Colossians 1:15 in Context

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(Col. 1:15, NASB)

Many read Colossians 1:15 and get hung up on the term "firstborn". What does that mean? How is "He" the firstborn?

Jehovah Witnesses believe and teach that Jesus is the “first creation” before all creation through which all other things were created.(1) Mormons believe and teach that Jesus was created in the image of God like we are and is the “firstborn child” of God (the Divine Father) and Mary (a mortal human).(2) And know that there are others who butcher this as well. This is what led me to post this today. May we come to properly understand the enormity and beauty of the truth in this verse. 

As biblical believers, we should understand the use of the term "firstborn" in its original language and in its proper context. The Greek term for "firstborn" used here in Colossians 1:15 is prototokos. I'll start with what it does not mean.

"does not mean"
First, in context, it does not mean "first-birth". We know that the "first-birth"—the first  human to be born from the womb of a woman—would be Cain (Gen. 4:1). There is no biblical evidence of Jesus being "born" at any time before Cain.

Second, we know it does not mean "first-created". Theologically we know this isn't the case because Scripture is clear that Jesus, God the Son, is eternal, He has no beginning, and He is the "is, was, and is to come" (Jn. 1:1-2; 17:5, Rev. 1:8, 17; 22:13). Furthermore, since Scripture teaches that Jesus is in essence/nature God, then He could not have been created, for God is self-existing (Ex. 3:14, Isa. 40:28; 43:10-13). Philippians 2:6 explains that Jesus has always existed in the nature of God and equal with God. Even in the beginning phrase of Colossians 1:15 it says He is the image of the invisible God. The word "image" here in Greek is eikṓn, and in context it is conveying the exact reflection of the source, as in a mirror reflecting the exact image of the real person standing in front of it.(3). Thus, because the source here is the invisible God, Jesus is then the invisible God reflecting His own image visibly (cf. 2Cor. 4:4). And 1Timothy 1:17 additionally explains that God is eternal and immortal. Concluding that Jesus cannot be the "firstborn" (prototokos) as in the "first-created".

"does... mean"
So now knowing what it does not mean, what does this prototokos in context mean? If we look at this term in context with the four verse passage (vv. 15-18) and in context with the whole scope of Scripture we'll see that this term is conveying "firstborn" as first in placement or position.(4). Edwin Lutzer says, "It's not a matter of time but status that determines who the firstborn is."(5). Additionally, Israel is called God's firstborn (Exod. 4:22) and David is referred to as the firstborn (Ps. 89:27). Both are in context with "first in placement or position". This four verse passage is about Jesus being over all, creating all, holding it all together, and all things being for Him. Paul culminates his point in the last part of verse 18, Jesus Christ is the "firstborn" that He may in all things have the preeminence, the first place. Thus, we can very well read Colossians 1:15 as... 

"He is the image of the invisible God, the preeminent (prototokos) of all creation".

As biblical believers, when confronted with this verse by Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or some other dissenter, we should take them on the journey of proper interpretation. We should ask them questions and show them what this verse is not saying first, then go on to show them what it is saying in context. If they still refuse it, leave them to the Holy Spirit and keep them in prayer. Hopefully a seed was planted and they begin to question their faulty beliefs. It is not us who will open their eyes, but the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit that will.

___
References:
1. www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs-witnesses/beliefs
2. www.mormon.org/beliefs/godhead || www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/col/1.15?lang=eng || www.lds.org/manual/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual/lesson-7-jesus-christ-gods-only-begotten-son-in-the-flesh?lang=eng
3. http://concordances.org/greek/1504.htm
4. http://concordances.org/greek/4416.htm
5. Lutzer, Edwin. (1998). The Doctrines that Divide. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. p. 32.

6/19/2013

Interpretive Journey of Deuteronomy 22:8

“When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.” (Deut. 22:8)

We'll start our journey of this verse with some observations. Observations help the reader to notice certain things which may be overlooked if not closely scanned. After the observations we'll go step-by-step through interpreting this verse and see how significant OT verses like these are for us today.

Observations
There are repeated words like “you”, “house”, “your”, and “roof”; which is exactly what this verse is about, the roof of their houses. There some active verbs in “build”, “make”, “bring”, and “falls”. There is a command in “When…make”. The NKJV, ESV, NASB, and KJV all say “you shall make”. Also, the phrase “so that you may not…if” is a resultant statement.

Step 1: What did the text mean (or what was the author's intent) to the biblical audience?
This instruction may have been received with mixed understanding. By this time the people of Israel were within months of entering the Promised Land, meaning they were still living in tents not in houses they would eventually build. This is why the very first word of this verse is so important (“When”) because it denotes a time to come. The mixed understanding may have come because only Moses, Joshua, and Caleb would remember Egypt and the style of houses there (and perhaps certain enemies who had clay brick houses also) to know why God would give this instruction, unlike the present generation getting ready to enter the Promised Land who probably had no idea what this meant. This verse falls in the midst of other laws regulating religious and social life. It’s not connected to anything else. It is its own singular instruction. This verse also contains correlation to the sixth commandment in that if you do not take the necessary steps to ensure, in this case, the safety of someone in your house so that if they die because of your negligence then you are at guilt for their bloodshed. Later in Israel’s history the roof of their houses would be flat and used as a place for grain (Josh. 2:6), to relax (2Sam. 11:2), for privacy (Acts 10:9), and guests (1Sam. 10:25-26). Thus, God was giving His people a preventive instruction in this verse, “When you build a new house, make a parapet (ma’aqeh, e.g. a guardrail or wall like around a balcony) around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof (e.g. be punishable for breaking the sixth commandment).”

Step 2: What are the difference between the biblical audience and us?
We are no longer under the Old Covenant. We are not about to enter into the land promised to our ancestors by God. We do not live in tents in the Middle Eastern desert or Middle Eastern style houses. We have not been wandering in the desert for forty years. We are not civilians of a theocracy. We have never seen or been led by God personally in the form of a cloud or fire. Moses nor Joshua is not our mediator, Jesus is. And so on the list can go.

Step 3: What is the theological principle in this text?
Follow God’s preventive wisdom for yours and others safety.

Step 4: Does the New Testament teaching modify or qualify this principle, and if so, how?
The New Testament is full of God’s preventive wisdom for ours and others safety. There are numerous verses and passages telling us to flee something sinful and ultimately destructive (e.g. 1Cor 6:18; 10:14, 1Tim. 6:11, 2Tim. 2:22, Jam. 4:7), seek God and the things of God (e.g. Matt. 6:33; 7:7-8, Rom. 14:19, 1Cor. 7:27; 10:24), follow Jesus (e.g. Matt. 10:38, 1Cor. 11:1, Eph. 5:1, 1Jn. 2:6), don’t worry or be anxious (e.g. Matt. 6:25-31, 34, Phil. 4:6-7), be persistent and serious in prayer (e.g. Lk. 18:1, 1Pet. 4:7), owe no one anything but to love them (e.g. Rom. 13:8-9), there will be troubles and such so stand firm (e.g. Jn. 16:33, 1Cor. 15:58; 16:13, Gal. 5:1, Eph. 6:10-13), etc, etc.

Step 5: How should individual Christians today apply this modified theological principle in their lives?
Christians today should apply God’s preventive wisdom just as we would follow the prescription for our medicine giving to us from the doctor, step by step, day by day, just as instructed for as long as instructed.

__________
References:
The One Volume Bible Commentary, 1936
NASB Life Application Study Bible, Updated Edition, 2000
NIV Archaeological Study Bible, 2005
The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance, 1999
Biblos.com

3/4/2010

A Sad Reality in the Body: Subjective -vs- Absolute

I was scrolling through Facebook recently and stumbled across a fellow believer who posted a strong (and some would say biased) statement. Yet, the statement isn't what caught my attention, it was the 20+ comments underneath. I'm one of those people who when I see a lot of comments for a status or a blog or an article, my investigator senses (which my wife calls my "nosy senses") go off. So I'll scroll down, quickly glancing at the comments until I get the gist of what's being commented and then I move on. Well in this particular case, some of the comments from the believers made me cringe. Some of the believers who commented spoke of truth as being "subjective"--that is, "we all can have our own interpretations and still call it truth". I exercised self-control and wisdom and chose not to meddle (thankful for the Holy Spirit, because I sho' did want to meddle). But I could not stay silent, so here I am.

