CONTINUITY AND INTEGRATION OF THE BIBLE WITH A FOCUS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Continuity and Integration of the Bible with a Focus on the New Testament

            Disparities of Scripture-reading and interpretation subsist within the life of the church. On one extreme, one may read mere portions of the Bible with preconceived notions and make grave errors in interpreting the text. On the other extreme, however, one may pursue scholarly excellence and yet still with preconceived notions, which lend themselves to a negative and even false interpretation. Regarding New Testament study, it is clear that its writings should be examined with the metanarrative of the entire Bible in mind.

            Culturally, the New Testament was written in a vastly different era and from an exceedingly different perspective than modern Western civilization. Often, Bible students are guilty of studying the New Testament in “much the same way as it would operate in our own society” (Malina, 2001, xi). Cultural perspectives are inevitable and, therefore, give every reader of the New Testament a hermeneutic, i.e. no uninterpreted extrabiblical text or commentary is possible to exist. The danger is that such interpretations are often the bedrock of shaping an entire people. Interpretation then should be as accurate and informed as possible.

            Discrepancies found in the New Testament are often boldly noted by critics; contrarily, those who only understand New Testament writings based on singular passages or verses run the risk of perpetuating and perhaps enhancing the arguments of those critics. The paradoxical issues of the New Testament may be reconciled, however, on the basis of its overarching thematic content and its continuity of such thematic material in content. In this essay, I will submit the basis for both the New Testament’s continuity and integration to conclude its persuasion by the resilience of the text.

Continuity in Quality

            The New Testament’s continuity primarily comes in the way of quality. To examine the New Testament properly is to consider it as a part of a whole, i.e. the metanarrative of the entire Bible must surely be considered when examining individual passages or even verses within the New Testament writings. When this occurs, paradoxical issues tend to become clearly connected and sensible to even the most skeptical of readers. Often, skeptics seem to disconnect New Testament writings from those of the Old Testament. Unless the New Testament is viewed in light of the entirety of Scripture, it will certainly seem disconnected. The foundational reasons for this are 1) the employment of metaphor in the New Testament and 2) the seeming chasm between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament; both include the same God; yet, the difference in the old covenant and the new covenant require reconciliation.

            The New Testament is replete with metaphorical writings. Even Jesus’ use of parables often includes metaphor. While metaphors could easily create the illusion of contradictions, determining what texts include metaphor and how to interpret them is vital to a proper understanding of New Testament continuity. Scripture often uses metaphor or even poetry to suggest a key theme. “…biblical poetry offers a precise language for focusing on the narrative’s central themes, themes that are extended throughout the plot—throughout the various actions of the characters—but then gathered and compacted together into poetic lines” (Whitlock, 2015, p. 87). Jesus claims to be the door (John 10:9). One would be a fool, however, to believe that his claim references a literal door. Although the dividing line between metaphor and literal interpretation could be blurry, I contend that most instances are clear; nonetheless, one must determine these instances to see the continuity of the New Testament.

            Further, the New Testament uses many metaphors to reveal an overarching theme within the framework of Christianity. The New Testament, for example, speaks of Jesus as light (1 John 1:5), as the shepherd (John 10), unbelief as darkness and night (John 3:19), and Christians as fruit-bearing trees (Matt 7:17-18) (Kamagaraj, 2006, pp. 121-122). When the use of metaphor is separated from the New Testament’s use of literality, one may more easily see and understand the continuity of quality that exists in its text.

            The second solution to understanding the New Testament’s continuity is reconciling the disparate approaches of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. Both testaments include the same God; nothing about him changes (Heb 13:8). Arguments against Christianity often include references to Old Testament laws which do not seem to apply in the New Testament. One should, however, know and understand the threefold division of the law under the old covenant: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. God’s moral law includes edicts which are transcendent through time as a part of his character; ceremonial and civil laws are not necessarily linked to God’s character. Such is the reason homosexuality is still considered to be sin in New Testament writings but eating (what was once considered) unclean food is no longer sinful (Acts 10:9-16). “Uncleanness is perceived in its essence as disorder, a threat to social harmony and decency, an element tolerable only at the margins, but preferably completely beyond the borders maintained by a society” (Passakos, 2002, p. 277). Such rules against eating unclean food were given by God for a specified time and people under Old Testament law and greatly (and perhaps unnecessarily) enhanced by religious leaders. Under the new covenant in Christ, however, laws like this, which are not connected to God’s character, are nullified and void.

            It is incorrect to say that God changed in the New Testament, for even under the new covenant, his wrath is understood to be given to those who do not receive Christ. Under Old Testament laws, ceremonial animal sacrifices were made in atonement for sin; under the new covenant, Christ has become the permanent and better atoning sacrificial lamb. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament is reconciled as the same God. Moreover, the Old Testament laws which are seemingly absent from the New Testament may be reconciled with an understanding of the complete plan of God, i.e. the finalized new covenant in Christ. In the new covenant, laws which were not connected to God’s character were fulfilled by Jesus (Matt 5:17); laws which are transcendent through time as a part of God’s character, however, remain in effect and should be employed by God’s people as an extension of his nature.

            New Testament paradoxes are seemingly problematic; yet, when examined considering the entirety of the Bible, the continuity in quality is evident. God’s complete plan of salvation is made evident through all writings in the Bible. Perspectives certainly vary, e.g. the disparate approaches of each gospel writers; yet, each perspective points to the same overarching theme: namely the lordship and deity of Jesus Christ around whom all of Scripture centers.

