Attributes of God: Perfection

Hello Beloved,

We have been studying God’s attributes in our discussion on Theology Proper or otherwise known as the doctrine of God. Remember that an attribute could be defined as a quality, character, characteristic, or property that describes the essence of who God is. Defining God’s attributes helps us understand the particular manner in which divinity exists and operates. For the purpose of these articles, we described God’s attributes in relation to his intellect, sensibility, and will. Today, we will round out our study of God’s attributes by considering some basic facts that relate to each perfection.

First, it is important to recognize that all of God’s attributes are eternal. God has always possessed these attributes. There was never a time when God did not have all of His perfections, nor will there ever be a time when God will cease to have all of His attributes. Of course, if you have been paying attention, you have probably connected this truth to God’s immutability, otherwise understood as the fact that God does not change.

Second, God’s attributes are infinite. This means that God’s perfections are not limited by time or space. God’s attributes are equal and function harmoniously, being subject to God’s very nature.

Third, God’s attributes are self-existent. God is not dependent on another being as we are. He is completely independent.

Fourth, God’s attributes are completely absolute. This means that His perfections cannot be added to, developed, or improved upon. Also, God’s perfections cannot be subtracted from, diminished, or weakened. They are exactly as they should be.

 Fifth; and this is a big one; all of God’s attributes are completely equal with each other. They are all necessary to describe the quality of God in His perfection. God’s love is not greater than His justice and His justice is not greater than His love.

 Sixth, these attributes are co-substantial, which means that they are not separate components or parts of God. Each attribute is descriptive of God’s total Being. As stated before, these attributes are in harmony. No attribute is independent of the others, nor is any specific one preeminent over the others.

 Seventh, and finally, God’s attributes are real. I did not invent them, nor did any other man. God communicated these perfections about Himself through revelation like the Bible.

 The unveiling of God’s attributes are reflective of God’s greatness. Whenever, I think of this truth, I am reminded of a story:

 In 1715 King Louis XIV of France died after a reign of 72 years. He had called himself "the Great," and was the monarch who made the famous statement, "I am the state!" His court was the most magnificent in Europe, and his funeral was equally spectacular. As his body lay in state in a golden coffin, orders were given that the cathedral should be very dimly lit with only a special candle set above his coffin, to dramatize his greatness. At the memorial, thousands waited in hushed silence. Then Bishop Massilon began to speak; slowly reaching down, he snuffed out the candle and said, "Only God is great." (Today in the Word, April, 1989, p. 24.)

 Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

*Material for this newsletter article are taken from the notes of Jim Smith, Professor of Bible and Theology at Brookes Bible College.

Attributes of God's Will: Part 2 (Sovereignty)

We are studying the attributes of God in our discussion of Theology Proper or otherwise known as the doctrine of God. Remember that an attribute could be defined as a quality, character, characteristic, or property that describes the essence of who God is. Defining God’s attributes helps us to understand the particular manner in which divinity exists and operates. For the purpose of these articles, we are describing God’s attributes in relation to his intellect, sensibility, and will. Today we continue our discussion on the attributes that relate to God’s will, which include His omnipotence and sovereignty. The focus of this newsletter is on God’s sovereignty.

At the most basic level, sovereignty means that which is principal, chief, or supreme. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty refers to His being first in the universe and relates to His supremacy in power. Theologically, sovereignty speaks to God’s absolute authority and control over all things, events, and people both directly and indirectly. Hannah understood this principle when she sang, “The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.” 1 Samuel 2:6–8 (ESV) The Psalmist understood this principle when he stated, “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.” Psalm 135:6 (ESV) Isaiah understood this when he wrote of God, “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” Isaiah 46:10 (ESV) This is similar to Paul’s assertion that God “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Ephesians 1:11 (ESV) Even old Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, recognized that God’s “dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” Daniel 4:34–35 (ESV)

God has the right to sovereign authority over all as He is creator of all (Job 38-40; Palm 95:3-6, Genesis 14:22). Further, all things belong to God (Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 45:9). God chose to act on His sovereign authority by establishing both physical and moral laws within His universe (Psalm 115:3; Revelation 4:11), by creating the beings He desires and setting groups to an assigned place, and by determining conditions and circumstances for every individual in birth, life, and death (Acts 17:26; Deuteronomy 32:8). Finally, God is sovereign over those whom He wills to display the blessings of grace and mercy (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 9:14-29; James 1:18; 2 Corinthians 4:6; and 1 Peter 1:23).

On a practical note of application, the sovereignty of God, which relates to his power, can be difficult for us to accept during circumstances that we do not understand, especially those which involve suffering. Humanity has often questioned God’s sovereignty, wisdom, or His goodness during these times. Further, there are doctrines that can also confuse us, which relate to the attribute of God’s sovereignty, especially those doctrines of grace such as God’s election or predestination. However, we must remember, as Paul stated, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:33–36 (ESV)

Consider the Prayer of Ebb and Flow by Henri Nouween:

Dear Lord, today I thought of the words of Vincent van Gogh: “It is true there is an ebb and flow, but the sea remains the sea.” You are the sea. Although I experience many ups and downs in my emotions and often feel great shifts and changes in my inner life, you remain the same. Your sameness is not the sameness of a rock, but the sameness of a faithful lover. Out of your love I came to life; by your love I am sustained; and to your love I am always called back. There are days of sadness and days of joy; there are feelings of guilt and feelings of gratitude; there are moments of failure and moments of success; but all of them are embraced by your unwavering love. My only real temptation is to doubt in your love, to think of myself as beyond the reach of your love, to remove myself from the healing radiance of your love. To do these things is to move into the darkness of despair. O Lord, sea of love and goodness, let me not fear too much the storms and winds of my daily life, and let me know that there is ebb and flow but that the sea remains the sea. Amen. 

Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

*Material for this newsletter article are taken from the notes of Jim Smith, Professor of Bible and Theology at Brookes Bible College.

Attributes of God's Will: Part 1 (Omnipotence)

We are studying the attributes of God in our discussion of Theology Proper or otherwise known as the doctrine of God. Remember that an attribute could be defined as a quality, character, characteristic, or property that describes the essence of who God is. Defining God’s attributes helps us to understand the particular manner in which divinity exists and operates. For the purpose of these articles, we are describing God’s attributes in relation to his intellect, sensibility, and will. We spent the past several months discussion God’s sensibility, including his holiness and love. Today we begin our discussion on the attributes that relate to God’s will, which include His omnipotence and sovereignty.

To say that God is omnipotent means that He is all-powerful, or that He has unlimited ability to do anything “consistent with his nature, character, and will.” The section in quotation marks is important, because many critics ask, well, stupid questions,[1] like, “can God lie (Titus 1:2); can God be tempted by sin (James 1:13); can God deny Himself (James 1:13), or can God look with favor on sin (Hab 1:13)?” The answer is, of course, no to these questions! The answer is no because lying, tempting to sin, denying Himself, and looking on sin with favor is not in harmony with God’s character or nature, not because God is not all-powerful. Further, absurdities, self-contradictions, or logical impossibilities (such as can God make a square circle, a stone so large that He could not lift it, a material spirit, or a wrong to be right) do not speak against God’s omnipotence.

