Jesus was asked if only a few people will enter the Kingdom of God. In Luke 13:24, Jesus responds by saying, "strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able to." Jesus tells us to strive to enter through the narrow door, which immediately draws upon the narrow path and gate illustration He uses in His closing on the Sermon on the Mount. How do we strive along the narrow path for the narrow door?
The word translated strive here is from the root word agónizomai, which is where we get the word agonize. To agonizingly contend with something requires an adversary, a focus of something to wrestle with. So, Jesus commands us to struggle with an adversary to enter the narrow door which leads to the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells us many people will seek to enter, but only those who seek and strive for the narrow door with enter.
It is not enough to merely seek. If we hold this idea of seeking up against Paul's lesson in Romans 3 where he informs us that no one seeks for God, we may suggest that this is a group of people seeking many things but none of which is God Himself. People seek for spiritual well-being, personal happiness, a purpose to life, perhaps even religion. Many modern churches in America have adjusted the environment of their congregation to be more "seeker-friendly." We must ask ourselves: what, exactly, are they seeking? Certainly not God. Now, perhaps what they are seeking is an opportunity to share the gospel with them. For example, a woman who lost her husband might seek for what the purpose was. She seeks for emotional healing, for assurance that everything will be okay without him. The gospel heals this wound, yes; more importantly, the gospel is the truth, even if she was NOT seeking God. The danger here is to orient a church around seekers rather than biblical truth. A local church is to be a fellowship of sinners changed by the Spirit of God assisting each other in their efforts of striving for the narrow door through the Word of God, not a group of happy people answering questions of seekers based on personal philosophy and opinion.
What is the adversary we are to agonizingly strive against? Proverbs 28:4 reads:
"Those who forsake the law praise the wicked,
but those who keep the law strive against them." (emphasis added)
The word for strive here is יִתְגָּ֥רוּ which is from גָּרָה, meaning to stir up strife, or to provoke. This does not mean that believers walk around looking for a fight with the wicked. However, this is a valuable word. This is not a passive walk with God toward the narrow gate. Our contention is with sin, and with the world that teaches lies. Everything in the world is held into question, and we are to strive against wickedness. This is also not about avoiding sin, simply suggesting that sin is only performed in commission. The sin of omission is also in play. We strive against doing the wrong thing, and likewise strive to do the right thing. We strive against wickedness and strive for the keeping of the law. We avoid wickedness, then we turn and love our neighbors as ourselves (see Luke 10:25-37).
To blend this with the previous article on false prophets, how then shall we strive as followers of Christ to avoid wickedness, to keep the Law of God, and to agonizingly struggle down the narrow path toward the narrow door? Does the advice from your friends, co-workers, family members, or other people in your life reflect this constant striving for the narrow door? Does your church and pastor join in more than friendly fellowship and do the hard work along with you striving toward the narrow door?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Ravenous Wolves and the Easy Path
Toward the end of His Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 7, Jesus tells us to enter the narrow gate via the narrow path. This path is in contrast to the wide and easy path toward the gate of destruction. We each walk a path, and we each will enter a gate. Death is unavoidable, and we will each discover which gate we have been walking toward all our life. Sandwiched in between two very similar lessons on final judgment and the two paths is a section on false prophets. Jesus is asserting an important lesson for His hearers, a lesson that demands a response from all who read this.
A grand mistake in hearing Jesus talk about the wide path toward destruction can be made when we make-believe that Jesus is talking about atheists and egregious sinners. Read carefully and understand that Jesus is talking to a crowd that believes in the coming judgment. Both paths Jesus' describes here promise that the gate at the end is heaven. Both paths have teachers. These teachers both appear to be sheep just like any other believer. Yet one path leads toward hell, and this path has teachers that appear attractive and say attractive things yet are inwardly ravenous wolves. These ravenous wolves might quote Scripture, claiming to preach the Bible and the good news. Jesus extends His teaching telling us that at judgment many will come to Him rightly calling Him Lord, and profess to have preached, healed, and cast out demons in His Name. And yet, Jesus tells them He never knew them. These false prophets point toward a future hope down an easy road toward a gate they assure us is the gate of heaven. They show remarkable signs, are effective public speakers, appear gentle and warm on the outside, and quote Scripture with confidence. How then can we be sure that we are listening to prophets of the truth?
The word prophet here I take as one who speaks the revealed Word of God and is pointing toward an event in the future. True prophets know God has completed His revealed Word in the Bible, and point only toward that future hope that is in Christ Jesus according to the Scriptures. The true prophets of old never dared to venture away from stating what God had told them, and only pointed to a future God had revealed to them. We are no different today. This might require a different post at a different time, knowing that this is a point of controversy for many. This is not to take away from the point of this passage in Matthew; namely, discerning true prophets and false prophets.
