A Brief Musing on the Authority of the Bible

Christians claim that the Bible is the only supreme authority for human belief and living. What does the authority of the Bible mean and how are we able to access that authority?

Isn’t “authority” an inherently personal concept? Persons exercise authority over other persons. Therefore, when we speak of the authority of the Bible, aren’t we actually speaking of the authority of God Himself? I think so. God has inherent supreme authority over all creation; that is his inherent right as omnipotent creator. He not only has the right to do whatever he wants to do with his creation or each constituent of his creation, he also has the power to do so. The Bible, then, is God’s communication of his authority to humanity. Authority may be expressed and/or exercised. God chose to communicate his authority in written human language to particular people at a particular time, for all people for all time. Now, the Bible (surely) doesn’t contain a communication of all of God’s authority; rather, God chose to express certain aspects of his authority to humanity. When someone expresses their authority by communicating it, isn’t he or she, in a sense, also exercising authority? The “divine discourse” which is the Bible was a communicative act of the God of the universe. His purposes in communicating in this way are surely multi-faceted, but we can say for sure that he desired to reveal himself, to reveal the truth about humanity and the world, and, in climactic fashion, to reveal what he has done in Jesus Christ to enable human fellowship with him. Thus, his authoritative communication demands response from individual human beings, and responses range from faithful embrace and obedience, to indifference and ignorance, all the way to outright rejection and disobedience. However, God’s speech-act does have effects (as all speech-acts do). In some who hear the message, it hardens their hearts. In others, it transforms them into new creatures.

So, how do we then access the authority of the Bible, which is God’s own authority? Simply put, by understanding it. If the Bible is God’s communication of his authority, we access this authority when we come to understand what the communication means. However, once we gain some understanding of the communication of God’s authority, we are then automatically responsible to obey. God claims authority over each of us. We must respond in some way. By God’s own enabling, we believe and obey. To whatever degree we understand his communication, his discourse, his word, we must respond with faith and obedience.

Mohler reflects on the life of Oral Roberts

NewsNote: The Death of Oral Roberts – AlbertMohler.com.

Al Mohler remembers Oral Roberts after his death at the age of 91. It is indeed difficult to measure a man’s legacy. Seeing that Oral Roberts accomplished many great things for the kingdom of God during his life, it remains difficult to celebrate these good deeds in light of the abominable false gospel he promoted so vigorously throughout his life. Knowing that this man has misled thousands, distorted the Scriptures (surely unintentionally), and also was used by God to bring many into a living relationship with Jesus Christ somewhat baffles me. I did not know the man, and I’ve hardly read anything he wrote or listened to anything he preached, so I dare not pass judgment on whether or not he now resides with Jesus or forever separated from Jesus. I know that Jesus himself said that many will say on the day of judgment that they performed many miracles in his name, but Jesus will turn them away, never having known them. Oral Roberts can say that he performed many miracles, perhaps hundreds or thousands of legitimate healings (and many were surely illegitimate). But one must wonder if Paul’s cursing of the false teachers in Galatia for preaching another gospel might unfortunately apply to Roberts and many others of our day who promote a sickly deficient message which trades limitless, eternal, priceless reward in receiving Jesus himself for eternity for the fading decadence this world has to offer. What a sobering thought! I pray that I will continually cling to Christ as my only treasure and count all of my possessions as loss. And I pray that I may be given grace to preach the true gospel of Jesus crucified, buried, and raised from the dead for the sins of the world faithfully, consistently, and powerfully until the day I die.

Kingdom People book giveaway

Trevin Wax is giving away ten awesome books. See registration instructions here: http://trevinwax.com/2009/12/15/kingdom-people-christmas-giveaway-2/

1 Corinthians 11 and James 5

In light of 1 Cor. 11:29-30, which I understand to be a reference to God’s judgment in the form of weakness, sickness, and/or physical death as a result of participating in the Lord’s Supper “in an unworthy manner,” how should we understand James, for example, who commands that those who are sick should seek prayer and anointing from the elders of the church (James 5:14)? Also, from James 5:15-16, how does this all relate to confessing our sins?

Upon reflection, I think James 5:13-20 is an excellent passage to bring into the discussion of 1 Cor. 11:29-30. In fact, I wonder if Paul might have some practical guidance in mind that very much resembles James 5:13-20 by saying, “About the other things I will give directions when I come” (1 Cor. 11:34). In other words, I wonder if the “other things” he intends to explain to them is how they need to deal with this situation in their church, besides merely stopping the selfish behavior they are currently practicing. We’ll never know.

But, let’s see if we can’t flesh out what this all might look like together. The situation Paul describes in Corinth shows that 1) believers have sinned; 2) many of these believers (though apparently not all) have received judgment from God in the form of weakness and/or sickness, and some have physically died (as a result of an illness?); and 3) God’s judgment/discipline occurs so that these believers would not be finally condemned (which is not holding out the possibility that a person may lose his or her salvation; rather I think he is acknowledging that there are unbelievers in the midst of the Corinthian congregation, as in all churches, and if a person were not judged/disciplined by the Lord in this way, it might be a sign that the person is not a true believer, so that he or she will be condemned with the world; see Heb. 12:5-6). Now, it does NOT say that everyone who has participated in the Lord’s Supper has been judged in this way. When he says, “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself,” I don’t think he means that everyone who does this actually receives God’s judgment; I think it means that the person deserves judgment, or invites judgment. It is a punishable offense, we might say. Who, when, and how God judges/disciplines believers is his sovereign right, and he does so only with good purposes.

So, what of James? Let me translate this passage to highlight the real force of what he is saying, which is somewhat softened in the English versions. This will be James 5:13-16a, 19-20 (skipping vv. 16b-18 for the sake of space, and because, while clearly important to James in this context, they do not help us directly with our question).

¹³ Is anyone among you suffering? He must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He must sing. ¹⁴ Is anyone among you sick? He must call the elders of the church, and they must pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. ¹⁵ And faithful prayer will save (or heal) the sick one, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven. ¹⁶ Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another in order that you may be healed….¹⁹ My brothers, if anyone among you wanders away from the truth and someone turns him back, ²⁰ he must know that the one who turns back a sinner from wandering off his way will save (or heal) his soul (or life) from death and he covers a multitude of sins.