Sometimes, finite human beings with limited reasoning and understanding of God’s will try to question God’s all-powerful nature. They might state that God could have chosen to keep sin out of the universe or that God could have chosen to create man without a mind. The answer to these questions is that He could have chosen these things but did not. The things which God has chosen to include in His plan are not contrary to His nature or His will and do not provide concern regarding whether God is truly omnipotent.

God revealed his all-powerful nature when He miraculously gave Abraham and Sarah a baby, despite the barrenness of Sarah’s womb (Gen 19:10-14). The angel told Mary that her cousin, Elizabeth, would deliver a child in her old age for “nothing will be impossible with God” Luke 1:37 (ESV). God promised Jeremiah that He would restore His exiled people to the promised land because nothing is too difficult for Him (Jer 32:17). God can even save man, for what is impossible with men is possible with God (Matt 19:26).

The Psalmist stated, “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” Psalm 115:3 (ESV). Isaiah proclaimed, “For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?” Isaiah 14:27 (ESV). Job communicated, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” Job 42:2(ESV). And finally, Daniel said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he (God) does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” Daniel 4:35 (ESV)

A young boy traveling by airplane to visit his grandparents sat beside a man who happened to be a seminary professor. The boy was reading a Sunday school take-home paper when the professor thought he would have some fun with the lad. "Young man," said the professor, "If you can tell me something God can do, I’ll give you a big, shiny apple." The boy thought for a moment and then replied, "Mister, if you can tell me something God can't do, I’ll give you a whole barrel of apples!"

Next month, we will continue discussing the attribute of God’s will, considering the aspect of His sovereignty. Until then, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

 *Material for this newsletter article are taken from the notes of Jim Smith, Professor of Bible and Theology at Brookes Bible College.

[1] Yes, I know that many a teacher has stated to their students, with good intentions, that there are no stupid questions. However, the following examples contradict this argument.

God's Sensibility, part 3

Hello Beloved,

In this article, we will continue to deal with God’s attributes as it relates to His sensibility. Remember that an attribute could be defined as a quality, character, characteristic, or property that describes the essence of who God is. Defining God’s attributes helps us to understand the particular manner in which divinity exists and operates. For the purpose of these articles, we are describing God’s attributes in relation to his intellect, sensibility, and will.

Two months ago, we began speaking on God’s sensibility, His moral attributes, by focusing on His holiness, and last month we focused on God’s Love. In this article, we will focus on the many characteristics that connect with God’s love including His mercy, grace, and kindness.

We begin by describing God’s kindness or benevolence, a concept that connects God’s goodness with His manner of tenderness toward His creatures. God desires to promote happiness and well-being. As the psalmist states of God, “The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food in due season. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing.” Psalm 145:15-16 (ESV)

God’s mercy, oftentimes translated ‘loving-kindness,’ is descriptive of His covenant faithfulness as perceived in the Hebrew term “hesed.” One has often heard that mercy is man not getting what he deserves, but it is also God’s condescending love in action. God often reveals a compassionate response, connected with sympathy for the sufferer, so as to meet a need without concern of status or merit for the one who receives it. Mercy flows from God’s goodness, responding to one’s need. It involves a demonstration of pity by relieving the misery of the sinful and suffering, giving instead unmerited favor or grace. Such a picture can be exemplified in the Good Samaritan who cared for an unknown man that had been beaten and robbed. Luke explains, “But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’”
Luke 10:33-35 (ESV) Such mercy is also to be descriptive of Christ’s follower.

The Scriptures communicate that mercy is an essential quality of God (Ex 34:6-7). Mercy is God’s delight (Ps 52:8). God is called the Father of mercies (2 Cor 1:3). God is rich in mercy (Eph 2:4). Mercy is associated with God’s forgiveness (Ex 34:7), forbearance (Ps 145:8), covenant (Deut 4:31), justice (Ps 101:1), and truth (Ps 85:10). Finally, the mercy of God is everlasting (Ps 100:5). As we consider God’s mercy, we must also remember that He is sovereign in the exercise of his mercy, noting that the creature cannot demand mercy of God and that He will have mercy upon whom He wills (Ex 33:19; Rom 9:15,18).

Next, we connect love with God’s grace. Grace is God’s free bestowal of kindness, mercy, or favor on one who has no claim to such special approval. God exhibits goodness to those who do not deserve it or who have no right to its claim based on merit. Grace, like mercy, is a quality of God (Ex 34:6), associated with God’s covenant (2 Kings 13:23), and the basis by which He forgives and restores
(2 Chron 30:9). Grace is the basis of God’s election (Rom 11:5; Eph 1:4-6), and the basis of redemption in the forgiveness of sins (Rom 3:24-26; 1 Cor 15:10, Eph 1:6-7). Finally, grace is the basis of our future hope (2 Thes 2:16: 1 Pet 5:10). Further, like mercy, God is sovereign in His exercising of grace. Salvation begins in grace because it begins with God’s initiative, and salvation ends in grace as it is He who gives life and raises the dead. Grace, as it relates to our salvation, does not mean that God simply overlooked our sin, because God’s holiness and righteousness could not allow such a thing. However, God showed grace by providing for man’s sin through the voluntary, substitutionary, redemptive, and propitiatory death of Christ. In other words, what God’s holiness demanded His grace provided through Christ’s death on the cross. In the words of Julia Johnston,

Marvelous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt!
Yonder on Calvary’s mount outpoured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilled.

Sin and despair, like the sea waves cold,
Threaten the soul with infinite loss;
Grace that is greater, yes, grace untold,
Points to the refuge, the mighty cross.

Dark is the stain that we cannot hide;
What can we do to wash it away?
Look! There is flowing a crimson tide,
Brighter than snow you may be today.

Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
Freely bestowed on all who believe!
You that are longing to see His face,
Will you this moment His grace receive?

o    Refrain:
Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin!

Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

*Material for this newsletter article are taken from the notes of Jim Smith, Professor of Bible and Theology at Brookes Bible College.

God's Sensibility, part 2

Hello Beloved,

As we continue to approach the subject of Theology Proper or the Doctrine of God, we remember from where we have come, having discussed the essence of God and the meaning of the Trinity. In this article, we will continue the second of three sections that deal with God’s attributes, His sensibility. However, this section of God’s attributes is so prolific, it will take several newsletter articles to cover the material. An attribute could be defined as a quality, character, characteristic, or property that describes the essence of who God is. Defining God’s attributes helps us to understand the particular manner in which divinity exists and operates. For the purpose of these articles, we will describe God’s attributes in relation to his intellect, sensibility, and will.

The description of God’s “Sensibility” could also be explained as His moral attributes. The first attribute on the list, which we discussed last month, was God’s Holiness. In this article, we will consider God’s love, and next month we will consider the many characteristics that connect to God’s love including mercy, grace, and kindness.