Jesus tells us we will be able to judge our leaders based on their results. Unregenerate false prophets cannot restrain sin; the power of sin is only restrained by the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer. This has everything to do with the path and gate illustration Jesus introduced this passage with. False prophets place their adherents down an easy and wide path filled with lots of people. They speak empty words of comfort during trials rather than biblical truths. They preach and write books regarding personal happiness (with an exorbitant focus on personal wealth), all with a catchy phraseology and a knack for good illustrations and stories to bolster their sermons which are always human-centered. This path is easy, but the burden is too great to bare.
Which books do you read? What do your friends have to say about things? What does your preacher and Sunday School teacher tell you? What daytime talk show host sounds most wise? What advice do they give? Does what they say glorify God and compliment His Word? Beware of false prophets, and question the information and advice you receive. The choicest wisdom in all the universe is the wisdom of folly (I Corinthians 1:18) that baffles the most wise of humans (I Corinthians 1:25). Listen to the Word of God, and to teachers and advice-givers that are immersed in the Bible.
A grand mistake in hearing Jesus talk about the wide path toward destruction can be made when we make-believe that Jesus is talking about atheists and egregious sinners. Read carefully and understand that Jesus is talking to a crowd that believes in the coming judgment. Both paths Jesus' describes here promise that the gate at the end is heaven. Both paths have teachers. These teachers both appear to be sheep just like any other believer. Yet one path leads toward hell, and this path has teachers that appear attractive and say attractive things yet are inwardly ravenous wolves. These ravenous wolves might quote Scripture, claiming to preach the Bible and the good news. Jesus extends His teaching telling us that at judgment many will come to Him rightly calling Him Lord, and profess to have preached, healed, and cast out demons in His Name. And yet, Jesus tells them He never knew them. These false prophets point toward a future hope down an easy road toward a gate they assure us is the gate of heaven. They show remarkable signs, are effective public speakers, appear gentle and warm on the outside, and quote Scripture with confidence. How then can we be sure that we are listening to prophets of the truth?
The word prophet here I take as one who speaks the revealed Word of God and is pointing toward an event in the future. True prophets know God has completed His revealed Word in the Bible, and point only toward that future hope that is in Christ Jesus according to the Scriptures. The true prophets of old never dared to venture away from stating what God had told them, and only pointed to a future God had revealed to them. We are no different today. This might require a different post at a different time, knowing that this is a point of controversy for many. This is not to take away from the point of this passage in Matthew; namely, discerning true prophets and false prophets.
Jesus tells us we will be able to judge our leaders based on their results. Unregenerate false prophets cannot restrain sin; the power of sin is only restrained by the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer. This has everything to do with the path and gate illustration Jesus introduced this passage with. False prophets place their adherents down an easy and wide path filled with lots of people. They speak empty words of comfort during trials rather than biblical truths. They preach and write books regarding personal happiness (with an exorbitant focus on personal wealth), all with a catchy phraseology and a knack for good illustrations and stories to bolster their sermons which are always human-centered. This path is easy, but the burden is too great to bare.
Which books do you read? What do your friends have to say about things? What does your preacher and Sunday School teacher tell you? What daytime talk show host sounds most wise? What advice do they give? Does what they say glorify God and compliment His Word? Beware of false prophets, and question the information and advice you receive. The choicest wisdom in all the universe is the wisdom of folly (I Corinthians 1:18) that baffles the most wise of humans (I Corinthians 1:25). Listen to the Word of God, and to teachers and advice-givers that are immersed in the Bible.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Be Very Courageous
Studying Joshua this morning, I came across the first chapter and God illuminated a word that previously went unchecked the many times I have read this passage. Joshua is being given leadership after Moses' death from YHWH. YHWH is speaking directly to Joshua about taking command of the Israelites and leading into the promised land in which YHWH is giving them to possess. In His command, YHWH encourages Joshua to be strong and courageous (verses 6, 7, and 9). The Israelites respond to Joshua that they will obey the words of Joshua just as they had Moses' words, then in the final verse of the chapter says that this obedience is dependent on this: "only be strong and courageous."
What struck me this morning is the word translated "very" in verse 7. YHWH says to Joshua, "Only be strong and very courageous" (emphasis mine). The word here is מְאֹ֗ד (me'od). This is a word that emphasis more intensely the adjective command of courageous, which is the word וֶֽאֱמַ֜ץ (weh'eh'matz), which means to be bold or alert. Only verse 7 contains the word "very", which implies the verses that follow this is of the utmost importance.
