunch of rocks,’ but something like that requires intelligence and skill that very few have.”
“Greg,” Debbie interrupted, “I don’t mean to contradict, but before I started driving, I went to grad school and minored in geology. If you think that something like that overgrown rock garden can’t exist but for personal design, then you just need to go to the library a little more. There are many things in nature much more complex than that rock-pile that are caused by purely natural means.” She concluded, “A naturalistic explanation is quite possible.”
“In theory, I suppose the natural explanation might be possible,” Greg concurred. “Nevertheless, simply because something is theoretically possible, it certainly doesn’t follow that the theory is true. Whether either of us is willing to admit it or not,” Greg continued, “we’re assuming the truth of our respective hypotheses, even when arguing for them. You actually start with the non-purposeful, impersonal conclusion you’re supposed to argue for; and I begin assuming the truth of the personal, purposeful explanation that I’m to argue for. It would seem therefore that neither will convince the other of their position.”
“Well, then,” Debbie said with resolution, “I guess we’ve reached an impasse. You believe the rocks are the result of some imaginary person; and I think that we needn’t venture beyond the ‘fact’ of the rocks, looking for some mysterious purpose or person. The naturalist view tells us all we need to know about the rocks!”
Optimistically, Greg pressed a bit. “Debbie, I think we can resolve our disagreement. Well, at least resolve which hypothesis is the rational one.”
Debbie, seeming a bit skeptical, agreed to consider the solution. “I’m all ears, Greg.”
“One question is all that’s needed to determine which hypothesis is rational. So let me ask you, Debbie: When you finally arrived here, did you think that the arrangement of stones communicated something independent of themselves?”
“I don’t follow your logic, Greg.”
“Put simply, if you hold that the rock arrangement is merely the result of natural causes, without any intelligent, personal plan behind it; but then, when you saw the rocks you believed that they communicated an intelligible, reliable message—that you were in fact entering Big Island—then your belief in the naturalistic hypothesis is silly, in a word, irrational. Is that better?”
“Interesting,” Debbie said, “well, look, we’re both unloaded…It’s been nice talking, Greg.”
So it is also with the debate between atheistic Naturalism and Christian theism. Both worldviews come to the ‘facts’ of experience interpreting them through their respective pre-commitments. The former, Naturalism, argues that the universe is ultimately impersonal, non-purposeful and random. The latter, Christianity, begins with its fundamental commitment to the absolute-personal Creator-Controller-Redeemer God. Both argue that their worldview fits the facts of human experience, not least, the fact that our sensory organs give us true and intelligible information about the world of experience (independent of themselves), and that our reasoning ability provides a reliable means of ciphering and systemizing that information, that message (which we believe exists independent of our minds).
However, without even skirting the questions, Naturalists simply presume these things and then go on to use them (rationalism) to build a worldview that makes them impossible (irrationalism). For if Naturalism’s the case, then human sense perception and reason are simply part of an infinite series of non-purposeful, impersonal, unguided accidents. But if that’s so, there is quite literally no reasonable grounds for believing that our senses and reason provide any meaningful information about anything.
Therefore, as Greg said in other terms, atheistic Naturalism is simply irrational.
Kevin
MASTER LIST OF INFORMAL LOGICAL FALLACIES
Here is a helpful catalogue of common logical fallacies that we developed for Beaner's Critical Thinking class. Being able to identify these errors in reason is critical for the loving of God with all your mind, and for commending and defending His worthiness to be loved to a rebel world.
I. FALLACIES OF DIVERSION
1) A Red Herring is the introduction of an irrelevant point into an argument. Someone may think (or want others to think) that it proves his own position or disproves his opponents, but it really doesn’t.
2) An Ad Hominem attack is attacking an opponent’s character, or his motives for holding a belief/position, instead of disproving his argument or the truth of his position.
3) Appeal to Flattery is the attempt to confuse the thoughts of the opponent with the positive feelings generated by the flatterer, thus tempering the opponent’s response in favor with the flatterer’s position.
4) The Genetic Fallacy is condemning an argument or position because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.
5) Tu Quoque is dismissing someone’s viewpoint on an issue because he himself is inconsistent in that very thing.
6) An Appeal to Faulty Authority is an appeal to someone who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.
7) Appeal to the People is stating that a claim is true or right based on its popularity within society (quantitatively).
8) The Straw Man Fallacy is misrepresenting (by changing or exaggerating) an opponent’s position or argument in order to make it easier to refute.
9) The Sacred Cow Fallacy is when an opponent seeks to shift one’s criticism of their position or viewpoint to an unrelated noble ideal, such as liberty, religion, peace, etc., making the criticism impious, unpatriotic, etc.
10) The Root Word Fallacy ignores the fact that language changes over time. It seeks to take the ancient root meaning of a term and make unqualified application of it to the argument.
II. MAKING ASSUMPTIONS
1) Circular Reasoning (or Begging the Question) occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used in a premise of the same argument (i.e., P is true because Q is true, and Q is true because P is true).
2) An Equivocation (or the Weasel Word fallacy) changes the meaning of a particular key term in the middle of an argument.
3) Apriority is to argue from an un-argued, even subjective assumption. Presuming too much for one’s position (e.g., “Well, everybody knows that…” or “I just know…” or “I feel…” or “It seems to me that…”).
4) A Contradictory Premise is one that includes an internal inconsistency/incoherence (e.g., “Can God make a stone so big he cannot lift it?” “All truth is relative/There is no absolute truth.” “There exists an immovable object and an unstoppable force.”).
5) Poisoning the Well is the use of loaded language that attempts to damage a position or argument before it is even mentioned.
6) The Loaded Question (or Complex Question) is when an opponent actually asks two (or more) questions, but one (or more) of the questions are hidden behind the one asked.
7) The Part-to-Whole (or Fallacy of Composition) takes what is true for part of something and assumes that it must also be true for the whole of the same thing.
8) The Whole-to-Part (or Fallacy of Division) takes what is true for the whole of something and assumes that it must also be true for the parts of the same thing.
9) An Either-Or Fallacy (or False Dilemma/Dichotomy) is setting before the opponent only two alternatives, when in fact there is more than two.
10) Non Sequitur is a formal term for a “bad/invalid argument.” It means that the conclusion “does not follow” from the premises of the argument, whether or not the premises are true or false.
11) Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (or the Slippery Slope Fallacy) is to present particular, undesirable consequences as certain, when they are not. I.e., To confuse “will happen” with “might happen.”
12) The True Scotsman Fallacy is arbitrarily adding certain attributes or features to the definition of a thing or set of things that are unnecessary to its essential nature, so as to eliminate competing views.
13) The Pretended Neutrality Fallacy is the false idea that conflicting positions over ultimate questions can be settled on the “neutral” grounds of “reason” or “science” apart from any religious/philosophical pre-commitments.
14) An Anachronism is a chronological error of the representation of somebody or something out of chronological order or in the wrong historical context.
III. STATISTICAL FALLACIES
1) A Hasty Generalization is generalizing or universalizing something about a class based on a small or poor sample/example.
2) The False Analogy is to claim that some things or states of affairs which have only a few vague similarities are practically the same in every respect.
3) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (or After-This-Therefore-Because-Of-This) is concluding that since X happened before Y, then X must be the cause of Y.
4) The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy is claiming that something is true simply because nobody has yet given any evidence to the contrary in order to disprove it.
IV. PROPAGANDA
1) Appeal to Fear is when an argument’s force is built on making its opponent(s) fear the consequences of not agreeing with or doing what is desired.
2) Appeal to Pity is trying to make someone agree with or do something based on their compassion or pity toward someone else, or something associated with that person.
3) Bandwagoneering claims others should agree with or do something based on the fact that “everyone else is doing it.”
4) Special Pleading is a type of intellectual hypocrisy. It is when someone assumes one standard for himself, and another, usually more difficult to keep, for someone else in the same circumstance.
5) Repetition is repeating a message loudly and very often in the hope that it will soon be believed.
6) Transfer is the propaganda devise used to attempt to get someone to “transfer” their positive and/or negative feelings or thoughts about one thing to another unrelated thing.
7) Appeal to Snobbery is any attempt to persuade someone to believe that belief or product X would make one better, stand out from or above others. The appeal to human pride.
8) A faulty Appeal to Antiquity is to associate a belief, position or product with a long heritage, usually meaning “the older, the better.”
9) The Latest is Greatest fallacy claims that a belief, position, or product is the best simply because it is the newest.
10) Loaded Definition is presenting a definition of a key term in the debate as simple and obvious, when really it is complex and “loaded” to favor one side’s position (e.g., Faith is “believing what you know ain’t true”).
11) Sloganeering is the unwarranted use of familiar, even beloved mottos in the place of reason and evidence.
12) The Controlling Question is the phrasing of a question in order to control the response before it is made, often using: “you don’t really...surely you...don’t you?”
I. FALLACIES OF DIVERSION
1) A Red Herring is the introduction of an irrelevant point into an argument. Someone may think (or want others to think) that it proves his own position or disproves his opponents, but it really doesn’t.
2) An Ad Hominem attack is attacking an opponent’s character, or his motives for holding a belief/position, instead of disproving his argument or the truth of his position.
3) Appeal to Flattery is the attempt to confuse the thoughts of the opponent with the positive feelings generated by the flatterer, thus tempering the opponent’s response in favor with the flatterer’s position.
4) The Genetic Fallacy is condemning an argument or position because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.
5) Tu Quoque is dismissing someone’s viewpoint on an issue because he himself is inconsistent in that very thing.
6) An Appeal to Faulty Authority is an appeal to someone who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.
7) Appeal to the People is stating that a claim is true or right based on its popularity within society (quantitatively).
8) The Straw Man Fallacy is misrepresenting (by changing or exaggerating) an opponent’s position or argument in order to make it easier to refute.
9) The Sacred Cow Fallacy is when an opponent seeks to shift one’s criticism of their position or viewpoint to an unrelated noble ideal, such as liberty, religion, peace, etc., making the criticism impious, unpatriotic, etc.
10) The Root Word Fallacy ignores the fact that language changes over time. It seeks to take the ancient root meaning of a term and make unqualified application of it to the argument.
II. MAKING ASSUMPTIONS
1) Circular Reasoning (or Begging the Question) occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used in a premise of the same argument (i.e., P is true because Q is true, and Q is true because P is true).
2) An Equivocation (or the Weasel Word fallacy) changes the meaning of a particular key term in the middle of an argument.
