Sometimes we just need to rest and heal our tired and broken hearts.
Up until a couple of weeks ago I couldn’t have told you the last time I had dream while sleeping. I could have told you that it was sometime during seminary (most likely around 2016). I also could have told you that it was in response to a prayer. I had prayed earlier that day asking God why everything was so difficult right now. That night I dreamed that I exited the single student on campus housing parking lot, and turning my head right to check for cars I see a burned out Suburban still on fire. I get out of my car and start walking towards the Suburban. But as soon as I take a couple of steps I see a couple of mean Dobermans whose territory I apparently just encroached on. I freeze upon seeing them because I am expecting them to starting running towards me to attack. My expectations were realized. As soon as they started running the dream ended. When I woke up the next morning I heard from God: “You’re suffering because you decided to help.”
In a similar vein, it has been quite a while since I have had any dreams or ambitions in my waking life also. When I started seminary I had all sorts of ideas and goals and dreams that I wanted to pursue. Even by the end, despite all the things that had gone wrong, I still had dreams. But after graduating and moving back home and experiencing my health actually decline instead of recover my dreams died for me in my waking life also. I realized that I would not be able to pursue any of the opportunities I wanted to post-graduation because my health was in such bad shape and had actually gotten worse.
I think most people will be okay with the second paragraph. But I suspect some will have issues with the first one. The notion of God answering a prayer through a dream and then basically confirming it the next morning might seem too mystical or magical to be true. That is understandable. Unless you, like me, have had several such experiences like that I suspect that it will seem foreign to you. To be sure, such experiences aren’t common, or even normal. In fact I am fairly certain that there have been less than a dozen of these experiences in my entire life. But they do happen.
One thing I have learned to appreciate over these past few years is the link between the spiritual and the physical. I’ve come to realize that it is impossible to separate these two into neat little realms because they are linked together. I had no hope of ever appreciating anything spiritual in the depths of depression. Everything was bland, common, and meaningless. There was nothing magical or mystical about life. Even God Himself seemed distant and apathetic towards my situation; perhaps like a watchmaker who wound up my life and let it go never to check on it or intervene in it again. It has only been quite recently with the return of physical health that I have been able to once again recognize the spiritual and transcendent in everyday life.
In about a month we will celebrate what is perhaps the clearest example of the link between the physical and spiritual: the Incarnation. God will take on flesh and unite our corrupted human nature to his perfect divine nature. In my cynicism I hope and pray that for the first time in a long time I will be able to appreciate and meditate on this event once again.
Note: This article is adapted from lesson notes for a teaching I did on the Trinity a few years ago. The class was following McGrath’s Christian Theology, so some of this follows his thought, some of it is my own.
This article is longer than usual, so if you enjoyed reading even part of this this please leave a like. I am trying to determine what to focus on post-seminary now that my health is improving and your feedback is essential in making this decision. Thanks.
When we
try to describe the Trinity we have set before ourselves a difficult task
because attempting to describe the transcendent using human language is a bit
of an impossible task. One theologian has likened it as an attempt to pour the
ocean into a cup. This task is made even more difficult by the fact that we are
limited to what God has revealed about Himself, which is to say that we do not
know everything about God; we only know what God has revealed about Himself to
us. But nonetheless God has revealed Himself to us and we must try to grasp and
understand this revelation as best we can.
A common question that is asked these days regarding the
doctrine of the Trinity is its relevance to everyday life. Even lifelong,
committed Christians ask this question! The answer to this is that it matters
because it is how God has revealed Himself in history (some of which is
recorded in Scripture) and in our own lives. It matters because it corresponds
to reality. It matters because it’s true.
We were created by someone (the Father). We were redeemed by someone (the Son). We are being sanctified by someone (the Holy Spirit). But these are not three separate actions by three separate gods, but one unified action by one Triune God. It is in the doctrine of the Trinity that we find the cohesion necessary to make sense of reality. Without this doctrine Christianity becomes an incoherent mess.
We must
understand that this is not only what Scripture reveals to us, but also that
beneath the surface of the complexities of the history of salvation and our own human experience lies one God
and one God only. There are not multiple gods involved in the creation and redemption of humanity. There is only one God, and
there is only way to Him.
The
Basics
There
are two ways to approach describing the Trinity: economically or immanently.
When we describe the Trinity economically we are describing how God has made
Himself known in redeeming humanity in history.
An example of this can be found in Irenaeus:
“God the Father uncreated, who is uncontained, invisible, one God, creator of the universe; this is the first article of our faith … And the Word of God, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ … who, in the fullness of time in order to gather all things to himself, he became a human being amongst human beings, capable of being seen and touched, to destroy death, bring life, and restore fellowship between God and humanity. And the Holy Spirit … who, in the fullness of time was poured out in a new way on our human nature in order to renew humanity throughout the world in the sight of God.” – Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 1.6.
Or in
other words. God the Father created the universe; God the Son became incarnate and redeemed humanity;
and God the Holy Spirit indwells, sustains, and
sanctifies Christians as they follow Christ.
When we
approach the Trinity immanently (also called “essentially”) we are attempting
to describe God as He is in Himself, that is, outside of the limiting
conditions of time and space. A typical way to describe the Trinity in this
manner is: There is one God comprised of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. These three are all equal and all are God, but they are also separate
from each other.
This approach is also found in the Athanasian Creed (c. 500):
“Now this is the catholic faith, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance. For the Father’s person is one, the Son’s another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal.”
