Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. -1 Timothy 4:16

Whether the story of the young Einstein defending the existence of God from his professor really happened or not, the logical arguments are strong. I am inclined to say that myth does not negate truth. Probably, Einstein wasn’t really a defender of theism, I honestly do not know. I am not an Einsteinian scholar. But this does not wane the statement that there is evil only because God is not entertained in man’s heart…

Posted in Critical Issues | Tagged existence of God, philosophy of science and religion | Leave a Comment »

about it..

April 2, 2009 by bernardbragas

to those who are asking what i feel regarding the many doors shut before me:

my answer is simple. though there’s a feeling of deep sadness, i know our God and I’m comfortable with His decisions..

God bless, everyone!!

Posted in γραφω αυτοις | Leave a Comment »

GOD’S ελεος IN RELATION TO THE DIVINE PROMISE OF OLD: AN EXEGETICAL PAPER ON ROMANS 9:14-33

January 30, 2009 by bernardbragas

(This was a paper I wrote for my Greek 3 class under Prof Alvin Jimenez of ASCM)

Introduction

Among all New Testament sources, Romans 9 is the passage most used by theologians to make their strong points on predestination issues. It is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! (Romans 9:13-14, NASB). This is a statement that keeps our mouth shut whenever we try to argue against God determining who will be saved and who will be condemned, who will be loved and who will be hated, who will be taken care of by His mighty hands and who will be punished. We may complain, “It is harsh and wretched that God should seek His glory in my misery,” Luther said in his commentary of Romans. And he went on to answer his own argument in favor of predestination, “Note how the voice of the flesh is always saying ‘my,’ ‘my’; get rid of this ‘my’ and rather say: ‘Glory to Thee, O Lord!’ and you will be saved.” However, although these verses tell very much truth on God’s preordained plans, the message of God’s ελεος in all His plans is the one to be further considered.

Some also use this passage to classify who the elect people of God are. At some degree interpreters’ considerations fall into two extremes. Gentiles replaced the Jews before the sight of God, on one hand; and Jews and Gentiles are two distinct peoples of God in the church, on the other. But the text shows how both are under the mercies of God and that is what makes them be elected not necessarily to salvation, but to fulfill the purposes of God for His glory to be proclaimed through out the whole world.

This paper is committed not to theologically support the doctrine of predestination and election. God’s enduring plan since the Old Testament in connection with His ελεος (verb: ελεειν) in the light of Romans 9-11 is the focus of this study. Throughout the various sections below, the textual analysis, the literary-contextual relations and other exegetical efforts is dealt with. A conclusion and other theological comments by this writer are also in the scope of this paper.

Textual Criticism

Variants among the Greek Manuscripts

Before the text of this thesis should be presented, it is so reasonable to let the Greek text be analytically assessed first. It would make the literal translation of the text be maintained prior to some judgments if the variations have bearings to the interpretation or to the flow of thoughts. The aim is to be faithful to what was and is believed to be the original presentation of the statements. However, only some problematic portions would be analyzed yet it would show and justify the outcome of the translation below.

The first to be dealt with in this portion is the omission of ουν in verse 19, which is said to be found in the primary Alexandrian MS B (P⁴⁶) as included in the question τί ετι εμέμφεται;. It is supported by the western uncials D, F, G but contrasted by the majority text and secondary Alexandrian uncials A and Ψ.[1] The exclusion may have probably been due to the copyists desire to make it parallel to a vast expression of τί ουν found in Romans (3:1, 9; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30; 11:7). So it is just considered an addition to the original.[2] It is also probable that the repetition of ουν was avoided since it precedes Ερεῖς ουν μοι·.[3]

In the translation to be presented it has been included to make it visible to the reader, nevertheless, it is placed far from the neighboring ουν. It seems that it would not make any difference whether it is present or not. It is just for the sake of possible readership.

One minor issue is the omission of μενοῦνγε on some manuscripts such as the original D, the later western tradition (F, G) and P⁴⁶.[4] In the translation, the problem of positioning μενοῦνγε after a vocative is resolved.

Verse 23 has a καὶ ἵνα phrase at its beginning in the original Greek text as witnessed by the primary Alexandrian uncial B. The omission of καὶ on some translations is probably to make a straightforward sense of the sentence.[5] However, for some scholars the problematic word should appear for some considerations.[6] This writer actually supports its omission in order not to disrupt the strong statement of Paul.

Another variation in verse 28 is apparent when looked at some manuscripts. The whole ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον might be a possible insertion by copyists who considered it as a direct quotation from the Septuagint in Isaiah 10:22-23.[7] But Metzger considered this not credible since the epistle writer appears not to have followed closely the Septuagint in the previous verse.[8] The preference of this translation shows likewise.

A translation of the text for the thesis now follows.

Text Established Using Textual Criticism[9]

(14)What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? Certainly not! (15)For to Moses He says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16)So then it is not of the man who wills, nor of him who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, (17)“For this very purpose I raised you up that I might display my power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth. (18 )So then He has mercy on whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills.

(19)You will then say to me, “Why does He still find fault then? For who resists His will?” (20)But rather, who are you to answer back to God, O man?[10] The thing molded does not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this?” (21)Or does the potter not have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (22)But what if God, although willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, bore with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23)(and) in order to make known the riches of His glory vessels of mercy which He prepared beforehand to glory, (24)that which He has also called us not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. (25)As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not my people, ‘my people’, and her who was not beloved, ‘beloved’.” (26)And “it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” they shall be called ‘sons of the living God’.” (27)But Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, only[11] the remnant will be saved. (28 )For the Lord will execute His word on earth entirely and hastily[12].” (29)And just as Isaiah foretold, “Unless the Lord of hosts had left for us a seed, we would have become as Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.”

(30)What then shall we say? That Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness attained righteousness, the righteousness (but) which is by faith, (31)but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at such a law. (32)Why? Because it is not by faith but as if it is by works. They stumbled over the stone of stumbling, (33)just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and the one who believes on it will not be put to shame.

Literary-Contextual Analysis

Intermediate Context

The immediate context that precedes the section of this thesis is in a sense patterned to the main theme stated in Romans 1:16-17 that has a phrase “… to the Jew first and also to the Greek”.[13] Paul, although in deep anguish because of Israel’s rejection of the gospel of Christ, first emphasized how the gospel is much related to the Jews in 9:1-5. It seems that in his opening of the epistle in 1:1-4, he introduced Christ’s relation to David, to the prophets and to the Holy Scriptures which would probably mean that the gospel cannot be properly understood apart from Israel.[14] “Then what advantage has the Jew?” as a question raised in 3:1, is answered in some detail in these first verses of Romans 9.

Paul started his discourse with extreme solemnity and anguish. He sympathized with his people through these words: ᾿Αλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι, συμμαρτυρούσης μοι τῆς συνειδήσεώς μου ἐν Πνεύματι ῾Αγίῳ. The clauses “I speak the truth” and “I am not lying” (negatively)[15]; plus “in Christ” and “in the Holy Spirit” shows his deep sincerity of what he really feels.[16] He was not just trying to persuade his readers that he was falsely accused of indifference for his people in preaching the gospel of mercy to the Gentiles. In fact he stated some reasons and argued about the election of Israel which is somehow a thesis to be challenged by an upcoming antithesis (which is the focus of this study). There are four relative clauses of Israel’s privileges to underline the sadness of their unbelief to the gospel.[17] (1) “who are Israelites”, (2) “whose are the adoption… and the promises”, (3) “whose are the patriarchs” (4) “and from whom so as far as the flesh is concerned is the Christ…”.[18] Fitzmyer and Dunn (with Zeisler) considers the seven classic prerogatives Paul apparently had in mind directly from the Old Testament: (1) “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22); (2) the “glorious” presence of God (Exod 15:6, 11); (3) the “covenants” made with Abraham (Gen 15:18), Isaac (Gen 26:3-5), Moses (Exod 24:7-8); (4) the giving of the (Torah) “instruction” (Exod 20:1); (5) the awesome worship of Yahweh in the Temple (Exod 25-31); (6) the “promises” made to Abraham (Gen 12:2), Isaac (Gen 26:3-5), Jacob (Gen 28:13-14); and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves. [19] These are the ‘septet’[20] privileges which is a strong case that the Divine Promise of Old is very much related to the Jews plus the fact that from them comes the natural descent of the Christ (v. 5). Therefore, to preach a gospel that casts them out would appear that God’s faithfulness is compromised and a strong appeal is presupposed to arise that led Paul to explain further starting verse 6 and followed up by the thesis of this paper starting at verse 14.

In the following section (vv. 6-13)[21], Paul’s initial response to this matter on how he would relate the Divine Promise of Old to God’s mercy is to make distinctions between ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ (those from Israel) and ᾿Ισραήλ (Israel), between Abraham’s τέκνα and his σπέρμα.[22] “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants” (9:6-7, NASB). But does this argument mean that those who are “Israel within Israel” (i.e. the Jews who received the gospel by faith) are the only ones in the scope of God’s mercy? Cranfield (with the limits of the acquired resources for this paper) is the only one who commented in a straightforward way that this is very wrong!![23] Not that they do not see God’s mercy to those who are outside “Israel within Israel”, most commentators just focused on the critical concept of election and those who receive the gospel by faith. They just looked at the inner circle that the promises of God are all through out fulfilled through the covenant people of God in the New Testament.

The succeeding verses that talk about God choosing Isaac and, eventually Jacob against Esau (vv. 7-13) should be read in its context. Although the descendants by Isaac were chosen and not the ones by Ishmael, it is to be carefully noted that the narrative account in Gen 21:13, 17-21 explicitly shows God’s mercy to Ishmael.[24] Furthermore, since the case of Isaac and Ishmael is less conclusive because they had the same father but different mothers, Paul moved to the more intense election of Jacob against Esau wherein the two had the same parents. The election of Jacob, apart from human works (v. 11), does not also encourage the message of deprivation of God’s mercy on Esau if taken into the context of the Old Testament such as Deut. 23:7 that says, “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother.”[25]

This writer concedes with Cranfield and Dunn that not being chosen to play a positive role in God’s special purpose does not mean exclusion from the embrace God’s ελεος.[26] However, it should be a caution that such ‘anti anti-Semitism’ themes might lead to false conclusions if it is overly stated. It tends to create the concept of God’s two chosen people – Jews and Christians.

Wider Literary Context

Romans 9:14-33 should not stand alone if it is to be read. Not even the whole chapter could be independently interpreted apart from its wider literary context. It is just a part of the series discussions on chapters 9 to 11 regarding men’s unbelief (specifically, of Israel which would eventually be a warning to the Gentiles in 11:17-24) and God’s faithfulness and mercy in fulfilling His entire plan. There is a tendency to read the text of this thesis in an ‘unPauline’ sense and just assert doctrinal biases if it is to be taken out from this wider literary context.[27] Considering these three chapters as a whole major section and its connection to the chapters, prior and subsequent to it, some might say that it is just an inserted excursus of Paul’s deep emotional involvement in the matter of the Jews’ destiny.[28] However, a more diligent look to it suggests that it is an integral amplification of the main theme, again, stated in Romans 1:16-17.

This whole section is considered by Fitzmyer as the Part C of the epistle to the Romans. It is considered to be an apologetic (defensive) not polemic (offensive). It deals not with Judaizers, just as in Galatians, but with Jews and their relation to the gospel.[29] With these statements, this writer definitely agrees. But with Kasemann, Fitzmyer also agrees that the “doctrine of justification” dominates this whole section.[30] However, this seems not much plausible. The “doctrine of justification” has been dealt with thoroughly through Romans 1-8. Although it is still consistently imposed in this section, it stands independently from justification as its main theme. It seems like Paul is apologetically explaining some misconceptions that might have arisen regarding the discussed justification. Morris, in agreement with Cranfield, is right as he argues that the keyword of these whole three chapters is the verb “to have mercy” as it relates to the sovereignty of God ever since the Old covenant and not just the concept of Christ in his saving activity.[31] And also, it should be stressed that the use of ᾿Ιουδαίου compared to ᾿Ισραήλ is a great lesser[32] which might mean a distinction that ‘Israel’ may have been redefined by Paul in this section to harmonize the Divine Promise of Old the gospel of mercy.

Book Context

In Relation to Romans 1-11

Though Romans 9-11 stands independently with the fact that it has its own central theme, it should not be overlooked that it is a discourse that arose in complementary to the gospel Paul exclaimed from Romans 1-8. In fact, he has been preparing for this discussion all along considering 3:1-9; 21-31 because obvious objection would arise.[33] The previous statements before 9-11 declare the certainty of God’s purpose. But since the very reliability of God appears to be in question with regards to the Jews’ exclusion because of their rejection of the gospel, Paul’s explanation concerning His promises and His sovereign mercy has become urgent. Some views are that: (1) it is just an excursion of Paul’s feelings on the structure; (2) theological assertion (specifically, of predestination) (3) while few scholars say that it is an inner contradiction.[34] However, this writer believes none of these. It is very obvious that the transition is a part of the theme development in Romans as an urgent address to both Jews ad Gentiles.[35]

In Relation to the Whole Book of Romans

With all that has been stated in the immediate context, the wider-literary context and its relation to chapters 1-11, it is sound reason to say that the inclusion of this entire section (chapters 9-11) makes a fuller and profounder sense of the gospel to the Jews and to the Gentiles. In contrast to chapters 1-8 only, the extended discussion until chapter 11 gives a more satisfactory theological basis for the upcoming moral exhortations in chapters 12-15.[36]

Exegesis on the Text

Methodology of the Section

The Section’s Rhetoric[37]

In order for the reader to understand fully how Paul communicated in the passage of this thesis, the way of his style in persuading should be understood. It should be noted that Paul has a habit of discussing without worrying about false implications that might arise in the future. The presence of a number of some ουν ‘s in Romans (3:1, 9; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1, 12, 15; 7:7, 13; 8:12, 31; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 12:1) testify to that. He is much concerned with the present discourse[38] and not to what the readers (e.g. modern, the Holocaust) might end up thinking. He also sometimes distracts from his main argument that makes present an unparalleled number of OT texts (e.g. vv27-28 is problematic, even in the textual criticism). And lastly, he seems unaware of generalizing election and predestination of Israel that somehow results to various extreme doctrines by some readers. In fact, Paul is concerned with nations and not with individuals.[39]

In spite of these things that have been said about Paul’s way of rhetoric (his lapses in particular), it is evident that he is capable of bringing the readers to his side of the argument. His usual hypothetical questions, in the question-and-answer style of the diatribe starting with Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; (cf. Romans 3:5; 6:1; 7:7), would definitely bring the readers to agree with him to a strong objection (μὴ γένοιτο.) that has to be taken seriously.[40] With this rhetorical device he started the section’s thought flow.

Intentionally or unintentionally, an anacoluthon can be observed along the flow of the text. Verse 24 is debated among commentators of Romans if it should go with vv.14-23 or vv.25-29. It is considered to be as really attributed to Paul – ‘the Pauline anacoluthon’.[41] An ‘anacoluthon’ is a “grammatical phenomenon whereby the author lost track of his or her syntax” or simply a “broken or irregular syntactical construction”.[42] (The translation above does not separate vv.14-23 and vv.25-29 to show that this writer does not see any disruption on Paul’s chains of thought.)

The Section’s Division and Thought Flow

Romans 14-23, indicates two specific questions that challenges God’s mercy. First, “Is not God unjust to choose some and rejects others?”(v. 14). Second, “How can people be blamed for rejecting God if He Himself determines the rejection?” (v.19). These questions are inevitable in every message of God’s sovereignty as a challenge to His merciful and faithful character.

A certain parallelism[43] was used to answer the challenging question in v.14:

14 Is there injustice with God?

(A) 15 (Certainly not!!) because He says to Moses

16 Therefore, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort

but on God’s mercy (ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ.)

(B) 17 (Certainly not!!) because Scripture says to Pharaoh…

18 Therefore, God wants to have mercy on whom

He wants to have mercy (ὃν θέλει ἐλεεῖ)

The other challenging question in v.19 was answered through some ‘protological’ thinking (logical explanation from primitive thoughts)[44]. Paul gives an analogy on something that no one can argue and talk back to God as He fulfills His purpose. He used even indocility to carry out His plan:

(A) vv. 17-18 Pharaoh’s heart was hardened – brought good out of evil

(B) v.19 Then why does God still blame us? (the big question)

(B)’ v.20 Why did you make me like this? (the big question)

(A)’ vv. 22-23 Pot molded by the Potter – ‘vases of wrath’ and ‘vases of mercy’

Another chiasm[45] could be found that appears to be a conclusion in the relation of God’s ελεος to the Divine Promise of Old:

(A) v.24 God calls Jews

(B) v.24 God calls Gentiles

(B)’ vv.25-26 OT confirmation of God’s call of Gentiles

(A)’ v.27-29 OT confirmation of God’s call of Jews

Romans 9:30-33, is a climactic ending of the chapter that righteousness is by faith and not a law of righteousness, a misconception of Israel. It is also a bridging passage for the ongoing discourse on the unbelief of men and the faithfulness of God.

Commentary Regarding the Thesis

This commentary does not intend to walkthrough all exegetical issues found in Romans 9:14-33. Some exegetical implications, structures and syntax have already been dealt with in the various sections of this paper. The scope now in this portion is only to discuss the thesis on the relation of God’s given mercy and his enduring promises to His elect people, the Israel. This is actually an antithesis against the misconception of the Jews regarding God’s plan.

Having the book context in mind, Paul starts with something sentimental in chapter 9. How could this be, wherein he almost had a climactic finish in the previous chapter?! It is because though there is the definiteness that nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (8:39), Paul’s message since the beginning of the epistle threatens most of the Jews to be cut away from God because of their unbelief. The transition is reasonable because there is a need to explain what becomes of the everlasting covenant of God with His people. To put in the right context, the placing of Romans 9:14-33 together with its whole context tells about the placing of Israel in God’s plan of election not apart from His mercy. Paul wants to emphasize that the gospel stands in continuity with the Old Testament.

Romans 9:14-23

As already mentioned, Paul’s use of the diatribe might have led his readers to be persuaded right away. Jews would never be comfortable to say that God is unjust!! Furthermore, Paul’s use of Scripture regarding the sovereignty of God made his argument even more credible. His interpretation of history regarding the Pharaoh that they know in Scripture (v.17; cf. Exod 9:16) is as clear as history itself. However this time, there is the transference of imagery from Pharaoh to Israel, who like the Pharaoh rejected God’s words of deliverance for His people.[46] Another image that was used by Paul was the potter and the clay. C.H. Dodd considers this as the weakest point in the epistle because a man is not a pot[47] and obstinate objections arise in his mind. But the argument is not weak at all. In fact, ‘the potter and the clay’ was an imagery (not just of the Jews but also of ancient Egypt and some neighboring nations)[48] where Moses might have gotten the idea of man being fashioned (Gen 2:7) apart from his own will; and thus the analogy is strong that the mercy of God cannot be subject to anything outside His own free grace, not even to the human will.