3) Apriority is to argue from an un-argued, even subjective assumption. Presuming too much for one’s position (e.g., “Well, everybody knows that…” or “I just know…” or “I feel…” or “It seems to me that…”).
4) A Contradictory Premise is one that includes an internal inconsistency/incoherence (e.g., “Can God make a stone so big he cannot lift it?” “All truth is relative/There is no absolute truth.” “There exists an immovable object and an unstoppable force.”).
5) Poisoning the Well is the use of loaded language that attempts to damage a position or argument before it is even mentioned.
6) The Loaded Question (or Complex Question) is when an opponent actually asks two (or more) questions, but one (or more) of the questions are hidden behind the one asked.
7) The Part-to-Whole (or Fallacy of Composition) takes what is true for part of something and assumes that it must also be true for the whole of the same thing.
8) The Whole-to-Part (or Fallacy of Division) takes what is true for the whole of something and assumes that it must also be true for the parts of the same thing.
9) An Either-Or Fallacy (or False Dilemma/Dichotomy) is setting before the opponent only two alternatives, when in fact there is more than two.
10) Non Sequitur is a formal term for a “bad/invalid argument.” It means that the conclusion “does not follow” from the premises of the argument, whether or not the premises are true or false.
11) Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (or the Slippery Slope Fallacy) is to present particular, undesirable consequences as certain, when they are not. I.e., To confuse “will happen” with “might happen.”
12) The True Scotsman Fallacy is arbitrarily adding certain attributes or features to the definition of a thing or set of things that are unnecessary to its essential nature, so as to eliminate competing views.
13) The Pretended Neutrality Fallacy is the false idea that conflicting positions over ultimate questions can be settled on the “neutral” grounds of “reason” or “science” apart from any religious/philosophical pre-commitments.
14) An Anachronism is a chronological error of the representation of somebody or something out of chronological order or in the wrong historical context.
III. STATISTICAL FALLACIES
1) A Hasty Generalization is generalizing or universalizing something about a class based on a small or poor sample/example.
2) The False Analogy is to claim that some things or states of affairs which have only a few vague similarities are practically the same in every respect.
3) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (or After-This-Therefore-Because-Of-This) is concluding that since X happened before Y, then X must be the cause of Y.
4) The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy is claiming that something is true simply because nobody has yet given any evidence to the contrary in order to disprove it.
IV. PROPAGANDA
1) Appeal to Fear is when an argument’s force is built on making its opponent(s) fear the consequences of not agreeing with or doing what is desired.
2) Appeal to Pity is trying to make someone agree with or do something based on their compassion or pity toward someone else, or something associated with that person.
3) Bandwagoneering claims others should agree with or do something based on the fact that “everyone else is doing it.”
4) Special Pleading is a type of intellectual hypocrisy. It is when someone assumes one standard for himself, and another, usually more difficult to keep, for someone else in the same circumstance.
5) Repetition is repeating a message loudly and very often in the hope that it will soon be believed.
6) Transfer is the propaganda devise used to attempt to get someone to “transfer” their positive and/or negative feelings or thoughts about one thing to another unrelated thing.
7) Appeal to Snobbery is any attempt to persuade someone to believe that belief or product X would make one better, stand out from or above others. The appeal to human pride.
8) A faulty Appeal to Antiquity is to associate a belief, position or product with a long heritage, usually meaning “the older, the better.”
9) The Latest is Greatest fallacy claims that a belief, position, or product is the best simply because it is the newest.
10) Loaded Definition is presenting a definition of a key term in the debate as simple and obvious, when really it is complex and “loaded” to favor one side’s position (e.g., Faith is “believing what you know ain’t true”).
11) Sloganeering is the unwarranted use of familiar, even beloved mottos in the place of reason and evidence.
12) The Controlling Question is the phrasing of a question in order to control the response before it is made, often using: “you don’t really...surely you...don’t you?”
IMAGO DEI: Its Meaning, Implication and Application
I. THE MEANING OF BEING MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE
A. The broader meaning of being made in God’s image lies in the simple fact that man is in a creaturely sense “like” God and “represents” God. So, in some sense man is an idol made in the image of the One who made him; a favor man has been try to reverse and return of ever since. Although man’s Fall severely defaced and distorted the image he bears, the particulars of the broader category are still residual in fallen man, every fallen man.
1. The fact that we are created “like” God means that man shares certain qualities that are similar to God himself. Such qualities may be set in three classes. Man is, in a creaturely capacity, like God metaphysically, mentally and morally. First, man is similar to God metaphysically. One factor that differentiates man from the rest of the created order is that he is a spiritual being;he is made irreversibly immortal, existing somewhere, for better of worse, forever. It is also this aspect of the image that allows us to enjoy fellowship with our Creator—loving, worshiping and sharing meaningful communication with him. This also indicates that there lies within man an immaterial reality to which he is responsible for maintaining and keeping properly orientated to and in the right relationship with God.
Second, man is similar to God in his mental capacities. For millennia man has sought to understand and explain, apart from the “image” factor, his dignifying ability to reason abstractly and discursively. From Plato’s idealism to today’s New Age “cosmic god—mind” and every philosophy and religion in between, has met utter failure in their search for the why and how of human rationality. However, Christian theism is not bankrupt in offering an answer to this question. Human reasoning, both inductive and deductive, in the biblical context makes perfect sense. The triune God of the Bible reveals himself as having all knowledge (omniscience). If, then, this God creates beings in his own image, they too would have knowledge, yet in a limited capacity—true knowledge, though not exhaustive. Also, God gives his creatures a mandate to explore and subdue the rest of created order expanding and adorning it to God’s glory, thus, man would require reasoning abilities for this task. The simplicity of the Christian’s answer for knowledge and rationality in no wise voids its profundity. Our answer is perhaps simple on the face of it, but the only other options are completely irrational, even at their deepest depths!
Lastly, man is a volitional creature sharing moral qualities with God.
Superficially, many other of God’s sentient creatures seemingly reflect some measure of morality (as many naturalistic atheists would be quick to point out). However, the actions and “decisions” of the brute creatures are not innately moral, they are learned behaviors based upon a fear of negative stimulus or in hope of the positive opposite. It is not so with man. A dog on a walk with its master does not stroll past an animal shelter and mourn the dilemma that faces dog-kind. Neither will a dog bark and growl in righteous indignation at the sight of another of the same species suffering at the end of a six foot long chain, being without food, water or shelter. Injustice means nothing to the lower animals; however, it is an aching reality in the very bosom of the image bearer. The only creature who knows and innately senses right-ness and wrong-ness is man, and the only reason is that he is “like” God morally.
In summery, the meaning of our being “God-like” has subtleties far beyond what is offered here, but most if not all may fit into these three categories: metaphysical, mental and moral.
2. The weight and responsibility of being “like” God is magnified by the fact that man is also created to “represent” God. In the historical context of the ancient Near East, the worldview into which Moses wrote, the term “image” would have communicated and “expressed the ‘presence’ of an absent lord (humanly speaking) in the sphere of his own dominion.” This observation helps us to view “image” in the way in which it would have been understood in its originally intended meaning. The trans-cultural nature of this understanding of “representative image” can be seen in Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and Herodians over the Roman taxation of Palestinian Jews. Jesus escapes the horns of a dilemma by first pointing out the agreed upon premise: “Whose image and inscription is this?” “Caesar’s” they answered. Therefore, that which bears the Emperor’s “image” (KJV best) reflects his authority, control and presence where ever it is found in the empire (Mt 22:15—22). Jesus escapes the horns of this dilemma by arguing a fortiori, from the lesser (Caesar’s image on the denarius) to the greater (God’s image as stamped upon every human being), thus avoiding the implications of the dilemma posed to him—either the charge of blasphemy from the Jews on the one hand, or the charge sedition from the Romans on the other. Just as Caesar’s presence is represented in his “image” on every denarius, so too God is representatively present in every creature stamped with his own “image.”
Hence, given the goodness of man’s original constitution, it is as if one could have asked the Creator, “what are you like?” and God would have been able to point the inquirer to his image bearers and say, “That is what I am like, for man is the reflection and representation of myself on the earth.” In this our parents failed, as do we all; however, One did not. It is this facet of the “image bearing” that becomes the interpretive backdrop of passages that rightly say of Jesus in his humanity, he bears, perfectly and expressedly, God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). Moreover, the same is true when Jesus tells Thomas: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn 14:7). Thus, we are also able to hear the “ring of truth” in Pilate’s proclamation: “Ecce Homo!” (“Behold, THE MAN!” Jn 19:5).
Therefore, God has given to man as part of the image bearing capacity the responsibility to represent him, the Creator. As God exercises his rule and dominion over the whole of the cosmos, God gives to man, as his viceroy, the role of reflecting that ruling glory over the earth (Gen 1:28; Ps 8:5—8; 115:16).
B. The narrow meaning of being created in the image of God speaks of the image bearing qualities lost at man’s Fall. A biblical view of man and things tells us, even if only intuitively and experientially, things are now abnormal—put out of rights with how they ought to be. Although the OT makes several allusions to ways in which the image of God has been corrupted and some capacities of it even lost when man fell, it is not until God’s revelation about man progresses to Paul’s epistles do we find the specifics.
Certainly one of the most fundamental goals of God’s plan of redeeming man is that they, individually and collectively, “be conformed into the image of his (God’s) Son” (Rom 8:29). Elsewhere, Paul tells us of three qualities which fit squarely into and mirror in a particular way the three categories mentioned above: metaphysical, mental, and moral. These would consist of “true (genuine, God-like) righteousness (moral) and holiness (metaphysical)” and “knowledge (mental) after the image of its creator” (Eph 4:24 and Col 3:10 respectively).
The language Paul uses in Eph 4; “renewed” (v. 23; cf. Col 3:10), “created,” “likeness” (v.24), as well as Col 3; “image of its creator” (v. 10), all points back to man’s originally “good” created constitution of our first parents as found in Gen 1 and 2. This is further bolstered by Paul juxtaposing the “old man” (Adamic) with the “new man” (renewed in, and like Christ). This is not to say that fallen man has utter lost all residual traces of righteousness, holiness and knowledge, for God, in his common grace and by way of man remaining in his image do still posses these characteristics, more or less given the individual, in some sense. However, unregenerate man, that is, fallen man as such, never ever bears them “in truth” (Eph 4:24, NASB), which is the only way God finds them acceptable. Hence, our regeneration in Christ, through the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and our continued renewal and progressive conformity to Christ’s image is the integral part of God’s Great Plan to bring his whole creation back into a completely restored relationship to himself. The great joy believers know experimentally now points back to a time when things were right (Gen 1 -- 2) and forward to a time when they with be put to rights again (Rev 21 -- 22).