Like truth, love relates to the goodness of God. Love can be an allusive term in our context; and therefore, we must not attribute it to sentimental tenderness, selfish fondness, mere affection, or even attraction for another, as we often find ourselves doing in the course of watching a good Hallmark movie. Simply put, love is a self-sacrificing desire for, and delight in, the welfare of another. God’s love is not merely something He possesses as much as something that describes His own being (1 Jn 4:8). We must understand that God did not develop into a loving being and there was never a time when He did not love. God’s love is self-sustaining, which means that He does not need to intentionally maintain a loving disposition as an attitude or condition of His character. His love is never diminished, and we can take comfort in knowing that there will never be a time when God will cease to love. Further, God is the unfailing source of all love.

When we consider the Trinity, we must recognize that love has always existed between the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit supremely, infinitely, and eternally. God’s love has no limits; is without imperfections; is inexhaustive, free, and is not dependent on anything outside itself. Interestingly enough, God does not need to be loved by His creatures since God is the source of all love, and He does not depend on others to supply Him with love. Although God’s love is independent of His creatures; He, nevertheless, benevolently bestows love on His creatures.

Scripture communicates that God is love (1 Jn 4:8,18), calls Him the God of love (2 Cor 13:11), and characterizes Him as the loving God (Ps 59:9, 10, 17; 144:2). Further, in the Bible, God is described as exercising love (Ex 34:6,7; Deut 7:6-8; Ps 42:8); His love is said to endure forever (1 Chr 16:34; Ps 89:2, 100:5; Jer 33:11); and God’s love is the cause of praise from His saints (Ps 31:21; 63:3-4; 100:4-5). The objects of God’s love include His one and only Son of essence (Matt 3:17; 17:5; Jn 17:24), those who believe that Jesus came from the Father (Jn 14:21,23; 16:27; 17;23; 1 Jn 4:19), the world or the cosmos which includes a humanity that rebelled against its Creator (Jn 3:16, 1 Tim 2:3-4, 2 Pet 3:9), the sinner (Rom 5:6-8, Eph 2:4-5; Ezek 33:11), and Israel (Deut 7:6-7; Jer 31:3; Hos 11:1). Of course, as we consider God’s love, we can never forget the greatest exhibition of love occurred when the Father sent the Son, Jesus, who died on the cross to pay the penalty of our sin (1 Jn 4:10). And, God calls us to love one another in the manner that He has loved us (Jn 13:34; 15:12; 1 Th 4:19).

Next month, we will return to the topic of God’s love and consider its extensions in kindness, mercy, and grace. Until then, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

*Material for this newsletter article are taken from the notes of Jim Smith, Professor of Bible and Theology at Brookes Bible College.

God's Sensibility, part 1

Hello Beloved,

As we continue to approach the subject of Theology Proper or the Doctrine of God, we have already discussed the essence of God and the meaning of the Trinity. In this article, we will continue the second of three sections that deal with God’s attributes. However, this section of God’s attributes is so prolific, it will take two newsletter articles to cover the material. An attribute could be defined as a quality, character, characteristic, or property that describes the essence of who God is. Defining God’s attributes helps us to understand the particular ways in which divinity exists and operates. Some have also called God’s attributes: characteristics, qualities, or even perfections, which reveal His nature. For the purpose of these articles, we will describe God’s attributes in relation to his intellect, sensibility, and will.

The description of God’s “Sensibility” could also be explained as His moral attributes. The first attribute on the list is God’s Holiness. Holiness distinguishes God as God, inferring that He is pure in essence, character, actions, thoughts, words, and plans. Holiness is also connected to God’s separateness as in relation to His creatures and even as relates to sin. God is holy at all times; His holiness is self-sustaining; and His holiness is never diminished (Lev 19:2; Josh 24:19; 1 Sam 2:2; 6:20; Ps 89:35; Is 6:3; Js 1:13). You may recall that God’s holiness is to be reflected in those whom he claims as His covenant community (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:15-16). God hates sin and His attribute of holiness explains why He must punish it. Further, because humanity is depraved and sinful (Rom 3:10-17), then he must approach God on the merits of another, Jesus Christ (Rom 5:2, Eph 2:18; Heb 10:19). What God’s love demanded, holiness provided in Christ’s atonement through the cross (Rom 5:6-8; Eph 2:1-9; 1 Pet 3:18; Heb 9:22). Though Christians have been justified through the cross, they are still required to approach a Holy God with reverence and awe (Heb 12:28).

The next attribute of God’s “sensibility” which relates directly to His holiness is God’s righteousness/justice. The application of God’s holiness infers that He always does “right” by His creatures in how He relates to His creatures. Righteousness implies a standard or rule that requires conformity. God’s law is ultimate, and He is not subject to another (Neh 9:8; Ps 145:17; John 17:25). God never violates His own law, nor allows His law to be violated without satisfaction (Is 53:6; Mark 10:45; Rom 5:8; 1 Pet 2:24). God’s righteousness manifests itself in His hatred toward sin (Ps 11:4-7; 33:5; Hab 1:12-13; Deut 25:16), in His various abominations (Prov 3:32; 6:16-19), and in his punishment of sin (Gen 6:5-7; Ex 9:23-27; Ps 5:4-6). Further, God bestows rewards upon the righteous for their faithfulness (2 Tim 4:8, 1 Kings 8:32; Matt 10:42), in delivering the righteous from their adversaries (Ps 98:1-3; 129:1-4; 2 Thes 1:6-7; Rev 16:4-7), and by God’s judging man in righteousness (1 Sam 2:3; 1 Kings 8:32; Ps 67:4).

In connection with God’s righteousness is His goodness. Goodness refers to that which God defines as beautiful, profitable, desirable, useful and morally right as compared to that which is not beautiful, profitable, desirable, useful or morally wrong. Everything about God is good (Matt 9:17; Mark 10:17-18). God is good all the time, and all the time God is good. God is not just good in His nature but He is the giver and measure of good (Jas 1:17).

Finally, in relation to God’s goodness, we must speak of God’s truth. Truth relates to the reality that God is completely dependable or faithful. God always abides by his promises and executes every threat in accordance with His nature. As relates to Himself, God’s truth speaks to His genuineness. God is legitimate, true, and living. Scripture often calls Him the true God as opposed to false gods (Jer 10:10; 1 Thes 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Rev 3:7,6:10). As relates to His creatures, God’s truth is reliable and He represents things as they are (Ps 108:4, John 3:33, 1 John 5:20).

Next time, we will continue with the categorical attributes of God’s sensibility in the second section as we look at those attributes which relate to His love, such as mercy, grace, and kindness. Until then, this is Pastor Daniel writing “May the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

*Material for this newsletter article are taken from the notes of Jim Smith, Professor of Bible and Theology at Brookes Bible College.

Biblical Response to the Madison County Health Board's Decision

A Statement on My Recommendation to Grace Baptist Church of Granite City Regarding the Madison County Health Board’s Decision to Reopen Madison County in Defiance of J.B. Pritzker’s “Stay at Home” Mandate.