Most scholars consulted for this paper made the point that Israel, in the analogy of Pharaoh, does not suggest that Israel is outside the will of God and therefore outside the purpose of His mercy. Paul made mention of ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν (v.21) – that some are made for honor while some for dishonor. The placing of those who rejected the gospel may be an ignoble one, but it is within God’s mercy and not outside of it.[49] Fitzmyer, though in agreement with this, considered not just the message of mercy but yoked it with the message of God’s sovereignty[50] and suggests that it is the very intention of God. Kasemann even argues that the succeeding translation on verse 23 has a participle which is neither casual nor concessive but modal, and that the rendering should be ‘with the purpose’.[51] (The translation of ἵνα somehow supports the argument.)

It would be unfair to say that the scholars who stressed God’s mercy did not deal with God’s sovereignty, for indeed, they dealt with it rigorously. However, in doing this, they tried to settle with issues of theodicy. Fitzmyer is right in saying that in the context, Paul “does not try to argue the question of theodicy; he simply rejects it.”[52] God is sovereign of all and no argument to that!! His mercy is not to be reconciled with issues of theodicy. It is to be understood in the light of His ultimate supremacy. As clay, Israel could never question God why in their unbelief He turned to the Gentiles. Besides, it is not contrary to God’s direction of history. Their call and indocility were foreseen.[53]

Romans 9:24-29

If Romans 9:14-23 starts with a diatribe style of rhetoric, this section now starts with an ‘anacoluthon’. Morris stated three views[54] regarding the broken syntactical construction: (1) new beginning; (2) us as apposition with ‘vessels of mercy’; and (3) relative pronoun whom (or which as this writer translates it) suggests a relative clause. The latter is considered in the translation above to present Paul’s discourse of continuous statements from 9:14-29.

This portion provides the chiastic structure shown above with the message of God’s call for both Jews and Gentiles and the affirmation of both calls with the support of Old Testament texts. Verse 27 speaks about the remnant of Israel which will be saved, ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειμμα σωθήσεται. Some considers this passage as a message with a ‘threatening voice’ of being cut off, but Kasemann sees it as an ‘inspired, proclamatory speech’[55] It would be better viewed as a proclamatory speech of salvation to make it intact with the message of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles as His ‘beloved people’ (vv.25-26).

Romans 9:30-33

What follows now is a half technique of Paul’s diatribe. Dunn considers it a half question, half statement Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν;.[56] This time he does not bring his readers to agree with him in a strong negative objection. Instead, he shifts from the standpoint of God concerning Israel’s relation to His divine promise of Old to the standpoint of human responsibility.[57] However, this standpoint does not suggest works righteousness. It speaks that Paul understands ‘righteousness’ as a covenant word. It is something that no one can pursue, not even the Gentiles through nature. It is a righteousness acquired as one puts his faith in Christ. This is the stumbling block to the Jews who strive for legal righteousness.[58] Paul was again leading to a discourse of the gospel of justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. No other arguments are made regarding this matter.

Verses 30-33 is a bridging part from chapter 9 to chapter 10. In fact, the three verses are preferred by many Bible commentators to be included in the thought flow of the initial verses of chapter 10. But the message is clear. Israel, although to them were the law given, they have stumbled in their pursuit of uprightness – a message to be understood alone in the light of His mercy. A message that as Barrett rightly observed throughout Romans 1-8, tells us about the “attribute of God which is occasionally described as love but more characteristically as mercy.”[59]

Conclusion

Thus, scholars deal with the issue differently. Cranfield, Fitzmyer, Moo and Zeisler obviously consider that being outside of the elect does not necessarily mean they are out of God’s mercy. They are still part of God’s embrace and He will still carry out His plan through good or bad vessel. Kasemann gives special affinity to Israel as the community under promise while discussing the supreme electing process of God. Dunn, and again Moo, have their explicit way to distinguish that “the Jews” and Israel are not synonymous. Israel, indeed, has been redefined in the course of chapter 9-11. Moreover, Morris explains just the same way with others that the message of predestination in this context is dealing with election to service and not to eternal salvation.

To integrate it, it would more likely be sound to conclude that the message of God’s mercy is somewhat distinct from the message of justification. If all people are embraced by God’s mercy, as stressed by Cranfield as a summary of the scholars’ voices:

…Ishmael as well as Isaac, Esau as well as Jacob, Pharaoh as well as Moses, the vessels of wrath as well as the vessels of mercy, that is the mass of unbelieving Jews (and unbelieving Gentiles too) as well as the believing Church of Jews and Gentiles, stand within – and not without – the embrace of the divine mercy.[60]

…then it is more appropriate to say that God fulfills His divine plan because of His everlasting mercy, but being justified by faith is a different story!!

On Some Theological Assertions

As the writer sees it, this section of Romans affect Christian theology in a way that if faithful Biblical exegesis is compromised, areas of Soteriology, Ecclesiology and Christology would be distorted.

A superficial look on the passage of Romans 9 would suggest a strong case on the doctrine of predestination of individuals or even of double predestination. It should not be systematized too much. The message is about God’s mercy on all peoples and not about an eschatological final destination, although it eventually leads there.

So much rejection of the Jews would lead to anti-Semitism that triggered the Holocaust in history while a misconception on having too high a regard of the Jews would divide the church into two chosen people of God – Jews and Christians. We are not even encouraged to make Jews out of ourselves. There is only one church with Christ as the head – a union of redeemed Jews and Gentiles.

Most of all, in reading the passage, we should not compromise certain area of Christology. Just as Israel was the firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22) in the Old Covenant, Jesus Christ now was declared the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29) even before the discussion of Romans 9-11. Therefore we are grafted to Christ and not to Israel. Nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord!!

In his Biblical exegesis of Romans 9-11, Cranfield was influenced by the theological assertions of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics II/2, pp.1-506. He said that,

The doctrine of election, if it is to be faithful to Scripture, must not begin in an abstract way, either from the concept of an electing God or from the concept of an elected man, but ‘must begin concretely with the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as both the electing God and elected man’.[61]

[1] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 589.

[2] C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans 9-16, vol. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark Ltd., [1979]1981), 489.

[3] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 589.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (West Germany: United Bible Societies, 1975), 523.

[6] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 589; See also James D.G. Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B (WBC; Dallas, Texas: WordBooks Publishers, 1988), 550.

[7] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 523; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 589.

[8] Ibid.

[9] This is the result of an aimed literal translation and of the textual criticism that has been done. The Italicized words or phrases are provisions to smoothen or to make a complete sense out of some sentences. Words inside some parentheses indicate that the exclusion of the words is possible.

[10] Although the Greek text suggests that μενοῦνγε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε is adjacently arranged, ‘O man’ is intentionally separated to present the text more emphatic and to at least smoothen the translation.

[11] This is an obvious insertion. But the context requires stressing the burden of the passage. See Cranfield, Dunn; See also Morris, Kasemann, Zeisler. Modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, also opt to insert the word.

[12] This is the author’s own translation of ‘cutting short’ to make it parallel with its associate word συντελέω that is translated ‘entirely’ or completely.

[13] C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), 214.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 556.

[16] Cranfield, Romans, 217-18.

[17] Cranfield, Romans, 220-22; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 560.

[18] Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the New Testament Greek (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 249. The relative clauses emphasize connectivity which stands together among the clauses that is with theological significance.

[19] Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1993), 545-48; James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1998), 503-504; John Zeisler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (TPINCT; London: Trinity Press International, 1989), 236-38.

[20] Term used by Fitzmyer, Romans.

[21] Scholars subdivided Romans 9 differently but Cranfield, Romans 9-16, vol. 2; Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B; Fitzmyer, Romans; and Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988 ) interconnected verses 6-13 with verse 14 and its following verses. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans; and Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publising Co., 1980) divided it from sections but dependence from one section to another is evidential. This is one reason that this writer inevitably discusses the ‘immediate context’ at such length.

[22] Cranfield, Romans, 227-28; Fitzmyer, Romans, 558-59.

[23] Cranfield, Romans, 228-32.

[24] Ibid., 228-29.

[25] Ibid., 229-31.

[26] Cranfield, Romans, 229; Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B, 568-69. For a lengthy discussion on the New Testament against anti-Semitism, see also James D.G. Dunn, Jews and Christians: The Parting of Ways AD 70-135 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publising Co., 1992), 177-211.

[27] Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, 253-56.

[28] Cranfield , Romans, 214.

[29] Fitzmyer, Romans, 541.

[30] Ibid. in agreement with Kasemann’s Perspectives, 75.

[31] Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 345; Cranfield , Romans, 215.

[32] Dunn, Jews and Christians, 183-87; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 574.; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 345.

[33] Fitzmyer, Romans, 539.

[34] Ibid., 540.

[35] Ibid., 540.

[36] Cranfield, Romans, 215.

[37] Ideas are more on Fitzmyer’s comment, Romans, 542.

[38] Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 305.

[39] Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 501.

[40] C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (USA: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957), 185; Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, 267;Cranfield, Romans 9-16, vol. 2, 481-82.

[41] Fitzmyer, Romans, 572.

[42] Porter, Idioms of the New Testament Greek, 184 and 91 respectively.

[43] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 594.

[44] Fitzmyer, Romans, 568-70.

[45] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 611 (direct quotation).

[46] Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 186-87.

[47] As quoted by Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 188.

[48] Fitzmyer, Romans , 565.

[49] Cranfield, Romans, 227, 238-241; Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B, 564-67 ; Fitzmyer, Romans, 568-70; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 602-03.

[50] Fitzmyer, Romans, 565.

[51] Zeisler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 246-47 as he states Kasemann’s point. See also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 605-06.

[52] Fitzmyer, Romans, 565.

[53] Fitzmyer, Romans, 565. This is an obvious theological assertion by Fitzmyer himself and this writer acknowledges the strong argument.

[54] Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 369.

[55] Ibid., 371; Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, 275.

[56] Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B, 592.

[57] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TNTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), 198; [57] Fitzmyer, Romans, 576.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 186. Emphasis mine.

[60] Cranfield, Romans, 227.

[61] Cranfield, Romans, 216.

Posted in Christian Theology | Leave a Comment »

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (my personal summary)

August 23, 2008 by bernardbragas

1^st SESSION: ESTABLISHING THE INTEGRITY OF SCRIPTURES

Part 1: The Integrity of the Story (told by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)

1. Is it really possible to be an intelligent, critically thinking person and still believe that the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

As the early church handed down the gospels there were no known competitors for Matthew, Mark and Luke who were unlikely characters. Matthew was a former hated tax collector who would have been infamous next to Judas Iscariot while Mark and Luke weren’t even among the twelve disciples. Take into consideration the apocryphal gospels that were written much later bearing the names Thomas, Philip, Peter, James and Mary. They are despised to be in the Bible until now. Now, it would be logical to ask why Matthew, Mark and Luke (who were less respected) came to be unchallenged.

In John’s case the confusion is just between John the apostle and a John the elder not so clarified by Papias, a Christian writer (c. 70-155), wherein it is possible that it is one person. Granted that exception, it was unanimously testified that it was John the apostle who wrote the gospel.

*Some early Christian testimonies on the gospels:

Papias (c. 70-155 – associated with Polycarp in the friendship of John the Apostle)

Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements… …Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.[i]

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 120 – 202 – pupil of Polycarp)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.[ii]

If we are convinced that the gospels were written by the disciples Matthew and John, by Mark, the companion of Peter, and by Luke, the companion of Paul as first century witnesses, then we can have confidence on the gospels.

2. If the gospels are the biographies of Jesus, why was it written not thoroughly delving into the details of His life?

There are two reasons, one is literary and the other is theological.

In the literary aspect, this is how people wrote biographies in the ancient world. They did not have the sense of giving equal proportions to all periods of life of an individual or that it was necessary to be strict chronologically as long as the essence of what they emphasized was preserved. Biographers wanted to dwell extensively only on those portions exemplary.

Theologically, Jesus’ life, teachings and miracles were meaningless if it were not historically factual that Christ died and was raised from the dead and this provided atonement for the sins of humanity. This justifies why large portions of the gospels, especially in Mark, were devoted to Christ’s death and resurrection. This makes perfect sense in ancient literature and theologically the narratives served its purpose.

3. Is there any relevance of asking how the gospels were composed in connection to its integrity?

There is much relevance in asking this question. First, we are informed that during the ancient times direct and indirect eyewitnesses were necessary for a story. In the case of Mark’s gospel, it’s indirect knowing that he based it on Peter’s reports. However, it was also believed to be the first gospel written that Matthew and Luke even used it as a source together with another one called Q (which stands for the German word Quelle, or ‘source’), a collection of Jesus’ sayings.

One may ask, “Why would Matthew, a direct eyewitness, use a source written by Mark, who, everybody agrees was an indirect eyewitness?” But we have to remember that Peter was among the inner circle of Jesus and was privileged to see and hear what other disciples didn’t. It would be advisable to rely on Peter’s version of events as transmitted through Mark for accuracy sake. It would also be best for Luke, an indirect eyewitness writing a gospel.

John’s gospel shows very much difference from the other three gospels (called the synoptic, which means to view at the same time) but this doesn’t mean there are irreconcilable contradictions. For many years the assumption was that John knew everything Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote and he saw no need to repeat it. In fact, his gospel shows much awareness of who Jesus really is such as ‘Jesus is one with the Father,’ ‘God himself,’ ‘the Way, the Truth and Life,’ ‘the Resurrection and the Life’ etc.

4. Do the claims of Jesus in each gospel complement each other?

John makes very explicit claims of Jesus’ deity and we may ask if this theme is present in the synoptic gospels. Well, it’s more implicit but it is there. In the account of Jesus walking on water (Matthew 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52), English translations hide the Greek when Jesus said, ‘Fear not, it is I’ where in fact Greek literally says, “Fear not, I am.’ It is identical when Jesus took upon himself the divine name ‘I AM,’ which was the way God revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:14).

In the first three gospels, Jesus common title for himself is ‘Son of Man’ and there are misconceptions in the way people interpret this usage.

*On the issue of the ‘Son of Man’:

Karen Armstrong (former nun who wrote the bestseller A History of God)

The term ‘Son of Man’ ‘simply stressed the weakness and mortality of the human condition,’ so by using it, Jesus was merely emphasizing that ‘he was frail human being who would one day suffer and die.’[iii]

William Lane Craig (a Christian philosopher)

“Son of Man” is often thought to indicate the humanity of Jesus, just as the reflex expression “Son of God” indicates his divinity. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Son of Man was a divine figure in the Old Testament book of Daniel who would come at the end of the world to judge mankind and rule forever. Thus, the claim to be the Son of Man would be in effect a claim to divinity.[iv]

Daniel 7:13-14, New American Standard Bible

I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

In addition, Jesus claims to forgive sins in the synoptics, accepts prayer and worship while only God can do it. Final judgment is even based on one’s reaction to Jesus. “Whoever acknowledges me, I will acknowledge before my Father in heaven.”

There are all sorts of material in the synoptics about the deity of Christ; it only becomes more explicit in John’s gospel. John did have the advantage of being able to ponder theological issues for a longer period of time.

5. Considering the fact that the gospels were written much later, did it not become victims of distortion turning Jesus from merely a wise teacher into the mythological Son of God?

*Karen Armstrong expressing the argument:

We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements which expressed the meaning Jesus has acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.[v]

The standard scholarly dating is Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s and John in the 90s. But that’s still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses who would have objected if false teachings about Jesus circulated. Besides, these dates aren’t late at all. The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 BC, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.

That’s a premise considering the standard dating while in fact, we can argue that the gospels were written sooner. The Book of Acts ends up with Paul under house arrest in Rome. It is unfinished probably because it was written before he was released in assumingly AD 61. We can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of Luke’s two-part work, the gospel of Luke must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke used Mark’s gospel as a source, the said source may have been written about AD 60, maybe even in the late 50s. If Jesus was put to death in AD 30 or 33, the maximum gap is only 30 years. That’s like a news flash compared to Alexander’s biography.

And another benefit of it not being written so immediately is the accuracy of the story’s realization. Usually, it takes us a long time before we come up with the right analysis. If the gospel writers were in a rush of doing Jesus’ biography, they were prone to wrong judgments. Thus, the theology, or at least the teachings, it would have contained becomes unexamined thoroughly.

6. We were talking about the story of Jesus (in the previous question), but how about the beliefs contained in it? How early can we date the messages of Jesus’ atonement, his resurrection and unique association with God?

Even if the standard scholarly dating is true and Jesus’ biographies did not come into existence until AD 70, the beliefs of the immediate Christian community had already been established prior to the writing of the gospels. It’s important to remember that the books of the New Testament are not arranged chronologically. The gospels were written after the composition of almost all Paul’s letters, which included some early creeds (confessions of faith or beliefs) from the earliest Christian church.

*Early convictions prior to the gospels:

The most famous creeds include Philippians 2:6-11 which talks about Jesus being ‘in very nature God’ and Colossians 1:15-20, which describes him as being ‘the image of the invisible God,’ who created all things and through whom all things are reconciled with God ‘by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.’

Now it is possible that the epistles to the Philippians and to the Colossians are contemporaries, or just a bit earlier, in the writing of the gospels but 1 Corinthians is far earlier.

1 Corinthians 15:3-7, NASB says:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles…

If the Crucifixion was as early as AD 30, Paul’s conversion was about 32. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been AD 35. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church. Now, that’s not later mythology from forty or more years down the road as Armstrong suggested. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of that very event.

7. If we examine the gospels, will it stand up the scrutiny? Try the challenge.

7-1a. The Intention Test. Were these first-century writers even interested in recording what actually happened?

Yes they intended to record what had actually happened. We may try to use the opening of Luke’s gospel.

Luke 1:1-4, NASB says:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Although Matthew and Mark didn’t start their gospels with a statement like this, the way of writing shows that they are close to Luke’s historical intent that would closely mirror theirs.

In John 20:31, it says, “these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Now this sounds more theologically intended than historical but we have to remember that theology has to flow from accurate history.

7-1b. Some say that early Christians were convinced that Jesus was to return soon during their lifetime. Then why bother to record his life if he’s going to come and end the world at any moment?

Even if some followers of Jesus expected his quick return we should not neglect that Christianity was born out of Judaism. For centuries the Jews lived in great expectation that the Day of the Lord was at hand to deliver them yet many histories of Israel still occurred. Jesus followers’ looked upon him to be greater than the prophets so it seems reasonable that they would pursue the records just as what the followers of the prophets did in the preservation of their proclamations.

7-2a. The Ability Test. Even if the writers intended to reliably record the history, were they able to do so?

It’s just so hard for us to imagine today because we come from a foreign land in a distant time and place. Before there were no computers, printing press and books – or actually, scrolls of papyrus – were relatively rare. Therefore, almost every information was passed through word of mouth enabling the Rabbis and other Jews to even having committed the Old Testament to memory. So in the ability test, they certainly passed.