With all of that said, let us read what YHWH is commanding. YHWH tells Joshua to be strong and courageous because they are about to inherit the promised land and that He will be with Joshua wherever he goes. Yet, YHWH tells Joshua to be very courageous "being careful to do according to all the Law that Moses my servant commanded you." YHWH tells Joshua not to turn away from the Law, and to preach the Law accurately and meditate on the Law day and night. YHWH promises that if Joshua obeys this command, He will make Joshua's "way prosperous, and then you will have good success." Words translated "very courageous" means that YHWH is commanding Joshua to be extra alert and bold when it comes to understanding, preaching, and studying the Word of God. In other words, be strong and courageous and alert as you enter the promised land knowing God is near. Be on extra guard, be extra bold, and be strong when it comes to rightly interpreting, preaching, and studying the Word of God.
Dear Christian, this is what our great God commands for leaders to shepherd His flock to do: be strong, alert, and bold in his administration of the church knowing God is near His faithful. Also, dear pastors, elders, and deacons of the church, be on extra guard, extra alert, extra bold, and be strong in your efforts to study the Word of God, rightly interpreting and understanding the Bible, and to teach and preach the Scriptures. "Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go."
What struck me this morning is the word translated "very" in verse 7. YHWH says to Joshua, "Only be strong and very courageous" (emphasis mine). The word here is מְאֹ֗ד (me'od). This is a word that emphasis more intensely the adjective command of courageous, which is the word וֶֽאֱמַ֜ץ (weh'eh'matz), which means to be bold or alert. Only verse 7 contains the word "very", which implies the verses that follow this is of the utmost importance.
With all of that said, let us read what YHWH is commanding. YHWH tells Joshua to be strong and courageous because they are about to inherit the promised land and that He will be with Joshua wherever he goes. Yet, YHWH tells Joshua to be very courageous "being careful to do according to all the Law that Moses my servant commanded you." YHWH tells Joshua not to turn away from the Law, and to preach the Law accurately and meditate on the Law day and night. YHWH promises that if Joshua obeys this command, He will make Joshua's "way prosperous, and then you will have good success." Words translated "very courageous" means that YHWH is commanding Joshua to be extra alert and bold when it comes to understanding, preaching, and studying the Word of God. In other words, be strong and courageous and alert as you enter the promised land knowing God is near. Be on extra guard, be extra bold, and be strong when it comes to rightly interpreting, preaching, and studying the Word of God.
Dear Christian, this is what our great God commands for leaders to shepherd His flock to do: be strong, alert, and bold in his administration of the church knowing God is near His faithful. Also, dear pastors, elders, and deacons of the church, be on extra guard, extra alert, extra bold, and be strong in your efforts to study the Word of God, rightly interpreting and understanding the Bible, and to teach and preach the Scriptures. "Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go."
Friday, June 24, 2011
אִי כָבוֹד - Ichabod, the Glory has Departed
God blesses the local church which remains faithful. We disciples of Christ are called to be salt to a decaying world and light to the dark world (Matthew 5:13-16). This calls for open, bold, and unwavering preaching of the gospel. However, the gospel has been redefined by so many, intentionally as well as unintentionally. Focus has shifted to programs or simply having fun. Local churches across the West have abandoned the mission of Christ to make disciples everywhere with urgency and teaching them to obey the commands of our Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20). Many local churches in the American landscape, both young and old, have abandoned the preaching of the gospel in favor of good advice for living, parenting, working, making friends, and social action in a more "relevant" (common ground) way.. In this effort, local churches have abdicated our King Jesus who commanded us to preach the gospel.
In I Samuel, the Philistines defeated an unfaithful Israel and took the ark of the covenant. When Eli heard this news, he fell backward breaking his neck which was fatal. Eli's daughter-in-law, whose husband died in battle, gave birth to a boy naming him Ichabod, for "the glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken." She mentions this naming twice to emphasize the point, as if naming her son Ichabod was not enough! Now, jump to the meaning for this article. When an unfaithful church abandons the mission of God in this dark world - which is the preaching of the gospel - that church ought not be surprised to find turmoil. Factions will rise, arguments ensues, financial offerings decrease, joy and life are sapped right from the congregation.
When I hear of financial offerings decreasing, or a worry about church attendance or new membership numbers, or churches in dispute over interior decoration or who heads what committee, I hear symptoms. When churches struggle keep their doors open, I hear symptoms. These are only symptoms to a disease. Many churches and pastors resort to treating the symptoms with the latest and greatest programs, or replace doctrine with pizzazz to sermons, or have a fun, exciting youth program minus doctrine, or replace Bible studies with ice cream socials (note to reader - I said replace, not "ice cream socials are sinful." This is an effort to answer e-mails in advance). Yet, biblical Christians know that there is a deeper issue in such churches. That issue is disobedience.
Disobedience leads to confusion in mission. This is a cancer that kills local congregations. Jesus promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). This promise is for the true, global church body. If the local church wishes to be blessed, she must remain faithful to the mission of Christ. Otherwise, the local church will slowly suffocate, and voices will turn into haunting whispers and finally silenced. It is God who blesses the faithful local congregation; it is God who silences unfaithful local churches. When I photograph abandoned church structures, I sit silently and marvel at how God silences the unfaithful. When I see the entrance of an abandoned church building, I say "Ichabod - the glory has departed."