Visually the immanent approach to describing God can be represented like this:
This doctrine is also reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty…and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one substance with the Father…and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son) who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified…”
When we attempt to describe the Trinity we should not choose one approach or the other because God has revealed Himself in both ways and both approaches are necessary.
These formulations were developed in response to various heresies and challenges that arose during the first centuries of the Church. They made sense of the Biblical data and put it into a format that was theologically coherent. So these traditional formulations of the Trinity are not something you want to depart from because you will probably very likely open the door to theological errors. To be sure there are other theological topics where it is perfectly fine to develop your own doctrine or formulation, but the Trinity isn’t one of them.
If you
wish to know more about the Biblical data as well so how this came to be
formulated as such continue reading.
Old
Testament
If we
are going to claim that Christ and Christianity are the fulfillment of the
Messiah and His Kingdom promised in the Old Testament, then we must show that
there is continuity between it and the New Testament. The goal here is not to
prove the formulation of the previous section, but simply to show that the Old
Testament reveals a single God, but also plurality within that single God.
A
common argument for the Trinity from the Old Testament is to appeal to
Deuteronomy 6.4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord
our God, the Lord is one” and say
that “one” (echad) denotes composite oneness, and so
the Trinity is compatible with the Old Testament. The word (yachid) would have more forcefully
excluded the possibility of plurality within God and is not used to describe
divine oneness.
This is not an altogether bad argument. Yachid is
only used 12 times in the Old Testament and in those uses does mean “only, only
one, solitary” and it is indeed never used to describe God. However, echad is used over 900 times in the Old
Testament and has a wide range of possible meanings, including “only” (see
Joshua 22.20; 1 Kings 4.19; Song of Songs 6.9; Zechariah 14.9). Furthermore,
the clause in Deuteronomy 6.4 has no verb in Hebrew, which leaves us with at
least 5 translation options:
“Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one.”
“Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.”
“Yahweh our God is one Yahweh.”
“Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone.”
“Our one God is Yahweh, Yahweh.”
So the argument is a plausible one, but due to the wide range of possible
meanings with echad and the Hebrew syntax it is not the best.
What is unquestionably clear though from this text is that
there is only one God: Yahweh.
What is also clear in the Old Testament is that there are
multiple divine agents portrayed as coming from God, and thus being dependent
on Him, but also as having an independent existence.
Wisdom
Sometimes in the Old Testament “wisdom” simply refers to the
learned skill of human beings living in accordance with God’s commandments.
Sometimes it refers to a primary attribute of God. But sometimes it is
portrayed as a person with an existence apart from, yet dependent upon God.
This independent, yet dependent existence is most evident in Proverbs 8.1-31,
especially in verses 22-23:
“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.” (See also Psalm 104.24; Proverbs 3.19; Jeremiah 10.12)
In the New Testament this personification is applied to
Christ by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1.24:
“but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (See also 1 Corinthians 1.30; Colossians 2.3)
Most church fathers also interpret the Wisdom in Proverbs 8
to refer to Christ, (see Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 61.129; Tertullian, Against Praxeas,
6; Origen, On First Principles, 1.2.1– 5, 8, 12), but some interpret it
to refer to the Holy Spirit (e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.1,
3).
The Word
of the Lord
The word of
the Lord refers to God’s speech going out into the creation to accomplish His
will. Sometimes this is to bring guidance, judgment, and salvation as in Isaiah
55.10-11:
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” (See also Psalm 119.89; 147.15-20).
Or to create the universe as in Genesis 1 and Psalm 33.6, 9:
“By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host…
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.”
The Spirit of the Lord
The spirit of the Lord refers to God’s presence and power
within the creation as seen in Psalm 139.7-10:
“Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.”
It gives life, order, and beauty to creation (Genesis 1.2;
Job 33.4; Psalm 104.30); will be present in the expected Messiah (Isaiah
42.1-3); and is portrayed as being the agent of a new creation (Ezekiel
36.26-27; 37.1-14). Thus it shows a strong correspondence with the New
Testament and a Christian theology of the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion from the Old Testament
In the Old Testament then we see that there is only one God
(Deuteronomy 6.4) and that there are multiple divine entities coming from that
one God.
New Testament
There are 2 primary Trinitarian texts in the New Testament:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” –
Matthew 28.19
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God
and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” – 2 Corinthians
13.14
However, there are at least 115 more passages in which deity
is attributed to at least one of the members of the Trinity. Some of these are
discussed below.
Deity of the Father
The deity of the Father isn’t in dispute, but nevertheless it
is affirmed in the New Testament in numerous places, some of which include:
John 20.17; Romans 1.7; 1 Corinthians 1.3, 8.6, 15.24; 2 Corinthians 1.2-3,
11.31; Galatians 1.1, 3, 4; Ephesians 1.2-3, 17; Philippians 1.2, 2.11;
Colossians 1.2-3, 3.17; James 1.27; 1 Peter 1.2-3; 2 Peter 1.17; 2 John 3; Jude
1.
Deity of Jesus
There are numerous passages that attribute deity to Jesus,
but among the most important are what are called the “high Christological passages.” They include John 1.1-18;
Romans 1.2-5; Philippians 2.6-11; Colossians 1.15-23; Hebrews 1; 1 John 1.1-3.
Deity of the Holy Spirit
The deity of the Holy Spirit is not as obvious as that of the
Father and the Son, and so some explanation of the various passages will be
necessary.