7-2b. Can oral tradition be compared to the telephone game? If so, then the passing on of messages is prone to error.

The answer is no, it cannot. In a telephone game the aim is to pass the message quickly and you do not have a chance to ask, ‘do I still have it right?’ Even if you ask, the message goes ahead of you and, in whispers, the next person will goof something up even more. This was not the case in the first-century community. In the passing of the message, the community, who were also witnesses, would be monitoring and would constantly be intervening to make corrections along the way. That’s the process of the oral tradition.

7-3. The Character Test. Was there any evidence of dishonesty that might taint their ability or willingness to transmit history accurately?

We simply do not have any reasonable evidence to suggest that they were dishonest. Their writings were not retracted in spite of the persecution of Christians present in their days.

7-4. The Consistency Test. Aren’t there irreconcilable discrepancies among the various gospel accounts?

It’s true that if we rigidly examine and compare the gospels with each other, some accounts may appear to disagree. But we must consider that the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it’s fair to judge them. Also, if the gospels appeared to be identical with each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors conspired among themselves and invalidate that they were independent witnesses.

*Dealing with the discrepancies:

Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School

There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.[vi]

Some examples of the variations

1. Matthew 8:5-13 says that a centurion himself came to ask Jesus to heal his servant while in Luke 7:6-10 says that the centurion sent some friends and says his own words. Now isn’t this an obvious contradiction?

Harmonization: In the ancient world it was perfectly understood that actions were often attributed to people when in fact they sent emissaries. Think about it this way: in our world today, we may hear a news report that says, ‘The president announced that…’ when in fact the speech was written by a speechwriter and delivered by the press secretary. Yet nobody accuses that broadcast of being in error.

2. The genealogies of Jesus according to Matthew 1:6-16 contrasted with that of Luke 3:23-31. The lineages of Jesus vary considering David’s descendants.

Harmonization: The two most common have been that Matthew reflects Joseph’s lineage while Luke, would have traced the genealogy through Mary’s lineage.

Part 2: Integrity of the Documents (canonized by the church fathers)

1. Do you know that we do not have the original writings of the apostles (original autographa) and what we do have are just copied manuscripts? If that’s the case, then how can our Bible still be reliable?

Actually, this is an issue not unique to the Bible. But the New Testament has in its favor the great number of copies we have, especially when compared to other ancient writings. The more often we have copies that agree with each other, especially if they come from different geographical areas, the more we can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. We have more than five thousand Greek manuscripts in existence today compared to other writings of antiquity that modern scholars have absolutely no reluctance treating as authentic (for example: Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus that has only 20 copies today and the runner-up Iliad by Homer that has fewer than 650 copies)[vii].

We can also consider the gap from the authors’ original writings to the earliest copies that we have. The Annals by Tacitus was written AD 100 but the earliest copy that survived is dated AD 1100, a 1000-year interval. Homer’s Iliad was composed at about 800 BC while they came down to us from the second and third century AD. Also in this criterion, the New Testament won our favor because paleographers date the early copies we have back to 200-250 AD.

*New Testament documents in the study of Paleography:

Bruce Metzger (late professor at Princeton Theological Seminary)

The most significant to come to light are the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, discovered about 1930. Of these, Beatty Biblical Papyrus number one contains portions of the four gospels and the book of Acts, and it dates from the third century. Papyrus number two contains large portions of eight letters of Paul, plus portions of Hebrews, dating to about the year 200. Papyrus number three has a sizable section of the book of Revelation, dating from the third century.[viii]

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum

In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.[ix]

The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.[x]

F.F. Bruce (late professor at University of Manchester)

There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.[xi]

2. If we do thorough examinations on the manuscripts, do the variations of the texts create any problem to be a potential error of the Bible?

Eyeglasses weren’t invented until 1373 in Venice and for sure astigmatism existed among the ancient scribes. And there were some other hazards like inattentiveness of the scribes, for example. So although most scribes were very much careful, errors did creep in. However, the vast number of manuscripts will allow us to come up with the accurate statement through cross-examinations. The notes in our Bible itself will tell us with all honesty that it might differ with other translations. The most controversial perhaps is the 1 John 5:7 of the King James Versions wherein only about seven or eight copies existed all from fifteenth or sixteenth century as Bruce Metzger pointed out. But even if it’s not part of the inspired writing of 1 John, it doesn’t invalidate the doctrine of the Trinity because it is supported by other verses in the Bible like the ending of 2 Corinthians and Jesus’ great commission in Matthew 28:19.

Another point is that the New Testament was written in the ancient Greek language, which is far different from English even in structure. If we say, ‘Dog bites man’ or ‘Man bites dog’ it makes much difference because sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn’t. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it is placed; so, the thought of the sentence isn’t distorted. You will know it by the words declensions (endings). Therefore, even if the scribes misplaced wordings it wouldn’t make any difference in the meaning of the statement.

*Example: ό Παυλος ακουεις του Ίησου του Χριστου

(the) Paul is hearing from (the) Jesus the Christ.

Even if it is arranged this way:

ό Παυλος του Χριστου ακουεις του Ίησου

(the) Paul the Christ is hearing from (the) Jesus.

It cannot be read as ‘Paul the Christ is hearing from Jesus.’ Because it would violate the ancient Greek language law of declension (endings) unless it is written this way:

ό Παυλος ό Χριστος ακουεις του Ίησου

(the) Paul the Christ is hearing from (the) Jesus.

3. Now regarding the allegations that church councils politically manipulated the canon (or in layman’s term, list of books that we have in the New Testament), how can we say that only these four gospels met the criteria as authoritative?

Some skeptics are really convinced that there were other gospels that have been censored because the early church didn’t like the image of Jesus they portrayed. However, if we study the meticulous process of the canon, we will see that these gospels (such as the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, etc.) were not excluded by the council, ‘they excluded themselves.’ The process was like the ‘survival of the fittest.’ The early church council just ratified the criteria that have been laid down through tradition.

First: The books must have apostolic authority – that is, they must have been written by apostles themselves, as eyewitnesses, or associates of the apostles.

Example: The Gospel of Thomas was written by an obscure Didymus Judas Thomas.

Second: There was the criterion of conformity to what was called the regula fidei or the rule of faith – that is, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative?

Example 1: The Gospel of Thomas contains this statement: Jesus says, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, render to God the things that are God’s, render to me the things that are mine’ wherein in Matthew 22:21 the latter phrase is not included.

Example 2: It even contains statements totally alien to the canonical gospels like Jesus says, ‘Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there.’ Now that is a heresy battled by the early church. That is called pantheism, the idea that Jesus is coterminous with the substance of this world.

Example 3: The Gospel of Thomas ends with a note saying, ‘Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus is quoted as saying, ‘Lo, I shall lead her to make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Again, this is a statement influenced by anti-feminism – one of the wide streams of the Gnostic heresy during the days it was written.

Conclusion by William Barclay, a late British commentator:

It is the simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so. It is the working of God that the four gospels were unrivaled, they are inspired. I see His providence regarding this matter. (Italics mine.)

2^nd SESSION: TRACKING BACK THE HISTORICAL JESUS

1. Did Jesus really die on the cross? Is it medically proven (for history should be based on facts)?

Medically, three professional terms are needed. These terms are hematidrosis, hypovolemic shock and asphyxiation. We will use these terms to understand the medical process of Jesus’ death.

*Medical statements of Alexander Metherell, a former research scientist who taught at University of California:

In the Garden of Gethsemane

Hematidrosis – caused by a high degree of psychological stress (Luke 22:44)

What happens is that severe anxiety causes the release of chemicals that break down the capillaries in the sweat glands, and the sweat comes out tinged with blood. We’re not talking about a lot of blood; it’s just a very, very small amount.

…What this did was set up the skin to be extremely fragile so that when Jesus was flogged by the Roman soldier the next day, his skin would be very, very sensitive.[xii]

During the torture before the cross

Hypovolemic shock – suffering effects in losing large amount of blood (in Jesus’ case, the cause was the Roman floggings known to be terribly brutal)

This does four things. First, the heart races to try to pump blood that isn’t there; second, the blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse; third, the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain what volume is left; and fourth, the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume. …Jesus was in hypovolemic shock as he staggered up the road to the execution site of Calvary, carrying the horizontal beam of the cross. Finally Jesus collapsed, and the Roman soldier ordered Simon to carry the cross for him. Later we read that Jesus said, ‘I thirst,’ at which point a sip of vinegar was offered to him. Because of the terrible effects of this beating, there’s no question that Jesus was already in serious to critical condition even before the nails were driven through his hands and feet.[xiii]

At the cross

Asphyxiation – crucifixion is essentially an agonizing slow death by being deprived of oxygen and irregularities of the heart

The reason is that the stresses on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into the inhaled position; basically, in order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. In doing so, the nail would tear through foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones. After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in. Again he’d have to push himself up to exhale, scraping his bloodied-back against the coarse wood of the cross. This would go on and on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person wouldn’t be able to push up and breathe anymore. As the person slows down his breathing, he goes into what is called respiratory acidosis – the carbon dioxide in the blood is dissolved as carbonic acid, causing the acidity of the blood to increase. This eventually leads to an irregular heartbeat. In fact, with his heart beating erratically, Jesus would have known that he was able to say, ‘Lord, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ And then he died of cardiac arrest.[xiv]

Another medical support complementing John’s gospel:

Even before he died – and this is important, too – the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion. ..Because of what happened when the Roman soldier came around and, being fairly certain that Jesus was dead, confirmed it by thrusting a spear into his right side. It was probably his right side; that’s not certain, but from the description it was probably the right side, between the ribs. The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart , so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid – the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion – came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel (John 19:34).

Wow, although John probably had no idea why he saw both blood and water came out; his description was consistent with what modern medicine would expect to have happened.

2. How about the discrepancies in the ‘tomb stories’ of Matthew, Mark, & Luke, does it not invalidate history?

*Challenging discrepancies:

Michael Martin of Boston University

In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back.

In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke two men are inside.

In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mar Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the tomb are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present in the tomb.

In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.[xv]

William Lane Craig’s response

With all due respect, Michael Martin is a philosopher not a historian, and I don’t think he understands the historian’s craft. For a philosopher, if something is inconsistent, the law of contradiction says, ‘This cannot be true, throw it out!’ However, the historian looks at these narratives and says, ‘I see some inconsistencies but I notice something about them: they’re all in the secondary details.[xvi]

3. Is it true that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon then rose again on a Sunday morning? If that’s the case, then Matthew 12:40 stands flawed.

Some well-meaning Christians have used this verse to suggest that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday rather than Friday, in order to get the full time in there. But most scholars recognize that according to early Jewish time-reckoning, any part of a day is counted as a full day. Thus, it was not a 24hours-a-day basis. Jesus was in the tomb Friday afternoon, all Saturday, and on Sunday morning – under the way the Jews conceptualized time back then, this would have counted as three days. Again, this is an example of another seeming discrepancy that can be explained through background study with an open mind.

4. Women were the ones who discovered the empty tomb. Were they reliable witnesses in the first-century Jewish context?

Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, ‘Let the words of the Law be burned rather than delivered to women’ and ‘Blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female. Women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren’t even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of law. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained that the gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status.

5. Nobody was sitting inside the tomb and saw the body start to vibrate. How can we be confident that it was really a story of a dead Jesus coming back to life?

Although, even in the gospels no one was able to see the actual coming back to life of Jesus, we can still be confident that he was raised from the dead. As long as we have the causes and effects of every premise we have a good data because science is all about causes and effects. We don’t see dinosaurs, we study fossils. We may not know how a disease originates but we study symptoms. Maybe nobody witnesses a crime, but investigators piece together evidence after the fact. We just have to be settled with two questions in the investigation. First, did Jesus die on the cross? We may be convinced by the professional medical analysis earlier but even if we aren’t confident with that medical explanation, we’re assured that the Roman soldiers were professional executioners. They were experts in killing for they do not want their lives to be at the risk of not doing a job well. Second, did he appear later to people? Then that’s it!! We’ve made the case – the cause and the effect. I am sure dead people don’t do that!!

6. How confident are you that 1 Corinthians 15 is a creed?

Primarily, Paul introduces the words received and delivered (or passed on in the NIV), which are technical rabbinic terms indicating that he’s passing a holy tradition. Just think of the passage for holy communion in 1 Corinthians 11:23. Second is the stylized writing wherein the first part (verses 3-4) refers to Jesus’ execution, burial and resurrection. The final part of the creed (verses 5-8 ) deals with his post-Resurrection appearances. Third, the original text uses Cephas for Peter which is Aramaic that indicates a very early origin. Fourth, the creed uses several primitive phrases such as ‘the Twelve,’ ‘the third day,’ ‘he was raised’ and others. Plus a lot more reasons defended by scholars that it was an early Christian creed.

7. What historical accounts do we have that the early Christians bore the message of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances?

When Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:6, ‘most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep,’ he was saying that some of these people or was told by someone who knew them they were still walking around and willing to be interviewed. Paul was merely inviting people to check for themselves that what he was saying was not just his own belief but also the beliefs of these other witnesses.

Besides we can even come out from using Bible references. We can examine what other reliable historians thought of Christ, the Christians and their beliefs.

*Some outside sources:

Statements by Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century

He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.[xvii]

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.[xviii]

Statement by Tacitus, a Roman historian of the first century

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome… Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.[xix]

Statement of Pliny the younger, a first-century governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey in his letter to Emperor Trajan, his friend

I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished…

They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery and adultery…

This made me decide that was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths.[xx]

Conclusion: We can see that history itself testifies the truth about Jesus, even in the sources outside the Bible. Although there were negative comments by these early writers about Christianity, comments don’t necessarily negate the truth. It only proves that they were persecuted and battled against by others, especially the troubled Rome during the early centuries. It really shows that history declares, that Jesus really conquered the grave and He deserves worship.

SESSION 3: EXAMINING THE JESUS OF FAITH

Part 1: The Self-understanding of Christ

1. Certainly the miracles of Jesus are not claims of divinity because his apostles also went out and did the same thing yet they didn’t claim deity. Is it a bit extreme that we consider him God wherein he was just one of the miracle workers?

When Jesus said that ‘if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you’ (Luke 11:20), He’s not like other miracle workers that do amazing things and then life proceeds as it always has. He sees himself as the one in whom and through whom the promises of God come to pass.

2. His followers just called him Rabbi or Rabbouni, doesn’t this imply that he merely taught like the other rabbis of this day?

Jesus accepted the title Rabbi for himself because it is true. Isn’t it? He was a learned teacher. However, He doesn’t speak the way other rabbis did who needed witnesses if the authority really comes from the Old Testament Scriptures. His words, ‘Amen I say to you’ is like saying, ‘I swear in advance to the truthfulness of what I’m about to say.’ Imagine, he’s the one speaking and he’s also the one who affirms to what he says. He comes in his own authority and to be specific, he comes with the authority of the Father.

3. Jesus taught his disciples to call God, ‘Father’ or Abba. Isn’t this a way of saying that Jesus being merely a man is just the same with us in being heirs of God?

In the context Jesus lived, God’s name was the most holy word you could speak, and they even feared mispronouncing it. If they were going to address God, they might say something like, ‘The Holy One, blessed be he,’ but they were not going to use his personal name. Abba is something personal that connotes intimacy in a relationship between a child and his father. Jesus used it of God and early Jews considered it as blasphemy. Try to think that although he taught his disciples to call God, Abba or Father; He was the initiator. He’s the initiator because he’s the only one who has the right. In fact, when we call God, Father; it is still distinct with Jesus’ calling God, Father. It’s because, we just gain it by right as adopted sons while Jesus is the only begotten Son. No wonder why Jesus after teaching us to pray ‘our Father’ still made the distinction of saying ‘it will be done for you by my Father in heaven’ (Matthew 18:19). Even the apostles believe that he is ‘the Christ, the Son of the Living God’ (Matthew 16:15-17).

4. If Jesus is to read the regal introduction of John in his gospel (John 1:1-3), do you think Jesus would say, ‘poor John, he got me all wrong’?

The answer is a simple, no!!

5. Do you think Jesus had an identity crisis of who he really was, just as presented in the movie The Last Temptation of Christ?

No, he didn’t have any. What we see in the gospels are identity affirmations. There’s nothing said that he was in identity confusions when the affirmations of God came at his baptism (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5; Luke 9:35) and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:43). He was even confident that He is the Son of God when He was tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). He boldly accepts prayer, worship and claims to forgive sins which are only applicable to God. And also, come to think of this, Jesus was a Jew. He is surely aware of every Jewish traditions and mindset. If Jesus chose twelve apostles, where would he be? When we say twelve one thing that might pop up in a Jewish mind is the twelve tribes of Israel. If the apostles were like representatives of the twelve in this New Covenant, where would Jesus be? Is it not a claim of being in the position of God?

*Ben Witherington III’s conviction of Jesus Christ:

Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God, the anointed one of God? The answer is yes. Did he see himself as the final Messiah? Yes, that’s the way he viewed himself. Did he believe that anybody less than God could save the world? No, I don’t believe he did. And here’s where the paradox gets quizzical as it can possibly get: the way God was going to save the world was by his Son dying. The most human of all human acts – to die. Now, God, in his divine nature, doesn’t die. So how was God going to get this done? How was God going to be the Savior of the human race? He had to come as a human being to accomplish that task. And Jesus believed he was the one to do it. Jesus in Mark 10:45, ‘I did not come to be served but to serve and give my life as a ransom in place of many.’ This is either the highest form of megalomania or it’s the example of somebody who really believes, as he said, ‘I and the Father are one.’ In other words, ‘I have the authority to speak for the Father; I have the power to act for the Father; if you reject me, you’ve rejected the Father. …We have to ask, Why is there no other first-century Jew who has millions of followers today? Why isn’t there a John the Baptist movement? Why, of all first-century figures, including the emperors, is Jesus still worshipped today, while the others have crumbled into the dust of history? It’s because this Jesus – the historical Jesus – is also the living Lord. That’s why. It’s because he’s still around, while the others are long gone.[xxi]

Part 2: The Divine Qualifications of Christ

1. What’s uniquely the qualification of Jesus that convinced you that He is divine?

This would certainly not go to the answer of His supernatural feats or His miracle working hands. As we have said earlier many miracle workers were present during those times. What’s unique with Jesus is His awareness of right to forgive sins and His audacious claim of sinlessness state.

If you do something against a person, that person has the right to forgive you. But if you sinned against a person and someone else would come and grant you forgiveness, that’s weird!! In our case as sinners the only one who can grant us forgiveness is God, even if the things done are against other people, is first and foremost a defiance of God and his laws. Even David was aware that he wronged others yet claimed, ‘against you only have I sinned’ (Psalm 51:4). So along comes Jesus and says to sinners, ‘I forgive you.’

Not only did he forgive sins but He even asserted that He himself was without sin. Historically in the West, people considered most holy have also been the most conscious of their sins. They are people who are aware of their shortcomings and lusts and resentments, and they’re fighting them honestly by the grace of God. If Jesus was just a holy ‘sin-conscious’ man, He wouldn’t be able to say, ‘Which of you convict me of sin?’ If I do that, my relatives would testify one by one.

