Q & A Part I

As people have realized what I am in school for, they have asked me several questions. I am always open to questions, and if I do not know the answer, I promise I will do my best to find out the answer.  I do not claim to know all of the answers and if there are any details you would like to tell me, by all means, I would love to hear them. A few of these questions and answers are below:

What is the King James only theory?

The King James Version was originally sought to bring a translation into the language and readability of the time period. Ever since the 1611 version and the subsequent revision, the King James Version has held an ability to cause some controversy. The King James only theory is basically saying that the King James is the only authorized version of the Word of God. According to this theory, extreme proponents would consider the King James as inspired.

However, the only writing that was inspired by God was the original manuscripts. Also, versions like the NASB can be considered more literal to the text and better translated in some areas than the KJV. Where the King James translators used Latin based texts to shed light on the Greek and Hebrew texts, the newer translations have tried to go back to the earliest manuscripts and use those as the only source of translation. Textual criticism and interpretation in translation is seen to be very important in the more modern translations. With the help of new tools of study, we have been able to produce some accurate, but readable translations.

What is the gender neutral controversy? What are some of its translations?

The gender neutral controversy started during the 1970’s when feminist reformers proposed a writing style that would prohibit the use of “sexist” language. Mostly accepted within liberal circles, this idea has started to come into the translations of the Bible. Both the Hebrew and Greek texts use generic masculine nouns and pronouns to include both sexes in general. The culture was primarily masculine based and so the writers wrote to that culture base. These writers were including women in their writing by using the generic tenses.

Major translations for this issue include the Today’s New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, published by the Roman Catholics, the Contemporary English Version, and the Inclusive New Testament published by the liberal wing of the Roman Catholics. Throughout the publications of these translations, each one (especially the more recent TNIV) have been met with strong resistance from the conservative end of evangelicalism.

Who are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? State some views.

There are several views concerning who or what the Sons of God are in Genesis 6. The first view is that the Sons of God were angels. They claim proof from their offspring being giants. Proponents of this view also say this is the reason why some of the evil angels are currently bound and others are roaming free. 1 Peter 3:19, 20 says, “in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.”.

The second view is that of demon possession. The Sons of God according to this view were demons who indwelled the men and were made to be attractive to the women. Supporters of this view claim the demon possession extended to the women and children (of whom became giants). The destruction of this “race” happened during the flood. This view too claims reason as to why some demons are currently bound in Hell (1 Peter 3:19, 20).

The third view is that of Cainite (Genesis 4:16-24), Sethite (Genesis 4:25-5:32) view. The context previous to Genesis 6 indicates the two lines as partakers in this passage. After Genesis 6, the flood destroys every living thing upon the earth except for Noah and his family. The text says nothing of angels during the flood and therefore proponents indicate this as a reason for this view. Additionally they say this was a time when even the godly among men were choosing polygamy.

The New Covenant

Introduction

Dispensationalism notes there are obvious covenants, which are clearly outlined in the Bible.[1] Each covenant within the Bible shows that God has one program in history and one chosen people, but there are different aspects to that program. [2]

What the New Covenant Is

The main biblical explanation for the New Covenant comes from the book of Hebrews 8:6-13. Here is where the writer not only gives insight into the covenant, but he also quotes from Jeremiah where God is predicting the New Covenant.

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ For all will know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more.” When He said, “A new covenant,”

He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.[3]

Several questions arise from the text. What is the New Covenant mentioned in the text?  To whom was the covenant given or promised? What happened to the Old Covenant?

A covenant can be made between God and man, between man and man, and between nations. [4]A covenant is a contract, or an agreement. In the case of the Bible, God enters into covenants with man, and their longevity depends on God.[5] The Mosaic or Old Covenant was conditional while the other covenants were unconditional. God did place limitations on them, and they will not expire until their complete fulfillment.[6] Therefore, the New Covenant is either an extension of the Old or a complete abolishment of it. Because the Law was written by a holy God and therefore perfect, people could not perfectly obey the Law. [7] Indeed, there needed to be a new covenant, which would take the place of or renew the Old covenant.

The New Covenant is said to be an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant, in that God would someday bless “all the families of the Earth” in Genesis 12:3.  However, it was first intended for the Jews.[8] In the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised Israel the full possession of their land, in the future. [9] God also promised Israel several things within the New Covenant: regeneration (new heart and nature), forgiveness of sin, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, knowledge of Himself among the people of Israel so that they would obey Him, and multiple national blessings for Israel.[10] Among the national blessings would be the reacquisition of their land and they would live there forever.[11]

Chronologically, it would stand to reason that, in order for there to be a New Covenant, there would need to be an Old Covenant. Indeed, the Old Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant outlined in Exodus19-24.[12] The Mosaic Law was a covenant from God to man, yet man was the problem and the one who broke the covenant (v.9).[13] The mediator for the New Covenant had to be a perfect sacrifice in order to be able to save mankind from its sins. Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross-was the mediator for the New Covenant.[14]

Jesus Himself proclaimed that He was the New Covenant in Luke 22:20, “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’”.  Due to Christ’s work on the Cross, the Old Covenant has been annulled and the New Covenant has taken its place.[15] The writer of Hebrews states that the only way this covenant could exist was through the spilling of Christ’s blood and His subsequent death (9:15-28).[16]The nature of the New Covenant through Christ makes the covenant unconditional and everlasting.[17]

Theological Implications for Today and the Future

As can be seen, this New Covenant was instituted first for Israel, but because of their rejection of the Messiah, God has established this covenant with all families of the earth so the prophecy in Genesis could be fulfilled.[18] Through the New Covenant, people can know of Jesus as stated in Hebrews 9:24-28:

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Now, people can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He came, lived among man, died, resurrected, and because of His atoning death on the Cross, has saved all mankind from all of its sins.[19]

Theological Implications: The Church

In Acts 2:4, the Holy Spirit comes upon the believers at Pentecost. This is what initiates the New Covenant.[20] Because this New Covenant is for all believers, Jew and Gentile alike can partake in its spiritual blessing and become servants of the covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6).[21] The Gentiles who are saved are the church, the Body of Christ through faith in Him. [22]The promise that the church (Gentiles) would be grafted into the New Covenant is referred to by the “seed” in Jeremiah 31, thus linking all believers to God through the sacrifice of Christ.[23] This link broke down the barrier between believing Jews and Gentiles and has allowed for the potential grafting of every man and woman (Ephesians 2:13-18).[24]

Not only was the barrier broken, but Gentile believers were made part of the house of God (Ephesians 2:19). [25] Gentiles were also made part of “Abraham’s seed” spiritually. Paul notes this in Galations 3:16, “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” Therefore, the church, fellow believers who once were aliens and foreigners have been brought in with the saints in Christ (Ephesians 2:19).[26]

Theological Implications: Israel

The remaining question is, “What about Israel?” Paul addresses this issue in Romans 11:25-27 “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.’ ’This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’” Therefore, their time is coming when, after the Church has been raptured, Israel will be saved and all the promises of God to them will come to be fulfilled.[27]

Dr. Showers states, “As a result, at that time, the literal, national Israel will enter fully into the New Covenant relationship with God, and all the promises (spiritual, material and national) of that covenant will be fulfilled completely with that nation.”[28] Despite the fact that Israel rejected the Messiah at His first coming, they will enter that eternal relationship with Him at His second coming.[29]

Conclusion

Even though the New Covenant was first intended for Israel, the Gentiles have been able to partake in it through the work of Christ on the Cross. However, because Israel rejected Christ at His first coming, they have not been able to fully partake in this New Covenant. So, after Christ comes back for the Church, Israel will be called back to God, inhabit their land, and fully enter into this New Covenant. This paper has introduced and explained the New Covenant and given the Current and Future Implications of both The Church and Israel.

---

[1] Mal Couch, An Introduction To Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000), 157.

[2] Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: 1978), 269.

[3] All Scripture Quotations taken from The New American Standard Bible 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation: 1995) unless otherwise noted.

[4] Robert Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: 1995), 259.

[5] Ibid., 259

[6] Ibid., 259

[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester, England: Inter Varsity Press, 1994), 521.

[8] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 148.

[9] Mal Couch, “The Relationship Between the Dispensations and Covenants”, Conservative Theological Journal 2, no. 7 (December 1998) 426.

[10] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), 100.

[11] Ibid., 101.

[12] Wayne Grudem, Systematic, 521

[13] Walter Kaiser, Toward, 232.

[14] Mal Couch, “The Relationship”, 424.

[15] Mal Couch, “The Relationship”, 425

[16] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 151.

[17] Renald Showers, There Really Is a Difference, 101.

[18] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 148.

[19] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 522.

[20] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 151.

[21] Ibid., 151.