So, let me make a few observations, and then we’ll try to tie all this together. First, it’s interesting that he doesn’t tell the one who is suffering what to pray for. Particularly, I notice that he does NOT tell him to pray that the suffering would be removed, which makes sense because James wrote in chapter 1, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.” Nonetheless, the appropriate response to suffering for the believer is to pray. Also, the appropriate response for a believer who is sick is to ask the elders of the church to pray (which may or may not necessarily include anointing with oil; if you’d like to ask more about that, I’d be happy to talk about the reasons I don’t think anointing is being prescribed here, but for now I’m going to keep moving forward). Then, v. 15 promises or assures that “faithful prayer” (as I have translated the phrase, which is usually translated more literally as “the prayer of faith”) will save the sick one. The word translated “save” here and in the Gospels can also be translated “heal,” and this is probably the sense that James intends here. So, there is a promise of healing for the sick one in response to the elders’ faithful praying. Now, I don’t think this is a guarantee that a person who is sick and comes to the elders for prayer will have their illness taken away immediately. The text, first of all, never says when healing will take place; it just says that the person will be healed. And, it says that the Lord will raise the sick person up, which is probably a metaphor that refers to recovery. (With the metaphor of “raising up,” I suspect we are to envision a person who is sick and incapacitated, lying on their back, unable to “raise themselves”; but, I don’t think that the metaphor limits the types of illnesses in view. However, as I reflect on this passage now, I wonder if James does have incapacitating illness specifically in view because it is interesting that the one who is sick summons the elders, rather than going to him. Perhaps he is unable to go to the elders.) This teaching also does not imply that if the elders do not pray for a sick person that God will not heal that sick person. Again, God is free and sovereign to heal whomever, whenever, and however he decides to heal (which is probably reflected in the various methods Jesus used to heal sick people), but as I have argued in a recent blog post, God delights to work through the prayers of his people.

Now, it’s interesting that, at this very point, having just mentioned healing the sick in response to the prayers of the elders, James mentions forgiveness of sins. This may imply that James understands a potential connection between illness and sin (please notice my emphasis on “may”; I am tentative in how I want to talk about the connection between illness and sin; is sickness always a result of sin? I suspect not, at least not necessarily the direct result of an individual’s sins. But, 1 Cor. 11 certainly indicates that it can be sometimes. Are we able to determine when a sickness in our own lives might be due to the judgment/discipline of God because of sin in our own lives? I’m not sure. Ah, I’m getting ahead of myself!) So, in the context of coming to the elders for prayer about his or her sickness, James says, “If he has committed sins, they (his sins) will be forgiven.” Immediately following this promise of forgiveness, he draws a conclusion: “since the person’s sins will be forgiven, therefore, confess your sins to one another.” So, James links forgiveness and confession of sins tightly here (perhaps as in 1 John 1:9). I think he means that the availability of forgiveness is held out to the one who is sick when he or she comes to the elders for prayer, and the person may take hold of that forgiveness by confessing his or her sins. Then, he commands, “Pray for one another so that you may be healed.” So, again he brings healing into the picture (and this word in Greek is specific for healing; i.e., it’s NOT the same word used above that could mean “to save”).  Thus, it seems that he wants to link confession and prayer, forgiveness and healing in some way. So, perhaps we are justified to think of the sin being connected to the illness. I think this connection is somewhat reinforced in v. 20. “The one who turns back a sinner from wandering off his way will save his soul (or life) from death and he will cover a multitude of sins.” Here, the connection is made between saving from death and covering sins. The word translated “soul” can also be translated “life,” and I think that is better here. I think he is still talking about believers in community, confessing their sins to one another, praying for another, anticipating healing from God in response to these prayers, and receiving forgiveness for sins. Any illness can lead to death; perhaps this is one way that they saw God answering their prayers. These believers who were sick came for prayer to the elders (or to one another; notice how he has shifted from a focus on the elders’ prayer to a focus on prayer “for one another”), the remained sick for a time, but then they eventually recovered, and did not die from their illness.

So, how shall we tie this into what is envisioned in 1 Cor. 11? Paul indicates that some in the church are sick as a result of judgment/discipline meted out by God because of their participating in the Lord’s Supper flippantly and/or selfishly. Some have even died. Paul commands them to stop behaving this way, to repent of their sinful attitudes and behaviors. James would not only have the Corinthians who were sinning this way repent, but he would also have those who have received the judgment of God in the form of sickness to go to the elders and confess their sins (which assumes their repentance). Then, the elders should pray for them. The sick person may then walk away with confidence that 1) his sins have been forgiven and 2) that he will be healed, whenever and in whatever way the Lord chooses to do so.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Acts 19

The Holy Spirit is God; this is important to keep in mind because it means that, as God, the Holy Spirit is sovereign and free to act in whatever ways he chooses to act. We see his sovereign freedom in passages like John 3:8: “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.” Here, John uses a pun with the word “wind” which in Greek is the same word for “Spirit.” Likewise, with regard to Spiritual gifts, Paul says in 1 Cor. 12:11, “All these [gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” The Holy Spirit decides how he will act, where he will go, whom he will bring to life, and to whom he will give certain gifts. This is important to emphasize at the outset because I think this explains the variety of “conversion stories” in the book of Acts. Thus, it is relevant to the issue of the so-called “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”

Technically, the phrase “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is never used in the New Testament. Rather, John the Baptist predicts that one will come after him who will baptize “with” or “in” (I list “with” or “in” because the Greek preposition can mean either one, and I’m not sure which is the better way to understand it in these contexts) the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; as a side note, this is one of the rare truths about Jesus taught in all 4 Gospels!). To what does this refer? The book of Acts mentions this language specifically only twice. In Acts 1:5, as he ascends to heaven, Jesus tells his disciples that they will be baptized “with” or “in” the Holy Spirit “not many days from now.” It seems clear enough that he is referring to what will take place on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). The second reference to this event is in Acts 11:16, where Peter remembers this promise of Jesus (recorded in Acts 1:5) as he reflects on and reports about the salvation of (Gentiles) Cornelius and his family. He says in Acts 11:15, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning,” which I think is a reference back to Pentecost.