What are we upholding?
We have to uphold the absolute Truth of God, but not simply for those outside, but for those inside all the more. The sad reality is too many members in the Body uphold subjective truth and "my truths" but are devoid belief in absolute Truth. That is a dangerous, destructive, and unbiblical position. It's too much of the "reader's intent" and not the "author's intent" on what Truth is in Scripture. The human authors were the ones sovereignly selected and inspired to write God's truth, not us. Our aim should always be to find out their intent not ours or anyone else's.
         Most believers are devoid of proper biblical interpretative methods. That's part of why truth is subjective to many believers. It's hard to believe in absolute Truth when you're never taught there is absolute Truth nor shown how to understand it in Scripture. Of course then Scripture becomes "what you make of it" (i.e. "reader intent") rather than "what the Divine Author intended and used His human instruments to convey" (i.e. "authorial intent").

What are we striving towards?
Yes, we should strive to agree on every absolute Truth in Scripture. But we won't agree on everything because our sinful nature presents that incessant hurdle of pride.
         So what do we do?

• We seek to find agreement in the essential truths.
• We seek to be objective (i.e. open and unprejudiced) where Scripture is open-ended.
• We seek to become like Jesus in our upholding His truth, in our exercising grace toward ours and others imperfections, and in our love for one another.
• And we seek to discuss, seasoned with grace and love, those hard things like understanding Scripture properly where we disagree---even if we still end disagreeing.

Conclusion
We are to graciously fight for God's absolute truth because we were saved by His absolute truth (Jam. 1:16-18). But let's do so not with a spirit of dissension, but a spirit of grace.

_____
Below are 3 other blogs I wrote and a sermon. The first one discusses truth and what it is. The second one discusses the need for proper biblical methods of interpretation. The last one is a debate I had with someone who held to "subjective truth", and a glimpse of how dangerous, destructive, and unbiblical it is. And the sermon is on upholding God's truth in our thinking.
1. Let's Talk About Truth
2. The Need for Hermeneutics (Part 1 of 2)
3. Blog Debate
4. Uphold The Truth pt. 1

10/16/12

Interpretive Journey of Numbers 15:17-21

“The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land to which I am taking you and you eat the food of the land, present a portion as an offering to the LORD. Present a cake from the first of your ground meal and present it as an offering from the threshing floor. Throughout the generations to come you are to give this offering to the LORD from the first of your ground meal.’” (Num. 15:17-21)

We'll start our journey of this verse with some observations. Observations help the reader to notice certain things which may be overlooked if not closely scanned. After the observations we'll go step-by-step through interpreting this verse and see how significant OT verses like these are for us today.

Observations
There are repeated words in “the LORD”, “you”, “land”, “present”, “offering”, “the first of your ground meal”, and “from”. There are active verbs in “enter”, “taking”, “eat”, “present”, and “give”. A generational statute is given, “Throughout the generations to come you are to give this offering”. There is an action of God, He takes them to the land (v. 18). There are actions of the people, they do the entering, eating, presenting, and giving. Also, there is a command, “present…an offering”. In the NKJV, ESV, NASB, and KJV they say “you shall” right before, indicating a command.

Step 1: What did the text mean (or what was the author's intent) to the biblical audience?
At this point in Israel’s journey this specific instruction of God probably didn’t make much sense to the people. Ten of the twelve spies sent to spy on the Promise Land had come back with a bad report, and the people of Israel listened and refused to enter the land which God swore they would have (ch. 14). So, God assures them that due to their refusal they will not enter the land, none of them twenty and older (14:29); that is except for Joshua and Caleb (14:30). But the people mourned more for the word from God than the word of the spies. They decided they are ready to enter the land like they should of the first time. Despite the warning of Moses and the word of the LORD, they presume to enter (14:39-44) and were defeated (v. 45). The following instructions in chapter 15 come on the heels of there double disobedience to God and defeat of the Amalekites and Canaanites, all regarding the Promise Land. They were just told they were not going to enter the Promise Land, only Joshua, Caleb, and their children—who they complained would be victims—would enter, they on the other hand would die in the wilderness. Thus these instructions were for the Israelites that would be entering the land (v. 17-18). These instructions were also similar to that spoken of already in Exodus (34:26) and Leviticus (2; 23:9-14, 17). And, the term “food of the land” indicates that the entering generation would no longer be eating manna and quails, but rather food from the land (cf. Josh. 5:10-12). As a result of this all, the overall objective of this text is obedience and honoring God with an offering of the first of the “ground meal” of the land He was bringing them into.

Step 2: What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?
We are no longer under the Old Covenant. We haven’t recently been defeated by the people occupying the land we were promised by God to possess. We are not about to enter into the land promised to our ancestors by God only to be told we will now die in the wilderness because of our disobedience, complaining, and complete lack of trust in God. We do not live in tents in the Middle Eastern desert. We have not been recently freed from slavery and bondage to Egypt with great signs and wonders. We are not civilians of a theocracy. We have never seen or been led by God personally in the form of a cloud or fire. Moses is not our mediator, Jesus is. And so on the list can go.

Step 3: What is the theological principle in this text?
Obedience to God and honoring Him with an offering of the first of what He has blessed us with.

Step 4: Does the New Testament teaching modify or qualify this principle, and if so, how?
Obedience is the greatest manifestation of the people of God. As we obey God to love, forgive, be faithful, and so on God is glorified (cf. Matt. 5:16). Obedience to God is presented in the New Testament just as much as it was in the Old Testament (e.g. Lk. 11:28, Jn. 10:27; 14:15, Rom. 8:5, 14, 1Pet. 1:13-16, 1Jn. 2:3-6, Rev. 22:14). As for honoring God with an offering of the first of what He has blessed us with, the New Testament says very little on this. Actually in the book of Hebrews the author says that God had no pleasure in “sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin (which are offered according to the law)”, and in Christ “He takes away the first that He may establish the second” (Heb. 10:8-9). Through the offering of Jesus Christ “we have been sanctified…once for all” (Heb. 10:10). Now if this entails every offering ever instituted under the Law, then we are no longer obligated to present an offering to God for anything other than because we want to. However, there are other verses that say our offerings are to be “the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name” (Heb. 13:15), doing good and sharing (Heb. 13:16), walking in the love of Christ (Eph. 5:2), and presenting our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1). So we can continue to obey God as those in the Old Testament and honor God with an offering of the first of ourselves—that is the life He has blessed us with—though not as a fulfillment of the law but purely because we want to honor God and He deserves it.

Step 5: How should individual Christians today apply this modified theological principle in their lives?
By learning and following the wisdom and instructions in the Word of God. For every day presents an opportunity for believers to obey or disobey the God’s instructions, to follow Him or follow what we think is fitting, and to honor or not honor Him with the first (best) of our lives that He has blessed us with.


__________
References:
The One Volume Bible Commentary, 1936
NASB Life Application Study Bible, Updated Edition, 2000
NIV Archaeological Study Bible, 2005
The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance, 1999
Biblos.com

3/4/2010

Interpretive Journey of Leviticus 26:1

“Do not make idols or set-up an image of a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.” (Lev. 26:1)

We'll start our journey of this verse with some observations. Observations help the reader to notice certain things which may be overlooked if not closely scanned. After the observations we'll go step-by-step through interpreting this verse and see how significant OT verses like these are for us today.