II. IMPLICATION AND APPLICATION
One implication of these reflections on the imago Dei is the responsibility of every image bearer to “be like...represent” God the Creator perfectly. This implication has great value and application in the task of defending and sharing the faith today.
Many of our modern evangelistic efforts are foiled by the sheer fact of our cultural/temporal setting. Our society is currently in what I call the final wave of the “Christian echo.” For instance, thirty to forty years ago a Christian could use terms such as God, sin, cross and salvation when speaking to an unbeliever because of the Christian heritage they both shared by virtue of living in a wave closer to the center of the Christian echo; thus, they shared in large measure an agreed definition of these terms. Today however, the Gospel proper; preaching sin, judgment, Christ’s death and resurrection, has little life transforming effect. This is not to say that the Gospel itself has lost effectiveness and must be changed to reach our generation. God forbid! Rather, it is to say that because most unbelievers no longer share any level of biblical literacy or the slightest understanding of the “Christian story” (the biblical plot-line; major turns in redemptive history, etc) the mere terms of the Gospel miss their mark in the heart and mind of the hearers. Allowing the sinner to translate and redefine the terms on the grounds of their own understanding of their “problem(s),” without filling those terms with biblical content and presenting them in the biblical context is a sure fire way to see hands go up and get cards signed; however, as I said, few of those lives will go on to bear any sustaining fruit of true conversion.
One Christian thinker identifies the people in this generation of the Christian echo as no longer having the “plausibility structure” in their thinking in which the Gospel terms may fit. For instance, to tell average person in America today that “Jesus died for them” might generate a response like this: “Well...that sounds really nice and all, but why would he need to go and do something like that?!?” “Well,” one might reply, “because God loves you!” Yet again, as amazing as that statement is to those of us who know man’s “real problem” and precisely how intrinsically unlovable we truly are, to the unbeliever today, they view themselves as worthy objects of God’s love by virtue of being born in America or some such thing. Attempting to hang the Gospel truths on the average unbeliever’s “plausibility structure” is like trying to drive a nail in a sheered sheet of granite. I would contend that today the terms of the Gospel must be presented in conjunction with the concepts and biblical definitions of those same terms. One such way is to begin by presenting the “Christian story” in its fullness, something that will start with the “image bearing” theme, and how that image looks today; even in their own life. Not until God’s own diagnosis of the problem is made clear in the mind of unbelievers will God’s wondrous gift of his own Son—the Solution to the image bearers problem—make real sense.
It is the image bearing capacity in man that makes sin recognizable for all its vile wickedness. If then, we are Created in God’s image and as such we are, creaturely speaking, like him and are to represent him as a dependant stand in here on earth, when we sin, even the “small ones,” its is nothing less than directly maligning of God’s name, character and holiness! Every person on earth has the responsibility to represent God in this capacity, to glorify the Creator through their rightly reflecting and representing him, thus, to sin is to tell the whole world that: “THIS IS WHAT GOD IS LIKE...HE IS A LIAR; HE HAS WICKED THOUGHTS; HE LUSTS; HE HATES WITHOUT CAUSE...ETC.” Now, this is not how we normally think of sin I know; but given the “image factor” how could it be anything less?!?
Once, therefore, this concept has found its mark in the image bearer one is attempting to evangelizing, the Gospel (God’s offer of a perfect substitute for their maligning representation of him) makes PERFECT sense!
A. The broader meaning of being made in God’s image lies in the simple fact that man is in a creaturely sense “like” God and “represents” God. So, in some sense man is an idol made in the image of the One who made him; a favor man has been try to reverse and return of ever since. Although man’s Fall severely defaced and distorted the image he bears, the particulars of the broader category are still residual in fallen man, every fallen man.
1. The fact that we are created “like” God means that man shares certain qualities that are similar to God himself. Such qualities may be set in three classes. Man is, in a creaturely capacity, like God metaphysically, mentally and morally. First, man is similar to God metaphysically. One factor that differentiates man from the rest of the created order is that he is a spiritual being;he is made irreversibly immortal, existing somewhere, for better of worse, forever. It is also this aspect of the image that allows us to enjoy fellowship with our Creator—loving, worshiping and sharing meaningful communication with him. This also indicates that there lies within man an immaterial reality to which he is responsible for maintaining and keeping properly orientated to and in the right relationship with God.
Second, man is similar to God in his mental capacities. For millennia man has sought to understand and explain, apart from the “image” factor, his dignifying ability to reason abstractly and discursively. From Plato’s idealism to today’s New Age “cosmic god—mind” and every philosophy and religion in between, has met utter failure in their search for the why and how of human rationality. However, Christian theism is not bankrupt in offering an answer to this question. Human reasoning, both inductive and deductive, in the biblical context makes perfect sense. The triune God of the Bible reveals himself as having all knowledge (omniscience). If, then, this God creates beings in his own image, they too would have knowledge, yet in a limited capacity—true knowledge, though not exhaustive. Also, God gives his creatures a mandate to explore and subdue the rest of created order expanding and adorning it to God’s glory, thus, man would require reasoning abilities for this task. The simplicity of the Christian’s answer for knowledge and rationality in no wise voids its profundity. Our answer is perhaps simple on the face of it, but the only other options are completely irrational, even at their deepest depths!
Lastly, man is a volitional creature sharing moral qualities with God.
Superficially, many other of God’s sentient creatures seemingly reflect some measure of morality (as many naturalistic atheists would be quick to point out). However, the actions and “decisions” of the brute creatures are not innately moral, they are learned behaviors based upon a fear of negative stimulus or in hope of the positive opposite. It is not so with man. A dog on a walk with its master does not stroll past an animal shelter and mourn the dilemma that faces dog-kind. Neither will a dog bark and growl in righteous indignation at the sight of another of the same species suffering at the end of a six foot long chain, being without food, water or shelter. Injustice means nothing to the lower animals; however, it is an aching reality in the very bosom of the image bearer. The only creature who knows and innately senses right-ness and wrong-ness is man, and the only reason is that he is “like” God morally.
In summery, the meaning of our being “God-like” has subtleties far beyond what is offered here, but most if not all may fit into these three categories: metaphysical, mental and moral.
2. The weight and responsibility of being “like” God is magnified by the fact that man is also created to “represent” God. In the historical context of the ancient Near East, the worldview into which Moses wrote, the term “image” would have communicated and “expressed the ‘presence’ of an absent lord (humanly speaking) in the sphere of his own dominion.” This observation helps us to view “image” in the way in which it would have been understood in its originally intended meaning. The trans-cultural nature of this understanding of “representative image” can be seen in Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and Herodians over the Roman taxation of Palestinian Jews. Jesus escapes the horns of a dilemma by first pointing out the agreed upon premise: “Whose image and inscription is this?” “Caesar’s” they answered. Therefore, that which bears the Emperor’s “image” (KJV best) reflects his authority, control and presence where ever it is found in the empire (Mt 22:15—22). Jesus escapes the horns of this dilemma by arguing a fortiori, from the lesser (Caesar’s image on the denarius) to the greater (God’s image as stamped upon every human being), thus avoiding the implications of the dilemma posed to him—either the charge of blasphemy from the Jews on the one hand, or the charge sedition from the Romans on the other. Just as Caesar’s presence is represented in his “image” on every denarius, so too God is representatively present in every creature stamped with his own “image.”
Hence, given the goodness of man’s original constitution, it is as if one could have asked the Creator, “what are you like?” and God would have been able to point the inquirer to his image bearers and say, “That is what I am like, for man is the reflection and representation of myself on the earth.” In this our parents failed, as do we all; however, One did not. It is this facet of the “image bearing” that becomes the interpretive backdrop of passages that rightly say of Jesus in his humanity, he bears, perfectly and expressedly, God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). Moreover, the same is true when Jesus tells Thomas: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn 14:7). Thus, we are also able to hear the “ring of truth” in Pilate’s proclamation: “Ecce Homo!” (“Behold, THE MAN!” Jn 19:5).
Therefore, God has given to man as part of the image bearing capacity the responsibility to represent him, the Creator. As God exercises his rule and dominion over the whole of the cosmos, God gives to man, as his viceroy, the role of reflecting that ruling glory over the earth (Gen 1:28; Ps 8:5—8; 115:16).
B. The narrow meaning of being created in the image of God speaks of the image bearing qualities lost at man’s Fall. A biblical view of man and things tells us, even if only intuitively and experientially, things are now abnormal—put out of rights with how they ought to be. Although the OT makes several allusions to ways in which the image of God has been corrupted and some capacities of it even lost when man fell, it is not until God’s revelation about man progresses to Paul’s epistles do we find the specifics.
Certainly one of the most fundamental goals of God’s plan of redeeming man is that they, individually and collectively, “be conformed into the image of his (God’s) Son” (Rom 8:29). Elsewhere, Paul tells us of three qualities which fit squarely into and mirror in a particular way the three categories mentioned above: metaphysical, mental, and moral. These would consist of “true (genuine, God-like) righteousness (moral) and holiness (metaphysical)” and “knowledge (mental) after the image of its creator” (Eph 4:24 and Col 3:10 respectively).
The language Paul uses in Eph 4; “renewed” (v. 23; cf. Col 3:10), “created,” “likeness” (v.24), as well as Col 3; “image of its creator” (v. 10), all points back to man’s originally “good” created constitution of our first parents as found in Gen 1 and 2. This is further bolstered by Paul juxtaposing the “old man” (Adamic) with the “new man” (renewed in, and like Christ). This is not to say that fallen man has utter lost all residual traces of righteousness, holiness and knowledge, for God, in his common grace and by way of man remaining in his image do still posses these characteristics, more or less given the individual, in some sense. However, unregenerate man, that is, fallen man as such, never ever bears them “in truth” (Eph 4:24, NASB), which is the only way God finds them acceptable. Hence, our regeneration in Christ, through the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and our continued renewal and progressive conformity to Christ’s image is the integral part of God’s Great Plan to bring his whole creation back into a completely restored relationship to himself. The great joy believers know experimentally now points back to a time when things were right (Gen 1 -- 2) and forward to a time when they with be put to rights again (Rev 21 -- 22).
