“And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Colossians 2:11-12
How odd I should be able to sit in a chair and type on a computer keyboard with my fingers. I still have a flesh and blood body, even though my body, “by the circumcision of Christ,” has been removed. I remember as well my baptism in Black Jack pond in 1956. I do not remember dying, yet I did; I do not remember being resurrected, yet I was. So, are circumcision and baptism only symbolical? I was baptized, but did not die (except when under water, I breathed throughout the whole experience). I have a flesh and blood body, yet that body has been removed.
Here, then, is the paradox and the truth: I did die, and my body was “cut” away. Not in this “real world,” but in the ultimately real world of the heavenly places. Interestingly, by the way, while Ephesians and Colossians share several key terms and concepts, the word translated “heavenly places” does not occur in Colossians. Yet, the concept is present in that letter. Circumcision and baptism are two “heavenly places” realities.
Circumcision was for Israel a literal act with great symbolical value. Circumcision was a physical mark communicating a greater truth: Israel had been set apart and reserved for God alone. Circumcision was a mark of God’s ownership. Just so for believers as well. In the heavenly places, the “powers and authorities” see our circumcision as the mark of God’s ownership. We are his, and we have been set apart for the Lord and for him alone. The “powers and authorities” know they can neither touch or possess a believer. They know believers have been “rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”
Baptism is a ritual of Judaism as well as being a symbolical act of obedience for believers. Basically, baptism was and remains a ritual washing for Jews. If a Gentile converts to Judaism, as a final act in the process, he will undergo baptism as both a cleansing act and as an act of transformation. He enters the water a Gentile, and exits the baptismal pool as a Jew. For followers of Jesus, baptism speaks to our being washed clean from our sins, and also tells of our transformation. In the drama of baptism, we symbolize our death in Christ to self, and our resurrection to new life in Him.
In the realm of the heavenly places, the powers and authorities see the reality of both circumcision and baptism. They see, by the manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God, the removal of the body of flesh, and the death, burial and resurrection of the believer to new life in Christ. The power and authorities have no choice but to honor what God has done.
What the powers and authorities try to do in this world is convince believers they can come under their control. This is a scheme of the devil: he wishes to convince believers he has more authority and power than he actually does. He wants the followers of Jesus to believe he is not defeated. If we grant him more power than he in fact has, he can temporally defeat us. Yet, he knows the defeat will not last. He is aware of the ultimate reality of our salvation, protection and preservation. He also knows he himself is defeated and all his works have been destroyed. The devil knows the true, ultimate reality of the victory of the Cross. He, as the demons, knows the truth about God. And he, just as the demons, “shudder” at the truth.
Peter made an interesting statement about our salvation. He said, “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” (1 Peter 1:18-19) What was the point Peter was making? He was declaring how final and absolute redemption in Christ is. If God had only purchased our salvation with gold and silver, someone could amass a greater fortune and buy us back from God. Our salvation, if based on temporal things, would then be temporary. God instead bought us out of slavery to sin with the “precious blood” of Christ. That purchase price was eternal and of the greatest value. No price of greater value could be or can be paid. Our salvation is absolute.
With that absolute and irreversible salvation comes total and absolute protection and preservation. No power in the universe can overcome the work of God. What is your ultimate reality?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 4
“He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.”
Ephesians 1:20-22
“[God has] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,”
Ephesians 2:5-6
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12
What is your ultimate reality? What you perceive as reality determines the decisions you make. For many, this world is the ultimate reality. We live and then we die; that’s all there is. For others, this world is a transitory place, where we live for a while, die and come back in some other form (reincarnation). For believers, this world and the lives we live in it are real, but they are not the ultimate reality. What we do here is preparation for our life in eternity. We prepare for eternity with God by being saved by grace. We prepare for eternity apart from God by rejecting the Gospel. Our decisions in this life have eternal consequence. What we decide is real and binding. Our real decisions in this real world have implications for a real eternity.
Yet, this world is not the ultimate reality. We do not base our daily decisions on the realities of this life, but on the realities of the spiritual realm. In Ephesians, Paul used the word “heavenly places” five times (1.3, 20; 2.6; 3.10; 6.12). In each case, Paul was emphasizing significant spiritual truths. He was also pointing the Ephesian believers to the ultimate reality. He told them God had “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” He declared Jesus was “seated at [God’s] right hand in the heavenly places.” Paul further said God had raised up believers “with Him (Jesus), and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” He said the “manifold wisdom of God,” revealed in the mystery of the Gospel, would “be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” Lastly, he declared our struggle as believers is “against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
What does all this mean? Simply stated, the ultimate reality for believers is the “heavenly places.” We are to have a “world view,” or a perspective on life rooted in eternal truths, not temporal ones. When Israel was told to go into the Promised Land, they rebelled (see Numbers 13); they refused to enter the land because what they “saw” made them afraid. The Lord had told them he had already given them the land, they only had to fight to take it; God would give them the victory. Yet, based on the report of the faithless, ten spies, they refused to obey God. Their reality was based in what they saw, not the truth.
We live too much of our lives based on what we see and not on the truth. We pray for God to bless us. Yet, Paul said we had already been “blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” If we have already been blessed, why ask God to do again what he has already done? Why do we cower in fear before a defeated enemy who is already “in subjection under the feet” of Jesus? Why do we treat the church disrespectfully when God is showing his “manifold wisdom” through the church to the “rulers and authorities in the heavenly places”? Why do we have such poor self-concepts as believers when we are “seated with Him in the heavenly places”?
In some earlier posts on this blog, I have argued against the possibility of believers being possessed or oppressed by demons. If I, as a believer, am seated with Jesus in the heavenly places, then, to be possessed or oppressed would mean the devil has the power to ascend to the Throne of Jesus and overpower him. My safety and security in this life and in eternity is rooted in Jesus and the reality of his completed work on the Cross. As Paul told the Colossians, we believers “are complete in Him.” We are not safe because of our faith or our fight, but because of Jesus and what he has done for us. He is the ultimate reality.
Ephesians 1:20-22
“[God has] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,”
Ephesians 2:5-6
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12
What is your ultimate reality? What you perceive as reality determines the decisions you make. For many, this world is the ultimate reality. We live and then we die; that’s all there is. For others, this world is a transitory place, where we live for a while, die and come back in some other form (reincarnation). For believers, this world and the lives we live in it are real, but they are not the ultimate reality. What we do here is preparation for our life in eternity. We prepare for eternity with God by being saved by grace. We prepare for eternity apart from God by rejecting the Gospel. Our decisions in this life have eternal consequence. What we decide is real and binding. Our real decisions in this real world have implications for a real eternity.
Yet, this world is not the ultimate reality. We do not base our daily decisions on the realities of this life, but on the realities of the spiritual realm. In Ephesians, Paul used the word “heavenly places” five times (1.3, 20; 2.6; 3.10; 6.12). In each case, Paul was emphasizing significant spiritual truths. He was also pointing the Ephesian believers to the ultimate reality. He told them God had “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” He declared Jesus was “seated at [God’s] right hand in the heavenly places.” Paul further said God had raised up believers “with Him (Jesus), and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” He said the “manifold wisdom of God,” revealed in the mystery of the Gospel, would “be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” Lastly, he declared our struggle as believers is “against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
What does all this mean? Simply stated, the ultimate reality for believers is the “heavenly places.” We are to have a “world view,” or a perspective on life rooted in eternal truths, not temporal ones. When Israel was told to go into the Promised Land, they rebelled (see Numbers 13); they refused to enter the land because what they “saw” made them afraid. The Lord had told them he had already given them the land, they only had to fight to take it; God would give them the victory. Yet, based on the report of the faithless, ten spies, they refused to obey God. Their reality was based in what they saw, not the truth.
We live too much of our lives based on what we see and not on the truth. We pray for God to bless us. Yet, Paul said we had already been “blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” If we have already been blessed, why ask God to do again what he has already done? Why do we cower in fear before a defeated enemy who is already “in subjection under the feet” of Jesus? Why do we treat the church disrespectfully when God is showing his “manifold wisdom” through the church to the “rulers and authorities in the heavenly places”? Why do we have such poor self-concepts as believers when we are “seated with Him in the heavenly places”?
In some earlier posts on this blog, I have argued against the possibility of believers being possessed or oppressed by demons. If I, as a believer, am seated with Jesus in the heavenly places, then, to be possessed or oppressed would mean the devil has the power to ascend to the Throne of Jesus and overpower him. My safety and security in this life and in eternity is rooted in Jesus and the reality of his completed work on the Cross. As Paul told the Colossians, we believers “are complete in Him.” We are not safe because of our faith or our fight, but because of Jesus and what he has done for us. He is the ultimate reality.
Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 3
“He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.”
Ephesians 1:20-22
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12
An elderly woman told me once when asked how she was doing, “I’m as weak as dirty dish water.” Now what was she saying? What comparison was she making? Did she view herself as having no more value than dirty dishwater? No. She was telling me she had no strength left. Just as dishwater loses its strength after all the dirty dishes have been washed, so this woman, at the end of her days, felt she had little strength left for living.
In the same way, when a writer uses a metaphor or employs hyperbole, he is emphasizing some greater truth or reality. Authors employ these literary techniques as a part of a larger, literal narrative. A true story is told, but at points, the author emphasizes some fact or truth by using a metaphor or hyperbole. In John 15, Jesus used the metaphor of the vineyard, the husbandman, the vine and the branches to emphasize the importance of being productive disciples. Just as branches on a grapevine produce fruit, so we, as followers of Jesus, produce “fruit” only as we are in a dynamic relationship with Jesus.
Paul used the metaphor of armor (based on the armor of a Roman soldier) to communicate several larger truths. Earlier, we pointed out the paradoxes involved in this metaphor (can you put on and take off your salvation?). I think another paradox is found in the identity of the enemy and the struggle we face daily. The verses above illustrate this seeming contradiction. We fight a defeated enemy, plain and simple.
We might better understand this paradox by looking at the story of Achan (Joshua 7). God had placed all the material wealth of Nineveh (except for what he excluded) under a ban. When God destroyed Nineveh, the Israelites were to destroy and burn everything in the city. Achan disobeyed God and took the beautiful mantel of Shinar and some silver and gold. God knew what Achan had done and “his anger . . . burned against the sons of Israel.” When Israel went up against the city of Ai, the army of Israel was defeated.
God had given the Promised Land to Israel. Yet, in order to possess the land, they had to fight for it. Victory was assured, as long as God’s people were obedient to him. At Ai, they were defeated because Israel had sinned (notice how one man’s sin affected the whole nation) and transgressed. The sin and transgression was Achan’s taking things under the ban and keeping them in the midst of the camp. When God made that fact clear to Joshua, he said, “I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy the things under the ban from your midst.” Victory came when Achan admitted what he had done and he and all his house along with what he had taken from Nineveh were destroyed.
Here is the paradox: we already have victory over the devil. Yet, at times, we are overcome. We suffer defeat, not due to the power of Satan and his demons, but because we have sin in our lives. Just as God demanded obedience in all things from Israel, so he does of you and me as modern day followers of Jesus. Our enemy is in subjection under the feet of Jesus. Our victory today results from the same source as Israel’s victories as she fought to take possession of the Promised Land. We have victory in Christ and in him alone. As was true with Israel, so the truth is for us: if we tolerate sin, we suffer defeat. An obedient believer, though, cannot be overcome.
Ephesians 1:20-22
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12
An elderly woman told me once when asked how she was doing, “I’m as weak as dirty dish water.” Now what was she saying? What comparison was she making? Did she view herself as having no more value than dirty dishwater? No. She was telling me she had no strength left. Just as dishwater loses its strength after all the dirty dishes have been washed, so this woman, at the end of her days, felt she had little strength left for living.
In the same way, when a writer uses a metaphor or employs hyperbole, he is emphasizing some greater truth or reality. Authors employ these literary techniques as a part of a larger, literal narrative. A true story is told, but at points, the author emphasizes some fact or truth by using a metaphor or hyperbole. In John 15, Jesus used the metaphor of the vineyard, the husbandman, the vine and the branches to emphasize the importance of being productive disciples. Just as branches on a grapevine produce fruit, so we, as followers of Jesus, produce “fruit” only as we are in a dynamic relationship with Jesus.
Paul used the metaphor of armor (based on the armor of a Roman soldier) to communicate several larger truths. Earlier, we pointed out the paradoxes involved in this metaphor (can you put on and take off your salvation?). I think another paradox is found in the identity of the enemy and the struggle we face daily. The verses above illustrate this seeming contradiction. We fight a defeated enemy, plain and simple.
We might better understand this paradox by looking at the story of Achan (Joshua 7). God had placed all the material wealth of Nineveh (except for what he excluded) under a ban. When God destroyed Nineveh, the Israelites were to destroy and burn everything in the city. Achan disobeyed God and took the beautiful mantel of Shinar and some silver and gold. God knew what Achan had done and “his anger . . . burned against the sons of Israel.” When Israel went up against the city of Ai, the army of Israel was defeated.
God had given the Promised Land to Israel. Yet, in order to possess the land, they had to fight for it. Victory was assured, as long as God’s people were obedient to him. At Ai, they were defeated because Israel had sinned (notice how one man’s sin affected the whole nation) and transgressed. The sin and transgression was Achan’s taking things under the ban and keeping them in the midst of the camp. When God made that fact clear to Joshua, he said, “I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy the things under the ban from your midst.” Victory came when Achan admitted what he had done and he and all his house along with what he had taken from Nineveh were destroyed.
Here is the paradox: we already have victory over the devil. Yet, at times, we are overcome. We suffer defeat, not due to the power of Satan and his demons, but because we have sin in our lives. Just as God demanded obedience in all things from Israel, so he does of you and me as modern day followers of Jesus. Our enemy is in subjection under the feet of Jesus. Our victory today results from the same source as Israel’s victories as she fought to take possession of the Promised Land. We have victory in Christ and in him alone. As was true with Israel, so the truth is for us: if we tolerate sin, we suffer defeat. An obedient believer, though, cannot be overcome.
Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 2
“Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”
Ephesians 6.13
“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5
Jesus made two interesting statements in the Sermon on the Mount: “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; . . . If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you.” Was the Lord advocating self-mutilation? Or, was he using hyperbole to make a point? We know our problems go deeper than a physical eye or a hand. Indeed, one cannot rid himself of a vision problem simply by gouging out only one eye. Jesus was saying we must do whatever is necessary to rid ourselves of sinful behavior. Remember, Jesus told the Pharisees, “for the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.” We must go to the root of the problem, not just where the problem is manifested.
For believers, dealing with the issues of life is a matter of great consequence. We contend with our problems and circumstances on the basis of truth. We recognize the truth about ourselves and our situations, and we come to terms with the truth about the resources available to us as followers of Jesus. We cannot be effective by either ignoring reality or creating a false reality.
The very heart of our problem is sin. James declared, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” (Jam. 1.14-16) The problem is not outside of us, but deep within. Our desires are our greatest enemy.
Now we must be clear on one issue: the devil. He is real and he is the enemy of God and the enemy of God’s people. Paul made plain the issue: we must stand against the “schemes of the devil.” The schemes of the devil are the strategies he has put in place to frustrate believers and make them ineffective in their service to God. Basically, Satan has put in place a variety of seemingly believable and attractive options for achieving one’s goals.
Consider Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the wilderness. Three times, the devil offered to Jesus alternatives the Lord might use to accomplish his goals: turn stones into bread; test God by leaping from the pinnacle of the Temple; and, acknowledging the devil’s power. Jesus answered each temptation by quoting Scripture. He resisted the devil, and the devil “left” him. Jesus won. The devil lost.
These same kinds of solutions exist today. We can chose to do things outside the biblical model, or we can be true to Scripture in all our decisions. We can resist and stand against the devil. We fail to win when we do not resist and stand against Satan in the strength of the Lord. The Lord exposed the devil’s lie of being powerful. As Jesus said, Satan “was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The devil is incapable of saying anything truthful. None of his threats of being powerful or false, but alluring schemes are to be believed.
Neither the devil nor any of his demons have any power at all over believers. Jesus came to “destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3.8) Not only that, Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities.” (Col. 2.15) These “rulers and authorities” are “in subjection under his feet.” (Eph. 1.22) Those “rulers and authorities,” by the way, are what we struggle against. (Eph. 6.12) Not only can we stand against these rulers and authorities, whatever and whoever they might be, but we can do so in the knowledge “in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.” (Rom. 8.37) The only power the devil or a demon might have in a believer’s life is the authority a follower of Jesus grants to them.