Sometimes the Holy Spirit is used interchangeably with God as in Acts 5.3-4 where in v.3 Peter rebukes Ananias and said he has lied to the Holy Spirit, and then in v.4 says he has lied to God. Or again in Acts 28.25-27 where Paul says the Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah and then quotes Isaiah 6.9-10, but Isaiah speaks after hearing “the Lord” (adonai). Or yet again in Hebrews 10.15-17 where the author says “The Holy Spirit also bears witness to us…” and then quotes Jeremiah 31.33-34, but Jeremiah declares the words of Yahweh, thus equating the Holy Spirit with Yahweh.
The Holy Spirit possesses the attributes of God, such as: knowing the thoughts of God (1 Corinthians 2.10-11; John 16.13).
The Holy Spirit possesses the power of God. This can be seen in the virgin birth (Luke 1.35); Paul’s ministry accomplishments (Romans 15.19); convicting the world (John 16.8-11); and spiritual regeneration (John 3.5-8; Titus 3.5), a power which Jesus said belongs to God (Matthew 19.16-26).
The Holy Spirit is eternal like the Father and the Son (Hebrews 9.14).
The Holy Spirit is associated with the Father and the Son as an equal in Matthew 28.19 and 2 Corinthians 13.14 (see above).
Conclusion from the New Testament
The result of all these verses is the same as the Old
Testament: one God, but multiple divine entities coming from that one God.
Patristic Development
It was during the Patristic period (roughly from 100A.D.-
600A.D.) that the doctrine of the Trinity we know today came about (see the
beginning of this article). As should be clear from the Biblical data above the
theologians of this period were not developing the doctrine in the sense of
inventing something new, but were developing in the sense of putting into a
clear and precise model how God revealed Himself both in Scripture and in
reality.
One of the most formative and influential theologians in
Western Christianity is Tertullian, and he is likely responsible for the
development of the distinctive Trinitarian terminology we use today. First, he
invented the term Trinity (Trinitas). Second, he used the term Person (Persona)
to translate the Greek hypostasis (usually translated “substance” or “essence”). Scholars debate what
Tertullian meant by this term. The Greek term refers to the basic nature or
structure of an entity, but the Latin (Persona) literally means “a
mask,” such as one worn by an actor in a Roman drama. It is possible by using
this term that Tertullian wanted his readers to understand the idea of “one substance three persons” to mean that the one God
played three distinct yet related roles in the great drama of human redemption. Third, he used the term Substance (Substantia) to express the fundamental
unity within God, that is, what the members of the Trinity have in common.
By the second half of the fourth century it had been
concluded that the Father and Son were of one substance,
thus condemning the Arian view as heresy and establishing a consensus within
the church (although Arianism itself didn’t go away and still remains today,
e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses). What was not settled however is the relationship
between the Father and the Spirit. Western theology has tended to begin from
and emphasize the unity of God, but Eastern theology (found in the Eastern
Orthodox churches, e.g. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc) has tended to
emphasize the distinct individuality of the three persons. The Eastern approach
could logically lead to three independent beings doing quite different things,
but two later developments: perichoresis and appropriation excluded this possibility.
An Aside
These two different tendencies were bound to conflict and eventually exploded in 1054 with the Western church and Eastern church anathematizing one another over the addition of “and the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed. Originally the Nicene Creed said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, but later the West added “and the Son” so that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. For the West this didn’t cause much of a problem theologically due to its emphasis on the unity of God. However, this was (and remains) a huge problem for the East because in order to safeguard the unity of God against their emphasis on the distinctness of the three persons they stress that both the Son and the Spirit proceed from the Father, thus the unity is found in the Father, who is the “Fountainhead of Divinity.” So in their view if you have the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son you have denigrated the Spirit and have created two Gods (the Father and the Son) thus destroying the unity and equality between the persons of the Trinity.
Perichoresis and Appropriation
The term perichoresis is often found as “mutual interpenetration” in English. It refers to the mutual indwelling of the members of the Trinity in one another, but still maintains the individuality of each of them. Logically following from this idea is appropriation, which responds to the modalist heresy. Modalism argued that at different points in the redemption of humanity God existed in different “modes” of being. So at one point God was Father and created the world, and then at another God was Son and redeemed it. Against this appropriation insists that the works of the Trinity are a unity; whatever one does, the other two members do as well, a logical extension of their mutual indwelling. A helpful image for grasping these two concepts might be a dance, where each member maintains their individuality, but is involved in whatever another member does.
Conclusion
Hopefully this has been helpful in not only understanding the essential basics of the Trinity, but also in understanding how the doctrine has come to be articulated as such and why we should adhere to the traditional formulations for this doctrine.
If you enjoyed reading this please leave a like. I am trying to determine what to focus on post-seminary now that my health is improving and your feedback is essential in making this decision. Thanks.
As I remarked in a previous post American Christianity tends to avoid wrestling with the Wisdom literature in the Old Testament (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs). These books challenge us to think and contemplate the complexities of the world God created, and the truths presented in them are sometimes uncomfortable and hard to accept. However, this is not the only element of Christianity that America has forgotten; we have also forgotten that Christianity is a contest.
