By Andrew A. Prociuk
Watering
As I was driving to work the other day, I saw a church billboard that said, “Deep roots come from dry spells.” As a landscape horticulture graduate I was pondering that phrase and how that statement is not completely true. But just as the sign was giving a spiritual lesson, which it probably can, I would like to give one as well. Let’s use the analogy of a grass seed.
When grass seeds are sown, they need water. The water penetrates the seed coat and, essentially, busts the seed coat open. The first root, called the radicle, appears and starts to grow into the soil so that it can absorb water and nutrients. The basic rule of thumb for watering grass is deep and infrequent; however, in the case of establishing new grass the rule is shallow and frequent. What this does is allow the water to be absorbed into the top layer of the soil to be accessible to the newly established roots. If too much water is applied, the soil would absorb it to a depth inaccessible for the young roots. On the other hand, if the grass plant is always supplied the shallow water, it will not have a chance to grow to a proper depth in the soil and when dry spells come along, the roots have a greater chance of dying from the hot dry soil
As grass starts to grow, if properly watered, the roots find their way deeper into the soil. This is when the rule for the watering starts to change over to deep and infrequent. Of course, this must be a gradual process from the shallow and frequent watering schedule. When this happens, the water finds its way deeper into the soil to be accessible for the growing roots. When the dry spells come along, the deep healthy roots, as opposed to the shallow roots, are at a depth to which they can reach the moist soil. As this happens, the grass plant grows to be healthy. The roots grow deep and the leaf blade grows to reach the light of the sun.
So, you may be wondering what my point is. Well, look at it this way. There are many references in the Bible to plants and how they relate to our spiritual lives. In Mark 4:5-6 Jesus gives the parable of the sower and speaking of the seed he says, “Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.”
As new Christians come into fellowship, the tendency seems to be to teach the Bible at a basic level, get them baptized, and hope they do well, however, if we use the analogy of the grass plant, new Christians, like grass plants, need to be supplied that shallow water for a time, even after their baptism, until their roots start to grow. The watering must gradually deepen so they can reach the water themselves when that dry spell does come along. And it most definitely will come.
So, deep roots, in a spiritual sense, rather than resulting from dry spells actually help believers survive through them. Deep spiritual roots come from a caring heart and a realization that the faith of new Christians is somewhat dependent on the body of believers. It is a gradual process that takes time. We must take care of each other as we would do to a garden. The watering, or teaching, of new disciples is still essential even after they are baptized. Their roots will take time to deepen and the only way to do that is if we water them properly no longer with elementary teachings (Hebrews 6:1). When a disciple’s faith is deeply rooted in the Word, they will eagerly seek God as their light (James 1:5).
Fertilization
Along with the watering, a healthy grass plant often needs fertilizer. The basic rule for fertilization is four pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet per year. Nitrogen is probably the most essential element in the health of grass. It is the element that keeps the grass green. There are a few problems that can go along with fertilization, however. A fast release fertilizer will give a quick green up, but the grass will soon fade. A slow release fertilizer will take a long time to green up. Therefore, the best way to fertilize is to integrate fast and slow release fertilizers.
Systematic theology is viewed with four pieces in mind and these pieces comprise a triangle with four levels. The bottom level is the most essential and is that of Holy Scripture. The next level is that of Tradition. The Tradition that is being spoken of is that of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, those are the early church fathers from the beginning of the church up to AD 325. And although not all fathers agreed on every issue, the consensus is what is viewed. The next level is that of reason. God allows us to be able to reason and therefore, it should be used. The final level, and the apex of the triangle, is that of experience. Experience is important to our walk with God; however, it cannot take priority over the other three pieces of the triangle.
Now, if we want to see how this relates spiritually, we can take a look at theology. It should be agreed upon that the Holy Scriptures take precedent over tradition, reason, and experience. As well, the tradition of the Ante-Nicene fathers should be taken in high regard. So, that leaves us with reason and experience. Now, if we take a look back at slow release and fast release fertilizers, we see that although both are effective in their own way, slow release fertilizers are more effective in the health of grass. As well, reason, according to the theological triangle, is more effective than experience. Experience and feelings are important in our walk with God but as Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Emotions are like the fast release fertilizer. They help for those quick green-ups when you really want your grass (spirituality) to look nice almost instantly, but it fades soon thereafter. Reason, wisdom and patience as well, are regarded more like the slow release fertilizers. They are what keep us spiritually sound and growing. It may take a little longer for the grass to green up, but when it does it stays green longer. Hosea 4:6b says, “…my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” It does not say, “…my people are destroyed from lack of feelings.”
Just as grass needs both fast and slow release fertilizers, we as Christians need fast and slow release fertilizers in the form of experience and feelings along with reason, patience, wisdom, and knowledge. By having a proper balance, we will have that better root system that keeps us anchored along with the better leaves with which to display the glory of God.
Replication
Now, watering and fertilization is all well and good, but what now? Is that all there is to being a grass plant or a spiritual brother or sister? Well, not exactly. Something happens to the grass plant when it receives proper care. It grows! When grass is watered and fertilized appropriately, roots grow deeper and thicker and leaf blades grow thicker as well. The grass will start to spread out and send roots in every direction to repopulate all that it can. Seeds will start to grow and fall to the ground to start the cycle all over again.
Speaking of seeds, Jesus said in John 12:24-25, “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” The only way for us to grow God’s kingdom is to die to ourselves everyday. By doing this we are like seeds that fall to the ground and die. If we do this, we will replicate and produce many more seeds so that the cycle will be ongoing.
Just as grass needs care, we too need to care for our spiritual life. And just as grass, we need others in our life to help take care of us. We are not spiritually self sufficient by any means. We must be watered so that we can be properly rooted in God’s word. We also need proper fertilization so that we can be spiritually healthy. And we need to take what we have been given and share it with others to continue the cycle. Although grass may seem simple, just as our spiritual lives at times, it can be complex. Although we will ultimately wither just like the grass, God does not. “All men are like grass and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall but the word of our God stands forever” Isaiah 40:6-8.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
Is God Cruel?
Introduction
Is God cruel? I think this a question that we have all asked at some point in our lives. In fact, if we’re going to be honest about that issue, we must first air a little dirty laundry of the Christian community. There are dirty little secrets that we don’t like to admit to. We don’t like to think about them and we certainly hope a non-Christian doesn’t bring up the topic. The fact is, however, there are certain passages in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament that we have a hard time reconciling with the concept of a loving God. We struggle with the wars, the violence, and the absolute genocide of the Old Testament and we wonder if God was indeed cruel. Because we don’t understand these portions of Scripture, however, what we tend to do is to sweep them under the rug. We put those passages in the “trust by faith” portion of our mind and hope that we don’t have to deal with them ever again. What is sad is that it is often these very passages in Scripture that show God’s love in an incredible fashion. My objective today is to examine a few of these incidents in the Bible and move them from the “trust by faith” part of your mind into the “builds my faith” part. As we examine these verses today I challenge you to read them critically as a skeptic might, challenge me in your mind. Force me to prove that I am correct. I am confident, however, that by the end of this lesson you will agree that God is who He says He is, a God of love and mercy.
I am familiar with many of the passages that we will look at because I had my own sport when I was in college. One of my favorite things to do was to debate the Christians on campus. I was at a time in my own life when I was struggling with who I was and what I believed in life. I had been raised in a Christian home and so I knew well the stories of the Bible. I could rattle of any biblical fact you wanted to know with an air of smug arrogance. I was also in a phase of rebellion, so quite naturally I rebelled against Christianity. I could hardly rebel against life, as I knew it without rejecting Christianity to some extent. The reality was, though, that I had serious questions about the Bible and about God and I desperately wanted someone to be able to answer them. What I found, however, was the exact opposite. I found a lot of Christians who could not defend their faith and were not even all that familiar with the Bible. I have chosen several passages for this article because they are verses that I used to use to attack Christians with. Verses with which I could prove God as a harsh and cruel dictator that were also inconsistent and contradictory. These stories I want to look at today were some of the very best of my arsenal and sadly I never met one Christian while I was in college who could give me an adequate answer, not even the ministerial students.
Genesis 3:14-21
To start any discussion of God’s cruelty or kindness we must start at the beginning, the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 2 and 3 we find a description of Adam and Eve in the Garden in a close relationship with God. They lived in a state of harmony where there was no sin and no death. Then came the temptation of the serpent to risk this perfect relationship that they had with God. God had placed in the Garden, the tree of Good and Evil, forbidding them to eat of it. We all know the story, they disobeyed, they ate, and here comes an angry God to punish them. Now I never argued that God didn’t have the right to punish them. They were His creation living in His garden. What I wondered was, “Didn’t it seem cruel or going overboard to curse mankind and all of creation with death because of one little mistake?” Was this not a clear case of over-reaction?
The fact is, even in proclaiming the curse of death upon mankind, God was already showing His mercy and grace. Let me explain. What are the wages of sin death? Obviously the answer is death. But before that even, what does sin do to us? It separates us from God. A holy and perfect God cannot be in the presence of sin. So picture this: You live in a world in which you sin one time and are forever separated from God with no hope of reconciliation. This is huge, because when you boil it all down, heaven is being totally in the presence of God while hell is the complete lack of God’s presence. Here’s where the beauty of the curse of death comes in. The wages of sin are indeed death, but God gave us an out within the confines of this very curse. We can substitute the death of another for our own in order to pay our fine and be reconciled with God. In the Old Testament it was periodic animal sacrifice. For us today it was the sacrifice of God’s Son on the Cross that has paid the price for our sins. Without death we would have no hope of ever being in the presence of God for the rest of eternity. One sin, and we would be done, forever. That wasn’t good enough for God, though. If you read Genesis 3:15, you can see that even at the very beginning, the very moment that man was disobeying and unleashing this plague of sin into the world, God had already formulated His plan to send His Messiah. Keep that plan in mind as we examine this question of God’s supposed cruelty because it will play a key role.
Genesis 11:5-9
The second story that we need to look at is found in Genesis 11. Here we have mankind shortly after the flood once again disobeying God. He had ordered them to spread out and repopulate the earth. They decided, however, that they had a better plan in mind. Mankind chose to stay together and build a society, one that included building a pagan tower in honor of the gods. This tower they were building was very likely the forerunner of the ziggurat, a temple that would have at the very top a room represented the heavens. It would be here that they would give offerings to pagan gods. In verse 5, we find that God says that God is concerned that nothing man wants to do will be impossible for them if they stay together. Is this a God who is afraid? What does He know that we don’t? What will happen if man stays together? Perhaps God is not as powerful as we think and He relies on the fact that mankind is splintered and constantly fighting one another. If we were ever truly united, could it be that we could challenge his sovereignty? That was my theory, but I don’t think it is correct.
We find a clue for the answer back in the Garden of Eden. God forbids Adam of Eve from eating of the tree of Good and Evil. Why? Doesn’t it seem like that would a tree He would want them to eat from daily? Wouldn’t He want them to know good from evil. The fact is: the name of this tree is somewhat confusing to our ears because it is a classic Hebrew figure of speech. It is, in fact, what is called merism. What that means is polarity represent totality. You take the opposite ends of the spectrum to represent the whole. We see this kind of language quite frequently in the Old Testament: As far as the east from the west; the beginning and the end; the alpha and the omega, from the highest mountain to the deepest sea. The tree of the Knowledge Good and Evil simply means knowledge. Adam and Eve, and subsequently mankind, now had access to more knowledge than we had the moral ability to control. We see this evidenced throughout history right up to today’s world.
Now, remember that God still has a fresh memory of the flood and the awful destruction that was precipitated by man’s evil. Now He sees the same pattern beginning again. He simply cannot let this happen again. He knows that if left to their own devices man has the capability and knowledge to create far more evil than they can morally control. In God’s mercy, we see Him separating mankind so that it will be much more difficult for them to get to the levels of sin that they did in the days of Noah. God is actually saving these humans from a far worse fate by splitting them and confusing their ability to communicate with one another. Now, let’s switch gears a bit.
I Samuel 15:3
In this verse we find God ordering the complete genocide of an entire culture including the children, infants, and animals. There is no way we explain our way out of this one. God has ordered an entire culture to be annihilated, and this is just one example of many. Does this not prove a bloodthirsty, violent, and cruel God? Well, let’s look at the evidence.
First of all we must remember that God is holy and He must punish sin and rebellion. This Amalekite culture was totally depraved and polluted. You name it, they did it: brutality, cruelty, incest, bestiality, cultic prostitution, child sacrifice by fire, etc. These were among the vilest cultures that have ever exited in the history of mankind. Even with that we find God being patient with them and giving them over 400 years to repent. In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abraham that his descendants could not yet inhabit Canaan because the Amorite sin had not yet reached its full extent. He gave them time to repent and they did not.
But what about the children, infants, and animals; How can a kind God order their destruction? As we said earlier, these cultures were totally depraved, beyond the hope of redemption or repentance. We know from the Bible that children under an age of accountability are not held responsible for their actions. Is it not obvious, then, that in a way, by ordering the children killed God has engaged in an act of mercy for these children. He has, in essence, given them a free pass out of certain destruction and into His presence. As far as the animals, are concerned, what would thousands of domesticated animals do without humans to care for them. This would cause starvation, disease, etc. In both cases, we see God engaging in acts of mercy and kindness.
Another fact is that God cannot be judged by the same standards with which mankind is judged. In Ezekiel 18:4 we learn that every soul belongs to God. Look at it this way: If I cut down a tree in my lawn, that’s fine. I can do that because it’s my tree. If you do it, it is a crime. You do not have the right or authority to cut down my tree. This is the same for God. We are God’s souls. He kills us all; it’s just a matter of when, where, and how. Because we belong to God, He and He alone can choose when we are called into the spiritual realm.
The final and perhaps most important reason that this is an act of kindness on the part of God is that He was preserving Israel. The Amalekite (and other Canaanite) cultures were bent on completely wiping Israel off of the face of the earth. God had already decided, however, that it was through these special people of his that He would bring His Messiah. He had to preserve the Israelites so that they could bring forth the Messiah that would eventually save all of mankind. We all recognize the ultimate mercy that is shown in the life and death of Jesus. If Israel was destroyed or corrupted beyond hope then there would be no Messiah and no hope of ever being permanently reconciled with God. God is not a God of cruelty but of mercy and kindness.
II Kings 2:23-25
Is this not a case of pure and simple overkill? We find a situation in which a bunch of kids are making fun an adult. Big deal, you say, that happens all the time. But to send a couple of bears to maul them to death, is this not cruel? How can we possibly explain this one?
The first thing to note is that this not a group of kids. The KJV translates this as little children while the NIV words it as young men. This is the same term, however, is used for soldier aged young men. These were not little children; they were young men of fighting age. This was, in our vernacular, a gang. By their sheer number they were threatening the life of Elisha.
Now, what exactly were they saying that was worthy of death? First of all by chanting “go on up,” they were challenging the truth of God having taken Elijah up to heaven. They were taunting Elisha to go up to heaven as Elijah had. In calling him baldhead, they were implying that he had leprosy. Leprosy was the vilest of conditions in the ancient world and lepers would shave their head to indicate that they had leprosy. Basically, they were calling him the worst possible insult.
To truly understand the severity of this it is important to understand the role of the prophet. The prophet was God’s direct representative on earth. He was God’s mouthpiece. To insult or mock a prophet was a direct blasphemy towards God. When these young men mocked Elisha, they mocked God.
The act of God unleashing these bears to kill these young men shows God’s mercy. The culture was quickly degenerating into an attitude of blasphemy against God that would precipitate a much worse fate. This was preemptory attack trying to warn Israel. It was a warning shot. It shows God repeatedly trying to bring His people back to himself through smaller judgments. If they would not repent then God’s full judgment would have to come upon them. God did not want this to happen. If His people followed the example of these young men, where would it stop? In fact, the people did not repent, and we see shortly after this the destruction of Samaria and the Northern Kingdom taken off into bondage. God was trying to get them to turn away from this fate. This is yet another example of God working to keep His people pure so that He could bring the Messiah through these people. God is not cruel; He is kind and patient.
Genesis 22:2
In our final case we find God ordering Abraham to go and sacrifice his son, Isaac. We know that God stopped him so I never really argued that this was an act of cruelty, except maybe a cruel sense of humor. The problem here for me was, however, is this order not in clear violation of the Leviticus 18:21 prohibition of sacrificing children? How can God prohibit child sacrifice in one part of the Bible and condemn cultures for doing it, all the while He had ordered Abraham to do the exact same thing?