2. How could Jesus be omnipresent if He couldn’t be in two places at once? How could He be omniscient when he says, ‘Not even the Son of Man knows the hour of his return’? How could he be omnipotent when the gospels plainly tell us that he was unable to do many miracles in his hometown?

These questions actually have no simple actions. We would have to delve into the doctrine of the Incarnation if we want to at least understand the God becoming man, spirit taking on flesh, the infinite becoming finite, the eternal becoming time-bound. Historically, there have been two or three approaches to this.

One is that when Jesus does something that’s a reflection of Him being God, that’s ascribed to His deity. When there’s something reflecting His limitations or finiteness or humanness – for example, his tears; does God cry? – that’s ascribed to His humanity. (Personally, I don’t concede to that.)[xxii]

Another is the use of the term kenosis or ‘emptying.’ This is from Philippians 2 where Paul tells us that Jesus, ‘who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men’. The emptying didn’t really mean emptying Himself of the deity, and then he would no longer be God. Strictly speaking Philippians 2 does not tell us precisely what the eternal Son emptied Himself of. We can just say that it is a self-limiting type of thing, that in His transcendence (or limitless power), He made Himself man but continued to be Lord of all.[xxiii]

3. How about the firstborn term used in the text to show the divinity of Christ according to Paul in Colossians 1:15-17?

There really are misconceptions about ‘firstborn’. It would appear to be that he is created. However, the simple answer is this. Paul would not contradict himself with meaning when he said, ‘for in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form’ (Colossians 2:9). So the use of ‘firstborn’ should be in the context of what Paul’s own conviction of the Lord Jesus Christ.

4. Try to consider Mark 10:18 when Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone”. Is this not a denial of His deity?

It’s actually like a challenge for the man to think it through if he’s sure what he was saying. In a fundamental sense there’s only one who is good, and that’s God. But Jesus is not implicitly saying, ‘So don’t call me that’. He was like saying, ‘Do you really understand what you’re saying when you say that? Are you really ascribing to me what should only be ascribed to God?’ Besides, the parallel passage in Matthew 19:16-22 doesn’t show Jesus downplaying his deity at all.

5. What about when Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I” in John 14:28, is it not a claim that He is less divine than God the Father?

When Jesus said that, He was referring to His present state. Remember the emptying? But it doesn’t mean that He’s lesser. He was only speaking to the disciples moaning of His nearing departure. It would be helpful to look at the context that Jesus was pointing to somewhere else, somewhere he left where the glory dwells, the Father’s dwelling place. It would also be helpful to read John 17, in its context especially when He said, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5). Although He is co-creator of all with the Father and the Spirit, He is not of this world (John 8:23; 18:36).

6. The Qualifications of Jesus the Christ:

Omniscience? - John 16:30

“Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

Omnipresence? - Matthew 18:20 ; 28:20

“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Omnipotence? - Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Eternality? - John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Immutability? - Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Conclusion:

Jesus died on the cross for our reconciliation with God. He was buried. On the third day He rose again. Jesus conquered the grave!! Proclaim it with conviction…

Note: This material is not for copyright because some words, phrases, sentences and thoughts are borrowed from the scholars above. The primary source is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, who made the interviews. Therefore, this material is like a personally-written compend of his book. –Bernard M. Bragas

Endnotes:

[i] Papias, Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Fragments of Papias, ed. Philip Schaff (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd.), 208.

[ii] Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Against Heresies, ed. Philip Schaff (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd.), 595.

[iii] As quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 36. Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine/Epiphany, 1993), 82.

[iv] William Lane Craig, The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 140.

[v] Armstrong, A History of God, 79.

[vi] Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), vii.

[vii] Data considering the numbers of copies vary depending on the source used but it essentially emphasizing that other copies are voluminously lesser than the New Testament.

[viii] Strobel, The Case for Christ, 79. An interview with Dr. Bruce Metzger.

[ix] Frederic Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New York: Macmillian, 1912), 5.

[x] Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology (New York: Harper, 1940), 288.

[xi] F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan: Revell, 1963), 42.

[xii] Strobel, The Case for Christ, 260. An interview with Dr. Alexander Metherell.

[xiii] Ibid., 262.

[xiv] Ibid., 265-66.

[xv] Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1991), 87.

[xvi] Strobel, The Case for Christ, 289.

[xvii] Jospehus, The Antiquities 20.200.

[xviii] Ibid., 18.63-64.

[xix] Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome, 15.44.

[xx] Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96

[xxi] Strobel, The Case for Christ, 188-89.

[xxii] I decided to give my own stand that I don’t fall under this conviction and I adhere to the Chalcedonian Creed that Christ is to be acknowledged “in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

[xxiii] It’s actually hard because we would bump into deep theological terms like ‘extra calvinisticum’.

Posted in Christian Theology | Tagged Christian Theology, Christology, Jesus Christ | Leave a Comment »

A Theology of Church History as Apologia for the Pentecostal/charismatic Movement

July 28, 2008 by bernardbragas

by Daniel A. Tappeiner

Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, January 1, 1999

The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement generally interprets itself as a great, new and final movement of God in the end times. Some classical Pentecostals speak of their movement as the “latter rain,” the final outpouring of the Holy Spirit prior to the apocalyptic return of Jesus Christ. Tentative evaluations of this movement from an historical perspective might speak in terms of a new Reformation, comparing it in importance to the great Reformation of the sixteenth century under Luther, Calvin and the Reformers.

This movement, however, is not simply a matter of experience, which would only be an historical phenomenon to be interpreted psychologically, sociologically and culturally. It is also a relatively new understanding of the meaning of the experience and teaching of the New Testament in relation to the Holy Spirit and especially to the matter of baptism in the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit.

Immediately a series of questions arise in the minds of Evangelicals, those who already hold the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” What right does this new understanding of scripture have to exist? Is a new normative revelation from God being claimed, as in Mormonism or Christian Science? Is there a danger of going beyond the Jesus of the New Testament to a “spirit” of experience and immediacy? What of all the generations of saints, martyrs and common believers prior to this new movement and new understanding? Were they all deficient? Did they miss the real depth of Christian life?

For a person who is without the perspective of church history such questions may seem irrelevant. The de novo quality of their experience seems enough for the present. There is, however, a real need that such questions be faced and some justification be given. The need is three-fold. First, it is necessary to avoid errors of self-misinterpretation and the attendant dangers of spiritual pride. Second, if unbiblical subjectivism is to be avoided, it is necessary to see continuity with the past as a well as newness in the present. Third, such a justification is necessary in terms of communication with those who know the finality of Jesus Christ and are all too aware of the confusion which comes when the vagaries of the human spirit are uncritically equated with the action of the Holy Spirit.

The approach to such issues and questions must not be narrow. It cannot consist in glib quotes from scripture and the telling of some modern day experience to clinch the point. The approach must be large enough in scope to take into account all the relevant data. It must show continuity with the Spirit’s activity in the church from the time of the New Testament church to the present. It must ask why the new interpretation and present experience are not clearly discoverable in the records of the early church. It must speak to the fact of periodic manifestations of such Spirit-movements in the history of the church. The approach must give an explication of the fact of such past Spirit-movements, but it must also explain why the present movement is unique and significant beyond these earlier movements. It must also deal with the issue of fanaticism, mere emotionalism and doctrinal heterodoxy, which often accompanied such “Spirit movements” in the past. The problem of discernment of spirits and testing must be faced.

To do that is a task of no little difficulty! It must, however, be attempted. It is a legitimate demand upon those who support the present day Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal and who seek to integrate it to the larger world of Christian faith and life. Indeed, it is a demand internally implied in the truth that the impulse to gnosis is embedded in true biblical pistis. St. Anselm’s prayer, “I believe that I might understand” is the only legitimate attitude in the task of theological reflection.

What is required, then, is an adequate theology of church history. The promise of Jesus, that when the Spirit of truth comes He will guide us into all truth (John 16:13), must be properly related to the emergence of any new understanding and movement in the church. I propose to develop a theology of church history based upon the work of Philip Schaff, the Evangelical giant and church historian of the last century. In particular on the approach which he enunciated in his treatment of the issue of the rise of the Oxford movement in England under the leadership of men like John Henry Newman. A proper theology of church history will prove an adequate and solid platform to support and justify the possibility of the new kind of theological understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit embodied in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.

Anyone acquainted with Schaff will know his encyclopedic perspective, his concern for true continuity in the church and his sensitive and balanced approach. He himself was not one to take lightly the past or to overrate the present understanding of his own “enlightened era.” He expressed his attitude on this point in the following words of trenchant irony:

O, thou light of the nineteenth century! How hast thou tarried with thy rising, hiding thyself for a thousand years behind the clouds, in cowardly fear of those dying men, the popes! Come now, ye poor unfortunate children of darkness – ye Leos and Gregorys, ye Emperors… Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura and Bernard of Clairvaux, Dante Alighieri and Petrarch…Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, Francis of Assisi and Thomas à Kempis — come forth from your graves and be illuminated by the light that now reigns; learn how to govern church and state from our synods, consistories and advocates; study philosophy and theology at Andover and New Haven; practice poetry, church building, and painting amid the encouragement that is given to the arts in practical, money-loving America; take lessons in piety from the camp meetings… But they have no desire to come back the mighty dead. With a compassionate smile, they point our dwarfish race to their own imperishable giant works and exclaim: “Be humble and learn that nothing becomes you so well.”

The application to the present situation is clear enough.

Yet this man, who so powerfully speaks to our necessity for historical perspective, was also in the vanguard of those who looked for the point at which the Spirit of truth was teaching the church and leading it into all truth. Even in 1844 Schaff looked forward to the next development of the Spirit which he called “Protestant Catholicism.”

In Schaff’s inaugural address as professor of biblical literature and ecclesiastical history at the seminary at Mercersburg, he spelled out his views on the church, the principle of Protestantism and an assessment of the contemporary condition of the church in his time. From this can be extracted a theology of church history which contains the principles needed for the present task of justifying the current Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement as a legitimate possibility, reflecting the work of the Holy Spirit of leading into “all truth.” Schaff summarized his views of the development of the church in his time with a series of 111 theses. I will select out those theses which will provide a framework of understanding to deal with the issues of historical continuity and the possibility of genuine advancement in the area of theological understanding and experience.

I. THE FACT OF DEVELOPMENT

Schaff’s first thesis will serve as the starting point for our exposition of a theology of church history:

Every period of the church and of theology has its particular problem to solve; and every doctrine, in a measure every book also of the Bible, has its classic age in which it first comes to be fully understood and appropriated by the consciousness of the Christian world.

The church is a living, supernaturally constituted organism, not a mere mechanism or phenomenon of psychology and culture. As such it has its own life history, its own processes of growth and its developmental crises. As in any living organism, the church, in its initial constitution, contained, through the work of the Holy Spirit, all the elements necessary for its functioning in God’s purpose and plan. Through the new life of the age to come (deriving from the resurrection of Jesus) and the new power of the age to come (deriving from the ascension and Pentecost) the church was plenarily endowed to fulfill its worldwide mission of kerygmatic proclamation and the charismatic ministry of wholeness. The fullness and completeness of divine teaching was also given through apostolic figures to establish the base for normative life and understanding of divine things.

There is, however, a correlation in the history of the church between three basic elements and every advance in the theological development of the church. First, the church has its own developmental needs and readiness for learning. Second, it has a relationship to its own age, with its Zeitgeist, peculiar concerns and pressures. Third, there is that aspect of Scripture which is most alive and meaningful to the church at a particular point in its development toward the fullness of the stature of Christ, to the aner teleios, of Eph 4:13. Therefore, in fact, the historical and theological development of the church can be analyzed as a series of encounters among all three elements – readiness, context and scripture – in which a particular problem is tackled, solved and developed in the explicit understanding of the church and in so doing, certain books of the Bible and key passages receive their classical expositions.

A review of the development of church doctrine suggests the following skeletal outline which will indicate the fact of development — the leading of the Spirit of truth into all truth. Within the New Testament itself it is clear that the major theological tasks included an integration of the Christ event with the Old Testament tradition, the consequent universalization of Christianity into a religion of world-wide scope, the relation of Christian reality to pagan religions and life-styles and an inner struggle with it own eschatological expectations.

In the following centuries the Gnostics raised the issue of the relation of God to the created order. The trinitarian struggle worked with the relation of God to the person of Jesus Christ. The christological controversies sought to explore the relation of Jesus Christ to humanity. The Pelagian controversy developed the doctrines of sin and grace and the nature of man. In the Medieval period the unique features of the Roman Catholic Church began to emerge, built upon previous advances and developing a complex system in which a sacramental conception of the church as mysticus corporis was the central feature. The Reformation represents an epochal advance in the church’s grasp of the meaning of the Pauline teaching of justification and the re-establishment of the formal authority of Scripture. Recent history is more difficult to assess, but in the late 18th and the 19th centuries the missionary task of the church gained its clearest explicit expression for the time and in the last one hundred years the nature of the church has been extensively explored and expounded in the interests of ecumenicity.

The relevance of all of this to the present day movement of the Holy Spirit is obvious. The church is now ready, both in its own development and in relation to the climate of the age, to wrestle with the reality of the Holy Spirit in the life and experience of the church in a new way. The time has come for a definite exposition of the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit Himself, in executing the sovereign plan of God, is leading the church into a condition which has resulted in the renewed experience of the Spirit in the form found in the New Testament and the theological reflection of the church which naturally follows upon such experience.

II. THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT

If the developmental interpretation of the history of the church is correct it is imperative that the precise nature of this process be stated explicitly in terms of its limits, possibility and specific character. It is at this point that questions of superceding Jesus Christ become most insistent. The very legitimate concern exists that in speaking of “development” it may be interpreted to mean leaving behind, as “mere objectivity,” the Jesus of history and the inspired apostolic witness, for a religious experience of the spirit of Jesus separated from Jesus. Schaff was much aware of that very danger as it inhered in the theological reconstructions of Schleiermacher and in the whole dynamic of German liberalism. He therefore states theses, which established very clearly the limits, possibility and nature of the development of the church both in its experiences and doctrine.

He first deals with the issue of the limits to development. In thesis 13 he states very succinctly: “Christianity in itself is the absolute religion, and in this view unsusceptible to improvement.” Jesus Christ is the full final and perfect revelation both of God and humankind. There is nothing beyond Jesus Christ. He is the center of all. In Him the triune God is perfectly revealed. In Him all things in the created order unite in a cosmic “recapitulation.” There is no revelation to follow save the final open manifestation of the glory of God in Jesus Christ and His church in the eschaton. There is no “age of the Spirit” succeeding the “age of the Son” in which the Son is replaced at the center by another reality. Rather, Jesus is both the center and the circumference of Christian experience and truth. He is the limit, the boundary of all legitimate development.

The apostolic writers everywhere assume this fact and they also state it explicitly at times. Jude speaks of contending “for the faith which was once for all (hapax) delivered to the saints” (v. 3). Here “faith” is used to refer to the content of faith, not its usual sense of the experience of supernatural trust based on divine revelation. Paul clearly means the same thing when he speaks of Jesus Christ as the foundation upon which all future ministry is built (1 Cor 3:10-15), or as the chief corner stone, along with the other foundational elements of apostles and prophets, in the holy temple of the Lord (Eph 2:20-22).

Such images clearly mean that all genuine spiritual development in the future must be fully in accord with the “sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness” (1 Tim 6:3), that is, with Jesus Himself and the apostolic witness and teaching. In other words, all teaching and all experience must be evaluated by the authoritative norm of Jesus and the apostolic message. Any experience or teaching which does not sustain the test of the limit and norm of Jesus Christ is false and to be rejected.

III. THE ISSUE OF PENTECOSTAL/CHARISMATIC “REVELATION”

At this point a question is often raised, by those who seek and accept this finality of Jesus Christ, in relation to the often-repeated references by those in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, to receiving “revelations” in the Spirit. An example of such a claim to “revelation” can be seen in the book written by David Wilkerson, a popular Pentecostal figure, which purports to be a prophetic visionary revelation from God for the whole church today relative to the near future.

Pauline “Revelation”

Notice must also be taken here of the Pauline references to “revelation” (apokalypsis) in the “charismatic liturgy” of the early church (1 Cor 14:26, 30). This charismatic liturgy is taken seriously in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement and such revelation is both expected and received in the context of corporate worship. What is the relation of these charismatic revelations to the hapax revelation of Jesus Christ?

The answer can best be framed in terms of the function of such charismatic revelations in comparison with and contrast to the function of the revelation in Jesus Christ and apostolic witness.

A review of the Pauline usage of the concept “revelation” indicates a three-fold thrust. There are ecstatic revelations (2 Cor 12:1, 7), which are personal in nature. There are charismatic revelations which are corporate and local. There are apostolic-prophetic revelations, which are universal and normative (Eph 3:5). Paul himself experienced the “traditional” ecstatic revelations characteristic of the apocalyptic writers and devotees of the mystery religions. He writes of receiving an abundance of visions (optasia) and revelations in terms which clearly indicate ecstasy and altered states of consciousness (“Whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,” “caught up into paradise,” and “heard things which cannot be told”, 2 Cor 2:1-10). This type of experience was strictly personal in nature, related to God’s purpose for his life and his own spiritual and psychological makeup. This is evident from the fact that his whole ministry began with such a sovereign revelational experience on the road to Damascus (see Gal 1:15, 16), from the very personal way in which the glorified Lord counterbalanced these ecstatic revelatory experiences by allowing “a thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7), and from the fact that they were not intended for public proclamation to the church (2 Cor 12:4). Paul gives explicit warning against such experiences when they are made the basis for new doctrine or practice outside the context of apostolic teaching and fellowship (Col 2:18).

Paul also speaks of and promotes, as an expected part of the charismatic liturgy, another form of revelation with another purpose (1 Cor 14:26, 30) In charismatic revelation the form is not ecstatic and it takes place in orderly fashion in the context of worship in the Spirit. That this type of revelation is not ecstatic is indicated by the general principle that “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (1 Cor 14:32), by the orderliness expected by Paul and by the close connection of such revelation to the manifestation of prophecy (1 Cor 14:29, 30).

The purpose of such revelations is clearly tied to the corporate context. The general Pauline rule for all charismatic manifestations of the Spirit is “let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor 14:26; see also 1 Cor 12:7; 14:12). This principle governs charismatic revelations whose purpose must be the upbuilding of the church. The purpose is strictly local and always related to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. This can most clearly be seen in its connection with prophecy which is local and of the moment, for those gathered in worship (1 Cor 14:38; Gal 2:2). In two places it is explicitly stated that such revelation is given by the Holy Spirit from God that we might “understand the gifts bestowed on us by God” (1 Cor 2:12) or that Christians might know their hope, inheritance and power in and through Jesus Christ (Eph 1:17ff). In other words, the nature of this type of charismatic revelation is a divine illumination of the definitive revelation in Jesus Christ, which makes that revelation especially alive and suited to upbuilding the church through a corporate proclamation of it and an appropriate testing by the church.