Integration of Christ the Son

            By way of integration, the New Testament centers around Christ, his lordship, and his Sonship. John’s Gospel even begins by presenting Jesus as the word from the beginning who made all things (John 1:1-2). The metanarrative of Scripture extends from Jesus, who he is, and his work in the lives of his people. All of Scripture then holds the same theme; even individual portions of the Bible ultimately point to Christ. “…this is what unified the two Testaments: it was not simply content, pulled apart from the seams of its narrative, but the narrative itself that was important” (Embry, 2002, p. 103). All content within the Bible centers around Christ. What the New Testament then does is offer God as a person: Jesus. While Christ is certainly present in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, the Christ is Jesus.

            Critics might point to a discrepancy between the means of salvation in the Old Testament and that of the New Testament. Nevertheless, “New Testament authors took over both the terminology and theological implications [of justification] from the Jewish heritage” (Popkes, 2005, 121); therefore, reconciliation is offered there. Furthermore, James seems to differ from Paul on the means of justification, for the author speaks of works in a significant manner. When James’ letter is examined closely, however, it becomes clear that his concept of works is that of what is derived from something deeper: namely justification by Christ alone.

            New Testament writings surely include paradoxes but paradoxes which are reconciled in light of the gospel and the entirety of the Bible. The overarching theme throughout the New Testament is Jesus Christ. While the details of New Testament paradoxes should certainly be addressed, one should not lose sight of the theme: Jesus, his lordship, and his Sonship. Christ the Son is replete throughout the New Testament. Thus, the integration thereof is certainly plain.

Persuasion by Resilience of the Text

            What the biblical canon has overcome historically is a feat of endurance in itself. The fact that the text has been preserved for thousands of years should grant readers a sense of security in its reliability. The resilience of the text speaks volumes to the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament. While various approaches are taken in interpreting Scripture, it is right for professing Christians to question those who ridicule the Bible and its legitimacy. “It is indisputable that the Holy Bible forms the basis and foundation of faith for all Christian churches and confessions. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that with the passing of the centuries this foundation has continually suffered from various alterations, misinterpretations, and distortions” (Nikolakopoulos, 2002, 339). The New Testament holds a secure continuity in its quality, i.e. despite a plurality of paradoxes, reconciliation thereof is possible and necessary when the New Testament is read with the metanarrative of the gospel and of the entire Bible in mind. Additionally, the integration of Christ’s lordship and Sonship is replete throughout the New Testament writings as a resounding theme worthy to be studied, read, and believed. When New Testament seeming discrepancies are resolved, the reader must decide for himself or herself which course of action to take: believe on the name of Jesus for salvation or continue to reject the one who indisputably lived and died for the sins of his people.

References

Embry, Brad (2002). The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation. Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 13 (No. 2), 99-136.

Enuwosa, Joseph (2005). African Cultural Hermeneutics: Interpreting the New Testament in a Cultural Context. Black Theology, 3:1, 88-98.

Epp, Eldon Jay (1974). The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 93 (No. 3), 386-414.

Kanagaraj, Jey J. (2006). Use of New Testament Metaphors in Mission. Transformation, Vol. 23 (No. 2), 118-128.

Kinyua, Johnson Kiriaku (2013). A Postcolonial Translation of Bible Analysis and Its Effectiveness in Shaping and Enhancing the Discourse of Colonialism and the Discourse of Resistance: The Gikuyu New Testament – A Case Study. Black Theology, Vol. 11 (No. 1), 58-95.

Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin (2002). An Orthodox Critique of Some Radical Approaches in New Testament Studies. Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 47 (1-4), 339-355.

Passakos, Demetrios, C. (2002). Clean and Unclean in the New Testament: Implications for Contemporary Liturgical Practices. Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 47 (1-4), 277-293.

Popkes, Wiard (2005). Two “Interpretations” of Justification in the New Testament Reflections on Galatians 2:15-21 and James 2:21-25. Studia Theologica, 59, 129-146.

Whitlock, Matthew G. (2015). Acts 1:15-26 and the Craft of New Testament Poetry. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 77, 87-106.

THE SCOPE OF ROMANS 13

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

The Scope of Romans 13

Discussions of Romans 13 have arisen significantly considering the vast manifestations of executive orders that have been offered during the prevalence of COVID-19. I dare suggest that Romans 13, along with a few other passages and verses of Scripture, is one of the most misused scriptures in the entire biblical canon. Submission to authorities is vital to godliness; yet, the scope of Romans 13 is perhaps not what many understand.

            In the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, government was corrupt and even persecuted Christians. Paul, however, instructs believers to submit or be subject to the governing authorities. The Greek word for “be subject” is hupotasso, which literally means to place or rank under. The term implies an intentional effort. It is similar to what Paul commands believers in Philippians 2: to have the same mind as Christ Jesus, namely a mind of humility considering others better (Phil 2:5). These instructions do not mean that one certainly is less than another person but that Christians are to act as if that is the case, as Jesus did in his earthly ministry; no greater example of humility may be found except that of Christ Jesus. To be subject to the authorities then is to consider the governing bodies God ordained to be higher in rank.

            Understanding that being subject to the authorities is an explicit instruction given to God’s people, Romans 13 must be interpreted. Are Paul’s instructions part of a blanket command to blindly obey the governing authorities, or is the scope narrower? To answer this question, there are four primary elements to consider. I will examine these elements here and then determine the scope of Romans 13.