The fact is child sacrifice is wrong. It was wrong when God didn’t command it (Jeremiah 19:5). It was wrong when it didn’t come from the mind of God but of man (Ezekiel 20:30-31). It was wrong when it was unauthorized. This case meets none of those criteria. This situation was not an abomination to God because He had commanded it, it had come from His mind, and it was authorized. These are, after all, God’s souls. He cannot be held to the same moral standard to which man is held. It is important, then, to remember that God did not have Abraham go through with this test. He did need, though, to test Abraham’s faith. This was the man that would be the forefather of God’s chosen people. God had to know that this man had the faith and obedience necessary to bring this about because it would be through these people that He would bring the Christ. This is yet another act that shows God’s incredible kindness and mercy that would see its ultimate fulfillment in the coming of Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
In the beginning, I stated that my objective was to examine these stories of God’s supposed cruelty and find mercy. To move these from the realm of “trusting by faith,” to “building faith.” When examined in the light of all the evidence we find not a cruel, contradictory dictator, but instead we find a kind, merciful, beneficent God. We find a God who has constantly given man his free will and yet repeatedly tried to soften the blow of judgment that mankind has earned. This is a kind and merciful God, one that we can truly love and worship.
Is God cruel? I think this a question that we have all asked at some point in our lives. In fact, if we’re going to be honest about that issue, we must first air a little dirty laundry of the Christian community. There are dirty little secrets that we don’t like to admit to. We don’t like to think about them and we certainly hope a non-Christian doesn’t bring up the topic. The fact is, however, there are certain passages in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament that we have a hard time reconciling with the concept of a loving God. We struggle with the wars, the violence, and the absolute genocide of the Old Testament and we wonder if God was indeed cruel. Because we don’t understand these portions of Scripture, however, what we tend to do is to sweep them under the rug. We put those passages in the “trust by faith” portion of our mind and hope that we don’t have to deal with them ever again. What is sad is that it is often these very passages in Scripture that show God’s love in an incredible fashion. My objective today is to examine a few of these incidents in the Bible and move them from the “trust by faith” part of your mind into the “builds my faith” part. As we examine these verses today I challenge you to read them critically as a skeptic might, challenge me in your mind. Force me to prove that I am correct. I am confident, however, that by the end of this lesson you will agree that God is who He says He is, a God of love and mercy.
I am familiar with many of the passages that we will look at because I had my own sport when I was in college. One of my favorite things to do was to debate the Christians on campus. I was at a time in my own life when I was struggling with who I was and what I believed in life. I had been raised in a Christian home and so I knew well the stories of the Bible. I could rattle of any biblical fact you wanted to know with an air of smug arrogance. I was also in a phase of rebellion, so quite naturally I rebelled against Christianity. I could hardly rebel against life, as I knew it without rejecting Christianity to some extent. The reality was, though, that I had serious questions about the Bible and about God and I desperately wanted someone to be able to answer them. What I found, however, was the exact opposite. I found a lot of Christians who could not defend their faith and were not even all that familiar with the Bible. I have chosen several passages for this article because they are verses that I used to use to attack Christians with. Verses with which I could prove God as a harsh and cruel dictator that were also inconsistent and contradictory. These stories I want to look at today were some of the very best of my arsenal and sadly I never met one Christian while I was in college who could give me an adequate answer, not even the ministerial students.
Genesis 3:14-21
To start any discussion of God’s cruelty or kindness we must start at the beginning, the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 2 and 3 we find a description of Adam and Eve in the Garden in a close relationship with God. They lived in a state of harmony where there was no sin and no death. Then came the temptation of the serpent to risk this perfect relationship that they had with God. God had placed in the Garden, the tree of Good and Evil, forbidding them to eat of it. We all know the story, they disobeyed, they ate, and here comes an angry God to punish them. Now I never argued that God didn’t have the right to punish them. They were His creation living in His garden. What I wondered was, “Didn’t it seem cruel or going overboard to curse mankind and all of creation with death because of one little mistake?” Was this not a clear case of over-reaction?
The fact is, even in proclaiming the curse of death upon mankind, God was already showing His mercy and grace. Let me explain. What are the wages of sin death? Obviously the answer is death. But before that even, what does sin do to us? It separates us from God. A holy and perfect God cannot be in the presence of sin. So picture this: You live in a world in which you sin one time and are forever separated from God with no hope of reconciliation. This is huge, because when you boil it all down, heaven is being totally in the presence of God while hell is the complete lack of God’s presence. Here’s where the beauty of the curse of death comes in. The wages of sin are indeed death, but God gave us an out within the confines of this very curse. We can substitute the death of another for our own in order to pay our fine and be reconciled with God. In the Old Testament it was periodic animal sacrifice. For us today it was the sacrifice of God’s Son on the Cross that has paid the price for our sins. Without death we would have no hope of ever being in the presence of God for the rest of eternity. One sin, and we would be done, forever. That wasn’t good enough for God, though. If you read Genesis 3:15, you can see that even at the very beginning, the very moment that man was disobeying and unleashing this plague of sin into the world, God had already formulated His plan to send His Messiah. Keep that plan in mind as we examine this question of God’s supposed cruelty because it will play a key role.
Genesis 11:5-9
The second story that we need to look at is found in Genesis 11. Here we have mankind shortly after the flood once again disobeying God. He had ordered them to spread out and repopulate the earth. They decided, however, that they had a better plan in mind. Mankind chose to stay together and build a society, one that included building a pagan tower in honor of the gods. This tower they were building was very likely the forerunner of the ziggurat, a temple that would have at the very top a room represented the heavens. It would be here that they would give offerings to pagan gods. In verse 5, we find that God says that God is concerned that nothing man wants to do will be impossible for them if they stay together. Is this a God who is afraid? What does He know that we don’t? What will happen if man stays together? Perhaps God is not as powerful as we think and He relies on the fact that mankind is splintered and constantly fighting one another. If we were ever truly united, could it be that we could challenge his sovereignty? That was my theory, but I don’t think it is correct.
We find a clue for the answer back in the Garden of Eden. God forbids Adam of Eve from eating of the tree of Good and Evil. Why? Doesn’t it seem like that would a tree He would want them to eat from daily? Wouldn’t He want them to know good from evil. The fact is: the name of this tree is somewhat confusing to our ears because it is a classic Hebrew figure of speech. It is, in fact, what is called merism. What that means is polarity represent totality. You take the opposite ends of the spectrum to represent the whole. We see this kind of language quite frequently in the Old Testament: As far as the east from the west; the beginning and the end; the alpha and the omega, from the highest mountain to the deepest sea. The tree of the Knowledge Good and Evil simply means knowledge. Adam and Eve, and subsequently mankind, now had access to more knowledge than we had the moral ability to control. We see this evidenced throughout history right up to today’s world.
Now, remember that God still has a fresh memory of the flood and the awful destruction that was precipitated by man’s evil. Now He sees the same pattern beginning again. He simply cannot let this happen again. He knows that if left to their own devices man has the capability and knowledge to create far more evil than they can morally control. In God’s mercy, we see Him separating mankind so that it will be much more difficult for them to get to the levels of sin that they did in the days of Noah. God is actually saving these humans from a far worse fate by splitting them and confusing their ability to communicate with one another. Now, let’s switch gears a bit.
I Samuel 15:3
In this verse we find God ordering the complete genocide of an entire culture including the children, infants, and animals. There is no way we explain our way out of this one. God has ordered an entire culture to be annihilated, and this is just one example of many. Does this not prove a bloodthirsty, violent, and cruel God? Well, let’s look at the evidence.
First of all we must remember that God is holy and He must punish sin and rebellion. This Amalekite culture was totally depraved and polluted. You name it, they did it: brutality, cruelty, incest, bestiality, cultic prostitution, child sacrifice by fire, etc. These were among the vilest cultures that have ever exited in the history of mankind. Even with that we find God being patient with them and giving them over 400 years to repent. In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abraham that his descendants could not yet inhabit Canaan because the Amorite sin had not yet reached its full extent. He gave them time to repent and they did not.
But what about the children, infants, and animals; How can a kind God order their destruction? As we said earlier, these cultures were totally depraved, beyond the hope of redemption or repentance. We know from the Bible that children under an age of accountability are not held responsible for their actions. Is it not obvious, then, that in a way, by ordering the children killed God has engaged in an act of mercy for these children. He has, in essence, given them a free pass out of certain destruction and into His presence. As far as the animals, are concerned, what would thousands of domesticated animals do without humans to care for them. This would cause starvation, disease, etc. In both cases, we see God engaging in acts of mercy and kindness.
Another fact is that God cannot be judged by the same standards with which mankind is judged. In Ezekiel 18:4 we learn that every soul belongs to God. Look at it this way: If I cut down a tree in my lawn, that’s fine. I can do that because it’s my tree. If you do it, it is a crime. You do not have the right or authority to cut down my tree. This is the same for God. We are God’s souls. He kills us all; it’s just a matter of when, where, and how. Because we belong to God, He and He alone can choose when we are called into the spiritual realm.
The final and perhaps most important reason that this is an act of kindness on the part of God is that He was preserving Israel. The Amalekite (and other Canaanite) cultures were bent on completely wiping Israel off of the face of the earth. God had already decided, however, that it was through these special people of his that He would bring His Messiah. He had to preserve the Israelites so that they could bring forth the Messiah that would eventually save all of mankind. We all recognize the ultimate mercy that is shown in the life and death of Jesus. If Israel was destroyed or corrupted beyond hope then there would be no Messiah and no hope of ever being permanently reconciled with God. God is not a God of cruelty but of mercy and kindness.
II Kings 2:23-25
Is this not a case of pure and simple overkill? We find a situation in which a bunch of kids are making fun an adult. Big deal, you say, that happens all the time. But to send a couple of bears to maul them to death, is this not cruel? How can we possibly explain this one?
The first thing to note is that this not a group of kids. The KJV translates this as little children while the NIV words it as young men. This is the same term, however, is used for soldier aged young men. These were not little children; they were young men of fighting age. This was, in our vernacular, a gang. By their sheer number they were threatening the life of Elisha.
Now, what exactly were they saying that was worthy of death? First of all by chanting “go on up,” they were challenging the truth of God having taken Elijah up to heaven. They were taunting Elisha to go up to heaven as Elijah had. In calling him baldhead, they were implying that he had leprosy. Leprosy was the vilest of conditions in the ancient world and lepers would shave their head to indicate that they had leprosy. Basically, they were calling him the worst possible insult.
To truly understand the severity of this it is important to understand the role of the prophet. The prophet was God’s direct representative on earth. He was God’s mouthpiece. To insult or mock a prophet was a direct blasphemy towards God. When these young men mocked Elisha, they mocked God.
The act of God unleashing these bears to kill these young men shows God’s mercy. The culture was quickly degenerating into an attitude of blasphemy against God that would precipitate a much worse fate. This was preemptory attack trying to warn Israel. It was a warning shot. It shows God repeatedly trying to bring His people back to himself through smaller judgments. If they would not repent then God’s full judgment would have to come upon them. God did not want this to happen. If His people followed the example of these young men, where would it stop? In fact, the people did not repent, and we see shortly after this the destruction of Samaria and the Northern Kingdom taken off into bondage. God was trying to get them to turn away from this fate. This is yet another example of God working to keep His people pure so that He could bring the Messiah through these people. God is not cruel; He is kind and patient.
Genesis 22:2
In our final case we find God ordering Abraham to go and sacrifice his son, Isaac. We know that God stopped him so I never really argued that this was an act of cruelty, except maybe a cruel sense of humor. The problem here for me was, however, is this order not in clear violation of the Leviticus 18:21 prohibition of sacrificing children? How can God prohibit child sacrifice in one part of the Bible and condemn cultures for doing it, all the while He had ordered Abraham to do the exact same thing?
The fact is child sacrifice is wrong. It was wrong when God didn’t command it (Jeremiah 19:5). It was wrong when it didn’t come from the mind of God but of man (Ezekiel 20:30-31). It was wrong when it was unauthorized. This case meets none of those criteria. This situation was not an abomination to God because He had commanded it, it had come from His mind, and it was authorized. These are, after all, God’s souls. He cannot be held to the same moral standard to which man is held. It is important, then, to remember that God did not have Abraham go through with this test. He did need, though, to test Abraham’s faith. This was the man that would be the forefather of God’s chosen people. God had to know that this man had the faith and obedience necessary to bring this about because it would be through these people that He would bring the Christ. This is yet another act that shows God’s incredible kindness and mercy that would see its ultimate fulfillment in the coming of Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
In the beginning, I stated that my objective was to examine these stories of God’s supposed cruelty and find mercy. To move these from the realm of “trusting by faith,” to “building faith.” When examined in the light of all the evidence we find not a cruel, contradictory dictator, but instead we find a kind, merciful, beneficent God. We find a God who has constantly given man his free will and yet repeatedly tried to soften the blow of judgment that mankind has earned. This is a kind and merciful God, one that we can truly love and worship.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Matthew 4 and The Arrows of Satan
Introduction
The devastating effects of the Fall are among the most misunderstood phenomena in our world. Most Christians even fail to see how deeply the Fall affects every aspect of our life. The Fall is responsible for pain and disease, sickness and suffering, murder and death, carnivorous lions and viruses, the Grand Canyon and Mt. Everest. Since the Garden of Eden Satan has convinced mankind that we can be like God and do not follow His ways. He continues to use certain temptations in the form of ideas, suggestions, and thoughts to keep us enveloped in his web of lies.
Satan’s work at the Fall and God’s subsequent curse on His creation has ruined the perfect world that God once crafted. Since then Satan has attempted to use these arrows to keep us from the intended purpose of our design, to have a relationship with God. Although Satan has a bevy of options in his arsenal, I believe that there are three main techniques (although certainly not the only ones) that he uses to shape our stories. These three strategies are clearly visible in the episode in Matthew 4, in which Satan attempted to shape Jesus’ story.
In the Matthew 4 account, we find Satan using three of his primary temptation techniques. Often Satan only needs to use one method on humans (although he often will use several types of temptations all at once like he did with Eve in the Garden of Eden), but in crossing Jesus, who was no ordinary human, he finds his methods ineffective, and so attempts three separate types of temptations.
Satan knew well the promises of a Messiah. He was in the Garden of Eden when God first promised that a Messiah would come (Genesis 3:15). It seems likely, however, that Satan did not understand the precise nature of Jesus. He did not know the exact time or place that the Messiah would appear. Once it became clear that He had arrived, though, Satan set about to defeat this Messiah the same way he has defeated every human being. He certainly did not expect to be rebuffed as he was.
In his tempting of Jesus, however, we can learn about three ways that Satan will attack us. These three temptations are also connected to the three primary lusts that John describes in his first epistle:
For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world (1 John 2:16)
Admittedly, these three types of temptations are similar in many ways and can overlap in many senses, but they are different enough that they are worth considering separately. The real value in considering them separately is to learn from Jesus’ response to each attack as He overcomes the temptation.
Lust of the Flesh and Questions of Identity
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Satan comes to Jesus and continues his temptation by questioning who Jesus is: “Are you really who you think you are? If you are, prove it?” Satan does this to us all of the time. He puts thoughts in our head such as, “Do you really have a relationship with God,” “Does God care about you,” “Are you really a Christian,” “Would a real Christian do that,” “You’re the only one who has ever experienced that,” etc. Satan shoots his arrows into our minds in an attempt to separate us from God. He knows that this will destroy our soul. If we question who we are, we will never truly understand our importance to God and be forever limited in our relationship with God if not cut off all together.
This particular temptation is what John calls the lust of the flesh. Satan gets us to question who we are or who we want to be, but he also appeals to things that are flesh desires. He challenges Jesus here, taunting him, really. He knows that Jesus is hungry and that his flesh would love nothing more than to eat, so he attacks him with that arrow. He dares Jesus to prove who He is by turning stone to bread and satisfying what His lust wants so badly.
This same approach was used on Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan appeals to Eve’s sense of who she is, attempting to convince her that she is more than she is, and deserves more than she does. She can be like God, Satan tells her. Then the lust of the flesh kicks in as Genesis 3:6 tells us: “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” Satan appealed to her lust of the flesh through the lust of the eyes (which we’ll talk more about in a minute). Why should she deny herself when that fruit looked so good? And besides, she could be like God, she deserved to go ahead and eat.
The lust of the flesh manifests differently for different people. For some pride manifests itself through arrogance. For others pride manifests itself through low self-esteem. Both are equally manifestations of pride, however. It is here that Satan attacks so many. For many Christians, Satan’s attacks come through getting us to think that we are less than we are. For many others, it is suggesting to them that they are greater than they are. This was Satan’s approach with Eve in the Garden, convincing her that she could be like God.
Man is possessed by a nature that is characterized by its fleshliness: its appetite, desires, cravings and passions. Satan appeals to those desires of the flesh. With Eve, she saw the forbidden fruit was good for food. When Satan tempted the Lord Jesus, his first proposal was that He make stones into bread to satisfy His hunger. We don’t want to go through anything that is uncomfortable or causes pain of any type. Because of that, Satan often appeals to us, convincing us that we deserve to have our needs met immediately. This is often not God’s plan or the best things for us.