By Daniel Wilson

Dear beloved,

Below is my perspective on the recent events that surround the decision of the Madison County health board that was made on Tuesday May 12, 2020, to reopen many businesses, organizations, and churches in Madison county. This decision is quite progressive in comparison with the governor’s mandate for the state. I feel that as your pastor, it is my obligation to communicate a Biblical perspective during these confusing times, and I perceive this statement as a teaching opportunity. As I have looked over and researched this issue, I have carried a tremendous burden regarding what action to recommend for our church family. I was initially under the impression that the governor was transferring authority to the counties for reopening as they saw fit, and eventually, that may be the case, but it has not been transferred yet. You may recall that I communicated this perspective on Sunday morning, May 10. I was incorrect in this assertion. Nevertheless, due to the decision of Madison County, some churches are going to begin having onsite services, while others are going to continue to follow the governor’s mandate. I have had the opportunity to interact with many of the pastors in our association, and I want to express my gratitude for the Deacons and Church Council members who also interacted with me on this issue.

Here is a bullet list of legal and health issues that I think will help you to understand my research on this topic to this point. 

• The Madison County Health board’s decision is recognized by all parties as in defiance of Governor J.B. Pritzker’s mandate to shelter in place through May. The governor has stated that counties which take action against the mandate would be breaking the law, and the governor’s mandate has already been upheld as constitutional by two U.S. District Court Judges: John Lee and Robert Gettleman respectively. Further, I have contacted the governor’s office directly and spoken with them about the Madison County decision, and our town of Granite City has also chosen to continue following the governor’s mandate. (see: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/madison-county-illinois-to-vote-reopening/63-d7a18ea8-c083-4f3c-b8ab-4e2d21a9fae9?fbclid=IwAR2DPatAPNWt0wkHU7VWo3oEiC0z_XaLToAHJ27n8JUJCtSglxLUNRY6-8s and https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/497736-judge-denies-two-churches-challenging-illinois-stay-at-home-order  and https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/5/3/21245936/stay-at-home-order-constitutional-us-district-court-john-lee-beloved-church-lena-illinois and see also https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/mutiny-in-the-counties-illinois-divided-over-governors-extended-stay-at-home-order )

• One argument claims that Illinois counties should make the call about issues (such as reopening) during a pandemic. This may be a good argument, and I would be interested in seeing the research. However, it appears that this argument is debatable from a constitutional standpoint, and therefore should be determined in a court of law. Once again, the governor’s rule has been determined constitutional by two U.S. District Court judges on two different occasions, and other experts have also affirmed the constitutionality of the governor’s mandate such as Ann Lousin (a law professor at the University of Chicago, former parliamentarian, and staff of the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention), which would be a good representative of a legislative perspective. (see: https://will.illinois.edu/21stshow/story/perspective-are-illinois-stay-at-home-orders-constitutional )

• From a local perspective, the Madison County’s states attorney agrees that the court is the arena in which a dispute involving the governor’s mandate and the county’s argument should be determined. In a conversation that I had with Tom Gibbons, who is the highest law enforcement officer in Madison County, Gibbons communicated that the decision of the Madison County health board, which occurred on Tuesday May 12, simply reveals the “county’s wishes and desires but has no legal authority.” The decision of the board basically communicated to the businesses and organizations in the area that the county will not take action against them as long as they follow the safety protocols that the county has set in place. When asked if that meant that the ultimate authority still resides with the governor and his “stay at home” order, Mr. Gibbons responded in the affirmative. He further communicated that according to our justice system, the governor’s mandate stands until it is overturned in a court of law.

• I contacted Grace’s insurance company, Brotherhood Mutual. During our conversation, Amber Kolbeck, a company representative, communicated that Brotherhood recognizes the higher authority as the state. Ms. Kolbeck recommended continuing to follow the governor’s mandate. Otherwise, Grace may be held liable.

• Beyond all these legal issues, the health concerns surrounding COVID 19 are still very valid, and the safety of Grace’s congregation needs to be taken into consideration. Further, great concern is felt for those who are experiencing economic hardship because of the pandemic.

On a personal level, I would love to start on-site services at the church, but I cannot recommend such a course of action at this time for several reasons. In consideration of the points above, I care very much for the safety and financial well-being of our flock and would not want Grace to be liable or negligent in relation to our insurance company. However, I believe the most prominent issue that we should consider relates to the Biblical argument of submitting to the governing authorities. 

Biblical and practical issues for following the governor’s mandate:

• Romans 13:1-7 clearly communicates that we are to be subject to the governing authorities.

• 1 Peter 2:13-18 communicates that we are to be in subjection to such authority even if the leadership seems to be “unreasonable.” Therefore, whether we agree with the mandate or not, we are to adhere to the authoritative ruling if it does not contradict God’s Word or require us to disobey a Biblical principle.

• 1 Peter 2:15-16 speaks to how living in such subjection to the governing authorities evokes a witness to the surrounding community. With such a submissive attitude we appear as ”lights in the world” (Phil 2:14); we continue to “be at peace with all men” (Rom 12:18); we show that we follow Biblical principles as “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15); and we adorn the gospel of Christ (Titus 2:10).

• Regarding an implication that touches this issue, the Scriptures teach a very specific methodology for conflict resolution in the church (Matt 18:15-17). Grace follows this manner as outlined in our governmental polity of the constitution. Further, God has called us to do all things “decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:40). If we fail to follow the correct process of secular conflict resolution which would flow through the court system as outlined in the polity of our state, how can we expect our own conflict resolution to be followed in an orderly manner?

The following section is a series of questions that have arisen recently, mostly from various conversations that I have experienced over these Biblical truths:

• Question: Aren’t these governing authorities supposed to promote good and not evil? Response: That is correct. In 1 Peter 2:14, it states that these governing authorities are “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” This is a general statement that relates to these governing authorities as a “minister” or “servant” of God for good (Romans 13:4). Our governor has repeatedly stated that his motivation for the “stay at home” mandate is the safety of his constituents. He claims to follow the advice of scientific experts, and whether we agree or disagree with these “experts” is not really the main issue. The Bible communicates that part of the function of governmental leaders is protection of the weak (Ps 82:2-4), which seems to be a motivation that would fall into the category of “good.” Now, we know that some governing authorities promote things that are not good, such as Herod who was rebuked by John the Baptist for his “evil things” (Luke 3:19), or Nebuchadnezzar who was told by Daniel to “Break off your sins by practicing righteousness” (Dan 4:27), or the many kings of Israel who “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (1 Kings 11:6), or Nero, who was the Roman emperor during the writing of Peter’s first epistle. Those ancient leaders like leaders today do not always promote Biblical principles. Some leaders today even promote the legalization of marijuana, an aggressive abortion agenda, and do not support an agenda for the Biblical description of marriage. However, just because a secular ruler promotes unbiblical practices in some parts of his agenda, this does not mean that we can defy other mandates that he has regulated if they do not contradict the principles of God’s Word. When such principles do contradict God’s Word, then we respond as Peter did, claiming that we must obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19; 5:29), or as Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego who did not worship the golden statue (Dan 3:18), or as the Hebrew midwives who defied Pharaoh’s command to kill the Hebrew newborn baby boys (Ex 1:17;21), or Daniel who disobeyed the kings edict and continued to pray to the one true God (Dan 6;10), or the Magi who disobeyed Herod’s command by failing to return by way of the king and divulge the location of the newborn baby Jesus (Matt 2: 8; 12). Brothers, as far as I can tell, the principles in the governor’s mandate do not oppose Biblical precepts. Further, if we choose to defy the government on issues of non-Biblical status, then when the time comes to defy the government on principles of Biblical truth, the potency of our stand will have been compromised.