II. IMPLICATION AND APPLICATION
One implication of these reflections on the imago Dei is the responsibility of every image bearer to “be like...represent” God the Creator perfectly. This implication has great value and application in the task of defending and sharing the faith today.
Many of our modern evangelistic efforts are foiled by the sheer fact of our cultural/temporal setting. Our society is currently in what I call the final wave of the “Christian echo.” For instance, thirty to forty years ago a Christian could use terms such as God, sin, cross and salvation when speaking to an unbeliever because of the Christian heritage they both shared by virtue of living in a wave closer to the center of the Christian echo; thus, they shared in large measure an agreed definition of these terms. Today however, the Gospel proper; preaching sin, judgment, Christ’s death and resurrection, has little life transforming effect. This is not to say that the Gospel itself has lost effectiveness and must be changed to reach our generation. God forbid! Rather, it is to say that because most unbelievers no longer share any level of biblical literacy or the slightest understanding of the “Christian story” (the biblical plot-line; major turns in redemptive history, etc) the mere terms of the Gospel miss their mark in the heart and mind of the hearers. Allowing the sinner to translate and redefine the terms on the grounds of their own understanding of their “problem(s),” without filling those terms with biblical content and presenting them in the biblical context is a sure fire way to see hands go up and get cards signed; however, as I said, few of those lives will go on to bear any sustaining fruit of true conversion.
One Christian thinker identifies the people in this generation of the Christian echo as no longer having the “plausibility structure” in their thinking in which the Gospel terms may fit. For instance, to tell average person in America today that “Jesus died for them” might generate a response like this: “Well...that sounds really nice and all, but why would he need to go and do something like that?!?” “Well,” one might reply, “because God loves you!” Yet again, as amazing as that statement is to those of us who know man’s “real problem” and precisely how intrinsically unlovable we truly are, to the unbeliever today, they view themselves as worthy objects of God’s love by virtue of being born in America or some such thing. Attempting to hang the Gospel truths on the average unbeliever’s “plausibility structure” is like trying to drive a nail in a sheered sheet of granite. I would contend that today the terms of the Gospel must be presented in conjunction with the concepts and biblical definitions of those same terms. One such way is to begin by presenting the “Christian story” in its fullness, something that will start with the “image bearing” theme, and how that image looks today; even in their own life. Not until God’s own diagnosis of the problem is made clear in the mind of unbelievers will God’s wondrous gift of his own Son—the Solution to the image bearers problem—make real sense.
It is the image bearing capacity in man that makes sin recognizable for all its vile wickedness. If then, we are Created in God’s image and as such we are, creaturely speaking, like him and are to represent him as a dependant stand in here on earth, when we sin, even the “small ones,” its is nothing less than directly maligning of God’s name, character and holiness! Every person on earth has the responsibility to represent God in this capacity, to glorify the Creator through their rightly reflecting and representing him, thus, to sin is to tell the whole world that: “THIS IS WHAT GOD IS LIKE...HE IS A LIAR; HE HAS WICKED THOUGHTS; HE LUSTS; HE HATES WITHOUT CAUSE...ETC.” Now, this is not how we normally think of sin I know; but given the “image factor” how could it be anything less?!?
Once, therefore, this concept has found its mark in the image bearer one is attempting to evangelizing, the Gospel (God’s offer of a perfect substitute for their maligning representation of him) makes PERFECT sense!
WHEN DID THE CHURCH BEGIN?
The question ‘when did the church beginning is a complex one. It is similar to being asked, ‘Kevin, have you stopped beating your wife?’ No matter how I would answer this question, whether yes or no, I will be in hot water! That is because there lies behind the first question another, have I ever ‘beat my wife’. So the answer to this last question, ‘have I ever?’, is what will inform, even define, the answer to the first, ‘have I stopped?’. ‘When did the church begin’ is not altogether different. There is another question subtly lurking behind this one and that is: ‘what is the church?’ Thus, the original question, ‘when...church’, is answered by the definition of the latter, ‘what...church’.
To begin with, we must first consider the term itself, ‘church’. By mere definition the word simply means called out (ones), an assembly gathered for a purpose, a congregation of people, etc. But this does little in advancing an understanding of what the church is, apart from an assembly of people, called out for a purpose. This definition could aptly be applied to the whole of God’s redeemed people across all times. However, Robert Lightner, in his summary of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1986. p. 217), argues that the church is constrained to be a NT-only concept. One reason, among others, is because “the word church does not appear in the Old Testament.” In spite of Dr. Lightner’s important contributions to theological studies, this premise must be dismissed for at least two reasons. First, given such strictures as the etymology of a word in the English Bible, we are also bound to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, for this important term is found in neither the OT nor the New. But this, a most central doctrine, is revealed ubiquitously in concept throughout the scriptures. Second, a careful reading of the KJV has the word ‘church’ coming from both, Stephen, in reference to Israel in their wilderness experience (Acts 7:38), as well as the writer of Hebrews, quoting the words of David, “in the midst of the ‘church’, I will sing your praises” (2:12b cf. Ps 22:22). These two citations do not, in themselves, completely circumvent Lightner’s remarks, for both are still found in the NT. However, they do cause us to pause and ask what word is here being translated ‘church’, because in the original writings the actual word ‘church’ never occurs.
The Greek word back of the English word church is ekklēsia. The real question, therefore, is whether or not this term found in the OT? It is, in fact, in a number of places. Ekklēsia, in the Septuagint (the Greek OT, translated c. 200 B.C.), is the word which translates the Hebrew word qāhāl. (See: Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:2ff, 9; 31:30; Josh 9:2; Jda. 20:2; 21:5, 8; Judg 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1 Sam 17:47; 19:20; 1 Kgs 8:14, 22, 55, 65; 1 Chr 13:2, 4; 28:2, 8; 29:1, 10, 20; 2 Chr 1:3, 5; 6:3, 12f; 7:8; 10:3; 20:5, 14; 23:3; 28:14; 29:23, 28, 31f; 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23ff; Ezra 2:64; 10:1, 8, 12, 14; Neh 5:7, 13; 7:66; 8:2, 17; 13:1; Ps 21:23, 26; 25:5, 12; 34:18; 39:10; 67:27; 88:6; 106:32; 149:1; Prov 5:14; Job 30:28; Mic 2:5; Joel 2:16; Lam 1:10). As such, the terms seldom refer to anything other than God’s covenant community.
A very noteworthy passage from the list above is Deut 18:15—19, where, in the midst of a clear prophecy from Moses concerning the coming Prophet, Jesus, Moses pointed the people back to the covenant-making event of Sinai (or Horeb as in 4:10) as “day of the assembly, ekklēsia or literally “the day of the ‘church’”. Therefore, based on the application of the word ‘church’ in the original languages, it is safe to conclude that the church transcends the NT, at least in the sense of being God’s people whom he has redeemed and enters into covenant with, despite the variations in the administrations of those covenants. This concept is further supported by multiple NT passages that stress the continuity of the people of God, a point to which I will now turn.
In positing a general continuity among God’s redeemed, throughout the ages, I am not purposing that the NT church has ‘become’ Israel or that the two are without distinctions. I do suggest, however, that to evaluate all the biblical data over the issue through the “Israel-ethnic-nationalism (OT)—over and against—Church-spiritual-universal (NT)” lens leads to severe oversimplification, if not an outright false dichotomy. Rom 9:6—8 seems to prevent us from making such hasty generalizations, as does the passage in Gal 3:15—29, with its parallel theme—not all Israel is Israel/the children of God.
In these and other passages, there is clear evidence that the NT writers made a distinction, not only between Israel and the church (i.e., contemporaneous Judaism and Christianity), but also between Israel (blood and soil) and Israel (those faithful to the covenant of promise, like their father Abraham). Paul, in Eph 2, reminds Gentiles of a time when they were “separated from Christ” (v.12), something that he further connects with being “alienated” and “strangers” from “the commonwealth of Israel” and the “covenants of promise”. However, now “in Christ” they have been “brought near”, and made to be “fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household” (vv. 13, 19), what he later refers to as “a holy temple in the Lord”. In these verses Paul appears to view the church, not as a parenthesis in God’s redemptive plan, but the full realization of it—the anticipation and hope of all the OT revealed religion (see also: Acts 7, 13:13—41).
Heb 11, the ‘hall of faith’ chapter, also tends to blur the line between OT and NT saints. Although the OT saints mentioned in this chapter “died in faith, not having received the things promised” (v.13), they, namely Moses, nevertheless, “considered the reproach of Christ greater...for [they were] he was looking forward to the reward” (v. 26). Thus, there is a general continuity in God’s covenantal people. Moreover, Galatians 3 teaches us that both the OT and NT saints share the same Gospel (v. 8), same kind of faith (v.6—7, 11), same blessings (v. 9) and same kind of redemption (v. 13—14). This is so that the Son, the Messiah and his finished work, might be the very center of all God’s purposes, both in creating and re-creating a people for himself. The greatest distinction being temporal perspectives, they (OT) looked forward; we now look both back and forward.
“It must be admitted by all evangelicals”, says Lightner, “that something new and unique began on the day of Pentecost”. To this, indeed, we all say AMEN! But does it follow from “new—unique” that something altogether different occurred, that is, from a redemptive perspective? Does a radical swing in the Spirit’s administrative or economical work necessitate what Lightner calls a “distinct program”? (Ibid.).
Was not the Holy Spirit at work under the old covenant when he came upon prophets, priests, kings, judges (Jdg 3:10), the elders of Israel (Num 11:25—26), even artisans (Ex 28:3; 31:3) and pagan prophets (e.g., Balaam, Num 24:5)? In fact, the events that surrounded and followed Pentecost were not only prophesied by Joel (2:28ff), but prayed for by Moses (Num 11:29), that “all Yahweh’s people” would enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
To be sure, something incredibly unique happened on that day (Pentecost), but not something of a different kind, or necessarily a “distinct program”, but perhaps better, the temporal fulfillment of all the types, hopes and anticipations of the OT assembly (or “church”). This is why Peter can refer to the NT church in distinctly OT categories: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Pet 2:9; cf. Ex 19:5—6; Deut 7:6; 10:15; Is 43:20—21; 61:6; 66:21; Mal 3:17). Such is a fitting definition of the true people of God, his church and their mission, in both the Old and New Testaments.