Observations
There are some repeated words, “do not” and “stone”. There is a comparison between “set-up an image of a sacred stone for yourselves” and “place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it”. Both make emphasis on the insertion of a created thing and the personal implication of it. There are four active verbs used: “make”, “set-up”, “place”, and “bow”. God is giving the command of “do not make…or set-up” and “do not place…to bow down before it”, and then reveals why in the last sentence, “I am the LORD your God.” In the NKJV, NASB, ESV, and KJV they all place the conjunction “for” before the last sentence, indicating the previous command is a result of this final statement in this verse.

Step 1: What did the text mean (i.e. what was the author's intent) to the biblical audience?
During this time in the newly freed Israel, the Israelites—still encamped in the wilderness (4:12; 14:3; 16:10)—were receiving the more detailed portions of the Law. In the Book of Leviticus we see the Israelites receiving laws on sacrifice (chs. 1-7), the consecration of the priesthood (chs. 8-10), laws of clean and unclean (chs. 11-15), instructions for the “Day of Atonement” (ch. 16), and additional laws of holiness (chs. 17-27). This specific command of God is not a new one, but rather an already repeated one (cf. Ex. 20:1-6; 23:24; 34:14). Furthermore, this verse (26:1) comes directly after God giving the children of Israel instructions in regards to the land they will inherit (ch. 25); which sheds light on why in the very next verse (26:2) God mentions again observing His “Sabbaths” and reverencing His “sanctuary”—something He spoke on in previous chapters. Thus when God speaks this verse the Israelites took it just as He meant it the other times, “Do not worship (bow down to--hawa) anything else other than Me, no idols, images, sacred pillars, or carved stones; for I am the LORD your God.”

Step 2: What are the difference between the biblical audience and us?
There are obvious and numerous differences set in place here. Present believers are no longer under the Old Covenant as were our Hebrew brethren then. We do not live in tents in the Middle Eastern desert. We are not about to enter into a land promised to our ancestors by God. We have not been recently freed from slavery and bondage to Egypt with great signs and wonders. We are not civilians of a theocracy. We have never seen or been led by God personally in the form of a cloud or fire. Moses is not our mediator, Jesus is. And so on the list can go.

Step 3: What is the theological principle in this text?
God alone deserves and is worthy of our worship, nothing nor anyone else should be in His seat of honor and devotion in our lives.

Step 4: Does the New Testament teaching modify or qualify this principle, and if so, how?
Those under the New Covenant are far from exempt from this strongly conveyed principle in the Old Testament. Jesus says no one can serve two masters for he will hate the one and love the other—you cannot serve God and riches—(Matt. 6:24), the greatest commandment is to love the LORD our God with our whole being—mind, heart, soul— (Matt. 22:36-40), and He told Satan when tempted to worship him that worship is only for God and none other (Matt. 4:9-10). According to Jesus, God doesn’t get second place, only first! Furthermore, the Apostle Paul says that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor. 6:9-10), do not become idolaters as were our Old Testament brethren (1Cor. 10:7), and as frank as one can say it, “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” (1Cor. 10:14). Also, the Apostle John says as his final word in his first letter, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen” (1Jn. 5:21). Idolatry—worship of something other than God—is just as strongly renounced in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament.

Step 5: How should individual Christians today apply this modified theological principle in their lives?
Christians today can apply this principle by following the scriptures regarding idolatry and worship. Just looking at the ones mentioned above, if I pursue Jesus as my first priority this will help me stay free from giving His worship and devotion to something or someone else. Apostle John tells us to keep (phulassó) ourselves from idols, literally meaning guard ourselves from idols. This is great preventive medicine for our idolatrous tendencies. Stay on guard for areas, people, and things in our lives that we can put in the place of worship that’s supposed to be strictly designated for God. Also, Apostle Paul says to flee (pheugó) from idolatry, literally meaning run away from idolatry as in running away like escaping from someone or something that has us. This too is good for preventive measures and/or for when the Holy Spirit reveals to us an area of possible or active idolatry in our lives.

__________
References:
The One Volume Bible Commentary, 1936
NASB Life Application Study Bible, Updated Edition, 2000
NIV Archaeological Study Bible, 2005
The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance, 1999
Biblos.com

3/4/2010

A Brief Commentary on the Doctrines of Eternal Security & Assurance

For me, the issue of eternal security (as well as most of the other seemingly contradictory doctrines) rest upon the basis of does Scripture contradict itself. If we believe that Scripture teaches that it cannot contradict itself because it is true in its entirety (Ps. 19:7-9; 33:4; 119:160, Jn. 17:17, 2Tim. 3:16-17), then Scripture isn't the issue, rather our interpretation of it is. Does Scripture teach eternal security? I would say yes. Does Scripture teach conditional security? I would also have to say yes. But this then poses a contradiction, which means how I and others have interpreted these passages are off.

I personally hold to the position of eternal security. The reason why I hold to eternal security rest primarily in several interwoven passages: John 6:39; 10:14-16, 27-29; 14:16-17, Romans 8:29-30, 1Corinthians 1:8, 2Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 1:5-6, 13-14, 1John 3:7-9; 4:13. Time does not permit for me to explore in this setting contextually all the passages I have cited. Nevertheless, from these passages we find that...

(1)Jesus will not lose (in context "let perish")(*1) anyone that comes to Him,
(2)Jesus will bring all His sheep into His one fold,
(3)absolutely nothing and no one can take away Jesus' sheep from Jesus,
(4)believers receive the Holy Spirit, and He is in them forever,
(5)believers are predestined by God to be conformed to the likeness of Jesus,
(6)believers are foreknown, called, justified, and glorified all by God,
(7)God will confirm (in context, "establish")(*2) believers blameless (literally "without fault in His sight")(*3) to the end,
(8)God has given and sealed (literally "stamped for ownership")(*4) believers with the Holy Spirit as a pledge (in context, "a deposit given as a guarantee")(*5),
(9)God has predestined believers to adoption as His children to the praise of the glory of His grace,
(10)believers have been sealed(*4) in Jesus with the Holy Spirit as a pledge(*5) of our inheritance to the praise of God's glory,
(11)a person cannot be truly born-again and still live in (practicing) sin because God's seed is in them, and
(12)believers have the assurance of knowing they're in God because God has given them the Holy Spirit.

I cannot read these handful of passages and believe somehow I, even with my free-will, can be truly born-again and still lose my salvation. I'm not denying free-will. I know full well I have a responsibility in working out my salvation and discipleship, in walking in the Spirit, in standing firm in the faith, and so forth. But just seeing from these handful of passages how active God is in keeping what He Himself has redeemed, it would be arrogant of me to say I can be truly born-again (regenerated) at one point and then, despite God's seed, seal, pledge, predestination, foreknowledge, call, justification, authority and power not to lose what He has, obligation to gather all of His sheep, confirming believers to the end, and the Holy Spirit being in us forever, I can become unborn-again (unregenerate). I acknowledge that their are passages that do speak to this very thing. However, while I may not fully understand what they mean just yet, I stand on the basis that Scripture cannot contradict itself, thus those passages somehow correlate with the truth mentioned in the above passages rather than the other way around. Those passages above do not fit whatsoever with conditional security. For example, to be able to somehow reverse or resist predestination contradicts predestination. I believe this is where our free-will and God's sovereignty work hand-in-hand. We do our part of working out and walking out our discipleship. God does His part of keeping us and sanctifying us along the way.

True born-again believers will bear fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives and will look more like Jesus over time (Jn. 14:16-26; 15:1-17, 26-27, Rom. 6:12-22; 8:9-14, Gal. 5:16-26, Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:12-16, 1Thess. 4:1-8, Tit. 2:11-14, 1Pet. 1:13-19, 2Pet. 3:18, 1Jn. 2:3-6); otherwise, they cannot say they have been truly born of the Holy Spirit if there is no evidence of the Holy Spirit in one's life. There is no one basic standard every Christian must reach. Each Christian who truly has the Holy Spirit will bear His fruit, but we all grow and mature differently--that is, at different times and in different areas. But there will be growth, for growth and maturity is a fruit of sanctification. Can true born-again believers fall back into sin? Sure. We see clear examples in Scripture. However, repentance is ever-present for a true believer because the Holy Spirit is ever-active in them. True believers may fall, but it will only be temporarily, not completely (Ps. 37:23-24, Prov. 24:16, Rom. 6:17-18, Phil. 1:6, Jude 1).