Let us all remember, “God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.” We are not to be intimidated by anything; neither the devil nor our sinful desires. In the power of God, in the knowledge of his love for us, and by exercising self-discipline in all things, we will be more than conquerors.
Ephesians 6.13
“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5
Jesus made two interesting statements in the Sermon on the Mount: “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; . . . If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you.” Was the Lord advocating self-mutilation? Or, was he using hyperbole to make a point? We know our problems go deeper than a physical eye or a hand. Indeed, one cannot rid himself of a vision problem simply by gouging out only one eye. Jesus was saying we must do whatever is necessary to rid ourselves of sinful behavior. Remember, Jesus told the Pharisees, “for the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.” We must go to the root of the problem, not just where the problem is manifested.
For believers, dealing with the issues of life is a matter of great consequence. We contend with our problems and circumstances on the basis of truth. We recognize the truth about ourselves and our situations, and we come to terms with the truth about the resources available to us as followers of Jesus. We cannot be effective by either ignoring reality or creating a false reality.
The very heart of our problem is sin. James declared, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” (Jam. 1.14-16) The problem is not outside of us, but deep within. Our desires are our greatest enemy.
Now we must be clear on one issue: the devil. He is real and he is the enemy of God and the enemy of God’s people. Paul made plain the issue: we must stand against the “schemes of the devil.” The schemes of the devil are the strategies he has put in place to frustrate believers and make them ineffective in their service to God. Basically, Satan has put in place a variety of seemingly believable and attractive options for achieving one’s goals.
Consider Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the wilderness. Three times, the devil offered to Jesus alternatives the Lord might use to accomplish his goals: turn stones into bread; test God by leaping from the pinnacle of the Temple; and, acknowledging the devil’s power. Jesus answered each temptation by quoting Scripture. He resisted the devil, and the devil “left” him. Jesus won. The devil lost.
These same kinds of solutions exist today. We can chose to do things outside the biblical model, or we can be true to Scripture in all our decisions. We can resist and stand against the devil. We fail to win when we do not resist and stand against Satan in the strength of the Lord. The Lord exposed the devil’s lie of being powerful. As Jesus said, Satan “was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The devil is incapable of saying anything truthful. None of his threats of being powerful or false, but alluring schemes are to be believed.
Neither the devil nor any of his demons have any power at all over believers. Jesus came to “destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3.8) Not only that, Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities.” (Col. 2.15) These “rulers and authorities” are “in subjection under his feet.” (Eph. 1.22) Those “rulers and authorities,” by the way, are what we struggle against. (Eph. 6.12) Not only can we stand against these rulers and authorities, whatever and whoever they might be, but we can do so in the knowledge “in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.” (Rom. 8.37) The only power the devil or a demon might have in a believer’s life is the authority a follower of Jesus grants to them.
Let us all remember, “God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.” We are not to be intimidated by anything; neither the devil nor our sinful desires. In the power of God, in the knowledge of his love for us, and by exercising self-discipline in all things, we will be more than conquerors.
Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 1
“Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”
Ephesians 6.13
“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5
In responding to some comments on a blog-post about demon-possession, I was struck by some paradoxes in the Spiritual Armor text in Ephesians 6. In thinking about this passage, some literary techniques employed by most of the inspired writers of the biblical texts came to mind: metaphor, hyperbole, euphemism, simile and symbol, among others. I began to wonder to what degree did Paul use metaphor in talking about Spiritual Armor.
Clearly, Paul based his comments on Isaiah 59.17: “He put on righteousness like a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing and wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle.” The question is, does God actually wear armor, or was Isaiah using a simile (comparing two dissimilar things in a phrase introduced with like or as) to say something important about the Lord? Earlier, Isaiah described his vision of the Lord in the Temple in part by saying, “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.” Was the train of God’s robe (Does God “wear” a robe?) literally filling the Temple? Just as Isaiah was saying something about the power of the Lord in 59.17, he was declaring in 6.1 the reality of God’s presence in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Lord’s presence completely filled the Temple.
Now, Paul was a skillful writer. He used rabbinic methods of argument; he employed aspects of Greek rhetoric; and, he used metaphors, hyperbole and analogy. For instance, Colossians 3.5 is hyperbole: kill, or put to death. Can one actually put to death an emotion? How do we slay a sensual desire? If, though, Paul was simply over-stating his case, he in fact was saying do whatever is necessary to do away with destructive desires in one’s life. As for analogy, in Colossians 3.7, Paul said, “you used to walk in these ways.” Many times in Scripture, “to walk” is analogous to “living one’s life” (see Gen. 5.24; Eph. 2.2)
In deciding to what point, if any, Paul was using analogy in Ephesians 6.14-17, we must look first at some obvious paradoxes in that text. The first is, how do you put on the armor? A similar paradox is found in Colossians 3.8-10, Paul spoke twice of “taking off” (as a garment) the practices of the old self and “putting on” (as a garment) the new self. What are the dynamics of taking off and putting on? Nonetheless, we are to “wrap ourselves” with the armor of God and “clothe” ourselves with the new self.
The second paradox is in the actual parts of the armor. Of those, righteousness, faith and salvation are the most important concepts to consider. Here’s the paradox: if we can put something on, can we take it off? If you can “put on” the helmet of salvation, can you take that helmet off? The implication is stunning. If you can both put it on and take it off, then, one can both claim and disavow his salvation. Faith and righteousness are tied together. Paul told the Romans, “therefore, since we have been justified through faith.” (Rom. 5.1) To be justified is to be declared righteous. Paul made that point when he quoted Genesis 15.6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 43). So, by faith, one is declared righteous. We must then ask, can one lay down the very faith through which righteousness was credited? Further, if one lays down his righteousness, he then takes back his sin, thus, nullifying the Cross. Considering what Paul said to the Colossians, if one does not put on the new man, does he remain “clothed” in the old self? If, though, as Paul told the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 5.17, “therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come,” can we undo what Christ has done?
We must not run the risk of over-literalizing the armor and new self metaphors. If we do, we are faced with the dilemma of “putting on” and “taking off.” Rather, we should look to the deeper truth Paul was declaring. Salvation, faith and righteousness are ours through what Christ did on the Cross. Since they are ours, granted to us by God, then we should take maximum advantage of these realities. To the Greeks, the head was the source of life. Christ, through his saving act, protects and preserves our lives. Righteousness is as a breastplate, protecting our hearts, the center of our being. In the depth of our being, we are sinless, having had all our sin forgiven. Faith extinguishes the fiery darts of the evil one, his lies. Is faith in our faith how the lies are extinguished. No. Our fundamental trust in God and the truth of his Word is now the lies are exposed for what they are.
No one has to “put on” their salvation every morning. Neither can we take it off. So, once the armor is on, we can never take it off. If you could take it off, say at the end of the day, what would happen to you when you were sleeping?
Ephesians 6.13
“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5
In responding to some comments on a blog-post about demon-possession, I was struck by some paradoxes in the Spiritual Armor text in Ephesians 6. In thinking about this passage, some literary techniques employed by most of the inspired writers of the biblical texts came to mind: metaphor, hyperbole, euphemism, simile and symbol, among others. I began to wonder to what degree did Paul use metaphor in talking about Spiritual Armor.
Clearly, Paul based his comments on Isaiah 59.17: “He put on righteousness like a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing and wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle.” The question is, does God actually wear armor, or was Isaiah using a simile (comparing two dissimilar things in a phrase introduced with like or as) to say something important about the Lord? Earlier, Isaiah described his vision of the Lord in the Temple in part by saying, “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.” Was the train of God’s robe (Does God “wear” a robe?) literally filling the Temple? Just as Isaiah was saying something about the power of the Lord in 59.17, he was declaring in 6.1 the reality of God’s presence in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Lord’s presence completely filled the Temple.
Now, Paul was a skillful writer. He used rabbinic methods of argument; he employed aspects of Greek rhetoric; and, he used metaphors, hyperbole and analogy. For instance, Colossians 3.5 is hyperbole: kill, or put to death. Can one actually put to death an emotion? How do we slay a sensual desire? If, though, Paul was simply over-stating his case, he in fact was saying do whatever is necessary to do away with destructive desires in one’s life. As for analogy, in Colossians 3.7, Paul said, “you used to walk in these ways.” Many times in Scripture, “to walk” is analogous to “living one’s life” (see Gen. 5.24; Eph. 2.2)
In deciding to what point, if any, Paul was using analogy in Ephesians 6.14-17, we must look first at some obvious paradoxes in that text. The first is, how do you put on the armor? A similar paradox is found in Colossians 3.8-10, Paul spoke twice of “taking off” (as a garment) the practices of the old self and “putting on” (as a garment) the new self. What are the dynamics of taking off and putting on? Nonetheless, we are to “wrap ourselves” with the armor of God and “clothe” ourselves with the new self.
The second paradox is in the actual parts of the armor. Of those, righteousness, faith and salvation are the most important concepts to consider. Here’s the paradox: if we can put something on, can we take it off? If you can “put on” the helmet of salvation, can you take that helmet off? The implication is stunning. If you can both put it on and take it off, then, one can both claim and disavow his salvation. Faith and righteousness are tied together. Paul told the Romans, “therefore, since we have been justified through faith.” (Rom. 5.1) To be justified is to be declared righteous. Paul made that point when he quoted Genesis 15.6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 43). So, by faith, one is declared righteous. We must then ask, can one lay down the very faith through which righteousness was credited? Further, if one lays down his righteousness, he then takes back his sin, thus, nullifying the Cross. Considering what Paul said to the Colossians, if one does not put on the new man, does he remain “clothed” in the old self? If, though, as Paul told the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 5.17, “therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come,” can we undo what Christ has done?
We must not run the risk of over-literalizing the armor and new self metaphors. If we do, we are faced with the dilemma of “putting on” and “taking off.” Rather, we should look to the deeper truth Paul was declaring. Salvation, faith and righteousness are ours through what Christ did on the Cross. Since they are ours, granted to us by God, then we should take maximum advantage of these realities. To the Greeks, the head was the source of life. Christ, through his saving act, protects and preserves our lives. Righteousness is as a breastplate, protecting our hearts, the center of our being. In the depth of our being, we are sinless, having had all our sin forgiven. Faith extinguishes the fiery darts of the evil one, his lies. Is faith in our faith how the lies are extinguished. No. Our fundamental trust in God and the truth of his Word is now the lies are exposed for what they are.
No one has to “put on” their salvation every morning. Neither can we take it off. So, once the armor is on, we can never take it off. If you could take it off, say at the end of the day, what would happen to you when you were sleeping?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Demon Possession, Pt. 3
“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matt. 12.28-29) Profound implications accompany this remarkable declaration by Jesus. With this statement, Jesus announced his authority and power to take anyone he wished from the “house,” or kingdom (see Col. 1.13) of Satan. Was the Lord saying he could only cast out demons, or was he saying he could save anyone he chose to save? Obviously, the later was the essence of his announcement.
We read this declaration and see in it a kind of hypothetical statement: “if I cast out demons.” Jesus was not speaking hypothetically; he was not suggesting he might be able to cast out demons. The argument with the Pharisees stemmed from the fact Jesus had just freed a blind and mute man from demon possession, and healed him of his blindness and muteness. Jesus was referring to the actual, not the possible. In the Greek text, verse 28 is a conditional statement, an if, . . . then proposition. If one thing was true, casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then another was true, the kingdom of God had come.
We can better understand the force of Jesus’ comment by reading the verse in an appropriate way: “But since I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Jesus was declaring what was. He was casting out demons by the Spirit of God and the kingdom of God had come. Jesus had no “ifs” in his mind. He knew the truth and declared it to the Pharisees. They knew, as did Jesus, only the Messiah would come in the power of the Spirit (see Isa. 11.1-10; 42.1-4; 61.1-3). Here, then, was a crisis point for the Pharisees and Israel. Would they accept Jesus as the Messiah or reject him? Their response is a fact of history.
The second part of the declaration of Jesus had to do with the victory of God over the Devil. Jesus said, “or how else can anyone enter the strong man’s (Satan) house (kingdom) and carry off his property (the lost), unless he first binds (overcomes) the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” Compare that statement with the declaration of Paul to the Colossians: “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Co. 1.13-14) In other words, when a person confesses Jesus and trusts in him and his work on the Cross, his sins are forgiven and he is rescued or delivered out of the kingdom of darkness, the kingdom of Satan, and transferred to the Kingdom of Jesus, the beloved Son.
An important fact has to be understood at this point. A connection between sin and sickness existed in the minds of the Jews. Sickness was the result of sin. For instance, when Jesus encountered a blind man as he was leaving the Temple (John 9.1ff), his disciples asked him a question. They asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” On the one hand, the question is odd. How could a man sin so he himself would be born blind; a somewhat contradictory observation. Could a man sin before he was born?
More importantly, though, the question went to the heart of the Jewish understanding of sickness and sin. Sickness always resulted from sin. In this story, the issue of sin came to the fore in the final statement Jesus made to the Pharisees. They asked him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains,” He completely turned around the issue of sin and sickness. The sin of the Pharisees was their knowing the truth, but not acknowledging it. If they had not understood, they would have had not sin. Their claim to be able to “see” the truth compounded their sin.
In Mark 2.1-12, the sin and sickness debate is illustrated more clearly. A paralytic was brought to Jesus by his friends, who opened the roof of a house and lowered the man down to Jesus. Jesus’ first comment to him was, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Jesus, knowing the response of the religious authorities who were present, asked a pointed question in response to their unbelief. “‘Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, “Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ he said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.’”
Jesus painted the scribes into a corner. If they said Jesus’ healing the man was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also forgive sins. If they said forgiving the man’s sins was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also heal. If you do one, you can do the other. They had no answer. Jesus answered the question for them: he healed the man. Thus, he was declaring he had the authority to make the first statement he had made, “your sins are forgiven.”
A connection must now be made between the forgiveness of sin and demon possession. We begin with the Cross. When Jesus died on the Cross as the perfect sacrifice, he did so to effect the final, total forgiveness of the sins of all persons. When John the Baptist saw Jesus, as accounted in John 1.29-36, He twice declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” All the sins of all people of all time were forgiven on the Cross. Paul wrote, “for the death that He died, He died to sin once for all.” Jesus’ death on the Cross was a one-time death for all the sins of all people.
When a person confesses his sin and trusts Christ for salvation, he is accepting the already completed forgiveness of sin. What God offers to anyone who would believe is redemption, the forgiveness of sin. He can offer forgiveness because forgiveness was made available through the death of Jesus. All one is required to do to obtain forgiveness is confess his sin, which is take responsibility for what he has done.
Paul made an important statement to the Romans. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (trusts), to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1.16) How powerful is the gospel? Anyone who believes can be saved, regardless of their condition. Nothing is required of a person beyond his trust in the Gospel. And, by the way, Jesus is the Gospel. We do not believe in something about Jesus, we believe in who Jesus is. We trust in him. Surely, in believing in him we believe in what he did on the Cross. Yet, at the deepest level, we believe Jesus; we trust him. If we trust him, we have no difficulty believing in the efficaciousness of what he accomplished on the Cross.
To illustrate the importance of trusting Jesus, we look to the story in Acts 19.11-20 and the account there of the Seven sons of Sceva. These men were Jewish exorcists and wanted to appropriate the power they saw being expressed through the ministry of Paul. When they tried to cast evil spirits out of the possessed, they would say, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” One evil spirit answered them and said, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” The possessed man then attacked all seven of the men, overpowered them and chased them out of town, “naked and wounded.” The sons of Sceva (a Jewish chief priest) were not believers. They falsely believed the name of Jesus was some kind of magical incantation. They were mistaken.
This story, along with many others in Acts, served to show how God was insuring the integrity and credibility of the Gospel. The Lord did not want anyone preaching anything but the pure Gospel. Apollos and the Ephesian disciples (18.14 - 19.7) did not understand the whole Gospel. They had been baptized with the baptism of John, not with Jesus’ baptism. Even baptism was important to the integrity of the Gospel. One had to be baptized with understanding. Likewise, the “name of Jesus” could not be appropriated by anyone as a tool to further one’s own power and prestige.