An Individual Basis Rather Than over the Church

            Paul begins his instructions in Romans 13 with, “Let every person…” (Rom 13:1), i.e. the Apostle is directing individuals rather than a group of people, although the letter was certainly written to a group of Christians. Christians (individually) are surely called to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, even Romans 13 is seemingly directed toward individuals rather than the church as a whole. Furthermore, as John MacArthur recently contended, the Bible nowhere grants the government authority over the church. In fact, the three institutions presented in the Bible are the government, the family, and the church; in Scripture, they seem to be separate from one another so that one does not control the other. When a government or executive issues a decree or order, individuals should comply assuming it is not unethical, immoral, or against the commands of God;[1] yet, employing such orders is the responsibility of individuals to comply rather than the church. When considering the scope of Romans 13, one’s hermeneutic must include the fact that the portion of Paul’s letter is addressed specifically to individuals in the church rather than the entire body. A church’s civil disobedience, in times in injustice, then is right. Determining when, nonetheless, is a matter of seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Romans 13 Assumes Just Laws

            In the scope of Romans 13, Paul obviously contends for a government which executes justice; yet, one might question what should be done in the case of unjust laws. Certainly, degrees of unjust laws subsist. Nonetheless, Romans 13 is not an overarching grant for the government to decree anything desired; nor, is it a requirement for Christians to blindly abide by such laws of injustice.[2] A recent example is the closure of public worship gatherings in local churches by many state and municipal governments. Christians hold the responsibility to determine whether such a decree is just or unjust.[3] Edicts which violate the commands of God should surely be considered unjust and offer believers the opportunity to stand and fight for the cause of the Lord.

I tend to err on the side of freedom when determining what is just and unjust. There are surely blatantly obvious injustices, e.g. murder, racism, etc.; nevertheless, there are also issues which are not as clear, e.g. forsaking the assembling for public worship, wearing masks, etc. (to use recent examples). The US Constitution was constructed with individual liberty in mind and, further, individual liberty based upon the liberty God affords; thus, it is based with Judeo-Christian principles at its foundation. My personal criteria for justice then leans toward decrees that do not violate individual liberty, not only those that include slightly inconvenient practices, i.e. to suggest that inconvenience does not constitute a violation of individual liberty is false, for the loss of freedom occurs slowly rather than rapidly.

While many in modern society, including professing Christians, would suggest futility in the practice of civil disobedience by the church, it is good and right to stand for the causes of the Lord and to even cause divisiveness (between the church and society) on such issues. Believers should remember the call to holiness or being set apart, i.e. a catering to society on issues which violate the commands of God is not only unnecessary but also wrong. Under just laws, Romans 13 commands Christians to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, under unjust laws, Christians have the responsibility to defy orders and civilly disobey, for governing authorities hold no power except form God (Rom 13:1).

Hermeneutics Must Be Mindful of Cultural Differences

            Cultural differences between modern Western society and the society of Romans 13 should be considered in the scope of Paul’s letter. Not only is the era vastly different, so also is the type of government to which the Apostle refers. The US, for example, is a Republic, which was non-existent in the time of Romans 13. Moreover, Paul’s idea of government in the chapter centers around a federal-style government, whereas US ideas include federal, state, and municipal. The concept of municipal police is absent from Romans 13. In biblical Roman society, the government’s role includes execution of the law rather than mere enforcement of the law. An example of this is the following: when a police officer stops a driver for speeding, he or she often makes a decision to issue a citation. The citation, however, is not the execution of the law but the enforcement; the execution of the law comes in the judgment. While many use Romans 13 to justify police actions, the concept of local (state or national) police does not exist in Romans 13, and modern police roles are limited to enforcement rather than execution of sentencing requirements. This is not to say that Romans 13 may not be applied to police; it should, however, be considered in the scope of the chapter. The people to whom Paul writes abided in a vastly disparate culture and society; further, governing authorities held a greater ability to execute justice, i.e. their role was one of execution rather than mere enforcement.

Degrees of Law Apply

            A common usage of Romans 13 is that of applying it to every instance of breaking the law. Speeding, for example, is a common hypothetical situation discussed when referring to Romans 13. The idea is usually that if one speeds, he or she is sinning because they are, in fact, breaking the law of the land. Varying degrees of law, however, should be considered when examining the scope of Romans 13. There surely exists a threefold division of the law in Scripture: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. Jewish culture would (rightly) consider breaking any part of this threefold division sinful in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. breaking the law is breaking the law no matter which part is broken.[4] One might wonder why certain Old Testament laws do not seem to apply in modern society. The threefold division of the law is an excellent explanation. God’s moral law is certainly transcendent through time because it is related to his character, whereas the ceremonial and civil laws might change over time depending on circumstances.

            Furthermore, laws hold varying degrees. God’s moral law is surely the most vital and nonnegotiable. Thus, breaking a civil law should not be considered inherently evil as is breaking the moral law. It is certainly possible (and common) for a civil law to have nothing to do with godliness. This is not to say that civil laws are always unjust, although many are; there are, nonetheless, vast differences in breaking God’s moral law and a manmade civil law. In relation (specifically) to speeding, for example, I suggest that speeding is not evil as murder is, although the two are often equated when using Romans 13 to justify corrupt governmental authority actions. Moreover, disobedience (especially) to the civil law does not negate subjection to authority, for even when one breaks the law, he or she is still subject to authority and may face the consequences of disobedience. When determining the scope of Romans 13, however, the degree of law must be considered.