The doctrine of assurance is closely connected to the doctrine of eternal security. Our assurance of our salvation is the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is also one of our assurances of our eternal security, for He is our seal and pledge from God. Furthermore, in my estimation, the doctrines of eternal security and assurance do not create complacent, lethargic Christians, rather sin and selfishness does. Yet, on the contrary, the work of the Holy Spirit in believers' lives is to produce His fruit, Christ-likeness, and growth/maturity.

To be honest, I feel bad for the believers who are not so solid in their faith, because these types of arguments can very well have them second guessing what they believe. We have to do a better job of disagreeing in love and working toward some type of  common ground amid controversial doctrines.

__________
References:
*1: http://concordances.org/greek/622.htm
*2: http://concordances.org/greek/950.htm
*3: http://concordances.org/greek/410.htm
*4: http://concordances.org/greek/4972.htm
*5: http://concordances.org/greek/728.htm

6/28/12

1Tim. 2:11-12: Women Teaching & Leading in the Church

Lately, I have been in several conversations regarding women not being able to teach or lead men/mixed groups within the church. This is controversial, so I've responded as balanced and objective as I could. Yet, these conversations have made me want to revisit this topic scripturally again. I know my position, but then it's always good to know why you hold to that particular position. I remember me writing about this topic before in my systematic theology class. However, when I went and read over that paper I realized I only skimmed this passage, and not from this angle. This blog is me exploring this topic and passage concisely and objectively to see what Paul's intent was and was not.

Please allow me to share this disclaimer, THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE writing. I will not answer every question regarding this topic. I will not answer every objection regarding this topic. I will not be attacking any one side or the other. I am simply exploring this passage in a concise, objective approach; following the evidence like the First 48 TV show. (I would have said forensic investigators, but that would equal me going exhaustive).

Let's begin shall we.

Context, Context, Context
A key rule in hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) is "context determines meaning". It goes from immediate context, to surrounding context, to context of the whole scope of Scripture. While the passage of focus is 1Timothy 2:11-12, for context we'll start at verse 9 and go to verse 15, and then broaden out to the whole letter itself, and then to the New Testament.

In short, this passage (vv. 9-15) is mainly addressing women's internal and external godliness expressed in the local church. For it starts with outward modesty (v. 9) from inward godliness (10), to godly submission unto God's headship structure (vv. 11-15). The questions that follow are: What made Paul write this? Were there any issues in the church Timothy was pastoring? Is Paul addressing women teaching and leading in all areas in the church? Does that mean a woman can't teach any man in anything in regards to the local church, or be in any authority over any man in regards to the local church? Is this "teach" speaking of teaching in general or teaching doctrine or a different specificity of teaching? Was this meant to be a timeless theological principle or an instruction for the church culture of that time? And trust me more questions could be presented.

Some Historical Context
Some of the things the church in Ephesus were battling, in regards to women, was fertility cults, idol worship of the goddess Diana (Artemis) (Acts 19:24-41), promiscuity, attention-seeking, women possibly exploiting their new liberties in Christ, among other things. This helps bring into light the reason for the call to outward modesty from inward godliness (vv. 9-10). Paul is challenging the women not to dress nor act like the unsaved women of Ephesus. It further helps by providing some backdrop for why Paul is telling them to learn in a non-disruptive manner and why they are not to teach or have authority (vv. 11-12). In other words, don't take your freedom to learn and speak too far. Scholars say this instruction to learn was a big deal then, because women up until that time were not allowed to even learn from a man (rabbi/teacher) except for their husband. Jesus broke that mold, and Paul is following suit. But some of the women were probably taking it too far.

Exploring the Text...Contextually
In verse 11, "learn in silence" does not mean in context "learn but never speak", but rather it means "learn in a quiet, non-disruptive manner" (cf. same Greek word for "silence" with 2Thess. 3:11-12, but different from the "silent" in 1Cor. 14:34). Here Paul is saying a woman learning is okay to do, just learn in a non-disruptive manner under the leadership of the church (i.e. "with all submission"). Verse 12 is saying, in context with the surrounding texts in this letter (vv. 8, 13-14; 1:3-7, 18-20; 3:1-7; 5:17), that a woman is not to teach from the place of elder/pastor nor to try to usurp the eldership/overseer/pastorate authority given to the man (or usurp even the headship authority given to the husband, vv. 13-15 cf. 1Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:23), but rather be non-disruptive (i.e. "but be in silence").

Exploring the N.T...Contextually
So how do we know Paul (or shall we say the Holy Spirit inspiring Paul) is not saying or implying that women cannot teach "a man" or be in leadership over "a man"? Here's how:

• We see in Acts 18:24-26 that Priscilla and Aquila both taught (Gr., expositorally) Apollos "the way of God more accurately". Priscilla was a leader alongside her husband in their house church (Rom. 16:3). Thus, there was teaching and leading by a woman, and not only over other women or simply kids, and under the headship authority of her husband and leadership authority of Apostle Paul.
• Phoebe was a deaconess ("servant of the church" implies a position compared to a servant in the church which implies just someone helping out) (Rom. 16:1). What's more, Paul even instructed others believers (with no distinction between men or women) to receive her and to "help her in whatever manner she may have need of you" (Rom. 16:2). This implies some authority (probably temporarily and only on occasions, but nonetheless it's still authority) over those who are to assist her as "she may have need".
• Who knows if some of the other sisters Paul mentions in Romans 16 were leaders as well. Paul speaks of these women using the same terms as his male leader counterparts. "The verb "worked very hard" (16:6, 12) is used of ministerial service" (*3, p. 1283).
• Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him the Scriptures (2Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15).
• Apostle John writes a letter to a fellow sister who is leading and teaching both male and female believers in her home (2John). In the Greek the term children used in 2John is gender neutral and the Greek term is unclear if it means her literal children (whether grown or young is unconfirmed too) or children in the faith. John goes as far as instructing this sister to watch themselves from falsehood (2Jn. 8-9), and what to do when traveling false teachers come to her house (2Jn. 10-11). That would be her exercising leadership in discerning falsehood, and exercising authority over a man by restricting him entrance to teach if she discerned he was a false teacher. All the while she's under the authority of the Apostle and Elder John.
• We know women are disciples and called to make more disciples, with no distinction between discipling men or women nor any distinction with it being during a worship service or not (Matt. 28:18-20).
• Every believer is a priest (1Pet. 2:4-10).
• Scripture does not indicate that the Holy Spirit is limited to only giving men the spiritual gift of teaching or leadership, nor does Scripture indicate that these gifts are gender specific while they're being administered (1Cor. 12:4-7, 11, 27-28).

Thus, Paul would not be saying or implying something contrary to women teaching and leading in these modes. Paul is instructing Timothy that women are not to teach or have authority from the office of elder/pastor, not restricting them from teaching or leading mixed groups of men and women in the church in general or even during worship services (for there are no Scriptures that definitively state elders/pastors are the only ones who must teach during worship services).

But what about Paul's admonishment in 1Cor. 14:34-35? How does that fit into the not teaching or no authority over a man? In context, Paul was addressing disruptive and unruly married women who were using their gifts in a disorderly manner (1Cor. 14:26-33, 40). Therefore, Paul's admonishment was for order among some disorderly married women (v. 35), not a mandate for all women to not speak. Disorderly women are to stay silent (Gr., hold their peace/tongue). Disorderly women are not permitted to speak (Gr., be talkative, babbling) in the assembly but to submit to leadership, and if they want to speak they are to ask their own husbands at home. Why? Because it is a disgrace to them to be disruptively talkative in the church (i.e. during the service); it's shameful for them to be seen as disruptive and disorderly. Paul's admonishment here comes with concern for them as well as the church. This passage, in context, can fit into the overall point in 1Timothy 2:9-15, that is, the internal and external godliness expressed in the local church; however, it does not fit into the underlying point of teaching and leading in 1Tim. 2:11-12.