While the living God never changes, his dealings with his people does. Over the ages he has used various means of disclosing himself and his purposes in history and redemption, climaxing in the greatest revelation of all, his gracious Self-disclosure in his Son, Christ Jesus (Heb 1:1—2). Therefore, the church may be defined as the assembly of God’s people, who believing his promises, enjoy the benefits of him being their God and them being his people, a promise that permeates the whole Bible and is made to his people in all dispensations. This assembly is an organic entity, one which grew in the OT era as Yahweh progressively revealed himself to them, culminating in Christ. Having God’s full revelation now, this group of called-out-ones continues to grow, in breadth and by grace, in depth. Thus, given the above, the inter-testamental use of ekklēsia, church, and the solidarity of God’s redeemed throughout the ages, I think it is safe to conclude that the church, in incipient form albeit, began perhaps as early as Abel, being cultivated by God’s progressive self revelation and promises at pivotal junctures in redemptive history (e.g., Abrahamic covenant, the Exodus/Sinai, Davidic covenant, the promised coming of the New Covenant [Jer 31:31ff]), being, finally and fully, realized or completed in Christ’s death, resurrection and exaltation and experienced by his people at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (“the promise of the Father” Acts 1:4; 2:33). From Pentecost forward, the “tree” (Rom 11:17ff), the church, has reached its full fruit bearing capacity. Nevertheless, even in its “seed” form (Gen 3:15; Gen 17, 22), it was still a tree; as it was as a promising sprout (Is 11:1, 10), still a tree. Today, that tree is living and bearing fruit in fullness of Christ and his Spirit.
To begin with, we must first consider the term itself, ‘church’. By mere definition the word simply means called out (ones), an assembly gathered for a purpose, a congregation of people, etc. But this does little in advancing an understanding of what the church is, apart from an assembly of people, called out for a purpose. This definition could aptly be applied to the whole of God’s redeemed people across all times. However, Robert Lightner, in his summary of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1986. p. 217), argues that the church is constrained to be a NT-only concept. One reason, among others, is because “the word church does not appear in the Old Testament.” In spite of Dr. Lightner’s important contributions to theological studies, this premise must be dismissed for at least two reasons. First, given such strictures as the etymology of a word in the English Bible, we are also bound to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, for this important term is found in neither the OT nor the New. But this, a most central doctrine, is revealed ubiquitously in concept throughout the scriptures. Second, a careful reading of the KJV has the word ‘church’ coming from both, Stephen, in reference to Israel in their wilderness experience (Acts 7:38), as well as the writer of Hebrews, quoting the words of David, “in the midst of the ‘church’, I will sing your praises” (2:12b cf. Ps 22:22). These two citations do not, in themselves, completely circumvent Lightner’s remarks, for both are still found in the NT. However, they do cause us to pause and ask what word is here being translated ‘church’, because in the original writings the actual word ‘church’ never occurs.
The Greek word back of the English word church is ekklēsia. The real question, therefore, is whether or not this term found in the OT? It is, in fact, in a number of places. Ekklēsia, in the Septuagint (the Greek OT, translated c. 200 B.C.), is the word which translates the Hebrew word qāhāl. (See: Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:2ff, 9; 31:30; Josh 9:2; Jda. 20:2; 21:5, 8; Judg 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1 Sam 17:47; 19:20; 1 Kgs 8:14, 22, 55, 65; 1 Chr 13:2, 4; 28:2, 8; 29:1, 10, 20; 2 Chr 1:3, 5; 6:3, 12f; 7:8; 10:3; 20:5, 14; 23:3; 28:14; 29:23, 28, 31f; 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23ff; Ezra 2:64; 10:1, 8, 12, 14; Neh 5:7, 13; 7:66; 8:2, 17; 13:1; Ps 21:23, 26; 25:5, 12; 34:18; 39:10; 67:27; 88:6; 106:32; 149:1; Prov 5:14; Job 30:28; Mic 2:5; Joel 2:16; Lam 1:10). As such, the terms seldom refer to anything other than God’s covenant community.
A very noteworthy passage from the list above is Deut 18:15—19, where, in the midst of a clear prophecy from Moses concerning the coming Prophet, Jesus, Moses pointed the people back to the covenant-making event of Sinai (or Horeb as in 4:10) as “day of the assembly, ekklēsia or literally “the day of the ‘church’”. Therefore, based on the application of the word ‘church’ in the original languages, it is safe to conclude that the church transcends the NT, at least in the sense of being God’s people whom he has redeemed and enters into covenant with, despite the variations in the administrations of those covenants. This concept is further supported by multiple NT passages that stress the continuity of the people of God, a point to which I will now turn.
In positing a general continuity among God’s redeemed, throughout the ages, I am not purposing that the NT church has ‘become’ Israel or that the two are without distinctions. I do suggest, however, that to evaluate all the biblical data over the issue through the “Israel-ethnic-nationalism (OT)—over and against—Church-spiritual-universal (NT)” lens leads to severe oversimplification, if not an outright false dichotomy. Rom 9:6—8 seems to prevent us from making such hasty generalizations, as does the passage in Gal 3:15—29, with its parallel theme—not all Israel is Israel/the children of God.
In these and other passages, there is clear evidence that the NT writers made a distinction, not only between Israel and the church (i.e., contemporaneous Judaism and Christianity), but also between Israel (blood and soil) and Israel (those faithful to the covenant of promise, like their father Abraham). Paul, in Eph 2, reminds Gentiles of a time when they were “separated from Christ” (v.12), something that he further connects with being “alienated” and “strangers” from “the commonwealth of Israel” and the “covenants of promise”. However, now “in Christ” they have been “brought near”, and made to be “fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household” (vv. 13, 19), what he later refers to as “a holy temple in the Lord”. In these verses Paul appears to view the church, not as a parenthesis in God’s redemptive plan, but the full realization of it—the anticipation and hope of all the OT revealed religion (see also: Acts 7, 13:13—41).
Heb 11, the ‘hall of faith’ chapter, also tends to blur the line between OT and NT saints. Although the OT saints mentioned in this chapter “died in faith, not having received the things promised” (v.13), they, namely Moses, nevertheless, “considered the reproach of Christ greater...for [they were] he was looking forward to the reward” (v. 26). Thus, there is a general continuity in God’s covenantal people. Moreover, Galatians 3 teaches us that both the OT and NT saints share the same Gospel (v. 8), same kind of faith (v.6—7, 11), same blessings (v. 9) and same kind of redemption (v. 13—14). This is so that the Son, the Messiah and his finished work, might be the very center of all God’s purposes, both in creating and re-creating a people for himself. The greatest distinction being temporal perspectives, they (OT) looked forward; we now look both back and forward.
“It must be admitted by all evangelicals”, says Lightner, “that something new and unique began on the day of Pentecost”. To this, indeed, we all say AMEN! But does it follow from “new—unique” that something altogether different occurred, that is, from a redemptive perspective? Does a radical swing in the Spirit’s administrative or economical work necessitate what Lightner calls a “distinct program”? (Ibid.).
Was not the Holy Spirit at work under the old covenant when he came upon prophets, priests, kings, judges (Jdg 3:10), the elders of Israel (Num 11:25—26), even artisans (Ex 28:3; 31:3) and pagan prophets (e.g., Balaam, Num 24:5)? In fact, the events that surrounded and followed Pentecost were not only prophesied by Joel (2:28ff), but prayed for by Moses (Num 11:29), that “all Yahweh’s people” would enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
To be sure, something incredibly unique happened on that day (Pentecost), but not something of a different kind, or necessarily a “distinct program”, but perhaps better, the temporal fulfillment of all the types, hopes and anticipations of the OT assembly (or “church”). This is why Peter can refer to the NT church in distinctly OT categories: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Pet 2:9; cf. Ex 19:5—6; Deut 7:6; 10:15; Is 43:20—21; 61:6; 66:21; Mal 3:17). Such is a fitting definition of the true people of God, his church and their mission, in both the Old and New Testaments.
While the living God never changes, his dealings with his people does. Over the ages he has used various means of disclosing himself and his purposes in history and redemption, climaxing in the greatest revelation of all, his gracious Self-disclosure in his Son, Christ Jesus (Heb 1:1—2). Therefore, the church may be defined as the assembly of God’s people, who believing his promises, enjoy the benefits of him being their God and them being his people, a promise that permeates the whole Bible and is made to his people in all dispensations. This assembly is an organic entity, one which grew in the OT era as Yahweh progressively revealed himself to them, culminating in Christ. Having God’s full revelation now, this group of called-out-ones continues to grow, in breadth and by grace, in depth. Thus, given the above, the inter-testamental use of ekklēsia, church, and the solidarity of God’s redeemed throughout the ages, I think it is safe to conclude that the church, in incipient form albeit, began perhaps as early as Abel, being cultivated by God’s progressive self revelation and promises at pivotal junctures in redemptive history (e.g., Abrahamic covenant, the Exodus/Sinai, Davidic covenant, the promised coming of the New Covenant [Jer 31:31ff]), being, finally and fully, realized or completed in Christ’s death, resurrection and exaltation and experienced by his people at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (“the promise of the Father” Acts 1:4; 2:33). From Pentecost forward, the “tree” (Rom 11:17ff), the church, has reached its full fruit bearing capacity. Nevertheless, even in its “seed” form (Gen 3:15; Gen 17, 22), it was still a tree; as it was as a promising sprout (Is 11:1, 10), still a tree. Today, that tree is living and bearing fruit in fullness of Christ and his Spirit.
The Occasion, Object, and Nature of Worship in Revelation 5
There is nothing within human experience more true, natural, pure, and right as a creature’s obeisance and worship of its Creator/Redeemer. Jesus, during his earthly ministry, gave to man a prescriptive formula for the manner of worship God desires – “those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24). Rev. 5 offers the reader a picture of what this command from Jesus looks like in practice. A better understanding of Rev. 5 is paramount for realizing in our own lives the pure worship found in the Lord’s hortatory words spoken to the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4).
While many obstacles offer resistance to our worship here, there can be found in Rev. 5, three certain points that transcend the restrictions of worship in our fallen world and experience; they are the occasion of the worship, the Object of our worship, and the content or nature of the worship we offer. Whether here or there, these three elements are normative for the worship God desires.