Jesus response in fighting this temptation is through his impeccable knowledge of the Word of God. Man’s true needs are not met by worldly visions of who we are, nor can they be met by partaking in whatever we desire at the moment. Our true needs can only be met by the Word of God. It has everything we need. Turning to another source will leave us with confused notions of who we really are and will never truly satisfy us. For us, the knowledge of the Word is the primary weapon we have. Our holiness and our ability to fight the assaults of Satan will always be limited by our knowledge of the Word of God.
Lust of the Pride of Life and Twisted Scripture
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Unsuccessful in his first attempt, Satan turns to the lust of the pride of life and scripture twisting. Satan abandons trying to cause Jesus to think that He is less than He is, so he turns to goading Christ into trying to prove it. Not only is He challenging Jesus to prove who He is, Satan is also tempting Christ to live it up and enjoy His power. ‘If you’ve got it flaunt it,’ is really Satan’s approach here.
To help in this approach, Satan turns to Scripture twisting. Satan is too smart to attack most Christians into trying to abandon God’s Word. He knows that this is a technique that will just not be effective. What he does, though, is try to twist Scripture in our mind. That we use Scripture, in effect, to justify what we really want in life. Satan begins to twist Scripture in our mind and suddenly a phrase like “all these things will be given to you as well,” become “God wants you to spend the money and have that big house and new car.” A Scripture like “all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial,” become “if it makes you feel better, then it is not only beneficial, it must also be permissible.”
If I had a treasure map that led to a treasure that I did not want you to find it, I could convince you that there was no treasure or I could make a million treasure maps that’s all looked convincingly close to the original. They would look close enough to fool people but would be changed enough that we would never really find the treasure. This is what Satan does to us with his arrows. He subtly twists God’s Word so that we will head down the wrong path, all the while justifying our behavior.
When we don’t know God’s Word, we are vulnerable to this attack. Sometimes we do the twisting ourselves and Satan need only confirm our convoluted interpretation and build upon it. In the Garden, when approached by the Serpent and questioned about the fruit, Eve says, “'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'” This is not, however, what God said. He actually told Adam, “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Eve added to God’s word by saying that if they even touched it, they would die. This is much more harsh and restrictive than God’s original warning. Satan capitalizes on this word twisting and goes on to appeal to Eve’s pride of life telling her that if she does eat from the tree she won’t in fact die, and she will become like God.
Jesus answers Satan’s attack by quoting Scripture correctly. The issue is not about whether Jesus can do something, the question is should He. Jesus realizes that putting God to the test is a more important Scriptural principle than exercising his freedom and seizing all that life has to offer. If the Bible accurately interpreted is our one and only source for knowledge, for standards, and for judging and determining what we do in life, then the attacks of Satan and the opinions of the world are completely inconsequential.
Lust of the Eyes and Having it all
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9“All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Satan took Jesus up into the high mountain and shows Him the power and glory of the kingdoms of the world. He offers them to Jesus if He will only worship him. Jesus was on earth to gain back the dominion that man had forfeited during the Fall. Satan here, offered Jesus this dominion without having to suffer. All he has to do is worship Satan. He offers Jesus the easy way out.
We see this so often in the way Satan works when it comes to the lust of the eyes. Satan will offer us things the easy way. It is often something God wants us to have but not in the way that Satan offers it to us. Usually it is because we are not yet ready and have not been prepared for what Satan offers us before we have earned it.
At other times, however, he boldly offers us things that he has no intention in delivering. He offers us things through the flesh of the eyes that we are convinced by Satan we can have, but we will never possess. It is this type of temptation, for instance, that convinces the 30 year old man that he can have the attractive 16 year old girl and have an inappropriate relationship with her. He becomes convinced that he loves her and they can truly have a relationship. This is a deception from the “father of lies” that simply has no chance to actually happen.
Through the lust of the eyes, Satan appeals to the sense of seeing and awakens desires through the eye. What we see we desire and covet, and then we attempt to obtain it for ourselves. Man is basically covetous or selfish by nature and Satan seeks to capitalize on that through the potentially unsatisfiable lust of the eye.
In this final scene, the “father of lies” offers Jesus the entire world. One thing that is important to remember is that not all arrows from Satan hurt right away. This is one of Satan’s deadliest weapons. We are hit with arrows but we think they are a good thing. They come in many forms: The promise of premarital sex, the adulation of others, the promise of a new car or house, a promotion at work, etc. These arrows don’t seem like they hurt, but the deadliest kind of wound is the one of which we are unaware.
In the case of Eve, she saw the forbidden tree and fruit was pleasant to the eyes. The second temptation (which the devil brought before the Lord as given in the moral order presented in Luke's Gospel) appealed to the eye. The lust of the eye often opens the door for us to entertain so many other lusts and temptations.
Jesus’ response to this attack is as interesting as it is powerful. Jesus says that only God is to be worshipped. Our eyes tell us that other things are worth having and put in a place of worship in our lives, but Jesus reminds us that only God is worthy of worship. Any time we are tempted to put anything first in our life, ahead of God, we can know without question that it is wrong and dangerous.
The devastating effects of the Fall are among the most misunderstood phenomena in our world. Most Christians even fail to see how deeply the Fall affects every aspect of our life. The Fall is responsible for pain and disease, sickness and suffering, murder and death, carnivorous lions and viruses, the Grand Canyon and Mt. Everest. Since the Garden of Eden Satan has convinced mankind that we can be like God and do not follow His ways. He continues to use certain temptations in the form of ideas, suggestions, and thoughts to keep us enveloped in his web of lies.
Satan’s work at the Fall and God’s subsequent curse on His creation has ruined the perfect world that God once crafted. Since then Satan has attempted to use these arrows to keep us from the intended purpose of our design, to have a relationship with God. Although Satan has a bevy of options in his arsenal, I believe that there are three main techniques (although certainly not the only ones) that he uses to shape our stories. These three strategies are clearly visible in the episode in Matthew 4, in which Satan attempted to shape Jesus’ story.
In the Matthew 4 account, we find Satan using three of his primary temptation techniques. Often Satan only needs to use one method on humans (although he often will use several types of temptations all at once like he did with Eve in the Garden of Eden), but in crossing Jesus, who was no ordinary human, he finds his methods ineffective, and so attempts three separate types of temptations.
Satan knew well the promises of a Messiah. He was in the Garden of Eden when God first promised that a Messiah would come (Genesis 3:15). It seems likely, however, that Satan did not understand the precise nature of Jesus. He did not know the exact time or place that the Messiah would appear. Once it became clear that He had arrived, though, Satan set about to defeat this Messiah the same way he has defeated every human being. He certainly did not expect to be rebuffed as he was.
In his tempting of Jesus, however, we can learn about three ways that Satan will attack us. These three temptations are also connected to the three primary lusts that John describes in his first epistle:
For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world (1 John 2:16)
Admittedly, these three types of temptations are similar in many ways and can overlap in many senses, but they are different enough that they are worth considering separately. The real value in considering them separately is to learn from Jesus’ response to each attack as He overcomes the temptation.
Lust of the Flesh and Questions of Identity
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Satan comes to Jesus and continues his temptation by questioning who Jesus is: “Are you really who you think you are? If you are, prove it?” Satan does this to us all of the time. He puts thoughts in our head such as, “Do you really have a relationship with God,” “Does God care about you,” “Are you really a Christian,” “Would a real Christian do that,” “You’re the only one who has ever experienced that,” etc. Satan shoots his arrows into our minds in an attempt to separate us from God. He knows that this will destroy our soul. If we question who we are, we will never truly understand our importance to God and be forever limited in our relationship with God if not cut off all together.
This particular temptation is what John calls the lust of the flesh. Satan gets us to question who we are or who we want to be, but he also appeals to things that are flesh desires. He challenges Jesus here, taunting him, really. He knows that Jesus is hungry and that his flesh would love nothing more than to eat, so he attacks him with that arrow. He dares Jesus to prove who He is by turning stone to bread and satisfying what His lust wants so badly.
This same approach was used on Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan appeals to Eve’s sense of who she is, attempting to convince her that she is more than she is, and deserves more than she does. She can be like God, Satan tells her. Then the lust of the flesh kicks in as Genesis 3:6 tells us: “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” Satan appealed to her lust of the flesh through the lust of the eyes (which we’ll talk more about in a minute). Why should she deny herself when that fruit looked so good? And besides, she could be like God, she deserved to go ahead and eat.
The lust of the flesh manifests differently for different people. For some pride manifests itself through arrogance. For others pride manifests itself through low self-esteem. Both are equally manifestations of pride, however. It is here that Satan attacks so many. For many Christians, Satan’s attacks come through getting us to think that we are less than we are. For many others, it is suggesting to them that they are greater than they are. This was Satan’s approach with Eve in the Garden, convincing her that she could be like God.
Man is possessed by a nature that is characterized by its fleshliness: its appetite, desires, cravings and passions. Satan appeals to those desires of the flesh. With Eve, she saw the forbidden fruit was good for food. When Satan tempted the Lord Jesus, his first proposal was that He make stones into bread to satisfy His hunger. We don’t want to go through anything that is uncomfortable or causes pain of any type. Because of that, Satan often appeals to us, convincing us that we deserve to have our needs met immediately. This is often not God’s plan or the best things for us.
Jesus response in fighting this temptation is through his impeccable knowledge of the Word of God. Man’s true needs are not met by worldly visions of who we are, nor can they be met by partaking in whatever we desire at the moment. Our true needs can only be met by the Word of God. It has everything we need. Turning to another source will leave us with confused notions of who we really are and will never truly satisfy us. For us, the knowledge of the Word is the primary weapon we have. Our holiness and our ability to fight the assaults of Satan will always be limited by our knowledge of the Word of God.
Lust of the Pride of Life and Twisted Scripture
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Unsuccessful in his first attempt, Satan turns to the lust of the pride of life and scripture twisting. Satan abandons trying to cause Jesus to think that He is less than He is, so he turns to goading Christ into trying to prove it. Not only is He challenging Jesus to prove who He is, Satan is also tempting Christ to live it up and enjoy His power. ‘If you’ve got it flaunt it,’ is really Satan’s approach here.
To help in this approach, Satan turns to Scripture twisting. Satan is too smart to attack most Christians into trying to abandon God’s Word. He knows that this is a technique that will just not be effective. What he does, though, is try to twist Scripture in our mind. That we use Scripture, in effect, to justify what we really want in life. Satan begins to twist Scripture in our mind and suddenly a phrase like “all these things will be given to you as well,” become “God wants you to spend the money and have that big house and new car.” A Scripture like “all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial,” become “if it makes you feel better, then it is not only beneficial, it must also be permissible.”
If I had a treasure map that led to a treasure that I did not want you to find it, I could convince you that there was no treasure or I could make a million treasure maps that’s all looked convincingly close to the original. They would look close enough to fool people but would be changed enough that we would never really find the treasure. This is what Satan does to us with his arrows. He subtly twists God’s Word so that we will head down the wrong path, all the while justifying our behavior.
When we don’t know God’s Word, we are vulnerable to this attack. Sometimes we do the twisting ourselves and Satan need only confirm our convoluted interpretation and build upon it. In the Garden, when approached by the Serpent and questioned about the fruit, Eve says, “'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'” This is not, however, what God said. He actually told Adam, “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Eve added to God’s word by saying that if they even touched it, they would die. This is much more harsh and restrictive than God’s original warning. Satan capitalizes on this word twisting and goes on to appeal to Eve’s pride of life telling her that if she does eat from the tree she won’t in fact die, and she will become like God.
Jesus answers Satan’s attack by quoting Scripture correctly. The issue is not about whether Jesus can do something, the question is should He. Jesus realizes that putting God to the test is a more important Scriptural principle than exercising his freedom and seizing all that life has to offer. If the Bible accurately interpreted is our one and only source for knowledge, for standards, and for judging and determining what we do in life, then the attacks of Satan and the opinions of the world are completely inconsequential.
Lust of the Eyes and Having it all
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9“All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Satan took Jesus up into the high mountain and shows Him the power and glory of the kingdoms of the world. He offers them to Jesus if He will only worship him. Jesus was on earth to gain back the dominion that man had forfeited during the Fall. Satan here, offered Jesus this dominion without having to suffer. All he has to do is worship Satan. He offers Jesus the easy way out.
We see this so often in the way Satan works when it comes to the lust of the eyes. Satan will offer us things the easy way. It is often something God wants us to have but not in the way that Satan offers it to us. Usually it is because we are not yet ready and have not been prepared for what Satan offers us before we have earned it.
At other times, however, he boldly offers us things that he has no intention in delivering. He offers us things through the flesh of the eyes that we are convinced by Satan we can have, but we will never possess. It is this type of temptation, for instance, that convinces the 30 year old man that he can have the attractive 16 year old girl and have an inappropriate relationship with her. He becomes convinced that he loves her and they can truly have a relationship. This is a deception from the “father of lies” that simply has no chance to actually happen.
Through the lust of the eyes, Satan appeals to the sense of seeing and awakens desires through the eye. What we see we desire and covet, and then we attempt to obtain it for ourselves. Man is basically covetous or selfish by nature and Satan seeks to capitalize on that through the potentially unsatisfiable lust of the eye.
In this final scene, the “father of lies” offers Jesus the entire world. One thing that is important to remember is that not all arrows from Satan hurt right away. This is one of Satan’s deadliest weapons. We are hit with arrows but we think they are a good thing. They come in many forms: The promise of premarital sex, the adulation of others, the promise of a new car or house, a promotion at work, etc. These arrows don’t seem like they hurt, but the deadliest kind of wound is the one of which we are unaware.
In the case of Eve, she saw the forbidden tree and fruit was pleasant to the eyes. The second temptation (which the devil brought before the Lord as given in the moral order presented in Luke's Gospel) appealed to the eye. The lust of the eye often opens the door for us to entertain so many other lusts and temptations.
Jesus’ response to this attack is as interesting as it is powerful. Jesus says that only God is to be worshipped. Our eyes tell us that other things are worth having and put in a place of worship in our lives, but Jesus reminds us that only God is worthy of worship. Any time we are tempted to put anything first in our life, ahead of God, we can know without question that it is wrong and dangerous.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
A Patriarchal Time Traveler?
Just about everyone knows that Genesis 22 is a precursor, a picture of sorts, of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. There are many clear paralleles between Isaac and Jesus in this incident. Both are the long-awaited sons of promise. Both were called by God to be sacrificed. Perhaps the biggest difference, as many have noticed, is that God stopped Abraham from sacrifcing his son, while God did allow His own Son to be sacrificed at Calvary. God, it seems, does not call his followers to actually sacrifice the lives of their own sons because He gave up the life of His Son.
While all of the above is true, there are other connections between this account of the would-be sacrifice of Isaac and Jesus. To begin a brief journey of discovery of this connection we must go to John 8. . In John 8:56, Jesus tells his audience, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." Why is it stated so clearly that Abraham had seen the day of Jesus? Jesus does not argue that he will see it or was seeing it; Jesus reveals that Abraham had seen it at some point in the past. His apparent point was that Abraham had seen the day of Jesus. The big question for us today is when did he see it?
All indications are that it was during the incident with Isaac on Mt. Moriah. Read verses 3-4 of Genesis 22:
Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.
I wanted to focus here on the phrase, “saw the place in the distance.” The word that is rendered “distance,” is the Hebrew word rachowq. Depending on the context, the word can be understood to mean either in the distance (with regards to space) or in the distance of time (or the future). The phrase in question, then, can, with no violence done to the orignial context, be rendered to read “saw the place in the future.”
Jesus’ words in John 8 already have been shown to indicate that Abraham had seen the day of Jesus. If we take into account the option that verse 4 of Genesis 22 says that Abraham saw the place in the future, we begin to ask, “is it possible that God allowed Abraham to see a vision of the crucified Savior 2,000 years before it took place?
Admittedly, this is circumstanial evidence, but are there any other items in this passage that might bolster this view? The answer is “yes.” Not the least of these items is that of the place itself. The incident with Isaac is taking place on Mt. Moriah. Interestingly, many biblical scholars believe that Golgotha, the place on which Jesus was crucified was on Mt. Moriah. Thus when verse 4 says that Abraham “saw the place in the future,” he may have actually been allowed to see that exact place in the future, as God revealed His future plans to the father of the children of Israel.
Another piece of the puzzle comes from verses 7-8:
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
When asked by Isaac about the subject of the sacrifice, Abraham assures his trusting son that God would be providing the lamb. This seems simple enough but we need to look further down in the passage to see what is really going on here. After the angel stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, Abraham looks up to see that caught in the bushes is, in fact, the provision of the Lord. God has provided just as Abraham said. But wait. Abraham said that God would provide a lamb. What is caught in the thicket, however, is not a lamb but a ram. For those of you who are just waking up and are yet to have your morning coffee, those are two entirely different animals. Was Abraham incorrect when he said that God would provide a lamb? Or was he talking about a different lamb at a different time? Of course we know that Jesus was the Lamb of God. After being given a vision of the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the same place that he was standing, Abraham predicts to his son that the Lamb of God would be provided as the only sacrifice that was really needed.