Conclusion
To quote The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,

“Many complementarians continue to disagree concerning the extent of the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12. While there is agreement that pastors/elders should be qualified males, there is disagreement concerning what the Bible says about women teaching mixed adult audiences. Some complementarian churches do not allow women to teach mixed adult audiences, while other complementari­an churches do allow it. On this particu­lar point, there is agreement in principle (observing headship), but disagreement in practice (teaching mixed audiences).” (http://bit.ly/HZBt9b) (emphasis added)

I believe that's where this concern and difference boils down to, we agree in principle (observing headship) but disagree on what it looks like in practice (teaching mixed audiences), and this is not worth the time spent arguing or dividing over. No one's salvation or discipleship is at stake over this.

What about churches/denominations who use these verses to not allow women to teach from the pulpit or to not teach mixed groups of men and women in the church or to not be in leadership over mixed groups of men and women? That is that church's preference. There are no scriptures that clearly state or instruct women to teach men/mixed groups or lead over men/mixed groups. Thus, it's not a matter of Scripture, but a matter of preference. Those who use these passages for this reason don't need to. Each church has its own right to implement their own governing principles and rules. And as a member of that church you should be sure to know what your church's governing principles, rules, and beliefs are, and if you agree then uphold them, so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you do not agree, but you have no desire to depart for that reason, then respectfully uphold the governing principles, rules, and beliefs---so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you have questions, pray and ask, and then research their answers. If you have concerns, pray and ask, and then research their answers. Repeat this process as much as needed. But this issue is not worth being divided over or causing an uproar in the Church. Again, it's not a matter of Scripture, but a matter of preference.

What about the churches/denominations who have women as pastors/elders? This is different than the above question. This is not a matter of preference, but a matter of interpretation. Some argue that the passages in 1Timothy 3 & 5 and Titus 1 are overruled by Galatians 3:28 and similar verses. Others may use different verses to minimize or eradicate the male headship authority in the church (and maybe even in the home). While others say Paul's use of masculine nouns when describing elders/pastors/overseers was more cultural than theological. Personally, for me, this is a harder thing to overlook than those who prefer to not allow women to teach or lead as stated in the first question. Those who hold to the view of women as pastors/elders open up the whole counsel of God to be interpreted and modified to fit one's personal view and not the author's original intent. However, like I said above, each church has its own right to implement their own governing principles, rules, and beliefs. As a member of that church you should be sure to know what your church's governing principles, rules, and beliefs are, and if you agree then uphold them, so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you do not agree, but you have no desire to depart for that reason, then respectfully uphold the governing principles, rules, and beliefs---so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you have questions, pray and ask, and then research their answers. If you have concerns, pray and ask, and then research their answers. Repeat this process as much as needed. This issue is not an essential of salvation. Yet for some it is a non-negotiable. Thus, you have to decide what this issue is worth to you and means for you. Personally, I choose to uphold the Scripture as it states in it's original intent and context in this area.

Last Words

I hope this blog has helped you the reader in someway. If not, then forgive me for wasting your time. It started out as a simple refresher and turned into this. I told my wife I wasn't writing a blog, and here I am, blogging away. We as believers should be able to discuss and explore controversial topics and passages without devouring each other. And we can graciously challenge one another to hold tight to what Scripture says and not what we prefer or what we think it means. But let our resolve be to continue to fellowship in what we do agree on (the essentials), and not spend so much time focused on what we disagree on (the non-essentials and non-negotiables). A lost and dying world is watching us, and especially how we handle controversial issues.

Jesus said, "I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me." (John 17:20-21, NLT)

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1Tim. 1:17, NASB)

______
References:
1. BibleLexicon.org
2. Discovery Series: "What does the Bible say about Women in Ministry" (RBC Ministries)
*3. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Book House)
4. Find It Quick: Handy Bible Encyclopedia (Ron Rhodes)
5. InterlinearBible.org
6. MacArthur's Whole Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson)
7. NASB Life Application Study Bible (Zondervan)
8. The New Testament and Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Moody)
9. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Moody Press)

Originally posted 5/8/12
Updated 11/20/13

A Short Interpretive Journey of 1Timothy 6:10

"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1Tim. 6:10, NASB)

1. Summarize the original situation and the meaning of the text for the biblical audience.

Paul is writing a letter to Timothy who is at Ephesus (1:1-3). This is a letter of instructions and exhortations to Timothy for the church at Ephesus (1:3ff, 15ff, 18ff; 2:1ff, 8ff, 11ff; 3:1ff, 8ff, 11ff, 14ff; 4:1ff, 6ff, 9ff, 11ff; 5:1ff, 17ff; 6:1ff, 3ff, 11ff, 17ff, 20ff). In chapter 6 verses 6-10 Paul is addressing contentment. In verse 9 Paul specifically calls out “those who desire to be rich”. He says of “those” that they “fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.” Thus when we come to verse 10 Paul is basically summing up what he called out in verse 9: “For the love of money”—those who desire to be rich—“is a root of all kinds of evil”—temptation, a snare, many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.

2. What are the difference between the biblical audience/situation and our situation?

Some obvious differences are we are not the church at Ephesus, we don’t live in the first century, and our current economic plateau isn’t the same. Another difference is that every believer who reads this verse may not be a leader/pastor as was Timothy.

3. List the theological principles communicated by the passage.

If there is a love of money inside you (a desire to be rich) it will produce (lead to) all kinds of evil. Also, in light of the surrounding context, another principle is rather than desiring to be rich desire godliness and be content with what you have.

4. How should Christians today apply the theological principles in their lives?

An example of how to apply this theological principle today would be for a Christian not to pursue a career, advancement, ministry, achievements, or whatever else strictly or largely for the monetary or status gain. Another application is instead of having a love for money (desiring to be rich or wealthy or wanting more for more’s sake) gather (pray for and seek) a desire for godliness, contentment, and the love of Christ—which we do by reading, studying, and abiding in the Word of God.

Although this is not an extensive look at this verse, this short blurb is still powerfully to the point and challenges us to not want (desire) more for more’s sake—something I call the worship of self-gratification—because it’s ultimately to our disadvantage and destruction if we do so.

Salvation: Does Baptism Save?

About a week ago, a brother from my church called me asking for some assistance. His problem was that a new convert in his small group had been targeted by another religious group. The religious group eventually planted its claws in this new convert and he was telling my brother (the small group leader) that he was confused about his salvation. The religious group told him that baptism is a requirement for his salvation, but his small group leader was telling him that is false teaching. The religious group told my brother to meet and discuss this issue with the new convert. So, I and another brother from my church (Lance Evans) started to prepare an outline to specifically defend what the Bible says about salvation and baptism and give it to our brother to use. I wanted to share this outline with everyone (which has been cleaned up and turned into a blog), so we all can see the truth about this matter.

Most Christians are familiar with what apologetics is—the rational defense of our Faith for those outside our Faith. But what do we call it when we have to soundly defend the truths of our Faith from others who claim to be sharing truth from within the same Faith? This “defense within” is called polemics. This outline is a polemical writing meant to defend the truth about salvation from the false teaching of salvation through baptism.
____________________________
1. Putting Acts 2:38 in Context

*Acts 3:19 - Once again Peter addresses a different crowd about salvation and leaves out water baptism, but mentions repentance and faith.
*Acts 8:35-37 - Phillip clearly makes it plain to the Ethiopian Eunuch that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 10:34, 42-27 - Peter clearly makes it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 16:30-33 - Paul and Silas clearly make it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.