By the way, look again at what the evil spirit said to the sons of Sceva: “I recognize Jesus.” The evil spirit knew who Jesus was. James made a similar statement in his letter. “You believe that God is one, You do well; the demons also believe and shudder.” No clouds of doubt obscured any demon’s view or understanding of who Jesus actually was. In Mark 1.21-28, the story is told of Jesus casting an evil spirit out of a man. As Jesus taught, the evil spirit in the man cried out, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are–the Holy One of God.” While we are casual in our understanding of Jesus, demons “tremble” at the knowledge. So, as with the sons of Sceva, demons recognize not only Jesus, they also “know about Paul” as well as any who has trusted Jesus for salvation.
At this point, let’s ask a hypothetical question. Suppose a person is in fact demon possessed. Can this person be saved? Must the person first be freed from demon possession before he can be saved, or is the Gospel enough? Paul said the Gospel, the good news of Jesus, was the power of God to save any who trusted. What do we do with one who might be demon possessed?
We must understand the completeness of the victory of Jesus over the Devil to answer this question. In Ephesians 4.8, and in Colossians 2.15, similar statements are made one can understand only by knowing a little history of the Roman Empire. Victorious Roman generals were granted a triumph in honor of their great victories. Pompey the Great was given three triumphs, the third the greatest of all.
Pompey’s eastern victories earned him his third triumph. On his 45th birthday, in 61 BC, he rode the triumphal chariot as a magnificent god-king. He was accompanied by a gigantic portrait head of himself, studded with pearls. His third triumph exceeded all others; an unprecedented two days were scheduled for its procession and games. Spoils, prisoners, army and banners depicting battle scenes were found all along the triumphal route between the Campus Martius and the Capitoline temple of Jupiter. To conclude, he gave an immense triumphal banquet and money to the people of Rome, and promised them a new theater.”
What does a Roman triumph have to do with the passages in Ephesians and Colossians? In both, the Triumph of Jesus was being described. Note some of the things described. In Ephesians, Jesus “led captive a host of captives.” In a triumph, kings and great generals who had been defeated in battle were led in chains behind the chariot of the triumphant general as his procession made its way through the streets of Rome. Also, Ephesians says Jesus “gave gifts to men.” Pompey gave the city of Rome a new theater. In Colossians, Paul wrote when “[God] had disarmed the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him [Jesus].” Not only did Jesus win the final victory, but in doing so, he took away all the weapons the enemies of God had at their disposal. The only thing the Devil has left to use against people is the lie.
Since Jesus won an absolute and final victory through the Cross, who or what can stand against him? No one and no thing. Satan has no power or authority to use against Jesus. The Gospel of Jesus, then, is the most powerful truth in the universe. Through the Gospel, people are set free. Even if, and if is a big word, someone is demon possessed, only the Gospel can set him free. But, if the victory of the Cross was final, complete and absolute, then with what power can Satan hold anyone when that person is confronted with Jesus. If one is demon possessed, the name of Jesus on the lips of a believer and the presence of the Resurrected Lord in the heart of a believer is all the power required to free one from demon possession. Demons tremble, shudder and flee at the presence of Jesus.
Yet, since the Cross was the final blow with which Satan was eternally defeated and disarmed, how can he possess anyone. He cannot possess or oppress anyone, believer or unbeliever alike. The problem of mankind is not demon possession; the problem we all face is our sin. One is not set free by having a demon cast from him, he is set free when his sin is forgiven. Once freed by the Gospel, no believer can ever be under the oppression of Satan or a demon. Paul declared, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 4.17) Whether we know or understand our freedom is beside the point; freedom is guaranteed by the Spirit of the Lord, not the degree of our spiritual, theological or intellectual abilities.
Human beings are not demon possessed, they are sin possessed. James said, “but each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” The Cross solved the sin problem of man. Trust in Christ makes forgiveness for the person who trusts a reality. The Gospel is the power of God to save anyone who trusts.
We read this declaration and see in it a kind of hypothetical statement: “if I cast out demons.” Jesus was not speaking hypothetically; he was not suggesting he might be able to cast out demons. The argument with the Pharisees stemmed from the fact Jesus had just freed a blind and mute man from demon possession, and healed him of his blindness and muteness. Jesus was referring to the actual, not the possible. In the Greek text, verse 28 is a conditional statement, an if, . . . then proposition. If one thing was true, casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then another was true, the kingdom of God had come.
We can better understand the force of Jesus’ comment by reading the verse in an appropriate way: “But since I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Jesus was declaring what was. He was casting out demons by the Spirit of God and the kingdom of God had come. Jesus had no “ifs” in his mind. He knew the truth and declared it to the Pharisees. They knew, as did Jesus, only the Messiah would come in the power of the Spirit (see Isa. 11.1-10; 42.1-4; 61.1-3). Here, then, was a crisis point for the Pharisees and Israel. Would they accept Jesus as the Messiah or reject him? Their response is a fact of history.
The second part of the declaration of Jesus had to do with the victory of God over the Devil. Jesus said, “or how else can anyone enter the strong man’s (Satan) house (kingdom) and carry off his property (the lost), unless he first binds (overcomes) the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” Compare that statement with the declaration of Paul to the Colossians: “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Co. 1.13-14) In other words, when a person confesses Jesus and trusts in him and his work on the Cross, his sins are forgiven and he is rescued or delivered out of the kingdom of darkness, the kingdom of Satan, and transferred to the Kingdom of Jesus, the beloved Son.
An important fact has to be understood at this point. A connection between sin and sickness existed in the minds of the Jews. Sickness was the result of sin. For instance, when Jesus encountered a blind man as he was leaving the Temple (John 9.1ff), his disciples asked him a question. They asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” On the one hand, the question is odd. How could a man sin so he himself would be born blind; a somewhat contradictory observation. Could a man sin before he was born?
More importantly, though, the question went to the heart of the Jewish understanding of sickness and sin. Sickness always resulted from sin. In this story, the issue of sin came to the fore in the final statement Jesus made to the Pharisees. They asked him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains,” He completely turned around the issue of sin and sickness. The sin of the Pharisees was their knowing the truth, but not acknowledging it. If they had not understood, they would have had not sin. Their claim to be able to “see” the truth compounded their sin.
In Mark 2.1-12, the sin and sickness debate is illustrated more clearly. A paralytic was brought to Jesus by his friends, who opened the roof of a house and lowered the man down to Jesus. Jesus’ first comment to him was, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Jesus, knowing the response of the religious authorities who were present, asked a pointed question in response to their unbelief. “‘Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, “Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ he said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.’”
Jesus painted the scribes into a corner. If they said Jesus’ healing the man was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also forgive sins. If they said forgiving the man’s sins was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also heal. If you do one, you can do the other. They had no answer. Jesus answered the question for them: he healed the man. Thus, he was declaring he had the authority to make the first statement he had made, “your sins are forgiven.”
A connection must now be made between the forgiveness of sin and demon possession. We begin with the Cross. When Jesus died on the Cross as the perfect sacrifice, he did so to effect the final, total forgiveness of the sins of all persons. When John the Baptist saw Jesus, as accounted in John 1.29-36, He twice declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” All the sins of all people of all time were forgiven on the Cross. Paul wrote, “for the death that He died, He died to sin once for all.” Jesus’ death on the Cross was a one-time death for all the sins of all people.
When a person confesses his sin and trusts Christ for salvation, he is accepting the already completed forgiveness of sin. What God offers to anyone who would believe is redemption, the forgiveness of sin. He can offer forgiveness because forgiveness was made available through the death of Jesus. All one is required to do to obtain forgiveness is confess his sin, which is take responsibility for what he has done.
Paul made an important statement to the Romans. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (trusts), to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1.16) How powerful is the gospel? Anyone who believes can be saved, regardless of their condition. Nothing is required of a person beyond his trust in the Gospel. And, by the way, Jesus is the Gospel. We do not believe in something about Jesus, we believe in who Jesus is. We trust in him. Surely, in believing in him we believe in what he did on the Cross. Yet, at the deepest level, we believe Jesus; we trust him. If we trust him, we have no difficulty believing in the efficaciousness of what he accomplished on the Cross.
To illustrate the importance of trusting Jesus, we look to the story in Acts 19.11-20 and the account there of the Seven sons of Sceva. These men were Jewish exorcists and wanted to appropriate the power they saw being expressed through the ministry of Paul. When they tried to cast evil spirits out of the possessed, they would say, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” One evil spirit answered them and said, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” The possessed man then attacked all seven of the men, overpowered them and chased them out of town, “naked and wounded.” The sons of Sceva (a Jewish chief priest) were not believers. They falsely believed the name of Jesus was some kind of magical incantation. They were mistaken.
This story, along with many others in Acts, served to show how God was insuring the integrity and credibility of the Gospel. The Lord did not want anyone preaching anything but the pure Gospel. Apollos and the Ephesian disciples (18.14 - 19.7) did not understand the whole Gospel. They had been baptized with the baptism of John, not with Jesus’ baptism. Even baptism was important to the integrity of the Gospel. One had to be baptized with understanding. Likewise, the “name of Jesus” could not be appropriated by anyone as a tool to further one’s own power and prestige.
By the way, look again at what the evil spirit said to the sons of Sceva: “I recognize Jesus.” The evil spirit knew who Jesus was. James made a similar statement in his letter. “You believe that God is one, You do well; the demons also believe and shudder.” No clouds of doubt obscured any demon’s view or understanding of who Jesus actually was. In Mark 1.21-28, the story is told of Jesus casting an evil spirit out of a man. As Jesus taught, the evil spirit in the man cried out, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are–the Holy One of God.” While we are casual in our understanding of Jesus, demons “tremble” at the knowledge. So, as with the sons of Sceva, demons recognize not only Jesus, they also “know about Paul” as well as any who has trusted Jesus for salvation.
At this point, let’s ask a hypothetical question. Suppose a person is in fact demon possessed. Can this person be saved? Must the person first be freed from demon possession before he can be saved, or is the Gospel enough? Paul said the Gospel, the good news of Jesus, was the power of God to save any who trusted. What do we do with one who might be demon possessed?
We must understand the completeness of the victory of Jesus over the Devil to answer this question. In Ephesians 4.8, and in Colossians 2.15, similar statements are made one can understand only by knowing a little history of the Roman Empire. Victorious Roman generals were granted a triumph in honor of their great victories. Pompey the Great was given three triumphs, the third the greatest of all.
Pompey’s eastern victories earned him his third triumph. On his 45th birthday, in 61 BC, he rode the triumphal chariot as a magnificent god-king. He was accompanied by a gigantic portrait head of himself, studded with pearls. His third triumph exceeded all others; an unprecedented two days were scheduled for its procession and games. Spoils, prisoners, army and banners depicting battle scenes were found all along the triumphal route between the Campus Martius and the Capitoline temple of Jupiter. To conclude, he gave an immense triumphal banquet and money to the people of Rome, and promised them a new theater.”
What does a Roman triumph have to do with the passages in Ephesians and Colossians? In both, the Triumph of Jesus was being described. Note some of the things described. In Ephesians, Jesus “led captive a host of captives.” In a triumph, kings and great generals who had been defeated in battle were led in chains behind the chariot of the triumphant general as his procession made its way through the streets of Rome. Also, Ephesians says Jesus “gave gifts to men.” Pompey gave the city of Rome a new theater. In Colossians, Paul wrote when “[God] had disarmed the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him [Jesus].” Not only did Jesus win the final victory, but in doing so, he took away all the weapons the enemies of God had at their disposal. The only thing the Devil has left to use against people is the lie.
Since Jesus won an absolute and final victory through the Cross, who or what can stand against him? No one and no thing. Satan has no power or authority to use against Jesus. The Gospel of Jesus, then, is the most powerful truth in the universe. Through the Gospel, people are set free. Even if, and if is a big word, someone is demon possessed, only the Gospel can set him free. But, if the victory of the Cross was final, complete and absolute, then with what power can Satan hold anyone when that person is confronted with Jesus. If one is demon possessed, the name of Jesus on the lips of a believer and the presence of the Resurrected Lord in the heart of a believer is all the power required to free one from demon possession. Demons tremble, shudder and flee at the presence of Jesus.
Yet, since the Cross was the final blow with which Satan was eternally defeated and disarmed, how can he possess anyone. He cannot possess or oppress anyone, believer or unbeliever alike. The problem of mankind is not demon possession; the problem we all face is our sin. One is not set free by having a demon cast from him, he is set free when his sin is forgiven. Once freed by the Gospel, no believer can ever be under the oppression of Satan or a demon. Paul declared, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 4.17) Whether we know or understand our freedom is beside the point; freedom is guaranteed by the Spirit of the Lord, not the degree of our spiritual, theological or intellectual abilities.
Human beings are not demon possessed, they are sin possessed. James said, “but each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” The Cross solved the sin problem of man. Trust in Christ makes forgiveness for the person who trusts a reality. The Gospel is the power of God to save anyone who trusts.
Demon Possession, Pt. 2
When we look at all the accounts in the Gospels and Acts in which demon possession (having a demon, unclean/evil spirit, etc.) is described, we find the following facts. Thirteen passages include references to demon possession of some sort. Of these, six are clearly about demon possession, one is probable (Acts 19.11-20), five are general (Mk. 1.32-34, for example) and one is questionable (Acts 16.16-18).
A question about what the Gospels tell us about demon possession is immediately raised. Why was demon possession seemingly so prevalent during the time of Jesus’ walk upon the earth? Based upon the record of the OT, demon possession did not occur in the time before the life of Christ. At the least, if people were demon possessed, no mention is made in the Hebrew Scriptures. Further, except for the three references in Acts (8.7; 16.16-18; 19.11-20), the matter of demonic activity is not addressed in any other book of the NT. The reality of Satan is discussed at times, but not demons (James 2.19, 1 Corinthians 10.20-21 and Revelation 9.20, 16.14 and 18.2 have no bearing on demon possession at all.).
One other fact bears consideration: after Matt. 17.14-18, Mk. 9.38, Lk. 9.49 and Acts 19.13-16, demon possession is not mentioned again in the Synoptic Gospels or Acts. Why did such an important issue cease to be an issue in the Gospels and Acts? In over half the book of Matthew, most of Mark and almost two-thirds of Luke, demon activity is not mentioned at all. We might find our answer by looking at what the Evangelists were saying about Jesus.
A good starting point is Matthew 4.1-17, Mark 1.12-15 and Luke 4.1-21. Each of these passages is an account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In these texts, two things occur. First, Jesus is led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit and is tempted by Satan. Second, he then publicly announces his ministry. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus announced, “The kingdom of heaven/God is at hand.” In Luke, Jesus read from the Scroll of Isaiah (61.1-2). After reading, he declared, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” In effect, he was proclaiming the advent of the Kingdom of God. The announcement of the kingdom had temporal and eternal consequences and meanings.
Look back at the temptation of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness. The testing of Jesus was an earthly battle, and a battle in which he defeated Satan. All throughout his ministry, Jesus would suffer attacks by Satan. He never lost a single battle; he always won. Jesus’ conflicts with Satan were fought in time. These battles were played out in his encounters with demon possessed persons. Jesus was able to free the demon possessed because he had defeated the Devil.
Matthew 12.22-29 and Luke 11.14-23 show us the greater truth involved in Jesus’ encounters with the demon possessed. These two stories of Jesus’ casting out a demon and the response of the crowd and the Pharisees go to the heart of the battle between Jesus and Satan. When Jesus cast the demon out of the blind and mute man, the crowd asked, “this man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” The Pharisees, on the other hand, accused Jesus of casting out demons with the power of Beelzebul (Satan), the ruler of the demons.
Obviously, everyone, Pharisees and the crowd as well, knew what the power to cast out demons implied. Only the Messiah would be able to do so. Isaiah wrote, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners; to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God’ to comfort all who mourn in Zion.” (Isa. 61.1-2). These are the verses Jesus read in the synagogue in Nazareth. After reading, he declared the words of this passage to have been fulfilled. He was the fulfillment. The Kingdom was at hand because he, the Messiah, the anointed one, had come.
The Pharisees understood what Jesus’ casting out demons meant. To recognize his power to do so by the Spirit of God would have meant they believed him to be the Messiah. They could not do so for a variety of reasons. Just as the people in the synagogue of Nazareth were enraged by Jesus’ declaration, the Pharisees as well were angered. How could the son of a simple carpenter be the Anointed One? Quite frankly, the Pharisees probably expected the Messiah to be one of their own.
The important part of this story is found in how Jesus defended himself and what he was doing. He first pointed out the ridiculousness of the charge he was casting out demons by the power of the Demon Lord. Such a scenario would mean a kingdom would be “divided against itself.” If Satan fought against himself, if “Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself.” Jesus then said, “how then will his kingdom stand?” Jesus next statement went to the heart of the issue.