To Use Romans 13 as a Blanket Argument for Blindly Honoring the Request of the State Is Both Lazy and Idolatry

            Christians should certainly be mindful of Romans 13 and heed the instructions of the Apostle Paul; yet, to use the chapter as a blanket argument for blindly honoring the request of the government and its authorities is both lazy and idolatry. To truly do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Mic 6:8) is to honor God first and then honor governmental authorities within the parameters of justice. The US celebration of Independence Day occurred last month. Many churches chose to display nationalistic items and center their supposed services of worship around the event. Many are offended by those who refuse to pledge allegiance to the American flag. I do not believe that the Pledge of Allegiance in itself, is wrong nor that celebrating American freedom is wrong. Early Christians, however, would likely be baffled and angry at the thought that Western Christians would dare bow or give allegiance to the state, especially in the context of Christian worship. We must be careful that patriotism does not become severe nationalism and, therefore, idolatry. Romans 13 certainly applies to modern life. Its scope, nevertheless, should be considered before using it as a blanket passage to support injustice.

---

[1] It is my opinion that many of the broad-sweeping executive orders issued during the global pandemic we now face are against the commands of God, e.g. churches neglecting to meet together for worship.

[2] I openly admit that the line between just and unjust laws may be blurry and interpretive at best. In most cases, it is clear; yet, there are surely times when people must determine, for themselves, what constitutes a just or an unjust law and, furthermore, pick which issues upon which to act.

[3] I personally take this as a blatantly (and likely intentionally in many cases) unjust decree.

[4] I argue that Christ came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it (Matt 5:17) so the law no longer applies. Rather, obedience to the law continues in that Christians, from an overflow of holiness, conform to God’s transcendent character rather than a set of rules.

GOVERNMENT'S BIBLICAL ROLE

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

GOVERNMENT'S BIBLICAL ROLE

            In my Libertarian views, often a discussion of the role of government arises in various conversations. I do not believe my view is vastly different from what the framers of the US Constitution desired. The topic itself holds the potential to be divisive; yet, clear obligations are set aside for government both constitutionally and biblically. The scope here is to focus on the biblical role of government; nevertheless, I will briefly discuss the constitutional role of government as well.

Constitutional Role

            The United States Constitution is a unique document. It is not infallible by any stretch; yet, it is one of the most precise and intentional documents in history. Personally, I believe the framers of the Constitution had in mind particular protections which are transcendent through time and circumstances, i.e. the Bill of Rights and articles of the US Constitution were not intended for one era but for all time. While the scope of my material here is not the constitutional role of government, I would like to briefly mention a few items for consideration.

            Constitutionally, the government exists to protect freedoms and liberties. The Constitution gives three types of power to the federal government: delegated (or numerated) powers, implied powers, and inherent powers.[1] Included in the delegated powers are the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, and to maintain armed forces; the implied powers are not explicitly stated in the Constitution but are rather inferred from what is “necessary and proper” (Article 1, Section 8);[2] and the inherent powers are not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution but are derived from the fundamental necessity for a federal government. While these matters might be discussed in incredible detail, suffice it to say that the constitutional role of government, with state and municipal governments stemming from what is not granted to the federal government, is the protection of citizens’ liberties and freedoms. Seemingly, American government has grown massively and has become an entity that has reached far beyond the bounds of its constitutional role; yet, its foundational purpose for existence is to protect the liberties and freedoms of the people.

Biblical Role

            The scope of the material here is primarily the biblical role of government. While much of what is mentioned relates to federal government, these elements apply also to both state and municipal governments. Scripture does not necessarily distinguish between the three; yet, in an overarching sense, the model for government should be applied to all forms. One might suggest that the biblical model for government is one of a theocratic variety. Such a claim certainly holds weight; yet, I believe biblical theocracies only existed by God’s allowance, not necessarily because God himself demands such. An entire nation that honors God is to be commended; yet, morality should not be legislated, for if it is, it is no true morality at all. I suggest four underlying biblical roles of government: protection, justice, equality, and order.

Protection

            The clearest biblical role of government is the protection of its citizens. Paul discusses the power of the sword (Rom 13:4); the plainest example of this is the waging of war. Solomon confesses that there is indeed a time for war (Eccl 3:8). Since Paul instructs believers to be at peace with all men if possible (Rom 12:18), the implication is that war should be avoided as much as possible but also that it is not always possible to do so. Biblical models of government reveal a role that centers around the protection of its citizens. A government that does not protect its citizens is an unjust government and one which dishonors God. While modern societies attempt to grant numerous other roles to government, the most foundational role is protection.

Justice

            In a strikingly connected manner, justice is the second primary role of government. Scripture makes clear that governors are sent by God to “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet 2:14). Furthermore, Paul contends that governmental authorities carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). An inference from these biblical texts is that civilian citizens should not execute legal justice themselves, for vengeance belongs to God (Deut 32:35) through the employment of government. Everyone is held accountable; God’s plan for holding people accountable on this earth is through the process of government. Even on a large scale, government is called to execute justice among its people. If a nation is attacked or wronged, it is government’s responsibility to issue justice toward those who have wronged its people. An unjust government will be severely disciplined by God; thus, the role of justice should be taken seriously by every level of government.