[22] Renald Showers, There Really is a Difference, 110.

[23] Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament, 234.

[24] Ibid., 268.

[25] Ibid., 269.

[26] Ibid., 269.

[27] Renald Showers, There Really is a Difference, 110.

[28] Ibid., 110

[29] Ibid., 111.

What is the Kingdom of God?

Introduction

Another spin off issue from John 3:1-21 is the use of the term, Kingdom of God. Throughout the John 3:1-21 passage, Jesus cites multiple references to the Kingdom of God. What Kingdom is He talking about? When will this Kingdom take place? Who will be in this Kingdom? Well, the biblical use of the word kingdom comes from both the Greek and Hebrew words meaning the same thing: kingship or sovereignty.[1] The emphasis of the word is primarily to show the power and authority of a king, not to denote the country of people ruled by him.[2] Therefore, a kingdom, according to the Bible, is the exercise of lawful royal power (as opposed to the abuse of the power as in a tyranny).[3] In Scripture, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are used interchangeably.[4]

The Kingdom of God Defined

The Kingdom of God is defined as, “the sovereignty, reign, or rule of God.”[5] There is an idea within the Scriptures that the Kingdom of God exists in the whole of the universe.[6] For instance, 1 Chronicles 19:11, 12 says,

“Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone.”

God’s rule is sovereign and divine over the entire universe, as the Psalmist says, “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all[7].” Throughout the whole of the Bible, there are many instances where God’s sovereign and divine rule are expounded upon (Psalm 47:7, Daniel 4:34, Jeremiah 10:7, Matthew 5:35, and 1 Timothy 1:17, among them)[8].

            The Kingdom of God is like no other kingdom. No other kingdom can compromise the divine Kingdom. Henry points out, “God rules in a governance whose movement from yesterday to tomorrow is always complete and yet is always also a looming, imminent event toward which everything is hurrying. The goal of God’s kingdom is to subordinate all things to Him as the creator, judge and redeemer.” This Kingdom is not a kingdom to be compared with; it stands alone. The Kingdom of God is the conclusion in which all of His plans and purposes come together in one incomparable plan[9].

Who does the Kingdom Benefit?

            While the term Kingdom of God appears expressly in the New Testament, there are instances of similar terminology in the Old Testament. The Kingdom of God was referenced in the Old Testament for the Jews. The Kingdom of God will not be completely fulfilled until the Second coming of Christ.[10]This Kingdom was promised to David through Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:12-16:[11]

“When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.[12]”

Therefore, the Kingdom will be Davidic in that some of the promises given within this prophecy will be fulfilled at the Second coming of Christ, and He will be the Ruler.[13] During Christ’s first Advent, the Kingdom was active, but it was only in its inauguration stage. The promise is that one day it will come with power (Mark 9:1).[14]

The church, it needs to be said, is not part of the Kingdom taught in the New Testament[15]. In Acts 3:12, there is a distinction between the church and Israel. “But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, ’Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?’” The church did not come into existence until the day of Pentecost, and therefore, could not be referenced in the Old Testament[16].  For instance, in Matthew 16:18, Jesus says, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Jesus is talking about a future reference to the church. Ephesians 4:7-12 says the church could not be functional until after the death and resurrection of Christ[17]. However, there is a close connection between the church and the Kingdom of God where the church manifests itself in the Kingdom[18]. 

The Length of the Kingdom

In terms of length of the Kingdom, there are at least a couple of answers. First, the Kingdom had drawn near during the earthly ministry of Jesus and was inaugurated after His death and resurrection[19]. For example, Jesus in Luke 1:15 says, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Even though His followers mistook this statement to say He was setting it up then, it was only the beginning.

Second, the church, even though it is not part of the Kingdom can experience what the Kingdom will be like. The church knows victory over sin as in Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” The church knows victory over demonic opposition. Luke 10:17 says, “The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.’” They know victory over disease (Luke 10:9), and the church also lives within the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28, Romans 8:4-17).[20]

Third, the Kingdom of God is still future in tense, because when Christ comes again, He will reign in His Kingdom over all of creation[21] 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 says,

Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 

The Kingdom will be the conclusion of the New Heaven and New Earth where God’s righteousness is ruling forever (Revelation 21)[22]. This is where the heavenly city of God is established. No other kingdom can break it, steal it, or overtake it. Instead, the Kingdom of God is where justice and peace have complete authority (Revelation 21:9-22:5)[23]. As Carl F.H. Henry said, “[The Kingdom] is, rather, one inaugurated and consummated by a King who has nail prints in his hands and who rules his subjects from a higher world[24].”

Conclusion

The Kingdom of God was originally promised to the Jews, yet the Church can and does have benefits of the Kingdom. The subject of the Kingdom of God has raised questions from all sides of Christendom. Yet using  a literal interpretation, the text itself reveals exactly what the Kingdom of God is.  

---

[1] G.R. Beasley-Murray, “The Teaching of God in the Kingdom of Jesus”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 35, no.1, (March 1992): 20.

[2] Ibid., 20.

[3] Ibid., 20.

[4] Mal Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000, 291.

[5] Paul J Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985

[6] John Walvoord, “The Kingdom of Heaven”, Bibliotheca Sacra, 124, no. 495 (July 1967): 196.

[7] Ibid., 196

[8] Carl F.H. Henry, “Reflections on the Kingdom of God”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 35, no. 1 (March 1992): 40.

[9] Ibid., 41.

[10] G.R. Beasley-Murray “Kingdom of God and”:21.

[11] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, 460.

[12] All Scripture Quotations taken from The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, Lockman Foundation.

[13] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 461.

[14] F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, New York: Doubleday, 1969, 173.

[15] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 461.

[16] Ibid., 463.

[17] Ibid., 463

[18] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Leicester, England: Inter Varsity Press, 1994: 864.

[19] F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, 170-71.

[20] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 864.

[21] Ibid., 864.

[22] Carl F.H. Henry, “Reflections”, 50.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid. 

A Gospel Heresy: Open Theism’s Outright Rejection of the Gospel

Throughout the twenty-century history of the church, various ideas about God and His nature have come and gone. Most of the ideas have been false and have been disproved with Scripture and by brilliant theological minds of the day. These minds have held to the traditional idea, that God has exhaustive, divine foreknowledge (He knows the future in every aspect). However, within the last twenty years, there has been a rise in an ideology that says God does not necessarily know the future. This point of view is called Open Theism.

The claims of Open Theism are contrary to those of the traditional view and, therefore, both views need to be brought before the guiding light of Scripture to see which one would pass the test of truth. Both claim historical, theological and Scriptural influences.

The Traditional View of God

The more prevalent traditional view of God shows Him as an all-knowing (omniscient) Creator.  He is able to know and understand not just the past and present, but every detail of the future, including every action of every man. Another phrase that is used to describe His limitless knowledge of the future is Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge. The traditional view of God’s foreknowledge has received its share of criticism from people who ask, “If God knows the future, then how can man be free?” They also may ask, “If God is omniscient, then how can there be evil in the world?” While the intent is not to answer these questions directly, discussing the Scriptural foundations, a few historical examples, and current theology on the issue of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge may shed some light.

Scriptural Foundation for the Traditional View

The traditional view is not short on Scriptural emphasis. In fact, Dr. John Hammett from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary discusses a survey by Steve Roy of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:

164 texts teach or affirm God’s foreknowledge, 271 texts affirm God’s omniscience, 128 texts that predict what God will do through nature, 1,893 texts that speak of what God will do in or through human beings, 1,474 verses predicting what humans will do (apparently of their own volition), 622 texts that predict actions relating to unbelievers, and 143 texts that speak to God’s sovereignty over human choices.[1]

The texts supporting God’s perfect knowledge in Scripture are pervasive and overwhelming.

For instance, the verses highlighting God’s omniscience can be found in 1 John 3:20, the Bible says, “…For God is greater than our heart and knows all things.[2]” “Can anyone teach God knowledge, In that He judges those on high?” Job 21:22. Job 37:16, “Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge?” In Romans 11:33, Paul says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” These verses are just few of the passages that highlight God’s perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge would be defined as knowing all things, past, present and future. The various authors of the Bible were quick and unashamed to say their God knows all.

The texts also seem to abundantly support the premise that God knows what man will do in the future. David writes in Psalm 139 that God knows him completely, even what he is about to say, “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all” (Verse 4). Micah 5:2 fortells the coming of the Christ out of Bethlehem, “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” This prophecy was some 700 years before the birth of Christ.[3] Jesus prophesied His own betrayal, “Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times’” (Matthew 26:34). Throughout the whole of Scripture, there is an essence that God has a perfect knowledge of the whole of time, from beginning to end.