“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matt. 12.28-29) Two conclusions can be drawn from Jesus’ declaration. First, he was declaring himself to be the Messiah who was ushering in the Kingdom of God. Second, he was publicly declaring his power over the Devil.
Jesus said, “how can anyone enter the strong man’s house (Satan’s kingdom) an carry off his property unless he first binds (defeats) the strong man?” By casting out demons, Jesus was “entering the strong man’s house” and was carrying off his property (the demon possessed). Because he had defeated the Devil (manifested and proven in the Wilderness Temptations), Jesus had both the authority and the power to take Satan’s “property.” (See 1 John 3.8) Such a truth was too great and traumatic for the Pharisees to believe. All they hoped for, if they accepted Jesus, would have been denied them. They, as both the religious and cultural elite, could not bring themselves to acknowledge Jesus, and, thus, be required to bow before him.
The victory of Jesus over Satan was both a spiritual and physical reality. For about half his ministry, Jesus was engaged in conflicts with the minions of Satan. He won every battle and encounter. At some point, these kinds of battles ceased to be an issue. Thus, in the Synoptics, encounters with demon possessed persons was no longer a kind of battle in which Jesus would be engaged. He of course still battled with Satan, but on an entirely different kind of field. The conflicts became more subtle. Conflict with the Pharisees, Sadducees and the High Priest and his supporters were the rule. In these encounters, Jesus had to do battle with the religious lies and untruths by which Israel was bound.
Understand, the people of Israel and their religious leaders were not demon possessed. They were deceived. One does not have to know the source of deception in order to be mislead. People simply accept, without thinking, popular ideas and concepts. One of the ways the Devil tempted Jesus was the offer of a wholly religious world. The Devil said to Jesus, “all these things (the kingdoms of the world) I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” (Matt. 4.9) Jesus was being told he could achieve his goal by acknowledging the superior power and position of Satan. Jesus, though, did not want a religious world. Israel already had religion, but still was powerless to rescue those trapped in darkness.
Jesus replied to Satan, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’” Satan was shown his place in God’s scheme. He was defeated and commanded to leave. Only the more powerful of the two combatants could command: Jesus commanded Satan and Satan had to obey; he had no other choice. Jesus then declared the source of his power: the Lord your God. Jesus recognized the ultimate power of God in his own life, and he declared the Lord was Satan’s God as well. Satan had no power over Jesus at all. His defeat was a reality and would be declared further when Jesus went to the Cross and was resurrected from the Tomb.
Jesus refused to believe the lies of the Devil. He rejected legalistic religion and opted instead for faith. If the good news was ever to become a reality, Jesus had to go to the Cross. He could not settle for anything less. He had to die. His death and resurrection was the final declaration of the totality of the victory of God over sin, death and the Devil.
A question about what the Gospels tell us about demon possession is immediately raised. Why was demon possession seemingly so prevalent during the time of Jesus’ walk upon the earth? Based upon the record of the OT, demon possession did not occur in the time before the life of Christ. At the least, if people were demon possessed, no mention is made in the Hebrew Scriptures. Further, except for the three references in Acts (8.7; 16.16-18; 19.11-20), the matter of demonic activity is not addressed in any other book of the NT. The reality of Satan is discussed at times, but not demons (James 2.19, 1 Corinthians 10.20-21 and Revelation 9.20, 16.14 and 18.2 have no bearing on demon possession at all.).
One other fact bears consideration: after Matt. 17.14-18, Mk. 9.38, Lk. 9.49 and Acts 19.13-16, demon possession is not mentioned again in the Synoptic Gospels or Acts. Why did such an important issue cease to be an issue in the Gospels and Acts? In over half the book of Matthew, most of Mark and almost two-thirds of Luke, demon activity is not mentioned at all. We might find our answer by looking at what the Evangelists were saying about Jesus.
A good starting point is Matthew 4.1-17, Mark 1.12-15 and Luke 4.1-21. Each of these passages is an account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In these texts, two things occur. First, Jesus is led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit and is tempted by Satan. Second, he then publicly announces his ministry. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus announced, “The kingdom of heaven/God is at hand.” In Luke, Jesus read from the Scroll of Isaiah (61.1-2). After reading, he declared, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” In effect, he was proclaiming the advent of the Kingdom of God. The announcement of the kingdom had temporal and eternal consequences and meanings.
Look back at the temptation of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness. The testing of Jesus was an earthly battle, and a battle in which he defeated Satan. All throughout his ministry, Jesus would suffer attacks by Satan. He never lost a single battle; he always won. Jesus’ conflicts with Satan were fought in time. These battles were played out in his encounters with demon possessed persons. Jesus was able to free the demon possessed because he had defeated the Devil.
Matthew 12.22-29 and Luke 11.14-23 show us the greater truth involved in Jesus’ encounters with the demon possessed. These two stories of Jesus’ casting out a demon and the response of the crowd and the Pharisees go to the heart of the battle between Jesus and Satan. When Jesus cast the demon out of the blind and mute man, the crowd asked, “this man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” The Pharisees, on the other hand, accused Jesus of casting out demons with the power of Beelzebul (Satan), the ruler of the demons.
Obviously, everyone, Pharisees and the crowd as well, knew what the power to cast out demons implied. Only the Messiah would be able to do so. Isaiah wrote, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners; to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God’ to comfort all who mourn in Zion.” (Isa. 61.1-2). These are the verses Jesus read in the synagogue in Nazareth. After reading, he declared the words of this passage to have been fulfilled. He was the fulfillment. The Kingdom was at hand because he, the Messiah, the anointed one, had come.
The Pharisees understood what Jesus’ casting out demons meant. To recognize his power to do so by the Spirit of God would have meant they believed him to be the Messiah. They could not do so for a variety of reasons. Just as the people in the synagogue of Nazareth were enraged by Jesus’ declaration, the Pharisees as well were angered. How could the son of a simple carpenter be the Anointed One? Quite frankly, the Pharisees probably expected the Messiah to be one of their own.
The important part of this story is found in how Jesus defended himself and what he was doing. He first pointed out the ridiculousness of the charge he was casting out demons by the power of the Demon Lord. Such a scenario would mean a kingdom would be “divided against itself.” If Satan fought against himself, if “Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself.” Jesus then said, “how then will his kingdom stand?” Jesus next statement went to the heart of the issue.
“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matt. 12.28-29) Two conclusions can be drawn from Jesus’ declaration. First, he was declaring himself to be the Messiah who was ushering in the Kingdom of God. Second, he was publicly declaring his power over the Devil.
Jesus said, “how can anyone enter the strong man’s house (Satan’s kingdom) an carry off his property unless he first binds (defeats) the strong man?” By casting out demons, Jesus was “entering the strong man’s house” and was carrying off his property (the demon possessed). Because he had defeated the Devil (manifested and proven in the Wilderness Temptations), Jesus had both the authority and the power to take Satan’s “property.” (See 1 John 3.8) Such a truth was too great and traumatic for the Pharisees to believe. All they hoped for, if they accepted Jesus, would have been denied them. They, as both the religious and cultural elite, could not bring themselves to acknowledge Jesus, and, thus, be required to bow before him.
The victory of Jesus over Satan was both a spiritual and physical reality. For about half his ministry, Jesus was engaged in conflicts with the minions of Satan. He won every battle and encounter. At some point, these kinds of battles ceased to be an issue. Thus, in the Synoptics, encounters with demon possessed persons was no longer a kind of battle in which Jesus would be engaged. He of course still battled with Satan, but on an entirely different kind of field. The conflicts became more subtle. Conflict with the Pharisees, Sadducees and the High Priest and his supporters were the rule. In these encounters, Jesus had to do battle with the religious lies and untruths by which Israel was bound.
Understand, the people of Israel and their religious leaders were not demon possessed. They were deceived. One does not have to know the source of deception in order to be mislead. People simply accept, without thinking, popular ideas and concepts. One of the ways the Devil tempted Jesus was the offer of a wholly religious world. The Devil said to Jesus, “all these things (the kingdoms of the world) I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” (Matt. 4.9) Jesus was being told he could achieve his goal by acknowledging the superior power and position of Satan. Jesus, though, did not want a religious world. Israel already had religion, but still was powerless to rescue those trapped in darkness.
Jesus replied to Satan, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’” Satan was shown his place in God’s scheme. He was defeated and commanded to leave. Only the more powerful of the two combatants could command: Jesus commanded Satan and Satan had to obey; he had no other choice. Jesus then declared the source of his power: the Lord your God. Jesus recognized the ultimate power of God in his own life, and he declared the Lord was Satan’s God as well. Satan had no power over Jesus at all. His defeat was a reality and would be declared further when Jesus went to the Cross and was resurrected from the Tomb.
Jesus refused to believe the lies of the Devil. He rejected legalistic religion and opted instead for faith. If the good news was ever to become a reality, Jesus had to go to the Cross. He could not settle for anything less. He had to die. His death and resurrection was the final declaration of the totality of the victory of God over sin, death and the Devil.
Demon Possession, Pt. 1
Is demon possession a spiritual reality in our time? On the one hand, we hear all kinds of stories of demonic activity, including “eye-witness” accounts of demon possessed people, read books on the subject, and hear sermons in which the “reality” of demon possession is declared. On the other hand, when we look into Scripture, we find something entirely different from what we hear. Does the Bible contain stories of demon-possession? Most certainly. Does Scripture give us clear guidance on how to deal with demon possessed people. Actually, no. All we have are narratives in which, for the most part, Jesus confronted and freed demon possessed individuals.
A most obvious and important fact is where the Bible talks about demon-possession: only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Two texts in Acts, in which demon-possession is a possibility, will be discussed later. No accounts are given in the OT of demon-possession nor in any other text in the NT. The Greek word for “demon possessed” is daimonidzomai. Other than one occurrence in John (10.21, in which context Jesus has been accused of “having a demon”), all occurrences of the term “demon possessed” are found in the Synoptics.
The word for demon/devil is daimonion. This particular word can be translated as demon, devil or god. In the Greek translation of the OT, known as the Septuagint (LXX), the word is translated as demons (Deut. 32.17), gods (Psa. 95.1), shaggy goats (Isa. 13.21; 34.14), altar, Fortune (Isa. 65.11), and devastation (Psa. 90.6). In the NT, typically, this word is translated demon or devil. Outside the Synoptics, the word daimonion is found in John, 1 Corinthians and Revelation. In John, in every occurrence, the Jews are accusing Jesus of “having” a demon (in John 8.49, Jesus said, “I do not have a demon.”). In 1 Corinthians 10.20-21, Paul is referring to “things sacrificed to demons,” or idols. The word is used descriptively in Revelation in three places. Once, a form of the word daimonion occurs in James 2.19.
We then can conclude the NT theology of demon possession is rooted solely in the Synoptic Gospels. Now, some will suggest cases of demon possession are found in Acts. In Acts, an unusual situation exists. The Greek verb daimonidzomai does not occur in Acts. In Acts, the word used is pneumatos, spirit. Two cases of note are found in Acts. First, in 16.16-18, the account of the slave-girl with the spirit of divination occurs. Second, the case of the Seven sons of Sceva in 19.11-20 is accounted. These two narratives teach some important truths about demon possession.
Acts is the second part of what many believe was to have been a three-part work by Luke. Part One is, of course, the Book of Luke. No one knows if Luke ever wrote Part Three. We do have Parts One and Two, and, so, can make some observations and conclusions about the words Luke used in these two treatises. First of all, Luke was consistent in his use of the terms daimonion and daimonidzomai. Clearly, in both Luke and Acts, when the writer used either term, the intended meaning was always demon, except in Acts, where the term is rightly understood as “foreign gods” (xenōn daimoniōn). In Luke, the term is always demon(s).
One verse in Luke is of particular importance in understanding how Luke used the terms daimonion and pneumatos. In Luke 8.2, the writer said some who were with Jesus included “some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out.” My position is Luke meant one thing by “evil spirits,” and another with “demons.” What had afflicted the women, evil spirits, was not the same as the “seven demons” who had gone out of Mary Magdalene. In Luke, as in other places, spirit referred, in places, to one’s inner being (“Blessed are the poor in spirit,” [Matt. 5.3]; “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” [Matt. 26.41]; “Jesus . . . yielded up his spirit,” [Matt. 27.50]; “and her spirit returned, and she got up immediately,” [Lk. 8.55]; et alia).
In some cases, Luke did use the term pneumatos in such a way as to suggest a kind of demon possession or oppression. In Luke 4.33, a man is described who had a “spirit of an unclean demon.” Jesus rebuked the demon and he came out of the man. Here, the word “spirit” is controlled, or defined, by the term demon. The essence, or spirit, of the demon was uncleanness. In 8.26-33, a man is described as being “possessed with demons,” their name being Legion, “for many demons had entered him.” In v. 29, Jesus “commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.” Luke switched between demons (plural) and spirit (singular). Again, demons define spirit. The essence of the “many demons” was uncleanness. The many demons were all unclean, and, thus, the man was possessed with a spirit, or essence, of evil.
In 9.37-42, a distinct and clear connection is made between spirit and demon. In this context, the words appear to be synonymous. Yet, we can argue with some justification spirit means something different from demon. When the boy, who was demon possessed, was overcome by “a spirit,” he would scream, go into a convulsion and foam at the mouth. The “spirit” was not overcome easily. Here, the “spirit” could be an essential condition brought on by the demon. For, the demon “slammed” the boy into the ground and “threw him into a convulsion.” Jesus rebuked the “unclean spirit, and healed the boy.” Jesus cured the boy of his condition by casting out the demon.
On the other hand, in this narrative, the evil spirit and the demon could be synonymous terms. Even if they are synonymous, spirit still refers to the boys deep, inner condition. We even could conclude the boy was afflicted with a kind of schizophrenia brought on by the demon. Should we infer all schizophrenia is demonically induced. Absolutely not. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder or disease and is a condition resulting ultimately from the fallen state of man and nature. We would be foolish to conclude mental and physical diseases are the result of demonic activity or the work of the Devil. Disease is a fact of life.
No doubt, in 11.24-26, Jesus was referring to demons when he used the term spirit. Of importance, though, in understanding Luke’s use of the term spirit is how he always modified the term with unclean and evil. Demons, in essence, are spirit beings. As with their master Satan, they are locked in time just as human beings are. They are confined to this world and are bound by time and space. Neither the Devil nor demons can be at all places at all times. The Devil is not omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent. He does not know everything, cannot do anything he wants to do, nor is he everywhere all at once.
In 13.10-17, Luke described a woman who, because of a spirit, had been sick for eighteen years. When Jesus healed her, he did not cast out the spirit or a demon. What he did say was she had been bound by Satan. He did not say Satan caused her illness, he said only she had been bound by him. We can conclude she was sick because of an inner condition or attitude as justifiably as we could conclude here disease was a result of demonic activity. We can say with certainty she had somehow been deceived by Satan into believing her disease was incurable. Indeed, with no mention of a demon, we stand on better ground arguing for a disease resulting from believing a lie, which is the one strategy the Devil always employs. He is a Liar and the Father of Lies.
In one final text in Luke, spirit is used. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his Disciples. When they first saw him, the Apostles believed they were seeing a spirit, or a ghost. Jesus put that misbegotten idea to rest when he declared, “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
So, then, what about the instances in Acts in which someone had a spirit? First, in 16.16-18, we look at the case of the slave-girl who had a “spirit of divination.” This young woman was a fortune teller. Was her ability to tell someone’s future the result of demonic possession? Luke did not say so. He simply described her as having a spirit of divination. After she had troubled Paul and Barnabas for several days, Paul said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out at that very moment.” We do not know the nature of the spirit; we do know the spirit, or inner condition, gave the girl the ability to tell fortunes.
Since Luke wrote Acts, we would expect him to say a person was demon possessed if they were, as he did in his Gospel. When he had described demon possessed persons in the Gospel of Luke, and used the term spirit in that context, he always described the spirit as unclean or evil. He did not do that in describing the slave-girl. Further, when using spirit in a context in which demon possession was evident, he used the word demon, not just spirit by itself. (cf. Lk. 13.10-16 - demon is not used in this passage; in 4.3, 8.26-31, 9.37-42 and 11.17-26, demon and spirit are used together).