Finally, lets look at verse 14 of Genesis 22:
So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
Don’t miss the fact that Abraham named the place “The Lord Will Provide.” Again, the tense here is vital. Abraham did not say that the Lord had provided. The provision of the Lord to which Abraham was referring appears to be in the future. His naming of the mountain has more to do with the future than it does with what just happened on the mountain.
In summation, it becomes clear that Jesus’ words in John 8 are extremely accurate. Abraham did indeed see the day of Jesus long before it had taken place. While escorting his son up Mt. Moriah in obedience to God, God allowed Abraham to catch a vision of the glorious future that was to come when the lamb of God would be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
While all of the above is true, there are other connections between this account of the would-be sacrifice of Isaac and Jesus. To begin a brief journey of discovery of this connection we must go to John 8. . In John 8:56, Jesus tells his audience, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." Why is it stated so clearly that Abraham had seen the day of Jesus? Jesus does not argue that he will see it or was seeing it; Jesus reveals that Abraham had seen it at some point in the past. His apparent point was that Abraham had seen the day of Jesus. The big question for us today is when did he see it?
All indications are that it was during the incident with Isaac on Mt. Moriah. Read verses 3-4 of Genesis 22:
Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.
I wanted to focus here on the phrase, “saw the place in the distance.” The word that is rendered “distance,” is the Hebrew word rachowq. Depending on the context, the word can be understood to mean either in the distance (with regards to space) or in the distance of time (or the future). The phrase in question, then, can, with no violence done to the orignial context, be rendered to read “saw the place in the future.”
Jesus’ words in John 8 already have been shown to indicate that Abraham had seen the day of Jesus. If we take into account the option that verse 4 of Genesis 22 says that Abraham saw the place in the future, we begin to ask, “is it possible that God allowed Abraham to see a vision of the crucified Savior 2,000 years before it took place?
Admittedly, this is circumstanial evidence, but are there any other items in this passage that might bolster this view? The answer is “yes.” Not the least of these items is that of the place itself. The incident with Isaac is taking place on Mt. Moriah. Interestingly, many biblical scholars believe that Golgotha, the place on which Jesus was crucified was on Mt. Moriah. Thus when verse 4 says that Abraham “saw the place in the future,” he may have actually been allowed to see that exact place in the future, as God revealed His future plans to the father of the children of Israel.
Another piece of the puzzle comes from verses 7-8:
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
When asked by Isaac about the subject of the sacrifice, Abraham assures his trusting son that God would be providing the lamb. This seems simple enough but we need to look further down in the passage to see what is really going on here. After the angel stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, Abraham looks up to see that caught in the bushes is, in fact, the provision of the Lord. God has provided just as Abraham said. But wait. Abraham said that God would provide a lamb. What is caught in the thicket, however, is not a lamb but a ram. For those of you who are just waking up and are yet to have your morning coffee, those are two entirely different animals. Was Abraham incorrect when he said that God would provide a lamb? Or was he talking about a different lamb at a different time? Of course we know that Jesus was the Lamb of God. After being given a vision of the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the same place that he was standing, Abraham predicts to his son that the Lamb of God would be provided as the only sacrifice that was really needed.
Finally, lets look at verse 14 of Genesis 22:
So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
Don’t miss the fact that Abraham named the place “The Lord Will Provide.” Again, the tense here is vital. Abraham did not say that the Lord had provided. The provision of the Lord to which Abraham was referring appears to be in the future. His naming of the mountain has more to do with the future than it does with what just happened on the mountain.
In summation, it becomes clear that Jesus’ words in John 8 are extremely accurate. Abraham did indeed see the day of Jesus long before it had taken place. While escorting his son up Mt. Moriah in obedience to God, God allowed Abraham to catch a vision of the glorious future that was to come when the lamb of God would be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
Divergent Love Stories
Two love stories; two different methods; two very different outcomes; such are the tales of Samson and Jacob in the Old Testament portion of the Bible. Both men were looking for one of the most elusive things on earth, the enigma that is love. As we study these two love stories, there are similarities between the two but there are also several differences that emerge between Samson and Jacob.
On the surface of these two stories we see some apparent similarities. Both were young single men looking for a beautiful wife. They also both had certain restrictions on them and blessings available to them as descendants of Abraham. The fundamental similarity between the two men was their worldview. Both of them seem to be precursors of sorts to the postmodern philosophy that says there are no absolutes and man is the ultimate judge of morality. In Isaiah 5:21, the prophet wrote, “Woe to those who are wise in their own eye and clever in their own sight.” Samson and Jacob shared a serious flaw in that they both attempted to engineer their own world by their own schemes. This method had worked for both of them so many times before but both met their match in the stories related to us in the Bible.
Although they certainly shared similarities, there are also several differences that come into view as we examine these two men. The first area of difference is in the area of obedience to God’s law. In Deuteronomy 7:3-4, God warns his people not to intermarry (Although this was written after the time of Jacob, it seems that this concept was already in place during the time of the patriarchs – Genesis 28:1). Jacob obeyed this edict, Samson ignored it. This sets their stories down two different roads from the very beginning. It allows Jacob the luxury of being able to trust the women he is dealing with (not that they were perfect), while the same cannot be said about Samson’s women.
Another area of difference is that Samson seemed to be constantly focused only on the very shallow, external qualities that appealed to his sensuous side. Granted, Jacob was also struck by Rachel’s beauty, but it seems that he was drawn to more than that; he had true feeling for Rachel (Genesis 29:18); Jacob went beyond mere external qualities.
The third area of difference between these two men is in the arena of their self-control. Jacob showed an incredible amount of patience and perseverance in working for 14 years with no compensation for the right to marry his beloved Rachel. In Samson, however, we constantly see someone who behaves rashly and loses his temper (Judges 14:3, 17; 15:3; 16:1, 4, etc.). This demonstrates a very practical principle: love is willing to wait, lust is not. How much different would our country look today if teenagers would grasp this principle from the lives of Jacob and Samson.
One final difference we see is that although both men were tricked by others scheming against them, Samson seems to never have learned his lesson. We see him making the same mistakes with women over and over again. The text of Genesis never explicitly says that Jacob learned his lesson, but he definitely seems to have been humbled by his interaction with Laban, and he is never tricked in the same way again.
There are some very clear lessons that we can learn from both of these love stories. From the similar elements we can glean the lesson of trusting in the plan of God rather than ourselves to fulfill our needs. These stories also teach us, however, from the elements of contrast within them. We can see that although life was not perfect for Jacob, that following the law of God will make a man’s path much easier in the long run. We also see through Jacob the wisdom of patience of looking beyond mere superficialities.
On the surface of these two stories we see some apparent similarities. Both were young single men looking for a beautiful wife. They also both had certain restrictions on them and blessings available to them as descendants of Abraham. The fundamental similarity between the two men was their worldview. Both of them seem to be precursors of sorts to the postmodern philosophy that says there are no absolutes and man is the ultimate judge of morality. In Isaiah 5:21, the prophet wrote, “Woe to those who are wise in their own eye and clever in their own sight.” Samson and Jacob shared a serious flaw in that they both attempted to engineer their own world by their own schemes. This method had worked for both of them so many times before but both met their match in the stories related to us in the Bible.
Although they certainly shared similarities, there are also several differences that come into view as we examine these two men. The first area of difference is in the area of obedience to God’s law. In Deuteronomy 7:3-4, God warns his people not to intermarry (Although this was written after the time of Jacob, it seems that this concept was already in place during the time of the patriarchs – Genesis 28:1). Jacob obeyed this edict, Samson ignored it. This sets their stories down two different roads from the very beginning. It allows Jacob the luxury of being able to trust the women he is dealing with (not that they were perfect), while the same cannot be said about Samson’s women.
Another area of difference is that Samson seemed to be constantly focused only on the very shallow, external qualities that appealed to his sensuous side. Granted, Jacob was also struck by Rachel’s beauty, but it seems that he was drawn to more than that; he had true feeling for Rachel (Genesis 29:18); Jacob went beyond mere external qualities.
The third area of difference between these two men is in the arena of their self-control. Jacob showed an incredible amount of patience and perseverance in working for 14 years with no compensation for the right to marry his beloved Rachel. In Samson, however, we constantly see someone who behaves rashly and loses his temper (Judges 14:3, 17; 15:3; 16:1, 4, etc.). This demonstrates a very practical principle: love is willing to wait, lust is not. How much different would our country look today if teenagers would grasp this principle from the lives of Jacob and Samson.
One final difference we see is that although both men were tricked by others scheming against them, Samson seems to never have learned his lesson. We see him making the same mistakes with women over and over again. The text of Genesis never explicitly says that Jacob learned his lesson, but he definitely seems to have been humbled by his interaction with Laban, and he is never tricked in the same way again.
There are some very clear lessons that we can learn from both of these love stories. From the similar elements we can glean the lesson of trusting in the plan of God rather than ourselves to fulfill our needs. These stories also teach us, however, from the elements of contrast within them. We can see that although life was not perfect for Jacob, that following the law of God will make a man’s path much easier in the long run. We also see through Jacob the wisdom of patience of looking beyond mere superficialities.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Meeting Needs: A Brief Look at Samsom
Every human being has deep needs that they want met. God has put those needs in our souls; it is part of our makeup. As a result of the Fall of man and God’s subsequent curse, however, just as sure as we have needs they will not be met while here on earth. Ultimately this cup can only be filled by God, the one who created us. Yet drinking from his cup is often difficult and requires more faith than we are willing to give. So we settle. We settle for a smaller cup or a cup that is only partially filled. We try to meet our needs through others rather than God. In doing this we both put a burden on others that they can never carry and we show a fundamental lack of faith that God can and will meet our needs.
In the story of Samson we see a perfect example of someone who was given incredible gifts and responsibilities by God. Samson, though, still had the same kind of needs that all humans do. He needed to be loved, respected, accepted, and enjoyed. Rather than looking to God for those things, however, Samson turned to ‘lesser lovers.’ One big error Samson made that so many of us do is that he focused on the external rather than the internal qualities to fulfill his felt needs. In the NASB, Judges 7 reads:
3Then his father and his mother said to him, "Is there no woman among the daughters of your relatives, or among all our people, that you go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?" But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me, for she looks good to me."
7So he went down and talked to the woman; and she looked good to Samson.
Despite God’s warnings in Deut. 7:3-4, Samson filled his desires in an expedient way. Notice that twice in this short passage Samson wants this woman because she looked good. Samson was focused on the shallow and the external rather than the things of God. This is so often the case when we seek to fulfill our needs with others rather than God. God looks to the internal not the external things (I Samuel 16:7). James seems to have this in mind when he says in chapter 1: “14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Temptation to fulfill our needs with shallow things leads to sin, which will eventually lead to death.”
Samson also made the mistake that so many of us make; he showed a lack of faith in God and took the easy way out by trying to fill his needs by his own power. Lacking faith is, in its essence, a violation of the first commandment (Exodus 20:3). We set ourselves up as a god, believing that we can fulfill our own needs rather than trusting in the one, true God. Psalms 37:4 says that if we delight in God, “he will give [us] the desires of our heart.” This is true if we will only believe it. One thing that I find interesting is that we like to read this verse as if it says if we delight in God he will give us everything we have ever wanted. It seems to me to be more in keeping with God’s nature if we read as though it says if we delight in God he will give us new wants that are in keeping with his goals. Either way, though, the message is to delight in God; to let him meet our needs.
It is so easy to fall into the trap of trying to use others to meet our needs rather than God because we tend to focus on shallow things and be shallow in our faith. If we trust in God, however, he promises us that he will meet our needs.
In the story of Samson we see a perfect example of someone who was given incredible gifts and responsibilities by God. Samson, though, still had the same kind of needs that all humans do. He needed to be loved, respected, accepted, and enjoyed. Rather than looking to God for those things, however, Samson turned to ‘lesser lovers.’ One big error Samson made that so many of us do is that he focused on the external rather than the internal qualities to fulfill his felt needs. In the NASB, Judges 7 reads:
3Then his father and his mother said to him, "Is there no woman among the daughters of your relatives, or among all our people, that you go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?" But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me, for she looks good to me."
7So he went down and talked to the woman; and she looked good to Samson.
Despite God’s warnings in Deut. 7:3-4, Samson filled his desires in an expedient way. Notice that twice in this short passage Samson wants this woman because she looked good. Samson was focused on the shallow and the external rather than the things of God. This is so often the case when we seek to fulfill our needs with others rather than God. God looks to the internal not the external things (I Samuel 16:7). James seems to have this in mind when he says in chapter 1: “14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Temptation to fulfill our needs with shallow things leads to sin, which will eventually lead to death.”
Samson also made the mistake that so many of us make; he showed a lack of faith in God and took the easy way out by trying to fill his needs by his own power. Lacking faith is, in its essence, a violation of the first commandment (Exodus 20:3). We set ourselves up as a god, believing that we can fulfill our own needs rather than trusting in the one, true God. Psalms 37:4 says that if we delight in God, “he will give [us] the desires of our heart.” This is true if we will only believe it. One thing that I find interesting is that we like to read this verse as if it says if we delight in God he will give us everything we have ever wanted. It seems to me to be more in keeping with God’s nature if we read as though it says if we delight in God he will give us new wants that are in keeping with his goals. Either way, though, the message is to delight in God; to let him meet our needs.
It is so easy to fall into the trap of trying to use others to meet our needs rather than God because we tend to focus on shallow things and be shallow in our faith. If we trust in God, however, he promises us that he will meet our needs.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Apologetics in the 21st Century
INTRODUCTION
The word apologetics finds its roots in the Greek word “apologia.” It means to create a defense or apology for a position based on truth by providing evidence for your position. According to Don Matzat (1997), “An apologist is one who argues a case.” Christian apologetics go all the way back to the Bible where we see Peter urging his readers to “Always be ready to make a defense” (1 Peter 3:15). Paul engaged in apologetics at Mars Hill (Acts 17) by making the case for a creator and redeemer to the men of Athens. Arguing the position of Christianity continued into the second century with men like Justin Martyr and has carried on in different forms in different times all the way to the present. In the last few decades, the Western world has seen a drastic change in our culture as the predominant worldview has slowly transitioned from modernity to postmodernity. This change has opened a debate in the Christian community concerning the role of Christian apologetics in the future. Is there still a need for classic modern apologetics? Should there be a new kind of apologetics for a new kind of culture? Do we need apologetics at all in a postmodern world? These are the questions being asked right now in the world of Christian apologetics. These are the questions we will look and attempt to answer. Ultimately, I believe, we will find that the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding “yes.”
THE GOAL OF APOLOGETICS
There are two major types of apologetics, each with a different goal. The first is the type of apologetics that seek to build up the faith of Christians, particularly those that are young in their faith. The second type of apologetics is geared for evangelism. This is the type of apologetics that we will look at. Evangelism apologetics seeks to lay out a case for Christianity so as to convince non-Christians to become believers. There are some Christians that believe that the Christian perspective is true and so does not need a defense. They believe that the reasoning of non-Christians is darkened by their sin and so it is a waste of time to engage in apologetics. For the purposes of this paper, however, we will assume the evidentialist position that provides evidence for the truth in hopes that the non-believer will decide to accept Christ based on that evidence, which may take many different forms. What we want to focus on is what forms that evidence should take so as to be most useful in today’s society.
MODERNITY
A brief look at the modern mindset will help us in creating perspective for the current topic. Modernity is the mindset that rose out of the Enlightenment Project. The modernist put a great amount in the human ability to reason. According to the modernist, truth is objective, rational, and knowable. The autonomous individual, relying on their own rational ability to reason can discover that truth. Modernists hold that the search for knowledge is a good thing and that knowledge will virtually always lead to advancement. For the modernist, rational reasonable arguments presented with prevailing evidence are highly prized. This is the world from which modern apologetics rose. Modern apologetics seeks to lay out the facts of the Christian faith complete with the best evidence for Christianity, and make an airtight case based on reason. Once the evidence is all considered, says the modern apologist, a verdict is demanded. One must look rationally upon the evidence for Christianity and make a truth decision based on the reasonability of its arguments.
POSTMODERNITY
Postmodernity is primarily about deconstruction of modernity. Postmoderns question the ability to ever know truth and look dimly on the entire concept of an absolute knowable truth. For the postmodern, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes (and they are not bothered by the seeming contradiction of that statement). Key to the postmodern view is the belief that truth can only be gained from a text within the context of community. Each community will interpret the text based on their own experiences, culture, and biases. There are, says the postmodern, as many interpretations as interpreters. Postmoderns take an extremely skeptical view of modern science, modern religion, and any absolute truth claims. They embrace mystery, accept contradiction, and believe that truth is relative to the community which holds it. What is true within the context of one community may not be true within the context of another community. Modern apologetics which are based on empirical proofs and rational arguments seem to have fallen on hard times in an increasingly post modern world. “So what if you can prove the historical reliability of the New Testament,” says the postmodern, “texts are only as reliable as the community interpreting them.” Rational arguments and truth claims can seem to fall flat in the postmodern world. The postmodern is looking for authentic experiences that will seem true for them as they live their life. This creates a unique problem for the Christian apologist. Are modern apologetics still viable in the postmodern world? Do we need apologetics at all in a culture that values mystery and experience much more than reason and truth?