But, how are we to understand what happened at Pentecost? When Jesus was preparing his disciples for his imminent departure, he promised them that he would send the Holy Spirit to be in them (John 14:16-17). He seems to indicate here that this would be a new experience for them, that the Holy Spirit was not “in” them, but that he will be in them later. I think this is what happens in Acts 2; the Holy Spirit came to them, “and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). I think we can understand the language of “filling” here as a reference to the Holy Spirit taking up permanent residence within the disciples. The Spirit chooses to manifest his presence in them by empowering them to speak in tongues (which, by the way, is surely a different experience than is being discussed in 1 Cor. 12-14). Now, notice, after Peter’s speech, when 3000 people “received his word and were baptized,” the text doesn’t mention that these 3000 began speaking in tongues. That could be significant. The next time in Acts we read of people receiving the Holy Spirit is speaking of the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17. Philip had preached the gospel to these Samaritans, and many believed and were baptized, but the Holy Spirit “had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). So, apparently, the apostles expected there to be some evidence that these believing Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit, but there was nothing. Perhaps they expected speaking in tongues; it’s hard to say. Peter and John come over to Samaria, prayed for these new believers to receive the Holy Spirit, and laid their hands on them. While they were laying their hands on these believers, “they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17). So, in Acts 2, the Spirit explodes on the scene, you might say as an uninvited, though welcome, guest. In Acts 8, with the Samaritans, Peter and John lay their hands on believers, and then the Holy Spirit comes, and apparently manifests his presence in some way. Moreover, in Acts 8, Philip apparently only baptized these Samaritans in the name of Jesus. I suppose this is to be contrasted with the “formula” given in Matt. 28:19: “in the [one] name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Now, I think Peter here gives us a reminder of the Spirit’s freedom and sovereignty in this passage. When Simon the magician begged to purchase the power seemingly exhibited by the apostles, Peter chastises him, saying, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20). Not only does this remind us that the Holy Spirit’s presence in a believer’s life is a gift, it reminds us that Peter and John’s hand-laying did not cause the Holy Spirit to come. For whatever reason, the Holy Spirit chose to come (and apparently make his presence known to them in some way Luke chose not to tell us) after they prayed and when they laid hands on these believers. In Acts 11:44, Peter doesn’t even finish his sermon when the Spirit decides to enter Cornelius and his household and again manifested himself in some way that Peter knew it had happened. It could go on with examples of how this plays out, but I’d better move on to Acts 19!

So, in Acts 19, Paul encounters some “disciples” who seem a little confused or misinformed. Notice he doesn’t identify whose disciples they are. Back in Acts 18, we meet Apollos preaching in Ephesus, and we find out that “he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). Then, Priscilla and Aquila “took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). We’re not told exactly what they taught him, but we can probably safely infer that they explained to him that John’s baptism was no longer significant (more on that momentarily). So, perhaps these “disciples” Paul encounters in Ephesus were actually disciples of Apollos (or perhaps, less likely, they were actually disciples of John the Baptist himself, still lingering around several years after John was executed). Thus, Apollos had only taught them about the significance of John’s baptism, not knowing any more than that himself. We’re not given the entirety of the conversation, but apparently in speaking with them something cued Paul to the fact that they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Notice also that he obviously thinks this is not right and that he expected that they should have received the Holy Spirit “when they believed” (Acts 19:2) this is one of the many occasions where the KJV has mistranslated a very important participle!). When they tell him that they’ve never heard “that there is a Holy Spirit,” I think they probably mean that they hadn’t heard that the Holy Spirit had been given (they wouldn’t be very good Jews even if they didn’t know the Holy Spirit existed!). It’s interesting that his immediate question (apparently) in response to this is to ask about their baptism. Then, Paul “explains the way of God more accurately” (to borrow the phrase from Acts 18) by explaining the significance of John’s baptism in light of Jesus’ death and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit. “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus” (Acts 19:4). So, John’s baptism, as I understand it, functioned as a symbolic act showing that a Jewish person was repenting of their sins and looking forward to the coming of the Messiah. Baptism is always a symbolic act, but it can symbolize different things. John’s baptism was to signify repentance and a purification from sin and, more importantly, to point forward to the actual availability of repentance and cleansing from sin that Jesus would provide. These disciples (apparently) got the point, and then “were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). Recall back in Acts 8, merely being baptized in the name of Jesus seemed to be presented as a deficiency or a problem, but here it’s exactly what needed to be done. And the Holy Spirit chooses to come on them and manifest himself by the believers’ speaking in tongues and prophesying (Acts 19:6). Now, were these “disciples” Christians when Paul meets them? I (somewhat more tentatively) say that they were not believers or saved at that point. I think it’s best to understand the book of Acts as a whole indicating that a person is not a Christian or a genuine believer if the Holy Spirit does not dwell in that person. Likewise, Paul’s letters I think are fairly clear that the Holy Spirit brings a person to life, transferring him or her from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Jesus, graciously empowers belief in the individual, and immediately takes up residence in the believer and begins his transformation of the believer into the image of Jesus.

To sum up, then, what does it mean to be baptized “in” or “with” the Holy Spirit? It seems to refer to the Holy Spirit’s entering and settling into a believer. I don’t think we can perceive a pattern that the Holy Spirit must fit into for when or how he enters the believer, and I don’t think we can perceive a pattern that the Holy Spirit must fit into for the way he might manifest his presence in a believer’s life. Also, it’s important to highlight that baptism, with regard to the Holy Spirit, is being used as a metaphor, and since actual baptism with water was associated with cleansing or purification, I wonder if we ought to understand cleansing as a part of this issue. In other words, when the Holy Spirit “baptizes” a person (or when Jesus baptizes a person with the Holy Spirit), fundamentally it means that the Holy Spirit cleanses that person by moving in and cleaning house, we might say.