In Acts 19.11-20, the use of evil spirit seems to be a synonym for demon. In this text, Luke modified the term spirit with evil. The essence of the spirit being described was evil. The point of this narrative, though, is not to establish a demon possession theology. What is at stake, as in so many places in Acts, is the credibility of the Gospel. In the situation being described, the Seven sons of Sceva were attempting to case out evil spirits in “the name of the Lord Jesus.” Obviously, these men were not believers. Only a believer, and in this case, only Paul, could cast out evil spirits. Luke wrote, “God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul.” Paul was not doing miracles, God was through him. He did the extraordinary miracles so the word of the Lord might grow mightily and prevail. If God had allowed the Sons of Sceva to cast out evil spirits while not being believers, the integrity of the Gospel would have been compromised in a critical way.
Following the account of Sceva’s sons, two statements were made. First, “This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.” (19.17) Second, “So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.” The stories of Apollos, the Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus and the Seven Sons of Sceva show the essential truth of the Gospel had been established and its credibility and integrity had been upheld.
A most obvious and important fact is where the Bible talks about demon-possession: only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Two texts in Acts, in which demon-possession is a possibility, will be discussed later. No accounts are given in the OT of demon-possession nor in any other text in the NT. The Greek word for “demon possessed” is daimonidzomai. Other than one occurrence in John (10.21, in which context Jesus has been accused of “having a demon”), all occurrences of the term “demon possessed” are found in the Synoptics.
The word for demon/devil is daimonion. This particular word can be translated as demon, devil or god. In the Greek translation of the OT, known as the Septuagint (LXX), the word is translated as demons (Deut. 32.17), gods (Psa. 95.1), shaggy goats (Isa. 13.21; 34.14), altar, Fortune (Isa. 65.11), and devastation (Psa. 90.6). In the NT, typically, this word is translated demon or devil. Outside the Synoptics, the word daimonion is found in John, 1 Corinthians and Revelation. In John, in every occurrence, the Jews are accusing Jesus of “having” a demon (in John 8.49, Jesus said, “I do not have a demon.”). In 1 Corinthians 10.20-21, Paul is referring to “things sacrificed to demons,” or idols. The word is used descriptively in Revelation in three places. Once, a form of the word daimonion occurs in James 2.19.
We then can conclude the NT theology of demon possession is rooted solely in the Synoptic Gospels. Now, some will suggest cases of demon possession are found in Acts. In Acts, an unusual situation exists. The Greek verb daimonidzomai does not occur in Acts. In Acts, the word used is pneumatos, spirit. Two cases of note are found in Acts. First, in 16.16-18, the account of the slave-girl with the spirit of divination occurs. Second, the case of the Seven sons of Sceva in 19.11-20 is accounted. These two narratives teach some important truths about demon possession.
Acts is the second part of what many believe was to have been a three-part work by Luke. Part One is, of course, the Book of Luke. No one knows if Luke ever wrote Part Three. We do have Parts One and Two, and, so, can make some observations and conclusions about the words Luke used in these two treatises. First of all, Luke was consistent in his use of the terms daimonion and daimonidzomai. Clearly, in both Luke and Acts, when the writer used either term, the intended meaning was always demon, except in Acts, where the term is rightly understood as “foreign gods” (xenōn daimoniōn). In Luke, the term is always demon(s).
One verse in Luke is of particular importance in understanding how Luke used the terms daimonion and pneumatos. In Luke 8.2, the writer said some who were with Jesus included “some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out.” My position is Luke meant one thing by “evil spirits,” and another with “demons.” What had afflicted the women, evil spirits, was not the same as the “seven demons” who had gone out of Mary Magdalene. In Luke, as in other places, spirit referred, in places, to one’s inner being (“Blessed are the poor in spirit,” [Matt. 5.3]; “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” [Matt. 26.41]; “Jesus . . . yielded up his spirit,” [Matt. 27.50]; “and her spirit returned, and she got up immediately,” [Lk. 8.55]; et alia).
In some cases, Luke did use the term pneumatos in such a way as to suggest a kind of demon possession or oppression. In Luke 4.33, a man is described who had a “spirit of an unclean demon.” Jesus rebuked the demon and he came out of the man. Here, the word “spirit” is controlled, or defined, by the term demon. The essence, or spirit, of the demon was uncleanness. In 8.26-33, a man is described as being “possessed with demons,” their name being Legion, “for many demons had entered him.” In v. 29, Jesus “commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.” Luke switched between demons (plural) and spirit (singular). Again, demons define spirit. The essence of the “many demons” was uncleanness. The many demons were all unclean, and, thus, the man was possessed with a spirit, or essence, of evil.
In 9.37-42, a distinct and clear connection is made between spirit and demon. In this context, the words appear to be synonymous. Yet, we can argue with some justification spirit means something different from demon. When the boy, who was demon possessed, was overcome by “a spirit,” he would scream, go into a convulsion and foam at the mouth. The “spirit” was not overcome easily. Here, the “spirit” could be an essential condition brought on by the demon. For, the demon “slammed” the boy into the ground and “threw him into a convulsion.” Jesus rebuked the “unclean spirit, and healed the boy.” Jesus cured the boy of his condition by casting out the demon.
On the other hand, in this narrative, the evil spirit and the demon could be synonymous terms. Even if they are synonymous, spirit still refers to the boys deep, inner condition. We even could conclude the boy was afflicted with a kind of schizophrenia brought on by the demon. Should we infer all schizophrenia is demonically induced. Absolutely not. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder or disease and is a condition resulting ultimately from the fallen state of man and nature. We would be foolish to conclude mental and physical diseases are the result of demonic activity or the work of the Devil. Disease is a fact of life.
No doubt, in 11.24-26, Jesus was referring to demons when he used the term spirit. Of importance, though, in understanding Luke’s use of the term spirit is how he always modified the term with unclean and evil. Demons, in essence, are spirit beings. As with their master Satan, they are locked in time just as human beings are. They are confined to this world and are bound by time and space. Neither the Devil nor demons can be at all places at all times. The Devil is not omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent. He does not know everything, cannot do anything he wants to do, nor is he everywhere all at once.
In 13.10-17, Luke described a woman who, because of a spirit, had been sick for eighteen years. When Jesus healed her, he did not cast out the spirit or a demon. What he did say was she had been bound by Satan. He did not say Satan caused her illness, he said only she had been bound by him. We can conclude she was sick because of an inner condition or attitude as justifiably as we could conclude here disease was a result of demonic activity. We can say with certainty she had somehow been deceived by Satan into believing her disease was incurable. Indeed, with no mention of a demon, we stand on better ground arguing for a disease resulting from believing a lie, which is the one strategy the Devil always employs. He is a Liar and the Father of Lies.
In one final text in Luke, spirit is used. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his Disciples. When they first saw him, the Apostles believed they were seeing a spirit, or a ghost. Jesus put that misbegotten idea to rest when he declared, “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
So, then, what about the instances in Acts in which someone had a spirit? First, in 16.16-18, we look at the case of the slave-girl who had a “spirit of divination.” This young woman was a fortune teller. Was her ability to tell someone’s future the result of demonic possession? Luke did not say so. He simply described her as having a spirit of divination. After she had troubled Paul and Barnabas for several days, Paul said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out at that very moment.” We do not know the nature of the spirit; we do know the spirit, or inner condition, gave the girl the ability to tell fortunes.
Since Luke wrote Acts, we would expect him to say a person was demon possessed if they were, as he did in his Gospel. When he had described demon possessed persons in the Gospel of Luke, and used the term spirit in that context, he always described the spirit as unclean or evil. He did not do that in describing the slave-girl. Further, when using spirit in a context in which demon possession was evident, he used the word demon, not just spirit by itself. (cf. Lk. 13.10-16 - demon is not used in this passage; in 4.3, 8.26-31, 9.37-42 and 11.17-26, demon and spirit are used together).
In Acts 19.11-20, the use of evil spirit seems to be a synonym for demon. In this text, Luke modified the term spirit with evil. The essence of the spirit being described was evil. The point of this narrative, though, is not to establish a demon possession theology. What is at stake, as in so many places in Acts, is the credibility of the Gospel. In the situation being described, the Seven sons of Sceva were attempting to case out evil spirits in “the name of the Lord Jesus.” Obviously, these men were not believers. Only a believer, and in this case, only Paul, could cast out evil spirits. Luke wrote, “God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul.” Paul was not doing miracles, God was through him. He did the extraordinary miracles so the word of the Lord might grow mightily and prevail. If God had allowed the Sons of Sceva to cast out evil spirits while not being believers, the integrity of the Gospel would have been compromised in a critical way.
Following the account of Sceva’s sons, two statements were made. First, “This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.” (19.17) Second, “So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.” The stories of Apollos, the Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus and the Seven Sons of Sceva show the essential truth of the Gospel had been established and its credibility and integrity had been upheld.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Being and Becoming Holy, Part 2
“If the root is holy, the branches are too.”
Romans 11.16
“But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’”
1 Peter 1:15-16
Why is having the right understanding of our true reality important? How does knowing we are in fact holy before God aid us in being holy in this life. The realization of who we actually are should spur us on towards attaining that reality. We have two choices in this life? We can choose to fight or we can choose to give in. If we look at ourselves as “only human,” we will give in to what we think we cannot defeat. On the other hand, if we know the truth about ourselves, we can fight to become more of who we actually are.
All of us have character flaws, or weaknesses. Most, if not all of them are sensual. Paul termed these faults “the desires of the flesh.” In Galatians, Paul outlined a long list of the “deeds” of the flesh. (Gal. 5.19-21). Everything in that list and the ones in Colossians (Col. 3.5, 8) are sensual issues. Indeed, as the Apostle declared, “the flesh sets its desires against the Spirit.”
We react to these desires, flaws and weaknesses in a variety of ways. We say we are “only human.” When we give in to one of these desires, we declare, “you don’t know what its like,” meaning, if others knew what we were dealing with, they’d excuse us for what we do. We even say some things are simply a part of being human and as a result, we must act in certain ways. Well, we are only human, no one truly understands our situation, and some things are a part of being human. None of these statements, though, excuse failure.
James made an interesting statement. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” A couple of verses later, James wrote, “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” Let’s focus on the “He Himself does not tempt anyone,” and the “with whom there is not variation or shifting shadow.”
God made us the way we are. He made us to be physical and sensual, as well as intellectual, social and spiritual beings. All of our desires, whether for food, sex, creature comforts, power, money, etc., are the result of how God designed us. Yet, the Lord did not make us sensual beings in order to have us be trapped by our desires. Just because God gave us a sexual urge does not mean we should indulge that desire indiscriminately. Along with the desires, the Lord gave us commands through which we are able to understand how to express our sexual desire. By giving believers the Holy Spirit, God has made available to power to overcome natural desires. By making us sexual beings, God was not “tempting” us with sexual immorality. Since the Lord is without “variation or shifting shadow, we can know he has no hidden agenda. He does not call us to holiness, on the one hand, yet set us up to fail on the other.
Peter said we are to be “holy in all our behavior” in the same way the One Who called us is holy. Peter made that statement because he knew, from his own actions, how believers can be unholy in their behavior. We are to strive to overcome our physical desires. God does not want us to fail. He did not instill in us a variety of physical desires to insure we would fail. He gave us these things as “good things and perfect gifts.” We, then, are to use them in that manner. Hunger is not an excuse for gluttony. Food serves to keep us healthy so we might better serve the Lord. To abuse food leads to poor health and an inability to serve the Lord as well as we should.
Fleshly desires are a part of being human. My circumstances, sometimes unique to me, are not an excuse to indulge my weaknesses. Just because I am “only human,” is no justification for continuing in a self-destructive behavior. What destroys me will in turn destroy the relationships I treasure most, and will keep me from being the faithful servant the Lord wants me to be.
Over the years, people have said to me, “Preacher, you just don’t know what its like.” Okay, maybe I don’t. Yet, whether or not I understand anything is no excuse for anyone to act in ways keeping that person from becoming holy. We might be “only human” right now, but in the ultimate reality, we are holy and blameless before God. We, then, should live in such a way to see that holiness manifested in our daily conduct.
Romans 11.16
“But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’”
1 Peter 1:15-16
Why is having the right understanding of our true reality important? How does knowing we are in fact holy before God aid us in being holy in this life. The realization of who we actually are should spur us on towards attaining that reality. We have two choices in this life? We can choose to fight or we can choose to give in. If we look at ourselves as “only human,” we will give in to what we think we cannot defeat. On the other hand, if we know the truth about ourselves, we can fight to become more of who we actually are.
All of us have character flaws, or weaknesses. Most, if not all of them are sensual. Paul termed these faults “the desires of the flesh.” In Galatians, Paul outlined a long list of the “deeds” of the flesh. (Gal. 5.19-21). Everything in that list and the ones in Colossians (Col. 3.5, 8) are sensual issues. Indeed, as the Apostle declared, “the flesh sets its desires against the Spirit.”
We react to these desires, flaws and weaknesses in a variety of ways. We say we are “only human.” When we give in to one of these desires, we declare, “you don’t know what its like,” meaning, if others knew what we were dealing with, they’d excuse us for what we do. We even say some things are simply a part of being human and as a result, we must act in certain ways. Well, we are only human, no one truly understands our situation, and some things are a part of being human. None of these statements, though, excuse failure.
James made an interesting statement. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” A couple of verses later, James wrote, “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” Let’s focus on the “He Himself does not tempt anyone,” and the “with whom there is not variation or shifting shadow.”
God made us the way we are. He made us to be physical and sensual, as well as intellectual, social and spiritual beings. All of our desires, whether for food, sex, creature comforts, power, money, etc., are the result of how God designed us. Yet, the Lord did not make us sensual beings in order to have us be trapped by our desires. Just because God gave us a sexual urge does not mean we should indulge that desire indiscriminately. Along with the desires, the Lord gave us commands through which we are able to understand how to express our sexual desire. By giving believers the Holy Spirit, God has made available to power to overcome natural desires. By making us sexual beings, God was not “tempting” us with sexual immorality. Since the Lord is without “variation or shifting shadow, we can know he has no hidden agenda. He does not call us to holiness, on the one hand, yet set us up to fail on the other.
Peter said we are to be “holy in all our behavior” in the same way the One Who called us is holy. Peter made that statement because he knew, from his own actions, how believers can be unholy in their behavior. We are to strive to overcome our physical desires. God does not want us to fail. He did not instill in us a variety of physical desires to insure we would fail. He gave us these things as “good things and perfect gifts.” We, then, are to use them in that manner. Hunger is not an excuse for gluttony. Food serves to keep us healthy so we might better serve the Lord. To abuse food leads to poor health and an inability to serve the Lord as well as we should.
Fleshly desires are a part of being human. My circumstances, sometimes unique to me, are not an excuse to indulge my weaknesses. Just because I am “only human,” is no justification for continuing in a self-destructive behavior. What destroys me will in turn destroy the relationships I treasure most, and will keep me from being the faithful servant the Lord wants me to be.
Over the years, people have said to me, “Preacher, you just don’t know what its like.” Okay, maybe I don’t. Yet, whether or not I understand anything is no excuse for anyone to act in ways keeping that person from becoming holy. We might be “only human” right now, but in the ultimate reality, we are holy and blameless before God. We, then, should live in such a way to see that holiness manifested in our daily conduct.
Being and Becoming Holy, Part 1
“If the root is holy, the branches are too.”
Romans 11.16
“But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’”
1 Peter 1:15-16
What is the ultimate reality for Christians? How we perceive reality is determines how we respond to life and practice our beliefs. For instance, if we see our present circumstances, our existence here on earth, as our true reality, then our experiences, most likely, will determine our actions. If we are ill, we will despair. If we are under intense stress, we might cave. But, if our true reality is the realm of the Spirit, then we will be able to overcome any of our life situation’s because we are not rooted in time, but in eternity.
Paul made the following statements to the congregation in Corinth in his second letter to them. “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)
We look not the things which are seen (our present situation), but to the things which are not seen (the spiritual realities of the Kingdom). “Seen” things are temporary; “unseen” things are eternal. Paul used the human body as a metaphor for human existence. Our “outer man,” the seeable human body, is decaying because all physical things are temporary; they are locked in time. Paul further stated, our “inner man,” our unseeable self, is being “made new” day by day. The spirit does not decay. Additionally, what we experience in this life, the “momentary lightness of our troubles” serves to produce in us a “surpassing, eternal fullness of glory without comparison.” Our present “reality” is temporary, and is intended to prepare us for a permanent reality. As difficult as our circumstance might be, relative to eternity, it is light and momentary; our difficulties all pass away.