THE POSTMODERN VIEW OF APOLOGETICS – Radical Orthodoxy
According to Robert Webber, in The Younger Evangelicals, many of the younger evangelicals fall into a line of thinking known as Radical Orthodoxy, which argues that Christianity is the truth and so everything in the world should be interpreted and understood through the Christian faith. They feel that reason has become the modern apologist’s interpreter of the Christian faith and that Christianity, therefore, has had to rely on reason and the principles of the social sciences used to prove Christianity. These younger evangelicals, says Webber, “wants us to return to the unknown, invisible reality that stands behind all things, through which all things are understood” (p. 99). In other words, they are calling for an end to the era in which reason is the starting point that leads us to accept the truth of Christianity, and want us instead to start with Christianity as an assumed truth that does not need to be proven by the crutch of reason and science. Webber supports this thought, quoting William Placher’s summation of Hans Frei: “Suppose we do not start with the modern world. Suppose we start with the biblical world, and let those narratives decide what’s real, so that our lives have meaning to the extent that we fit them into that framework.” This group of younger evangelicals who hold to this Radical Orthodoxy, believe that Christianity cannot offer an effective criticism of the culture if it is propped up on certain assumptions of the culture, like reason and the social sciences are the starting point of discovering truth. Webber argues that for modern apologists, “reason has become the determiner of truth, not revelation. Faith is determined by reason, not by the witness of the Holy Spirit.” (p. 100).
Younger evangelicals believe that the focus of apologetics should be shifted from reason and logical arguments to an embodiment of the faith. This leaves most younger evangelicals leaning towards the fideist position, which says the best defense of the Gospel is preaching. Once the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit inspires faith that leads to conversion. They tend to believe that there is a mystery to faith that cannot be bridged by reason. The younger evangelicals argue that moderns were more concerned with the existence of God than with experiencing the real impact that God has on lives. This may be somewhat of a caricature of the modern position, but it is the assumption from which many younger evangelicals criticize modern apologetics. Modern apologetics, says the younger evangelical, leads to conquered minds but not surrendered hearts. The younger evangelical desire to present an apologetic that is an embodied experience is summarized by Webber who paraphrases Charles Moore, “the only interesting apologetic question concerns the existence and fidelity of the church. Truth, he says, is not defended by reason but by the individual and the community that embodies and lives it out.” (p. 102).
REJECTING RADICAL ORTHODOXY
Much of what postmodernity consists is a rejection of modernity. Postmodernity exists primarily at this point to deconstruct and criticize modernity without really offering a solid framework on its own. It cannot really stand as a viable worldview apart from its rejection of modernity. It stands, therefore, on the very system that it wishes to deconstruct. Postmodernity has some very valid criticisms of modernity. Modernity did place too much emphasis on the autonomous individual and the ability to use reason to discover all truth. The idea that knowledge is always pushing us towards the positive is also an idea that postmoderns justly criticize. The problem is that they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. There are things about modernity that are worth keeping. The concept of absolute truth is one of them. Just because certain truths can be interpreted in different ways in some situations does not necessarily mean that we should throw the entire concept of truth out the window. The postmodern logic that there are no absolute truths cannot be a valid claim because it is a self-refuting one. It uses an absolute truth statement to argue that there are no absolute truth statements.
I have to reject the younger evangelical trend away from modern apologetics to Radical Orthodoxy on the similar grounds that they are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. They certainly have some legitimate criticisms of apologetics. The main one is the tendency to view God as something to be proven and then accepted rationally. Modern apologetics did not leave enough room for mystery and spirituality. It would be rash at best and dangerous at worst, though, to completely abandon modern apologetics.
The main reason to keep some aspects of modern apologetics is because there is such a thing as absolute truth. We live in a world that increasingly rejects that idea. They accept all religious expressions as equally valid. There was a time when you either believed in Jesus Christ or you did not. That belief was the dividing line between Christians and non-Christians. This is no longer the case in our world today. Nearly every religion thinks highly of Jesus and claims to follow His teachings even if they don’t accept Him as God. This is the problem with retreating completely from truth-based apologetics and going completely over to the Radical Orthodoxy of fideism; if we only preach Jesus and the Gospel, which Jesus will people think we are preaching?
In the modern world, evolution was the greatest threat to Christianity. It made sense to argue against the so-called facts of evolution and for creation. In some ways the fideist position of preaching the Gospel and allowing it to burn inside made some sense because it would have differentiated Christianity from the competing worldview. If we relegate Christianity to inner feelings and pragmatism today, however, we lose what sets it apart from competing worldview in the postmodern age. It is a big mistake to use the only style of apologetic argument that the world is using. That means that using only rational arguments in a rational age was a mistake but it also means that using embodied apologetics in an age of community and relative truth is also a mistake. What sets Christianity apart in that scenario? There are many religions and worldviews that produce a burning, passion inside just as Christianity will do for the believer. There are many worldviews that can, at least temporarily, create warm, loving, communities. If this is our only source of appeal how do we differentiate Christianity in the marketplace of ideas?
It is vital to not abandon the very thing that will distinguish Christianity in these postmodern times. Christianity is based on truth. It is based on logic. Its precepts are not self-defeating and contradictory. In his Issues, Etc. Journal, (Fall 1997), Don Matzat argues that the fideist position actually gives credibility to other religious expressions because fideism and postmodernism are cut from the same cloth. They are, he says, both pragmatic, personal, emerge out of a community of believers, and are based on experience. We should take the younger evangelical’s valid ideas of an authentic community apologetic seriously, but what a tragedy to throw out the one thing that will distinguish Christianity in an age of pluralism.
APOLOGETICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY- Relevance for the ministry
It is important to remember that apologetics do not save people. By engaging in apologetics we in no way diminish the work and role of the Holy Spirit. We all want to lead the unsaved into the garden of salvation. Apologetics is not the garden itself. All that apologetics do is to clear the paths of debris so that people may find the garden if they so choose. We have already seen that apologetics should not be abandoned but what should they look like in a postmodern world?
Apologetics in a postmodern world should take the good aspects from the modern concept of apologetics and the younger evangelical’s embodiment apologetics and create a hybrid. This would create a community that values the truth, strives for the truth, and can clearly communicate the truth to world. It would create a community that can demonstrate that Christianity is truth in and of itself, but that empirical methods can be used to further validate it.
At the same time, though, this should not be merely a mental exercise. Apologetics of the 21st century should also stress the importance of living these truths not just knowing. Information is good, but transformation is better. What a powerful apologetic to the world to see a community that not only claims to possess inner truth and empirically verifiable truth but also lives it out in the real world. What does this mean? It means not only presenting evidence for the Resurrection and discussing the ultimate importance of believing in the fact of the Resurrection and accepting Christ as Lord of our life, but it also means living incarnationally as a community. It means we should be able to present a living, breathing community that can articulate that the reason we are an authentic community is due to not only experience but also truth.
Another example would be creation apologetics, the crown jewel of modern apologetics. Arguing for creation is fine and can be helpful but it does not do any good if we are not a community demonstrating a life of good stewardship of the earth. Earth stewardship is very important in the postmodern view. It would be an incredible testimony if the Christian community were to be held up as fantastic stewards of the earth and nature and then be able to demonstrate that we lived in such a way because of the logical truth claims of creationism. We could show that we act because stewardship rings true in the experience of our community but also because we value the logical evidences in favor of a creator that calls us to be good stewards.
I would also recommend a four-pronged approach in 21st century apologetics. The first aspect would be to be a constant clarion call against self-refuting or self-contradicting logic. Norman Geisler calls this the Road Runner approach (due to the Road Runner’s penchant for quick stops that caused Wiley Coyote to run off the cliff). It is important in an age that wants to embrace relativism to constantly but gently confront them with the reality of the law of non-contradiction. For instance, you cannot logically make the claim that there is no truth, when that is, in fact, a claim of absolute truth. The statement, “that’s true for me but not for you,” also falls into that category because in order for that statement to be true it HAS to be true for both of us. Nearly all tenets of postmodern belief as well as atheism are self-refuting.
The second prong is to gently help the non-believer see where their belief system will take them. Following non-Christian belief systems to their logical conclusions will show how bankrupt and empty they are. For example, if you want to argue the relativist position, then let’s take it to its logical conclusion. I can come up and shoot you because it seemed right to me. If there is no absolute truth then by what standard could you condemn me? This aspect requires some work on the part of the Christian because we have to be familiar with competing beliefs and their arguments.
The third prong would be to describe the completeness, beauty, and coherency of the Christian faith. This involves demonstrating that Christianity is a logical and comprehensive worldview more than it argues for specific evidences. This would mean that issues like theodicy and eschatology would have as much importance in 21st century apologetics as the old mainstays like the Resurrection and creation.
The final area in which apologetics in the 21st century could change is in format. The days of one guru speaker getting up and mesmerizing an audience with facts for 2 hours are quickly waning. This format does not work with college students nearly as much today as it did even ten years ago. Recently at UW-Milwaukee, a world famous creation speaker came for a presentation. The room of nearly a thousand quickly filled up but I couldn’t help but notice that at least 80% of the crowd was over 30, non-college students. And this was at an event that was not advertised off campus at all. On a campus of 26,000 students, the college kids just did not show up. Mike Metzger in his online article, Open Forums for Reaching Postmoderns, argues that open forums are the most effective way to reach postmodern students. He offers five components to this new style of open forum:
1. Offer not just answers, but also present faith as a context for exploring mystery.
2. Focus on essentials; don’t get bogged down in minutiae.
3. Don’t push credibility alone, stress plausibility. Credibility is about coherence, plausibility is about beauty and satisfaction.
4. Don’t condemn competitors. Treat them with gentleness and respect as colleagues.
5. Don’t rush people. Emphasize the process of conversion.
CONCLUSION
The younger evangelicals have legitimate criticisms of modern apologetics. Just as postmodernity has some legitimate criticisms of modernity. In both cases, however, it is dangerous to throw out the entire system because of some mistakes. Rather than abandoning modern apologetics, they should be infused the ideas of the younger evangelicals. This leaves us with a hybrid apologetics that will be effective for the most people in the 21st century. Stressing the law of non-contradiction, the poverty of competing worldview beliefs, and the richness of Christianity, and doing so in a welcoming, open-format style will help us to achieve in the 21st century the ultimate goal of apologetics, which is to clear the road so that as many as possible can find their way to a relationship with Christ.
The word apologetics finds its roots in the Greek word “apologia.” It means to create a defense or apology for a position based on truth by providing evidence for your position. According to Don Matzat (1997), “An apologist is one who argues a case.” Christian apologetics go all the way back to the Bible where we see Peter urging his readers to “Always be ready to make a defense” (1 Peter 3:15). Paul engaged in apologetics at Mars Hill (Acts 17) by making the case for a creator and redeemer to the men of Athens. Arguing the position of Christianity continued into the second century with men like Justin Martyr and has carried on in different forms in different times all the way to the present. In the last few decades, the Western world has seen a drastic change in our culture as the predominant worldview has slowly transitioned from modernity to postmodernity. This change has opened a debate in the Christian community concerning the role of Christian apologetics in the future. Is there still a need for classic modern apologetics? Should there be a new kind of apologetics for a new kind of culture? Do we need apologetics at all in a postmodern world? These are the questions being asked right now in the world of Christian apologetics. These are the questions we will look and attempt to answer. Ultimately, I believe, we will find that the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding “yes.”
THE GOAL OF APOLOGETICS
There are two major types of apologetics, each with a different goal. The first is the type of apologetics that seek to build up the faith of Christians, particularly those that are young in their faith. The second type of apologetics is geared for evangelism. This is the type of apologetics that we will look at. Evangelism apologetics seeks to lay out a case for Christianity so as to convince non-Christians to become believers. There are some Christians that believe that the Christian perspective is true and so does not need a defense. They believe that the reasoning of non-Christians is darkened by their sin and so it is a waste of time to engage in apologetics. For the purposes of this paper, however, we will assume the evidentialist position that provides evidence for the truth in hopes that the non-believer will decide to accept Christ based on that evidence, which may take many different forms. What we want to focus on is what forms that evidence should take so as to be most useful in today’s society.
MODERNITY
A brief look at the modern mindset will help us in creating perspective for the current topic. Modernity is the mindset that rose out of the Enlightenment Project. The modernist put a great amount in the human ability to reason. According to the modernist, truth is objective, rational, and knowable. The autonomous individual, relying on their own rational ability to reason can discover that truth. Modernists hold that the search for knowledge is a good thing and that knowledge will virtually always lead to advancement. For the modernist, rational reasonable arguments presented with prevailing evidence are highly prized. This is the world from which modern apologetics rose. Modern apologetics seeks to lay out the facts of the Christian faith complete with the best evidence for Christianity, and make an airtight case based on reason. Once the evidence is all considered, says the modern apologist, a verdict is demanded. One must look rationally upon the evidence for Christianity and make a truth decision based on the reasonability of its arguments.
POSTMODERNITY
Postmodernity is primarily about deconstruction of modernity. Postmoderns question the ability to ever know truth and look dimly on the entire concept of an absolute knowable truth. For the postmodern, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes (and they are not bothered by the seeming contradiction of that statement). Key to the postmodern view is the belief that truth can only be gained from a text within the context of community. Each community will interpret the text based on their own experiences, culture, and biases. There are, says the postmodern, as many interpretations as interpreters. Postmoderns take an extremely skeptical view of modern science, modern religion, and any absolute truth claims. They embrace mystery, accept contradiction, and believe that truth is relative to the community which holds it. What is true within the context of one community may not be true within the context of another community. Modern apologetics which are based on empirical proofs and rational arguments seem to have fallen on hard times in an increasingly post modern world. “So what if you can prove the historical reliability of the New Testament,” says the postmodern, “texts are only as reliable as the community interpreting them.” Rational arguments and truth claims can seem to fall flat in the postmodern world. The postmodern is looking for authentic experiences that will seem true for them as they live their life. This creates a unique problem for the Christian apologist. Are modern apologetics still viable in the postmodern world? Do we need apologetics at all in a culture that values mystery and experience much more than reason and truth?
THE POSTMODERN VIEW OF APOLOGETICS – Radical Orthodoxy
According to Robert Webber, in The Younger Evangelicals, many of the younger evangelicals fall into a line of thinking known as Radical Orthodoxy, which argues that Christianity is the truth and so everything in the world should be interpreted and understood through the Christian faith. They feel that reason has become the modern apologist’s interpreter of the Christian faith and that Christianity, therefore, has had to rely on reason and the principles of the social sciences used to prove Christianity. These younger evangelicals, says Webber, “wants us to return to the unknown, invisible reality that stands behind all things, through which all things are understood” (p. 99). In other words, they are calling for an end to the era in which reason is the starting point that leads us to accept the truth of Christianity, and want us instead to start with Christianity as an assumed truth that does not need to be proven by the crutch of reason and science. Webber supports this thought, quoting William Placher’s summation of Hans Frei: “Suppose we do not start with the modern world. Suppose we start with the biblical world, and let those narratives decide what’s real, so that our lives have meaning to the extent that we fit them into that framework.” This group of younger evangelicals who hold to this Radical Orthodoxy, believe that Christianity cannot offer an effective criticism of the culture if it is propped up on certain assumptions of the culture, like reason and the social sciences are the starting point of discovering truth. Webber argues that for modern apologists, “reason has become the determiner of truth, not revelation. Faith is determined by reason, not by the witness of the Holy Spirit.” (p. 100).
Younger evangelicals believe that the focus of apologetics should be shifted from reason and logical arguments to an embodiment of the faith. This leaves most younger evangelicals leaning towards the fideist position, which says the best defense of the Gospel is preaching. Once the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit inspires faith that leads to conversion. They tend to believe that there is a mystery to faith that cannot be bridged by reason. The younger evangelicals argue that moderns were more concerned with the existence of God than with experiencing the real impact that God has on lives. This may be somewhat of a caricature of the modern position, but it is the assumption from which many younger evangelicals criticize modern apologetics. Modern apologetics, says the younger evangelical, leads to conquered minds but not surrendered hearts. The younger evangelical desire to present an apologetic that is an embodied experience is summarized by Webber who paraphrases Charles Moore, “the only interesting apologetic question concerns the existence and fidelity of the church. Truth, he says, is not defended by reason but by the individual and the community that embodies and lives it out.” (p. 102).