• Question: What if the governing official disobeys his own rule or regulation? Response: My friend, if a governing official does not obey his own rule or regulation, he definitely is not depicting a good example for his constituents, but this would not make disobeying the regulation or rule permissible. It was Jesus, our Lord, who told his disciples to obey the religious leaders like the scribes and Pharisees who were in positions of authority such as the “seat of Moses,” but they were not to follow their negative examples. Yes, the scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites, but even in this hypocrisy, Jesus did not allow the disciples to disobey their authority (Matt 23:1-4).

• Question: On a practical note, didn’t our country begin when our forefathers defied the authority of King George III? Response: The answer is yes, and I admittedly question the ethics of their defiance. However, this issue really is beside the point. Reflecting on the view of John Calvin, Wayne Grudem states in his Politics According to the Bible, “The reason that a number of early Americans thought it was justified to rebel against the British monarchy is that it is morally right for a lower government official to protect the citizens in his care from a higher official who is committing crimes against these citizens” (Grudem. Politics, 89; Calvin. Institutes, 4.20.31). Therefore, to protect from tyrants arising in our government, these forefathers implemented a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It then appears that the correct challenge to the governor’s mandate by our county health board should have come in the form of a lawsuit, which was actually considered but ultimately rejected by the board during a meeting that occurred four days before the decision made on May 12. (See the above issue on conflict resolution, my discussion with Tom Gibbons and https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/Madison-County-officials-look-poised-to-defy-15257931.php )

• Question: The Madison County health board thinks it is permissible for Grace to go ahead and meet, though at a reduced capacity. And if Madison County communicated that they would not take action against us if we safely start to congregate, then why can’t we go ahead and meet? Response: Our town, Granite City, has encouraged its citizens to continue following the Governor’s mandate. On a Biblical level, consider the story of David at the cave of Engedi. Saul, the current king who was outside the will of God, was pursuing David for an unjust reason. While Saul was relieving himself in a cave, David had a chance to kill him. David’s men encouraged David to go ahead and take Saul’s life, reminding Him that the Lord said He would give David’s enemy into His hand. However, David knew that this was not what God meant, replying “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord’s anointed.” David had the promise that one day he would be king, and the suffering under the hands of godless King Saul would end, but this was not that day. David knew that God was sovereign over Saul and his reign, and so David chose to wait on God instead of taking things into his own hands to speed up the process (1 Sam 24, Ps 37:34). We also wish that the process of reopening would speed up, and it is tempting to know that the county will not act against those churches that start to meet. But in submitting to the higher secular authority, the governor, and his plan of reopening, we are ultimately submitting to God and His plan.

I know some of you may feel differently. And I want you to know that I respect your opinions, as I respected the differing opinions of some of the pastors that I spoke with in our association meeting over this topic. I am not a lawyer, and I have much to learn about civic controversies. However, I know that I personally could not conscientiously do anything that I feel would violate God’s Word, whether I agree with the governor’s position or not. And I believe that reopening our onsite services while the governor’s “stay at home” mandate is in place would do just that. Once again, I am speaking from a standpoint of personal conviction, knowing that not everyone will have the same conviction as I do. I invite you to call me if you have any questions about the above statement. As your pastor, I am open to discussion and dialogue regarding these issues. Thank you for taking the time to read this statement.

In Christ, 

Pastor Daniel

God's Intellect

Hello Beloved,

As we continue to approach the subject of Theology Proper or the Doctrine of God, we have already discussed the essence of God and the meaning of the Trinity. In this article, we will begin the first of three sections that deal with God’s attributes. An attribute could be defined as a quality, character, characteristic, or property that describes the essence of who God is. Defining God’s attributes helps us to understand the particular ways in which He exists and operates.

The first point to recognize when discussing God’s attributes is that no single attribute would be considered that which is most basic to God. Doctrinal errors have arisen when teachers emphasize one of God’s attributes at the expense of another. For example, if one focuses on God’s love to the detriment of God’s justice, then it becomes easy to deny God’s judgment and eternal punishment. On the other hand, if one focuses on God’s justice to the detriment of His love, then it can lead to a harsh view of God’s character and often a legalistic lifestyle. The idea behind this truth is simple: God’s attributes must be kept in perfect balance. All of God’s attributes equally describe the quality of His perfect being; they exist within His divine nature equally; and they are in harmony with each other. God does not have more of one attribute than He does another, and God does not belittle one attribute in order to emphasize another. Further, God is infinite, and all His attributes are infinite in relation to His perfect being. These attributes are real, based on Biblical precepts, and not associated with philosophical conjecture.

There have been many ways that theologians have tried to categorize and organize the attributes of God. The most common is to separate them into communicable (those that relate to attributes humans can possess in some finite form, such as love) and incommunicable (those that only God can possess, such as omnipotence or being all-powerful). Others have divided God’s attributes into those which are absolute (truth) verses those which are relative (mercy), those which are positive (holiness) verses those which are negative (changelessness or immutability), and those of God’s greatness (infinity) verses those of God’s goodness (righteousness). For the purpose of these articles, we will describe God’s attributes in relation to his intellect, sensibility, and will.

The current article will focus on the attributes that relate to God’s intellect. The first attribute in this category is that of omniscience. Omniscience means that God has infinite and absolute knowledge, awareness, perception, and comprehension of all things. God knows all things that are actual or possible. God knows all events, persons, places, ideas, and objects. He knows all things visible and invisible, whether in heaven on earth or under the earth, and God knows all things past, present, and future. The scope of God’s knowledge allows Him to comprehend all things immediately, simultaneously, exhaustively, and truly. God does not have to discover facts and He does not have to learn. God knows men and their works (Psalm 33:13-15). God knows men’s thoughts and their hearts (Psalm 139:1-4). He knows men’s burden’s and wants (Exodus 3:7). And God knows the future (Isaiah 46:9-10).

The attribute of God’s omniscience relates directly to His attribute of wisdom. The wisdom of God relates to his skillful use of knowledge to attain a purpose that is in harmony with His glory, and it includes the correct manner in which He accomplishes His goals. God used wisdom in creation (Psalm 19:1-7), preservation (Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 36:6), providence (Psalm 33:10; Romans 8:28), and redemption (Ephesians 3:10). Of course, we cannot be omniscient, but we can grow in wisdom. Let us remember the proverb of the wise old owl:

A wise old owl sat in an oak;
The more he saw the less he spoke;
The less he spoke the more he heard;
Let's try to imitate that bird.

Next month we will discuss the sensibility or moral attributes of God. Until then, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

*Notes taken from Jim Smith’s unpublished notes: God, Bible, Holy Spirit – Brookes Bible Institute

God's Essence

Hello Beloved,

As we enter our second article on the doctrine of God, also known as Theology Proper, we are going to move past the various proofs of God and move directly into “God’s Essence.” God has revealed Himself to us generally through our conscience and the nature that He created, but, in a more specific manner, He has revealed Himself to us through His Word, the Bible. When I speak of the essence of God, I am referring to that which underlies the outward manifestation, the reality itself, and the qualities or attributes that make up God as we know Him. It is important to note that God has a real substantive existence.