In Acts alone we see 2 Apostles and 2 church elders who have taught that believing is what saves and baptism proceeds but is not a necessity for salvation.

2. Putting 1Peter 3:21 in Context
(The same Peter in Acts 2:38 now speaking in his own Letter/Epistle)

*What is Peter not saying? Peter is not saying water baptism saves a person, because that would contradict the point Peter makes in verses 18-20; which is Jesus died for sin to save people from God’s judgment on sin, just as the Ark saved Noah and the 8 souls from the water, the water didn’t save anyone—the water was God’s judgment on the world (Gen. 6).
*The Ark is an Old Testament prefigure of Jesus. And just as the Ark carried them through the water, our Ark—Jesus, after we believe in Him as shown by multiple people in the multiple passages in Acts—leads us to the water in baptism (Rom. 6).
*This point, belief in Jesus first for salvation and then baptism proceeds, goes along with Peter’s introduction in 1Peter 1:17-25. If he showed us in chapter one that it is the blood of Christ and the Word of God that redeems us, why would Peter teach a blatant contradiction in chapter 3 that baptism saves us?

3. The Apostles learned their theology on salvation from the Old Testament & Jesus who affirmed it (i.e. the theology of salvation) in the New Testament.

*Matt. 26:26-28 - Jesus confirming that it’s through His blood where we receive the forgiveness of sins.
*The Old Testament clearly teaches that God required blood (of animals) to provide forgiveness for the people. Hebrews chapter 9 all to 10:18 talks about the blood of Jesus being the fulfillment of that Old Testament requirement for the forgiveness of the sins of those who believe. If the blood of Jesus does this, what need/function is there for baptism? There is nothing left to do! The blood Jesus shed when He died as a sacrifice/atonement for sin has paid it all. God’s wages for sin has been paid in full!
*This clears up what Mark and Matthew penned in the last chapter of their gospels (Mk. 16:16-17, Matt. 28:18-20). These two learned their theology from Jesus and the Old Testament (Mark from Peter and the Old Testament, but Peter learned his from the Old Testament and Jesus). Thus, this understanding is essential because in both we see belief still precedes the act of baptism, and if belief is absent (not baptism, but belief) the person is not saved.

4. Putting Eph. 2:1-9 in Context

*Anything added to the grace of God freely given in the life and death of Jesus Christ, and our faith (our believing) in what God’s grace through Jesus Christ has done, is works! God’s grace and our faith is it for salvation. Baptism is a work! Furthermore, before Apostle Paul nailed this point in chapter 2, he actually introduced his letter to Ephesus by making it clear that it’s through God’s grace in Jesus’ blood and our belief in what God did through Jesus that we have forgiveness and redemption (Eph. 1:7, 13-14, cf. Col. 1:13-14).

5. Putting John 3:3-8 in Context

*The context of the term “water” in John 3:5 is ambiguous (to some extent). It could mean water as in physical birth (flesh v.6), baptism (but that would be a work added to grace and faith which contradicts scripture, so that’s out), or water as the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5-6. The point Jesus is making in John 3:3-8 is the same point he reiterates in John 6:63, the Spirit gives Life (eternal life), the Flesh profits nothing. The water is not what gives life to the person dead in sins and trespasses, but rather the Holy Spirit.

Scripture does not, will not, nor cannot contradict Scripture. Whatever verse/passage is pulled out, it MUST stay in line (agree with) the whole scope of Scripture, not just part. If not, then whatever the interpretation of that verse/passage is should not be taken as biblically sound and thus not accepted, since the whole biblical context doesn’t agree with it. We can conclude with this, water baptism does not save a person. Salvation is through the grace of God in the blood of Jesus and our believing in what He’s done—death/atonement and resurrection. Anything more than this is a false gospel!

1/2011

Questions & Answers: The Bible

Here are a few questions in regards to the Bible, but with a different spin. I've combined some coursework I did in college. Just wanted to share it. It's good info!

Do you agree that the Bible is a divine-human book? Why?
Yes, I agree that the Bible is a divine-human book. Obviously humans wrote the different “books” of the Bible. And in their respected books they claim that this holy book is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. Thus you have a divine-human book, though it’s the divine that gives it true value and importance.

What explanation can be given for the fact that God’s name does not appear in the Book of Esther?
In light of the story of Esther being during a time where the people were in another land, it is understandable why there was a “fear of using God’s name in a document written in a foreign country—the name might be profaned or the story changed by the simple substitution of a pagan god’s name” (Geisler). Another reason is the author of Esther is not obviously clear, so it is possible that “the book was compiled from the Persian royal records (9:20; 10:2)” (Geisler) and they would not have transcribed the name of the Jewish God in their records. However, even though the “name” of God may not appear the presence of God is apparent.

Distinguish between the meaning of inspiration and canonization.
Inspiration is saying the nature of the Scriptures are the divinely authoritative truth of the one and only God (Geisler, pp 13-15). Canonization is saying which of the scriptural writings are actually inspired (Geisler, pp 16-17).

Why ought one conclude that there are thirty-nine (no more and no less) books in the Old Testament canon?
Because Jesus Himself affirmed that the thirty-nine books in the Old Testament was the Law and the Prophets (Geisler, pp 16). Also, the Jewish Talmud attest to the same Old Testament books as Jesus (Geisler, pp 16).

How do the numerical discrepancies show that our copies of Scripture were very faithfully copied?
The Jewish scribes who copied the errors down “through the centuries were undoubtedly aware it was wrong”, yet “out of reverence for the text before them and in faithfulness to their task to copy accurately what was in the manuscript they did not tamper with the text.” (Geisler, pp 139)

What is textual criticism?
Textual criticism is a discipline that focuses on bringing about “the most accurate text possible based upon available manuscript evidence.”(Tools of Inductive Bible Study).

How is it possible to have a high view of the authority of Scripture and a positive view of textual criticism at the same time?
God’s sovereignty! I trust my God, who brought His Word to us through the first human authors, to keep His Word faithful for us through the succeeding scribes and translators.

What is translation?
The reproducing “of a text that is in one language (the source language), as fully as possible, in another (the receptor language).” (Strauss, Distorting Scripture? 1998, p. 77)

Why is translation not a simple exercise?
Because translating one language into another language is not as easy as copying one language word-for-word into another language, especially from copies and without the original authors present for assistance.

Describe the two main approaches to translation. Which approach do you feel most comfortable with? Why?
The “more formal” approach (word-for-word) and the “more functional” approach (thought-for-thought). The “more formal” approach tries to stay as close as possible to the original in structure and words. The “more functional” tries to stay as close as possible in expressing the meaning of the original text though in today’s language. I feel most comfortable with both. I think both are needed in trying to get a more holistic understanding and picture.

Now what other belief/religion can put their "holy book" through this type of scrutiny? None of them. Christianity, not its false offshoots (i.e. Jehovah Witness, Christian Science, Mormons, Black Israelites, etc), is the most solid and vetted belief. This gives Jesus Christ and His claims more and more credence. Thus, the remarks that the Christian Faith is foolish, is foolish.

--------------

Geisler, N. (1977). A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Baker Academic, Grands Rapids:MI.

2009

The Need for Hermeneutics (Part 1 of 2)

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Tim. 3:16-17, NKJV)

How do you know what you believe is “the” truth? Is it by faith? Don’t other beliefs say faith is there answer too? How do you know which “Faith” is right? There has to be something that distinguishes one from another, truth from false, right?
     How do you know that what you believe in your belief is true? Is it by faith again? Wouldn’t that mean that anyone can say their opinion of their belief is true? How do you know what is truth in your belief, and can you be sure it is? There has to be something that distinguishes one from another, truth from opinion, right?
     In Christianity everything cannot simply be answered with “faith”. As I just showed, through those series of questions, faith cannot make those distinguishments by itself. There has to be some reasoning, evidence, and methods of distinguishing the “true Faith” from the “false faiths”, and the actual truth within a Faith from the falsehoods, opinions, misinterpretations, or misunderstandings within the same Faith. Christianity is the only belief to have reasoning, evidence, and methods accompanying our faith to show itself as true (i.e. apologetics). However, as for the internal distinguishments (i.e. polemics), it is most divisive. Yet, whatever we do agree on is only because of our understanding of the fundamental who, what, when, where, why, and how’s of our Faith’s origins (i.e. hermeneutics).