REJECTING RADICAL ORTHODOXY
Much of what postmodernity consists is a rejection of modernity. Postmodernity exists primarily at this point to deconstruct and criticize modernity without really offering a solid framework on its own. It cannot really stand as a viable worldview apart from its rejection of modernity. It stands, therefore, on the very system that it wishes to deconstruct. Postmodernity has some very valid criticisms of modernity. Modernity did place too much emphasis on the autonomous individual and the ability to use reason to discover all truth. The idea that knowledge is always pushing us towards the positive is also an idea that postmoderns justly criticize. The problem is that they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. There are things about modernity that are worth keeping. The concept of absolute truth is one of them. Just because certain truths can be interpreted in different ways in some situations does not necessarily mean that we should throw the entire concept of truth out the window. The postmodern logic that there are no absolute truths cannot be a valid claim because it is a self-refuting one. It uses an absolute truth statement to argue that there are no absolute truth statements.
I have to reject the younger evangelical trend away from modern apologetics to Radical Orthodoxy on the similar grounds that they are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. They certainly have some legitimate criticisms of apologetics. The main one is the tendency to view God as something to be proven and then accepted rationally. Modern apologetics did not leave enough room for mystery and spirituality. It would be rash at best and dangerous at worst, though, to completely abandon modern apologetics.
The main reason to keep some aspects of modern apologetics is because there is such a thing as absolute truth. We live in a world that increasingly rejects that idea. They accept all religious expressions as equally valid. There was a time when you either believed in Jesus Christ or you did not. That belief was the dividing line between Christians and non-Christians. This is no longer the case in our world today. Nearly every religion thinks highly of Jesus and claims to follow His teachings even if they don’t accept Him as God. This is the problem with retreating completely from truth-based apologetics and going completely over to the Radical Orthodoxy of fideism; if we only preach Jesus and the Gospel, which Jesus will people think we are preaching?
In the modern world, evolution was the greatest threat to Christianity. It made sense to argue against the so-called facts of evolution and for creation. In some ways the fideist position of preaching the Gospel and allowing it to burn inside made some sense because it would have differentiated Christianity from the competing worldview. If we relegate Christianity to inner feelings and pragmatism today, however, we lose what sets it apart from competing worldview in the postmodern age. It is a big mistake to use the only style of apologetic argument that the world is using. That means that using only rational arguments in a rational age was a mistake but it also means that using embodied apologetics in an age of community and relative truth is also a mistake. What sets Christianity apart in that scenario? There are many religions and worldviews that produce a burning, passion inside just as Christianity will do for the believer. There are many worldviews that can, at least temporarily, create warm, loving, communities. If this is our only source of appeal how do we differentiate Christianity in the marketplace of ideas?
It is vital to not abandon the very thing that will distinguish Christianity in these postmodern times. Christianity is based on truth. It is based on logic. Its precepts are not self-defeating and contradictory. In his Issues, Etc. Journal, (Fall 1997), Don Matzat argues that the fideist position actually gives credibility to other religious expressions because fideism and postmodernism are cut from the same cloth. They are, he says, both pragmatic, personal, emerge out of a community of believers, and are based on experience. We should take the younger evangelical’s valid ideas of an authentic community apologetic seriously, but what a tragedy to throw out the one thing that will distinguish Christianity in an age of pluralism.
APOLOGETICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY- Relevance for the ministry
It is important to remember that apologetics do not save people. By engaging in apologetics we in no way diminish the work and role of the Holy Spirit. We all want to lead the unsaved into the garden of salvation. Apologetics is not the garden itself. All that apologetics do is to clear the paths of debris so that people may find the garden if they so choose. We have already seen that apologetics should not be abandoned but what should they look like in a postmodern world?
Apologetics in a postmodern world should take the good aspects from the modern concept of apologetics and the younger evangelical’s embodiment apologetics and create a hybrid. This would create a community that values the truth, strives for the truth, and can clearly communicate the truth to world. It would create a community that can demonstrate that Christianity is truth in and of itself, but that empirical methods can be used to further validate it.
At the same time, though, this should not be merely a mental exercise. Apologetics of the 21st century should also stress the importance of living these truths not just knowing. Information is good, but transformation is better. What a powerful apologetic to the world to see a community that not only claims to possess inner truth and empirically verifiable truth but also lives it out in the real world. What does this mean? It means not only presenting evidence for the Resurrection and discussing the ultimate importance of believing in the fact of the Resurrection and accepting Christ as Lord of our life, but it also means living incarnationally as a community. It means we should be able to present a living, breathing community that can articulate that the reason we are an authentic community is due to not only experience but also truth.
Another example would be creation apologetics, the crown jewel of modern apologetics. Arguing for creation is fine and can be helpful but it does not do any good if we are not a community demonstrating a life of good stewardship of the earth. Earth stewardship is very important in the postmodern view. It would be an incredible testimony if the Christian community were to be held up as fantastic stewards of the earth and nature and then be able to demonstrate that we lived in such a way because of the logical truth claims of creationism. We could show that we act because stewardship rings true in the experience of our community but also because we value the logical evidences in favor of a creator that calls us to be good stewards.
I would also recommend a four-pronged approach in 21st century apologetics. The first aspect would be to be a constant clarion call against self-refuting or self-contradicting logic. Norman Geisler calls this the Road Runner approach (due to the Road Runner’s penchant for quick stops that caused Wiley Coyote to run off the cliff). It is important in an age that wants to embrace relativism to constantly but gently confront them with the reality of the law of non-contradiction. For instance, you cannot logically make the claim that there is no truth, when that is, in fact, a claim of absolute truth. The statement, “that’s true for me but not for you,” also falls into that category because in order for that statement to be true it HAS to be true for both of us. Nearly all tenets of postmodern belief as well as atheism are self-refuting.
The second prong is to gently help the non-believer see where their belief system will take them. Following non-Christian belief systems to their logical conclusions will show how bankrupt and empty they are. For example, if you want to argue the relativist position, then let’s take it to its logical conclusion. I can come up and shoot you because it seemed right to me. If there is no absolute truth then by what standard could you condemn me? This aspect requires some work on the part of the Christian because we have to be familiar with competing beliefs and their arguments.
The third prong would be to describe the completeness, beauty, and coherency of the Christian faith. This involves demonstrating that Christianity is a logical and comprehensive worldview more than it argues for specific evidences. This would mean that issues like theodicy and eschatology would have as much importance in 21st century apologetics as the old mainstays like the Resurrection and creation.
The final area in which apologetics in the 21st century could change is in format. The days of one guru speaker getting up and mesmerizing an audience with facts for 2 hours are quickly waning. This format does not work with college students nearly as much today as it did even ten years ago. Recently at UW-Milwaukee, a world famous creation speaker came for a presentation. The room of nearly a thousand quickly filled up but I couldn’t help but notice that at least 80% of the crowd was over 30, non-college students. And this was at an event that was not advertised off campus at all. On a campus of 26,000 students, the college kids just did not show up. Mike Metzger in his online article, Open Forums for Reaching Postmoderns, argues that open forums are the most effective way to reach postmodern students. He offers five components to this new style of open forum:
1. Offer not just answers, but also present faith as a context for exploring mystery.
2. Focus on essentials; don’t get bogged down in minutiae.
3. Don’t push credibility alone, stress plausibility. Credibility is about coherence, plausibility is about beauty and satisfaction.
4. Don’t condemn competitors. Treat them with gentleness and respect as colleagues.
5. Don’t rush people. Emphasize the process of conversion.
CONCLUSION
The younger evangelicals have legitimate criticisms of modern apologetics. Just as postmodernity has some legitimate criticisms of modernity. In both cases, however, it is dangerous to throw out the entire system because of some mistakes. Rather than abandoning modern apologetics, they should be infused the ideas of the younger evangelicals. This leaves us with a hybrid apologetics that will be effective for the most people in the 21st century. Stressing the law of non-contradiction, the poverty of competing worldview beliefs, and the richness of Christianity, and doing so in a welcoming, open-format style will help us to achieve in the 21st century the ultimate goal of apologetics, which is to clear the road so that as many as possible can find their way to a relationship with Christ.
An Exegetical Look at James 4:1-10
INTRODUCTION – James 4:1-10
One of the roles of a good parent is to discipline their children when they stray from the path of what is right. Righteous discipline is always beneficial but not usually very pleasant (Hebrews 12:11). Beneficial discipline is always accompanied by a measure of wisdom. If we are disciplined and fail to glean wisdom from the situation, then we have wasted a valuable opportunity. Solomon, in imparting some of his vast wisdom, said, “Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding” (Proverbs 3:13).
The original audience of the letter of James must have felt like children receiving a good measure of discipline and that of the wisdom that accompanies it. In fact, James’ letter reads more like the wisdom literature of Proverbs than most of the New Testament letters (MacArthur 2). James was writing to the Jewish Christians who had been dispersed abroad, imparting some much needed discipline and wisdom much like a loving father would to his children who are far away from home. Because the modern reader is not the intended audience, we must thoroughly examine the writings of James so that we may read and understand the Bible for all it’s worth.
James is a part of Scripture that could rightly be called an epistle because it is written to the more general audience of the scattered Jews rather than an individual or a specific church. Some scholars have been prone to distinguish epistles from letters which are directed towards a private audience (Tate 134). James follows a very common Greco-Roman style of writing called the diatribe in which the author or teacher tries to persuade their audience through an imaginary dialogue, often in the form of rhetorical questions and answers (Fee & Stuart 319). James’ use of the Wisdom tradition, then, is sermonic rather than proverbial (Fee & Stuart 399). His intention is to persuade his audience into changing their behavior. The modern reader should be careful in understanding James as though it was written to the believing community rather than individuals. Each person must assume their own personal responsibility in contributing to the overall health of the community, but James is not concerned with personal spiritual health as much as he is with a thriving community.
James 4:1-10 is a particular unit of thought which is worth singling out from the larger epistle as a whole. In this passage, James is continuing a larger discussion from chapter 3 in which he discusses the dangers of not controlling the tongue (3:1-12), and the difference between worldly wisdom and heavenly wisdom. The tone of the entire book of James is that of father scolding his wayward children or a Jewish prophet rebuking the children of Israel. In fact, James’ straightforward, disciplinarian approach has led some commentators to refer to him as the Amos of the New Testament (MacArthur 2). James 4:1-10 takes an even sterner tone. It is clearly a rebuke but it is also done in love, much as a father would do. Rather than being discouraged by this epistlatory discipline, however, it is the underlying current of love and concern that actually gives this unit of thought an encouraging tone for those who have been scattered and persecuted. These people are not weak. James is addressing fighters. If they weren’t fighters they would not have been able to survive the persecutions and the trials. Yet, as we look further into this passage, we see that it is this same fighting spirit that has gotten them off course. James wishes to persuade them back over to the path of righteousness in no uncertain terms.
The passage of James 4:1-10, however, can be broken into three even smaller units of thought. The first unit is comprised of verses 1-3, in James discusses the problem of his readers fighting with one another. The next unit consists of verses 4-6, in which James warns his readers about the fact that not only are they warring with one another, they are warring with God. In verses 7-10 James confronts his readers with ten commands that he wants to persuade them to follow in order to repent of their sins before God.
Throughout this passage James gives us many insights into the nature and character of God. Recognizing these theological implications allows us to not only learn the truths of this passage that James is imparting to his readers but also allows us to learn truths about God. There are at least eight unique things we can learn about God in this passage. Each one of them can brings us closer to God and know Him better, which is the primary purpose of the Bible.
OUTLINE – James 4:1-10
Warring with each other (1-3)
Questions regarding the source of their worldliness (1)
What causes their fighting? (1a)
Doesn’t it come from within? (1b)
The source of their warring and worldliness is their hedonistic desire (2a)
They don’t have what they desire because they don’t ask God (2b)
When they do ask, it is from wrong motives (3)
Warring with God (4-6)
They have befriended the world and made God their enemy (4)
God is a jealous God (5)
Grace will be given to the humble (6)
God gives us more grace (6a)
He opposes the proud, while giving grace to the humble (6b)
A call for repentance (7-10)
A call for submission (7)
Submit to God (7a)
Resist the devil and he will flee (7b)
A call for repentance (8-9)
Draw closer to God and He will respond (8a)
Cleansing their hands and their hearts (8b)
Turn their revelry into serious repentance (9)
Humility before the Lord will result in being exalted by Him (10)
VERSE BY VERSE – James 4:1-10
1 Where do wars and fights come from among you?
In the context of a book that is concerned with a living faith and battling against selfish ambition and envy (c.f. 3:14; 3:16), we can conclude that James is not referring to the literal taking up of arms against one another. Rather he is referring to, as the NASB translates, “quarrels and conflicts.” Polemos (Strong’s # 4171), which is rendered either quarrels or wars, is the word from which we get the English “polemics.” It implies a prolonged and serious dispute or combat. (Blue Letter Bible). Mache (Strong’s # 3164) translates fights or conflicts and refers to a specific dispute or battle. James, then, is dealing with both specific arguments as well as ongoing contentious situations. His rhetorical question for his readers to consider is this: what is causing all of this turmoil?
Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?
In the classic diatribe style, James answers his own question as he begins this particular imaginary conversation for the benefit of his readers. Desires comes from hedone (Strong’s # 2213) from which we get our word hedonism. Hedonism is the philosophy that views pleasure as the primary goal in life. This word is the same used in verse 3 and is utilized in only three other passages in the New Testament (Lea 328). In Luke 8:14 it describes people “choked with life’s worries and riches and pleasure.” Titus 3:3 depicts the former lives of Christians in which they were “enslaved to various lusts and pleasures.” In Peter 2:13 it pictures people who “count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime.” This concept in the Greek of desire or passion can refer to either good or evil desires (Swindoll 135). Neither the desires nor the means through which James’ audience was attempting to meet them, however, were from the right motives. They were being motivated by selfish ambition which always causes strife.
2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war.
The unfulfilled worldly desires of the Jews had caused their frustration to spill over into wars and fights with one another. Epithumeo (Strong’s # 1937) translated here as lust, can be a desire of any kind, but in the context we can safely assume that their desires were misdirected and sinful (MacArthur 188). Some have argued that the murder to which James refers should be taken literally based on the tense political situation in Israel and Rome at the time. According to this view, many Christians may have backed some anti-Roman radical organizations and thus become accomplices to murder (Jacoby 42). Based on the larger context of James which focuses on wisdom and controlling the tongue, it seems more likely that James is using murder in the hyperbolic sense and relating it to hatred (c.f. Matt. 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15) (Barker & Kohlenberger 1032). These sentences, then, may be taken as virtually conditional. If you desire for what you do not have, it will result in hatred. If you covet, the results will be quarrels and conflicts.
Yet, you do not have because you do not ask.
The NU-Text and the M-Text omit "yet." It was probably added later as a clerical clarifier. James informs his audience that the underlying cause for them not having what they desire is that they have not prayed for it. Many of the people have not even thought of asking God because they are self-sufficient. They have learned survival skills during tough times and are now using those skills in an unwise manner. Implicit in this statement is t our first theological implication. God wants to give us. It is His desire that we should ask and he be able to bestow blessings upon us.
3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.
The Christians that James was writing to were survivors and fighters. James knows this and he anticipates a fighter’s response: “We did pray and God didn’t answer our prayers.” Before that question can be asked, James answers it. When they have bothered to pray they haven’t received because they asked with wrong motives. Kakos (Strong’s 2650), translated amiss here is rendered, “with the wrong motives,” in the NASB. It can also be taken to mean bad, evil, or wicked (MacArthur 190). Pleasures here is the from the same word hedone, translated desires in verse 1. They were praying with wicked motives for their own hedonistic desires.
James reminds his audience here that prayer is not some automatic procedure to be accessed at one’s whims. In fact, there are at least three other conditions upon which an answer to prayer is predicated. First, is to come in an attitude of faith (James 1:6). Second, is to approach God with a commitment to obey him (1 John 3:21-22). Third is to pray according to God’s will (1 John 5:14-15). Finally is James’ reminder to pray with the right motives. This is the second theological implication; proper motives and the right heart are extremely important to God.
4 Adulterers and[b] adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
The NU-Text (as well as L T Tr A W WH N NA) omits “Adulterers and.” Other translations such as the NIV and NASB render this as “you adulterous people.” The original language contains only the word “adulteresses.” “Adulterers” was no doubt added so as not to appear that women were being singled out. Yet, this was not James’ intention. James was stressing that the church, as the heir of Israel, was the bride of Christ. Adding to this passage takes away from the powerful allusion that James was making. James was stressing that as the bride of Christ, they were being spiritually unfaithful to God (Barker & Kohlenberger 1032).
Those who choose friendship with the world are in conflict with God. The first result, according to James, of conflict with God is hostility towards Him. Friendship translates the noun philia (Strong’s # 5373), which is used only here in the entire New Testament. The verb form phileo (Strong’s # 5368) is usually translated “love.” Phileo conveys a more emotional aspect of love than does the more common and stronger verb for love agapao (Strong’s # 26), which is more volitional (MacArthur 192). Kosmos (Strong’s #2289), rendered the world here, refers to the lifestyle of a world that is consumed by goals contrary to God’s commands (Lea 329).