Equality

            Equality is yet another function of government. God is just and does not show favoritism (Rom 2:11); therefore, no government should do so as well. It would be right, however, to consider what biblical equality looks like. As an order of morality, I personally do not believe equality should be legislated among private entities, e.g. private businesses. Government, nonetheless, should strive for equality and perhaps even legislate such in its inner-workings. Equality is vital, for not only is God equal toward his people but, in response to him, his people are called to submit to one another in reverence (Eph 5:21). Equality is a matter of godliness. While government should not mandate private citizens and businesses to manage their operations in any single fashion, e.g. who to hire, how to hire, reasons for termination, etc. (for morality should not be legislated), government should play a crucial role in the protection of human rights and equal opportunity.[3] Equality then is a primary role of government.

Order

            Finally, government’s role is also order. God is a God of order rather than confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Scripture is replete with references to order, self-control, and peace. Part of government’s role is to manage society in such a way that order is a result. While Paul’s instructions, in 1 Corinthians 14, are related to order in corporate worship, because God is a God of order, a good and functioning society should be so also. Without order is chaos and godlessness. I identify as a Libertarian but am often astounded by how many people link Libertarian views to anarchy. I do not know a single Libertarian who supports anarchy; yet, we all support the most limited government possible while still advocating for a government which manages a society of order. Biblically, government’s responsibility is to order a people justly and rightly.

An Overreaching Government, No Matter How Good the Intentions, Is Unconstitutional and Unbiblical

            What is meant by the title statement here is that while theocracies certainly exist in the Bible, God’s plan is never to legislate morality. Simply because a biblical society, e.g. a society or people in the Bible does something does not mean that the act itself is biblical, e.g. right. The material here does not argue for a theocracy. It is God, nevertheless, who ultimately executes perfect judgment. He has ordained government as an extension of his justice; yet, it is his justice alone that reigns supreme. “For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king; he will save us” (Isa 33:22). The both constitutional and biblical roles of government extend then from its God-ordained function whether in a society which honors God or not. Consider the Apostle Paul who instructed believers to be subject to the governing authorities in a godless society which killed Christians. Even then, God has positioned leaders who do not exist apart from him. In such a circumstance, the government is overreaching. I dare suggest, in fact, that a government which extends its reach beyond the bounds of its constitutional and biblical roles, no matter how good the intentions may be, is actually unconstitutional and unbiblical. Perspectives on what overreach looks like vary; yet, overreach is possible and occurs. The overarching roles presented here offer the fundamental purposes of government, which should be considered and employed for the good of a people.

---

[1] Such powers are discussed in Article 1, Section 8.

[2] Since these powers are not explicitly discussed in the Constitution, courts are often left to determine their reach.

[3] The discussion of this topic includes a variety of perspectives, which lends itself to common controversy. What is shared here is merely opinion.

DID JESUS CONFESS HIS DEITY?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

DID JESUS CONFESS HIS DEITY?

            Few deny the existence of Jesus and even his resurrection, although many have made feeble attempts at doing so. A common denial, however, is the deity of Christ. Even among professing believers, there are those who would adamantly claim that Jesus is not God and that he made such a claim himself. I counter that not only is Jesus God but the prophets, the Apostles, and Christ himself suggest otherwise.

The Prophets

            First, it is the prophets who testify to the deity of Christ and his lordship as Messiah. No Old Testament prophet does not testify to Christ. Jesus himself confessed that the scriptures testify to himself as the Messiah (John 5:39). It was, further, understood in the early church that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and, in fact, God himself (Acts 10:43). Among Old Testament prophets (and figures) that detailed the Savior’s Advent were Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even Abraham. Isaiah explicitly discusses the Messiah in a way related to hope for Israel during the Babylonian period (Isa 53); yet, his reference to the servant who will save Israel is prophetic in that it explicitly portrays Jesus Christ and his life-saving death upon the cross.

            Christ is often referred to as the word in Scripture. In fact, logos (word) almost always refers to Christ in New Testament writings. John writes that the word, i.e. Jesus was with God and Jesus (the word) was God (John 1:1); a statement cannot be much more explicit than that. I have often said that Jesus (and his righteousness) is not derived from the Bible but the Bible is derived from him, i.e. Scripture testifies to Christ; he does not testify to Scripture. Therefore, the reason Christ was perfectly in line with Scripture is not only that he was obedient but that he literally is the word himself.

            From the beginning of the Bible, God’s plan of Christ the Messiah is made evident. God told the serpent that he would place enmity between him and the woman and that her seed would crush his head (Gen 3:15). From that point, the narrative of Scripture reveals Satan’s feeble attempts to thwart the plan of God; yet, he would not and never will succeed. The concept here is that all of Scripture centers around Christ, for Christ has always been the plan. He is Messiah; he is God; the Bible abundantly declares such.

The Apostles

            A clear manifestation of Christ’s divine position is the testimony of the Apostles. Throughout apostolic writings, Jesus is referenced as equal to God. Peter, for example, confesses that they (the Apostles) saw Jesus in resurrected flesh as light from the Father and saw and heard God’s glory and voice (2 Pet 1:16-17). Paul, moreover, likens Christ to God in his worth and imminent worship by all people, for one day all will declare him as Lord (Phil 2:11). Paul also contends that there is but one God and one Lord, namely Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6) from whom exist all things (Col 1). The deity of Christ is no secret in apostolic writings. Paul even says, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority” (Col 2:9-10). Thus, the church, for centuries, has counted Jesus as one with the Father and the Spirit and indeed as God himself in the flesh.