Why Pray?

The question is, simply put, “Why pray?” Particularly, the question is raised because of a seeming inconsistency in our theology at this point. Specifically, if God knows everything that is going to happen, what good does it do for us to pray? Even more to the heart of the matter, if God is truly sovereign and in control of the events that take place in the world, and he has already decided how he is going to act in a particular situation, why should we pray? Do we expect that our prayers will change God’s mind? This is a very good question, and it’s a question we all need to wrestle with and come to conclusions about in our own minds.

As I look at the stories told in the Bible, it seems to be a common theme that God works through means to accomplish his purposes. This is not always the case, but it seems to be regular. Rather than God just saying, “Shazzam!” and then his will coming to pass in the world, he instead seems to delight in working in and through his creatures. Take Moses as an example. We could look at all the plagues God sent down upon Egypt, and I think we will find that, in each one, Moses (and/or Aaron) was told to hold out his staff or perform some other action through which God did his mighty works. However, for an even grander example, we can look specifically at the parting of the Red Sea. In Ex. 14:15, God commands Moses to “lift up your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it.” Then, we see that Moses does this and then “the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided” (Ex. 14:21). God used the means of Moses holding up his staff and stretching out his hand and the means of a strong east wind. We know that God is powerful enough that he needed neither of these elements to do what he wanted to do, but he chose to use Moses in this way. So, what does this have to do with prayer? Nothing, really, but it begins to establish the point that God uses means to accomplish his purposes in the world. Not necessarily always, but I would say most of the time.

I think what we’ll find as we look at the prayers of the Bible, the actual prayers of people recorded in the Old Testament and the New Testament, is that one of the primary means God uses to accomplish his will in the world is the prayers of his people. For example, I think this is why Luke wrote the story in Acts 12 the way he did. After Peter was thrown in prison, Acts 12:5 says, “Earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.” Immediately, Luke then tells us about Peter’s release from the prison by an angel! Just by the way Luke has shaped the story, readers ought to conclude that God did this in response to the church’s prayers. This seems to be the case over and over again in the Gospels and Acts when we read stories about people praying to God.

Now, this of course brings up the issue of “unanswered prayer,” and I think the key to understanding “unanswered prayers” and the key to understanding how God works through our prayers or by answering our prayers is found in understanding what Jesus means when he teaches that we must pray in his name (John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-26). I take this to mean what we often talk about as praying “according to God’s will,” a phrase taken from Romans 8:27 and 1 John 5:14. Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John consistently indicate if we pray “in his name” we will receive whatever we have requested. It has become traditional that we end our prayers with the phrase “in Jesus’ name,” and the intentions in this are surely excellent, but I’m not sure that this tradition hasn’t done more harm than good for our thinking about prayer. By saying these words, do we think we have guaranteed that God will answer our prayers in a certain way? Perhaps we are making a declaration (to God? to others hearing our prayer? both?) that we are striving to pray for things that God is pleased to give us. I don’t know sometimes. If praying in Jesus’ name=praying according to God’s will, then we have further teaching on what prayer is in Romans 8. Paul acknowledges that we often don’t know what we ought to pray for (Rom. 8:26), and I take this to mean that we often don’t know what the Lord’s will is for a given circumstance. Isn’t that our common experience? I know as I’m going about my day, I am often uncertain as to what specific actions God might want me to take. Even Paul the apostle shares this uncertainty with us! How comforting and sobering! But he doesn’t leave us to despair in our ignorance. Rather, Paul assures us that the Holy Spirit prays for us, and he always prays according to God’s will. This is the meaning of Rom. 8:26-27, as I understand it. We are constantly striving to know what God’s will is, and we  are constantly praying that God would work his will in our lives (at least that’s how the Model Prayer in Matt. 6 instructs us), and we can be confident that the Holy Spirit is praying for the things that we don’t know to pray for and don’t know how to pray for. This is also the meaning of the phrase “praying in the Spirit” in Eph. 6:18; this is not a special kind of prayer. Rather it’s an acknowledgment by Paul that we always pray “in the Spirit” or as we are empowered by the Spirit; we can do no other because the Holy Spirit is always interceding for us, just as he is always living in us empowering us to live godly lives. Ah, I’ve gone a bit far afield from my topic!

So, why must we pray? God has ordained that he will work in the world (and in our lives) by responding to the prayers of his people. Can he or does he work directly in the world, without some means? Probably, but I think not usually. Even our salvation comes about through means. God has chosen to use the preaching of the gospel message to bring people from being dead in sins to being alive in Christ. God unites people to Jesus by their believing/accepting response to the gospel message, either preached or written (but usually preached; see Rom. 1:16; 10:9-17; 1 Cor. 1:18-2:2ish). And we see time and time again that God acted in response to the prayers of believers in Acts.

So, does prayer change God’s mind? I don’t think so. There’s one place in the Bible where it looks like prayer may in fact change God’s mind: Exodus 32. Israel has just begun to worship the golden calf at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and God declares that he will destroy them for their insolent idolatry. He even says that he will make a great nation of Moses instead. Moses talks with God, seems to calm him down a bit, and “The LORD relented of the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people” (Ex. 32:14). So, did God change his mind? He said he was going to destroy them, and then he doesn’t, seemingly in response to Moses’ prayer. It seems to me that there is a better way to understand this passage. It’s interesting that, as God begins to declare what he is about to do to the people, he tells Moses, “Let me alone” (Ex. 32:10). Even more significant, he says, “Let me alone so that my wrath may burn hot against them. “So, it seems to me, that he is (in a roundabout way) inviting Moses to step in and intercede for the people. It seems that God is saying, “If you don’t intercede, I will wipe them out.” So, perhaps God’s will is to preserve rebellious Israel through Moses’ prayer. Perhaps God also desired for Moses to relate more closely to the people, to care for them. So, I don’t think we have any evidence that prayer changes God’s mind. Rather, God has planned to act in certain ways throughout history and in our lives. He has also planned that he would act in these ways in response to the prayers of his people. God is pleased to work through his people to accomplish his purposes.