The Christian life is a contest; a struggle; a fight; a battle. But it is not one that you can pause or put on hold or retreat from; it continues on whether you want it to or not. And not only are we unable to withdraw from this battle, it also demands all our energy in order to win. Consider the following saying from Jesus:
He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ (Luke 13.22-25, ESV)
There are two things that are opposed to each other in this passage: striving and seeking. Notice above that it is those who strive that enter through the narrow door, while those who seek do not. If we are going to be saved we must strive, we must struggle, we must fight our way through the door. If we do not fight or struggle we will not make it through the door and we will not be saved. Seeking will not get us through the door; in this passage it is passivity, laziness, indolence, and evidence of uncertainty regarding Jesus as the only way to salvation. Seeking here is apathy regarding salvation. It is double-mindedness. It is wanting to simultaneously be friends with God and friends with the world, something which is impossible (e.g. James 4.4: “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God”).
Now, what I am referring to here is not salvation by works. Scripture is very clear on this matter. No, the striving I am referring to here is done by the Holy Spirit working in us; it is not done in our power.
Consider the Parable of the Sower [Matthew 13.1-23; Mark 4.1-20; Luke 8.4-15] in this regard: the seed that was sown is the word of God and the 4 soils are various types of human hearts. The path represents those who reject the Gospel, and so nothing grows in them. The seed that was sown on rocky ground and among thorns represents those who did believe the Gospel initially, but they were either afraid of persecution or loved wealth, fame, honor, etc more than God. So while something initially grew in them it amounted to nothing in the end. The seed that was sown on good soil represents those who believe the Gospel wholeheartedly and do not love anything more than God. So what grows in them produces fruit, unlike the other 3 soils. But where did the growth of the seed in this final group come from? It came from their belief in the Gospel! Not from anything they did!
So why do we need to fight and struggle then if we are not saved by works? Because God does not compel us to love Him and we must love God more than anything else to be saved. We are constantly being attacked and tempted by Satan every day, and if we love something more than God these attacks will eventually succeed and we will show that we are not good soil and thus not saved. Our fight then is within our own heart. To be constantly examining it for things that threaten to steal our love for God. To be constantly orienting it towards God through daily prayer and meditation on Scripture.
I originally wrote this post in the middle of my last semester in seminary (March 2018). At that time I considered things to be bad spiritually, but I was expecting them to get better. I only had 7 hours that semester and had quit my job, so I had much less to do than previous semesters. Graduation was not far off and I was looking forward to being done with my studies and finally getting some rest. I even had a ministry opportunity I was looking forward to pursuing post graduation. If you’ve read some of my recent posts though about the various health issues I’ve faced recently you know that things did not get better. In fact they went from bad to worse and have only recently started to improve (and I hope and pray that they stay on this trajectory).
In light of my experiences since writing this originally I’ll add the following comment in closing: appearances can be deceiving. It doesn’t matter how distant or absent God seems from a situation. It doesn’t matter how beat up or defeated you feel. It doesn’t matter if you feel God doesn’t love you or has abandoned you. It doesn’t matter if you’ve given up on praying or Scripture reading or any other sort of spiritual discipline or exercise. It doesn’t matter if songs about God’s goodness make you angry.
What matters is what you believe about God. Do you believe in the Father, maker of heaven and earth? In Jesus Christ his only son who took on flesh and was crucified and raised on the third day for our salvation? In the Holy Spirit who indwells everyone who believes and trusts in Jesus? If you believe these things you have not lost the fight, but are still very much in it. God is with us, even when it doesn’t feel like it.
If you enjoyed reading this post please like and/or share it. I am trying to decide what to focus on post seminary now that my health is returning and your feedback on my writing is an important part of this decision.
I had a dog growing up. I envied him most of the time. Why? He was always so happy. It didn’t matter what was going on he was always happy. Nothing seemed to get him down. Ever. His happiness was in stark contrast to my own unhappiness and I thought about this contrast on many occasions. Eventually I came to realize that the essential element to his happiness was his trust in me. He knew I would pet him, feed him, shelter him, love him. He never doubted or worried that these would be provided for him, he just knew that they would be there. It is this attitude of trust that enabled him to simply be who God made him to be, a dog. I noticed that a similar attitude prevailed amongst the squirrels that played in the tree outside my house as well. They too didn’t worry about their needs, they just knew that they would be provided for, and because they knew this they were able to be who God made them to be, squirrels.
To my knowledge we are the only one of God’s creatures in whom this attitude of trust for provision of our needs does not prevail. So we build businesses and careers. Why? To make money. Why? To provide for our needs. For our family’s needs. How do we go about building these? We take from others. We take fathers from their sons and mothers from their daughters. We take them and stick them in cubicles and behind desks and phones where all their talent and energy is spent earning a paycheck. And what have we gained by devoting ourselves to these paychecks? For all the wealth and advancements and ‘quality of life’ improvements we may have gained all the ills that have plagued every society in human history still continue unabated. We still kill one another, steal from one another, abuse one another, and do numerous other heinous things to one another. Not only do these problems continue, but so does the problem of death; we will all inevitably die.
The most significant result of us sacrificing ourselves to our paychecks is not prosperity, but rather that we no longer have any idea who we are or what we should be doing. We no longer realize how strange of a world we live in. A world in which water falls from the sky in order to bring our food out of the dirt. A world in which every species dies, but yet the species continues to live. A world which is constantly in motion spinning around its axis while rotating around the sun suspended in space, but yet never seems (from our perspective) to move.
Why do we not hear what the world is saying to us? Why do we simply acknowledge its workings as facts and think nothing further of them? We do not hear because we, even us who consider ourselves Christians, have bought into the lie which teaches that the world is a neutral zone in which god or religion, any god or religion, is optional.