Jesus Himself

C.S. Lewis poses what has become known as the Lewis Trilemma: Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord; if he is Lord, he demands total devotion. “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance; the only thing it cannot be is moderately important,” (Lewis) writes Lewis. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus is seen referencing his deity. Many scholars have missed the meaning of Jesus’ confessions. For one to claim that Jesus never confesses his deity is to either miss what he has made obvious or blatantly deny such. John is replete with not only Jesus’ admittance to the work which the Father sent him to accomplish but also his oneness with the Father (John 10:30). Jesus himself knew who he was while on this earth, for he is eternally God the Son. Thus, not only do the prophets, the Apostles, and Scripture testify to Jesus’ deity, so also does Jesus himself. He certainly professes his own deity and leaves no room for doubt in such a claim.

Belief in Jesus’ Godship: An Imperative to Christianity

            The church has confessed the Godship of Christ for centuries. In fact, I contend that doing so is necessary to Christianity. To deny the Godship of Jesus is to effectively consider him, the prophets, and the Apostles liars. Jesus, however, speaks nothing but truth and proclaimed the truth that he is God. Christianity has affirmed Christ’s Godship for centuries and must continue to believe in its truth, lest believers diminish Christ to a mere human without total power and might.

References

Lewis, C.S. (1952). Mere Christianity.

CHALLANGES TO WHOLENESS

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

CHALLENGES TO WHOLENESS

            Wholeness is a topic of discussion that likely arises in many gospel-centered conversations and indeed one with which believers should toil. Thoughts on how one achieves wholeness are disparate, many, and manifold. A commonality in such thoughts, however, is the necessity in determining challenges to overcome in order to achieve wholeness. For the following, I will suggest and dissect two primary challenges to wholeness: 1) the challenge of satisfaction and 2) the challenge of letting go. Both challenges offer unique thoughts and ideas and bring with them diverse opinions on how to correct them. While my suggestions here are anecdotal, I believe that my experiences are not unique but common not only to those around me but humanity in general. These challenges to wholeness could certainly be key components to Christian contentment and service to God.

The Challenge of Satisfaction

            Genuine wholeness (I believe) is a derivative of satisfaction in Christ alone. The Apostle Paul claims to have discovered the secret to being content in every situation, whether in abundance or need (Phil 4:11-12). He then continues by professing that all things are possible through Christ (Phil 4:13). Often a passage of egregious interpretation, Paul reminds his readers that believers possess the capability to do anything in Christ including starve. Christians should consider the circumstances of Paul as a model in satisfaction. A man who beaten, whipped, stoned, bitten by snakes, shipwrecked, imprisoned, robbed, and adrift a sea (2 Cor 11), among other difficulties, expresses certain joy in Christ on multiple occasions, despite his earthly difficulties. Perhaps, Paul discovered the secret to wholeness in his own satisfaction in Christ.

John Piper contends that God is most glorified in his people when his people are most satisfied in him (Piper, 2003, p. 10), i.e. the work Christians do for Christ is not the primary issue but the foundational reason supporting such work. Human nature involves naturally glorifying that in what one is satisfied. One who loves sports does not have to work to broadcast the glory of sports in the same manner that one who loves God does not have to work at broadcasting the glory of God. When someone is satisfied in Christ, the natural effect is to glorify him. In this sense, Paul finds little trouble in glorifying Christ. Such a complete satisfaction in Christ is necessary for wholeness. Without satisfaction in Christ, people pursue other people or items that will never satisfy and were never intended to do so. What Christians seek then directly impacts wholeness. From this truth, therefore, two imperatives operate in collaboration with one another: 1) the reality of what happens with people seek contentment in anything but Christ and 2) the reality of what happens when believers pursue personal goals without Christ.

Seeking Contentment in Anything else but Christ

            When God’s people seek contentment in anything but Christ, at least anecdotally, the pursuit proves futile. A vivid reminder of this truth is Solomon’s account presented in Ecclesiastes. A man who gained all the world could offer inevitably confessed that all pursuits but God himself are worthless endeavors; to fear God and keep his commandments is the entire duty of humankind (Eccl 12:13). A common challenge to wholeness, therefore, is the charm of all that tempts besides Christ. Since God is eternal, his satisfaction is also eternal; yet, that which he has created, namely everything, is temporary and satisfaction in such created entities should be considered as such. When Christians seek satisfaction in anything worldly, although they may certainly gain those elemental realities, they are left wanting more. To seek contentment in anything else but Christ is to reveal a heart which does not honor God as the only one worthy of everything.

            When Christians seek contentment in anything but Christ, the reality of the inability to satisfy by anything but Jesus is realized. One who seeks contentment in anything but Christ then is disappointed and left in a continuous state of incompleteness. Thus, to overcome the challenge of wholeness, believers should find their contentment in Christ alone, for Jesus in addition to anything else will leave one wanting, while Jesus in addition to nothing else will completely satisfy.

The Pursuit of Goals without Christ

            As Solomon pursued goals without God and eventually understood the futility in doing so, Christians should strive not to pursue goals without Christ. Unless Christ is present, central, and offers his peace in pursuing goals, Christians will ultimately fail at wholeness. Goals are excellent for believers; yet, when Christ does not dictate goals, they will not be enough even when they are reached. When a goal is achieved, one who pursues without Christ will be left wanting more.