Paul also writes of apostolic-prophetic revelation which is universal and normative for the church. His own message he claims to be the direct result of revelation (Gal 1:11) and he specifically rejects any “revelation” which is contrary to the Gospel of the Jesus of history (Gal 1:18). He writes to the churches in Asia Minor of the “mystery of Christ”, — the gospel, given by revelation through the apostles and prophets (Eph 3:3-5). Here “prophets” refer to the New Testament prophets. This normative revelation is always in connection with the Old Testament prophetic expectations (Rom 16:25, 26), with the historic person of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:23) and with the foundational, and therefore final and unrepeatable, revelation through the New Testament apostles and prophets (Eph 2:21, 22).

It is only charismatic revelation which is part of the present Pentecostal/Charismatic movement as a normative part of the church’s functioning. Ecstatic revelations are accepted as possible and actual but only personal in significance. Normative revelation is restricted to apostolic teaching and practice and is used as the canon by which charismatic revelations are to be weighed by the gathered church (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:19-21).

Johannine Theology of Development

The same dialectic, between the absoluteness of Jesus Christ and developmental leading of the church “into all truth,” is also clearly evident in the Johannine materials. Two passages in the Farewell Discourse (John 14:25; 16:12-15) indicate a delicate balance between the permanent, normative significance of the Jesus of history and the further revelations to come by the Spirit of truth. In both passages it is stated or implied that Jesus’ teachings are incomplete prior to his glorification in the cross and ascension. In the first passage Jesus says “these things” (and no more) I have spoken to you while I am still with you” (v. 25). But – there is more to come – the “all things” which Jesus wants to say to the disciples which they were unable to assimilate (bastazein) in their present spiritual state. Once again reference is made to the coming Spirit of truth who will guide them into all truth.

In these same passages, however, which point to further teachings and revelations from Jesus to be given by the Paraclete, it is clear that they are really from him and will refer back to him. The Paraclete will bring to remembrance all that Jesus had said to them (14:26), he will not speak on his own authority, independent of Jesus (16:12) but will disclose (anangelei) the things which are coming. At the same time the Holy Spirit will also be taking from “the things” of Jesus, i.e., content which comes from Jesus and which points to Jesus, and declaring them so that, in this guiding activity of the Spirit of truth, Jesus will be glorified.

This same balance between the on-going, post-Pentecostal activity of the Spirit and the normative meaning of the history and teaching of Jesus is seen in 1 John 5:6-8. Here the Spirit, “who is the truth,” is a witness to the Jesus of history. The Spirit is united with the witness of the “water and blood” which refer to the historical events of Jesus’ baptism in water at the Jordan and his baptism in blood at the cross.

From this discussion it is clear that there must not be any attempt to go beyond the Jesus of apostolic witness to another gospel or another spirit which is not the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7), whose proper task is to interpret to the church in a living way the hapax of Jesus Christ Himself. Any such attempt is unbiblical and must be guarded against.

The other side of the matter, however, must also be taken seriously, namely, that without the continued activity of the Spirit, of taking of the things of Jesus and declaring them to the church, there is no real gospel any more. Without the living, leading voice of the Spirit of truth the gospel becomes mere dead letter. Once we have laid to rest the specter of further normative revelations being claimed, there should, then, be the positive expectation – indeed demand, for continued charismatic revelations in the church, in order that the body of Christ might be fully built up in the one faith of absolute dependence upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ and in a further grasp of the content of faith, the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

IV THE POSSIBILITY AND CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT.

Schaff makes very clear the way in which development is actually possible in the church in thesis 13:

We must not confound with this (absoluteness of Jesus Christ), however, the apprehension and appropriation of Christianity in the consciousness of mankind. This is a progressive process of development that will reach its close only with the Second Coming of the Lord.

The key categories which must be used, if the biblical balance between normative apostolic revelation and the continuing activity of the Spirit leading the church into all truth is to be maintained, are those of “consciousness” and “apprehension.” The distinction between the once-for-all givenness of normative revelation and the active appropriation and apprehension of that revelation in the living, corporate (and then individual) consciousness of the church, makes it very clear how progress and development are possible within the limits of the apostolic hapax. Development does not consist in going beyond Jesus Christ and the apostolic witness, because there is nothing beyond. Going “beyond” could, in fact, only be a reversion to mere human religion, whether it be to the legalistic misunderstanding of Judaism or the multiple forms of religious error found among the other families of humankind. Rather, true development, led by the Spirit of truth, is a matter of drawing ever more deeply upon the treasury of God’s reality and grace as it is found in Jesus Christ. Development can only be an increase of genuine life in Christ and an ever more precise explication, in cognitive categories, of the truth which is in Jesus Christ.

In the Colossian epistle, both increased participation in the material principle of Jesus Christ and in the formal principle are held before those who were being wooed to an advance “beyond Christ”, which was really a falling back into a mixture of heathen and Jewish religious notions and practices. The formal principle is Jesus Christ Himself “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3). But He is also then the material principle, for it is from this treasury that “all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery” may be drawn (Col 2:3). The apostle sums up this whole point in these words: “As, therefore, you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith…” (Col 2:6). It is one thing to have a treasure of “assured understanding,” it is another to appropriate it personally, in consciousness, in explicit form. The situation is much like having a valuable book in your library without having read any more than the table of contents. The value is in the text, not outside of it. What is required is a real interaction with the contents.

The category “consciousness” suggests its opposite, which is “unconscious” or “implicit.” The domain in which development takes place, then, is that of consciousness not content. Therefore it is evident that this change is a shift from implicit to explicit. The Spirit’s role is the explication, in the consciousness of the church, of that which the church previously had lived upon only implicitly but which is now called forth according to the developmental readiness of the church as a living, growing organism and by the pressures experienced externally from the Zeitgeist and internally from the dynamic which urges pistis to seek gnosis. As Schaff goes on to say in thesis 16:

It is possible for the church to be in possession of a truth and live upon it, before it has come to be discerned in her consciousness…. Thus the child eats and drinks long before it has the knowledge of food, and walks before it is aware of the fact, much less how it walks.

CONCLUSION

The theology of church history which we have extracted from Schaff’s “theses for the times” serves quite well in providing the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement with a rationale for the possibility of “newness” and development, while maintaining a senses of historical perspective and connectedness. It does not, of course, answer all of the specific questions which can be raised exegetically or historically. But it does point in a direction which would be more acceptable to the larger Evangelical world, to which Pentecostals and Charismatics could and should be positively related. In the specific matter of the nature of “revelation” and the danger of going beyond Jesus Christ, it is clear that neither Paul nor John allows it, nor do Pentecostal/Charismatics intend it.

Much work remains to be carried out in detail, within this Christian consciousness model for the theology of church history. A series of further question arise which must be dealt with if all of the data of the history of the church are to be properly placed within the developmental framework we have presented as one which will justify the claims of the Pentecostal/Charismatic to be a significant work of the Holy Spirit and one which represents a further dialectic advance in the consciousness of the church.

ENDNOTES

This is not to say that such statements are an approval in any way of the doctrines and practices of, say, the Latter Rain Assemblies of South Africa in the late 1920s, which were generally repudiated by most classical Pentecostals. It is simply an “eschatologizing” of a familiar biblical metaphor. See Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 140-48.

2. The necessity of “justifying” a new theological understanding is, of course, an issue for any kind of theological development. A recent example of this in Evangelical circles is related to the matter of the “secret rapture of the saints” associated with the rise of dispensationalism since the mid-1800s. George Ladd raised the historical/developmental issue in his book The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, l956), p. 19: “If the Blessed Hope is in fact a pretribulation rapture, then the church has never known that hope through most of its history, for the idea of a pretribulation rapture did not appear in prophetic interpretation until the nineteenth century. Pretribulationists are reluctant to admit this.” In reply, John F. Walvrood, The Rapture Question (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 192 writes: “The detailed development of pretribulational truth during the past few centuries does not prove that the doctrine is new or novel. Its development is similar to that of other major doctrines in the history of the church.” He also deals with this matter in more detail earlier in the book, pp. 52, 53.

3. Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1964), p. 177.

4. Schaff, p. 230, thesis 83.

5. Schaff, p. 219.

6. Obviously there are a number of other tasks which might be mentioned such as the early trinitarian reflections implicit in the Johannine Farewell Discourses or the incipient Gnosticism reflected in the Pauline letters.

7. Cf., Irenaeus’ concept. See Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan (New York: Dover, l961), II, p. 238.

8. David Wilkerson, The Vision (Grand Rapids: Revel, l973). The contents of this vision are quite in line with what might be expected from a pre-tribulation Pentecostal with some negative feelings about the Roman Catholic Church.

9. This review is restricted to an analysis of Pauline usage of apocalypsis in relation to charismatic manifestation. It excludes the more general usages and such issues as “general revelation.” Of course it is understood that the basic etymological meaning of “unveiling” stands behind all of its uses and points to perception of the hidden reality of spiritual things. For an exhaustive treatment of the broader background see Albrecht Oepke, ” ,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tran. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), III, pp. 563-92.

10. The meaning taken here is that reflected in the RSV “taking his stand on visions,” literally “upon that which he has seen (ha heoramen) puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind.”

11. See the perceptive discussion of this in an excellent book by James Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975), pp. 350-53.

DISCLAIMER: The intent of the knowledge base is to provide information about Christ, Christianity, the Gospel and missions, in order to equip Christian workers to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples who earnestly desire to worship God, relate to each other, serve the world and evangelize the lost. Articles are derived from a variety of sources representing a wide range of opinions. They are either submitted as original works from authors, reprinted by permission, or annotated analyses of works published elsewhere. The opinions expressed are those of the original sources, are given for informational purposes only, and in some cases do not agree with the doctrinal position of the Network for Strategic Missions, our staff, or our advisory board.

Posted in Articles by our mentor at ASCM, Daniel Tappeiner | Tagged Charismatic, Pentecostalism | Leave a Comment »

An Updated Spiritual Autobiography

July 25, 2008 by bernardbragas

I cannot really start an auto-biography narrating the story of my life. It is really my mother who has to be credited for my journey to faith. She’s been a Christian for already 22 years and I wouldn’t even continue on with the faith if I didn’t see her so devoted to the Lord. I find the need to insert this short narrative that I wrote before to highlight our family’s journey to faith that was initiated by God through my mother’s devout life. Sometimes we do not appreciate the person who brought us to the Lord Jesus, but this is not the case with how I am grateful my mother introduced me to Him.

A Narrative of My Family’s Journey to Faith[i]

There was once in the history of this world that God smiled[ii] for his created man whose name was Bernard, not that he was unique in creation but He just simply delights in each work His hand lays.[iii] He was a second son of college sweethearts who met in Manila and from two different provinces in the Philippines, one from Batangas and one from Bicol. This couple, Abelardo and Melchy, married and gave birth to their first wonderful son and named them Albert. Then after two years, the couple loved each other so much that the woman bore their second son, who will be a person in which God’s grace would be so much demonstrated.[iv] In their faithfulness in marriage and love for each other, the woman gave birth to their third child and it was a beautiful daughter. With their family God delighted that He protected[v] them and these children grew in the guidance of their parents.[vi]

The family did not have a Christian background for both parents were raised Catholics by their families. It was only 1986 when Melchy had her first personal encounter with God. Abelardo was not exactly into consideration of being like her for he said to her, “You were the one who brought me in embracing the Catholic faith and now you are taking me again to some sort of religion.” So she just kept on praying for her husband and for their child to be raised as Christians. Until one day the husband said to his wife, “This land is getting dry and we may not have enough to raise our children, I will go and work in a foreign land.” So the husband, in their agreement as married couples, went to Japan to have an advanced training on his job, for behold, he was an agricultural engineer. This gave her a chance to grow with her Christian faith for she was not hindered in going to church. She was like a bird[vii] that just came out of her cage flying around the beauty of life with God in His wide wings as a companion.[viii] However, some of the man’s relatives considered it to be non-sense that they informed him about his wife’s devotion as a Christian. She always wrote him letters sharing her new faith but the consideration of the husband was having their children not taken care of.[ix] He would often call and say, “You have to abandon that faith of yours or this marriage is over.” Then the finishing statement would always be BLAG!! (phone just hanged up). She just continued to claim God’s word by consistently praying, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household.”[x]

Abelardo finally went back home after his training (actually it was a bit early), and what a surprise!! Their marriage was not over. But still he did not want her to go to church. So she underwent so much persecution even having an experience of being beaten by a 2×2 wood in front of the people in a Bible study group. Surely, their children regarded it as growing under a dog and cat relationship.[xi] Thus, her relationship with Him faded but still she experienced God’s own hands with everything she was undergoing. She was spared from a bus accident; business was booming plus the fact that their children were growing healthy and intelligent. Until the day a devil confronted her and dared to strangle her in a dream.[xii] She could not resist it without the authority she remembered of being given to her so she resisted the devil and said aloud, “in Jesus’ mighty name get out.” That day, she realized her helplessness apart from the Lord. She decided to look for a church near their place because before, she had to go to Luneta just to attend church while bringing their children. Finally, she found one and started to regularly attend again and involved herself in the church activities. This time, her husband gave her permission only that the children should not be going with her. Still, she persisted of bringing their children having the reason that they were to be taken care of. So she went together with their children.

Behold[xiii] their children were growing and were being raised having the principles of the Bible, especially the two sons for they are the ones who did not have much of an age gap. They started to have opinions in life and thought of their decisions towards Jesus Christ. The eldest, Albert, chose a life of this world and so did the younger. Albert started to be an oppressor that even the higher batch on his school was afraid of him. He cut classes, became video games addict and anything that a man of this world would engage into. He ended up being in a fraternity and almost got somebody killed then he was exiled to their father’s home in Batangas. In the same way Bernard, the younger, idolized his brother that he also became the school’s most aggressive bachelor[xiv] having the school’s higher batch under his proud approach on everyone.[xv] He had the best high school experience for he was favored in spite of his unrevealed personality to some. He was surrounded with fortunate friends and they all excel in different areas at school.[xvi] No wonder why this person became as proud as can be. The Author above all was longing for this young man to be broken.[xvii]

Until this much awaited day by the heavens and the earth came.[xviii] Bernard’s mother got him reserved to attend a youth camp training at Norzagaray, Bulacan. He agreed to come with the young people expecting it to be a good experience. He only intended to have fun around but there he experienced recognition of his sins and realized his need of a Savior. Surprisingly, he received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. What a day to witness?! How can this ‘greatest miracle’[xix] happen to a person?[xx] This day his life was transformed and he decided to serve God as an act of gratitude. But the change of life did not come in the fullness instantly. He still got involved with fights during the early years of his Christian life. Actually, it will not be ideal to say but these days might be typical,[xxi] he was already teaching and sometimes given an opportunity to give exhortations. Well hypocrisy did not start in the modern age; it was there even before Jesus’ incarnation.[xxii] He was even taught a lesson when they went far of going to another school for a fight and suddenly he was left behind by his friends. Some punches reached him until he was able to run with his own will. His friends may have deserted him but still he stuck on to them and continued on with their lives.

Then another incident in his life occurred. He had dengue fever and reached his critical status in the hospital. He was already nearing death when he decided to call upon the name of Jesus. He settled his relationship once more and then life goes on being a Christian. He finished high school with good grades for he has been gifted with knowledge[xxiii] although he messed up in his early high school years.

When he studied for college, another Christian declining year came. He again forgot his relationship with God. “He did everything pleasing to his own sight”[xxiv] When he graduated his 3-year course, he again thinks highly of himself. But he did not notice that because of his lax years, his knowledge was not enhanced. Actually he was like being the exact word ‘dumb.’[xxv] He planned to take up a course ladderized to his previous one but what was lost was not recovered. It was as if he did not have any background of the course on civil engineering. Thus, it again gave him a humbling experience. He started to be afraid of not having his plans established in the future. Until he decided to give his life back to Him and enrolled in Asian Seminary of Christian Ministries. However, his father did not support him at first. He had to go through lots of prayers and fasting and have the Spirit lead reconciliation with his father. After three weeks of pleading to God, his father pronounced his support for his son. A very blessed day!! (I will never forget that!!)

Right now, as this narrative ends, it is still an ongoing journey of faith to Bernard’s family. The saving grace started from his mother; endured and tested, grace was experienced by him. Now his sister goes with them and believing someday all of them will be in one faith. A statement of his mother when he got delivered from a threatening death can never be forgotten, “I now know that the reason I have endured the persecutions is that God has a great plan for your life, my son.”[xxvi]

A Personal Journey on Initial Christian Growth and Ministry Works

The camp I attended was the time, as mentioned in the narrative, that I received Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. It was the last week of May 1997 after I graduated from elementary. I was 13 years of age back then. Although I had been joining my mother as she went to church when I was younger, it came really unexpected that in the camp I felt the One shared by my mother to be ‘as if very close to me.’ I guess it was at first, a ‘feeling conversion.’ I loved the way it felt!! To cry before the camp’s proclaimed Lord without even knowing the reason of the tears. I do not even think I had the concept of the cross during those times. I just knew that the God, who is very powerful, created everything, had His self-disclosure to me. Was I aware that there is a Holy Spirit? I guess so, because they taught me so. “God is here through the Holy Spirit, feel the touch of Jesus,” was the message I believe I had preconceived in my mind. I really do not know, my Christian rationality wasn’t working yet in my first youth camp days. I just know it’s a transition that my life is changed forever (that I actually doubted as time went by). It became the first landmark of my Christian belief.

Even before I had the chance to join the camp, the Lord was very much at work in my life. I had a friend named Marilen Grama, – the older sister of my friend, actually – who gave me a booklet. It was a devotional book for teens. The title is Nuggets: Gems for the Youth. I think it was issued for the teenagers of the Bread of Life church. That devotional booklet, that I still have, nourished me in some way as a new spiritual babe. But I didn’t read it much before the camp. I just wasn’t interested. The camp experience surely is the time I started to appreciate the booklet. There I found many verses for young people that I memorized. 1 Timothy 4:12 is the best example, “Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in truth and in purity.” I wasn’t aware of context issues during those times and I don’t think I would care. I didn’t even have an idea of who Timothy was or who wrote the letter (or not even knowledgeable that it’s an epistle, hehe!!). I just know it’s the word of God. Another is Ecclesiastes 12 saying, “Remember your Creator in the days of your youth.” Being so naïve, I was nourished and strengthened in my early Christian life. Thanks to the booklet that Ate Marilen gave me!! Thanks to Ate Marilen for her desire to reach me!! (Although I know she was shy to share the gospel verbally.) Thanks to God who used people like her and my mom!!