How should we respond to this as Christians? There are perhaps several ways, but I think the essential element is to understand and remember Psalm 19. The first part of the psalm begins by praising God for his creation:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
It is the pslamist’s reflection upon God’s creation which prompts his praise of God’s law, precepts, and commandments:
7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
Why was he prompted to praise God for His law, precepts, and commandments? Because when he reflected on the creation around him he saw glory of God and because he saw the glory of God he saw who he really was, a sinful and evil person who was unworthy to dwell with God, which prompts his conclusion:
12 Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
13 Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
A similar response is made by the prophet Isaiah, who also saw that he was sinful and evil after seeing the glory of God:
And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” – Isaiah 6.5 ESV
We see the same world that the psalmist saw, but yet we do not repeat his words, nor the words of the prophet Isaiah. Why?
Because the heavens do not declare the glory of God to us. We do not listen to their speech or hear their voice. We ignore it and resist it. In fact we go so far as to erase them from our mind by lighting up the night sky so as not to see the stars and paving all our cities with concrete, brick, and steel. Because if we listened to them their speech would be unbearable to us. We would realize that all our efforts to provide for ourselves have been one huge act of rebellion against God. And we would realize that there is no way to stop this rebellion since it is the result of the sin which is inherit in everyone.
What is it then that we should hear from the heavens and creation? What are they telling us? When Solomon dedicated the temple he had built to the LORD the glory of the LORD came and filled it [1 Kings 8.10-11]. The heavens and creation then, by declaring the glory of the LORD are telling us that the entire earth is His temple. Right now you and I are in God’s temple and he is in the midst of us. When we become aware of God’s presence we recognize how evil we truly are.
If the world truly declared the glory of God to us [Ps. 19.1] we would understand why the remainder of the Psalm praises the law of the LORD and finishes with:
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.
One of the things that Qohelet realizes in Ecclesiastes is that there are many things that he does not have control over that can and/or will destroy everything he has worked so hard to accomplish. He concludes that God has made things this way, so follow God. I think we would do well to do the same. God will provide for us and we will be who He made us to be. We are of more value than many sparrows.
If you enjoyed this post please click “Like” and/or leave a comment. Your feedback is important to me as I decide what to focus on post-seminary now that my health is recovering and I get closer and closer to normal.
Note: I am currently in the process of going through my drafts and cleaning up and publishing the good ones I have in there. This post was started in 2015 and was just finished today.
I was struck by the imagery of the appointed readings for Morning Prayer on Thursday last week. The First Lesson was from Ezekiel 37.1-14. In this passage Ezekiel is in the Valley of Dry Bones, surrounded by the result of death, and God promises the prophet that He will reverse this curse:
“Therefore prophesy, and tell them, ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: Look, I am about to open your graves and will raise you from your graves, my people. I will bring you to the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and raise you from your graves, my people. I will place my breath in you and you will live; I will give you rest in your own land. Then you will know that I am the LORD—I have spoken and I will act, declares the LORD.’ ” – Ezekiel 37.12-14
The eventual end of every person is to die, this is inevitable and unavoidable. Primarily we conceive of death as a physical occurrence. However, there is also a spiritual dimension to death, a dimension which can perhaps simply be described as not believing and trusting in Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection and thus not being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Or in other words, not being a true Christian.
It is this view of death, as both physical and spiritual, that is in view in Ezekiel’s prophecy. Ezekiel was a prophet to Israel while they were in exile in Babylon. Not only had many Israelites been killed physically as a result of the Babylonian conquest, but God had used Babylon to judge Israel because she was dead spiritually as well. She had abandoned God for other false gods and refused to repent and return.
This is not merely a description of a nation that lived over 2,000 years ago however. It is a description of all humanity since the Fall. We all die physically because we are all dead spiritually. Our physical reality is indicative of our natural spiritual state.
The Second Lesson was from Philippians 3.7-21. In the preceding verses (3.1-6) Paul describes his human credentials and says that no one has better spiritual credentials from a human standpoint than he does. But he regards these as liabilities, saying:
But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things… Philippians 3.7-8a
Why are these liabilities though? Because they blind us to our true spiritual state. We focus on our false selves, what we do well, our gifts, our accomplishments, our goals, our greatness. We do not focus on our true selves, our vileness, our frailty, our death. God came to us out of love for us, and we hated Him and executed Him in an attempt to hide our own evil from ourselves. Being alone with our true selves is a very scary thing.
Both of these Lessons occurred during what modern Christianese would call a “wilderness experience” or a “desert experience,” which basically refers to a period of time in which God feels absent or things are not working out well for some reason. In the case of Ezekiel the Israelites were in exile in Babylon. In the case of Paul he was writing to the Philippians from prison. In both of these cases things are not working out well and to the people directly involved it seemed as though God was absent for some reason, at least initially. But in reality God wasn’t absent from either of these situations. In reality God had brought them into the wilderness so that there was nothing around to distract them from their true selves and they were forced to confront what they found there. Ultimately they each responded differently.
The Israelites, as a nation, failed (or refused) to recognize the evil and vileness that was in their hearts. Instead their basic thought process seems to have been: “God exiled us because we failed to keep the Law and follow all its rules, so now we are going to be extra sure to keep the Law and all its rules so that God does not punish us again.” Their concern was not turning from sin, but avoiding punishment. They did not love God. They only loved themselves. They were not concerned with God wanted. They were only concerned with what they wanted and their own comfort.