The Second Half…

B-Quad begins today. That means I’m adding 2 more classes to my schedule. While my eagerness to learn and to study has not waned, I am a little overwhelmed at the prospect of adding more assignments, more research, more writing, more translating than I’m already doing. God’s grace will remain sufficient.

That (probably) means less blogging.

How should we read the Beatitudes?

I am accustomed to reading the Beatitudes of Matt. 5:3-10 (or 5:3-12) individually, separately. I wonder if we ought to pursue understanding them as more tightly connected. Rather than viewing them as distinct aphorisms, perhaps Matthew, as he has surely summarized Jesus’ much longer sermon, intends for us to hear/read them as intimately connected communicating a primary theme.

What has clued me in to this possibility is noticing, for the first time, that the ones blessed in the first Beatitude and the last Beatitude receive their blessing for the same reason. (I take 5:10 as the last Beatitude, rather than 5:11-12, since 5:11-12 shifts to addressing his audience directly. More on this at the end.) Matt. 5:3 says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:10 says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” None of the other Beatitudes share this commonality. If this is indeed an “inclusio,” which is a literary feature where the initial phrase/sentence/idea in a series or paragraph is repeated at the end to bracket the series or paragraph in order to emphasize that which is repeated, perhaps Matthew intends for his readers to understand all of the Beatitudes in light of the first and the last.

If this is a legitimate interpretive procedure for us, how shall we proceed? It’s probably best to consider the meaning of the repeated phrase, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Simply, I suppose we could say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, that is the ones mentioned in the Beatitude. Now, we face the daunting task of defining “kingdom of heaven.” First, let’s put to rest the artificial distinction many people make between “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God.” This is not supported by the uses of these phrases. While Matthew is certainly the only New Testament author who uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven,” he also uses the phrase “kingdom of God” on occasion (6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43), with no apparent difference in meaning. This can be most clearly demonstrated from looking at Matt. 19:23, which uses “kingdom of heaven,” and Matt. 19:24, which uses “kingdom of God,” in exactly the same way. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to the explanation that Matthew preferred not to use the phrase “kingdom of God” out of respect for Jewish sensibilities with regard to the usage of the divine name or saying the word “God.” Second, what shall we make of this kingdom language? Reading through the Gospel of Matthew, I’m not sure it’s best to understand the phrase “kingdom of heaven” as referring to a place (primarily). The summary of Jesus’ (and John the Baptist’s) preaching given in Matt. 4:17 says that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” I’m not sure how to make sense of a place being “at hand” (however we are to take that phrase…imminent? on top of you? soon to come? in your midst? already here?). Even with the language of “entering” the kingdom, I’m not sure that this is best understood as speaking of a place. Truly, when I hear the word “kingdom,” my first thought is usually of a place, but, even in English, doesn’t it mean more than this? For the sake of space, let me just define how I think we need to understand kingdom language, generally. (I may defend this at another time.) When we read “kingdom,” “kingdom of heaven,” or “kingdom of God,” I think we need to think “reign of God,” or even “sovereignty of God,” in the literal sense of the word “sovereignty.” I think the term is referring to God’s rightful rulership over his creation. This becomes specifically tied conceptually to Messiahship, since the Messiah is the Davidic King. So, when the Gospels speak of the coming of the kingdom, I think they are specifically referring to the Messianic reign of Jesus, as Jesus comes into the world to take his rightful place as King. This will, ultimately, culminate in a place, so thinking of the kingdom as a place is not entirely out of line. But, I think the language is emphasizing the authority of the Sovereign over his place.

So, in light of this understanding of “kingdom of heaven,” let’s get back to the Beatitudes and this phrase common to the first and last Beatitude, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” What does it mean for the reign of God, the sovereign rule of God to belong to these blessed ones? I think we can understand this as saying that these are the rightful citizens under God’s rule who are to receive the benefits (blessings?) of the gracious sovereignty of King Jesus. Another important thing to note with regard to these two Beatitudes in contrast with the rest of them: the verb is in the present tense. “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” This is significant because all of the other Beatitudes are framed in the future tense. This might reflect what Jesus meant when he said, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Perhaps he was intending the ambiguity of the phrase translated “is at hand.” Perhaps he intended to indicate that the kingdom, in one sense, has already arrived with the coming of the Great King, Jesus, but in another sense the kingdom has not fully come, has not been consummated. Perhaps that is what creates the obvious tensions in some of the Beatitudes: blessed though poor in spirit, blessed though mourning, blessed though meek, blessed though persecuted for righteousness’ sake. The truth of these blessings demands an explanation, which Jesus gives to each. So, the kingdom is here, but not in its fullness. This is clearly taught throughout the New Testament and is part of the reason Jesus must come again.

So, perhaps we should understand the blessing of each Beatitude to be a true and genuine blessing for some right now, but should we then say that Jesus’ reasons for these blessings are set in the future, specifically in the time of the consummation of the kingdom, when Jesus returns to consummate the fullness of the Messianic kingdom, when all of the rebels will be cast out and the New Heavens and the New Earth become the dwelling place of God and his people together? Let’s see what this might look like.

5:4–Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Those who are mourning now are truly blessed. Why? They shall be fully comforted with a comfort that they are unable to experience right now, when Jesus comes again and establishes his kingdom in all its glory.
5:5–Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Those who are currently meek, not demanding their rights, not wielding power in order to exploit others or achieve selfish gain, are truly blessed. Why? They shall inherit the whole earth, which sounds very much like the transformed Abrahamic promise reflected in Rom. 4:13. But this inheritance will not be received until Jesus comes again and establishes his kingdom in all its glory.
5:6–Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Perhaps it would be better to translate “righteousness” as “justice” here (the Greek term can have either meaning depending on context). Thus, those who have a genuine longing for justice in this world are truly blessed in this Christlike desire. Why? They will see justice, finally, when Jesus comes again and establishes his kingdom in all its glory.
5:7–Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”
Those who treat others with mercy are truly blessed now. Why? They will receive mercy beyond imagining when Jesus comes again and establishes his kingdom in all its glory, which includes infinite undeserved kindness.
5:8–Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Those who are internally pure, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, cleansed from all unrighteousness are truly blessed now in their purity. Why? They look forward to actually seeing God when Jesus comes again and establishes his kingdom in all its glory.
5:9–Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Those who work hard for peace between people are truly blessed now. Why? They may have confidence that they will be recognized as those who act like their perfect Father who is a God of reconciliation. And this will take place in the grandest way, as Paul says, at “the revealing of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19) when Jesus comes again and establishes his kingdom in all its glory.