I started to grow having regular prayers in my life and taking the Bible seriously as possible. I also began to involve myself to church activities and wow, every Christian worship experience was wonderful!! I became the youth chairman for the KKB (Kristianong Kabataan para sa Bayan) of JIL (Jesus is Lord) church Masinag, Antipolo chapter because it was the first church I was with. The camp where I got converted was even the JIL camp for the young people. But it was only for a short time because we had a church split from JIL. I was young then and I might fall into error if I state the reason of the division so I decide not to say anything about it. Whether if I got affected or not, yes I was really affected knowing that this very people who showed me love as they ministered to me failed to live the love I heard them teach. I’ve even heard threats of a non-Christian goon from a mouth of a Christian pastor. Again, I will not go in details. Hmm, if someone is to ask me, “Have you already seen church fights?” my answer would be, “It’s really not a big deal for me.” Our church is a product of two church divisions. One was when the Cogeo, Antipolo chapter of JIL broke with them and became LJCC (Lord Jesus Christ Church) and the other one was when we’ve realized that we couldn’t have harmony with the LJCC and went out from it to establish a new church. Although it was only for a while that I was youth chairman of JIL – KKB, I learned responsibility and commitment together with my youth friends. I also had mentors who discipled me and took me deeper to Christian faith and relationship to God. After that first break up, I got so much acquainted with the revival works of the Holy Spirit through a pastor named Sonny Lucaban in LJCC. I was always with him in ministry works, especially in evangelistic crusades. Again, it was only for a short time but I am so sure that it strengthened my Christian life seeing the mighty moving of God in the lives of people. I saw people get healed by the laying on of hands and be tremendously filled up by the Holy Spirit. Actually, I was baptized by the Spirit on April 1, 1999 during his ministry works in LJCC. For some reason, there was again a breakup of leaders within the church. Pastors were actually scattered to different churches. Pastor Sonny Lucaban pioneered a new church in Pasig, Pastor Warren Valdez remained Senior Pastor of LJCC, others went back to JIL, yet others didn’t find it a good idea to go back to JIL and joined other big churches, and I just found myself with my mother supporting Pastor Elpidio Manalo which I think was the best place for us to be to avoid clashes.

I am now in this small new church I mentioned formerly known as the Power of Love Church International Ministry (POLCIM), where I got my license to preach and became youth pastor last December 17, 2000. I wonder if it is even legal because I was only 16 years old back then. I just knew that I attended the homiletics and some hermeneutics classes from the one who ordained us, Ptr. Marvin Tabil, a graduate of Four Square Bible School. I continued on with the ministry works even until now that POLCIM was now changed to God’s Lovingkindness Community International (GLCI). The reason of the change name was not any conflict as some may think. It was only for the reason that people were mistaken that the name Power of Love was taken from the song of Celine Dion where in fact the song of Geoff Bullock was in the organizers’ minds. I was the one who suggested the word ‘lovingkindness’ because I found it very necessary to say that in the Old Testament, God’s love cannot be equated to the word ‘love’ only but a combination of love, mercy, grace and kindness – a ‘covenant love’, a ‘lovingkindess’ a ‘love so steadfast’. It is the same love that brought Jesus here to be with us, as the creed in Philippians says, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count it equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Right now, I am still the youth pastor of GLCI and also involved with various ministries, especially the equipping ministry that enables me to teach and mentor aspiring teachers and young pastors. But this is just a fast track of a calling. There are struggles in the Christian life, specifically the struggle with sinful nature.

In Relation to Paul and the Saints of God

Just recently when I encountered Romans 7 again, I was able to see something of relevance with the dating of the epistle. Paul wrote it, if I’m allowed to say, while he was in the peak of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ. When I read about him saying, “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.” And he went on to say, “For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me” (quotations are from the New King James Version). At first, I really couldn’t imagine Paul, who had been working tremendously by the power of the Holy Spirit, having struggles with sin specifically. Well, I’m so happy to say that Peter was right when he said, “your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings” (1 Peter 5:9, NIV). All the saints underwent and are undergoing sufferings and struggle with sin in particular!!

I am now to share my personal struggles as a growing man of God. In the narrative above, I was involved in school fights and other unchristian acts, and as I have said, I doubted if I have even been saved at all. I found it hard to believe in the new man the Bible is saying in 2 Corinthians 5:17 because it wasn’t evident that my old man has gone. But I have seen that it’s really a process. I’ve read somewhere that one truth that the Bible teaches in the literal sense of creation is that, God, who is over-all powerful, did not make everything just in one time. He did it within six days and shows us that there’s a process for everything. I am really in a process. Now, I see myself as a peacemaking person because of the love of Christ. However, I do not disregard the fact that I was one of those who ruined the essence of Christian testimony and witnessing through ones personal life.

One of the struggles I had was the struggle against lust. My brother, even when we were still so young, used to bring pornographic films at home. At a very young age prior to my conversion, my mind was already corrupted with these sinful sexual desires. Exposure to sin is really something that should be avoided as I try to examine it now. Once we’ve been exposed, the first reaction is, ‘wait a minute, this is sin!!’ just as when a light is turned off we react, ‘hey, it’s dark!!’. But once we’ve already get used to the darkness, we feel not afraid of it anymore even being comfortable to see through the dim and gives us the guts to say when we are convicted, ‘yeah this is sin, so what?!’ (though not explicitly with our words but with our hearts). We may sometimes even reach the point of saying, ‘I love to sin, it’s pleasurable’ which I think I wasn’t able to say because I always had this feeling of conviction and condemnation in my heart. Thanks to the Holy Spirit who convicts people of their sins (John 16:8), believers and unbelievers alike!! The instrument used by God that initiated my deliverance from that bondage was the book Not Even a Hint by Joshua Harris. He introduced me not just to insights in overcoming lust (which is still a battle going on) like: (1) God’s standard for holiness of not even a hint (Ephesians 5:3), (2) that “Willpower won’t work. Only the power of the cross can break the power of sin that keeps us on a treadmill” and (3) about the right holiness motive of pleasing God and find it in His grace so that we cannot boast of our own efforts (which is very biblical)[xxvii] but also to the things I found very interesting to focus my attention. It is the study of theology which diverted my idle mind that used to be the devil’s workshop. In his book, I encountered many quotations from C.S. Lewis, John Stott, John Owen and Richard Baxter. It was a good thing I also like to read footnotes and to try analyzing how thoughts are formulated, so, I encountered them as if I were hearing them teaching in a Bible study. I read the book after a sinful life during my college years (2001 – 2004) that led me to my downfall as a Christian. I do not prefer to include names that with them sin was associated as a story because I usually post my writings to wordpress.com and I do not want to destroy others just for me to share the good story. I just want to be honest and say that as a Christian person, I also have fallen so deep and was just ‘lifted up from the miry clay’ by the Lord that now I praise, fear and put my trust in Him (Psalm 40:1-30). If John Wesley had this memory of, “I went to America to convert the Indians, but, oh, who shall convert me?”, I also have one being remembered as I walk in the street of San Marcelino, Manila at Technological University of the Philippines. Beside the call I believe inside that is affirmed by an outward call by the community I am in, church and neighborhood, my downfall was really one of the factors I entered a seminary life. I wanted to be in an environment of Christians who love God and willing to give up everything in their lives for the sake of the call, His call. “When Christ calls a man,” as Dietrich Bonhoeffer complements the text in Mark 8:34, “he bids him come and die… It is the same death every time, death in Jesus Christ – the death of the old man at his call.” Although we are struggling as Paul clearly stated his own condition regarding the sinful nature of man, we are captivated by the Word and made overcomers in Christ through his death and resurrection and through our deaths with Him.

Where am I Heading to?

To answer the question ‘where am I heading to?’ is really up to God now. I can only share my plans but it is really up to Him. “The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, but the LORD weighs the motives. Commit your works to the LORD and your plans will be established. The LORD has made everything for its own purpose” (Proverb 16:1-4, NASB). I do not want to Lord over my life. I have already done so and fell.

I definitely believe that God has a great plan for my life. I can see it as the devil tries to hinder me all along. I have already shared my struggle with sin and that’s one great instrument of him. Another was the nearing death experience when I got confined in the hospital (also mentioned in the narrative above) for having a stage 3, reaching stage 4, Dengue fever. I had blood transfusion and my organs were already bleeding including, as the doctor informed, some nerves in my brain. I was really in critical condition during that second week of September 2000. But God is faithful that He delivered me from an untimely death. I always rejoice whenever I remember that and end up being grateful enough to give my life as His instrument for everything He wills for my life.

I also cannot forget that my father wants me to be an engineer and be a contractor of many companies. He works in the government so clients ‘are already given’ for sure. Entering the seminary for him is really not a wise decision I’ve done with my life. Well, now he supports me in this Bachelors course but he still wants me to pursue a professional career like being in a law school or returning back to my engineering field.[xxviii] I entrust everything to God because what I really want is to finish a doctorate degree in theology. I am hoping that one day he will see me the way some professors see my gift in the seminary academics and most of all, for him to encounter the Lord and be saved by His grace. My graduation day is very much awaited. It is going to be the first ceremony in a Christian setting that he will attend, actually. I believe God will speak to his heart in that day both to realize my call and to admit that he needs the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior the way.

Right now I am in my journey of studying theology and hopeful of going to the states after graduation to pursue my theology track. I really find it necessary to study there because we lack resources here in the Philippines. After that, I plan to go back here be in a church and continue pastoring, teach in a seminary and influence Christians to make them aware of our Christian heritage, which is somehow lost, and be an instrument of God in the eradication of Bible illiteracy among our Filipino brethren.

[i] This narrative is actually an excerpt from my wordpress account (bernardbragas.wordpress.com) with a title The Ongoing Journey to Faith: Salvation Gained by One, to the Household. It was passed to Prof. Bennett Lawrence as a requirement for Historical Books and Writings subject. I appreciate the narrative that I cannot manipulate its flow. Literary styles are also stated in the succeeding end notes.

[ii] Narrator’s Anthropopathism on God.

[iii] Narrator is omniscient (Greidanus) even considering Anthropomorphism.

[iv] Emphasis on being the second son and the vital role in the selection.

[v] Narrator’s Anthropomorphism on God.

[vi] Chiasm: A – God smiled …delights

B – gave birth to their first son

C – bore their second son …God’s grace would be so much demonstrated

B’ – gave birth to their third child

A’ – God delighted

[vii] Narrator’s use of Simile.

[viii] Narrator’s use of wings as Zoomorphism and companion as Anthropomorphism.

[ix] Omniscience by the narrator.

[x] See Bible. Acts 16:31, NIV.

[xi] Narrator’s use of Hypocatastasis.

[xii] Dream is an assumption of the narrator by his omniscience.

[xiii] Emphasis that a situation shifted.

[xiv] Narrator’s comment.

[xv] Bernard’s life was like a rereading of his older brother’s life only that he did not end up being in a gang.

[xvi] Narration bridged the gap of the narrator’s comment in the next sentence.

[xvii] Narrator’s use of Anthropopathism.

[xviii] Comment considering it as an expression to all who are nearing their salvation.

[xix] Salvation is always said be this phrase by many evangelists.

[xx] Narrator on his use of Erotesis.

[xxi] Narration’s comment.

[xxii] See the Bible in Jesus’ time.

[xxiii] Bridge to gap the narrator’s comment.

[xxiv] As the Bible says about God’s unfaithful men.

[xxv] Narrator’s comment.

[xxvi] Mother’s encouraging statement after his experience.

[xxvii] Joshua Harris, Not Even a Hint (Oregon, USA: Multnomah Publishers, 2003),

[xxviii] This is now updated. God is really amazing!! My father, now, is willing to support me in my theology career until I finish my MA level.

Posted in γραφω αυτοις | Tagged Bernard Bragas, spirtual autobiography | Leave a Comment »

Computer on the go..

July 25, 2008 by bernardbragas

Mission Alexandria’s computer and other resources are now available for use. The regular library operation isn’t still fixed. The computer is for free usage. (Just for the update.)

Posted in Project Alexandria | Leave a Comment »

J.I. Packer speaks (part 2)

July 15, 2008 by bernardbragas

…on same sex blessing

…on first order issues

…on implications for the church

…on the future of the church

Posted in Articles by J.I. Packer of Regent College | Tagged Christian Theologian, J.I. Packer | Leave a Comment »

J.I. Packer speaks

July 15, 2008 by bernardbragas

*from youtube.com

…on God and vocation

…on daily work as worship

…on daily work as ministry

…on offering our work to God

…on accommodating youth in the church

…on writing

Posted in Articles by J.I. Packer of Regent College | Tagged Christian Theologian, J.I. Packer | Leave a Comment »

A RESPONSE TO CALDWELL’S TRUMPET CALL TO ETHNOHERMENEUTICS

July 5, 2008 by bernardbragas

DANIEL A. TAPPEINER

Asian Seminary of Christian Ministries

1. Caldwell’s Call to Ethnohermeneutics

Recently Professor Larry Caldwell blew the trumpet in the hallowed halls of academic Zion, in the Philippines, on behalf of what he calls the new discipline of ethnohermeneutics. He did this in his paper to the AGST Annual Theological Conference. This paper was subsequently published in the maiden number of the Journal of Asian Mission.1 The full title of his paper indicates his intention to question the relevancy of Western hermeneutical methods in the Asian context.

From a missiological perspective he raises a very important and serious issue as to the effectiveness of the present and past educational efforts of seminaries in the critical area of biblical interpretation. He states that “the overarching purpose of theological education is, at its very core, a missiological purpose: to help equip others to better understand and communicate the truths of the Bible to a lost and dying world.”2 Within that fundamental missiological mandate to seminary education he also notes that “training others to correctly interpret God’s word, is the heart of theological education, whatever the individual discipline.”3

He therefore urges all who are involved in seminary education in the multi-cultural “stew” of Asia to be explicitly concerned with teaching effective methods of biblical interpretation in such a setting.

“There is a need,” Caldwell says, “to further explore hermeneutics directed specifically towards how to interpret the Bible from one culture to the next, from one people group, or ethnic group, to another.”4 In particular he states, “We no longer have the luxury to assume that our way is the best way or the only way…There may indeed be other valid interpretation methods available to us….”5

Caldwell then goes on to explore the relevance of western hermeneutical methods in non-western settings, and the need to use what he calls “receptor-oriented” hermeneutical methods. He then gives a kind of example of what he means by such a term along the way.

Finally he points to the significance of the Reformation doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the priesthood of believers as a justification for the search for indigenous hermeneutical methods. He ends his trumpet call with suggestions to those in areas of biblical studies, systematic theology and practical theology on how to rearrange their material in light of the emergence of this new discipline of ethnohermeneutics.

2. A Theologian’s Response to the Call

Being a theologian-missionary in the Asian context, I was very interested in the educational and missiological issues that Caldwell raised in his paper. From the perspective of missions I am committed to changing lives, both in my teaching ministry in the seminary and in my direct ministry in the churches and other non-church settings. For me theology is taking the Bible seriously, thinking God’s thoughts after him, faith seeking understanding and doctrine that in accord with godliness.

In the Asian setting it has been a challenge for me to discover how I might effectively translate the theological reality passed on to me by my own theological mentors, to those who come from a very different intellectual, linguistic and cultural background. I found the kind of content and the methods they used began to change immediately. There was also a shift from my focus on the content of my theological lectures, to methods of effective communication of that content to my students. I sought methodology that would really change them personally and allow them to bring the supra-cultural truth of God’s word to those to whom they were called to minister.

Very early, I came to an inner conviction, quite similar to that which Caldwell expressed, concerning the real needs of the students.

He notes, with an undercurrent of frustration, “And yes, our students will need to be aware of some of the complexities of the biblical text and consequently will need a basic familiarity with the tools that can help address those complexities. But the bottom line question comes down to this: how many and how much?”6 I strongly sympathize with his answer to that question, “Yes, a small percentage of our students will need to learn a lot of this information. But not everyone; in fact, not many at all.”7

He goes on to conclude, and with this I heartily agree, “What everyone really needs, and this is crucially important in our Asian context, are the tools, resources and training that will equip them to relevantly interpret the Bible in the complicated context that is Asia.”8

By all means we really do need, as Caldwell says, to “equip Asians to be able to discover and apply the truths of the Bible to their daily lives without having to rely upon either the interpretational dogma of Protestant scholars and/or upon a scholarly priesthood trained to interpret the Bible for them.”9

3. The “Sour Note” in the Trumpet Call

Unfortunately, much as I appreciated the urgent concern of Caldwell’s trumpet call to question the relevancy of western hermeneutical methods in non-western contexts and to begin to take ethnohermeneutics seriously in our missiological/educational task, my theological “ears” detected a “sour note.” That sour note concerns Caldwell’s apparent position that there can be more than one valid method of interpreting what the biblical text “meant.” The classical position has been “Interpretation, one; applications, many!” Or, perhaps more to the point, “Interpretation, one; cultural contextualization, many!”

If Caldwell’s trumpet call to ethnohermeneutics were only a matter of communication, there would be no sour note. If he were only concerned with taking “what it meant” and using local, indigenous “hermeneutical methods” better to communicate “what it means,” he would be safely inside the boundaries of Evangelical missiological theory and practice. It is my position as a systematic theologian, that hermeneutics, as elucidating first of all “what it meant,” is governed by the nature of human thought and its literary forms of communication, not by ethnohermeneutic, indigenous, culturally conditioned methods of interpretation.

Caldwell is clearly aware of this issue. In a footnote, seeking to protect his position, he states, “…I am not advocating a pluralistic approach to interpreting the Bible….”10 The bulk of the paper, however, is meant to explain why the heart of ethnohermeneutics is its search for “receptor-oriented hermeneutical methods.”11 His “Figure 2” is meant exactly to represent such a pluralism. He urges members of Asia Graduate School of Theology to “re-examine their dependency upon western hermeneutical methods and look instead for Asian methods….”12

Before I can answer the trumpet call, I must first be satisfied on this key point. The issue before us is exactly parallel to the desire for a so-called “genuine” Asian theology — not “Banana theology” but “Mango theology.”13 Just as I must reject the notion of a pluralism of “theologies,” so I must reject the notion of a pluralism of hermeneutical methods. In both of cases, if we are only concerned with “contextualization” and cross-cultural communication, then there is only one theology (one supra-cultural truth), but many ways, culturally sensitive, in which to expound and communicate that one theology. In that case there is no “sour note” in either trumpet call.

Can there really be a Filipino hermeneutic, a Chinese hermeneutic, or a German hermeneutic? Is the western hermeneutic really “western” in the merely cultural sense or is it actually “human” or “universal” in the ultimate scientific sense? Is Caldwell correct when he says, “western hermeneutical methods themselves are ethnohermeneutical methods for westerners”?14

When Caldwell discusses the way in which New Testament writers interpreted the Old Testament, he correctly states that “no one hermeneutical method is inspired.”15 Does that properly justify the fundamental assumption on which ethnohermeneutics rests? That is, “that God not only works through culture, hence the need to communicate the truths of scripture in culturally relevant forms, [with which we fully agree] but, correspondingly, that God also works through the hermeneutical processes inherent in each culture”?16 If by “works through” Caldwell means only that contextualizing is useful in the missiological task, he is on solid ground. If he means to say that God uses ethnohermeneutics to discover “what it meant,” he has established hermeneutical pluralism.