Paul on the other hand recognized the evil in himself and recognized that only God could cure the sin that lived within it (e.g. Romans 7.21-25, 1Corinthians 15.9, 1Timothy 1.15). He was not concerned with avoiding punishment. He was concerned with loving God and pursuing Him more and more. In fact if you continue reading in Philippians you read:
My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained this—that is, I have not already been perfected—but I strive to lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus also laid hold of me. – Philippians 3.10-12
Paul is not concerned for his own comfort, but only for being as much like Christ as possible. He truly repents of his old ways and pursues the way of Christ. He is not concerned with his external status or situation, but only with being holy as Christ is holy.
I believe that God uses the wilderness experiences of our lives, those times when something tragic or unexpected happens and it seems like God is absent, to expose what is in our hearts and force us to confront it. When we are brought to this point we have two choices: 1) choose death and refuse to recognize the evil and sin in us, or 2) choose life and truly repent and follow Christ. The first choice is extremely tempting because when we’re in a wilderness experience I think our main concern is getting out of the wilderness and back to the way things used to be, especially if we were happy and things were going good. The problem with this choice though is that it ignores our spiritual state and condition and prioritizes our own comfort. To be sure, it isn’t that wanting to get back to “normal” is a bad thing, because it isn’t. The problem is, I think, when we allow ourselves to get so focused on getting back to normal that we don’t take any time at all to examine what is going in our hearts during this time.
In my own experience I’ve found that I usually don’t understand or know what was going on in my heart during a wilderness experience until after I have gotten through it and got back to something close to normal. Once I’m in better circumstances I’ve found that I am in a much better place to reflect and examine the experience than when I am still in the experience. There are far too many emotions in play during the experience that it really prevents me from seeing things accurately. I think it is when we are on the other side of a wilderness experience that the choice between the way of death and the way of life presents itself to us. We can choose death and not examine our hearts, or we can choose life and examine our hearts and ask God to help us repent of whatever evil was revealed to us in it. Even if in the past we’ve chosen death and refused to acknowledge whatever sin(s) God brought to light there is still time to choose to acknowledge them and follow Christ.
I do not believe a perspective like Paul’s, who values Christ more than anything, even physical comfort comes easily. Following God and being obedient to what He called you to do, ending up in prison, and still being joyful and eager to serve Him isn’t something that just happens. It is born from coming face to face with the evil in your own heart and asking God to help take it away. And it is when all the distractions are taken away, our talents, our skills, our accomplishments, our greatness, that we are able to come face to face with our own sinfulness.
It is in the wilderness that God does his best work in us. It can be a very painful work. But if we cooperate and don’t fight him we will be closer to Him than we were before. Closer to being holy as he is holy. We will not die, but live eternally.
The story of Lisa (and Michael) Gungor recently came to my attention (I’ve been kind of busy the past 6 years or so with seminary). There’s a lot that I suppose could be commented on regarding her story, but there was one aspect in particular that stood out to me: the shutting down of her questions:
“We went to this very wild, charismatic church, and the church was exciting and the way of Jesus was revolutionary to me. And I had little questions, but you weren’t really allowed to ask them.”
Here’s the deal: questions don’t indicate doubt, they indicate curiosity and engagement. Questions, assuming they’re honest, come about as a result of being engaged in thinking about something. If you are teaching a topic and someone asks a question regarding it it means that they are engaged and care about what you are saying! It means that they have been following and processing what you are saying and are trying to understand it better. Perhaps something is completely new to them. Perhaps it conflicts (or seems to conflict) with what they already know. Perhaps they find the topic interesting or intriguing and want to know more about it. So for a child, who is growing up in church, to be asking questions about the faith is a good thing and something that should be welcomed!
Unfortunately though that’s not what happened in Lisa’s case. Questions were apparently viewed as doubt and doubt “was the opposition of faith.” The problem with this logic is, as I’ve tried to show above, that questions do not indicate doubt, but engagement and curiosity! When you are apathetic and not engaged by a topic is when you fail to be curious about it and do not ask questions regarding it. Questions are good, and should be asked.
The results of their curiosity being shutdown were not good. The questions didn’t go away. They kept gnawing away at both of them until they found answers to them. That is after all the only way to get rid of a question: answer it.
I don’t know what their exact questions were since they don’t mention them specifically in the article. However, the “problem” of evil seems to have been one of them given the mentioning of their experience from their visit at Auschwitz and Lisa’s problem with reading the Old Testament. This is a very good question! In fact, this question is only a “problem” within the Judaeo-Christian worldview. After all, if God is good and created everything, then why does evil exist? Why the horrors of Auschwitz? Why modern day genocides? Why senseless murders?
These are not new questions. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and so have these questions. The ultimate answer (because there is quite a bit to discuss regarding this issue) to the “problem” of evil is that God allows it and uses it to accomplish His purposes, one of which is to bring glory to Himself. Yes, I am quite sure that God could have accomplished His purposes and glorified Himself through some other means, but He didn’t and in the end we have to discuss what God actually did, not what He might have done or could have done.
Issues with the Old Testament are also not new. In fact they are so old that the New Testament even deals with some of them! Specifically, that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law because through their union with Christ they died to the Law because Christ did what the Law could not: free us from sin! (see Romans 6). In Galatians 3 also Paul argues that people have always been justified by faith, not by doing the Law. He goes on to say that the Law was just a tutor whose purpose was to lead us to Christ, but now that Christ has come there is no longer any need for a tutor.