I. The Occasion of the Worship
I. A. The scroll of the “right hand” -- (5:1a). Several observations in v.1, concerning the nature of the scroll, are worthy of our attention. First, the scroll is in the right hand of the One who sits on the throne – the Creator God (see: ch. 4). The scroll’s occupation of the right hand is to accentuate the importance of the scroll’s content. This has manifold connotations. The confirming indictment of the Jews at Jesus’ trial, the charge of blasphemy, arose from the Lord’s personal claim to the position of power and of the execution of divine judgment which would come from the right hand of God. This statement was sufficient for the Sanhedrin to sanction the death penalty (Mt. 26:64ff; Mk.14:62ff; and Lk. 22:69ff). Jesus’ claims to this unique position of sovereign, judicial power is also met in the Apostles preaching (Acts 2:34-35; also Ps. 110:1 is the most frequently quoted OT verse in the NT), and the Epistles (Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:13). Despite the awful prospect of this reality for some, our Evangelist, finds this mighty right hand an instrument of comfort (Rev. 1:17) as should all who are redeemed (1:5; cf. Rom. 8:34). Unfortunately, the proximity of the scroll being from the “right hand” receives far too little attention from many commentators. The thematic importance of it deserves more than can be offered here.
I. B. The scrolls contents – (5:1b). While there are numerous parallels between Ezekiel’s prophesy and that of Revelation, the “scroll” is the most emphatic (cf. Eze. 2). The chapters of Revelation that follow 5 reveal the same content described by Ezekiel in his book – “lamentations and mourning and woe” (Eze. 2:10 cf. Is. 29:11; Dan. 8:26). Also, stressed by both, is the totality of what was written: “written on the inside and the out...” (Eze. 2:10; cf. Rev. 5:1). However, there is a difference between them, both quantitative and qualitative. In both scrolls there is a mixture of hope; however judgment is the eminent theme. The extent of Ezekiel’s “woe” was to be realized in history only until the fall of Jerusalem, whereas the scroll in Rev. 5 has within its writings the completion and finality of all temporal history as we know it. Ezekiel’s scroll was open; this scroll has a seven count seal. Ezekiel, though a Prophet of Yahweh was nonetheless a sinner by nature and was still counted worthy to read and proclaim the scrolls contents. In Rev. 5, the “strong Angel’s” universal inquiry for someone worthy to open the sealed scroll was originally bankrupt, thus emphasizing the weightiness, gravity, and holy nature of this document’s contents.
I. C. The scroll’s seals -- The scroll’s binding is also found to elucidate the climactic intensity of its contents. The document is best understood as a sealed legal will or deed. Several back ground facts are critical for understanding it as such. While the number seven, being the number of completion or perfection (i.e. the number of seals on the scroll), is obviously an important theme in Revelation, it should be noted that the Romans would use the same number to seal the edges of their important legal documents such as wills. More importantly though was the Jewish use of seals. Judicially speaking, Jews required a minimum of three witnesses and their respective seals for a legally binding document such as a deed or will; with the number of seals increasing with the intrinsic importance of the document. Thus, in either ethnic context the seals would have conveyed the inherent weight of the scrolls contents. Because a will’s revelational disclosure depended upon the “death of the testator” (Heb. 9:16), and a deed was sealed until its redemption, it stands to reason that the sequence of the seals openings began when the risen Lord took his throne.
I. D. The shift – In ch. 4 the host around the throne are worshiping Yahweh, the One who holds the “title-deed scroll.” His holding the scroll represents his rightful power, authority, and Lordship over all creation. In ch. 5 the worship shifts to the One who is worthy to take the scroll from the right hand of God and open its seals. It needs to be recognized that this shift in no way detracts from the worship of the One on the throne (as the Lion/Lamb is not on the throne, but in the “midst” of the throne). While the worship of God on the throne does not stop (4:8 – “they do not rest day or night...”) there is a noticeable rise in the breadth and intensity of the worship when the Lion/Lamb redeems the “title-deed scroll” from the right hand of God to open it and begins to reveal its contents. Paul tells us that this shift is completely compatible and in accord with the Father’s plan for the Son’s death, resurrection, and exaltation. When Jesus receives the name above every name – Lord – and every tongue confesses him as such, the Father is glorified thereby (Phil. 2:5-11).
NOTE: It is evident in our passage that there is a degree of subordination in the Lamb’s role; who is in the midst of the throne, to the Father who sits upon the throne. It is paramount that we understand this “subordination” in relation to the Trinity’s economic “doing,” and not confuse it with the Trinity’s ontological “being.” There is no subjection of one Person of the Trinity to another in regards to the “what” of God’s eternal being, only in the operative “who” of God’s Person, and what each Person’s role is in the out working of redemption in time/space.
II. The Object of the Worship—Rev. 5:5-7
II. A. The Lion – The Evangelist’s weeping is due to the Angel’s loud proclamation not being able to find any creature worthy to redeem the scroll. However, John’s weeping is halted when one of the elders directs his attention to the “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” Here John introduces Jesus’ presence in the throne room under one of the earliest revelational titles to precede his coming (see: Gen. 49:8-12, cf. Heb. 7:14; the earliest title being the “Seed” of the proto-evangelium in Gen. 3:15). In the prophecy of Gen. 49, the scepter of rule was to find temporary station in the tribe of Judah until the One who was to come should arise – which when He would come, “to him shall be the obedience of the people” (Gen. 49:10b). The lion is representative of the fiercest beast of the animal kingdom, the one who rules.
II. B. The Root of David – John here furthers his case for Christ as rightful ruler over all. Clearly he is drawing from Is. 11. Paul, in Rom. 15:12 assigned the same OT passage to Jesus. This has a two fold effect concerning the Lion’s rule: one, he is presented as the Ultimate King, with the legal lineage, who is to rule over the people of God. Second is the contrastive purpose. John’s original readers were living in an environment of Imperial cult worship; the Roman Emperor was the god of the society they found themselves in (Asia Minor). Ironically, during the early persecutions of the Christian community, those who confessed “Jesus is Lord” (see: I Cor. 12:3), and refused to say “Caesar is Lord” were condemned as “atheist” for not believing in the god of Rome, and were often murdered for their impiety. This helps to shed light on Paul’s words that those who claim “Jesus is Lord” can only do so by “the Spirit.”
II. C. The Victor – “has prevailed to open the scroll...” (5:5). “[P]revailed” (Gk. ενιχήσεν). This verb is in the aorist tense, and critical to John’s overall theme in Revelation; presenting Christ and his church and victorious over Satan and his seed. The aorist tense points back to a single, conclusive event in time past. This is to point the reader back to Jesus’ first advent, and his Cross. It soon becomes clear that it is Christ’s work as the Lamb of God, as the Pascal Lamb sacrificed to redeem God’s fallen creation, is what warrants his right to take the scroll and open it. These last three titles: the Lion, the Root of David, and the Victor all prepare the reader for the irony that comes, when John’s gaze is finally fixed upon the “Lamb” in v.6.
II. D. The Lambkin – This title may appear strange at first, however it stresses John’s point. While in our English Bibles there is no grammatical distinction between the “Lamb” of 1:29 (and elsewhere) in John’s gospel and the Lamb of Revelation, however in the Greek the distinction is obvious. This, I believe, is not incidental, but purposely ironic. While the normal Greek word for lamb is “amnos” (αμνος. In the gospels, and also of the lamb of Is. 53; see: LXX – Is. 53:7), John, in his 29 references to the “Lamb” in Revelation, uses the word, “arnion” (αρνίον – lit. lambkin). This is a diminutive word, stressing the smallness of the Lamb. Thus, the irony begins to become lucid. Despite his smallness, he has seven horns (stressing his divine power, see: Dan.7:14), and seven eyes (stressing the divine attribute of omniscience, see: II Chron. 16:9; Zec. 3:9; 4:10).
This concept is buttressed by the following observation John makes of the Lambkin, it was “as though it had been slain.” The slain markings of sacrifice are still borne by the Lamb from his victorious conquest by the Cross at his first advent, these marks, or better badges, are perpetual in their efficacy concerning their redemptive purpose (note: “slain” is a perfect past participle). While those of Satan’s camp conquered and ruled by tyranny and the slaughter and suppression of others, the Lamb’s victory and rule is based upon his SELF- slaughter on the Cross. This all is to stress the contrary – ironic nature of Christ victory and the subsequent worship due him by his redeeming work – indeed the gospel is foolishness to the world’s system and reason (I Cor. 1 & 2).
II. E. The Lambkin Redeems the Scroll – This is the moment of shift in the direction of the worship. The Lamb, as the slain Victor, has purchased the rightful inheritance of the governance of the universe through his substitutional—mediatorial death on behalf of his creation (see: v. 9).
III. The Nature of the Worship
III. A. The Heavenly Company – Every class and order of creation is represented in the worship of the Lamb. There is the four living creatures (the Cherub order of angels; those that attend and lead the worship at the throne of God in the Heavenly sanctuary. The twenty four elders (most commentators see these as representing the redeemed of all ages). 5:13 looks forward to “every creature” in the universe fulfilling Phil. 2:10-11.
III. B. The New Song – The newness of the song speaks not to the content of the song or even the melody, but rather to the occasion. Throughout scripture the “new song” is always the result of Yahweh graciously saving his people from calamity, rescuing them...redeeming them (see: Ps. 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Is. 42:10; Eph. 5:19; Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3)! Surely there is no more appropriate time or place for a “new song” to be sung than the occasion offered in our text. Ps. 98:1 and Is. 42:10 should be of special interest due to the universal extent of the songs invitation. Isaiah evokes the utter “ends of the earth” (v.10) to sing. The Psalmist in 98:3 claims that “all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.” This could only be realized by the completed work of Christ as presented in Rev. 5. Proclaiming the Gospel of God is to see (“already”) this new song sang in all the creation; bringing with it a chorus sang by “every tongue, tribe, people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9), and points to the final victory won at the consummation of all things (“not yet”). The Lambkin’s completed work has wrought redemption and deliverance over Satan and the world, and offers it to the “ends of the earth.”
III. C. Johannine Christo-centricity – Like all of the scriptures, John’s, perhaps more than all other writings, bear a striking Christ centeredness. It is the blood of the Lamb that provides all redemption from the Lamb’s wrath (5:9; 7:14; 12:11). This is the locus of the “new song.” The Lamb’s work on the Cross is also centre in this passage. It is the faithfulness of Christ to his part in the covenant of redemption that occasions the worship in this chapter. However, this is not to eclipse his substantial Divinity in the process, as they “worshiped him who lives forever and ever” (vv.13c-14c). This chapter reveals Christ as God in no uncertain terms; if he were anything less, the devotion we find here would be nothing short of blasphemy. John’s vision provides us with a glimpse of the fullness of universal worship and homage due only to God the Son – The Creator/Redeemer.