In his review of the history of hermeneutics Caldwell notes that “there were a multiplicity of hermeneutical methods used in Bible interpretation” during the last two thousand years, including the allegorical method.17 He expresses the opinion that that method somehow helped “to bring gospel truth to largely illiterate cultures” and “may again prove to be an appropriate method for the non-reading masses of today.”18

From his own assumptions and the development of his argument as we have shown, it seems clear that, in fact, though perhaps not in intention, Caldwell is espousing a pluralistic hermeneutic. His position seems to be that ethnohermeneutics is useful in the missiological task of properly contextualizing the supra-cultural truth of God’s word, with which we might all agree. However, he also seems to suggest ethnohermeneutics is a replacement for the “western” hermeneutic of grammatical/historical method, which I find unacceptable for the reasons stated in this response.

4. An Alternative “Note” for the Trumpet Call

Hermeneutics is usually defined as a two step process in modern times. The first step is concerned with what the writer of the text “meant” by what he wrote. The second step is concerned with what it “means,” here and now in our various cultures and stages of human consciousness. We have come to describe the inter-relation between these two steps as the “hermeneutical spiral, or helix.” It is a complex process of refinement, allowing human beings to grasp more and more accurately, what an ancient text meant, in its own terms and what it now means to humankind in its present state of consciousness.

The grammatical/historical method of interpretation has been a gradual development from the beginning of the church to the present.

Its most explicit, early representatives are those of the “Alexandrine school,” represented by Lucian of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. John Chrysostom.19 But as Caldwell noted, the allegorical method by and large dominated the writings of the teachers of the church up to the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation. From that time to this, a confluence of various forces has converged to produce what we now call the grammatical/historical method of hermeneutics.

How are we to characterize this method? Is it, as Caldwell says, by a western ethnohermeneutic for westerners? Or is it really the grand result of a developmental process, under the general leading of the Spirit of truth, in which the implicit laws of proper and valid interpretation of an ancient text became explicit? If, as historical review suggests, it is the latter, it is quite clear that the grammatical/historical method is not “western” or “ethnohermeneutical,” but objective and universally human.

In any proper hermeneutic the text is “king,” i.e., “what it meant” is fundamental, foundational and indispensable to a proper understanding of “what it means” now. If the method used to determine “what it meant” is not valid, the normativeness of the biblical text is lost to us.20

During the history of the church, as it developed its present understanding of the text, various methods were indeed used. It can, however, be argued — I think successfully — that in fact the only permanently valuable understanding of “what it meant” resulted from the implicit, and sometimes explicit, use of the basic rules of the grammatical/historical method. It is these results which underlie the authoritative and permanent value of the developing Christian consciousness which we now share with our forefathers in the faith, not the invalid results of the fanciful, arbitrary allegorical method.

There is an objective, scientific reason for this. There really is only one valid way in which “what it meant” can be discovered. The grammatical/historical method is simply the developmental result of a process of discovering explicitly, the laws which govern the proper and valid recovery of “what it meant.” The laws of human thought, though conditioned by culture and language, are actually universal. This is so because all human beings share the same basic “hardware” for thinking—the human brain. And, as Imago Dei, they also participate in the Logos structure of created reality through reason. Therefore the grammatical/historical method is not “western,” but “human” and “universal.” It is true that God sovereignly used western culture and its preferred thought processes to develop explicitly the laws of valid interpretation of “what it meant.” That does not, however, make it “western” or “ethnohermeneutical” any more than the conclusions of Nicea or Chalcedon are “western” simply because they use the most accurate and precise language available to them—Greek.

Could the application of an Asian ethnohermeneutic method produce a result that would differ substantively from Nicea or Chalcedon? Such methods may ask other questions of the text and therefore develop some new, illuminating and interesting results to enrich Christian consciousness. However, this comes from the “what it means” part of the hermeneutical helix, not the “what it meant” task.

Now there are, it would seem, two fundamental types of universal thinking modes available to human beings, the so-called “left brain” and “right brain” forms.21 Historically, it turns out, that the development of “left brain” thinking has been most advanced in the human family from the West. The “right brain” type of thought has been more typically used in the East. Each type of thought has its use.

Each is valid for its own purposes. However, concerning the laws by which it is possible to discover what ancient documents “meant”, there really is only one valid method. That method is rooted and grounded in the universal nature of human thought processes as they are committed to literary form and which can only be articulated usefully by means of “left brain” thinking.

Caldwell used the Reformation concept of the priesthood of believers in dealing with the very practical danger of taking the Bible away from Asians because of the complex grammatical/historical method and the expensive books often involved. Since, in my judgment, ethnohermeneutics cannot properly be used to replace the grammatical/historical method without the loss of access to the supracultural truth of God’s word, what is to be done?

At this point the additional Reformation doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture must come to the rescue. The Westminster Confession states it clearly and classically in Chapter I, Article VII in these words:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

By “ordinary means” the Westminster Divines simply meant the basic rules of a common sense grammatical/historical method, based on the objective structure of the text, on the nature of the human thought process and the way thoughts are expressed in literary form. This author agrees that the more advanced methods of the grammatical/historical method, especially as they have been developed in the last two centuries, are not absolutely necessary to useful, Spiritempowered ministry. This is true for all cultures. Only those called to a ministry of advanced teaching and theological thought need to interact with such materials.

5. Final Response

The “sour note” in Caldwell’s trumpet call to ethnohermeneutics seems to result from some kind of confusion between the missiological task of contextualizing the supra-cultural truth to various cultures, and the theological task of determining the content of that supracultural truth and its significance for today. In his missiological approach to the hermeneutical task he does not seem to make a sharp distinction between the two tasks involved in the hermeneutical helix. He does not seem to be concerned sufficiently with the theological task of protecting the supra-cultural truth of Scripture from invalid methods and, therefore, invalid results.

Professor Caldwell’s trumpet call to ethnohermeneutics is appreciated for its concerns about a very important issue. We look forward to further clarification of his position in his up-coming book on the subject.

1 “Towards the New Discipline of Ethnohermeneutics: Questioning the Relevancy of Western Hermeneutical Methods in the Asian Context,” Journal of Asian Mission 1:1 (1999), pp. 21-43.

2 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 22.

3 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 22.

4 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 23.

5 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 25.

6 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 41.

7 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 41.

8 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 41.

9 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 40.

10 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 25 n. 5.

11 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 38.

12 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 4. Italics mine.

13 See Amos Yong, “Review of Kosuke Koyama: A Model for Intercultural Theology and Mangoes or Bananas? The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2:1 (l999), pp. 153-57.

14 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 38.

15 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 32. Of course no one would contend that the grammatical/historical method is inspired! That is not the issue.

16 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 32. Italics are Caldwell’s

17 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” pp. 32-33.

18 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” pp. 32-33. Anyone familiar with the way in which the allegorical method functions and who holds to the grammatical/historical method, will certainly be surprised at such a possibility. Philo used that method to read Plato out of Moses. Swedenborg used that method to read a strange theosophy out of Scripture. The allegorical method is geared to discovering one’s own thoughts in the text of another. It is not capable of discovering what the text meant. Allegory is an acceptable method of interpretation, if and only if, the writer of the text has given objective clues in the form and structure of the text indicating that it was to be interpreted in such a way. Modern examples of this would be Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress or, more recently, Hannah Hurnard’s popular allegories such as Hinds’ Feet on High Places (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977).

19 Philip Schaff describes the characteristic features of the Antiochine “school” as “attention to the revision of the text, a close adherence to the plain, natural meaning according to the use of language and the condition of the writer, and justice to the human factor.” In other words, its exegesis is grammatical and historical, in distinction from the allegorical method of the “Alexandrian School,” History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), II, p. 816.

20 In saying that the “text is king” in any valid hermeneutic, what I mean is that the text itself as object, by its very nature, is determinative of the laws necessary to discovering “what it meant.” It is not culture but the object itself which determines what a valid hermeneutic is.

21 For a more extensive discussion of what I call “ruach perception”(right brain) and “dabar perception” (left brain) and how they inter-relate, especially in theological understanding, see my article “Creation: Pattern, God and Man,” Journal of the Scientific American 21:2 (1977), pp. 58-60.

Posted in Articles by our mentor at ASCM, Daniel Tappeiner | Tagged Christian Theology, hermeneutics | Leave a Comment »

Creation: Pattern, God and Man

July 5, 2008 by bernardbragas

DANIEL A. TAPPEINER
Melodyland School of Theology
Anaheim, California 92806

From: JASA 29 (June 1977): 58-64.

“By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.” Ps. 33:6
“For from him and through him end to him are all things, to him be glory for ever. Amen.” Rom. 11:36

INTRODUCTION

The task of theology is “to think God’s thoughts after Him.” To do this requires humble submission to the leading of the Spirit of Truth and careful study of God’s authoritative revelation in Holy Scripture. Without the Spirit the Word becomes mere words to us. Without the Word the Spirit becomes human fantasy and imagination. This combination of Word and Spirit, so necessary to the theological task is, as we shall see, no accident. It is based upon the fundamental biblical pattern in creation itself-the pattern of Ruach-Dahar, of Pneuma-Logos, of Spirit and Word.

There are many ways in which a theologian might look at creation. Typically there is an analytic approach in which logic, reasoning and implication are used. This is the method of the scientist and the scholastic theologian. There is, however, another method-that of poet and seer, mystic and dreamer. Here the first task is to “see”, in an holistic way, in a state of passive perception, the reality to be described and discussed. It is an effort, in and through careful analysis of Logos structure, however it may present itself, to penetrate to the reality symbolically represented to us in words and categories. It is usually the purpose of the poet and mystic to speak in ways which will evoke an awareness of the “reality” itself. It is the purpose of scientists and theologians to construct an adequate representation of that reality in terms which can be weighed and tested in the community of committed, concerned and capable persons who occupy themselves with such matters.

Both approaches seem necessary. High vision and careful exposition are needed if the living word of God is to exercise its proper authority over our lives and thought. Prior to the writing of this paper there has been some attempt to “see” the majestic mystery of creation originally perceived by Scripture writers. The paper itself will reflect this by its method. Under three basic rubrics, “Creation and Pattern”, “Creation and God”, “Creation and Man”, a series of propositions will he given which are crystallizations of perceptions of the reality of creation. The purpose is not to prove but to expound a vision of creation which, it is hoped, is both biblically adequate and theologically illuminating.

Before proceeding, the following definition of creation is provided as containing the basic elements which must he treated in a discussion of creation which is biblically, theologically and philosophically complete:
Creation is

-an act of God alone by which he
-of his own free will
-in a progressive sequence of actions fanned all things, visible and invisible
-ex nihilo
-from the depths of his being as pneuma
-by the Word of God
-through the agency of the Spirit
-for the manifestation of his glory (doxophany),
-the benefit of man,
-and all very good.

CREATION AND PATTERN

THESIS I. The basic biblical pattern in creation is the majestic and mysterious co-ordination of Ruach and Dabar, Pneuma and Logos, Spirit and Ward. In the biblical materials the emphasis falls on Dabar-Hochma, Logos-Suphia (Word and Wisdom) as providing order, coherence, structure and teleology in creation.

Anyone acquainted with the biblical materials becomes aware that such a co-ordination of Ruach and Dabar exists. The opening chapter of Genesis clearly indicates this. Creation, which proceeds through a series of majestic and almighty “fiats” is preceded by a mysterious and deeply significant reference to the Ruach-Elohini which “broods” over the face of the unformed void. No exposition of this fact is given in the inspired record, but reference to the Spirit here must be taken into account. A two-fold significance suggests itself. First it points to the depths of God’s own being as the source of his creative activity. The infinite inwardness of God as roach is the source of this creative activity. Second, it points to the agency of the Spirit of God in the execution of the divine fiat. It is evident in Gen. 1.2 that Ruach-Elohisn is clearly distinguishable from the fiat. It is also evident that the “uttering” of the fiat is not possible without roach both as preceding and fulfilling the word “uttered”. In this way a basic pattern of mach-dabar-ruach emerges as the pattern of creative activity.

It is very clear however, that in the biblical materials prominence is given to dabar, rather than to roach. Speaking theologically it is evident that emphasis is placed upon the eternal Logos as the agent of creation rather than on Pncuma as source or agency in creation. (John 1:1-3; Heb, 1:2,3; Col. 1:16,17, I Cor. 8:6). Dabar is the outward manifestation of the inwardness of God. It accurately portrays that inwardness and expresses in the categories of finite, created space-time, the order and coherence, structure and purposefulness of that inwardness. Dean Inge has expressed this point very perceptively in the following words: “the world is the poem of the Word to the glory of the Father: in it and by means of it, He displays in time all the riches which God has eternally put within him.”¹
THESIS II. In the order Ruach-Dahar emphasis must be placed upon the mystery of creative activity as proceeding from the depths of God Who is not only the “thinking God” but is also the living God, the
God Who, in personal self-determination, acts spon-taneously for the fulfilment of personal purposes.

Here it is necessary to see with the eye of the seer. Here it is necessary to join the unending chorus of worship and praise to God-”worthy art thou, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for

This combination of Word and Spirit, so necessary to the theological task, is based upon the fundamental biblical pattern in creation itself.

thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.” (Rev. 4:11) Perhaps the deepest puzzlement of man as philosopher, is over the fact that anything is. That there should be anything is a great mystery-matched only by the greater mystery of the selfexistent, personal reality of God. It is very necessary to recognize the utterly free and totally self-determined nature of God’s creative activity. Creation, in relation to the divine freedom, as proceeding from God as ruach, means that it is an act of volition on the part of God, not a necessary (non-volitional) outworking of the divine essence independent of the divine personae of the Godhead. The ascity of God and the divine simplicity do not allow the separation of essence and existence in God. Creation is not simply the overflow of the infinite richness of the divine inwardness but is an absolutely unique, free and profound activity.

Yet it is an expression of this infinite richness. When, with seer’s eye, we perceive this incredible richness in God as expressed in creation, we can but cry out with St. Paul, “0, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rum. 11:33), A marvelous modern expression of this perception is found in C. S. Lewis’ “The Great Dance” described so eloquently and skillfully in Perelandra:²
Never did He make two things the same; never did He utter one word twice. After earths, not hatter earths hot beasts; after beasts, not hatter beasts but spirits. After falling, not a recovery hot a new creation. Out of the new creation, not a third but the mode of change itself is changed for ever. Blessed be He!

THESIS III. The fact that Ruach is part of the divine pattern of creation along with Dabar means that there is an inexhaustible richness and elusive mystery underlying Logos-structure which snakes creation forever beyond the total ordering of man’s finite application of Logos to the Logos-structure.

This is simply a call to humility to the busy reasonings of man, a call which itself proceeds from a proper application of Logos to the Logos-structure. Pascal aptly and epigrammatically enunciated this insight in his famous words “the heart has its reasons which reason does not know.”³
It is only in the deceitful grasp of “tinker toy reason”, that man struts proudly about proclaiming a kind of omniscience and capability for his own ability to know. The deeper call of reason points beyond itself to a reality fully coherent yet ever beyond the limits of man’s knowing.

Unfortunately such a midget attitude quite often prevails among us as Evangelicals who profess to be in true submission to the authority of the word and yet presume to confuse our own understanding with the word itself!

THESIS IV. The fact that Ruach is pan of the divine pattern of creation along with Dabar also means that all genuine activity of divine Ruach fulfills Logos structure, rather than destroys it.

This is the other side of the previous thesis. Just as it is necessary to avoid the danger of squeezing the “juice” out of the inexhaustible richness and mystery of creation, so it is needful to avoid any separation of Ruach and Dabar which would destroy our capability for the recognition of reality as it is in itself. It is only demonic ruach which destroys Logos-structure. Ruach divorced from Dabar is at best man’s subjective fantasy and at worst the delusion of demonic power. This means that though we recognize our limits and the depth of mystery and power implied in Ruach, yet we always assert a fundamental orderliness and coherence in created reality itself. There must be neither metaphysical nor epistemological dualism here.

All of this points to the necessity of keeping clearly and definitely before us the distinction of Ruach and
Dahar and therefore the diversity of purpose between ruach-perception and dabar-perception ⁴, as well as the indivisible coordination of the two elements in the basic pattern of creation which allows the fruitful interplay of Ruach and Dabar in man’s own limited, yet correct, perception of created reality.⁵
THESIS V. Man, who creates relatively, knows the experience of the emergence of powerful insights into the structure of created reality through the holistic mode of perception (Ruachperception) which is associated with the depths of man’s being (the unconscious dimension in psychology and “spirit” in religious experience). This experience of the dimension of depth, mystery, meaning and power, in short the experience of Ruach, provides a model for our understanding of the divine creative activity as it relates to the order of Ruach-Dabar in the pattern of creative activity.

In this thesis the distinction, dialectic and unity of Ruach and Dabar in man’s experience is used to shed some light on the basic pattern in creation. Man experiences a two-foldness in his perception and in his creative efforts in science and art. There is a dialectic which takes place between Ruach-perception and Debar-perception. Man as Imago Dci seeks dominion over created reality in accord both with his nature and with the Divine mandate (Gen. 1:26,27). As he seeks, he uses Dabar-perception to classify, analyze, organize and manipulate creaturely reality. This is the raw material which must then be contemplated deeply and passively-with Ruach-perception. Then there emerges from the depths of man’s being a new insight into the nature of created reality, insight which cannot be derived from the mode of Dabar-perception, but which must be subjected to that mode for clarification, testing, purifying, and conceptualizing. The history of art and science is replete with such dynamic and often dramatic interplay of Ruach and Dabar in man. It is the Ruach which provides the incredible richness, depth and perpetual value of creative art or science. But it is Dabar which supplies articulation and adequate expression for the insight of Ruach. Ruach insight without Dabar is only a fleeting thing unavailable to the whole family of man for its continued benefit. Dabar without Ruach is simply a lifeless game of empty symbols-much like the formalisms of symbolic logic. The distinction and unity of Ruach and Dabar in man’s experience is but a reflection of the pattern of Divine creation.

We must not suppose, however, that such a separation of Ruach and Dabar as we experience in our relative creation, is to be found in God. There is no unconscious in God! God is, as the older theologians were wont to say, actus purrisimus, “absolute actuality”. As such there can be no distinction within the Godhead between God as Ruach, (personal, self-determined infinitely rich life) and God as Dabar (coherent, structured, ordered). The inner divine “activities” which are forever beyond our capacity to grasp as they are in themselves, are opera essentiaiia et personalia experienced and executed in the marvelous unity of God which is higher and more intensely one by virtue of the richness of oneness of essence and threeness of person.

THESIS VI. The order Dabar-Ruach points to the fact that in the execution of creation Ruach is in the service of Dabar as agency to agent.