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you...” (Lk. 1:1-3, NIV)

     So why have I shared all of this? Because as Christians we have been charged by the Word of God to learn apologetics (a reasoned defense of what and why we believe for those outside our Faith- 1Pet. 3:15), polemics (which is apologetics for false and bad teachings within our Faith- 2Tim. 2:24-26, 1Jn. 4:1), and hermeneutics (the method of how we properly interpret the Bible- 2Tim. 2:15). Though I must note, apologetics requires hermeneutics, polemics requires hermeneutics, and proper application of the Word of God also requires hermeneutics. You cannot sincerely read, study, follow, or teach the Bible without hermeneutics. And here’s why:

If you misunderstand verses and passages in the Bible and you seek not the proper method of interpreting it you will most likely misinterpret scripture, thus you will falsely apply the Bible, and possibly lead others astray. If you interpret the Bible based on your opinion in any capacity you will almost certainly misinterpret scripture, thus falsely apply the Bible, and presumably lead others astray.

Anytime we ask a who, what, when, where, why, or how question about something within the Bible we have just crossed over into hermeneutics. Furthermore, in order for us to apply, when we attempt to apply, and when we do apply anything the Bible tells us to do we have just crossed over into hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a must for every Christian and inseparable for reading, studying, and applying the Bible! You cannot get away from it. Either you will apply biblical hermeneutics (the proper method of interpretation) or you’ll replace it for your opinion and your own interpretation—which will lead you and others in error.

     “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2Tim. 2:15, NKJV). The NASB says, “accurately handling the word of truth.” The NIV says, “a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” The actual interpretation of this single verse is exactly where the biblical concept of the method of proper interpretation (hermeneutics) is born. Paul prescriptively charges Timothy to study (be diligent–labor) to show himself approved by God, and as a master workman (or in our time it would be a skilled professional) would accurately, rightly, and correctly handle his tool or craft (just as Paul did at tent making- Acts 18:1-3; 20:31-35), so is Timothy to do so with the Word of Truth!
     For any Christian to know this and willfully choose not to accurately, rightly, and correctly handle the Word of Truth like Paul charged is disobedience and disrespect to God and the distinctive people of a distinctive time He chose to use to write this divine 66 book love letter we now have! Remember how Luke started his gospel, “they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,” and “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning.” If within a couple of decades after Jesus Luke himself “carefully investigated everything from the beginning”, how much more us thousands of years later? For any Christian who now knows this and still believes that they don’t need or have to learn at least basic hermeneutics is in error, selfishness, and pride all to their loss. If this is you, I plead for you to repent from these sinful attitudes or suffer the consequences!

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2Tim. 4:3-4, NKJV)

     My fellow family of God, the only way to keep yourself from falling victim to 2Timothy 4:3-4 (and other scriptures alike) will be to follow the prescription of Paul in 2Timothy 2:15 so to properly follow the rest of Scripture. Just as God has given us the instruments of doctors, medicine, and so on to help us in our infirmities, He has given us hermeneutics (the method of how to properly interpret His Word) as the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to help guide us into all biblical truth (Jn. 16:13). This is to our benefit, and any true child of God is going to want to be led into truth by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14).

___________
“The How for Hermeneutics” (Part 2 of 2)
In Part 2 I will cover what exactly is hermeneutics and some “how to’s” for hermeneutics so all can be equipped and edified.

4/2010

How does Philippians 2:1-4 relate to Philippians 2:5-11?

"Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:1-11, NASB)

How does Philippians 2:1-4 relate to Philippians 2:5-11?
Philippians chapter 2 starts with a conjunction, that is, according to the NASB and NKJV its “therefore” and the ESV says “so”. This conjunction tells us that chapter 2 does not start off with its own thought, but rather a resultant of Paul’s flow of thought from chapter 1. So when Paul runs on with his “if” list (v. 1), and then challenges them to be “like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, or one mind” (v. 2), he’s saying this still with the same flow of thought he was making in chapter 1 (see 1:27-30). In verses 3-4 Paul gets a little more specific in his challenge (or charge) to the church in Philippi (i.e. “Let…”). Thus when Paul starts in on his descent in verses 5-11 he is using Jesus’ example as the perfect model of showing the Philippians (and us) these things firsthand; not to mention an implied insertion of a critical truth within our Faith—the humanity and deity of Jesus (vv. 5-8), and the great submission of everyone (not unto salvation but unto judgment) to Jesus as Lord (vv. 9-11). 

Paul shows how Jesus did nothing through “selfish ambition or conceit but in lowliness of mind” (compare v. 7), nor looked out for “his own interests, but also for the interests of others” (compare v. 8). Hence, we are to follow Jesus’ example. “Let this same mind be in you as was in Christ Jesus” (v. 5).

The Interpretive Journey of Colossians 3:1-4

"Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory." (Col. 3:1-4, NASB)

1. Summarize the original situation and the meaning of the text for the biblical audience.
Paul wrote the letter to the Colosse church during his imprisonment in Rome, somewhere between the late 50’s and early 60’s AD. One of Paul’s converts, Epaphras, requested Paul’s help in dealing with a dangerous threat to this young, but vibrant fellowship. It is said that Paul didn’t establish this church but rather Epaphras (1:7, 2:1). Paul’s relationship with the church at this time would’ve been strictly by way of letter (probably the letters to the Ephesians and Laodiceans) and fellow laborers in the ministry (Epaphras, Archippus, Philemon, and Onesimus). This letter is the response to the problem within this church. The Colosse church of Paul’s day was a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Jews had ventured to this province of Phrygia two centuries earlier. So Colosse was a melting pot of religion, philosophy, and Gentile practices; this in turn being the problem for the young Colosse church. The dilemma was known as “syncretism”—combining ideas from other philosophies and religions with Christian truth. In light of the mixture of cultures within the church, there were various Jewish teachings and the early hint of what later became known as Gnosticism taking root. Paul calls out the outbreak of the heretical teachings in the Colosse church particularly in chapter 2, but uses both chapter 1 and 2 to target what actually to believe. Thus by the end of chapter 2 those listening had sat through a serious heretical gut-checking. They were then ready to hear how they are to respond to this blessed information (chapters 3 and 4). In verses 1-2 of chapter 3, Paul starts with a conditional charge to the believers in Colosse on what he previously explained in chapters 1 and 2, (“If then you were raised…Seek those…Set your…”). In verses 3-4 Paul sums up the “why” for the influence behind what is to be their new way of living and thinking—which is to follow in the remaining verses and subsequent chapter.

2. What are the differences between the biblical audience/situation and us today/our situation?
There are three noticeable differences between us today and the church of Colosse in the first century. One, we are in America not first century Asia Minor. Two, we are not made up of first century Jew and Gentile believers, nor are we struggling with legalistic Judaism and early Gnosticism. And three, we are not all young Christians or members of new-found churches. Despite these three, the river separating them from us is not that wide. We today continue to struggle with heretical teachings, some lingering from Judaism (Sabbath and dietary observances) and Gnosticism (mysticism, new-age spirituality, etc.). Greek philosophical thinking and teaching is still prevalent. The denial of the humanity and deity of Jesus (Modalism) and the worship of other beings as mediators between us and God (Catholicism) carry on today as back then. This letter from Paul is just as much for us now as it was for the Colosse church.

3. What are the timeless theological principle(s) communicated in this passage?
The theological principles in this text are “seek those things which are above where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God”, and “set your minds on things above, not on things on the earth” like traditions and deceptive philosophy (knowledge for knowledge sake).