Historical Perspective from Calvin to Spurgeon

Historically, many theologians and scholars have associated themselves with the traditional view of God’s knowledge. Such scholars and theologians as C.H. Spurgeon and John Calvin have given valuable insight into this view. Almost all the reformed Christian thinkers thought God was limitless in every way. They naturally associated God with omniscience. They understood there was nothing He did not know, nothing He did not understand, and nothing past, present or future that He could not see.

John Calvin could probably be called the father of the traditional view of divine foreknowledge. After all, it is from his name the term “Calvinist” was derived as a designation for those who believe in the divine omniscience of God. Calvin basically believed that God does know all things, from the beginning of time through the end.[4] Specifically, about divine foreknowledge and man’s eternal destiny he said, “Scripture clearly proves that God, by his eternal and unchanging will, determined once and for all those whom he would one day admit to salvation and those who he would consign to destruction.”[5]

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, often referred to as the “Prince of Preachers”, always backed up what he said with Scripture. The same was true on the several occasions when he preached about predestination and foreknowledge.

I do not doubt that the Lord has settled, concerning every one of his elect, the exact time when they shall pass from death unto life, the precise instrumentality by which they shall be converted, the exact word that shall strike with power on their mind, the period of conviction which they shall undergo, and the instant when they shall burst into the joyful liberty of a simple faith in Christ. It is all settled, all arranged and predetermined in the divine purpose. If the very hairs of our head are all numbered, much more the circumstances of the most important of all which can occur to us.[6]

Spurgeon was confident in knowing that His Lord was a perfect, all-knowing Creator and he preached it with passion and perseverance so the future generations would be inclined to follow in similar footsteps.

Twentieth Century Perspectives

A.W. Tozer says, because God knows everything, He cannot learn anything, and therefore nothing surprises Him. If He could learn something new, He would then be less than perfect in His knowledge. “God perfectly knows Himself and, being the source and author of all things, it follows that He knows all that can be known.” Because, Tozer concludes, God knows all things perfectly and cannot know any one thing better than any other, humans should find comfort in Him.[7]

C.S. Lewis for example wanted to make sure people grasped the ideas that God was not in human time, and that He does not live moment to moment. Instead, Lewis says, all days to God are happening presently: past, present and future; God knows what is going to happen because He is watching it happen. Even though within time, the future has not happened yet, for God it has. “Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another…if you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn.” Since all things in time are happening presently for God, He does not foresee the future; He simply sees it. Therefore, God has no history, because, “He is too completely and utterly real to have one.”[8]

There are three main views regarding divine omniscience that are all theologically well based among theological scholars.[9] These three views consistently acknowledge exhaustive divine foreknowledge to some degree.[10] Dr. Russ Bush asserts, God has exhaustive, divine foreknowledge, while fully and completely knowing His creation.[11] Paul Helseth maintains God’s exhaustive knowledge saying, “He knows all true propositions about everything that has been, is, and will be, and He does so in a manner that extends to the minutiae of past, present, and future reality.”[12] Bruce Ware, in dealing with the Gospel of Jesus Christ presents God foreseeing man’s future sin, the punishment, and set into motion a plan to save those lost souls.[13] He goes on to say God knew from the beginning of time He would need to save the sins of man and devised a plan.[14] Throughout evangelical academia, many scholars and theologians sufficiently and abundantly support the exhaustive divine foreknowledge view of God.

Within Systematic Theology, the idea of God’s perfect and divine knowledge seems to be prevalent, as opposed to the idea of God’s open knowledge. Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology defines God’s knowledge as the following, “God fully knows Himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.” Grudem says if God does know everything, then it makes Him omniscient, or all knowing. Grudem goes into detail about his definition. God fully knows Himself, which is astounding, considering He is an infinite Being. God knows all things actual which means He knows everything about His creation, including the future. God knows all things possible meaning, even if the events or circumstances do not come to pass, He still knows and understands what could have been. God has perfect knowledge of the millions of variations that creation could have had. God also knows all of these things in one simple and eternal act. The word simple here means, there are no other parts; God sees and is fully aware of everything at once. His knowledge never changes or grows.[15]

The Handbook of Evangelical Theology similarly says, “[The omniscience of] God means He comprehends all things- past, present and future, things actual and things possible.”[16] Also, according to Henry Clarence Thiessen, “God is infinite in knowledge. He knows himself and all other things perfectly from all eternity, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future. He knows things immediately, simultaneously exhaustively, and truly.”[17]

While a seemingly high percentage of religious professors and scholars support the idea of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge, there are some within this same field who support a different view of God.

The Open View of God

 Within the last two decades, there has been an increase in debate among theologians and scholars alike as to how much of the future God really knows. One side debates an all-knowing God in every aspect, while the other side debates a limited knowledge of the future. The limited knowledge is termed as the Open View of God, or Open Theism. This view limits God’s omniscience to fully knowing the past and present, but unable to fully know the future because He chose to create free will creatures.  This idea of omniscience is called Divine Current Omniscience.

The Scriptural Foundation for the Open View

Open Theism argues there are counter texts in Scripture that show the future as open, which God did not know how situations would unfold.[18] Such Scriptures include God changing His mind, changing His mind if situations change, expressing regret, or showing surprise over the outcome.[19] Other examples suggest that God did not know humans would behave the way they did, and He attempted to find out through tests if His followers will remain faithful.[20] In another instance, He asked non-rhetorical questions about potential future.[21] Therefore, the idea is to emphasize and these counter texts at face value and acknowledge God’s divine ignorance.[22] Again, Open Theists affirm Scripture’s all knowing ability, but they also affirm that God knows there are potentials in the future, which may or may not happen.[23]

Some examples would include the Lord, according to Open Theists, changes His mind. “So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people” (Exodus 32:14). In 1 Chronicles 21:15, the Bible says, “And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the Lord saw and was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, ‘It is enough; now relax your hand.’ And the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”

In certain passages, God says He did know what humans would do. “…and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind (Jeremiah 19:5). Or in a few cases, God wants to know where people are, as in Genesis 3:9, “Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’”

In other areas, Open Theists say the Lord asks non-rhetorical questions of the future. “The Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst” (Numbers 14:11). In Exodus, “Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, ‘The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt’” (13:17).

The Wesleyan/ Arminian Traditions

Dr. John Sanders says Open (or “freewill) Theism can be traced back to Calcidius and subsequent centuries (circa 1550-1899), mostly within Methodist circles.[24] Not until the late twentieth century did philosophers and theologians begin to recognize this as a significant doctrine.[25] Open Theism also claims to have roots within the Arminian/ Wesleyan tradition. In fact, Pinnock says, “Ninety percent of it is in agreement with these evangelically oriented theological traditions, while ten percent of it is contested.”[26]

In the ninety percent, Open Theism says, God made man for a loving relationship. Therefore, God shows His love by allowing man to choose to say yes or no to Him.[27] “There is genuine give and take with God. In love God takes risks that we will not respond appropriately to the divine love.”[28] The central element to His greatness lies in God’s desire to be limited out of love for His creation.[29] God has every desire for man to experience this love in part, by giving him the freedom to make choices, even if they are against His Will.[30] Pinnock concludes Open Theism gives humans a better reason to pursue God with all their heart, that their lives mean something, and that their prayers really do matter to God.[31]

To this degree, Arminian/Wesleyan theology would suggest that God knows all things from eternity and knows all of the possible things that could be.[32] God knowing the past perfectly and the future potential is what is often referred to as Middle Knowledge.[33] Bryant Barry quotes Arminius in his article, “God therefore understands himself: He knows all things possible, whether they be in the capability of God or of the creature; in active or passive capability; in the capability of operation, imagination, or enunciation: He knows all things that could have an existence, on laying down any hypothesis.”[34] God’s intimate knowledge of His Creation allows Him to know how that Creation would respond in any given situation.[35] Therefore, God foreknew by giving grace, some would accept it and some would not.[36] This very brief description helps to further define where the Open Theists stand, how they agree with the Wesleyans and where the other ten percent of their beliefs begin.

The ten percent where Open Theism disagrees with the Arminian/ Wesleyan view is in divine foreknowledge. Rather, Open Theism holds to divine omniscience but denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge. So, there is a different level of foreknowledge which Open Theism terms divine current omniscience. The divine current omniscience theory suggests that God can know everything that can be known through the present. As for future events, the actions of His creation, or His actions, God cannot know those with certainty. Pinnock says, “If God created the world, and human beings in it possess free will, it will not be possible even for God to know precisely how they will react to their freedom.” In other words, God is free to do something new, and even He does not know what that something will be.[37]

John MacArthur pointed out in his article that Open Theism began to be championed in 1990 after the article, “Evangelical Megashift” was published in Christianity Today. This article outlined what Open Theism is today by saying there was a major change on the horizon of Christianity. This change, or “megashift” was the old theism giving way to a new model theology. MacArthur says the new theology outline was giving new perspective on how to think about almost every aspect of evangelicalism.[38]

As the historical context has come into view, another important aspect would be to look at the contemporary scholarly and theological framework of each view. Again, amongst theologians and scholars alike, a traditional, all knowing God view is pervasive in academia.