Now, we face a paradox in our walk with the Lord. That contradiction is our “not yet, already” state of being. We are not yet living in eternity, but, we have eternal life. We are not yet without sin, but, all our sins are forgiven and taken away. We struggle with life, yet, we are “completely victorious through him who loved us.” We face a daily tension between the seen and the unseen. We are locked in time while at the same time living eternally by God’s grace.
This tension is played out in a number of contradictions. For instance, one spiritual realities by which we are characterized is holiness. As Paul said to the Romans, “if the root is holy, the branches are too.” We believers are the branches; Jesus is the root, who supports us and sustains both our lives in time and our lives in eternity. In the spiritual realm, the locus of our ultimate reality, we stand before God as sinless beings, “having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” This state of being is the result of the work of Christ, who gave himself up for the church “so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:26-27) As Paul affirmed in a number of places in his letters, both the church and its members are holy. That is the truth about us; that is our ultimate reality.
In practice, though, churches often do not behave in holy ways church members do unholy things. So, are we holy or are we not? Do our unholy actions mean we are in fact not yet holy? Indeed, in our present circumstances, we are not yet fully holy; yet, in the realm of the Spirit, we are completely holy.
Our challenge as believers is to act in time as we are in eternity. If we are holy before God, which we are, we should live in this life in a holy manner. Ironically, even though in reality we are holy, in the present moment we are not yet holy. Why? We struggle daily with the temptation to sin. Sometimes we win the battle, other times we lose. If we realize our ultimate reality, we are holy before God, then we can confess, be forgiven and stand to fight again. If our ultimate reality is this life, we will sink into guilt, condemn ourselves as failures, and give in to what we in fact have the victory over.
What is your ultimate reality? Are you holy, or are you “just human,” and not capable of being holy in this life?
Romans 11.16
“But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’”
1 Peter 1:15-16
What is the ultimate reality for Christians? How we perceive reality is determines how we respond to life and practice our beliefs. For instance, if we see our present circumstances, our existence here on earth, as our true reality, then our experiences, most likely, will determine our actions. If we are ill, we will despair. If we are under intense stress, we might cave. But, if our true reality is the realm of the Spirit, then we will be able to overcome any of our life situation’s because we are not rooted in time, but in eternity.
Paul made the following statements to the congregation in Corinth in his second letter to them. “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)
We look not the things which are seen (our present situation), but to the things which are not seen (the spiritual realities of the Kingdom). “Seen” things are temporary; “unseen” things are eternal. Paul used the human body as a metaphor for human existence. Our “outer man,” the seeable human body, is decaying because all physical things are temporary; they are locked in time. Paul further stated, our “inner man,” our unseeable self, is being “made new” day by day. The spirit does not decay. Additionally, what we experience in this life, the “momentary lightness of our troubles” serves to produce in us a “surpassing, eternal fullness of glory without comparison.” Our present “reality” is temporary, and is intended to prepare us for a permanent reality. As difficult as our circumstance might be, relative to eternity, it is light and momentary; our difficulties all pass away.
Now, we face a paradox in our walk with the Lord. That contradiction is our “not yet, already” state of being. We are not yet living in eternity, but, we have eternal life. We are not yet without sin, but, all our sins are forgiven and taken away. We struggle with life, yet, we are “completely victorious through him who loved us.” We face a daily tension between the seen and the unseen. We are locked in time while at the same time living eternally by God’s grace.
This tension is played out in a number of contradictions. For instance, one spiritual realities by which we are characterized is holiness. As Paul said to the Romans, “if the root is holy, the branches are too.” We believers are the branches; Jesus is the root, who supports us and sustains both our lives in time and our lives in eternity. In the spiritual realm, the locus of our ultimate reality, we stand before God as sinless beings, “having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” This state of being is the result of the work of Christ, who gave himself up for the church “so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:26-27) As Paul affirmed in a number of places in his letters, both the church and its members are holy. That is the truth about us; that is our ultimate reality.
In practice, though, churches often do not behave in holy ways church members do unholy things. So, are we holy or are we not? Do our unholy actions mean we are in fact not yet holy? Indeed, in our present circumstances, we are not yet fully holy; yet, in the realm of the Spirit, we are completely holy.
Our challenge as believers is to act in time as we are in eternity. If we are holy before God, which we are, we should live in this life in a holy manner. Ironically, even though in reality we are holy, in the present moment we are not yet holy. Why? We struggle daily with the temptation to sin. Sometimes we win the battle, other times we lose. If we realize our ultimate reality, we are holy before God, then we can confess, be forgiven and stand to fight again. If our ultimate reality is this life, we will sink into guilt, condemn ourselves as failures, and give in to what we in fact have the victory over.
What is your ultimate reality? Are you holy, or are you “just human,” and not capable of being holy in this life?
Friday, August 26, 2011
Adam and Eve, Part 5
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
A final difficulty resulting from the belief Adam and Eve were the first two human beings is the identities of Cain’s wife and those who, upon finding Cain, would kill him. Where did Cain’s wife come from, and who were the people who would kill Cain? Obviously, by the time Cain had killed Abel, more people were living than Adam and Eve and their two sons. So, who were these people? Did Cain marry, as some have said, his sister? (Did God allow with Cain what he disallowed for all Israel? See. Lev. 18.1-18 Also, Gen. 4.25 stands against such an idea.) Further, who were the people who would kill Cain if they found him? Where did they come from?
If, as geneticists argue, modern humans arose from a “bottleneck” population of a minimum of several thousand hominids 150,000 years ago, then the Adam and Eve as the historical parents of all humans is unreliable, at best. Further, if Adam and Eve were not real, a host of biblical propositions fall on their faces. In fact, the integrity of Scripture could be seriously challenged, and the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity would begin to crumble.
As has been argued already, Adam and Eve do not have to be viewed as the literal first human beings, and thus, the parents of all human beings. What is known from Scripture about Adam and Eve is their place in the lineage of the Israelites. From them descended Abraham through the line of Shem, son of Noah and direct descendant of Adam. Through Ham and Japheth and their descendants, who are/were Gentiles (see Gen. 10.1-20), we find a link between all non-Jews and Adam. In that way, one could argue Adam was the father of all humans. A problem, though, might exist with that line of reasoning. If Noah’s wife was not directly descended from Adam as Noah was, she would have represented a genetic line outside the Adamic gene pool.
We turn back to the identities of Cain’s wife and the people Cain feared, who upon finding him would kill him. Again, we ask, who were those people? Where did they come from? The obvious answer to that question is found in the first two chapters of Genesis. If, as we have argued, Genesis 1.1-2.4 is the account of the original creation of the universe, and Genesis 2.5-2.25 is the “story of Israelite origins,” the identity of Cain’s wife and the other people living in the world of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel can be discovered.
Genesis 1.26-28 tells a unique story of the creation of human life. First of all, human life has a connection with all other animal life. In Gen. 1.24, animal life was described as being brought forth from the earth. The words “living creatures” is the translation of the Hebrew word nephesh chayah, meaning, living being. Further, Adam himself was called a living being. Yet, human beings hold a distinct place in the realm of “living beings,” since, when God created human life, he created human beings “in His own image.” Believing God created an original population of human beings does not conflict at all with Gen. 1.26-28. For, in creating human life, God told “them” to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule.” Not only do humans have in their essential being a special relationship with God, we also have a special relationship with our world and all life within that world. So, not only did Cain marry into a existing human community, Ham, Shem and Japheth must have done so as well.
Based on the view God could have created, and I believe did create, an original human population of at least several thousands, no conflict can exist between the conclusions of “population genomics” researchers and what the Bible teaches. Thus, we can argue Cain found his wife in an existing population of human beings. Further, this population had existed in communities, villages, towns and, perhaps, cities. Adam and Eve were not alone in their world.
Ostling, in his Christianity Today article, “The Search for Historical Adam,” indicates one important issue: whatever position we take, problems exist. In attempting to understand the biblical story of human beginnings, we all “see through a glass, darkly.” Our knowledge is limited. Yet, if we take Scripture seriously, we must, in some consistent manner, come to terms with its affirmations, including its declaration, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Likewise, we must decide how we will stand with regard to the equally important declaration, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
A final difficulty resulting from the belief Adam and Eve were the first two human beings is the identities of Cain’s wife and those who, upon finding Cain, would kill him. Where did Cain’s wife come from, and who were the people who would kill Cain? Obviously, by the time Cain had killed Abel, more people were living than Adam and Eve and their two sons. So, who were these people? Did Cain marry, as some have said, his sister? (Did God allow with Cain what he disallowed for all Israel? See. Lev. 18.1-18 Also, Gen. 4.25 stands against such an idea.) Further, who were the people who would kill Cain if they found him? Where did they come from?
If, as geneticists argue, modern humans arose from a “bottleneck” population of a minimum of several thousand hominids 150,000 years ago, then the Adam and Eve as the historical parents of all humans is unreliable, at best. Further, if Adam and Eve were not real, a host of biblical propositions fall on their faces. In fact, the integrity of Scripture could be seriously challenged, and the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity would begin to crumble.
As has been argued already, Adam and Eve do not have to be viewed as the literal first human beings, and thus, the parents of all human beings. What is known from Scripture about Adam and Eve is their place in the lineage of the Israelites. From them descended Abraham through the line of Shem, son of Noah and direct descendant of Adam. Through Ham and Japheth and their descendants, who are/were Gentiles (see Gen. 10.1-20), we find a link between all non-Jews and Adam. In that way, one could argue Adam was the father of all humans. A problem, though, might exist with that line of reasoning. If Noah’s wife was not directly descended from Adam as Noah was, she would have represented a genetic line outside the Adamic gene pool.
We turn back to the identities of Cain’s wife and the people Cain feared, who upon finding him would kill him. Again, we ask, who were those people? Where did they come from? The obvious answer to that question is found in the first two chapters of Genesis. If, as we have argued, Genesis 1.1-2.4 is the account of the original creation of the universe, and Genesis 2.5-2.25 is the “story of Israelite origins,” the identity of Cain’s wife and the other people living in the world of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel can be discovered.
Genesis 1.26-28 tells a unique story of the creation of human life. First of all, human life has a connection with all other animal life. In Gen. 1.24, animal life was described as being brought forth from the earth. The words “living creatures” is the translation of the Hebrew word nephesh chayah, meaning, living being. Further, Adam himself was called a living being. Yet, human beings hold a distinct place in the realm of “living beings,” since, when God created human life, he created human beings “in His own image.” Believing God created an original population of human beings does not conflict at all with Gen. 1.26-28. For, in creating human life, God told “them” to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule.” Not only do humans have in their essential being a special relationship with God, we also have a special relationship with our world and all life within that world. So, not only did Cain marry into a existing human community, Ham, Shem and Japheth must have done so as well.
Based on the view God could have created, and I believe did create, an original human population of at least several thousands, no conflict can exist between the conclusions of “population genomics” researchers and what the Bible teaches. Thus, we can argue Cain found his wife in an existing population of human beings. Further, this population had existed in communities, villages, towns and, perhaps, cities. Adam and Eve were not alone in their world.
Ostling, in his Christianity Today article, “The Search for Historical Adam,” indicates one important issue: whatever position we take, problems exist. In attempting to understand the biblical story of human beginnings, we all “see through a glass, darkly.” Our knowledge is limited. Yet, if we take Scripture seriously, we must, in some consistent manner, come to terms with its affirmations, including its declaration, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Likewise, we must decide how we will stand with regard to the equally important declaration, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Adam and Eve, Part 4
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
Not everything Genesis 1 tells us was called into existence was created out of nothing. For instance, dry land appeared when God called into being the expanse separating the waters above from the waters below. After the dry land appeared, God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation. . . . The earth brought forth vegetation.” (Gen. 1.11-12) Further, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: . . . God made the beasts of the earth after their kind.” (Gen. 1.24-25). Plants and trees, along with the beasts of the earth, seem to fit. Fish, sea monsters and birds are a sort of anomaly: they do not fit (how can something live in water and fly in the air?).
Now, making appears to be, and probably is, synonymous in some contexts in Gen. 1 with create. For instance, Gen. 1.31 says “God saw all that the had made.” So, what he created, he made. Yet, as with vegetation and animals, the making was different from when God created. The earth sprouted vegetation and brought forth animals. A direct connection is made in both those contexts between the earth and what came into being. Vegetation and animal life did not come from nothing, but from the earth (both seem to “fit” the earth). Here, though, we face another paradox.
Genesis 2.7 says, “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” If the word create implies something is brought into being out of nothing, the “seeable” from the “unseeable,” then a fundamental conflict exists between Genesis 1.27 and 2.7 (God created, on the one hand, and formed from the dust of the earth on the other). A further conflict is found between 1.27 and 2.21-22 (Eve came from a rib, not nothing). Did God create human beings according to 1.27, or make them “from what is seeable,” according to 2.7 and 21-22? Genesis 1.27 declares God created human life, and when he did, he created both males and females simultaneously. Genesis 2.7 says God formed Adam from the dry dust of the earth, and later made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs.
In Genesis 1, a clear distinction is made between the appearance of animal life and the creation of human life. Further, Gen. 1.20-21 declares God created fish, sea monsters and birds. Genesis 2.19 says birds, like animals, were formed “out of the ground.” Is the Bible’s account of creation in conflict, if we indeed have two creation stories? If Genesis 1.1-2.4 is one story and 2.4-22 is another, irreconcilable differences do exist. Human beings were either created from what was not (Rom. 4.17; Heb. 11.3), or they were made from things already in existence (Gen. 2.7, 21-22). We must choose one or the other. Both cannot be true.
A more appropriate and defensible position is to see the creation account of Genesis 1 as the story of the coming into being of all things. In Genesis 2.4f, we have another story altogether. In the case of Adam and Eve, we have the account of the origin of the people of God, the “story of Israelite origins.” Even more compelling is the idea, based on the statements of Paul to the Corinthians, Adam was the first man in the story of sin and death and redemption and life, and Jesus was the last and second man in that progression. In Adam, sin and death entered into the human experience and cursed everyone. In Jesus, who “crushed” the serpent’s head (Gen. 2.15), forgiveness and life were made available to all.
One is not required to see in Adam and Eve the “historical parents of the entire human race,” but to see in their fall the beginning of the universal curse of sin and death.
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
Not everything Genesis 1 tells us was called into existence was created out of nothing. For instance, dry land appeared when God called into being the expanse separating the waters above from the waters below. After the dry land appeared, God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation. . . . The earth brought forth vegetation.” (Gen. 1.11-12) Further, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: . . . God made the beasts of the earth after their kind.” (Gen. 1.24-25). Plants and trees, along with the beasts of the earth, seem to fit. Fish, sea monsters and birds are a sort of anomaly: they do not fit (how can something live in water and fly in the air?).
Now, making appears to be, and probably is, synonymous in some contexts in Gen. 1 with create. For instance, Gen. 1.31 says “God saw all that the had made.” So, what he created, he made. Yet, as with vegetation and animals, the making was different from when God created. The earth sprouted vegetation and brought forth animals. A direct connection is made in both those contexts between the earth and what came into being. Vegetation and animal life did not come from nothing, but from the earth (both seem to “fit” the earth). Here, though, we face another paradox.
Genesis 2.7 says, “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” If the word create implies something is brought into being out of nothing, the “seeable” from the “unseeable,” then a fundamental conflict exists between Genesis 1.27 and 2.7 (God created, on the one hand, and formed from the dust of the earth on the other). A further conflict is found between 1.27 and 2.21-22 (Eve came from a rib, not nothing). Did God create human beings according to 1.27, or make them “from what is seeable,” according to 2.7 and 21-22? Genesis 1.27 declares God created human life, and when he did, he created both males and females simultaneously. Genesis 2.7 says God formed Adam from the dry dust of the earth, and later made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs.
In Genesis 1, a clear distinction is made between the appearance of animal life and the creation of human life. Further, Gen. 1.20-21 declares God created fish, sea monsters and birds. Genesis 2.19 says birds, like animals, were formed “out of the ground.” Is the Bible’s account of creation in conflict, if we indeed have two creation stories? If Genesis 1.1-2.4 is one story and 2.4-22 is another, irreconcilable differences do exist. Human beings were either created from what was not (Rom. 4.17; Heb. 11.3), or they were made from things already in existence (Gen. 2.7, 21-22). We must choose one or the other. Both cannot be true.