Now, as I’ve tried to sketch out what the individual Beatitudes are trying to communicate in light of the first and the last Beatitudes, we should take a look at those two Beatitudes also.

5:3–Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
5:10–Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Now, we should ask, “Since the reason for these Beatitudes are identical, should we understand the entire statements as parallel?  Should we interpret these two in light of one another? More particularly, should we equate the two Beatitudes themselves?” I think we can and perhaps should. I wonder if Matthew intends to help us see the more ambiguous characterization (in my estimation) “poor in spirit” in light of the more clear characterization “those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” So, could we say that those who are poor in spirit are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake? What does it mean to be “poor in spirit”? Perhaps Matthew would answer, “To be persecuted for righteousness’ sake.”

Or perhaps this leads to a broader conclusion. Perhaps we should understand the entire set of Beatitudes as describing what any one citizen under God’s sovereignty should be like. Thus, Jesus is highlighting the true blessedness of the citizen of his kingdom is found in knowing that one who can be characterized by these qualities is indeed a true citizen of his kingdom and has the great consummation of the kingdom to look ahead to, when every citizen of the kingdom will be able to receive the full benefits of citizenship.

Now, what shall we do with 5:11-12, which I separated from the rest of the passage? Jesus seems to turn to address directly his audience: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Now, let’s get his audience clearly in view. Looking back at 5:1-2, we read, “Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them.” It seems best to understand that Jesus is speaking directly to his disciples, though crowds were present as well, eavesdropping as it were. So, Jesus has just described what citizens of the kingdom of heaven ought to look like with eight Beatitudes, and then he turns to address his disciples directly, and he draws them in at the last Beatitude. In 5:10, he had spoken of persecution “for righteousness’ sake,” but in 5:11 he speaks of persecution “on my account.” To show the genuine parallel, let’s translate more literally: 5:10 speaks of persecution “on account of righteousness,” and 5:11 speaks of persecution “on account of me.” Thus, Jesus here more concretely identifies the concept of righteousness with himself. Instead of telling them immediately why they are truly blessed when this is their experience, he commands them to rejoice and celebrate! (As a side note, we actually see this happening in Acts 5:41.) Now, he tells them why they should rejoice and celebrate: “your reward in heaven is great.” It’s interesting that here he does not use the language of kingdom. Also, it’s important to point out that there is no verb in the Greek, so nothing at all is being intended about the time. He is simply characterizing a reward that belongs to them as great. Should we read “heaven” here as meaning the same thing as “kingdom of heaven” earlier? Perhaps Matthew is abbreviating the phrase. I’m really not sure at all. However, I think it’s safe to say that this reward would have been expected by his original hearers to be received in the future.

So, perhaps he has concisely summarized and applied to the disciples the Beatitudes he had just spoken recorded in Matt. 5:3-5:10, and maybe they would have heard it something like this: “Hey guys! You disciples, my followers! Everything I just said…I was talking about you! As you follow me, you will be characterized by those qualities, particularly by being the recipients of persecution. So, recognize how blessed you are as you experience those qualities in yourselves! Look forward to what I have for you when I consummate the kingdom! You are the true citizens of my kingdom! Celebrate your citizenship and look forward to the day when you will be able to enjoy all of the privileges of your citizenship!!” Believers from that day until Jesus returns should acknowledge are true blessed citizenship. Rejoice! Celebrate!

The Gospel according to “These Stones”

John the Baptist’s preaching/ministry is somewhat difficult to characterize. This, I suppose, is due mostly to the brevity of the narrative account of his ministry. This brevity is surely due to the Gospel writers’ desire to focus on Jesus. In reading through Matthew over the past couple of days, I think I have noticed an interesting association with the Old Testament that I haven’t seen before. The story of John the Baptist recorded in Matthew 3 has several affinities with the story of Joshua and the crossing of the Jordan River into the Promised Land in Joshua 1-4. The Gospel of Matthew as a whole is permeated with Old Testament quotations and allusions, but there also seems to be a significant number of more subtle associations with some Old Testament narratives that underlie Matthew’s thinking at a number of points.

Matthew starts out his narrative about John the Baptist by saying that he “came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 3:1-2). Then, Matthew says that Isaiah spoke of him when Isaiah said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight’” (Matt. 3:3, quoting Isa. 40:3). So, should we equate “preaching in the wilderness of Judea” with “crying in the wilderness”? I ask because, if we should, then we should also equate the message. Thus, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” is essentially the same message as “Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.” I don’t think this is a necessary conclusion to draw, but it may be what Matthew intends.

Now, the narrative begins to focus on what John the Baptist was up to. He was baptizing people in the Jordan River. Why the Jordan River as opposed to any other body of water in Israel? Perhaps it was to reflect something of what God did at the Jordan River in the Old Testament, particularly as narrated in the book of Joshua. Matthew says that the people were “going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:5-6). I find the fact that they were confessing their sins as they were being baptized very interesting. Baptism was a practice of many cultures of the ancient world, most regularly, it seems, for the purpose of purification. Jews, however, almost exclusively baptized only proselytes, Gentiles who wanted to participate in the worship of Yahweh and take part in the Jewish way of life. (This is often cited as a primary reason for the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ aversion to John’s baptism; they understood themselves to be the people of God who had no need of ritual purification by baptism.) So, what of the confession of sins here? It is certainly related to the idea of ritual purification. But, could it also be reflecting Josh. 3:5, where Joshua is said to command the people to consecrate/sanctify/set apart themselves? There is no explicit mention of confessing sins here, and the Hebrew term is usually used to indicate ritual/ceremonial purification, which involved various washings with water and sometimes was closely related to offering sacrifices. There is one place in the New Testament, that I can recall, that explicitly links confession of sin and cleansing: 1 Jn. 1:9. Nonetheless, I think John’s baptism, a cleansing ritual, is linked to the confession of sins, and perhaps this would have been understood by Matthew’s original readers as related to consecrating oneself in the Old Testament, particularly in Josh. 3:5. (This might be too subtle, but with the context of the Jordan River and the affiliation of baptism with cleansing, perhaps not.)