First, let us consider that God is spirit. Jesus told the woman at the well in the fourth chapter of John that “God is spirit” [John 4:24 (ESV)]. The original language does not communicate an article like “a spirit” but clearly communicates that God is spirit in essence. It is important at this point to emphasize that God’s being “spirit” does not mean He is a phantom or a construction of the mind but a real being with real existence. God is not made of material. This is a major reason that we are commanded not to make any graven image and worship it in the likeness of God. Deuteronomy 4 states:

15 “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. Deuteronomy 4:15-19 (ESV)

There is no image or earthly being that could compare with God in His glory.

Though God is spirit, there are times when He uses language to describe Himself that accommodates our weakness in understanding. We call these descriptions “anthropomorphic expressions,” which means that God describes himself in terms as if he had a body like a man. God is said to have arms in Deuteronomy 33:27, hands in John 10:29, eyes in 2 Chronicles 16:9, a mouth in Isaiah 58:14, a face in Exodus 33:11, nostrils in 2 Samuel 22:9, feet in Psalm 8:6, and ears in Isaiah 59:1.

As Spirit, God is invisible (John 1:18), alive (1 Samuel 17:26), and yet a person. Personality involves both self-consciousness and self-determination. This means that God can be aware of and interact with those around him and He has the ability to look to the future and prepare an intelligent course of action in accordance with His own choice. We might simply state that God’s personality includes intellect, emotion, and will (these will be the headings for our discussion of God’s attributes or perfections).

God is self-existent. When Moses asked Pharaoh the name of God, so he could give it when asked; God responded with his covenant name “YHWH,” which means “I am” (Exodus 3:14). God’s self-existence means that He does not depend on anybody or anything outside Himself for His existence. He is, as some philosophers have put it, the First Cause. God does not depend on anything or anybody for His thoughts (Romans 11:33,34), His will (Romans 9:19; Ephesians 1:5), His power (Psalms 115:3) or His counsel (Psalms 33:10,11). God is also infinite, which means that he does not possess any limitations and is bound only by His own nature. As relates to time, God’s infinity is called eternality (Psalm 90:2).

God is immutable, which means he is free from all change as relates to His essence, attributes, purposes, and promises (Malachi 3:6). This does not mean that God always acts the same way in relation to various personalities and fluctuating characteristics of men, but He always acts in the right way (Psalm 33:11). God is united in essence, which means that He is indivisible. He is one (Deuteronomy 6:4). At the same time, God has revealed Himself as the Trinity, which was the subject of our first newsletter on this topic. Next week, we will begin to describe God’s attributes. Until then, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

The content of this newsletter was taken from the notes by Jim Smith (Professor of Brookes Bible College in St. Louis MO)

The Triune God

Hello Beloved,

As we enter a new year and a new decade, I will begin a new set of articles to help you grow in your understanding of Biblical doctrine. Many of you have made positive comments about this strategy over the past couple of years, and so I have decided to continue this year by overviewing the doctrine of God, otherwise known as Theology Proper. We will begin by considering the doctrine of the Trinity.

Simply put, the orthodox understanding of the Trinity is that God is one in essence yet three in person. The Scripture clearly communicates that God is one in unity such that His divine nature is undivided and indivisible (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4); further, God is unique (2 Samuel 7:22), for only He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

God also reveals Himself through Scripture in three distinct persons. The Father is called God (Matthew 6:9), the Son is called God (John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-8, Colossians 1:15, and Hebrews 1:3), and the Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4). Jesus exhibits the various attributes of deity such as eternity (Isaiah 9:6), self-existence (John 1:4), omniscience (all-knowing; Colossians 2:3), immutability (unchangeable; Hebrews 13:8), and He is the Creator (John 1:3,10). The Spirit exhibits the attributes of deity in His titles such as eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14), the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2), the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), the Spirit of truth (John 14:17), the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29), and the Comforter (John 14:16 and 26). The Son is distinct from the Father and the Spirit, in that He called God His Father (Matthew 24:36), the Father sent the Son (John 5:36), and that God is called the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 15:6). The Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son in that He is sent by God the Father (John 14:26), He glorifies Christ (John 16:13-15), He prays to the Father (Romans 8:26, 27), and He is referred to in distinction from God (Romans 15:13).

Therefore, God is one in essence yet He exists as a Godhead of three persons. Each person of the Godhead is co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial, possessing the divine essence simultaneously. They all participate in divine acts such as creation and redemption (Genesis 1, John 1:1,3; Ephesians 1). However, they all have distinct roles such as in the case of our salvation. The Father ordained our salvation and sent His son into the world (Ephesians 1:4, John 3:16, Galatians 4:4), the Son obeyed the Father and redeemed us through His death on the cross (John 6:38; Hebrews 10:5-7; Ephesians 1:7), and the Spirit, who was sent from the Father and the Son, regenerated us or made us spiritually alive in Christ (Ephesians 1:13; 2:4, John 3:5; 14:26; 16:7).

As the Creed of Constantinople from 381 states:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us, humans, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. [We believe] in one holy universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

Which Translation Should I Use?

As we finish the year’s dialogue on Bibliology, we conclude with the initial question many ask concerning this doctrine, “which translation of the Bible should I use and why?” Although I cannot tell you which translation you should absolutely use, I can tell you the benefits and drawbacks of each while also giving you my personal preference. The first thing that you should consider when using a translation is what type of translation it is. There are three main categories of translations in the English language: a formal equivalence, a dynamic equivalence translation, and paraphrases. Philip Comfort communicates that in the formal equivalence theory “the translator attempts to render the exact words (hence the word formal, meaning ‘form-for-form’) of the original language into the [target] language. This kind of translation is commonly known as a ‘literal’ translation; others call it a ‘word-for-word’ translation.” The most literal translation is the interlinear which contains the text in its original language with the English equivalent under the text. Though the literal translation desires to come as close as possible to the original languages, there are always issues such as the choice of a word or ordering of a phrase in which the translator will have to make a decision. In other words, there is no completely literal translation in the English language. That is why it is beneficial to have knowledge of the original languages to aid in the study of the Bible.

Comfort states that the dynamic or functional equivalence is “a thought-for-thought translation (as opposed to a word-for-word translation).” Generally, the King James Version, English Standard Version, and New American Standard Bible would be considered literal or formal equivalence translations. The New International Version and Holman Christian Standard Bible are good examples of dynamic equivalence translations. There is also a third type of translation, the paraphrase, which allows quite a bit of theological liberty from the manuscripts of the original languages to the final translation. In fact, a paraphrase would almost be considered a type of commentary. The Message and the New Living Translation are good examples of paraphrases.

Below is a chart to help one determine the accuracy and readability of these various translations. The chart is subject to differing opinions, but, for the most part, it correctly communicates that the closer a translation is to the “word for word” end of the spectrum, the more accurate it will be as relates to the Biblical content within the original languages. However, it is also true that such a translation is generally more difficult to read and understand according to current conversational trends. Also, the more a translation moves toward readability or “thought for thought” the further away it drifts from accuracy. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, such as the King James Version which is both less accurate and harder to read than the English Standard Bible due to its archaic or out-of-date language.