James is implying that the world was their god; they had a love of the world and the principles which reign there. This concept may not be so clear to the modern reader who would see less of a problem with trying to live a life for God and one that still conformed to the system of the world. The concept of friendship in the ancient East was much more cut-and-dried. Friendship with an enemy made you an enemy. They felt that the friend of an enemy made one an enemy automatically. Conversely, as the Middle Eastern saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Jesus made this type of thinking clear, saying that a house divided would fall (Mark 3:25). You could not, in their mind, befriend opposing views. The friendship with the world, then, automatically made these people the enemy of God. This enlightens us as to our third theological implication; God desires to befriend us.
5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?
Here, James asserts the second result of being in conflict with God: disregard for the Scriptures and the desires of God (MacArthur 191). This passage, though, is one of the most difficult of the entire book. The capitalizing of “Spirit” is arbitrary since the original Greek provides no capitalization. Also, there is no Scripture in either the Old or New Testaments that corresponds to this passage (MacArthur 198). There have been many divergent translations of this passage but there is reason to believe that the translation provided in the NIV footnote is correct; “God jealously longs for the spirit that he made to live in us.” Verse 4 indicates that these believers were committing spiritual adultery. It seems logical then, to suppose that James was telling his audience that God was jealously longing for their love not the people’s own envious spirit. (Barker & Kohlenberger 1033). The fourth theological implication is that God wants us for His own; He does not wish to share our affections.
6 But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.”
God gives more grace, or “that which affords joy,” (Blue Letter Bible) despite the worldly hearts of men. James then adds the third element of those that are in conflict with God – pride (MacArthur 191). James clearly quotes from Proverbs 3:34 here in what is both a threat to the proud of heart and an encouragement to the humble in heart. Proud is from the compound noun huperaphanos (Strong’s # 5244) which means above (huper) and to appear (phainomai) (MacArthur 199). Antitossomai (Strong’s # 498) or “resists” was used as a military term for an army prepared for battle (Eerdman’s 1232). James, then, is telling his audience that God is preparing for battle in a sense against his enemies that believe they appear above others or the ways of God. Just as surely as God opposes the proud, He freely gives grace to those “not rising far from the ground” which is the understanding of tapainos (Strong’s # 5011) (Blue Letter Bible). The fact that God deeply desires to lavish his grace on the humble is the fifth theological implication that we can glean from this passage.
7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
In verse 7 we find the first two in a series of ten commands in vv. 7-10. In each one the specific Greek form used calls for an immediate response from the reader (Barker & Kohlenberg 1033). First, one should submit to God. “Therefore” connects this verse back to the previous one. If God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble, then it logically follows to submit to God. The Greek word, hupotasso (Strong’s # 5293) “indicates a Greek military term meaning ‘to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader’. In non-military use, it was ‘a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden’” (Blue Letter Bible).
The second command is to resist the devil. We could resist submission to God, but should instead choose to resist the devil. As Satan is the prince of this world (John 14:30) it can be assumed that just as friendship with the world makes one an enemy of God (v. 4), submitting to the devil would make one an equal enemy of God. James assures his readers that Satan can be resisted and will flee, even though he is very powerful. Here we find the sixth theological implication. God desires for His people to submit and find protection in Him; He wants to protect us form our enemy.
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
The third command given in this section particular unit of thought is to draw near to God. James’ audience had set their hearts on pleasure rather than God and so their hearts drifted away from God and become estranged. James assures them that God will draw them back to himself. God desires their devotion (v. 5) and will welcome them back to him if they would only turn their hearts back to him. This verse contains the seventh theological implication. If we seek God and draw near to Him, He will be found by us. Not only that, we learn that He will draw near to us.
The fourth command to cleanse their hands brings forth the idea of the ceremonial prescription for Jewish priests (MacArthur 207). Having clean hands is a call to make their conduct pure and to submit to God. James rather bluntly refers to the readers as sinners. This is a harsh term intended to wake them to the true extent of their involvement in worldly attitudes and actions (Barker & Kohlenberger 1034). The fifth command, “Purify your hearts” is a Hebraic parallelism which corresponds to “cleanse your hands” (MacArthur 209). Likewise, “double minded” corresponds to “sinners.” Those who are double minded are attempting to love the world and God at the same time which is an impossible situation (v. 4). James is stressing the need to cleanse from any moral defilement that would create enmity between God and themselves.
9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom.
Four of the ten commands can be found in this verse alone. All four are calls to repentance. “Lament” is from talaiporeo (Strong’s # 5003). It is a strong word meaning miserable or afflicted (Blue Letter Bible). Rather than the worldly pleasures they had been thinking, James calls his readers to repent in misery. Next, they are commanded to mourn. This word comes from the Greek, pentheo (Strong’s # 3996), depicting passionate grief that cannot be hidden (Barker & Kohlenberger 1034). Related to this command for outward grief is the call to weep or wail. The ninth command of this unit of thought is to turn their laughter to mourning and their joy to gloom. It is also in the form of a Hebraic couplet, expressing he same concept in two parallel forms (MacArthur 213). The word rendered gloom is katepheia (Strong’s # 2726) which can mean shame, sorrow and dejection (Blue Letter Bible). The laughter to which James refers implies the loud, joyful expressions of the worldly people that his audience has been emulating. Their frivolity will turn to gloom when they realize their foolish choices and their true state as the enemies of God. James sees his readers demonstrating a casual and tolerant attitude toward sin and disobedience. It is only those who can truly mourn and weep over their sins who will be able to enjoy God’s blessings.
10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.
The tenth command also includes a promise. James returns to the Old Testament text that he quoted in verse 6. Those who humble themselves before the Lord will be exalted Him. The specific form of humbling that James refers to here is repentance of improperly transferring their affections from God to the pleasures of the world (Barker & Kohlenberger 1034). It is here that we find the final theological implication of this passage. God wants us to humble ourselves before Him so that He may exalt us. He truly wants the very best for us.
CONCLUSION
James wrote this passage to a group of people that loved God, as is evidenced by the fact they were Christians. In many ways, however, they needed a stern, fatherly reminder of what true love for God consisted. They had fallen prey to the mindset of the world and had not yet completed the process of transforming their mind to a Christian worldview. James intended this passage to be a wake-up call for his readers. He wished for them to live out the greatest command, to love God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength. He desired for them to focus on God. As we examine, study, parse, and exegete this passage, it is incumbent upon us to remember James’ intention. If studying this passage does not move us to flee the world and its trappings and humble ourselves constantly before God, then we have really missed the point and find ourselves thinking that what the Scripture says, the “Scripture says in vain.”
One of the roles of a good parent is to discipline their children when they stray from the path of what is right. Righteous discipline is always beneficial but not usually very pleasant (Hebrews 12:11). Beneficial discipline is always accompanied by a measure of wisdom. If we are disciplined and fail to glean wisdom from the situation, then we have wasted a valuable opportunity. Solomon, in imparting some of his vast wisdom, said, “Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding” (Proverbs 3:13).
The original audience of the letter of James must have felt like children receiving a good measure of discipline and that of the wisdom that accompanies it. In fact, James’ letter reads more like the wisdom literature of Proverbs than most of the New Testament letters (MacArthur 2). James was writing to the Jewish Christians who had been dispersed abroad, imparting some much needed discipline and wisdom much like a loving father would to his children who are far away from home. Because the modern reader is not the intended audience, we must thoroughly examine the writings of James so that we may read and understand the Bible for all it’s worth.
James is a part of Scripture that could rightly be called an epistle because it is written to the more general audience of the scattered Jews rather than an individual or a specific church. Some scholars have been prone to distinguish epistles from letters which are directed towards a private audience (Tate 134). James follows a very common Greco-Roman style of writing called the diatribe in which the author or teacher tries to persuade their audience through an imaginary dialogue, often in the form of rhetorical questions and answers (Fee & Stuart 319). James’ use of the Wisdom tradition, then, is sermonic rather than proverbial (Fee & Stuart 399). His intention is to persuade his audience into changing their behavior. The modern reader should be careful in understanding James as though it was written to the believing community rather than individuals. Each person must assume their own personal responsibility in contributing to the overall health of the community, but James is not concerned with personal spiritual health as much as he is with a thriving community.
James 4:1-10 is a particular unit of thought which is worth singling out from the larger epistle as a whole. In this passage, James is continuing a larger discussion from chapter 3 in which he discusses the dangers of not controlling the tongue (3:1-12), and the difference between worldly wisdom and heavenly wisdom. The tone of the entire book of James is that of father scolding his wayward children or a Jewish prophet rebuking the children of Israel. In fact, James’ straightforward, disciplinarian approach has led some commentators to refer to him as the Amos of the New Testament (MacArthur 2). James 4:1-10 takes an even sterner tone. It is clearly a rebuke but it is also done in love, much as a father would do. Rather than being discouraged by this epistlatory discipline, however, it is the underlying current of love and concern that actually gives this unit of thought an encouraging tone for those who have been scattered and persecuted. These people are not weak. James is addressing fighters. If they weren’t fighters they would not have been able to survive the persecutions and the trials. Yet, as we look further into this passage, we see that it is this same fighting spirit that has gotten them off course. James wishes to persuade them back over to the path of righteousness in no uncertain terms.
The passage of James 4:1-10, however, can be broken into three even smaller units of thought. The first unit is comprised of verses 1-3, in James discusses the problem of his readers fighting with one another. The next unit consists of verses 4-6, in which James warns his readers about the fact that not only are they warring with one another, they are warring with God. In verses 7-10 James confronts his readers with ten commands that he wants to persuade them to follow in order to repent of their sins before God.
Throughout this passage James gives us many insights into the nature and character of God. Recognizing these theological implications allows us to not only learn the truths of this passage that James is imparting to his readers but also allows us to learn truths about God. There are at least eight unique things we can learn about God in this passage. Each one of them can brings us closer to God and know Him better, which is the primary purpose of the Bible.
OUTLINE – James 4:1-10
Warring with each other (1-3)
Questions regarding the source of their worldliness (1)
What causes their fighting? (1a)
Doesn’t it come from within? (1b)
The source of their warring and worldliness is their hedonistic desire (2a)
They don’t have what they desire because they don’t ask God (2b)
When they do ask, it is from wrong motives (3)
Warring with God (4-6)
They have befriended the world and made God their enemy (4)
God is a jealous God (5)
Grace will be given to the humble (6)
God gives us more grace (6a)
He opposes the proud, while giving grace to the humble (6b)
A call for repentance (7-10)
A call for submission (7)
Submit to God (7a)
Resist the devil and he will flee (7b)
A call for repentance (8-9)
Draw closer to God and He will respond (8a)
Cleansing their hands and their hearts (8b)
Turn their revelry into serious repentance (9)
Humility before the Lord will result in being exalted by Him (10)
VERSE BY VERSE – James 4:1-10
1 Where do wars and fights come from among you?
In the context of a book that is concerned with a living faith and battling against selfish ambition and envy (c.f. 3:14; 3:16), we can conclude that James is not referring to the literal taking up of arms against one another. Rather he is referring to, as the NASB translates, “quarrels and conflicts.” Polemos (Strong’s # 4171), which is rendered either quarrels or wars, is the word from which we get the English “polemics.” It implies a prolonged and serious dispute or combat. (Blue Letter Bible). Mache (Strong’s # 3164) translates fights or conflicts and refers to a specific dispute or battle. James, then, is dealing with both specific arguments as well as ongoing contentious situations. His rhetorical question for his readers to consider is this: what is causing all of this turmoil?
Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?
In the classic diatribe style, James answers his own question as he begins this particular imaginary conversation for the benefit of his readers. Desires comes from hedone (Strong’s # 2213) from which we get our word hedonism. Hedonism is the philosophy that views pleasure as the primary goal in life. This word is the same used in verse 3 and is utilized in only three other passages in the New Testament (Lea 328). In Luke 8:14 it describes people “choked with life’s worries and riches and pleasure.” Titus 3:3 depicts the former lives of Christians in which they were “enslaved to various lusts and pleasures.” In Peter 2:13 it pictures people who “count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime.” This concept in the Greek of desire or passion can refer to either good or evil desires (Swindoll 135). Neither the desires nor the means through which James’ audience was attempting to meet them, however, were from the right motives. They were being motivated by selfish ambition which always causes strife.
2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war.
The unfulfilled worldly desires of the Jews had caused their frustration to spill over into wars and fights with one another. Epithumeo (Strong’s # 1937) translated here as lust, can be a desire of any kind, but in the context we can safely assume that their desires were misdirected and sinful (MacArthur 188). Some have argued that the murder to which James refers should be taken literally based on the tense political situation in Israel and Rome at the time. According to this view, many Christians may have backed some anti-Roman radical organizations and thus become accomplices to murder (Jacoby 42). Based on the larger context of James which focuses on wisdom and controlling the tongue, it seems more likely that James is using murder in the hyperbolic sense and relating it to hatred (c.f. Matt. 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15) (Barker & Kohlenberger 1032). These sentences, then, may be taken as virtually conditional. If you desire for what you do not have, it will result in hatred. If you covet, the results will be quarrels and conflicts.
Yet, you do not have because you do not ask.
The NU-Text and the M-Text omit "yet." It was probably added later as a clerical clarifier. James informs his audience that the underlying cause for them not having what they desire is that they have not prayed for it. Many of the people have not even thought of asking God because they are self-sufficient. They have learned survival skills during tough times and are now using those skills in an unwise manner. Implicit in this statement is t our first theological implication. God wants to give us. It is His desire that we should ask and he be able to bestow blessings upon us.
3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.
The Christians that James was writing to were survivors and fighters. James knows this and he anticipates a fighter’s response: “We did pray and God didn’t answer our prayers.” Before that question can be asked, James answers it. When they have bothered to pray they haven’t received because they asked with wrong motives. Kakos (Strong’s 2650), translated amiss here is rendered, “with the wrong motives,” in the NASB. It can also be taken to mean bad, evil, or wicked (MacArthur 190). Pleasures here is the from the same word hedone, translated desires in verse 1. They were praying with wicked motives for their own hedonistic desires.
James reminds his audience here that prayer is not some automatic procedure to be accessed at one’s whims. In fact, there are at least three other conditions upon which an answer to prayer is predicated. First, is to come in an attitude of faith (James 1:6). Second, is to approach God with a commitment to obey him (1 John 3:21-22). Third is to pray according to God’s will (1 John 5:14-15). Finally is James’ reminder to pray with the right motives. This is the second theological implication; proper motives and the right heart are extremely important to God.
4 Adulterers and[b] adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
The NU-Text (as well as L T Tr A W WH N NA) omits “Adulterers and.” Other translations such as the NIV and NASB render this as “you adulterous people.” The original language contains only the word “adulteresses.” “Adulterers” was no doubt added so as not to appear that women were being singled out. Yet, this was not James’ intention. James was stressing that the church, as the heir of Israel, was the bride of Christ. Adding to this passage takes away from the powerful allusion that James was making. James was stressing that as the bride of Christ, they were being spiritually unfaithful to God (Barker & Kohlenberger 1032).
Those who choose friendship with the world are in conflict with God. The first result, according to James, of conflict with God is hostility towards Him. Friendship translates the noun philia (Strong’s # 5373), which is used only here in the entire New Testament. The verb form phileo (Strong’s # 5368) is usually translated “love.” Phileo conveys a more emotional aspect of love than does the more common and stronger verb for love agapao (Strong’s # 26), which is more volitional (MacArthur 192). Kosmos (Strong’s #2289), rendered the world here, refers to the lifestyle of a world that is consumed by goals contrary to God’s commands (Lea 329).
James is implying that the world was their god; they had a love of the world and the principles which reign there. This concept may not be so clear to the modern reader who would see less of a problem with trying to live a life for God and one that still conformed to the system of the world. The concept of friendship in the ancient East was much more cut-and-dried. Friendship with an enemy made you an enemy. They felt that the friend of an enemy made one an enemy automatically. Conversely, as the Middle Eastern saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Jesus made this type of thinking clear, saying that a house divided would fall (Mark 3:25). You could not, in their mind, befriend opposing views. The friendship with the world, then, automatically made these people the enemy of God. This enlightens us as to our third theological implication; God desires to befriend us.
5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?
Here, James asserts the second result of being in conflict with God: disregard for the Scriptures and the desires of God (MacArthur 191). This passage, though, is one of the most difficult of the entire book. The capitalizing of “Spirit” is arbitrary since the original Greek provides no capitalization. Also, there is no Scripture in either the Old or New Testaments that corresponds to this passage (MacArthur 198). There have been many divergent translations of this passage but there is reason to believe that the translation provided in the NIV footnote is correct; “God jealously longs for the spirit that he made to live in us.” Verse 4 indicates that these believers were committing spiritual adultery. It seems logical then, to suppose that James was telling his audience that God was jealously longing for their love not the people’s own envious spirit. (Barker & Kohlenberger 1033). The fourth theological implication is that God wants us for His own; He does not wish to share our affections.