Twentieth Century Perspectives

In academia, Open Theism is described as a system in which God set up the universe purposefully so some things would be contrary to what He thought would happen. The primary thesis of Open Theism is the following, “God maintains a genuine, authentic relationship between Himself and mankind.” Open Theists say if God knows everything in the future as both Calvinism and Arminianism state, then there cannot be any direct interaction between God and man.[39]

Among the major proponents of Open Theism, there is a consensus saying that God accepted certain limitations upon Himself when He created man.[40] Pinnock continues by proposing that God regulated power of choice to His Creation, thereby becoming vulnerable.[41] Specifically, he says, “Though ontologically strong, God chooses to become ‘weak’ by the decision to create a significant world God would not control. God decided to work within a history whose outcome is not predetermined and to rule over a world that is able to resist.”[42] In other words, part of God’s decisions are based on what His creatures decide, which is libertarian freedom.[43]

So, the question is asked, “Does God know for certainty the future?”[44] The basic short answer is no.[45] According to Sanders, the open view rejects divine foreknowledge and adopts the view of presentism.[46] While God does have an exhaustive knowledge of the past and present, God does not know with absolute certainty what His free will agents will decide.[47] God can do this because, while His character is immutable, His will and emotions He can change.[48]

Therefore, Open Theists affirm several ideals about the nature of God. They affirm the absolute all knowing Scripture, but part of the reality consists of possibilities. They affirm God’s omnipotence, but He chooses to limit His power through free will. They affirm God’s absolute perfection, but the absolute perfection does not supersede human freewill. They affirm God can and does predict the future and even determines it when He needs to, but they deny that all of the future is determined or predictable.[49]

Refutation of Open Theism

Voltaire correctly wrote, “If God made us in His image, we have certainly returned the compliment.”[50] This statement is especially true in regards to Open Theism. Open Theism is a man made philosophical metaphysic, not a God centered theology. The beliefs of Open Theism have portrayed the sovereign, all-knowing Creator of the Universe as basically a ghostly phantom with human emotions. Within the context of history, theology, and Scripture, this ideology does not pass the test.

Scriptural Refutation

Open Theism is paving a very dangerous road. It acknowledges that even though the character of God does not change, His will does. However, certain Scripture passages additionally refute this idea. First, if Jesus Christ is God then, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end’” (Revelation 22:13). There does not seem to be an adequate argument against this. God does not change.

Historical Refutation

In regards to history, there is no conclusive evidence of any prominent church father taking the view of Open Theism. In fact, Dr. Hammett discusses the historical evidence showing no major church father or theologian in the two thousand year church history has ever adopted the view Open Theists view of God’s foreknowledge.[51] They have simply regarded the Lord as knowing all things past, present and future.

In Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer writes, “The heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until is once more worthy of Him.[52] This can be applied to the current debate. The church would be wise to concede Tozer’s challenge and maintain that view of God. Tozer goes further, “We do the greatest service to the next generation of Christians by passing on to them undiminished that noble concept of God which we received from our Hebrew and Christian fathers of generations past.”[53]

Current Theological Refutation

If the Open view is true, then omniscience cannot apply to God. After all, if God does not know the future, then how did He know that Jesus’ mother would be going to Bethlehem in the first place?[54] How could God have known the only reason for her and Joseph’s going to the City of David was due to a census?[55] Afterall, the prediction for both of these events took place 400 years before the birth of Christ. Could it be the divine ignorance pasages are really communicative tools to get His point across in Scripture?[56] God knows how people will and would respond to situations and questions, He is not ignorant.[57] He enjoyed showcasing faith and was deeply pleasured when the event transpired.[58]

Bruce Ware sums up Open Theism this way, “Open theism affirms God’s exhaustive knowledge of the past and present, but it denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge, in that it denies that God knows-or even can know- the future free decisions and actions of his moral creatures, even while it affirms that God knows all future possibilities and all divinely determined and logically-necessary future actualities.”[59] John MacArthur writes, “But in effect, open theists have denied the deity of God Himself, by humanizing Him and trying to reconcile Him with modern methods of political correctness.”[60]Open Theism has made God more human with human emotions and therefore has tried to bring God down to man’s level.[61] This results in a dependence upon human methods of knowing God without relying on Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

There comes a point when it does not matter what title can be held of a certain doctrine. Whether a pastor is a Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist does not matter, what does matter, however, is whether or not he is a Christ follower. What matters is if that pastor’s view of the world is consistently held within the light of Scripture. Anything other than what the Bible teaches is false.

Pinnock says, “Evangelicals like to be thought of as ‘biblical’ Christians when in fact they are often stubborn traditionalists who strongly resist fresh insight into Scripture.”[62] A traditional approach versus the Open approach is not a matter of being stubborn or resistant. Rather, when there are two views that are essentially contradicting each other, then it comes down to being right or wrong. There is an old saying, “Scripture will always interpret Scripture.” So when both sides claim to be resting upon the foundation of God’s Word, then stubbornness is no longer the issue: heresy is.

 

 

 

---

[1] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge and Open Theism,” Faith & Mission,The Journal of Southeastern Theological Baptist Seminary 21, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 20.

[2] All Scripture Quotations are taken from The New American Standard Bible. 1995 Update (Lockman Foundation, 1995) unless otherwise noted.

[3] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge”: 22.

[4] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Two Volumes in One. Trans. By Henry Beveridge.1959. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Company, 1559: 3.21.2.

[5] Ibid. 3.21.1, 3, 5.

[6] C.H. Spurgeon, “The Minister’s Farewell,” Sermon. Music Hall, Surrey Gardens, England: December 11, 1859.

[7] A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins: 1961, 57.

[8] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1952: 168-170.

[9] In his article, Dr. Hammett describes three primary views of God’s divine foreknowledge. First, he says one of the earliest views to be developed was from a Roman philosopher, Boethius. Boethius’ view claims that time is not sequential for God, because He is an eternal being, so God can know the future without causing or determining it. A second view, Middle Knowledge, asserts, God knows every man and woman so personally He knows what each would do in any given situation; He knows the potentials in life. The third view, Calvinism says God foreordains all, therefore, foreknows everything. This view does not cancel human responsibility, nor does it make God to be approving of sin. Man’s freedom would be considered “combatibilist” (24).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Russ L. Bush. “Open Theism: Good Try, But No Dice,” Faith & Mission: The Journal of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 21, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 6.

[12] Paul Kjoss Helseth, “What is At Stake in the Openness Debate? The Trustworthiness of God and the Foundation of Hope” Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Heseth, Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2003: 275.

[13] Ware, Bruce A. “What is at Stake in the Openness Debate? The Gospel of Christ,” Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Heseth. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2003: 309.

[14] Ibid, 310.

[15] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994: 190-92.

[16] Robert P Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995: 52.

[17] Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949: 81.

[18] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008).

[19] Larry D Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11),” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 140.

[20] Gregory A Boyd, “God and the Future.”

[21] Ibid.

[22] Larry D. 2001 Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11)”: 140

[23] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.”

[24] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008): 6.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Clark H Pinnock, Open Theism: “What is this? A New Teaching?- And With Authority!” (Mk1:27). Ashland Theological Journal 34, no. 0, 2002: 44.

[27] Ibid.

[28] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?” : 6

[29]Clark H. Pinnock,  “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’”: 45.

[30] John Sanders, “Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008): 2.

[31] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’” : 46.

[32] Barry E Bryant, “Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free Will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge,” Wesley Center for Applied Theology of  The Northwest Nazarene University. 2000. http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/26-30/27.4.htm (accessed October 4, 2008).

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge and Open Theism,”: 24.

[36] Barry E. Bryant, “Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley,”

[37] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’”: 47, 48.

[38] MacArthur, John, “Open Theism’s Attack On The Atonement.” The Master’s

Seminary Journal 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 3.

[39] Pettigrew, Larry D. 2001. “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11),”: 135.

[40] Clark H. Pinnock, “God’s Sovereignty in Today’s World.” Theology Today 53, no. 1 (April 1996): 16.

[41] Ibid. 17

[42] Ibid.

[43] John Sanders, “Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence”: 6.

[44] Ibid: 10.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?”: 11

[49] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.”

[50] Voltaire quoted in, Richard L. Mayhue, “The Impossibility of God of the Possible,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 203-20.

[51] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge,”: 20.

[52] A.W. Tozer,  The Knowledge of the Holy: 9.

[53] Ibid: 10.