Monday, June 6, 2011
Worldviews Class I: Introduction to Worldviews
Paul told Timothy, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17). Paul works out of an epistemic (epistemology is how we come to know reality, truth) platform that the inspired Scripture is sufficient; that is, the Bible is enough and all we need. Every good work is possible only from the discipline gained from Scripture. Think of it this way: Every good work is Kingdom work. Held in conjunction to Hebrews 11:6, only true faith by the disciplines from the Scripture can be considered good work. Goodness, then, has been defined by God as His work and what pleases Him.
Goodness
Listen to our culture and you will hear of many, and often times contradicting, definition to what is "good." It is good to stand up for what you believe in, it is good to try something new, it is good to fight for equality. However, in a post-modern (or, perhaps now a post-post-modern) epistemology, each value and category in a worldview is founded on each individual. Consider that truth is relative, stealing is not immoral. To the victim, stealing is wrong. To the thief, stealing is right and justified. Now, the thief may consider people stealing from him to be immoral, but his stealing is right and good. Remember, it is in this worldview that there are NO absolutes in truth (especially considering axiological truth). Simply because people call works or other people good does not make it so. God defines what is good because He is good. People are changing and do not agree with one another; therefore, we cannot define goodness or truth.
In the biblical worldview, truth is found revealed in Scripture. Truth is not simply the Christian's opinion, but revealed to the Christian by God through Scripture. Even truth discovered in nature (general revelation) was granted by God's revealing, and more specifically by faith is truth granted by God's revealing through His Word (special revelation). Stealing is wrong. God is good, and He works good, and those working in faith for God's glory is called good. How do I know this? The Bible tells me so.
Circular Reasoning
The biblical worldview is founded on the epistemology that says that the Scripture teaches that the Scripture is right. We read this here in II Timothy 3:16-17. We know God inspired all of Scripture because the Scripture teaches this. In philosophy, we call this a fallacy of circular reasoning. What would be compelling evidence from outside special revelation to validate special revelation? Let us consider opposing worldviews from the biblical worldview. Ask someone, why do you believe stealing is wrong? What is truth? How do you know this, who told you, and why do you trust them? Ultimately, the unbeliever must concede that it is he who is the judge of truth because he trusts himself. In other words, truth for him is truth because he says so. Fact is, all worldviews are circular in reasoning. The conflict between worldviews is between authors. For the unbeliever, the author and judge of truth is each individual. No one comes to a consensus on anything; thus, rendering truth relative and non-existent. Truth understood in the secular worldview is unwarranted belief; whereas, biblical truth is warranted belief (more on this in upcoming classes). What the Bible says about itself is sufficient evidence to its truthfulness. What evidence exists for those who do not believe in the Bible? None at all.
Evidence
Why have Christians in recent decades felt intimidated by secular worldviews? Why do we think we alone must come up with evidence and probability to our worldview? Our lack of confidence in the faith is revealed by our lack of evangelism and engaging of the culture as well as avoiding debates with unbelievers. We say stuff like, "Well, I don't want to get into arguments with them," or "I don't want to seem mean," or worse "I am not sure that I would say the right things." The first two deal with personal emotions and reputations. If we desire to save the lost, we would stand in confidence getting into caring and loving debates and conversations with unbelievers. We should not be ashamed of the scandal of the gospel. To reject the gospel out of fear of appearing mean is to be ashamed. Lastly, not knowing the right things to say is excusing yourself out of ignorance. Paul says that the Scripture is enough to teach us what we are ignorant of, to correct us of our errors, to discipline us for Christ-likeness to perform Kingdom work.
We should not build a biblical epistemology based on probability. This is what evidence brings us. The best scenario when debating based on evidence (i.e. cosmological argument for the existence of God, number of early manuscripts to "prove" the Bible, etc.) is one that contends that Christianity has a level of probability. Thus, the biblical worldview is probable just like other worldviews. This contention from evidence on the probability of Christianity is a religious view called agnosticism. This claims that truth is unknowable, and reduces all values in epistemology into categories of probability (enter David Hume). Evidence is great for strengthening and encouraging people with faith in the biblical worldview, and perhaps is good in an all out philosophical shoot out after describing the competing worldviews with unbelievers. Evidence is not a good place to start to make God appear probable. God is not in the defense chair of the court room answering to our charges, and we must not be ashamed to place the unbeliever as the defendant and God (YHWH of the Bible, not a generic deity) as the holy Judge.