6 But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.”
God gives more grace, or “that which affords joy,” (Blue Letter Bible) despite the worldly hearts of men. James then adds the third element of those that are in conflict with God – pride (MacArthur 191). James clearly quotes from Proverbs 3:34 here in what is both a threat to the proud of heart and an encouragement to the humble in heart. Proud is from the compound noun huperaphanos (Strong’s # 5244) which means above (huper) and to appear (phainomai) (MacArthur 199). Antitossomai (Strong’s # 498) or “resists” was used as a military term for an army prepared for battle (Eerdman’s 1232). James, then, is telling his audience that God is preparing for battle in a sense against his enemies that believe they appear above others or the ways of God. Just as surely as God opposes the proud, He freely gives grace to those “not rising far from the ground” which is the understanding of tapainos (Strong’s # 5011) (Blue Letter Bible). The fact that God deeply desires to lavish his grace on the humble is the fifth theological implication that we can glean from this passage.
7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
In verse 7 we find the first two in a series of ten commands in vv. 7-10. In each one the specific Greek form used calls for an immediate response from the reader (Barker & Kohlenberg 1033). First, one should submit to God. “Therefore” connects this verse back to the previous one. If God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble, then it logically follows to submit to God. The Greek word, hupotasso (Strong’s # 5293) “indicates a Greek military term meaning ‘to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader’. In non-military use, it was ‘a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden’” (Blue Letter Bible).
The second command is to resist the devil. We could resist submission to God, but should instead choose to resist the devil. As Satan is the prince of this world (John 14:30) it can be assumed that just as friendship with the world makes one an enemy of God (v. 4), submitting to the devil would make one an equal enemy of God. James assures his readers that Satan can be resisted and will flee, even though he is very powerful. Here we find the sixth theological implication. God desires for His people to submit and find protection in Him; He wants to protect us form our enemy.
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
The third command given in this section particular unit of thought is to draw near to God. James’ audience had set their hearts on pleasure rather than God and so their hearts drifted away from God and become estranged. James assures them that God will draw them back to himself. God desires their devotion (v. 5) and will welcome them back to him if they would only turn their hearts back to him. This verse contains the seventh theological implication. If we seek God and draw near to Him, He will be found by us. Not only that, we learn that He will draw near to us.
The fourth command to cleanse their hands brings forth the idea of the ceremonial prescription for Jewish priests (MacArthur 207). Having clean hands is a call to make their conduct pure and to submit to God. James rather bluntly refers to the readers as sinners. This is a harsh term intended to wake them to the true extent of their involvement in worldly attitudes and actions (Barker & Kohlenberger 1034). The fifth command, “Purify your hearts” is a Hebraic parallelism which corresponds to “cleanse your hands” (MacArthur 209). Likewise, “double minded” corresponds to “sinners.” Those who are double minded are attempting to love the world and God at the same time which is an impossible situation (v. 4). James is stressing the need to cleanse from any moral defilement that would create enmity between God and themselves.
9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom.
Four of the ten commands can be found in this verse alone. All four are calls to repentance. “Lament” is from talaiporeo (Strong’s # 5003). It is a strong word meaning miserable or afflicted (Blue Letter Bible). Rather than the worldly pleasures they had been thinking, James calls his readers to repent in misery. Next, they are commanded to mourn. This word comes from the Greek, pentheo (Strong’s # 3996), depicting passionate grief that cannot be hidden (Barker & Kohlenberger 1034). Related to this command for outward grief is the call to weep or wail. The ninth command of this unit of thought is to turn their laughter to mourning and their joy to gloom. It is also in the form of a Hebraic couplet, expressing he same concept in two parallel forms (MacArthur 213). The word rendered gloom is katepheia (Strong’s # 2726) which can mean shame, sorrow and dejection (Blue Letter Bible). The laughter to which James refers implies the loud, joyful expressions of the worldly people that his audience has been emulating. Their frivolity will turn to gloom when they realize their foolish choices and their true state as the enemies of God. James sees his readers demonstrating a casual and tolerant attitude toward sin and disobedience. It is only those who can truly mourn and weep over their sins who will be able to enjoy God’s blessings.
10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.
The tenth command also includes a promise. James returns to the Old Testament text that he quoted in verse 6. Those who humble themselves before the Lord will be exalted Him. The specific form of humbling that James refers to here is repentance of improperly transferring their affections from God to the pleasures of the world (Barker & Kohlenberger 1034). It is here that we find the final theological implication of this passage. God wants us to humble ourselves before Him so that He may exalt us. He truly wants the very best for us.
CONCLUSION
James wrote this passage to a group of people that loved God, as is evidenced by the fact they were Christians. In many ways, however, they needed a stern, fatherly reminder of what true love for God consisted. They had fallen prey to the mindset of the world and had not yet completed the process of transforming their mind to a Christian worldview. James intended this passage to be a wake-up call for his readers. He wished for them to live out the greatest command, to love God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength. He desired for them to focus on God. As we examine, study, parse, and exegete this passage, it is incumbent upon us to remember James’ intention. If studying this passage does not move us to flee the world and its trappings and humble ourselves constantly before God, then we have really missed the point and find ourselves thinking that what the Scripture says, the “Scripture says in vain.”
What is the Secret of the Kingdom in Mark 4:11?
There are many different theories as to what the secret of the Kingdom is to which Jesus refers in Mark 4:11. Speculations range from the timing of the coming of the Kingdom, to baptismal entrance into the Kingdom, and even some very wild speculations about the “secret.” The question is whether we are left by Mark to only speculate as to what that secret is or whether he gives the reader the information to be able to know what the secret is. I believe that Mark does give the information necessary to no what the secret is. The information is never given overtly but neither does Mark completely withhold the information.
So what is the secret? I believe that the crux of the secret to which Jesus was referring was that He was not the kind of Messiah and this was not the physical kind of Kingdom that the Jews were expecting. It was, rather a spiritual Kingdom, and He was the Son of God rather than a mere prophet that would lead them out from under Roman rule.
In the first chapter of Mark, there seems to be a theme of Jesus not yet wishing who He is to be revealed. Although other accounts of Jesus’ baptism show that this was a public event, Mark’s account does not mention anyone being present beyond Jesus and John. If one were to read only Mark’s account, it might seem that this was a very private event. Beyond that, there are two separate incidents in the first chapter of Mark where Jesus does not want the demons to reveal who he is (1:25; 1:34). In verse 44, we find Jesus ordering a man that He had just healed of leprosy to not say anything about this to anyone. The man didn’t listen, and Mark stresses the trouble that this caused Jesus (v. 45).
In the second, third, and fourth chapters, the emphasis seems to switch. Jesus is slightly more forthcoming with who He is than in the first chapter. He even gives himself the moniker “Son of Man,” which although does have Messianic ties with the book of Daniel, is still somewhat stealth in the identification of who is really is. This section of Mark stresses the aspect of Jesus’ ministry in which He emphasizes the spiritual over the physical. He is giving clues that this Kingdom is not the physical type that the Jews were expecting. In His healing of the paralytic, Jesus makes it very clear that the spiritual act of forgiving sins is more difficult and more important than the physical healing (2:1-12). He does heal the man but only as a means to show that He has the capability of doing the more important spiritual work of forgiving sins. In His subsequent conversation with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath, Jesus is shown once again to stress the Spiritual aspect over the physical one. In verse 27, He argues that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus was teaching them that the Sabbath is more important as a time of spiritual rest than a physical law to be adhered to rigidly. In verse 4 of chapter 3, Mark shows Jesus stressing that it is more important to follow the spirit of the law rather than a strict legalistic adherence to it. The message Jesus was bringing was one far different from what the Jews were expecting.
Mark continues this theme of emphasizing the spiritual aspects over physical, earthly aspects in Mark 3:31-35. Jesus here says that His real family is His spiritual one. Those who do the will of God will take precedence over his physical, earthly family. Once again, Jesus is shown focusing in on the spiritual rather than the physical.
In chapter 4, the passage that leads up directly to Jesus stating that “the secret of the Kingdom of God has been given” to His disciples, Jesus tells a parable that has everything to do with the response of the heart to the spiritual message of the gospel. Entrance into the Kingdom was a matter of the heart responding in a spiritual manner. This was not going to be a strictly physical Kingdom. Jesus did not come to be an earthly, physical ruler. Rather He came to give the secret to those who would soften their hearts that the Kingdom of God was a spiritual Kingdom that could be entered through the heart.
So what is the secret? I believe that the crux of the secret to which Jesus was referring was that He was not the kind of Messiah and this was not the physical kind of Kingdom that the Jews were expecting. It was, rather a spiritual Kingdom, and He was the Son of God rather than a mere prophet that would lead them out from under Roman rule.
In the first chapter of Mark, there seems to be a theme of Jesus not yet wishing who He is to be revealed. Although other accounts of Jesus’ baptism show that this was a public event, Mark’s account does not mention anyone being present beyond Jesus and John. If one were to read only Mark’s account, it might seem that this was a very private event. Beyond that, there are two separate incidents in the first chapter of Mark where Jesus does not want the demons to reveal who he is (1:25; 1:34). In verse 44, we find Jesus ordering a man that He had just healed of leprosy to not say anything about this to anyone. The man didn’t listen, and Mark stresses the trouble that this caused Jesus (v. 45).
In the second, third, and fourth chapters, the emphasis seems to switch. Jesus is slightly more forthcoming with who He is than in the first chapter. He even gives himself the moniker “Son of Man,” which although does have Messianic ties with the book of Daniel, is still somewhat stealth in the identification of who is really is. This section of Mark stresses the aspect of Jesus’ ministry in which He emphasizes the spiritual over the physical. He is giving clues that this Kingdom is not the physical type that the Jews were expecting. In His healing of the paralytic, Jesus makes it very clear that the spiritual act of forgiving sins is more difficult and more important than the physical healing (2:1-12). He does heal the man but only as a means to show that He has the capability of doing the more important spiritual work of forgiving sins. In His subsequent conversation with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath, Jesus is shown once again to stress the Spiritual aspect over the physical one. In verse 27, He argues that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus was teaching them that the Sabbath is more important as a time of spiritual rest than a physical law to be adhered to rigidly. In verse 4 of chapter 3, Mark shows Jesus stressing that it is more important to follow the spirit of the law rather than a strict legalistic adherence to it. The message Jesus was bringing was one far different from what the Jews were expecting.
Mark continues this theme of emphasizing the spiritual aspects over physical, earthly aspects in Mark 3:31-35. Jesus here says that His real family is His spiritual one. Those who do the will of God will take precedence over his physical, earthly family. Once again, Jesus is shown focusing in on the spiritual rather than the physical.
In chapter 4, the passage that leads up directly to Jesus stating that “the secret of the Kingdom of God has been given” to His disciples, Jesus tells a parable that has everything to do with the response of the heart to the spiritual message of the gospel. Entrance into the Kingdom was a matter of the heart responding in a spiritual manner. This was not going to be a strictly physical Kingdom. Jesus did not come to be an earthly, physical ruler. Rather He came to give the secret to those who would soften their hearts that the Kingdom of God was a spiritual Kingdom that could be entered through the heart.
Christians and the Old Testament Law
Did Jesus destroy the law of the Old Testament? This is one of the key questions for New Testament Christians to be able to answer and comprehend. Most Christians, if surveyed, would say that we are not under obligation to fulfill the Law; they would argue that Christ’s death freed us from the Law. Yet if we look at Jesus’ own words, He said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” So, are Christians under a biblical obligation to fulfill the commands of the Old Testament or are we free from the bond of the Law.
The fact is that Jesus did not come to annihilate or destroy the law. The Greek word pleroo, translated in the NIV as “fulfill,” means to make complete or perfect. After saying that He came to fulfill the law, Jesus continued on to explain His words. He gave real-life examples in explaining to His disciples that He was making the Law complete by moving the standard of the Law from the realm of actions to the realm of the heart. This is why the standard, according to Jesus, was no longer the outer actions of murder and adultery but the inner actions of hatred and lust.
Jesus fulfilled the 613 laws of the Old Testament with the Law of Christ. When asked what the most important commandments were, Jesus responded by saying that the first was to “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Through the shedding of His blood, Christ fulfilled the regulations of the Old Covenant and instituted this fulfillment of the Law (Hebrews 9:16-22); the Law of Christ. The Law of Christ was capable of summing up the entire 613 laws of the Old Testament, which were a loving delineation of loving God and neighbor. Christ freed us from those regulations and enabled us to live love through freedom rather than obligation. Truly, “love is the fulfillment of the Law” (Romans 13:10b).
This means that Christians are not bound by any of the regulations of the Old Covenant, including the much-loved Ten Commandments. If part of the Law does not apply to believers, then none of it does. Yet, I would contend that the Law is still in effect in our world today. If this seems like a contradiction, just hang on and keep reading.
As stated earlier, Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law. In fact, He references the Law in His conversation with the rich young man (Mark 10:19-23). Why would Jesus use something that He was coming to fulfill, and in effect, make useless. Paul gives a clue when He reminded Timothy that “the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8). He goes on in verse 9, to state that the Law is not for the righteous, but for sinners. It is through the law that we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20b). Paul explains in the book of Romans that without the Law, he would not have the ability to know what sin is (Romans 7:7-8). In his letter to the Galatians, Paul states that the Law is our schoolmaster that brings us to faith, and ultimately, salvation. It is clear, then, that Jesus was using the Law to convict the rich young man of his son. He was using the Law as a mirror to show him how short He had fallen short of God’s glory. He was using the Law as a teacher to point him towards the grace and love of God that he so desperately needed.
The truth is that Christians are not bound by the Old Covenant Law. (It is only the Law of Christ which is to Love God with all of our heart sould mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourself. This is actually a much higher standard than the Old Covenant but that is outside the realm of this particular article). The Law, when used properly, is still in effect but only for the unrighteous as a tool to bring them to faith. In Romans 6:1-13, Paul reminds his readers that they have been saved and baptized into Christ. Once that happened, they were no longer “under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14b). The sad irony is that many Christians live as though they are still under the Law and must earn their salvation, while the unsaved, those that are still under the standard of the Law, live as though they are under grace.
The fact is that Jesus did not come to annihilate or destroy the law. The Greek word pleroo, translated in the NIV as “fulfill,” means to make complete or perfect. After saying that He came to fulfill the law, Jesus continued on to explain His words. He gave real-life examples in explaining to His disciples that He was making the Law complete by moving the standard of the Law from the realm of actions to the realm of the heart. This is why the standard, according to Jesus, was no longer the outer actions of murder and adultery but the inner actions of hatred and lust.
Jesus fulfilled the 613 laws of the Old Testament with the Law of Christ. When asked what the most important commandments were, Jesus responded by saying that the first was to “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Through the shedding of His blood, Christ fulfilled the regulations of the Old Covenant and instituted this fulfillment of the Law (Hebrews 9:16-22); the Law of Christ. The Law of Christ was capable of summing up the entire 613 laws of the Old Testament, which were a loving delineation of loving God and neighbor. Christ freed us from those regulations and enabled us to live love through freedom rather than obligation. Truly, “love is the fulfillment of the Law” (Romans 13:10b).
This means that Christians are not bound by any of the regulations of the Old Covenant, including the much-loved Ten Commandments. If part of the Law does not apply to believers, then none of it does. Yet, I would contend that the Law is still in effect in our world today. If this seems like a contradiction, just hang on and keep reading.
As stated earlier, Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law. In fact, He references the Law in His conversation with the rich young man (Mark 10:19-23). Why would Jesus use something that He was coming to fulfill, and in effect, make useless. Paul gives a clue when He reminded Timothy that “the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8). He goes on in verse 9, to state that the Law is not for the righteous, but for sinners. It is through the law that we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20b). Paul explains in the book of Romans that without the Law, he would not have the ability to know what sin is (Romans 7:7-8). In his letter to the Galatians, Paul states that the Law is our schoolmaster that brings us to faith, and ultimately, salvation. It is clear, then, that Jesus was using the Law to convict the rich young man of his son. He was using the Law as a mirror to show him how short He had fallen short of God’s glory. He was using the Law as a teacher to point him towards the grace and love of God that he so desperately needed.
The truth is that Christians are not bound by the Old Covenant Law. (It is only the Law of Christ which is to Love God with all of our heart sould mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourself. This is actually a much higher standard than the Old Covenant but that is outside the realm of this particular article). The Law, when used properly, is still in effect but only for the unrighteous as a tool to bring them to faith. In Romans 6:1-13, Paul reminds his readers that they have been saved and baptized into Christ. Once that happened, they were no longer “under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14b). The sad irony is that many Christians live as though they are still under the Law and must earn their salvation, while the unsaved, those that are still under the standard of the Law, live as though they are under grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)