[54] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge,”: 22.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Larry D. Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High?”: 141.

[57] Ibid, 142.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Bruce A. Ware, 2002. “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries Theologically: Is Open Theism Evangelical?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (June): 194.

[60] John MacArthur, “Open Theism’s Attack On The Atonement,”: 12.

[61] Larry D. Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High?”: 148.

[62] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this?’”: 48.

Examining what it means to be “Born of Water and Spirit” in John 3:5

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”

One of the major questions here is what Jesus was talking about when he said, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit…?” One perception is that Jesus was emphasizing baptism as a requirement for salvation. The proponents of this argument would also conclude that certain other verses (e.g. Acts 2:38) elsewhere would also allude to baptism as a requirement for salvation. This view tends to be problematic in light of Ephesians 2:8, 9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Also, Romans 3:21-28:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Besides, if baptism was so important as to be a requirement for salvation, why did Jesus not baptize (cf. John 4:1, 2)? Granted, baptism is very important, but that is for another blog.

So, what was Jesus really saying here? As with verses 14-16, there is an Old Testament element here. The reference is back to Ezekiel 36:25-27:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

We must remember the historical context. Jesus is talking to Nicodemus who was a very powerful and educated Jewish leader in his own right. Jesus is explaining to him what the requirements are to get into the Kingdom. Jesus uses here a reference to Ezekiel and the analogy begins (at least) to set into Nicodemus’ mind (although he still has a little trouble wrapping his mind around the idea of being born again in verse 9. For a broader view of this conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, click here).

There are a few things to notice in this passage. First, the term “sprinkle” here was used in cleansing ceremonies (i.e. cleansing from leprosy: Leviticus 14:6, 7). The term “clean water” here is of a ceremonial type. This is not literal water; rather, it is a spiritual cleansing through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. This is further supported in the terms “you shall be clean” and “cleanse”. “You shall be clean is in reference to ritual and moral purity (cf. Numbers 8:5-22: the ritual of sprinkling was in direct reference to them being spiritually clean and pure). This “cleansing” is also in a ceremonial or moral sense; not in the sense that actual water has regenerative powers. After all, in John 3:3, the Bible says, “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” Jesus was not talking about literal rebirth, He was talking a spiritual birth. So, here, Jesus is referencing the Ezekiel passage by showing that a new spiritual cleansing and salvation must take place before one can enter into the Kingdom. Paul echoes this idea almost verbatim in Titus 3:5-7: “[Christ] saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

Paul uses this same idea in Ephesians 5:26 when he talks about Christ presenting the church as His bride: “that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” The church is to be pure through the cleansing and washing of the word. We, as the church are not going to be literally washed. This is, again, a spiritual and moral cleansing so we may be presented holy and blameless.

Back to Ezekiel 36:25-27. The second thing to notice is the promise of a new heart for the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31-34 says:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is God’s promise to His people that they will return to Him through His Son and the work of the Holy Spirit. This new heart is the new regenerated life that they will have through Christ. The third and final thing found in the Ezekiel passage is that God will give them a desire to want to worship Him and to walk in His ways. The heart of flesh that He will give them in Ezekiel shows a heart that is alive and responsive to the will of the Father (versus the heart of stone they currently have).

So, now in light of the passage in Ezekiel, John 3:5 again says: “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Nicodemus caught the analogy. Having been educated as he was, he knew what Christ was getting at. He may have had a hard time believing and wrapping his mind around it, but he got it. Therefore, Jesus is not only talking about a spiritual regeneration through the Holy Spirit, He is also referring to Israel as a nation and how they will one day recognize Christ as the Messiah, fall down and worship Him, and be in His Kingdom.

Well, now what? What does this have to do with us today? I think this passage forces us to realize how to interpret our Bible. What we read in English, may not necessarily read the same way in the original languages. So, we need to be conscious of the grammatical standpoint of the Scriptures. But also, we must be willing to take into account the historical aspect of the Scriptures. We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. After all, David recognizes his own spiritual renewal throughout the Psalms, but notably in Psalm 51.

Another way to apply this is making sure we know, individually, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we belong to Him. Have you taken that step? Have you been washed and cleansed through the spiritual, regenerative waters of the Word and the Holy Spirit? If you want to know more about Jesus and what He has done for you, please click here.

Jesus, Nicodemus, and a Conversation on Lordship: John 3:1-21

John 3:1-21

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?  No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

This is a beautiful conversation between our Lord and Nicodemus. It is rich with historical context from the Old Testament and Bible History.

Nicodemus was no dummy. He was a Pharisee, and a ruler of the Jews (v. 1). He belonged to a small legalistic sect of Judaism called the Pharisees (numbering in the neighborhood of 6,000 according to Josephus). They were mostly made up of middle class business men, as opposed to Levites or priests. Their origin is essentially unknown, but they may have started as an offshoot from another sect during the Maccabean era. The Pharisees were known for their strict observance of the Law, even down to the fine print, so to speak. The actual term, “Pharisees” means “separated ones” in the puritan sense. In other words, they sought after external hyper-adherence to ritual and religious purity in accordance to the Mosaic Law and their own added amendments. Thus, they represented  and helped shape the orthodox core of Judaism and were the dominant party in Judaism. “Ruler”, translated here means “leader” or “chief” and implies that Nicodemus was part of the Sanhedrin portion of the Pharisees. The Sanhedrin was the ruling body (“Supreme Court”) of the Jews in Palestine. This included the High Priest, chief priests (heads of families), and scribes totalling 71 people and appointment to the Sanhedrin was hereditary and political. Its oversight included both criminal and civil jurisdiction based in Hebrew Law with capital punishment cases needing final approval from the Roman Governor. So, Nicodemus was not only well known, but also well educated.

Verse 2 points out that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. There have been some who have pointed out this as John’s subtle contrast between light and dark. Or, that Nicodemus went at night so he could have unhindered conversation with the Lord. However, we must remember that Jesus was a controversial figure during His time. Therefore, a more plausible explanation would be that Nicodemus did not want to be seen as associating with Jesus in public. There could have been political ramifications for him had he been seen publicly conversing with Jesus and thus, went to Jesus by night rather than risk disfavor among his fellow Pharisees.

So, here we have an educated, well known man from the influential religious sect, wanting to figure out who this Jesus really is. He then says to Jesus in verse 2, ”Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” It would seem that Nicodemus was looking for verification of Jesus’ deity, or at the very least, confirmation of being a prophet. Yet, Jesus seemingly ignores this statement/question, and strikes to the heart of the matter by responding, “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” Jesus was more interested in showing the futility of religion and the self centeredness of the Pharisee than He was in affirming His deity. Nicodemus’ response is not a literal one. Jesus also wanted to show Nicodemus that true salvation is not works based. The word “again” can be translated “from above;” so the thought here is that one can not see the Kingdom unless he is born from above.

“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” He, as was Christ, was familiar in the Pharisaical art of using figurative language. So, what he was essentially telling Christ was that he is too old to start over from the bottom of another religious totem pole. Yet, Christ was demanding his all; he was demanding a spiritual rebirth from above.

Jesus replies to Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus was not talking of a literal water baptism as some may suggest. The baptism He is talking about is symbolic of purification

(This relating back to Ezekiel 36:25-27, which is the Old Testament promise of regeneration through water and the spirit). This baptism was that of the Holy Spirit (see John 1:33; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 5:26 with John 15:3; Titus 3:5 with John 3:5). The biggest point behind what Jesus was saying here was nothing you can do could save you: the law could not save you, religious rituals, not even baptism could give eternal life.

“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” This conversation was apparently jarring famous rabbi. He could just not believe what he was hearing.  When Jesus then asked, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” Nicodemus seemingly became shell shocked. He did not say another word after this (at least it was not recorded). We are not certain whether he stayed and graciously listened or if he stomped out of the room in anger. Either way, Nicodemus does make another appearance later in the Gospel claiming and taking care of Christ’s body as it was prepared for burial (John 19:38, 39). So, from that, we can suggest that he accepted Christ’s salvation at some point.

In verse 9, Nicodemus was essentially saying that he did not understand, but he was choosing the path of least resistance and really saying that he did not believe. This is highlighted when Christ says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (3:11, 12). When Jesus told Nicodemus that “you do not receive” He was telling the Pharisee that he did not believe, they are the same thing. Jesus was making a seriously valid point: faith comes before full understanding. John MacArthur said it this way, “Spiritual truth does not register in the mind of one who does not believe; unbelief understands nothing.” In verse 13, Jesus says, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” No one can go to heaven through his good works. God has sent His Son who descended from heaven, and therefore is the only one who can ascend to heaven. In fact, Hebrews 1:1, 2 says, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” We have a choice: we can accept what the Son says, or we can reject Him and continue our life of sin.