A more appropriate and defensible position is to see the creation account of Genesis 1 as the story of the coming into being of all things. In Genesis 2.4f, we have another story altogether. In the case of Adam and Eve, we have the account of the origin of the people of God, the “story of Israelite origins.” Even more compelling is the idea, based on the statements of Paul to the Corinthians, Adam was the first man in the story of sin and death and redemption and life, and Jesus was the last and second man in that progression. In Adam, sin and death entered into the human experience and cursed everyone. In Jesus, who “crushed” the serpent’s head (Gen. 2.15), forgiveness and life were made available to all.
One is not required to see in Adam and Eve the “historical parents of the entire human race,” but to see in their fall the beginning of the universal curse of sin and death.
Adam and Eve, Part 3
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
An interesting statement is found in Hebrews 11.3: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” (See also Romans 4.17) This concept of creatio ex nihilo (literally, creation out of nothing) is thought to have originated with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 202). He and other early church thinkers were reacting to the Greek philosophical idea “that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form.”
God’s creative activity holds a special place in Jewish and Christian thinking and theology. In Scripture, creation is always the work of God and never the work of man. Further, when, in Genesis 1, God created, he did bring something from nothing. What did God create? He created the heavens and the earth; the great sea monsters, all living things in the waters of the earth (oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc.) and all the birds of the air. Further, God created human beings. Obviously, the creation of humans was so significant, the Spirit saw fit to inspire the writer of Genesis to use the word create three times in describing God’s work of bringing man into being. After the five uses of the verb create in Gen. 12.1, 21 and 27 (3X), all other uses of the word in Scripture refer back to God’s creative work “in the beginning.”
In other places in Genesis 1, we find evidence of something coming from nothing. Such is the case with light (1.3), the expanse of the heavens (1.6), and the sun, moon and stars (1.14-16). In each of these cases, God said, “Let there be . . . and it was so.” One way of thinking about those things Scripture says God created is when something did not fit its context, or could not be explained, the writer concluded God created those entities; God called something into being out of nothing. If the creation story of Genesis 1 is the result of the musings of a Hebrew writer, such an explanation might work. For those who rely on the concept of the divine inspiration of Scripture, such reasoning is inadequate.
Yet, the idea of things “not fitting” or being beyond explanation can help us understand the mystery and miracle of creation. Much of what we see in our world is beyond comprehension. Take, for instance, life itself. Some in the secular world of science are uncomfortable with the current, evolutionary model used to describe how life was generated on this planet. As evidence of this, we see increasing interest in and hope of finding life, or the evidence of life, on other planets. The paradox, though, is the question of the origin of life will remain unanswered even if life were to be found on another planet. Where did that life come from. A similar paradox exists with the Big Bang theory; what existed before the Big Bang? Life and the universe itself seem to not fit, to defy explanation.
.
The biblical declaration, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” affirms the belief some things only God can do. Only the Lord himself can be responsible for what is beyond human reason and comprehension. Such is the case with human life: who and what we are does not fit, and cannot be explained. So, the Spirit, in his work of inspiring the Bible writer, declared, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (author’s italics) Obviously, God wanted no questions to linger about human beings, neither about their origin nor their nature.
In a paradoxical kind of way, human beings, while brought into being out of nothing, did indeed come from something. Humans came from God himself, from his own image, in his likeness. “For in Him we live and move and exist”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
An interesting statement is found in Hebrews 11.3: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” (See also Romans 4.17) This concept of creatio ex nihilo (literally, creation out of nothing) is thought to have originated with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 202). He and other early church thinkers were reacting to the Greek philosophical idea “that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form.”
God’s creative activity holds a special place in Jewish and Christian thinking and theology. In Scripture, creation is always the work of God and never the work of man. Further, when, in Genesis 1, God created, he did bring something from nothing. What did God create? He created the heavens and the earth; the great sea monsters, all living things in the waters of the earth (oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc.) and all the birds of the air. Further, God created human beings. Obviously, the creation of humans was so significant, the Spirit saw fit to inspire the writer of Genesis to use the word create three times in describing God’s work of bringing man into being. After the five uses of the verb create in Gen. 12.1, 21 and 27 (3X), all other uses of the word in Scripture refer back to God’s creative work “in the beginning.”
In other places in Genesis 1, we find evidence of something coming from nothing. Such is the case with light (1.3), the expanse of the heavens (1.6), and the sun, moon and stars (1.14-16). In each of these cases, God said, “Let there be . . . and it was so.” One way of thinking about those things Scripture says God created is when something did not fit its context, or could not be explained, the writer concluded God created those entities; God called something into being out of nothing. If the creation story of Genesis 1 is the result of the musings of a Hebrew writer, such an explanation might work. For those who rely on the concept of the divine inspiration of Scripture, such reasoning is inadequate.
Yet, the idea of things “not fitting” or being beyond explanation can help us understand the mystery and miracle of creation. Much of what we see in our world is beyond comprehension. Take, for instance, life itself. Some in the secular world of science are uncomfortable with the current, evolutionary model used to describe how life was generated on this planet. As evidence of this, we see increasing interest in and hope of finding life, or the evidence of life, on other planets. The paradox, though, is the question of the origin of life will remain unanswered even if life were to be found on another planet. Where did that life come from. A similar paradox exists with the Big Bang theory; what existed before the Big Bang? Life and the universe itself seem to not fit, to defy explanation.
.
The biblical declaration, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” affirms the belief some things only God can do. Only the Lord himself can be responsible for what is beyond human reason and comprehension. Such is the case with human life: who and what we are does not fit, and cannot be explained. So, the Spirit, in his work of inspiring the Bible writer, declared, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (author’s italics) Obviously, God wanted no questions to linger about human beings, neither about their origin nor their nature.
In a paradoxical kind of way, human beings, while brought into being out of nothing, did indeed come from something. Humans came from God himself, from his own image, in his likeness. “For in Him we live and move and exist”
Adam and Eve, Part 2
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
What do we do, then, about Adam and Eve in light of the fundamental conflicts between Genesis 1.26-28 and 2.7, 21-25? In fact, the seemingly natural process of creation described in 1.1-2.4 is thrown on its head by the entirely different sequence of events in 2.5f. Can we safely argue Adam and Eve were the “historical parents of the entire human race”? Is an alternative understanding of Adam and Eve possible? In his article, Ostling quoted Peter Enns, BioLogos staff biblical expert as “seeing passages on Adam as ‘a story of Israelite origins,’ not the origin of all humanity.” This idea must be developed. We look to Paul for help.
In the passage from 1 Corinthians cited above, we find some insight into the identity of Adam. Now, we must proceed on the basis of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. 1Pet. 1.10-12 and 2 Pet. 1.16-21 provide two interesting facets of the inspiration of Scripture. First, the inspired writers did not fully understand all they were moved by the Spirit to write (1 Pet. 1.10-12). Second, the truth of Scripture is not limited by man’s understanding (either the writers or the interpreters), but by “the Holy Spirit [who] spoke from God.” (2 Pet. 1.21) So, we can conclude, what Paul understood is not the full extent of the truth in any of his writings, including 1 Corinthians 15.45-47.
In the Corinthian passage, Paul set up a first and last progression: Adam was the first in a series, Jesus was the last. Further, Jesus was not only the last in the progression, he was also the second, according to Paul. Was the Apostle speaking literally when he twice described Adam as the “first,” and described Jesus as both the “last Adam” and the “second man”? Obviously, from a literal historical point of view, Jesus was neither the last man nor the second man. He was the last and the second in a unique way. Jesus was the last Adam and the second man in the redemptive process of God.
When Paul wrote the statement, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” he was quoting Genesis 2.7. Yet, he added some words for emphasis. He added both the words “first” and “Adam.” While Paul might have understood Adam as the literal “first” man, he was not speaking in those terms. He was describing, instead, the origin of sin and death due to Adam’s rebellion, and the provision of forgiveness and life through Jesus. When sin and death entered into the human experience, the process of redemption was simultaneously begun. That process came to a conclusion in Jesus, the last and the second in that progression. When seeking to understand 1 Corinthians 15.45-47, we are no more required to view Adam as the literal first man than we are to understand Jesus as the last or second man. Paul was speaking symbolically in order to establish a theological truth.
Further, Paul may not have understood the full implications of what he wrote. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit was telling us something about Adam about which Paul was wholly unaware: Adam is not to be understood as the literal first man in a historical sense, but was the first man in a theological sense. What he started, Jesus finished.
We can further understand Adam and Eve by comparing what is declared in Genesis 1.25-27 and 2.7 and 21-25. In studying these two texts comparatively, we must focus on the words create, make and form, in particular. Each term is used in a distinctive way in Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
What do we do, then, about Adam and Eve in light of the fundamental conflicts between Genesis 1.26-28 and 2.7, 21-25? In fact, the seemingly natural process of creation described in 1.1-2.4 is thrown on its head by the entirely different sequence of events in 2.5f. Can we safely argue Adam and Eve were the “historical parents of the entire human race”? Is an alternative understanding of Adam and Eve possible? In his article, Ostling quoted Peter Enns, BioLogos staff biblical expert as “seeing passages on Adam as ‘a story of Israelite origins,’ not the origin of all humanity.” This idea must be developed. We look to Paul for help.
In the passage from 1 Corinthians cited above, we find some insight into the identity of Adam. Now, we must proceed on the basis of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. 1Pet. 1.10-12 and 2 Pet. 1.16-21 provide two interesting facets of the inspiration of Scripture. First, the inspired writers did not fully understand all they were moved by the Spirit to write (1 Pet. 1.10-12). Second, the truth of Scripture is not limited by man’s understanding (either the writers or the interpreters), but by “the Holy Spirit [who] spoke from God.” (2 Pet. 1.21) So, we can conclude, what Paul understood is not the full extent of the truth in any of his writings, including 1 Corinthians 15.45-47.
In the Corinthian passage, Paul set up a first and last progression: Adam was the first in a series, Jesus was the last. Further, Jesus was not only the last in the progression, he was also the second, according to Paul. Was the Apostle speaking literally when he twice described Adam as the “first,” and described Jesus as both the “last Adam” and the “second man”? Obviously, from a literal historical point of view, Jesus was neither the last man nor the second man. He was the last and the second in a unique way. Jesus was the last Adam and the second man in the redemptive process of God.
When Paul wrote the statement, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” he was quoting Genesis 2.7. Yet, he added some words for emphasis. He added both the words “first” and “Adam.” While Paul might have understood Adam as the literal “first” man, he was not speaking in those terms. He was describing, instead, the origin of sin and death due to Adam’s rebellion, and the provision of forgiveness and life through Jesus. When sin and death entered into the human experience, the process of redemption was simultaneously begun. That process came to a conclusion in Jesus, the last and the second in that progression. When seeking to understand 1 Corinthians 15.45-47, we are no more required to view Adam as the literal first man than we are to understand Jesus as the last or second man. Paul was speaking symbolically in order to establish a theological truth.
Further, Paul may not have understood the full implications of what he wrote. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit was telling us something about Adam about which Paul was wholly unaware: Adam is not to be understood as the literal first man in a historical sense, but was the first man in a theological sense. What he started, Jesus finished.
We can further understand Adam and Eve by comparing what is declared in Genesis 1.25-27 and 2.7 and 21-25. In studying these two texts comparatively, we must focus on the words create, make and form, in particular. Each term is used in a distinctive way in Genesis 1 and 2.
Adam and Eve, Part 1
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
In the Christianity Today Readers Choice digital issue (August 18, 2011), the lead article was “The Search for the Historical Adam.” I would like to respond to this article. The author, Richard N. Ostling, surveyed the state of the argument among Evangelical scientists and theologians and those in the secular scientific community about Adam and Eve. The debate swirls around the historical belief among Christians Adam and Eve were real human beings. That belief was summed up by Ostling as “the traditional tenet (summarized in the Wheaton College’s mandatory credo) that “God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.”
In the article, Ostling highlighted the views of Dennis R. Venema, the BioLogos senior fellow for science and the biology chairman at Trinity Western University. Venema, and others associated with BioLogos, advocate theistic evolution and a rethinking of Adam. Venema contends modern humans come from a population “bottleneck” (probably thousands, see p.7) of hominids around 150,000 years ago. For him, the idea modern humans are derived from an original couple cannot be supported scientifically.
So, if Venema and others correct, what are modern believers to do? If Adam and Eve were not real, how can the integrity of the biblical account stand? What do we do with Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15.45-47 if we cannot rely on the evidence of Scripture?
Two questions arise. First, were Adam and Eve real? Second, were they the “historical parents of the entire human race”? I must describe my own position on Scripture in order to answer both questions. My own view is Scripture was inspired by God and, thus, is inerrant, infallible and sufficient. I am an “old-earth” creationist; I believe God created all things (see Gen. 1.1), being directly responsible for life upon this earth, including human beings. I reject theistic evolution as fundamentally in conflict with the First Chapter of Genesis. Having made those statements means, for me, Adam and Eve were real human beings.
My divergence with traditional creationists comes at the belief Adam and Eve as the first two human beings. Believing Adam and Eve were the first two human beings requires one to accept Genesis Chapter One and Chapter Two as two independent accounts of creation. The documentary hypothesis views Genesis 1.1-2.4b as the work of one redactor (the Priestly editor) and 2.2b-3.24 as the work of another (Yahwist). According to this view, these two sections of Genesis 1-3 give two distinct views of creation.
Do we have two creation stories in Genesis? If so, how are the disparities between the two reconciled, for reconciled they must be? Added to this mix is the statement by Paul to the Corinthians Adam was the “first” man. We are faced with a demanding problem. We must reconcile the entirely different Genesis accounts of creation if the Bible’s affirmation, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is to have any authority at all.
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
In the Christianity Today Readers Choice digital issue (August 18, 2011), the lead article was “The Search for the Historical Adam.” I would like to respond to this article. The author, Richard N. Ostling, surveyed the state of the argument among Evangelical scientists and theologians and those in the secular scientific community about Adam and Eve. The debate swirls around the historical belief among Christians Adam and Eve were real human beings. That belief was summed up by Ostling as “the traditional tenet (summarized in the Wheaton College’s mandatory credo) that “God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.”
In the article, Ostling highlighted the views of Dennis R. Venema, the BioLogos senior fellow for science and the biology chairman at Trinity Western University. Venema, and others associated with BioLogos, advocate theistic evolution and a rethinking of Adam. Venema contends modern humans come from a population “bottleneck” (probably thousands, see p.7) of hominids around 150,000 years ago. For him, the idea modern humans are derived from an original couple cannot be supported scientifically.
So, if Venema and others correct, what are modern believers to do? If Adam and Eve were not real, how can the integrity of the biblical account stand? What do we do with Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15.45-47 if we cannot rely on the evidence of Scripture?
Two questions arise. First, were Adam and Eve real? Second, were they the “historical parents of the entire human race”? I must describe my own position on Scripture in order to answer both questions. My own view is Scripture was inspired by God and, thus, is inerrant, infallible and sufficient. I am an “old-earth” creationist; I believe God created all things (see Gen. 1.1), being directly responsible for life upon this earth, including human beings. I reject theistic evolution as fundamentally in conflict with the First Chapter of Genesis. Having made those statements means, for me, Adam and Eve were real human beings.
My divergence with traditional creationists comes at the belief Adam and Eve as the first two human beings. Believing Adam and Eve were the first two human beings requires one to accept Genesis Chapter One and Chapter Two as two independent accounts of creation. The documentary hypothesis views Genesis 1.1-2.4b as the work of one redactor (the Priestly editor) and 2.2b-3.24 as the work of another (Yahwist). According to this view, these two sections of Genesis 1-3 give two distinct views of creation.
Do we have two creation stories in Genesis? If so, how are the disparities between the two reconciled, for reconciled they must be? Added to this mix is the statement by Paul to the Corinthians Adam was the “first” man. We are faced with a demanding problem. We must reconcile the entirely different Genesis accounts of creation if the Bible’s affirmation, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is to have any authority at all.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 4
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
How do we reconcile our biblical rights and our freedoms as human beings under the sovereignty of God? Do we have the right to act in any way we choose? Or, do we have the freedom to choose to act as we wish. Being free to do something does not mean a particular way of acting is a right.
In Galatians 5, Paul spoke at length about the freedom of believers. Paul began his comments with this statement: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” With that declaration and those following, Paul established clearly the tension between being free to decide and act, and acting on the basis of one’s right to act.
Paul also said, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” At that point, Paul moved from his discussion of the inefficacy of law-observance to other, more potentially dangerous ways of acting, based on the desires of the flesh. In 5.19-21, Paul listed an array of fleshly ways of acting, which were opposed to the way of the Spirit. What he wanted to make clear was how these sinful deeds were unlawful. No believer has the right to act in disobedience, yet, a believer is free to act according to the desires of the flesh (5.1, 13). Following that list of behaviors, Paul outlined the Fruit of the Spirit, the character qualities and attendant behaviors the Spirit produces in the life of an obedient believer.