Conclusion
The Bible equips the Christian for Kingdom work that we might be competent. This competency in the Scripture translates to competency to defend the faith (evangelism and apologetics). We can find our competency in no other worldview and by no other standard than Scripture. Let us not be ashamed, let us be confident in our faith in the biblical worldview and not relax this worldview for even a moment in our hearts and minds. This will lead us into the second part of this introduction to worldviews where will discuss faith seeking understanding, the resistance from post-modernism, and the most important task of the Christian.
Goodness
Listen to our culture and you will hear of many, and often times contradicting, definition to what is "good." It is good to stand up for what you believe in, it is good to try something new, it is good to fight for equality. However, in a post-modern (or, perhaps now a post-post-modern) epistemology, each value and category in a worldview is founded on each individual. Consider that truth is relative, stealing is not immoral. To the victim, stealing is wrong. To the thief, stealing is right and justified. Now, the thief may consider people stealing from him to be immoral, but his stealing is right and good. Remember, it is in this worldview that there are NO absolutes in truth (especially considering axiological truth). Simply because people call works or other people good does not make it so. God defines what is good because He is good. People are changing and do not agree with one another; therefore, we cannot define goodness or truth.
In the biblical worldview, truth is found revealed in Scripture. Truth is not simply the Christian's opinion, but revealed to the Christian by God through Scripture. Even truth discovered in nature (general revelation) was granted by God's revealing, and more specifically by faith is truth granted by God's revealing through His Word (special revelation). Stealing is wrong. God is good, and He works good, and those working in faith for God's glory is called good. How do I know this? The Bible tells me so.
Circular Reasoning
The biblical worldview is founded on the epistemology that says that the Scripture teaches that the Scripture is right. We read this here in II Timothy 3:16-17. We know God inspired all of Scripture because the Scripture teaches this. In philosophy, we call this a fallacy of circular reasoning. What would be compelling evidence from outside special revelation to validate special revelation? Let us consider opposing worldviews from the biblical worldview. Ask someone, why do you believe stealing is wrong? What is truth? How do you know this, who told you, and why do you trust them? Ultimately, the unbeliever must concede that it is he who is the judge of truth because he trusts himself. In other words, truth for him is truth because he says so. Fact is, all worldviews are circular in reasoning. The conflict between worldviews is between authors. For the unbeliever, the author and judge of truth is each individual. No one comes to a consensus on anything; thus, rendering truth relative and non-existent. Truth understood in the secular worldview is unwarranted belief; whereas, biblical truth is warranted belief (more on this in upcoming classes). What the Bible says about itself is sufficient evidence to its truthfulness. What evidence exists for those who do not believe in the Bible? None at all.
Evidence
Why have Christians in recent decades felt intimidated by secular worldviews? Why do we think we alone must come up with evidence and probability to our worldview? Our lack of confidence in the faith is revealed by our lack of evangelism and engaging of the culture as well as avoiding debates with unbelievers. We say stuff like, "Well, I don't want to get into arguments with them," or "I don't want to seem mean," or worse "I am not sure that I would say the right things." The first two deal with personal emotions and reputations. If we desire to save the lost, we would stand in confidence getting into caring and loving debates and conversations with unbelievers. We should not be ashamed of the scandal of the gospel. To reject the gospel out of fear of appearing mean is to be ashamed. Lastly, not knowing the right things to say is excusing yourself out of ignorance. Paul says that the Scripture is enough to teach us what we are ignorant of, to correct us of our errors, to discipline us for Christ-likeness to perform Kingdom work.
We should not build a biblical epistemology based on probability. This is what evidence brings us. The best scenario when debating based on evidence (i.e. cosmological argument for the existence of God, number of early manuscripts to "prove" the Bible, etc.) is one that contends that Christianity has a level of probability. Thus, the biblical worldview is probable just like other worldviews. This contention from evidence on the probability of Christianity is a religious view called agnosticism. This claims that truth is unknowable, and reduces all values in epistemology into categories of probability (enter David Hume). Evidence is great for strengthening and encouraging people with faith in the biblical worldview, and perhaps is good in an all out philosophical shoot out after describing the competing worldviews with unbelievers. Evidence is not a good place to start to make God appear probable. God is not in the defense chair of the court room answering to our charges, and we must not be ashamed to place the unbeliever as the defendant and God (YHWH of the Bible, not a generic deity) as the holy Judge.
Conclusion
The Bible equips the Christian for Kingdom work that we might be competent. This competency in the Scripture translates to competency to defend the faith (evangelism and apologetics). We can find our competency in no other worldview and by no other standard than Scripture. Let us not be ashamed, let us be confident in our faith in the biblical worldview and not relax this worldview for even a moment in our hearts and minds. This will lead us into the second part of this introduction to worldviews where will discuss faith seeking understanding, the resistance from post-modernism, and the most important task of the Christian.