We are now on more familiar territory. Most of the biblical evidence emphasizes the role of Dabar in the creation, with Ruach perceived as the instrumentality of Debar. In the Genesis account, which is so profoundly explicated in the Fourth Gospel in terms of Logos-Christology, it is God’s activity as “speaking” which is the dramatic focus. The repetition of “God said-and there was” portrays a “majestic instaney” of divine purpose and power culminating in the creation of man and the Divine sabbath. B. B. Warfield expresses this significance of the order Dabar-Ruach with his usual insight when he comments on the role of the Spirit in Genesis 1 through 6:

To the voice of God in heaven saying, Let there he light! the energy of the Spirit of God brooding upon the face of the waters responded, and lo! there was light . . . God’s thought and will and word take effect in the world, because God is not only over the world, thinking and willing and commanding, but also in the world as the principle of all activity, executing…

It is important to note here that in the order Dabar-Ruach, Ruach is conceived in terms of the dyanmic
power of God immanent, in terms of the opera personalia of the Holy Spirit, rather than as the depths of richness and mystery in divine freedom as it appears in the order Ruach-Dabar.

Creation is through Debar, by Ruach. The classical passage on Hochma (Prov. 8), which has come to be identified with the person of Jesus Christ in Christological discussion, indicates the agency of Hochma in God’s creative activity.⁷
The Fourth Gospel makes the identification between Debar-Logos and Jesus Christ explicit. St. Paul and the writer to the Hebrews also make this quite clear. (I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:2, 3).

The significance of this is that strong emphasis is placed on creation as a personal effect, coherent, ordered and knowable. This has profound implications for man as worshiper and scientist which will be touched upon more fully in another thesis. In this order of Dabar-Ruach the unity and fundamental harmony of Debar and Ruach is highlighted. This provides a sense of boundary and norm for all authentic insights into the created order of Logos-structure.

CREATION AND GOD

Much has already been stated concerning the relation of creation and God in treating the basic biblical/theological speculative pattern of creation as Ruach-Dahar-Ruach. A few further points are important.

THESIS VII. Creation is a personal activity of God.

It has already been asserted that creation is personal rather than unconscious or necessary (coerced). This is evident by the meanings of the words Ruach and Dabar themselves: Ruach, as indicating self-conscious inwardness, and Dahar as indicating knowledge, purpose and order. Only that which is personal speaks. Creation is not the overflow of the divine richness in an unconscious or unintentional way. There can be no conflict in God between opera essentialia and opera personalia. All that God does is done according to his own self-determined essence and through the personal will of God.

At this point the Trinitarian formulae should be brought forth. Creation is always said (and this is agreeable to Scripture) to be from the Father, through the Son and by the Holy Spirit. Thus the theological axiom: Opera ad extra sunt indivisa sea omnibus personis communia.⁸Yet creation is specially the work of the Father as fons Trinitatis even as redemption is uniquely of the Son and sanctification is of the Holy Spirit. Yet nothing is done without the whole Godhead.

THESIS VIII. Creation is a powerful activity of God.

Two points of significance are noted here. First, creation was not deficiency motivated. Having declared creation as a personal and free activity of God it will not do to speak of it as an expression of God’s need for a love-object. To put it thus would be to make creation an action of weakness rather than of power. The inner Trinitarian relations within the Godhead preclude such a dependent view of God in creation. God is eternal agape as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The eternal moving of self-giving love is found above all in the self-communication of the Father to the Son and the relation of the eternal Son to the Father by the Holy Spirit.

The second point concerns the absolute independence of God in relation to any antecedent reality outside or independent of God who alone is self-existent. Here the expression creatio ex nihilo must be used. Negatively this means a denial of emanation theories (Gnostic or pantheistic) or dualistic theories as in the Greek doctrine of primordial hale which conditioned the divine execution of perfection in the creative activity of God. Positively it expresses the absolute independence of God in relation to the created order and the absolute dependence of creation upon the will of God. The phrase does not mean that no cause is posited for creation or that “nothing” is the material out of which all else was made. Rather, it asserts the almightiness of God’s power and that the setting of the divine will in Logos-structure was in no way antecedently conditioned by anything external to God Himself.⁹ This fact has very great significance practically to man as religious and scientific. A point which will be taken up later.

Creation

“In the beginning”, long before all worlds
Or flaming stars or whirling galaxies,
Before that first “big bang”, if such it was,
Or earlier contraction; back and back
Beyond all time or co-related space
And all that is and all that ever was
And all that yet will be; Source of the whole,
“In the beginning was the Word” of God.
The Word of God; Reason, Design and Form,
Intelligence, Whose workshop spans the stars
Expressed within the Cosmos and alike
In what seems chaos; He Who works as much
In randomness as order, Who to make
Man in His image scorns not to create
By patient evolution on a scale
Of craft divine which dwarfs a million years.
Who is this God, that bows Himself to see
The puny wanders of this little speck
Of cosmic dust that we have named our Earth,
The toy volcanoes and the restless sea
That splashes from His bucket like a drop
And still a captive to the circling Moan
Flaws and recedes, purging polluted shares
Or sending tidal torrents up the Severn?
Who is this God, that circles either pole
With fluorescent light-an arctic dawn,
Whose rain makes little sparks and tiny cracks
That we call thunder storms, this Gad Whose plan
So shapes the atoms that they must combine
To give dust life and then to teed that dust
With inorganic substance to create
By DNA a pattern like its own?
Who is this God and can this God be known
Within the confines of a human skull,
A litre and a half of mortal brain
Whose interlinking neurones must depend
On chemistry and physics in the end
For all that Man can know or comprehend?
Can Man know God eternally enthroned
Throughout all space and in the great beyond?
The mystery of being, still unsolved
By all our science and philosophy,
Fills me with breathless wander, and the God
From Whom it all continually proceeds
Calls forth my worship and shall worship have.
But love in incarnation draws my soul
To humble adoration of a Babe;
“In this was manifest the love of God”.
Still Jesus comes to those who seek for God
And still He answers as He did of old,
“I’ve been with you so long, how can you say
‘I don’t know Cad, oh show me God today’?
When you’ve met Me you’ve seen the eternal God
Met Him as Father too, as He Who cares
And loves and longs far men as 1 myself.
I am the Christian message. God has come.”

ROBERT L. F. BOYD, C.B.E., F.I.E.E., F.R,S.
Reprinted from Faith and Thought, publication of the Victoria Institute of Philosophical Society of Great Britain, Vol. 102, 182 (1975).

THESIS IX. Creation is a purposeful activity of God.

Teleology is implied in the previous theses. Creation as personal activity and as executed through almighty fiat ex nihilo clearly point to a purpose in creation. Scripture in many places indicates not only that creation is purposeful but also what the purpose is.¹⁰That purpose is clearly the revelation of the glory of God-doxophany. There are, of course, many less ultimate purposes which might be noted from Scripture but doxophany sums up the final purpose of God in creation. It is only as we come to understand the doctrine of creation in terms of the fundamental biblical framework of eschatology that the meaning of creation attains its widest scope and richest significance. The “final cause” of anything is the ultimate category of interpretation, the point of reference for all else. Doxophany, the full manifestation of divine glory is the final cause for the unfolding drama of creation, salvation history and consummation. St. Paul’s doxological outburst in Rom. 11:36 puts this point in short form: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” The song of the twenty-four elders worshiping before God’s throne expresses it eloquently: “Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor, and power, for thou didst creative all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.” (Rev. 4:11). The final vision of the New Jerusalem presents it this way: “the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light and the lamp is the Lamb.” (Rev. 21:23)

All of this is in fulfilment of the ancient promises of God “all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord” (No. 14:21), or more fully “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Hah. 2:14. See also Isa. 11:9). Isaiah, the prophet of glory, speaks of the final purpose of God’s gracious redeeming activity in these words “that he might be glorified” (Isa. 61:3; 60:19).

Creation and Man

The significance of the doctrine of creation to man can hardly be overstated. In particular it strikes fundamental chords in man as scientist and man as worshiper.

THESIS X. The fact of divine creation implies that the created order hears the marks of divine character (Logos-structure) and is therefore knowable to man (Imago Dci); and forms an adequate ontological basis for genuine but conditioned knowledge both of created reality and of the transcendent reality of God who, in Himself, is incomprehensible to man.

This is the epistemological significance of the doctrine of creation. A kind of “critical realism” follows from the fact of creation, which establishes the reality of the created order in relation to God, the ultimate Reality. This is philosophical realism. As an “artifact” of God, creation is in the pattern of Dabar-Ruach and thus has a structure independent of man’s consciousness. Order is not imposed upon sense data (as the positivists would have it) but is rather to be discerned by man the observer. Man as Imago Dei participates in Logos-structure as personal, knowing substance and therefore is equipped to discuss, according to the limits of his finite structure, the corresponding Logos-structure in created reality. In this way skepticism is avoided in view of the ontological basis for genuine knowledge, and healthy humility is inculcated in view of the distinction between subject and object and the clear recognition of the dependence of perception upon the created categories of Logos-structure in man as imago Dei.

THESIS XI. Logos-structure in created reality is the foundation for man’s mandate to have dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26, 27) and for the scientific and technological activity of man (even as fallen) in fulfilling that mandate.

The fact of creation provides the basis not only for the possibility of scientific activity but also the Magna
Charta for men’s duty and right to scientific activity, especially in view of man as Imago Dei. Man has the capacity, and is in relation to God as vicegerent on earth, to exercise Dabar-perception with its attendant technological results. Religious man must not limit the natural quest for scientific understanding of, and thus dominion over, creation. Religious authority must not be applied to man’s scientific activity in a way which will stop it from fulfilling its proper method and function. Mao, however, is fallen and therefore does require, as scientist, light from divine revelation to protect him from misuse of his God-like ability for such dominion. The “Book of Creation” must be linked to the “Book of Special Revelation” in a fundamental complementary harmony.

THESIS XII. The biblical view of creation, belonging as it does to the sphere of the transcendent and revelation, logically supercedes the legitimate sphere of scientific methodology which can never penetrate the mystery of the origin of the causal sequences which constitute the sub/eat matter of its investigations and theorizing. All statements about first or final causes cease to be scientific thereby and are immediately in the realm of metaphysics and philosophical presupposition.

Theology was once recognized as the “Queen of the Sciences”. Some of us still recognize it to be so. It is necessary to keep before us the limits and nature of the diverse methodologies of science and theology. The proper sphere of theology encompasses all of reality and therefore all science is to he regarded as a “subset” of theology. This does not mean, however, that theology dictates method and result to science. It simply means that science, in its proper form, is not large enough to interpret the ultimate meaning of its results. This task requires that the scientific endeavor be implicated in a larger, non-scientific (philosophical), pattern.

It is necessary to recognize that scientific description and analysis is within the system of the causal nexus itself and therefore by its very nature cannot speak directly to the meaning of creation or to its metaphysical nature. Any attempt to do so by a scientist immediately removes him from his role as scientist into the role of philosopher-at which exchange the scientist loses the positive results of science as uniquely his own and joins in the competitive task of interpreting science in a larger framework along with all other philosophers and theologians.

On the other hand, the scientist, as scientist, must not be censured for his inability to discern the ultimate causality of God in the causal nexus! There is quite properly a hiddenness of God in relation to creaturely causality. God is not simply another cause in the chain of natural causes, but, as the doctrine of creation ex nihilo implies, is a “cause” of a wholly transcendent order. Therefore it is not obvious that God created the universe unless the observer steps back from the limited perspective offered by scientific methodology to the larger perspectives of philosophy and theology. This is further complicated by man’s fallenness so that there are inner spiritual and moral conditions upon the interpreter of creation before he can, with the Psalmist, affirm “The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” (Ps. 19.1).

THESIS XIII. The mystery of creation, as proceeding from the depths of God as Ruach, is in the transcendence of God as not part of the created order; therefore his activity in creation is forever beyond man and can be spoken about only in metaphor, myth and analogy.

Here we touch upon an epistemological issue more general than the previous points concerned with scientific method. The issue now concerns human limitation to space-time categories in describing any perception of transcendent reality (the Kantian noumenal). Ruachperception, which penetrates to the noumenal realm, is dependent upon dabar-expression in articulating its perceptions. At this point we agree with Bultmann and Tillich in noting the essentially symbolic or “mythical” nature of all description of transcendent, spiritual realities. This does not, however, imply that the Genesis revelation, for example, is simply a human description in space-time categories of transcendent realities. “Symbolic” and “historic” are not necessarily antithetical. The “facticity” of the Genesis narrative can (I think must) he maintained even though its symbolic quality can at the same time (I think must) be acknowledged.

It is correct, with theologians who discuss religious assertions from the point of view of linguistic analysis, to examine the nature, form and functions of religious and theological language and to point to the oddity (as Ian T. Ramsey does) of such language in relation to ordinary discourse. But it must also be recognized that all who have been committed to genuine biblical views, speak as “critical realists” when speaking religiously or theologically. No biblicist merely intends to speak of his own existential situation or his own values. There is always the intention to assert something which has objective significance, to describe “the way it really is” even if, in principle, such assertions are beyond the methods of science to verify or to falsify.

THESIS XIV. The significance of creation to man as worshiper is that it establishes the total propriety of man’s creaturely sense of absolute dependence upon God.

The doctrine of creation ex nihilo clearly establishes the reality of our sense of absolute dependence upon God. As St. Paul put it in quoting the Greek poets “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). It is certain that apart from God’s continued willing of our existence we would fall instantly into “non-being”. An awareness of this

God is not simply another cause in the chain of natural causes, but, as the doctrine of creation ex nihilo implies, is a “cause” of a wholly transcendent order.

dependence Schleiermaeher correctly identified as the universal which is uniquely characteristic of man as creature and so as worshiper. To this general positive essence of religious experience the biblical record of salvation history adds the specific essence of all genuine Christian faith and experience which is an absolute dependence upon God as revealed in Jesus Christ – a dependence not simply of nature, of creaturehood, but of grace.

THESIS XV. The final significance of creation to man as worshiper is that it provides the ultimate meaning to his existence as creature: to answer with doxology to the doxophany of God’s self-revelation in creation.

This is the other side of the fact that God is purposeful in creation. St. Paul gave us the maxim which sums it up: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (I Cor. 10:31). The Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us that man’s chief end is “to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” The deepest heart cry of all creation and especially redeemed creation is Soli Deo gloria! To God alone be the glory! “Not unto us, 0 Lord, not unto us, but to thy name give glory!” (Ps. 115:1). The meaning of creaturehood for man is both doxophany and doxology. First doxophany as manifesting the infinite richness of the glory of the Godhead. Then doxology as calling forth the response of prostration and praise to God’s glory revealed in creation and supremely in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The eschaton most clearly points to this dual theme of doxophany and doxology. All of reality will be filled with the Spirit of glory. The end of all things is a Spirit-filled creation transposed from the present categories of history and space-time into a mode of existence flooded by the glory of God. (Hab. 2:14; Nu. 14:21). And the only proper response of man here and now as well as in the esehaton is the response of doxology-prostration before Him “who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light” (I Tim. 6:16), praise, worship, adoration, a joyous acknowledgment of God as the source of all that is good and beautiful and true; as the ground for purpose and plan in life, as the good of all things. Stauffer so eloquently summarized this point in these glowing and insightful words;¹³ “The antiphony of universal history leads into a symphonic doxology. At last God has attained the telos of his ways: the revelation of the gloria Dei achieves its end in the hallowing of his name.”

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is foil of his glory. (isa. 6:3), Who shall’not fear and glorify thy name, 0 Lord, for thon alone art holy. (Rev. 15:4) Amen!

REFERENCES

¹W, R. Inge, “Christian Mysticism”, in Classics of Protestantism, ed. by Vergihos Ferm, Philosophical Library, New York, 1959., p. 466. Given the meaning of the Creek word poiema, Dean Inge’a use of the word poem is
especially apt. In the interests of greater precision from a Trinitarian point of view the last phrase might better he written “in it and by means of it, He displays all the riches which God the Father has eternally communicated to Him in the mysterious eternal generation of the son.”
²C. S. Lewis, Perelondra, The MacMillan Co., New York, 1972, p. 214. This exquisite expression of the mystic vision of the nature, meaning and movement of creation is worthy of careful study and exposition in its own right. It is theological poetry.
³Blaise Pascal, Pensees, No. 277
⁴“Ruoch-perception” and “Dobor-perception” simply refer to the distinction of method and approach already referred to in the Introduction to this paper.
⁵This is analogically related to the mystery of our Lord’s person as expressed in Chalcedonian Christology “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”
⁶B. B. Warfield, “The Spirit of God in the Old Testament” in Biblical and Theological Studies, p. 134. It is important to note here that in the order Dabar-Ruach, Ruach is conceived in terms of the dynamic power of God immanent, in terms of the opera personalia of the Holy Spirit, rather than as the depths of richness and mystery in divine freedom as it appears in the order Ruacch-Dober.
⁷It is curious that Irenaeus identifies Hochmo in Proverbs 8 with the Holy Spirit rather than with Christ. “. . . the Son was always with the Father. And God tells us, through the mouth of Solomon, that wisdom, that is the Spirit, was with him before the whole creation (Prov. 3:19; 8:22ft)” Ad Haer, iv. xx. 3. quoted in The Early Christian Fathers, pp. 116, 117.
⁸“All the works external (to God) are indivisible (among the three persons of the Godhead) because they are common to the three persons”. See Heppe, p. 134.
⁹Ian T. Ramsey has a very useful and illuminating discussion of the linguistic oddity and the real theological significance of this phrase in his excellent book, Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases,
pp. 80-85. The biblical basis for such a phrase is found in the “fiats” of Gen. 1; in Ps. 33:9, “He spoke and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth”; and in Rom, 4:17 “God .,, who calls into existence the things that do not exist.”
¹⁰Two classic works dealing with this matter of the final telos of creation are Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World by Jonathan Edwards and B. F. Westcott’s essay “The Gospel of Creation” in The Epistles of St. John, MacMillan and Co., London, 1886, pp. 285-330. , pp. 285-330. Ethelbert Stauffer provides a stirring review of this theme in his New Testament Theology, chapter 19, “The Final Glory of God”, though it is marred by an unbiblical conclusion of apokatostasis.

Posted in Articles by our mentor at ASCM, Daniel Tappeiner | Tagged Christian Theology, Creation, God and Man | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »

Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. -1 Timothy 4:16

a call to faithful equipping of the saints…

McGrath’s 2009 Glifford Lectures

Does God Exist? – Young Einstein

about it..

GOD’S ελεος IN RELATION TO THE DIVINE PROMISE OF OLD: AN EXEGETICAL PAPER ON ROMANS 9:14-33

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (my personal summary)

A Theology of Church History as Apologia for the Pentecostal/charismatic Movement

An Updated Spiritual Autobiography

Computer on the go..

J.I. Packer speaks (part 2)

J.I. Packer speaks

A RESPONSE TO CALDWELL’S TRUMPET CALL TO ETHNOHERMENEUTICS

Creation: Pattern, God and Man

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Meta