4. How should Christians today apply the theological principle(s) in their lives?
The theological principles found in this text are for every Christian facing teachings (e.g. rejection of the humanity and/or divinity of Jesus, knowledge is enough for salvation, etc) and traditions in opposition to Christ (e.g. the worship of angels, circumcision, etc). Since our day in age is similar to the time when Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, as far as the heavy presence of religious traditions and philosophy, we can take hold of these principles immediately in just about any situation where tradition or philosophy opposing the truth in Christ is present. Some of our workplaces function in ways contrary to Christ, we then can set our minds on things above and not be persuaded to conform to those things on our job. Or for students who are facing secular philosophies in high-school and college, praising knowledge and science and belittling faith in Christ, we can seek those things which are above where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God and not be deceived with persuasive words or empty philosophy. Some may be caught up in traditionalism at their place of worship or in their family, but these traditions are not in accordance with the truth we have and know in Christ. In this we can seek and set our mind on things above where Christ is and not be cheated through the traditions of men, which have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion. These principles can be applied to any area that is attempting to get us to view or accept Christ less than what He truly is.

Blog Debate: Is the Word of God literal, spiritual, or both?

I’ve had numerous blog debates. This is one I had in April 2008. I believe it can serve to edify the Body. I’ll be posting other blog debates later on. They are long, but they are worth the read.

Michelle: The stories [in the Bible] are not literal, but symbolic. They have complete Spiritual meaning. We know this is true when we apply the spiritual meaning to our lives - Not the literal. The literal would be silly... I myself can not ‘hear’ the literal any longer...

Me: “The stories are not literal, but symbolic”, by what means? Are you familiar with the historical educational and generational system of the Jews? Because if you were, you would be aware of how and what they took literal and symbolic by way of they’re writing. From Genesis to Esther are considered by Jews as historical (with respect to the Torah). They take the accounts recorded within these books as literal, not symbolic. The Poetic, Wisdom, and Prophetic books contain historical and symbolic language. These you can argue about what to take literal or not, but the first 17 books are considered by the people who God used to present the Bible to us as historical not symbolic. They know better than us of what’s written in it is literal and symbolic. Ask any Jewish rabbi about the Garden of Eden, the Genesis account of Creation and so on, I guarantee you they say it is literal not symbolic.

And what’s so “not so” about a snake talking? In the story of Balaam the donkey spoke. I guess you’ll question that story’s reality as well huh? What about the burning bush, not literal? Mount Sinai, not literal? The Passover, not literal? Jesus in the wilderness with Satan, not literal? The Resurrection, not literal? Pentecost, not literal? His second coming, not literal?

“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established IN THE FAITH, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. BEWARE lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:6-8)
___________
IF I based my reverence for God/Jesus Christ on any speck of His professed believers, then I wouldn’t believe in Him either (like those who don’t for this exact reason), because His people do a horrible job of representing Him. We’re all over the board when it comes to explaining Him and His Word. No wonder they think we’re simple or gullible, we can’t even come together on one Book.

------------------
Michelle: I agree there is a very real Jewish history, and Moses account of history. However, the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc. The truths of the Kingdom are hidden in the literal things all around us (trees, relationships, look at all Jesus parables - not litereral, symbolic!). Trees are literal, yet Jesus uses them for our understanding of a deeper truth - This is my point!!!

In what God has shown me TODAY, the Spiritual meaning applies individual for my understanding of how awesome He is... Yes, I believe much of the bible has a literal history, but how does that change me from the inside (the letter?), No, it is the Spirit that gives life!!!

Gods creation is so amazing that whats around us has Spiritual meaning (the changing life, seasons, times, etc.) - The question is do we have Spiritual eyes and ears or carnal?

Me: Hey, I get what you are saying and have no problem with what you stated, but... “the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc.”

How can you not take the existence of Satan (i.e. the Devil, Lucifer, etc.) literally? Again, do you deny Jesus’ wilderness experience with Satan? What about when Jesus said He saw Satan fall from heaven (Lk. 10:18)? Right there He takes care of Satan and heaven as literal. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Now whether Hell is really called hell with fire and brimstone or whatever is not worth going back and forth over. But by saying it’s a problem taking Hell (i.e. “the place where the eternal separation from God is served”) literal, you just rejected a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Streets of gold and such, that’s no big deal if some take it literal and others not. But to say it’s a problem taking Heaven (i.e. the promised New Heaven; also the paradise of being in a place with the presence of the Almighty for eternity) literal, again is rejecting a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. Even Jesus Himself affirms this (Jn. 14:3). How do you explain not taking that literal?

Yes we should be mindful of the literal and the symbolic. Yes we should know what scriptures fall in what category. YET, we should not water down one just to further emphasize the other. That was the problem with the second and third century Church. Paganism crept in and tried to emphasize on the symbolic and ignore (even deny) the scriptures that were literal. What happened as a result of that was “sacramentalism” and a host of other junk that sent the Church into a serious sick symbolic state for 1300 years, right up ‘til the Reformation.

Be careful not to over spiritualize the Bible, just as one needs to be careful not to over literalize the Bible. There are times, places, and things to take literal, and there are times, places, and things to take it symbolic. We have to be very careful teetering on that line and not make what is absolute as relative, and what’s relative as absolute.

Oh and it takes “Spiritual eyes and ears” to be able to receive what is literal, as literal (1Cor. 2:1-5, 13-14).

------------------
Michelle: Just two little things, How can I overspiritualize God, He is Spirit! God has shown me the Spirit gives life, not knowledge! Carnal mind is the enmity...

And I do not ignore scriptures when I study a topic or the bible, I just read them with different glasses now....

It may come to surprize that I do not find it required to read and study the bible to find God - His word is not letters on a paper, but His Word is Chirst in me, and ears to hear His Word for me personally,

God Bless

Me: I didn’t say over spiritualize God, I said don’t over spiritualize the Bible.

Yes the Spirit gives life, but what life is that? Is it not the life that our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds have been opened? Did not Jesus say that eternal life is that they (that would be us) may *know* the Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent (Jn. 17:2-3)? God even said my people perish for the lack of *knowledge* (Hos. 3:6). The knowledge God desires is knowing Him. This is not a bad or carnal thing, it is what God wants from us (Hos. 6:6).

“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
**But let him who glories glory in this,
That he understands and knows Me,**
That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.
**For in these I delight**,” says the LORD.” (Jer. 9:23-24)


I agree with your last statement. His word is more than simply words, they are words of Life and words of Truth! Without His word, how would we have known Truth or Life?

-------------------
Michelle: We need to have our own testimony of God and Know Him (not just words on paper), I agree!!! This knowledge comes from our own personal experience and testimonies, not others. (not even those who wrote the bible). To know God is to know love and to deny self absorbant ways. To me God has made this wisdom much easier then the bible scholars have through His Holy Spirit and Word in me. The change is inward, not outward - thats about all in a nutshell, at least the way I have come to know God.

Me: Yeah, we just have to be careful not to water down or give little weight to the Word of God. If the Bible was removed from the planet, a whole lot more of professing believers would fall sway to the ways, ideas, philosophies, and teachings of the world and/or false teachers. It’s bad enough a whole lot are already falling sway now with the Bible available, and that’s because they water it down and/or don’t take it seriously.

The Bible is our guideline/boundary, kind of like the lane dividers on the street that keep us in our respected lanes for our safety. If the lines begin to blur, vanish, or people just stop regarding them, how much more chaos and disorder would our streets be filled with? And how safe would we truly be on the road? That’s how life would be without the Word of God, or even a failed respect for the Bible- ex. what we see today.

Yes there is a personal responsibility to our testimony, but the Bible also plays a part in our development and relationship with God. Again, we wouldn’t truly know who we are believing in if it were not for the Bible. God has presented and preserved the Bible for us for a reason much greater than it just being words on paper.

4/2008