            A common thought, among people, is that which believes reaching a significant goal will bring some level of contentment. Anecdotally, I believe this to be false. A challenge to wholeness then is overcoming such a false belief. Believers should seek Christ and his kingdom first; then will the satisfaction of other things be added (Matt 6:33). Nonetheless, when goals are pursued without Christ, the most important part of the equation is missing; therefore, achieving such goals will fail in contentment.

            One who is whole is one who has discovered that Christ alone matters eternally. All other endeavors will not result in wholeness but rather emptiness. It is surely challenging to turn from the pursuit of goals without Christ, for even earthly goals seem to offer humankind ultimate satisfaction. Many believe that proper education will satisfy; many believe that money will satisfy; furthermore, many believe that power and prestige satisfy. Nonetheless, nothing but Christ satisfies. Thus, to reach wholeness and the realization of such, Christians should understand both the challenge and the necessity of turning from the allure of anything which is not eternal, i.e. everything but Christ, and turning to Jesus for eternal wholeness. Satisfaction is key to wholeness. All goals, pursuits, and daily rhythms of life should center around the one who offers living water which will never run dry (John 4:13-14), for any endeavor which seeks wholeness through anything else is futile and wasted. Only Christ satisfies; only Christ makes his people whole.

The Challenge of Letting Go

            Human nature seems to demand a sense of personal control, i.e. people desire the perception that they can change and manipulate situations to suit their wants and needs. When that sense is violated, the response seems often to be one of anger and resentment. The reality of wholeness, nevertheless, requires letting go of one’s past, present, and future and accepting the fact that only God is in control. To let go is to realize that no one is ever in control at any given moment, although it certainly may seem so at times. God’s sovereignty should cause Christians to live in peace, for he alone controls the past, present, and future.

Past

            One’s past often impacts their present and future. Paul contends that he forgets what is past and presses on to what lies ahead (Phil 3:13). Believers should adopt this attitude, for one may not live in the fulfillment of God’s present and future joy while simultaneously clinging to the past. Whether good or bad, one’s past must be separated (not neglected). Christians should surely rejoice in what God has done in the past; yet, the past should not control the decisions of the present and future.

            A common action taken by local churches is to dwell on the good times of the past. While it is good and right to acknowledge God’s work in the past, there is a future God desires for his people as well. To cling tightly to the past is to disregard what God has for his people in the future. Moreover, Christians often cling to the negative parts of the past by neglecting to realize God’s forgiveness and newness. One who is redeemed in Christ no longer holds to the sin of the past. What he or she has done in the way of sin then is irrelevant to what God does in their life now. To experience complete wholeness in Christ, therefore, Christians should let go of the past. Remember it certainly; yet, remembrance does not demand clinging to what has been. Hold loosely to the past while concurrently using it to inform God’s future work of grace.

Present

            Believers should also let go of the present by trusting God for his timely provision. Worry typically happens because of the present rather than the past or future. Whether one worries about finances, job security, family problems, or anything else, God stalwartly controls the present. When God’s people let go of the present and acknowledge that Christ alone is supreme, cares for his people, and provides for them, wholeness is experienced. Letting go of present struggles is challenging because of the innate human desire for control. In pursuing wholeness, God’s people, for centuries, have discovered that he alone is sovereign. Often, such a discovery comes at a great cost where people make feeble attempts to control their own lives and destinies themselves. A tremendous example lies in the story of Jonah. One who was called to Nineveh and made an attempt to obey his own fleshly desires was ultimately disciplined and clearly led by God to the place he tried to avoid. As challenging as it may be, no matter how uncomfortable situations may be and no matter how dire they may seem, if God’s people would simply let go of present situations and trust God for his guidance and provision, the result would be wholeness.

Future

            Finally, letting go of the future is yet another challenge to wholeness. Jesus instructs his people not to worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself (Matt 6:34), i.e. today has enough problems; additionally, God controls all circumstances so his people have no need to worry. Letting go of the future is a personal challenge, as I am one who desires to plan abundantly so that circumstances will seemingly carry out in the way I desire.[1] It seems likely that most believers understand or at least acknowledge that God controls the future; yet, many of God’s people continue to live as if they control the future themselves. A key component to letting go of the future is understanding its foundation of both the past and the present: they three build on each other. The present is informed by the past; the future is informed by the present. For one to let go of the future then, he or she must understand that what has already occurred cannot be changed or controlled; the future, therefore, is most obviously given to God for control. I dare argue, however, that the future is the most difficult of which to let go. People seem to make feeble attempts to correct past mistakes in the future. When people live their lives in debt to the past, however, wholeness may never be achieved, for nothing can correct the mistakes of the past except the righteous grace of Jesus Christ. Thus, to achieve wholeness is to let go of the past, present, and future with the realization that God controls and guides his people in all three.

The Glory of God Is Always the Issue

            Wholeness is met when Christians realize that God alone is sovereign and that humanity has no ability to supersede his control. Realizing such a fact, however, includes more than simply understanding it, for even Satan himself understands this truth. Realizing God’s control equates to not only acknowledging it but also finding joy in it. When one seeks pleasure in God’s pleasure, he or she finds satisfaction so that serving God is not the issue, i.e. people naturally serve that in what or whom they are satisfied. When one’s joy is found in Christ, he or she serves Jesus out of an abundance of satisfaction in him. Exaltation is the result of exultation; theology is the result of doxology. The Reformers often used the adage, lex orando lex credenda, which loosely translates, “How we worship is how we become.” Often, it seems that Christians hold to the idea that serving God makes them more satisfied in him when the reverse is true: the more satisfied people are in God, the more they serve him. To find satisfaction in God then is to abandon all charms the world offers and let go of the past, present, and future by trusting God and seeking him alone. Then will God’s people reach a point of wholeness.