Monday, March 28, 2011
An Uncertain Gospel
Recently, I entertained myself with an interview of Sir Anthony Hopkins on the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. You may read the transcript here. Hopkins has a new movie that he is promoting that, by my view of the trailers, appears to be a new epistemic twist to The Exorcist. It's not the movie I am interested in, but the comments of Hopkins on the meaning and perceived enemy portrayed in the film. Smiley asked if certainty is the enemy. "Certainty is the enemy of mankind," responded Hopkins in his distinguished English accent. Hopkins quoted Peter Berger (and for Hopkins' reference, is an American philosopher of Austrian descent) as suggesting that certainty about reality leads to Nazism and the Inquisition, whereas doubting reality makes one wise and stronger. Hopkins continues, "does anyone know of anything? Nobody, not one single human being has an answer. None of us know. Everything is a mystery."
Here in lies an epistemic problem. According to Hopkins, not one person can be sure about anything existing. Thus, for one to see and tree and the image of a tree corresponds in that person's mind as the reality of a tree, Hopkins suggests to doubt that trees exist and he will be the wiser and stronger. This is absurdity. Yet, in this post-modern age, this nonsense passes as intellectual. Even Hopkins suggested that this conversation was being very intellectual. No, Sir Hopkins, it is an absurdity. You may wish to make-believe that brick walls exist, but running into them will still hurt. Truth is, reality is true whether we agree or even wish it not to exist. So, you may ask, why all this diatribe on Hopkins. He's an aged actor staging as a philosopher. No one really believes this, do they? Who lives as Hopkins says "I live in doubt all the time....I think doubt is a very healthy way to live." Now to my point.
You may have heard recently that Rob Bell broke with orthodox Christian teaching by suggesting that the doctrine of hell is keeping people from loving Jesus, and thus needs to be removed. I will point the reader to a well written article by Dr. Al Mohler here. I will not rehash arguments against Bell; furthermore, I would suggest that Rob Bell was never orthodox.To make this clear to my congregation, Rob Bell is to be avoided. My beef is not merely with Bell, but with this entire postmodern junk gospel known as Emerging Church Movement. Brian McLaren sought to defend Bell with his article "Will Loves Wins Win?" In his article, McLaren muddies the water with more postmodern epistemology, contending that a clear idea of what the gospel says cannot be attained because of communication barriers between the speaker and reader as well as cultural time barriers. In other words, the true meaning of the gospel is uncertain and to be remained in doubt, especially considering the varying versions of Christianity.
Between Rob Bell's questioning (resembling that of the serpent "has God indeed said...") and McLaren's doubting communication epistemology, this repackaged postmodern doubt of any certainty is nothing but worldly philosophy clouting God's creation as reality and His communication skills in His Word. If the Bible cannot be trusted and meaning attained by the reader with any degree of certainty, then God has a stuttering problem. If God cannot utilize language, which He created, with any effective degree that readers can obtain not just meaning, but truth of the reality in which God is attempting to reveal, then God cannot be trusted with anything. Furthermore, Rob Bell attempted to defend himself on CNN recently. Bell's fans sum up my argument quite well: "He (Rob Bell) leaves it open-ended. He lets you think and draw your own conclusions for yourself instead of spoon-feeding what he grew up hearing or what he was taught in seminary." In other words, Rob Bell doubts all truth claims of the Scripture and allows the audience to draw their own conclusions of truth from the Bible. This garbage epistemology is called reader-response criticism. This claims that truth is not in what was said, but is entirely reliant on the hearer to derive whether it corresponds to reality or not. For instance, back to the tree and brick wall illustrations. A tree is in front of 3 people. One sees a tree, another a lollipop, and again another sees a kind old woman. The two that observe a lollipop and a kind, old woman in Bell's (and postmodern) perception is equally true and valid to the one viewing the tree as a tree. The problem arises when the second licks the tree and finds that it does not taste like a lollipop, and the third has a conversation and a hug with the tree and does not find it as warm as a kind, old woman. These do not correspond to reality. Catching on? Consider 3 persons in front of a brick wall. One sees a brick wall, another has been convinced that it is a soft, feather mattress. And again another observes a Philly cheese steak. Once the second runs and hits the wall and finds it not as soft as a feather mattress, something is wrong with the person perceiving and not the truth of the wall. The brick wall is a brick wall, regardless of the one viewing. Derive your own comical conclusions with a Philly cheese steak.
Okay, now for a little bit more of a layman's understanding for clarity as a conclusion. Suggesting that the Bible, or more specifically the gospel, is open to interpretation by each hearer and not true in its own claims is as equally as absurd as seeing a brick wall as a soft, feather mattress and living life accordingly. To suggest that hell does not exist because it is inconsistent with Rob Bell's perception of a benevolent God (this requires the Bible to define "good" and "just") even though the Bible teaches that hell does indeed exist is living in fantasy land. The gospel, in the postmodern view, is uncertain just like Hopkins' view of all reality. It is an absurd way to live. More importantly, it is an absurd way to pretend to be Christian.