From verse 14 on, Jesus explains the spiritual birth in its simplicity starting with Christ’s own analogy (and prophecy of death) from the Old Testament. Numbers 21 shares that account (for a more thorough discussion, see my blog). Jesus was showing Nicodemus that salvation was through Him, not through the religiousity of the Pharisees. Nicodemus had to realize that he was a part of the group of snake bitten Israelites in need of salvation. John MacArthur says, “Salvation does not happen by religious ceremony. That was true when the Israelites were in the wilderness; it was true for Nicodemus; it is true today.” Jesus was not showing Nicodemus faith without commitment; He was showing him the necessity of repentance (the turning away from sin and desiring to live differently. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The word “believe” here can be translated, “commit unto” or “put in trust with.” While the faith here is free, there has to be a willingness to turn from the current lifestyle.

The truth that shines through this passage undoubtedly shook Nicodemus to the core. Jesus was calling him to come to a point where Nicodemus would acknowledge his sin (that was the root issue), recognize his need for a Savior, and realize the necessity of repentance. So the truth of John 3:16 comes to light and forces us to face to a question. What does believing in Christ mean? It means accepting Christ and affirming His truth. But it also means believing what He says, and changing our heart attitude to a willingness to obey (see verses 20, 21; 36). Please do not misunderstand the exclusiveness of Jesus’ Gospel: He is the ONLY way to salvation, everyone else is condemned. While salvation is a gift and is free, the cost of knowing Christ is high: your life.

Resource:

MacArthur, John F. Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus

The Savior and the Serpent: A Behind the Scenes Look at John 3:16

OK, so we have all heard this verse: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” And if anyone knows the address of any verse in the Bible, it is that one: John 3:16. But where in the context does is it fit in? We use it in evangelism conversation, but do we know the implications behind it? This is an incredible conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus (3:1-21) standing alone, but as we look into the passage in depth, we see there is more to the story than first meets the eye. Here in this part of the conversation, is one example.

In John 3:14-16, our Lord tells Nicodemus, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Again, we are looking for the context here in this passage: where does John 3:16 fit in? Well Jesus tells us. He is referring us back to the days of Moses in the wilderness.

If we look back to Exodus, Moses is called to the work of God in Exodus 3. Specifically, God called Moses to confront Pharaoh (Exodus 3:1-9), deliver the Israelites from their captivity in Egypt (12:33-14:31), and deliver them into the Promised Land. So, after a little urging by God, a little help from Aaron (4:28-30), nine plagues (7:14-11:10), a frustrated Pharaoh, and a trip through the Red Sea on dry ground, they end up on the other side. Through the course of Exodus, Leviticus and the first part of Numbers, they are following the Lord. The Israelites test the Lord ten times. The last time is when the spies come back to report about the land, and only Caleb spoke up and said they could overcome the people in the land. The others said they were too strong and too big and too powerful (Numbers 13:25-33). At this point, after Moses pleads for the people to God, forgave them. As a consequence, however, the Lord sent them into the wilderness for forty years. The first generation of Israelites coming out of Egypt would not be able to see the Promised Land. Why? Numbers 14:22, 23 says, “None of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it.” They saw the miracles and provisions of God and yet still complained, still tested and were still unsatisfied. In verses 33 and 34, the Lord gives Israel its punishment of wondering in the wilderness for forty years.

So, Israel is now in the desert, and still Israel continues to grumble and rebel. In the following several chapters, several laws and requirements are mentioned. They then conquered the Canaanites after the Lord delivered them into Israel’s hand. In verse 21:4, Israel is on the journey again around the Red Sea around the land of Edom. In verse 5, “And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.’” The Israelites seemingly did not learn their lesson. So the Lord brought a plague among them.

“Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died” (verse 6). These snakes were shiny reddish brown that were aggressively swift and extremely poisonous (hence, “fiery”). This serpent is said to be the same one as in Isaiah 14:29, and 30:6, which are mentioned here as flying, fiery serpents. Mythology would suggest that these serpents actually flew and spit fire, but the common conception today is that fiery suggested the inflammation area of the bite. The flying suggests the swiftness of the creature when it would leap on a person. This plague brought the nation to its knees and people were dying right and left.

So we can imagine then how devastated these people were. Losing a family member to death through something that could have been prevented (their sin, rebellion and disobedience) had to be heartbreaking. Brothers, fathers, mothers and sisters were dead. The “many” can be translated “multitude”. This was a major event. They had to do something. They did the only thing they knew to do. They called on Moses to intercede to God on their behalf. They knew they had sinned by their disobedience, and they wanted to turn. Moses then interceded for them. “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (21:8, 9). After all of the complaining, rebellion, idolatry, and the blatant sinning that the people of Israel had committed, the Lord still showed His sovereign grace to the people. The Lord had made a way for these people to be saved.

Their salvation rested in being able to look at that snake. First, let’s notice that the Lord did not take away the snakes. He provided a way of salvation and healing from them. Without the salvation, they were dead. Second, this was not some hocus pocus ritual. This was having faith that the Lord would fulfill His promise of healing. Imagine being a son going on a walk with your father so you could chat after camp had been put up. You are cresting the hill, and beginning to walk back down when out of no where a one of the snakes bites your father. You know all you have to do is get your father up the hill and within sight of the bronze serpent. What would you do? How hard would you try? What if the same scenario was your best friend? What if he did not want you to carry him or push him to the see the snake? What if he was alright with dying there in the middle of the desert? Would you still try with all your might to save him?

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,” Jesus said in John 3:14. So it was with Jesus. Imagine the implications. Here we are, lost and dying from a “serpent” bite, just like the Israelites in Numbers. We are lost in a wilderness of despair with no hope. Or so we think. God however, in His lovingkindness and grace, sent His Son to die on the cross. Jesus, then, was alluding to His death on the cross in these two verses. God, through the death of Jesus, provided a way of salvation. Even though God does not take away death, we can still be permanently healed from the bite of it. Just as the Israelites had to repent from their sin, so must we repent from ours in order to be saved from death. We accept this healing when we acknowledge our sin, repent from the sin and ask Christ’s forgiveness.

As a Christian, this lights a fire within my soul to see that my friends are brought to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. This passage sheds even more light on the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), because knowing our friends are lost and dying, we should ache with a desire for them to know the source of Life: God the Father, through Jesus Christ.

“This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life” (John 3:16, The Message).

The Mind of Christ

The mind of Christ has been taught from Philippians 2:1-11 by many a great scholar. Indeed, this is one of the most unparalleled passages describing the Christological figure. The “therefore” in verse one focuses the reader’s attention back to verse 1:27 when Paul admonishes the Philippian believers to “conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” [1] Yet the question arises: what exactly is the mind of Christ? How does one attain the mind of Christ? The passage can be divided in three parts to help explain the mind of Christ: the Description of the Mind of Christ, the crux verse of the Mind of Christ, and the Illustration of the Mind of Christ.

Philippians 2:1-4- The Description of the Mind of Christ

Paul exhorts the Philippian church to be held together in one mind by starting with a description of the Mind of Christ (verses 1-4).[2] “[Paul] desires that their hearts should be so knit together in love that the love of Christ would be recognized.”[3] He outlines five superior things in verse 1 that are conditional upon the completeness of His joy and are descriptive of the mind of Christ: encouragement, consolation of love, fellowship of the Spirit, affection, and compassion. “All are stated as ‘if’ clauses, but the condition is assumed to be true (the ‘if’ becomes almost synonymous with ‘since’).”[4] The first two, “encouragement” and “consolation” are both considered persuasive addresses. Paul desires for them to do something. He then moves into the more intimate relationship between man and the Spirit (“fellowship”), and the benevolent relationship from man to man (“affection and compassion”). So, if any of these exist, they should make his joy complete. Paul then tells them how his joy can be made complete, “by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose” (v. 2).

Paul’s joy for the Philippians can be made complete by being one minded. In so doing, they are to maintain the same brotherly love that they have already shown. This would correlate with the “encouragement in Christ,” and “the consolation of love.” They are to remain united in spirit and stay together in one purpose, and this would correlate to “fellowship of the Spirit.” The basis of this love is found solely in Christ, and that relationship is formed through the baptism of the Holy Spirit at salvation through Christ.[5] In verses 3 and 4 He then challenges them to not be selfish or look out for their own interests, but to be humble and “regard one another as more important than himself…but also [look out] for the interests of others” (which would include affection and compassion).