IV. Conclusions and Contemporary Considerations
IV. A. The Occasion of Worship vs. Occasional Worship – It would be fallacious to understand the worship revealed in Rev. 5 as distinct from our immediate temporal experience of Christ in our everyday lives. These observations can help to re-center the focus and frequency of our devotions – individually and corporately. The occasion of the worship of the Lamb at the throne of God should be no less realized in the corporeal life of the Christian. The redemption exulted in this passage is the Christian experience, beginning at conversion and working its way out in a lifestyle of continuous praise and worship. Such a conclusion shatters the notion that worship is something done for an hour on the Lord’s Day, instead it is a life lived that rises out of the Lamb’s blood; resting on the certainty of his faithfulness and character.
Three points from the text gives the believer a concrete basis for their perpetual worship and a life devoted to the “Living Lamb.” One, there is no real disjunction between our earthly worship and that happening immediately at the throne of God. In Rev. 5:8, there is a bowl, which metaphorically refers to our prayers resulting in the incense of the throne room. In one very real sense, the worship offered in one’s prayer life allows a real meta-physical participation in the throne attendance so obvious and alive in our text. This is again made possible only by the Lamb’s blood, made efficacious through the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:26), and perfected by the mediation of Christ our advocate (Rom.8:34). Second, we must examine what it is that “occasions” our worship; is it favorable circumstances, pay raises, good grades, etc, or is it rather based upon Christ’s divine sovereignty, in utter adoration of the one who has bought us and redeemed us from the slave market of our sin? When we, like those represented in Rev. 5, worship the one who is True, and in truth “upholds (all of history past-present-future) all things by the word of his power” to rule and govern the universe (Heb. 1:3), we have began to realize Jesus’ imperative to worship “in spirit (our prayers mentioned above) and truth (our worship is based upon, and directed to the True nature of Christ himself). How little distance there is between us and the Throne!!
Last, is the fact that all the activity of judgment and redemption in Rev. 5, mediated by the Lamb, is actualized in our spatial-temporal reality, not in the heavenly realm. God is immanent – Christ is present with his people! Our participation in heavenly worship is as real as Christ’s earthly activity, in and throughout history.
IV. B. The Object of our Worship and the Objective Nature of our Worship – In our worship of Christ Jesus, our Creator/Redeemer, we must guard our hearts and minds to insure that we are worshiping the Person of Christ, rather than a mere principle derived from one of his attributes. The worship in Rev. 5 (all of Revelation for that matter) is “occasioned” by the balance of Christ’s love in redemption, and his Holy wrath in judgment. Notice, the four living creatures sang the tri-hagion, “holy, holy, holy...” (4:8). John’s weeping over the chance of the scroll remaining undisclosed was due to his holy drive to see Christ finally and fully conquer, and thus put all his enemies under his feet (I Cor.15:25), and “stain all his garments with their blood” (Is. 63:3). The reality of Christ’s love wrought upon the Cross, is unintelligible and nonsensical when it is divorced from God’s holy wrath and justice. To deny Christ any one of his perfections is to deny him totally – he cannot be one without the other. To focus on the love of God apart from the justice of God is like looking at the stars in the noon day sun; God’s brilliant love is only visible when juxtaposed against the darkness of his righteous judgment.
In closing I would like to return to the theme of Christ’s revelation in ironic and contrary forms. To grasp this concept is to grow in worship. As our text does continually, we too should turn our attention back to the Cross as an illustration of the irony of God’s fullest revelation – his Son (Heb. 1:1-2).
The world defines the “abundant life” (Jn.10:10) as living it up, God on the Cross demonstrates this “life” through his own dying. Those who desire this life must then too “die themselves.” All of the Bible (especially Rev. 5) views the Cross of Jesus as the strength and victory won. What God calls “strength and victory,” the world calls weakness and defeat. This also translates into the Christian’s life; in II Cor. 12:9, Jesus himself says that “his strength is perfected in our weakness.”
I mention these to help elucidate the fact that any and all of our circumstances and situations in life occasion our worship of Christ. What we would often consider unfortunate or dire chance happenings in our life can be recognized through this lens as the gracious providence of the One who is unfolding our own histories. A solid handle on this generates a mind directed at the throne of grace where our Lord Jesus rules from the right hand of Power!
The immediate occasion, Object, and nature of our own worship today varies only in degree to that which is revealed in chapter 5 of the Revelation. The occasion for us in the here and now is all that flows from Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross – any and all experience of life our in Christ. The Object of our worship, when it is the Christ of the scriptures, the Lamb who was slain, yet standing, living, and ruling, is the Self-same one as worshiped by all the heavenly hosts. The nature of our worship is in one sense the same as those in the throne room, however, the Christian hope is to set upon the full and immediate presence of Christ; it is then that we will realize finally and fully the joy of completely unfettered and unmediated worship of our Creator-Redeemer-King!
While many obstacles offer resistance to our worship here, there can be found in Rev. 5, three certain points that transcend the restrictions of worship in our fallen world and experience; they are the occasion of the worship, the Object of our worship, and the content or nature of the worship we offer. Whether here or there, these three elements are normative for the worship God desires.
I. The Occasion of the Worship
I. A. The scroll of the “right hand” -- (5:1a). Several observations in v.1, concerning the nature of the scroll, are worthy of our attention. First, the scroll is in the right hand of the One who sits on the throne – the Creator God (see: ch. 4). The scroll’s occupation of the right hand is to accentuate the importance of the scroll’s content. This has manifold connotations. The confirming indictment of the Jews at Jesus’ trial, the charge of blasphemy, arose from the Lord’s personal claim to the position of power and of the execution of divine judgment which would come from the right hand of God. This statement was sufficient for the Sanhedrin to sanction the death penalty (Mt. 26:64ff; Mk.14:62ff; and Lk. 22:69ff). Jesus’ claims to this unique position of sovereign, judicial power is also met in the Apostles preaching (Acts 2:34-35; also Ps. 110:1 is the most frequently quoted OT verse in the NT), and the Epistles (Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:13). Despite the awful prospect of this reality for some, our Evangelist, finds this mighty right hand an instrument of comfort (Rev. 1:17) as should all who are redeemed (1:5; cf. Rom. 8:34). Unfortunately, the proximity of the scroll being from the “right hand” receives far too little attention from many commentators. The thematic importance of it deserves more than can be offered here.
I. B. The scrolls contents – (5:1b). While there are numerous parallels between Ezekiel’s prophesy and that of Revelation, the “scroll” is the most emphatic (cf. Eze. 2). The chapters of Revelation that follow 5 reveal the same content described by Ezekiel in his book – “lamentations and mourning and woe” (Eze. 2:10 cf. Is. 29:11; Dan. 8:26). Also, stressed by both, is the totality of what was written: “written on the inside and the out...” (Eze. 2:10; cf. Rev. 5:1). However, there is a difference between them, both quantitative and qualitative. In both scrolls there is a mixture of hope; however judgment is the eminent theme. The extent of Ezekiel’s “woe” was to be realized in history only until the fall of Jerusalem, whereas the scroll in Rev. 5 has within its writings the completion and finality of all temporal history as we know it. Ezekiel’s scroll was open; this scroll has a seven count seal. Ezekiel, though a Prophet of Yahweh was nonetheless a sinner by nature and was still counted worthy to read and proclaim the scrolls contents. In Rev. 5, the “strong Angel’s” universal inquiry for someone worthy to open the sealed scroll was originally bankrupt, thus emphasizing the weightiness, gravity, and holy nature of this document’s contents.
I. C. The scroll’s seals -- The scroll’s binding is also found to elucidate the climactic intensity of its contents. The document is best understood as a sealed legal will or deed. Several back ground facts are critical for understanding it as such. While the number seven, being the number of completion or perfection (i.e. the number of seals on the scroll), is obviously an important theme in Revelation, it should be noted that the Romans would use the same number to seal the edges of their important legal documents such as wills. More importantly though was the Jewish use of seals. Judicially speaking, Jews required a minimum of three witnesses and their respective seals for a legally binding document such as a deed or will; with the number of seals increasing with the intrinsic importance of the document. Thus, in either ethnic context the seals would have conveyed the inherent weight of the scrolls contents. Because a will’s revelational disclosure depended upon the “death of the testator” (Heb. 9:16), and a deed was sealed until its redemption, it stands to reason that the sequence of the seals openings began when the risen Lord took his throne.
I. D. The shift – In ch. 4 the host around the throne are worshiping Yahweh, the One who holds the “title-deed scroll.” His holding the scroll represents his rightful power, authority, and Lordship over all creation. In ch. 5 the worship shifts to the One who is worthy to take the scroll from the right hand of God and open its seals. It needs to be recognized that this shift in no way detracts from the worship of the One on the throne (as the Lion/Lamb is not on the throne, but in the “midst” of the throne). While the worship of God on the throne does not stop (4:8 – “they do not rest day or night...”) there is a noticeable rise in the breadth and intensity of the worship when the Lion/Lamb redeems the “title-deed scroll” from the right hand of God to open it and begins to reveal its contents. Paul tells us that this shift is completely compatible and in accord with the Father’s plan for the Son’s death, resurrection, and exaltation. When Jesus receives the name above every name – Lord – and every tongue confesses him as such, the Father is glorified thereby (Phil. 2:5-11).
NOTE: It is evident in our passage that there is a degree of subordination in the Lamb’s role; who is in the midst of the throne, to the Father who sits upon the throne. It is paramount that we understand this “subordination” in relation to the Trinity’s economic “doing,” and not confuse it with the Trinity’s ontological “being.” There is no subjection of one Person of the Trinity to another in regards to the “what” of God’s eternal being, only in the operative “who” of God’s Person, and what each Person’s role is in the out working of redemption in time/space.
II. The Object of the Worship—Rev. 5:5-7
II. A. The Lion – The Evangelist’s weeping is due to the Angel’s loud proclamation not being able to find any creature worthy to redeem the scroll. However, John’s weeping is halted when one of the elders directs his attention to the “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” Here John introduces Jesus’ presence in the throne room under one of the earliest revelational titles to precede his coming (see: Gen. 49:8-12, cf. Heb. 7:14; the earliest title being the “Seed” of the proto-evangelium in Gen. 3:15). In the prophecy of Gen. 49, the scepter of rule was to find temporary station in the tribe of Judah until the One who was to come should arise – which when He would come, “to him shall be the obedience of the people” (Gen. 49:10b). The lion is representative of the fiercest beast of the animal kingdom, the one who rules.