See here for a relevant chart.

Consider the recommendations from Christianbook.com as relates to this chart:

At one end of the spectrum is the word-for-word translation (also referred to as a formal equivalent or literal translation). This approach seeks to represent the original Greek and Hebrew in a more word-for-word manner and preserve—as far as possible—original word order, grammar, and syntax. Many prefer this method because each Greek or Hebrew word is generally represented by the same English word in all occurrences. . . . On the other end of the spectrum we find the thought-for-thought translation (also referred to as a paraphrase or functional equivalent). This approach is more concerned with putting meaning of the passage in a colloquial language familiar to the reader. This type of translation seeks to render the ideas of the original text as accurately as possible in the target language (like English). . . . The middle of the spectrum is occupied by the dynamic equivalent, or mediating translation. These translations seek to strike a balance between the two translation approaches. They are sometimes more literal, sometimes more colloquial or conversational depending on the subject and text. . . . Many find it helpful to consult more than one translation—or to use different translations in different settings. While a more literal translation may be preferred for study, a less literal translation may be desired for devotional or casual reading.

My preference is the New American Standard Bible, possibly because this is the Bible from which I started memorizing Scripture and have continued doing so to this day. I like its accuracy, though admittedly it is lacking in the area of readability. The English Standard Version boasts of its accuracy and readability, which is why we use it at Grace Baptist Church. I hope this has been an illuminating year on what we believe about the Bible. Until next year, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

The English Bible Since the King James Version

As we continue our study on the doctrine of the Bible, we resume our discussion of the history of the Bible in the English language. Last month, we left this topic with a very important question, “Why was it necessary to produce more English translations of the Bible after the King James Version?” The answer to this question can be found in some of the weaknesses of the KJV. First, though the King James Version is based on high quality manuscripts, the manuscript evidence that Bible scholars had four hundred years ago is not as good as it is today. The King James Version was translated from a group of manuscripts called the Textus Receptus. These manuscripts were based on the Byzantine text-type, which includes revisions of copies from the fourth century onward. These texts are not as accurate as the earliest manuscripts, the Alexandrian text, that we now possess and are widely recognized as superior in comparison. The scholars who produced the 1611 King James Version used the best textual evidence that they had available to them. But since they had just come out of what historians call the Middle Ages, a time when learning was rare and communication was scarce, many of these Alexandrian manuscripts and even more accurate Byzantine manuscripts were hidden. Since that time, archaeology and other Biblical scholarship have produced manuscripts that are considered to be of greater quality, which means they are probably closer to the actual content from the original manuscripts, the manuscripts that the Biblical authors wrote.

Second, the King James Version has “archaic” language in it. This means that it possesses language and words that are not used in the same manner as we use them today. I had a Greek professor in seminary who would often state, “in the King James Version, ‘quick’ don’t mean ‘fast’ and ‘fast’ don’t mean ‘quick.’” In fact, as the scholar J.B. Lightfoot asserts, “In the seventeenth century ‘allege’ was used for ‘prove,’ ‘communicate’ for ‘share,’ ‘suffer’ for ‘allow,’ ‘allow’ for ‘approve,’ ‘let’ for ‘hinder,’ ‘prevent’ for ‘precede,’ ‘conversation’ for ‘conduct,’ and so forth. These expressions are grossly misleading since they are still in use today but carry different associations.”

Third, the King James Version fails to preserve some major distinctions from the original Greek. For example, its rendering of “hell” is used for both the present temporal place where those under God’s judgment go after death, “hades,” and the future place of eternal residence for the judged, “Gehenna.”

Around the end of the nineteenth century, a major push for a more accurate translation was made, and in 1885, the English Revised Version was produced. As could be imagined, it faced the difficulty of being the first real alternate option to the popular King James Version, but it helped make it possible for other translations to follow. Some American scholars who worked on the English Revised Version came together to produce a revision of the KJV more suited for folks in the U.S., and in 1901 the American Standard Version was published. Unfortunately, this version did not carry the beautiful poetic language of the KJV, though it was more accurate as relates to the original languages. Charles Spurgeon critiqued this version, claiming “strong in Greek, weak in English.” In 1952, the Revised Standard Version was published to help with the readability of the ASV. Unfortunately, it was heavily critiqued for its changing the theological implications of central passages like Isaiah 7:14, in which it removed the term “virgin” and replaced it with “young woman” regarding the prophecy of the Immanuel’s birth.

Over the next twenty years, versions of the Bible like the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, and the Living Bible were published to help with the readability of the text. These translations focused more on communicating the Scriptures from a “sense for sense” or even a “paraphrase” perspective rather than that of a “word for word” translation. The publisher’s intent of the New Living Translation was for even a child to be able to understand its message. The criticism of these translations was that though they may made the Scriptures more readable, they took too much liberty. This brings us to the last fifty years in which we now have a lot of decisions about what translation of the Bible we will use. The most famous versions of today were produced in this period such as the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV, and the ESV. How are we as Christians supposed to discern between these translations to know the right one to use? This will be the topic of the next newsletter article. So, until then, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

The English Bible until the King James Version

Hello Beloved,

Last month, our newsletter article focused on the books of the Apocrypha, which we consider non-inspired by the Holy Spirit; and, therefore they are not authoritative, but still have value. As we continue our study of Bibliology, also known as the Doctrine of the Bible, we will look at the history of the English Bible to the time of the King James Version. First, we must begin by reminding ourselves that the Bible was not originally written in English. The three original languages in which the Bible took its inspired form includes Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Predominantly, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. These original writings of the prophets and Apostles had to be translated for others to read them in their common language. Even the Jews in Egypt needed the Old Testament to be translated into Greek two hundred years before Christ, a translation we call the Septuagint (LXX), which also played an influential role in the Apostles’ citation of the Old Testament. The Bible today has been translated in whole or in part for approximately two thousand different languages.

The Bible played an important role among those of British and Irish decent. From the fifth century on, the Latin Bible, known as the Vulgate, was the most commonly used translation. As early as 680 A.D., an unlearned laborer named Caedmon arranged stories of the Bible in verse form for his fellow Anglo-Saxon’s on topics like creation and the works of the Apostles. A man named Aldhelm translated the Psalms into Old English shortly after 700 A.D., while Egbert of Northumbria translated the first three gospels into English. The Venerable Bede translated the gospel of John shortly after, and Alfred the Great translated part of Exodus and Acts in the later half of the ninth century. A Priest named Aldred produced an interlinear, in which he wrote a word for word translation from the Latin into English for the New Testament. A few others had impacts on the progression of the Bible’s translation into English, but it was John Wycliffe, named the “Morning Star of the Reformation,” who was responsible for the first full translation of the Bible into English during the latter half of the fourteenth century. Wycliffe strongly argued for the Bible to be written in the language of the common man, though he also translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, not from the original languages of the Hebrew and Greek.

During the fifteenth century, several historical factors advanced the cause of the English Bible, including Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, which published the Bible in 1455. Further, the Renaissance played an important role. The Renaissance was a movement in Europe during the latter part of the Middle Ages that was characterized by a rise in nationalism, a desire for exploration, and a pursuit for the return to the original sources of ancient texts, like the Bible. It was during this time, specifically the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth, that Greek and Hebrew grammars and word studies appeared. A very influential Greek New Testament also appeared in 1516, published by a famous Humanist named Desiderius Erasmus.