Obviously there is much more that can (and should) be discussed regarding these two questions. My point here is simply to show that questions are not evidence of doubt or a lack of faith. Questions are evidence of curiosity. They are evidence that someone is thinking about the faith and wanting to learn more about it, or reconcile things that don’t make sense. Honest questions should be engaged with honesty and compassion. The goal of engaging these questions is not to win an argument or convince someone of our view of things, but to win the person. To communicate to them that we understand where the question is coming from and why it is an issue for them. To communicate to them that we love them and are concerned about them. They could be motivated by genuine curiosity, or they could be motivated by pain, but we will never know until we engage them.
But whatever you do, don’t shut questions down or consider them to be a lack of faith. Especially if they’re coming from children. The questions aren’t going to go away. The person asking them will eventually answer them, and part of that answer will be: “God doesn’t love me.” And nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe that God has created the world in such a way that we are constantly being taught about Him by it. Unfortunately these days we live in forests of concrete and steel, rather than of trees and plants and so I think we miss many of these opportunities for creation to teach us.
Ancient people however were very much in contact with the natural world that God created and were thus able to be taught by it. I suspect then that the reason agrarian imagery is used frequently in the Bible is not only because society at the time was agrarian and such images would have been easily understood, but also because it is accurate.
Think about it for a minute. When you plant something either it prospers and grows and produces something good, or it doesn’t grow or produces something rotten; there is no intermediate state. This is really the truth illustrated by the parable of the four soils: in the first three the seed, the word of God, doesn’t really produce anything, but it does in the fourth because they understood and believed the word of God. So, either we are growing spiritually, or we are dying spiritually; there is no intermediate state.
Another agrarian image frequently used to illustrate the spiritual condition of people are trees. If a tree is producing good fruit, or leaves or flowers you know that the tree is healthy and growing. But if a tree is producing bad fruit, or no leaves or no flowers you know that the tree is unhealthy and dying. So I don’t think it is surprising then that Jesus used tree imagery to describe people:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
— Matthew 7:15–20 (ESV)
But what is good fruit? And what is bad fruit? In Paul’s letter to the Galatians we find out that what is good fruit and what is bad fruit are the types of actions and attitudes in our lives. The bad fruit produced by someone who is spiritually diseased or unhealthy is:
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
— Galatians 5:19–21 (ESV)
But the good fruit produced by someone who is spiritually healthy is:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
— Galatians 5:22–23 (ESV)
The good fruit comes because:
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
— Galatians 5:24 (ESV)
Regardless of where someone is spiritually, whether they are healthy and producing good fruit or diseased and producing bad fruit, both need to be nourished by the living waters found in Christ:
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ ” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
— John 7:37–39 (ESV)
The spiritually diseased person becomes healthy and begins to grow and produce good fruit. And the spiritually healthy person continues to be healthy and grow and produce good fruit. Those who are nourished by the living waters in Christ will endure whatever trials or hardships come their way:
“Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose trust is the LORD.
He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”
— Jeremiah 17:7–8 (ESV)
So next time you see a healthy tree (the bigger the better) perhaps take the time to say a quick prayer and ask God to make you like it, rather than simply passing on by. Just as many animals benefit from a healthy tree, either by finding food, shelter, or whatever, so will many people benefit from you being spiritually healthy. They will benefit from your love for others; your peace in the midst of hardships; your patience with their faults. We need to produce this sort of fruit in our lives. Not for our own personal benefit, but for the benefit of others.
Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and all that is within me,
bless his holy name!
Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity,
who heals all your diseases,
Ps 103:1–3 [ESV]
I’ve had the opportunity this semester to read several of Jonathan Edwards’ works. One of the things that has stood out to me regarding his theology is an emphasis on the sinfulness of humanity and the punishment we deserve as a result of it. While I by no means disagree with this, I do feel that is unbalanced; Sin is not just an act we commit that deserves punishment, it is also a disease inherent to human nature that must cured. This imbalance, in my opinion, seems to have continued in much of American theology to the present day.
Commenting on Psalm 103.3 Augustine says,
Behold His rewards. What, save punishment, was due unto the sinner? What was due to the blasphemer, but the hell of burning fire? He gave not these rewards: that thou mayest not shudder with dread: and without love fear Him.… But thou art a sinner. Turn again, and receive these His rewards: He “forgiveth all thy sin.” … Yet even after remission of sins the soul herself is shaken by certain passions; still is she amid the dangers of temptation, still is she pleased with certain suggestions; with some she is not pleased, and sometimes she consenteth unto some of those with which she is pleased: she is taken. This is infirmity: but He “healeth all thine infirmities.” All thine infirmities shall be healed: fear not. They are great, thou wilt say: but the Physician is greater. No infirmity cometh before the Almighty Physician as incurable: only suffer thou thyself to be healed: repel not His hands; He knoweth how to deal with thee. Be not only pleased when He cherisheth thee, but also bear with Him when He useth the knife: bear the pain of the remedy, reflecting on thy future health.… Thou dost not endure in uncertainty: He who promised thee health, cannot be deceived. The physician is often deceived: and promiseth health in the human body. Why is he deceived? Because he is not healing his own creature. God made thy body, God made thy soul. He knoweth how to restore what He hath made, He knoweth how to fashion again what He hath already fashioned: do thou only be patient beneath the Physician’s hands: for He hateth one who rejects His hands.
— Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1.8, Ps 103.4
I believe that humanity lives in 1 of 2 states: either they are in Christ and have remission [released from the penalty] of sin or they are not in Christ [i.e. they are in Sin] and do not have remission of sin. No one is naturally in Christ, and so they must be redeemed from Sin by Christ after which they are then in Christ [Rom 3.24]. Once in Christ they are no longer subject to the punishment their sin deserves, but their soul is still just as wounded, sick, and evil as it was before. Or as Augustine put it above it is still, “shaken by certain passions; still is she amid the dangers of temptation…” Or to put it still another way, the only change that has taken place is a legal one, the moral character of the person is still the same as it was before.
It is the healing part that comes from being in Christ, which is the most difficult part of the Christian life, that I believe is not emphasized enough these days. While there are certainly times in this process where “He cherisheth” us, there are also times where we have to “bear with Him when He useth the knife” and also “bear the pain of the remedy.” Unlike the legal change described above, which takes place in an instant, this healing process takes place over the course of our entire lives and is never finished during them.
I believe that by failing to properly recognize the healing that comes from being in Christ our faith becomes primarily about deliverance from eternal damnation, which is not the goal of our faith. Our faith is primarily concerned about becoming like Christ, or as Athanasius would say, “He [God] became man that we might be made God.” God did not redeem us from Sin simply to save us from eternal damnation; He redeemed us from Sin to make us like Christ, to make us like God. It is in the pursuit of Christ-likeness that we are healed from the wounds that Sin has inflicted upon us.
A recent post at Credo House mentioned the importance of being able to separate the essentials of the Christian faith from the non-essentials, especially when sharing the Gospel, and it reminded me of some experiences I had while finishing my undergrad. These experiences were challenging to my faith, I believe, because at that time my faith was resting on some things that were not essential. So by illuminating this it helped me to recognize those things that were essential and to rest my faith on them.
At the time my faith was overly dependent on Inerrancy (and not only this, but at the time I didn’t even have a correct understanding of what Inerrancy actually was, which made things even worse). Well one of the courses I took during my undergrad was Bible as Literature, and in this course the professor advocated for the Documentary Hypothesis (DH, or JEDP theory) for the composition of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Old Testament). The basic idea behind the DH is that the Torah was originally 4 independent sources that were later combined, probably during the Babylonian Exile, into the Torah that we know today. In the end the Torah and the rest of the OT were presented as just another human book with nothing unique or Divine about it. At the time I was woefully unprepared to refute such arguments, but I did ultimately reject his argument because in the end it was highly complex and therefore highly unlikely in my view (as a consequence of this I have come to value simple theories).
However in the intervening period between first hearing about the DH and rejecting it there was a definite shaking of my faith because it was a direct attack on the main support for my faith. On the one hand his arguments seemed logical and made the Bible look like an all too human book, and thus the Christian faith as but one valid choice among many other valid choices. However on the other hand I had my experience of God, and denying this experience would be rather difficult. Who had I been praying to all these years if not the Christian God? Who had been answering my prayers? Who had I felt guiding me and with me through the tough and lonely periods of my life?
As I wrestled with this problem I began to realize that in the end Christianity didn’t rest on a book, but on the historical reality of God becoming incarnate, uniting human nature to His divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ, who redeemed us from our sin through his death and resurrection. Even the Bible itself says this:
“But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” 1 Corinthians 15:13–14.
At the time this was a revolutionary shift in my thinking because it showed me that in the end Christianity stood or fell on a historical reality, not on some particular view of the composition of the Bible. And looking back on this 6 or so years later this shift has been one of the most beneficial things I have done because it has given me a certain freedom to operate in my thinking because my faith is based on an event rather than a theory.
Theories are easily disproven because they describe or define something about reality and there is much about reality that we don’t know or can’t know. Events however are the reality, and while they can be disbelieved, they cannot be disproven. The resurrection is the event, the reality, on which Christianity stands or falls and is what separates it from all other religions. A faith that is built or rested on something other than the resurrection is on unstable ground and will easily be shaken or destroyed.
Recently Newsweek ran a rather lengthy article entitled, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” which claims to be an exploration, “of the Bible’s history and meaning” and “is not intended to advance a particular theology…” but this is simply not true. That a particular theology is not being advanced is blatantly obvious in light of the fact that rather lengthy sections are devoted to attempts to counter the claim that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. Sorry, whether or not something is or isn’t taught in the Bible is a theological claim.
Secondly, the article isn’t really even an exploration, it’s a propaganda piece. There is no mention or discussion or even an attempt at the articulation of the actual beliefs of the “Evangelicals” that are the target of the author’s rant. An actual exploration of the religious text of any community should include an unbiased and fair investigation into the beliefs of that community and an accurate articulation given as to what that community has to say about their own religious text. Once such beliefs are understood and articulated then counter perspectives and arguments can be given.
So since such a perspective never made it into the article, probably because it would have made the article boring and far less controversial, I offer the following Evangelical responses to it, none of whom I know to, “wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals.”
Father Lawrence Farley is an Eastern Orthodox priest who serves in Canada. While not the recognized scholar that the other authors are, his response is no less valuable because of it. He touches briefly on all the points the article makes. And for clarity’s sake, he probably wouldn’t label himself an Evangelical, but nonetheless he at least is in agreement with Evangelicals on this issue. Newsweek Nonsense: an Expanded Response
Commentaries. One of the articles refers the reader to commentaries, thus I will offer two quality ones that are available for free online so that they may be used by those interested for reference and investigative purposes.
I feel at this point these responses are a representative and a fairly complete Evangelical response to the Newsweek article, so I don’t think I will be adding any more at this point. If however I happen to run across one I will be sure to add it to the list.
SRQTom 