But there’s more. John then apparently perceives some enemies in the midst of the crowds (though, Luke’s account has him castigating the whole crowd, but this may simply reflect the fact that John announced his condemnation generally to the people, but he was directing his words at a particular group in the crowd, without identifying them by name). He chastises the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the crowd by calling them children of vipers! Matthew tells his readers that these Pharisees and Sadducees came out to “his baptism,” not to be baptized by John, as the general populace was characterized earlier. He asks them an apparently pertinent question: “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” This question leads me to ask what association does the coming wrath have with the imminent kingdom of heaven? Matthew tells us that John was preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” but John here asks them how they know that they need to be fleeing the coming wrath. Thus, should we conclude that repentance=fleeing the wrath to come? Whatever this means exactly, apparently it leads them to mutter amongst themselves that they are Abraham’s descendants, which I suppose meant to them that they had no wrath to fear. John pounces on this wrong-headed thinking and reminds them of the true nature of salvation as a gift from God that does not come by bloodline or by nationality. “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Matt. 3:9). Now, I want to ask, “To what stones is John referring?” I have always thought reading this passage and have heard it taught that John just looked around and saw some rocks on the ground and found a point worth making about God’s power. Thus, John’s point would be that God has the power to make rocks into the people of God. I’m not sure how well that would have answered their objection, and, at this point, I’m not sure they would have even thought in those kinds of categories, whereby God makes inanimate objects into believing human beings. So, is it possible that John was actually referring to some particular stones?

Recall Joshua 4. Joshua has just led the people of Israel across the Jordan River on dry ground, reminiscent of Moses leading the people of Israel across the Red Sea on dry ground. “When all the nation had finished passing over the Jordan, the LORD said to Joshua, ‘Take twelve men from the people, from each tribe a man, and command them, saying, “Take twelve stones from here out of the midst of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests’ feet stood firmly, and bring them over with you and lay them down in the place where you lodge tonight”‘” (Josh. 4:1-3). When Joshua commands the people to do this, he commands each man to pick up a stone “upon his shoulder.” I suspect these stones were not pebbles! Joshua explains to them that “these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever” (Josh. 3:7). This word for shoulder seems to require us to envision a man hoisting something up between his head and his shoulder, with the stone resting at his neck with his hand raised up to support it. These were large stones. These stones were then taken out of the Jordan River to Gilgal and set up as a monument. Now, there is a difficulty in the text of Joshua regarding these stones. Josh. 4:9 indicates that Joshua himself set up twelve stones as a monument, but it’s difficult to determine whether this is referring to Joshua’s setting up the monument at Gilgal or whether Joshua has taken up 12 more stones and set up an additional monument in the middle of the Jordan River. If you compare the ESV with the NIV at this point you can see the difference plainly, as the ESV translates verse 9 in such a way that makes it clear that Joshua has taken up 12 stones to set up a second monument, whereas the NIV translates verse 9 in such a way that makes it clear that the narrator is referring to when Joshua later sets up the monument at Gilgal. Both readings have difficulties and I’m not sure which one is best, though I think both are plausible for various reasons. But, at any rate, what needs to be highlighted here is the purpose of the monument (if there are two monuments, I think it is safe to say that both are built for the same purpose, though the purpose statement is only applied specifically to the monument at Gilgal). Joshua tells the people, “When your children ask their fathers in times to come, ‘What do these stones mean?’ then you shall let your children know, ‘Israel passed over this Jordan on dry ground.’ For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you passed over, as the LORD your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we passed over, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the LORD is mighty, that you may fear the LORD your God forever” (Josh. 4:21-24). It is important to note a couple of things about this. First, notice how they ought to relate this event back to the Exodus event, when God brought them out of Egypt in the first place. Second, notice how the monument is to function as a reminder to the people of how God has worked in their midst to bring them into the Promised Land, into their inheritance.

Now, what of John the Baptist and our text in Matthew 3? Could it be that John points these Pharisees and Sadducees to this monument, rather than just some rocks on the ground? (Of course, if there is substantial archaeological evidence that the pillar(s) from Joshua’s day had surely been destroyed by this time, this reference is then improbable.) If this is so, what is John actually affirming about God by saying that God can make from these stones children for Abraham? First, I’m sure that John is crushing the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ feelings of superiority or entitlement by which they had concluded that they have no need for cleansing or confession of sin because of their bloodline going back to Abraham. Secondly, I think it may be possible that John is doing this by showing something wonderful about how God creates a people for himself in the first place. This monument was meant to serve as a reminder of how God brought his chosen people out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. So, how does God make children for Abraham from this monument? I think John might be pointing to the message of the stones rather than to the stones themselves. He’s saying to these Jewish people, “Remember the story! Remember what these stones are supposed to teach you, to remind you of! Have you forgotten to ask your fathers what these stones mean?? Remember how God brought you out of Egypt! Remember how he graciously chose you and rescued you from darkness and slavery! That’s how God makes children for Abraham!”