Following the listing of the Fruit of the Spirit, Paul made a curious statement. “Against such things there is no law.” Thus, we can conclude, the Fruit of the Spirit are the biblical rights of believers. When God made laws against some things, he was saying, in effect, his people have no right to act in unlawful ways. Yet, Scripture is clear; on many occasions in the biblical record, and into the current era, believers have exercised their freedom to do what God has outlawed. To be free to disobey does not mean one has the right to be disobedient.
Some free acts we take are of less consequence than others. For instance, Baptist, in their freedom, have chosen to observe the Lord’s Supper in a manner inconsistent with the biblical model. We do not use one cup of wine and one loaf of bread. We have chosen to use grape juice (for social, not biblical reasons) and have platters of little crackers. We maintain the meaning of the “meal,” but we do not observe the biblical form. Jesus and the Disciples used one cup of wine and one loaf of bread in the original supper. Do we have the right to ignore the biblical model? Or, are we acting in freedom? We have chosen freedom.
The same principle applies to a church in its calling of a woman as pastor. Does a church have the “right” to ask a woman to serve as its pastor? The overwhelming evidence of Scripture says no. Does a church have the freedom to make such a decisions? Obviously, yes. When a Baptist church elects, in freedom, to call a woman as pastor, is that congregation acting in a way consistent with long-held Baptist beliefs and doctrine? Obviously, no. Should a church, having made that decision, accept the consequences of its decision? Yes, even when the cost is the loss of fellowship with other Baptist churches and bodies.
To act in freedom does not mean one is being sinful or disobedient. While the Bible seems to be clear about women serving as pastors, some have found what they believe is the authority to act in a particular manner. Flat Creek Baptist Church exercised its freedom to call a woman as pastor; one cannot say with certainty or with biblical authority that congregation had the freedom to act as it did. Was Surry Association correct in the actions it took against Flat Creek church? Yes it was. Surry Association upheld the traditional role and responsibility of a general body of Baptists: it called for doctrinal accountability and acted to propagate Baptist teachings, and sought to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches in its association.
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
How do we reconcile our biblical rights and our freedoms as human beings under the sovereignty of God? Do we have the right to act in any way we choose? Or, do we have the freedom to choose to act as we wish. Being free to do something does not mean a particular way of acting is a right.
In Galatians 5, Paul spoke at length about the freedom of believers. Paul began his comments with this statement: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” With that declaration and those following, Paul established clearly the tension between being free to decide and act, and acting on the basis of one’s right to act.
Paul also said, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” At that point, Paul moved from his discussion of the inefficacy of law-observance to other, more potentially dangerous ways of acting, based on the desires of the flesh. In 5.19-21, Paul listed an array of fleshly ways of acting, which were opposed to the way of the Spirit. What he wanted to make clear was how these sinful deeds were unlawful. No believer has the right to act in disobedience, yet, a believer is free to act according to the desires of the flesh (5.1, 13). Following that list of behaviors, Paul outlined the Fruit of the Spirit, the character qualities and attendant behaviors the Spirit produces in the life of an obedient believer.
Following the listing of the Fruit of the Spirit, Paul made a curious statement. “Against such things there is no law.” Thus, we can conclude, the Fruit of the Spirit are the biblical rights of believers. When God made laws against some things, he was saying, in effect, his people have no right to act in unlawful ways. Yet, Scripture is clear; on many occasions in the biblical record, and into the current era, believers have exercised their freedom to do what God has outlawed. To be free to disobey does not mean one has the right to be disobedient.
Some free acts we take are of less consequence than others. For instance, Baptist, in their freedom, have chosen to observe the Lord’s Supper in a manner inconsistent with the biblical model. We do not use one cup of wine and one loaf of bread. We have chosen to use grape juice (for social, not biblical reasons) and have platters of little crackers. We maintain the meaning of the “meal,” but we do not observe the biblical form. Jesus and the Disciples used one cup of wine and one loaf of bread in the original supper. Do we have the right to ignore the biblical model? Or, are we acting in freedom? We have chosen freedom.
The same principle applies to a church in its calling of a woman as pastor. Does a church have the “right” to ask a woman to serve as its pastor? The overwhelming evidence of Scripture says no. Does a church have the freedom to make such a decisions? Obviously, yes. When a Baptist church elects, in freedom, to call a woman as pastor, is that congregation acting in a way consistent with long-held Baptist beliefs and doctrine? Obviously, no. Should a church, having made that decision, accept the consequences of its decision? Yes, even when the cost is the loss of fellowship with other Baptist churches and bodies.
To act in freedom does not mean one is being sinful or disobedient. While the Bible seems to be clear about women serving as pastors, some have found what they believe is the authority to act in a particular manner. Flat Creek Baptist Church exercised its freedom to call a woman as pastor; one cannot say with certainty or with biblical authority that congregation had the freedom to act as it did. Was Surry Association correct in the actions it took against Flat Creek church? Yes it was. Surry Association upheld the traditional role and responsibility of a general body of Baptists: it called for doctrinal accountability and acted to propagate Baptist teachings, and sought to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches in its association.
Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 3
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
What does the Bible say about women in roles of leadership in the church. We look to three examples from Scripture: two positive and one negative. First, we have Phoebe, the deaconess. Paul recommended her to the church in Rome with the following statement. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” (Romans 16:1-2) Most likely, Phoebe was more than a simple servant in the congregation of Cenchrea. She was probably a wealthy merchant, who had come to Rome on a business trip. She also might have served as the patroness of the Cenchrean church. Although we do not know how she functioned in the church, she was, at least, an influential member of the congregation.
Next, we look at Priscilla (Prisca in Paul’s writings). She and her husband Aquila had been expelled from Rome along with other Jews by the Edict of Claudius (ca. 49 AD). In every case but one (1 Cor. 16.19), when this couple is mentioned, Priscilla is named first. Many have concluded she had come from a well-to-do Jewish family in Rome and may have been the source of hers and Aquila’s wealth. On two occasions, (1 Cor. 16.19; Rom. 16.3), a church is said to have been meeting in their house. Only the wealthy had houses large enough to accommodate a meeting of a group of any size. Priscilla and Aquila had come to Paul’s aid and journeyed with him. Further, after hearing Apollos preach in Ephesus, “Priscilla and Aquila . . . took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Priscilla was also a teacher.
Last, we consider Jezebel. In Revelation 2.20, we read of the Lord’s condemnation of Jezebel, “who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.” Jezebel (we do not know her real name) was also a powerful, wealthy woman. She had risen to a position of prominence and power in the Thyatiran church, becoming a teacher and an advocate of social accommodation. She is condemned for the same thing Satan is said to do: she led astray those whom she taught. She taught those who followed her to engage in sexual immorality and to take a lenient view of idolatry. Probably, she told her followers participation in ritual acts in local pagan temples was not a bad thing (what her namesake had done in ancient Israel).
Added to these might be Junias (Rom. 16.7), who some believe was actually the wife of Andronicus (Junia), and was an early believer in Jesus and counted among the Apostles. Certainly, though, with Priscilla, Phoebe and Jezebel, we find three examples of women who held influential leadership positions in their own congregations. At no time does Paul or Luke appear to think these women were acting sinfully or unlawfully; indeed, both endorsed these women in the highest of terms. The failure of Jezebel was her leading members of the Thyatiran church to do unbiblical things. While her claim to be prophetess was rejected by the Lord, her acting as a teacher was not. What she taught was the problem.
Unfortunately, neither Priscilla or Phoebe are described as pastors. We are left to wonder about the true extent of their leadership roles in their respective congregations. No doubt, Priscilla taught on one occasion at least. What can we conclude? With the best evidence before us, no clear and unarguable evidence exists in Scripture to support the idea of a woman serving as the pastor of a church. Given the high regard in which Paul held both Priscilla and Phoebe, if they had functioned in pastoral roles, surely, he would have clearly stated that fact. He did not.
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
What does the Bible say about women in roles of leadership in the church. We look to three examples from Scripture: two positive and one negative. First, we have Phoebe, the deaconess. Paul recommended her to the church in Rome with the following statement. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” (Romans 16:1-2) Most likely, Phoebe was more than a simple servant in the congregation of Cenchrea. She was probably a wealthy merchant, who had come to Rome on a business trip. She also might have served as the patroness of the Cenchrean church. Although we do not know how she functioned in the church, she was, at least, an influential member of the congregation.
Next, we look at Priscilla (Prisca in Paul’s writings). She and her husband Aquila had been expelled from Rome along with other Jews by the Edict of Claudius (ca. 49 AD). In every case but one (1 Cor. 16.19), when this couple is mentioned, Priscilla is named first. Many have concluded she had come from a well-to-do Jewish family in Rome and may have been the source of hers and Aquila’s wealth. On two occasions, (1 Cor. 16.19; Rom. 16.3), a church is said to have been meeting in their house. Only the wealthy had houses large enough to accommodate a meeting of a group of any size. Priscilla and Aquila had come to Paul’s aid and journeyed with him. Further, after hearing Apollos preach in Ephesus, “Priscilla and Aquila . . . took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Priscilla was also a teacher.
Last, we consider Jezebel. In Revelation 2.20, we read of the Lord’s condemnation of Jezebel, “who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.” Jezebel (we do not know her real name) was also a powerful, wealthy woman. She had risen to a position of prominence and power in the Thyatiran church, becoming a teacher and an advocate of social accommodation. She is condemned for the same thing Satan is said to do: she led astray those whom she taught. She taught those who followed her to engage in sexual immorality and to take a lenient view of idolatry. Probably, she told her followers participation in ritual acts in local pagan temples was not a bad thing (what her namesake had done in ancient Israel).
Added to these might be Junias (Rom. 16.7), who some believe was actually the wife of Andronicus (Junia), and was an early believer in Jesus and counted among the Apostles. Certainly, though, with Priscilla, Phoebe and Jezebel, we find three examples of women who held influential leadership positions in their own congregations. At no time does Paul or Luke appear to think these women were acting sinfully or unlawfully; indeed, both endorsed these women in the highest of terms. The failure of Jezebel was her leading members of the Thyatiran church to do unbiblical things. While her claim to be prophetess was rejected by the Lord, her acting as a teacher was not. What she taught was the problem.
Unfortunately, neither Priscilla or Phoebe are described as pastors. We are left to wonder about the true extent of their leadership roles in their respective congregations. No doubt, Priscilla taught on one occasion at least. What can we conclude? With the best evidence before us, no clear and unarguable evidence exists in Scripture to support the idea of a woman serving as the pastor of a church. Given the high regard in which Paul held both Priscilla and Phoebe, if they had functioned in pastoral roles, surely, he would have clearly stated that fact. He did not.
Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 2
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
Does a church have the “right” to call a woman as pastor? Many Christian denominations have answered the question in the affirmative. Historically, Baptists, and Southern Baptists in particular, have answered in the negative. The decision by the Surry Association in North Carolina to expel Flat Rock Baptist Church from its fellowship, based on the church’s decision to call a woman as pastor, shows this issue remains, to some degree, unresolved. For the larger Southern Baptist family, most believe such a decision is neither biblically nor theologically sound. Obviously, not all Southern Baptists agree.
In the modern era, much of what Scripture has to say about male and female roles is controversial for many contemporary thinkers. Many women chafe at the role of the wife as found in Ephesians 5. The verse from 1 Timothy cited above is equally troubling. Many view these statements as culturally bound: they were based on first-century understandings of men, women, marriage and the family. On the other hand, those who hold a more conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture reject out of hand such an argument. We do not believe the Spirit of God was affirming a first-century view of men, women, marriage and the family when he directed Paul to write the letter to Timothy.
Further, one must ask the question, what is a Baptist? Are we, as a confessional community, defined by theological distinctives, or, are we not? Is our claim to fame merely our emphasis on baptism by immersion, or, do we have other beliefs marking us a believing body? We rightly expect those who profess to be Baptist to operate within the scope of Baptist doctrine. In our understanding of our doctrinal distinctives, we look to both our history as Baptists and the positions outlined by general bodies. Our historical beliefs and the doctrinal positions our general bodies have clarified, to be legitimate, must be biblically-based.
Historically, Baptists have had to rethink and redefine some of our doctrinal positions. Most notable among these is how we have thought and acted with regard to race. We have been wrong in the past, but have sought to correct our errors and be more biblical in our approach to race. Currently, we face the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Would a church be excluded from membership in an association if it chose to bless same-sex unions? One would hope so. Scripture leaves no “wiggle-room” on the issue of homosexuality or marriage and the family.
Some churches might claim the “right” to bless homosexual unions. One would be justified in arguing a church does not have such a right. Not all decisions we make are within the bounds of what we have a “right” to do as bodies of believers. We might exercise the freedom to act in some ways, but acting in freedom does not mean we have a right to act. As Baptists, like it or not, we have chosen to reject some things as biblically legitimate. When a person elects to become a part of a Baptist church, he has chosen to place himself under the authority of that church and the doctrinal positions held by that congregation. When a church elects to become a part of an association or general body of Baptists, that church has chosen to accept and abide by the doctrinal positions affirmed by those bodies.
One cannot be a Baptist and believe anything. One is not a Baptist just because he has been immersed in a baptismal pool, lake or river. Being a Baptist is much more comprehensive. Being a Baptist means the acceptance of traditional (yes, traditional) Baptist doctrines. We Baptists have refused, for the most part, to resist the revisionist views of some contemporary Christian groups. We have held tenaciously to our historic Baptist faith. We have been correct.
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
Does a church have the “right” to call a woman as pastor? Many Christian denominations have answered the question in the affirmative. Historically, Baptists, and Southern Baptists in particular, have answered in the negative. The decision by the Surry Association in North Carolina to expel Flat Rock Baptist Church from its fellowship, based on the church’s decision to call a woman as pastor, shows this issue remains, to some degree, unresolved. For the larger Southern Baptist family, most believe such a decision is neither biblically nor theologically sound. Obviously, not all Southern Baptists agree.
In the modern era, much of what Scripture has to say about male and female roles is controversial for many contemporary thinkers. Many women chafe at the role of the wife as found in Ephesians 5. The verse from 1 Timothy cited above is equally troubling. Many view these statements as culturally bound: they were based on first-century understandings of men, women, marriage and the family. On the other hand, those who hold a more conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture reject out of hand such an argument. We do not believe the Spirit of God was affirming a first-century view of men, women, marriage and the family when he directed Paul to write the letter to Timothy.
Further, one must ask the question, what is a Baptist? Are we, as a confessional community, defined by theological distinctives, or, are we not? Is our claim to fame merely our emphasis on baptism by immersion, or, do we have other beliefs marking us a believing body? We rightly expect those who profess to be Baptist to operate within the scope of Baptist doctrine. In our understanding of our doctrinal distinctives, we look to both our history as Baptists and the positions outlined by general bodies. Our historical beliefs and the doctrinal positions our general bodies have clarified, to be legitimate, must be biblically-based.
Historically, Baptists have had to rethink and redefine some of our doctrinal positions. Most notable among these is how we have thought and acted with regard to race. We have been wrong in the past, but have sought to correct our errors and be more biblical in our approach to race. Currently, we face the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Would a church be excluded from membership in an association if it chose to bless same-sex unions? One would hope so. Scripture leaves no “wiggle-room” on the issue of homosexuality or marriage and the family.
Some churches might claim the “right” to bless homosexual unions. One would be justified in arguing a church does not have such a right. Not all decisions we make are within the bounds of what we have a “right” to do as bodies of believers. We might exercise the freedom to act in some ways, but acting in freedom does not mean we have a right to act. As Baptists, like it or not, we have chosen to reject some things as biblically legitimate. When a person elects to become a part of a Baptist church, he has chosen to place himself under the authority of that church and the doctrinal positions held by that congregation. When a church elects to become a part of an association or general body of Baptists, that church has chosen to accept and abide by the doctrinal positions affirmed by those bodies.
One cannot be a Baptist and believe anything. One is not a Baptist just because he has been immersed in a baptismal pool, lake or river. Being a Baptist is much more comprehensive. Being a Baptist means the acceptance of traditional (yes, traditional) Baptist doctrines. We Baptists have refused, for the most part, to resist the revisionist views of some contemporary Christian groups. We have held tenaciously to our historic Baptist faith. We have been correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)