The four instructions given would truly help the church to flourish if followed correctly. First, he wanted them to have a mutual love and that love should be outwardly demonstrated. Second, the Philippian church should focus on unity and harmony within their midst (Paul makes reference to such in 4:2). Third, these believers should not seek “selfish ambition” or “vain conceit” and be willing to put themselves behind others in humility. Fourth, they should be looking out for the interest of others, not just themselves. The perspective Paul is looking for these Philippians to have a broad range of desires and that include the interests of others. When this happens, disunity quickly dissipates.[6]

Philippians 2:5- The Crux

Paul secondly tells the Philippians “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (v. 5). Attitude is the Greek word, phroneo which can be translated “mind” and means “to think or to be minded in a certain way.” This is more of a command, not an option.[7] They are to adopt the mind of Christ and think like He thinks. This verse is the crux of the passage. The ESV Study Bible sums up this idea, “Jesus is the paradigm of genuine spiritual progress: not a self-aggrandizing struggle for supremacy, but a deep love for God and neighbor shown in deeds of service.”[8] Paul desires for these Philippians to know Christ deeply and intimately. Jesus, in John 17:3, desires the same, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Kent contends that even though there are some scholars who believe this Christological hymn was not written by Paul, he says that Paul was very capable of poetry (cf. 1 Corinthians 13).[9] “Regardless of their precise origin, the passage provides a masterly statement of Christology and serves well the author’s purpose of illustrating supreme condescension.”[10]

Verse 5 presents a link between the description of Christ’s mind (vv. 1-4) and the Illustration thereof (vv. 6-11). [11] This mind was exhibited fully by Christ Himself, and Paul wants these Philippians to be in like manner.[12] “The attitude he hoped the Philippians would adopt, the disposition or frame of mind he described vv. 2-4, is the attitude exhibited by Christ as recorded in verses 6-8.”[13] The only way this church could develop the mind of Christ was by following Jesus’ example.[14] This command is literally read, “Think this in you” and is an imperative in present tense.[15] Therefore, the person must be willing to have his mind transformed and his will bent in order that he may obey God.[16] The mind of Christ is, then, set on a specific purpose: God’s glory. [17]

The question then becomes what is explicitly meant by “mind?” The whole passage is rich in Christological overtures, but the clue is in Christ’s actions. The intention is servant-hood. What envelopes this idea is self-denial and perfect obedience. The mind of Christ is others first, not self. Paul describes Jesus’ self disposition through voluntary obedience which took Him to the cross. “It is this disposition which is Paul’s hope for overcoming the grumbling and dissension at Philippi, for meeting the concerns expressed in verses 1-4, and for uniting the church, freeing them from strife and vainglory and bringing about humility and deference to one another as well as their looking after one another instead of being self-serving.”[18]

Bishop Neill argues a well made point, “Unfortunately some scholars have tried to make [verse 5] mean, ‘Have this mind among yourselves which you have also in Christ Jesus.[19]’” He then goes on to say, “I am convinced that the Greek words cannot possibly be twisted to bear this meaning. I am quite certain that Paul, with his theology of our being in Christ, could not possibly have made this distinction: one mind which have among yourselves and another mind which you have in Christ Jesus; it just does not fit.[20]” What, then must happen is for Christians to stop thinking how normal everyday humans think, and start thinking the way God thinks.[21] However, a Christian may not be able to exact Christ’s ministry, but he is charged with displaying the same of attitude.[22]

Philippians 2:6-11- The Illustration of the Mind of Christ

Philippians 2:6-11 gives an illustration of the mind of Christ.[23]

Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This illustration of the mind of Christ comes from the perfect example: Jesus Christ. Paul describes Christ’s existence as God, coming to earth as a servant, taking on the form of man. He was then obedient to death on the cross and because of His obedience, God exalted Him over the whole world. Even though He was God in flesh and sinless, His perfect obedience was in every detail of His life. As Paul says, “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” In other words, all Christians can be obedient to the Lord, but all Christians fail too; but not Jesus Christ.

The King James reads in verse 6, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” and in verse 8, “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Interestingly, the two words “being” are different words in the Greek. The “being” (huparcho) in verse 6 can be translated “to come forth.” This is the fundamental and original state of Christ and also is used for prior existence and continuing existence.[24] In other words, this present tense use says that Jesus was and is in the form of God. In fact, J.B. Lightfoot argues that “being” does denote “prior existence.”[25] Lightfoot’s point ties in with John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word [Logos] was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” Whereas, the “being” (heurisko) in verse 8 can be translated “to meet with” or “to fall in with,” so Christ met or fell in with the human race. This seems to denote a willingness to come to earth. “And being found” is past tense; He is no longer in human flesh, but is once again “being in the form of God.”

Therefore, “the best understanding of this passage is  that it talks about Jesus giving up the status and privilege that was his in heaven: he ‘did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped’ (or ‘clung to for his own advantage’), but ‘emptied himself’ or ‘humbled himself’ for our sake, and came to live as a man.” For instance, in John 17:5, Jesus speaks of the glory He had before He came to earth. “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” This is the same glory He would experience when He ascended back to heaven. He, then, gave up all of the privileges and honor of heaven to come to earth.[26]

When Christ came to earth, He was sovereign, but Paul also keeps in mind that He was obedient unto the point of perfection. However, death had no claim on Him; He willingly gave His life up. Yet, He was still obeying the Father by being a bond servant through death. Through His death, “there was a marvelous blending of sovereign choice and utter obedience.” In other words while He was humbled unto death, He was also obedient unto death. Jesus said in John 10:18, “No one has taken [my life] away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” Through this, He maintained both the human and divine natures completely. “These two natures are perfectly and organically united in one Person, yet they remain distinct, each retaining its complete integrity.”[27]

The example is fully noted, “Christ (the eternally ‘Anointed One’) is seen entering into the temporal realm of history as Jesus (‘the Savior’).[28]” McClain argues that the form of God in this passage is not necessarily the nature of God.[29] The form of God certainly presupposes the nature of God, but is not crucial to it.[30] Verse 7 draws a similar distinction on the human side of the kenosis; there is here a servant-form and also a human-nature.[31] McClain makes the point, “A man may cease to be a servant, but he cannot cease to be a man. Likewise, Deity may change form, but can not nature.”[32] McClain goes on to point out that Paul probably wrote the passage in order to remind his readers that there was still a difference between sinful man and Christ, the perfect man.[33] The summation of Christ’s earthly life can be seen through Pentecost, “Christ set aside His own rights and His own will; He did not insist on His prerogatives as an heir to a throne as the King’s Son. He made Himself a servant-one who has no rights. As a servant to God, in obedience to His Master, He went to the cross.”[34]

Conclusion

So, how does one come to attain the mind of Christ? The information gleaned from the text is crucial. First, and most importantly, the entire crux of the mind of Jesus Christ rests on accepting Him into the sinner’s heart and receiving His salvation.[35] “The very moment he receives Christ as personal Savior, a person is placed in Christ so he has a relationship to Christ, and the Holy Spirit comes to take up residence in his body so that he has a relationship to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is a reality in his life.[36] Secondly, one should come away with a sense of submission and humility when speaking of Christ.[37] Thirdly, unity and concern for others within the body of Christ is important in developing the mind of Christ.[38] The concern for others, in turn, helps to maintain unity. Finally, the process is a daily, lifelong process of developing the mind of Christ. There is not a one touch answer when it comes to a relationship with Him.

Bishop Neill sums up well the Mind of Christ, “If you spend your days looking unto Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith, in the days and the years of your ministry, perhaps your face will catch something of the radiance of the divine. If it does, you will not know it. But others seeing you may say, ‘He has the mind of Christ.’ If that were true, what in the world can anything else matter?[39]” “The key to developing this attitude is humility and concern for others (vv. 3, 4). And the perfect model is Christ’s self emptying action (vv. 5-8). Following his example will to true unity among the members of the congregation.”[40] The mind of Christ therefore, is one of diligence to Christ, His Word and prayer. Even though there are false interpretations surrounding this passage, the Christian should use his due diligence in maintaining the mind of Christ.

---

[1] All Scripture Quotations taken from The New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, La Habra, CA, The Lockman Foundation, 1995 unless otherwise noted.

[2] Daniel Akin, “The God Who Humbled Himself (The God Who Came Down) Philippians 2:1-11,” (A Message Preached at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Tuesday, August 3, 2004).

[3] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Joy of Living: A Study of Philippians, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1973), 57.

[4] Homer A. Kent Jr., “Philippians,” in Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, ed. Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994): 796.

[5] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Joy of Living, 57.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Daniel Akin, “The God Who Humbled Himself.”

[8] ESV Study Bible, The Holy Bible English Standard Version, Wheaton, IL, Crossway Bibles, 2008.

[9] Homer A. Kent Jr., “Philippians,” 797.

[10] Ibid.