References

Piper, John. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers.

---

[1] Many of the challenges mentioned in this paper directly correspond to those who possess a naturally controlling personality, i.e. one who desires a sense of control in their life will likely struggle with these challenges more than one who does not.

PRAY FOR EVERYONE: A CHRISTIAN REASON

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

PRAY FOR EVERYONE: A CHRISTIAN REASON

            The content of the church’s prayers is a crucial issue in worship. As worship not only tells the story of a covenant God but also participates in and does that story^[1] (which is vast and diverse in the church), so corporate prayer ought to reflect the diverse narrative that exists between God and his people. The Apostle Paul, writing as a mentor to young Timothy, spent time teaching how the church is to pray (1 Tim 2). Paul’s instructions to Timothy here center around the church’s prayers in unity. Paul often makes clear his concerns for unity in the church. In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle suggests that all in the body of Christ are equal when he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Unity among God’s people plays a significant role in Paul’s instructions to Timothy here regarding prayer. External factors are of no concern in the body of Christ, for all are equal. Paul makes clear that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:4-5). No one is excluded here. While the church is diverse, she is, nevertheless, a unified people through the mediator, Jesus Christ.

            The instructions given in these verses relate to for whom the church is to pray. In a broad scope, the directions given to Timothy are to pray for all people, not merely brothers and sisters in Christ. John Calvin spoke of praying for all people in the following manner:

The prayer of the Christian ought then to be conformed to this rule in order that it may be in common and embrace all who are his brothers in Christ: not only those whom he presently sees and recognizes as such, but all people who dwell on earth. For what the Lord has determined regarding them is beyond our knowing, except that we ought to wish and hope for the best for them.^[2]

Paul’s instructions are not limited to praying only for the church but for everyone including “kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Tim 2:2). As divisive as they may be, even political differences should not hinder the prayers of God’s people for everyone, but rather a unified people are called to pray on behalf of others as a reflection of God’s character and desire for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). As the body of Christ is diverse, so also are the needs of the world, thus beckoning God’s people to pray for everyone.

The types of prayers that are to be offered should vary. The church here is instructed to offer “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” on behalf of all people (1 Tim 2:1). The various types of prayers mentioned here seem to be related to the specific needs of those for whom are being prayed. Where we tend to use the word, prayer, in a broad sense, the terms used in these verses contain specific meanings. Supplications (δεήσις) seems to “focus on asking for some special need”^[3] in a person’s life. Prayers (προσευχή) “is the more general word for prayer…although it can be more focused when additional terms are added to it.”^[4] Intercessions (ἔντευξις) “means here ‘petition’ or more appropriately ‘appeal’…with a note of both urgency and boldness of access.”^[5] Thanksgivings (εὐχαριστία) “refers to…expressions of gratitude…to God on behalf of all.”^[6]

The prayers of the church are to be offered on behalf of all, bearing in mind the specific needs that exist in the world at large and with an ever-present realization of a covenant God who hears the cries of his people. The recognition that humankind has no standing with the Father apart from Christ is fundamental to Paul’s reflection here,^[7] for without the mediation of Jesus, the church cannot rightly pray to God. Paul states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Tim 2:5-6). The doctrine of Christ as mediator is fully connected to the covenant^[8] relationship between God and his people. Without the pleas of the church through the mediator, Jesus Christ, the needs of all people are not heard. It is the church then that intercedes on behalf of all people. Paul’s instructions here point to a God who hears and responds to his people in meeting the needs of the world.

Praying for the specific needs of all people despite differences among all humans may seem to be a daunting task. Nonetheless, the principle involved is the unity of the church. Paul’s desire for unity is evident when he says, “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (1 Tim 2:8). The seemingly divisive issues and people that are included in the broad scope of praying for all people are impossible to conquer except that the church is unified in Jesus Christ. Union with Christ is the only way to live at peace with one another without anger and quarreling. Without his unity, the differences of humankind supersede. Throughout the centuries, writers have “defined salvation and the Christian life in terms of being united to Christ.”^[9] “Union with Christ means that you are in Christ and Christ is in you.”^[10] The prayers of the church should be unified because individually and collectively God’s people are members of one body, namely the body of Christ, and he is actively working in each of his adopted people. Because Christ is the mediator between the Father and his people, unity is crucial. In the text here, the Apostle Paul evokes a crucial understanding of Christ as the mediator in the new covenant.

The prayers of the church are imperative in a broken world. Only through Christ does the Father reconcile all things to himself (Col 1:20). A fallen and sinful people are redeemed and found positionally righteous in Jesus Christ, and through him, are also being made actually righteous. For this reason, the church alone has standing before the Father in prayer; therefore, the prayers of the church for all people and by all members of her body are crucial. God’s people then pray in unity through Jesus Christ who intercedes on her behalf for the needs of the world.

---

[1] Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008), 23.

[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), quoted in Elsie McKee, “Calvin and Praying for ‘All People Who Dwell on Earth,” Interpretation 63, no. 2 (April 2009): 130.

[3] George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster Press, 1992), 114.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 86.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Rankin Wilbourne, Union with Christ: The Way to Know and Enjoy God (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2016), 340, Kindle.

[10] Ibid., 431, Kindle.