Here in lies an epistemic problem. According to Hopkins, not one person can be sure about anything existing. Thus, for one to see and tree and the image of a tree corresponds in that person's mind as the reality of a tree, Hopkins suggests to doubt that trees exist and he will be the wiser and stronger. This is absurdity. Yet, in this post-modern age, this nonsense passes as intellectual. Even Hopkins suggested that this conversation was being very intellectual. No, Sir Hopkins, it is an absurdity. You may wish to make-believe that brick walls exist, but running into them will still hurt. Truth is, reality is true whether we agree or even wish it not to exist. So, you may ask, why all this diatribe on Hopkins. He's an aged actor staging as a philosopher. No one really believes this, do they? Who lives as Hopkins says "I live in doubt all the time....I think doubt is a very healthy way to live." Now to my point.
You may have heard recently that Rob Bell broke with orthodox Christian teaching by suggesting that the doctrine of hell is keeping people from loving Jesus, and thus needs to be removed. I will point the reader to a well written article by Dr. Al Mohler here. I will not rehash arguments against Bell; furthermore, I would suggest that Rob Bell was never orthodox.To make this clear to my congregation, Rob Bell is to be avoided. My beef is not merely with Bell, but with this entire postmodern junk gospel known as Emerging Church Movement. Brian McLaren sought to defend Bell with his article "Will Loves Wins Win?" In his article, McLaren muddies the water with more postmodern epistemology, contending that a clear idea of what the gospel says cannot be attained because of communication barriers between the speaker and reader as well as cultural time barriers. In other words, the true meaning of the gospel is uncertain and to be remained in doubt, especially considering the varying versions of Christianity.
Between Rob Bell's questioning (resembling that of the serpent "has God indeed said...") and McLaren's doubting communication epistemology, this repackaged postmodern doubt of any certainty is nothing but worldly philosophy clouting God's creation as reality and His communication skills in His Word. If the Bible cannot be trusted and meaning attained by the reader with any degree of certainty, then God has a stuttering problem. If God cannot utilize language, which He created, with any effective degree that readers can obtain not just meaning, but truth of the reality in which God is attempting to reveal, then God cannot be trusted with anything. Furthermore, Rob Bell attempted to defend himself on CNN recently. Bell's fans sum up my argument quite well: "He (Rob Bell) leaves it open-ended. He lets you think and draw your own conclusions for yourself instead of spoon-feeding what he grew up hearing or what he was taught in seminary." In other words, Rob Bell doubts all truth claims of the Scripture and allows the audience to draw their own conclusions of truth from the Bible. This garbage epistemology is called reader-response criticism. This claims that truth is not in what was said, but is entirely reliant on the hearer to derive whether it corresponds to reality or not. For instance, back to the tree and brick wall illustrations. A tree is in front of 3 people. One sees a tree, another a lollipop, and again another sees a kind old woman. The two that observe a lollipop and a kind, old woman in Bell's (and postmodern) perception is equally true and valid to the one viewing the tree as a tree. The problem arises when the second licks the tree and finds that it does not taste like a lollipop, and the third has a conversation and a hug with the tree and does not find it as warm as a kind, old woman. These do not correspond to reality. Catching on? Consider 3 persons in front of a brick wall. One sees a brick wall, another has been convinced that it is a soft, feather mattress. And again another observes a Philly cheese steak. Once the second runs and hits the wall and finds it not as soft as a feather mattress, something is wrong with the person perceiving and not the truth of the wall. The brick wall is a brick wall, regardless of the one viewing. Derive your own comical conclusions with a Philly cheese steak.
Okay, now for a little bit more of a layman's understanding for clarity as a conclusion. Suggesting that the Bible, or more specifically the gospel, is open to interpretation by each hearer and not true in its own claims is as equally as absurd as seeing a brick wall as a soft, feather mattress and living life accordingly. To suggest that hell does not exist because it is inconsistent with Rob Bell's perception of a benevolent God (this requires the Bible to define "good" and "just") even though the Bible teaches that hell does indeed exist is living in fantasy land. The gospel, in the postmodern view, is uncertain just like Hopkins' view of all reality. It is an absurd way to live. More importantly, it is an absurd way to pretend to be Christian.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Virgin Will Be With Child – Part 1
Dr. Mohler’s recent re-post of his article Must We Believe the Virgin Birth? had me thinking on this issue. Over the centuries post-Enlightenment, thinkers have used the doctrine of the virgin birth from evidence of mythologized Christianity to proof of Christ’s divinity. Mohler defended the necessity of the doctrine of the virgin birth to the Christian faith, and I will refer the Christian reader questioning if they must hold to this doctrine to his article. In this essay, I will map out the prophecy, fulfillment of, and importance of this doctrine from a biblical standpoint. An important question that demands an answer is does the Bible truly prophesy that the Messiah will be born of a virgin? The answer to this question is of ultimate value for or against the truth claims of Jesus of Nazareth.