II. B. The Root of David – John here furthers his case for Christ as rightful ruler over all. Clearly he is drawing from Is. 11. Paul, in Rom. 15:12 assigned the same OT passage to Jesus. This has a two fold effect concerning the Lion’s rule: one, he is presented as the Ultimate King, with the legal lineage, who is to rule over the people of God. Second is the contrastive purpose. John’s original readers were living in an environment of Imperial cult worship; the Roman Emperor was the god of the society they found themselves in (Asia Minor). Ironically, during the early persecutions of the Christian community, those who confessed “Jesus is Lord” (see: I Cor. 12:3), and refused to say “Caesar is Lord” were condemned as “atheist” for not believing in the god of Rome, and were often murdered for their impiety. This helps to shed light on Paul’s words that those who claim “Jesus is Lord” can only do so by “the Spirit.”
II. C. The Victor – “has prevailed to open the scroll...” (5:5). “[P]revailed” (Gk. ενιχήσεν). This verb is in the aorist tense, and critical to John’s overall theme in Revelation; presenting Christ and his church and victorious over Satan and his seed. The aorist tense points back to a single, conclusive event in time past. This is to point the reader back to Jesus’ first advent, and his Cross. It soon becomes clear that it is Christ’s work as the Lamb of God, as the Pascal Lamb sacrificed to redeem God’s fallen creation, is what warrants his right to take the scroll and open it. These last three titles: the Lion, the Root of David, and the Victor all prepare the reader for the irony that comes, when John’s gaze is finally fixed upon the “Lamb” in v.6.
II. D. The Lambkin – This title may appear strange at first, however it stresses John’s point. While in our English Bibles there is no grammatical distinction between the “Lamb” of 1:29 (and elsewhere) in John’s gospel and the Lamb of Revelation, however in the Greek the distinction is obvious. This, I believe, is not incidental, but purposely ironic. While the normal Greek word for lamb is “amnos” (αμνος. In the gospels, and also of the lamb of Is. 53; see: LXX – Is. 53:7), John, in his 29 references to the “Lamb” in Revelation, uses the word, “arnion” (αρνίον – lit. lambkin). This is a diminutive word, stressing the smallness of the Lamb. Thus, the irony begins to become lucid. Despite his smallness, he has seven horns (stressing his divine power, see: Dan.7:14), and seven eyes (stressing the divine attribute of omniscience, see: II Chron. 16:9; Zec. 3:9; 4:10).
This concept is buttressed by the following observation John makes of the Lambkin, it was “as though it had been slain.” The slain markings of sacrifice are still borne by the Lamb from his victorious conquest by the Cross at his first advent, these marks, or better badges, are perpetual in their efficacy concerning their redemptive purpose (note: “slain” is a perfect past participle). While those of Satan’s camp conquered and ruled by tyranny and the slaughter and suppression of others, the Lamb’s victory and rule is based upon his SELF- slaughter on the Cross. This all is to stress the contrary – ironic nature of Christ victory and the subsequent worship due him by his redeeming work – indeed the gospel is foolishness to the world’s system and reason (I Cor. 1 & 2).
II. E. The Lambkin Redeems the Scroll – This is the moment of shift in the direction of the worship. The Lamb, as the slain Victor, has purchased the rightful inheritance of the governance of the universe through his substitutional—mediatorial death on behalf of his creation (see: v. 9).
III. The Nature of the Worship
III. A. The Heavenly Company – Every class and order of creation is represented in the worship of the Lamb. There is the four living creatures (the Cherub order of angels; those that attend and lead the worship at the throne of God in the Heavenly sanctuary. The twenty four elders (most commentators see these as representing the redeemed of all ages). 5:13 looks forward to “every creature” in the universe fulfilling Phil. 2:10-11.
III. B. The New Song – The newness of the song speaks not to the content of the song or even the melody, but rather to the occasion. Throughout scripture the “new song” is always the result of Yahweh graciously saving his people from calamity, rescuing them...redeeming them (see: Ps. 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Is. 42:10; Eph. 5:19; Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3)! Surely there is no more appropriate time or place for a “new song” to be sung than the occasion offered in our text. Ps. 98:1 and Is. 42:10 should be of special interest due to the universal extent of the songs invitation. Isaiah evokes the utter “ends of the earth” (v.10) to sing. The Psalmist in 98:3 claims that “all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.” This could only be realized by the completed work of Christ as presented in Rev. 5. Proclaiming the Gospel of God is to see (“already”) this new song sang in all the creation; bringing with it a chorus sang by “every tongue, tribe, people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9), and points to the final victory won at the consummation of all things (“not yet”). The Lambkin’s completed work has wrought redemption and deliverance over Satan and the world, and offers it to the “ends of the earth.”
III. C. Johannine Christo-centricity – Like all of the scriptures, John’s, perhaps more than all other writings, bear a striking Christ centeredness. It is the blood of the Lamb that provides all redemption from the Lamb’s wrath (5:9; 7:14; 12:11). This is the locus of the “new song.” The Lamb’s work on the Cross is also centre in this passage. It is the faithfulness of Christ to his part in the covenant of redemption that occasions the worship in this chapter. However, this is not to eclipse his substantial Divinity in the process, as they “worshiped him who lives forever and ever” (vv.13c-14c). This chapter reveals Christ as God in no uncertain terms; if he were anything less, the devotion we find here would be nothing short of blasphemy. John’s vision provides us with a glimpse of the fullness of universal worship and homage due only to God the Son – The Creator/Redeemer.
IV. Conclusions and Contemporary Considerations
IV. A. The Occasion of Worship vs. Occasional Worship – It would be fallacious to understand the worship revealed in Rev. 5 as distinct from our immediate temporal experience of Christ in our everyday lives. These observations can help to re-center the focus and frequency of our devotions – individually and corporately. The occasion of the worship of the Lamb at the throne of God should be no less realized in the corporeal life of the Christian. The redemption exulted in this passage is the Christian experience, beginning at conversion and working its way out in a lifestyle of continuous praise and worship. Such a conclusion shatters the notion that worship is something done for an hour on the Lord’s Day, instead it is a life lived that rises out of the Lamb’s blood; resting on the certainty of his faithfulness and character.
Three points from the text gives the believer a concrete basis for their perpetual worship and a life devoted to the “Living Lamb.” One, there is no real disjunction between our earthly worship and that happening immediately at the throne of God. In Rev. 5:8, there is a bowl, which metaphorically refers to our prayers resulting in the incense of the throne room. In one very real sense, the worship offered in one’s prayer life allows a real meta-physical participation in the throne attendance so obvious and alive in our text. This is again made possible only by the Lamb’s blood, made efficacious through the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:26), and perfected by the mediation of Christ our advocate (Rom.8:34). Second, we must examine what it is that “occasions” our worship; is it favorable circumstances, pay raises, good grades, etc, or is it rather based upon Christ’s divine sovereignty, in utter adoration of the one who has bought us and redeemed us from the slave market of our sin? When we, like those represented in Rev. 5, worship the one who is True, and in truth “upholds (all of history past-present-future) all things by the word of his power” to rule and govern the universe (Heb. 1:3), we have began to realize Jesus’ imperative to worship “in spirit (our prayers mentioned above) and truth (our worship is based upon, and directed to the True nature of Christ himself). How little distance there is between us and the Throne!!
Last, is the fact that all the activity of judgment and redemption in Rev. 5, mediated by the Lamb, is actualized in our spatial-temporal reality, not in the heavenly realm. God is immanent – Christ is present with his people! Our participation in heavenly worship is as real as Christ’s earthly activity, in and throughout history.
IV. B. The Object of our Worship and the Objective Nature of our Worship – In our worship of Christ Jesus, our Creator/Redeemer, we must guard our hearts and minds to insure that we are worshiping the Person of Christ, rather than a mere principle derived from one of his attributes. The worship in Rev. 5 (all of Revelation for that matter) is “occasioned” by the balance of Christ’s love in redemption, and his Holy wrath in judgment. Notice, the four living creatures sang the tri-hagion, “holy, holy, holy...” (4:8). John’s weeping over the chance of the scroll remaining undisclosed was due to his holy drive to see Christ finally and fully conquer, and thus put all his enemies under his feet (I Cor.15:25), and “stain all his garments with their blood” (Is. 63:3). The reality of Christ’s love wrought upon the Cross, is unintelligible and nonsensical when it is divorced from God’s holy wrath and justice. To deny Christ any one of his perfections is to deny him totally – he cannot be one without the other. To focus on the love of God apart from the justice of God is like looking at the stars in the noon day sun; God’s brilliant love is only visible when juxtaposed against the darkness of his righteous judgment.
In closing I would like to return to the theme of Christ’s revelation in ironic and contrary forms. To grasp this concept is to grow in worship. As our text does continually, we too should turn our attention back to the Cross as an illustration of the irony of God’s fullest revelation – his Son (Heb. 1:1-2).
The world defines the “abundant life” (Jn.10:10) as living it up, God on the Cross demonstrates this “life” through his own dying. Those who desire this life must then too “die themselves.” All of the Bible (especially Rev. 5) views the Cross of Jesus as the strength and victory won. What God calls “strength and victory,” the world calls weakness and defeat. This also translates into the Christian’s life; in II Cor. 12:9, Jesus himself says that “his strength is perfected in our weakness.”
I mention these to help elucidate the fact that any and all of our circumstances and situations in life occasion our worship of Christ. What we would often consider unfortunate or dire chance happenings in our life can be recognized through this lens as the gracious providence of the One who is unfolding our own histories. A solid handle on this generates a mind directed at the throne of grace where our Lord Jesus rules from the right hand of Power!
The immediate occasion, Object, and nature of our own worship today varies only in degree to that which is revealed in chapter 5 of the Revelation. The occasion for us in the here and now is all that flows from Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross – any and all experience of life our in Christ. The Object of our worship, when it is the Christ of the scriptures, the Lamb who was slain, yet standing, living, and ruling, is the Self-same one as worshiped by all the heavenly hosts. The nature of our worship is in one sense the same as those in the throne room, however, the Christian hope is to set upon the full and immediate presence of Christ; it is then that we will realize finally and fully the joy of completely unfettered and unmediated worship of our Creator-Redeemer-King!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)