[11] David J. MacLeod, “Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-8,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 158, no. 231 (July 2001): 311, 312.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Robert Gromacki, The Books of Philippians and Colossians: Joy and Completeness in Christ, eds. Mal Couch and Ed Hinson (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003): 53, 54

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Frank Stagg, “The Mind in Christ Jesus Philippians 1:27-2:18,” Review and Expositor, 77, no. 3 (Summer 1980): 343, 44.

[19] Bishop Stephen Neill, “To Think the way God Thinks: Philippians 2:1-18,” Faith and Mission, 1, no. 1 (Fall 1983): 71.

[20] Ibid, 71.

[21] Ibid, 71.

[22] Homer Kent, “Philippians,” 797.

[23] Daniel Akin, “The God Who Humbled Himself.”

[24] Charles M. Horne, “Let This Mind Be in You, An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-11,” Grace Journal 1, no.1 (Spring 1960): 26.

[25] David J. MacLeod, “Imitating the Incarnation of Christ”: 313.

[26] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Leicester, England: Inter Varsity Press, 2000), 551

[27] Alva McClain, “The Doctrine of the Kenosis in Philippians 2:5-8,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, 9, no. 1 (Spring 1998):95, 96.

[28] Charles Horne, “Let This Mind Be in You,” 25.

[29] Alva McClain, “The Doctrine of the Kenosis,” 92.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., 93.

[34] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Joy of Living, 176.

[35] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Joy of Living, 57, 58.

[36] Ibid., 58.

[37] Norman Geisler Systematic Theology: God, Creation, 4 vols. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), 410.

[38] Robert Gromacki, The Books of Philippians and Colossians, 50.

[39] Bishop Stephen Neill, “To Think the Way God Thinks,” 74.

[40] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998): 1137.

License Plates and Bad Theology

I saw this license plate on the front of a car today. I must be honest and say that it disturbed me a little. The Bible should not be handled as a last resort for anyone. The Scripture is not a mere instruction book. For instance, Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:14-16, 

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The Bible sets THE standard for life. The Bible is the beautiful, literal Word of God, and should be taken as such. He wrote it for us to reflect and meditate on its truths and to be able to know Him more. This license plate, if nothing else, shows a peron’s view of the Bible as being low. In contrast, Paul says in Romans 15:4, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

The Psalmist in 119:105-112 said, 

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules. I am severely afflicted; give me life, O LORD, according to your word! Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O LORD, and teach me your rules. I hold my life in my hand continually, but I do not forget your law. The wicked have laid a snare for me, but I do not stray from your precepts. Your testimonies are my heritage forever, for they are the joy of my heart. I incline my heart to perform your statutes forever, to the end.

And in Deuteronomy 17:18-20, the Bible says, 

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

The Bible is the standard by which we are to conduct our daily lives, period. We should meditate on the Scriptures, read the Word, follow His instruction, and seek to live by what is given in the Bible in our daily lives. The Bible, therefore, should be what we pick up first in whatever situation we find ourselves in.

Some may wonder if I am carrying this too far. My answer is I do not think so. God’s Word is just that, God’s Word. Some may then argue, well, maybe they are trying to reach the non-Christians who are at the end of their rope and do not have another place to turn. My response then is, if that is the case, then why would we start by belittling the Word by telling those people that only in life’s toughest circumstances do we need to consult the Bible? When in reality, we should be consulting the Bible on a daily basis, praying to our Heavenly Father constantly and devoting our lives to His glory.

Therefore, may a better way to say it then is, as one of my best friends Mike said, “Read the Bible. Period.” We may then be able to echo Paul’s words in Colossians 3:15-17, 

And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Premillennialism Defined.

Eschatology refers to the Greek word “eschatos” which means last; therefore Eschatology refers to the study of the last things . Within Eschatology there is the basis for a millennium and there are three main views of how and when the millennium will occur: Amillennialism (no millennial reign of Christ), Postmillennialism (Christ comes after the millennium), Premillennialism (Christ comes before the millennium). Of the three views, Premillennialism has the longest history dating back to the earliest church fathers. This paper will seek to define and give a defense of Premillennialism.
Premillennialism Defined
Premillennialism contains the prefix “pre-” or before with the word millennium which means one thousand years. Therefore, it holds the view that “the second coming of Christ will occur prior to the Millennium, which will see the establishment of Christ’s kingdom on this earth for a literal one thousand years.” The government will be theocratic with the physical Christ as King and His earthly kingdom will be established at that time. Christ will reign as King during those thousand years, physically on this present Earth. The idea of the millennium comes from Revelation 20:2-5:

And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time. Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

From this passage, first, Satan is thrown into the abyss, and sealed in it for a thousand years. From there, the believers who died for their testimony in Christ, who did not worship the beast or receive his mark, reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The fact that within this passage, the thousand years was referenced four times underscores the importance of understanding the millennium. This passage inspires the questions, “When does Christ come back for the believers?” “Is there more than one appearance of Christ?” “Are certain believers taken into heaven at certain times?”
Two Views of Premillennialism
In order to wrestle with these questions, Premillennialism holds to two different views as to when and how Christ comes back. First, the Classic or Historic View says Christ will come back at the end of the Church age and tribulation to set up His millennial kingdom. The believers that have died will be raised from the dead, and they will physically reign with Christ on earth for a thousand years. All believers will be given resurrection bodies that will never die. After the thousand years, Satan will be loosed from the abyss and allowed to roam for a short time, and then he and all of his followers will rage war against Christ. Satan will be completely defeated, cast into his eternal prison and Christ and His followers will enter into the eternal stage.
The second view, Dispensational Premillennialism is like its Classic counter part with one exception. Dispensational Premillennialism says that there will be a rapture of the living children of God, so it comes before the great tribulation. Once Christ raptures the Church, there will be seven years of tribulation, then, the great millennial reign of Christ and His Church. This view holds that the tribulation is actually for the Jews in order for the prophecies concerning Israel to be fulfilled.
Scriptural Basis for Premillennialism
The main way to defend any issue of Scripture is through Scripture. This especially applies to Premillennialism where from the whole of Scripture arises the support for Premillennialism. John Walvoord similarly points out the Bible should always be interpreted in its normal hermeneutic unless clearly indicated by the author that it should not be. Among other passages, several stand out in support of Premillennialism.
In Psalm 72, the writer goes beyond Solomon’s rule to that of the Messiah. In verses 8 through 11, the Bible says, “May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth. Let the nomads of the desert bow before him, And his enemies lick the dust. Let the kings of Tarshish and of the islands bring presents; The kings of Sheba and Seba offer gifts. And let all kings bow down before him, All nations serve him.” The Scripture indicates an earthly rule “from sea to sea”, so Christ would have had to come in order for the kingdom to be in place.
In Isaiah 11:9-11, the Bible says,

They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea. Then in that day The nations will resort to the root of Jesse, Who will stand as a signal for the peoples; And His resting place will be glorious. Then it will happen on that day that the Lord Will again recover the second time with His hand The remnant of His people, who will remain, From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, And from the islands of the sea.

This passage gives a beautiful picture of how nature will revert back to the way God intended it. However, this does not seem to inaugurate the eternal kingdom. Rather, it trumpets the thousand year reign as Christ comes and gathers the people to Himself.
In Zechariah 14:5, 9, 11 the Bible says, “Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one. People will live in it, and there will no longer be a curse, for Jerusalem will dwell in security.” In this passage, Zechariah is prophesying the coming of Christ. The term “holy ones” can also be translated as saints, so the picture is Christ coming with His saints in order to establish His earthly kingdom.
In Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus says, “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” He will gather the saints that were raptured initially along with the new Christians from the tribulation. Then, He will begin His thousand year reign.
From the passages mentioned along with Revelation, the support for Premillennialism in Scripture abounds. In fact another such Scripture is Psalm 2:3-8. These few verses congeal with Revelation and the prophecy therein. From all of these passages, “we must conclude that the Lord comes to earht befor the millennium in order to establish it. This normal succession of events is credible and gives clear support to premillennialism.”
Conclusion
Premillennialism is a distinct system of theology on its own by using the normal hermeneutic to describe the future events of Eschatology. John Sailhammer rightly said, “The fact that the possible fulfillment of many prophetic events seems to be converging in our world may be a reassurance that the Bible is true. It is not, however, a license to interpret biblical prophetic texts in light of those events. Our aim should always be to interpret contemporary events in light of prophecy, not prophecy in light of those events.” This paper has sought to clearly define Premillennialism and the two views therein and defend it through Scripture.
Bibliography

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press,
2000.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.

Sailhammer, John H. “The Hermeneutics of Premillennialism.” Faith & Mission
18, no. 1 (Fall 2000): 97-108.

Showers, Renald E. There Really Is A Difference. Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of
Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Lectures In Systematic Theology. Cambridge, U.K.:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

Walvoord, John F. “The Theological Context of Premillennialism.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 150, no. 200 (October 1993): 388-397.Bibliography