Isaiah 7:14 in the English Standard Version reads: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” A few things to deliberate here: is this passage speaking of something near or far future from Isaiah, is this son literal or figurative, and is the word for “virgin” translated appropriately? In this first part of the series, we will discuss the translation challenges for the word "virgin" followed by the other two in upcoming articles. This will be a four-part series that will likely take a few months to gather. Patience please!
Let us first deal with the word translated “virgin.” This is the most controversial aspect of Isaiah 7:14; thus, needs to be addressed first. The word in Hebrew is הָעַלְמָה (ha-almah). The word is singular prefixed with ה (ha), correctly translated “the”. The word “the” is important theologically because of the prophecy as a whole. The promised child is thus singular, and a specific person (or event if thinking allegorically, which I contend is incorrect) is referenced here. In other words, this is not “a virgin will soon be pregnant,” but rather “THE virgin will be pregnant.” This makes the beloved NASB translation incorrect.
Now, what about almah, is this translated to be “virgin” correctly? The Tanakh (Jewish Scripture) translates the word as "young woman." The word itself is utilized in other areas of the Old Testament as a young woman of marriageable age. The age group is from puberty to consummation. Rebekah is referenced in Genesis 24:43. The word for “virgin” is quite fitting in this context, especially considering verse 16, suggesting this almah no man had known (a “virgin” or בְּתוּלָה, betulah). This is a fitting woman for Isaac to marry, a girl of marrying age that is a virgin. The author appears to use the words almah and betulah interchangeably. Now, Jewish scholars might suggest that the usage of almah in 43 is to avoid repetition from betulah in 16. This is a point I read from around the web, and I must sit back and scratch my head wondering how this is supposed to be linguistic evidence that almah does not mean “virgin.” If the author was avoiding redundancy, then the author presumes the original word betulah in almah. In other words, in so far as this passage goes, the usage of the two words is seen as synonymous, not in contradiction. Therefore, almah can mean “virgin” if the context calls for it.
Another usage of the word almah is found in Exodus 2:8. The Pharaoh’s daughter finds the baby Moses in the river, and Miriam asks if she should find a Hebrew to nurse the child. The Pharaoh’s daughter tells her to go, then the Scripture reads “And the maiden (הָעַלְמָה) went and called the child’s mother.” Miriam (likely referenced here as the maiden) apparently was a young woman not yet married. In this usage of almah, the woman referenced here is in the age group as described, yet the context does not give information regarding sexual purity. I provide this information to show that the meaning of almah is a woman of the age group post puberty yet before marriage. Thus, the context of the passage enlightens the reader to the full definition of the word. Isolated, almah simply means young woman of marrying age. Yet, the context of the use of the word may mean “virgin” as argued above. However, the context of this passage also does not suggest Miriam was not a virgin. A thought to consider. In fact, as Martin Luther pointed out, in every case of the Old Testament, the use of almah never refers to a married woman or a sexually impure woman.
Let us return to the passage at hand. Isaiah’s usage of almah is to be correctly translated as “virgin.” First, the use of the word with הָרָה (harah), meaning “soon to be pregnant.” Why would this information be given if this was just some young woman of marrying age? A sign from God ushered in with the word הִנֵּה (hinnah), translated “behold”, shows the reader that something extraordinary is about to occur. A young woman that is about to be pregnant could mean anyone, or shall I say THE young woman. A young woman that is about to be pregnant is not a sign, but a common occurrence. A virgin about to be pregnant then bearing a son is a sign, a miraculous sign. Thus, the context of almah in Isaiah 7:14 is referring to the virgin getting pregnant and having a son as a sign, not simply a young woman giving birth which would be too insignificant to be a sign. Second, the word almah in the Greek Septuagint, that is the Greek translation of the Old Testament prior to Jesus, is translated to παρθενος, which only means “virgin.” Lastly, Matthew, a Levite, uses παρθενος in reference to Isaiah. Matthew was a Hebrew speaker, and would know that mistranslating this word to the Greek would be destructive to the Hebrew readers, especially if they are from the diaspora. The Jews of the diaspora would immediately see the abuse of the language from Isaiah 7:14 and reject Matthew’s writings outright. However, this did not occur, and Matthew quoted this passage from Hebrew to Greek as he saw appropriate as a Hebrew speaker.
Given the context as well as other uses of the word, ha-almah is appropriately translated as “the virgin.” Next time, I will consider whether or not Isaiah 7:14 is a near or far future prophecy from Isaiah’s time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)