God works the same way he did thousands of years ago when he chose Abraham and brought him up out of Ur of the Chaldeans in order to create a people to be his special treasure, who were to expand God’s rule over the entire world, to all tribes, nations, and languages. Hear the gospel of these stones! Remember the passover lamb that was slain, so that the blood would protect them from God’s destroyer, and so that God would take them out of Egypt the very next day! John the Baptist came preaching repentance and came baptizing to prepare for Yahweh’s coming in the person of Jesus the Messiah, bringing in the kingdom of heaven, or the reign of God. Remember the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Remember that it is God who brings people out of the kingdom of darkness and slavery to sin and into the kingdom of his beloved Son. The one who rescues us from Egypt is faithful to bring us home to the Promised Land, to dwell eternally with him.

Labels…

Labels have their place.

I suppose.

However, labels often can be divisive. Particularly theological labels. Instead of throwing around labels for ourselves, why don’t we spend more time talking about the issues that the labels are supposed to reflect?

For example, if I walked into a group of people and said, “I’m an egalitarian,” what would that accomplish? What would people hear me saying? Invariably, some of the people would not understand the term. Others would nod their heads in agreement, wanting to claim the same label for themselves. Others would squirm uncomfortably, having certain understandings and assumptions (some correct and some incorrect) about egalitarianism in general. If this were to occur, what would I want to be claiming for myself? I might wish merely to say, “I believe women can teach in the church.” If that’s all I were saying, then I’m not necessarily saying anything that a complementarian would not agree with. Or I might wish merely to say, “Men and women are equal in the sight of God.” But, as it is, many people would hear me saying all sorts of things. Some would hear me acknowledging that I think homosexual marriage is legitimate. Some would hear me saying that I think women ought to pastor and be elders of churches. Some would hear me saying that wives should rule the roost. Some would hear me making claims about my political leanings. And again, some would not hear me saying anything intelligible at all because they don’t understand the term. Let’s not pick on egalitarianism/complementarianism only. If I walked into a group of Christians and said, “I’m a Calvinist,” what would people hear? Some would hear me saying that I don’t think evangelism is necessary because God’s already chosen who will be saved, so it doesn’t matter what I do. Some would hear me saying that I think John Calvin is the greatest theologian in church history. Some would hear me saying that I don’t think people have free will. And again, some would not hear me saying anything intelligible at all because they don’t understand the term.

So, let’s stop throwing around labels so quickly. We are too quick to make assumptions about people and things based on labels that we claim. Let’s get this out in the open: labels claim certain things. Some of the things a label may claim we may not intend to claim for ourselves. Sometimes we take on labels because we’ve heard the opposite position and we aren’t convinced that it’s true. For example, a person may claim to be an egalitarian because they just don’t think the complementarian position is the best way to understand the relevant passages of Scripture that discuss (as the complementarian sees them) different roles for men and women as part of God’s created order. But this is no reason to claim, “I’m an egalitarian,” without examining the claims egalitarianism makes for itself as a summary of beliefs. Every label has underlying beliefs, interpretations of certain passages of Scripture, and commitments, and we ought to be more careful about claiming a label without investigating very carefully all of those beliefs, interpretations of certain passages of Scripture, and commitments to be sure that we want to buy “the whole package.” And let us certainly not run into the trap of saying, “The Bible just isn’t clear on this issue.” Now, I’ve heard both complementarians (though fewer) and egalitarians (many times) make this statement, and it boggles my mind! This is a slippery slope, indeed. Once we start saying that the Bible isn’t clear on certain issues that we have disagreements about, do we not run the risk of sacrificing more and more of the Bible’s teaching along the way, saying that things aren’t as clear as we thought they were? And, in the first place, if the Bible isn’t clear on this issue, then why claim either label?? If the Bible isn’t clear on this issue, then that ought to mean that it supports neither position, so why accept a label that you think has insufficient biblical support? But, I think this is typically a smoke-screen of sorts, to alleviate disagreement. And, while we’re on this issue, how can we say the Bible is unclear on an issue that it addresses in so many different passages? Maybe people who say this are only thinking of 1 Tim. 2:8-15 and 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (both of which, I agree, are very difficult passages, perhaps among the most difficult in the Bible). But what about Eph. 5:22-32; Col. 3:18-21; 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Gen. 1:28; 2:7-24; 3:1-24; etc.? These passages, among others, address the issues from a fundamental level, and they ought to give enough data that no one could claim that the Bible is not clear on this issue, and claimants of both labels ought to strive to understand each of these passages in their own respective contexts and conclude how he or she ought to live in light of what they claim/command. Furthermore, to suggest (particularly in an overtly condescending tone of voice) that “it’s just their interpretation” automatically (and arrogantly) discloses that you believe your interpretation is the superior interpretation…which you already made obvious by claiming the label and all that it claims!! This is no argument at all; again, it just sidelines the real issues, which are wrapped up in the passages of Scripture themselves! Can we actually discuss the different interpretations to see which one makes more sense of the data, which seems to be more faithful to what the text says?? By making this claim, you’ve made it seem like you do not, in fact, care about the issues; you’re just wrapped up in the label! But, I digress….

Labels can be useful. They do provide us with a concise way to refer to a larger body of beliefs. But we must be more careful about how we use labels. Particularly in public forums, we ought not simply throw out labels and make sweeping claims with them. Rather, let’s do the harder, more significant, more potentially unifying work of discussing together the issues behind the labels. So, let’s get together and talk about why a person might want to claim the label “egalitarian.” Let’s open the Bible to those passages of Scripture and see if the egalitarian position holds its water, justifies its claims. Let’s strive to be as consistent as possible in our theology. And let’s not discount another person’s thoughts because they claim a particular label. Let’s talk together and strive to conform our thinking to the teachings we find in the Bible, and if someone else has a better understanding of the data than we do, let’s be humble enough to acknowledge it and change our minds to conform to Scripture. So, we might have to repent (change our minds and our behavior) for some of the beliefs we’ve held and the labels we’ve claimed. Our theology informs and affects our behavior, even if we’re not aware of it, and we ought to live in light of our beliefs. But may our beliefs, and thus our behavior, be formed and shaped and directed by the Bible, God’s revelation of himself, pointing us to Jesus, crucified, buried, raised from the dead, and now seated at the right hand of God interceding for believers, and calling us to live as he lived on this earth (1 Jn. 2:6).