William Tyndale, who was a student of Erasmus, wanted to translate the Bible for the English people, not just from Latin, but from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. Though it was considered against the law for him to do so, Tyndale translated much of the Bible into English, an action that cost him his life by being burned at the stake on October 6, 1536. His last words were “Lord, Open the King of England’s eyes.” In all actuality, ninety percent of Tyndale’s words went into what we have come to know as the King James Version.

Fortunately, Tyndale’s prayer was heard, and due to some providential circumstances and influence from men like Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, the king, Henry VIII, did concede and allow a legal translation of the Bible in to English. However, after translations from Miles Coverdale, Thomas Matthew, Richard Taverner, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the Rheims-Douai Version, and the Great Bible, there was a common sentiment that an authorized version needed to be available that would be the standard Bible for the English people to use. Here is the history of that event:

In 1604, King James I summoned a meeting of representatives from diverse religious groups to discuss the issue of religious toleration. At this meeting, known as the Hampton Court Conference, Dr. John Reynolds of Oxford discussed the desirability of having an authorized version of the English Bible that would be acceptable to all parties within the church. James agreed with Reynolds and called for a version that could be used for both public and private use. According to James, the scholars involved with the new version were to use the Bishop’s Bible as the basic version as long as it adhered to the original Greek and Hebrew. They were also to consult the other translations—Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. Unlike previous versions, there were to be no notes of comment except what was essential in translating the text. In 1607 the translation formally began. Fifty-four men skilled in Greek and Hebrew were selected and divided into six working companies—two at Westminster, two at Oxford and two at Cambridge. Each group was given detailed instructions and was assigned selected books to be translated. The work of each group was to be examined by the other companies. Thus, this translation was to be the work of the revisers as a whole, not the work of one person or group. The work continued for two years and nine months. In 1611, the first copies of the new version were printed. It was dedicated to the king and on its title page were the words, “Appointed to be read in the Churches.” In 1613 a new edition was issued with more than four hundred variations from the original printing. Numerous other changes have taken place in the centuries that have followed. The King James immediately replaced the Bishop’s Bible in the churches but still received stiff competition from the popular Geneva Bible. Within a few decades, though, the KJV established itself as the standard for English-speaking people around the world.[1]

Since the King James Version was originally translated, it has gone through several revisions. The 1762 revision is the version we use today. Next month, we will continue our journey toward the modern translations, answering the question, “Why was there a need for another translation after the King James Version?” Until then, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

[1] The notes were provided by Michael Vlach of Master’s Seminary.       

The Apocrypha

The Apocrypha

As we continue our study on Bibliology in this month’s newsletter, we move from the transmission of the Bible to a somewhat mysterious subject, the Apocrypha. I am often asked questions related to the authority of the Apocrypha, that section which is in the middle of Roman Catholic Bibles but not necessarily in ours. How are we, as Evangelicals, supposed to perceive this list of books? Why do certain Christian traditions adhere to it as authoritative and others do not? These are all very good questions that I hope to answer in this edition of the newsletter.

First, we will begin by describing the nature of the Apocrypha. The word apocrypha relates directly to the Greek concept of “hidden,” relating to the ideas of something being secretive or well, hidden. In the early church, the word took on the meaning of non-canonical, and was perceived as such for centuries. These fifteen books or additions to books first arose in the Alexandrian canon of the Greek Old Testament, often called the Septuagint. The books include The First Book of Esdras (150—100 B.C.); The Second Book of Esdras (c. A.D. 100);  Tobit (c. 200—150 B.C.); Judith (c. 150 B.C.); The Additions to the Book of Esther (140-130 B.C.); The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.); Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (c. 180 B.C.); Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.) The Letter of Jeremiah (c. 300-100 B.C.); The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men (2nd - 1st century B.C.); Susanna (Daniel 13 in the Catholic Bible) (2nd – 1st century B.C.); Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14 in the Catholic Bible) (c. 100 B.C); The Prayer of Manasseh (2nd or 1st century B.C.); The First Book of the Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.); and The Second Book of the Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.). Twelve of these books are included in the Catholic Douay Bible.

Second, we will answer the question “why do we as Evangelicals not accept the Apocrypha as authoritative?” The main reason that these apocryphal books are not in our Bibles is because, simply put, they were never included in the Hebrew canon to begin with. Jesus, Himself, infers that the canon of the Old Testament was closed around the time of the prophet Micah (Luke 24:44; Luke 11:51; Matthew 23:35). Further, Jesus nor His Apostles ever quote the Apocrypha as authoritative or even refer to it. They, however, do quote extensively from the Old Testament canon in recognition of its authority. The apocryphal books were not considered authoritative by Jews like the historian Josephus, the philosopher Philo, those who composed the council of Jamnia, and the writers of the Talmud. Further, most of the apocryphal books were written in the post-biblical era according to men like Josephus and the writers of the Talmud. Early Christian writers like Origen and Jerome also communicate that these books, called the Apocrypha, were not authoritative.

Another point that strongly opposes the authority of the Apocrypha relates to its content. The Apocrypha includes information that is inaccurate, including issues of doctrinal concern. 2 Maccabees 12:45-46 promotes prayers for the dead, which contradicts a proper interpretation of Hebrews 9:27 and Luke 16:25-26. Also, Tobit 12:9 teaches salvation by works, which the Scriptures firmly oppose in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3:11. In fact, the Apocrypha was never considered authoritative until the Council of Trent, which met in the 16th century AD. And this acceptance appears to be a response to the strong criticism from many, during the time of the Reformation, who were questioning the teachings and practices of the Church at that time.

Thirdly and finally, the question is posed as to whether the Apocrypha is of any benefit? The answer of course is . . . absolutely yes! Though it is not part of the canon of Scripture, many of the books in the Apocrypha, like 1 Maccabees, give us historical information. They also help us understand the origin of certain feasts, like the Feast of Lights which is also known as Feast of Dedication, found in John 10:22.

In conclusion, we do not recognize that the Apocrypha is part of the recognized canon of Scripture, but we do consider it valuable as we do many non-inspired works. We simply must understand that these books were written by humans in a non-inspired state; and therefore, read them in a spirit of discernment. Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

                                    *Special thanks to Michael Vlach for the use of his notes on this subject

The Transmission of the Old Testament

Hello Beloved,

Today, we will continue our study on the doctrine of the Bible. Our focus for this newsletter will be on the transmission of the Old Testament. We must remember that men and women during and even well after Bible times did not have the luxury of paper nor of the printing press. Books of the Bible, often in the form of scrolls, were extremely expensive, being made from papyrus and sometimes animal skins call vellum. Most individuals had to go to their local synagogue to hear the reading of the Scriptures. Certain scribes formed traditional procedures for the purpose of passing on these sacred documents. Because of the high regard for the Scriptures, the process of transmitting or copying these texts was very meticulous. Unlike many of the New Testament manuscripts, the Old Testament copies are comparably new, dating to only around 1000 A.D. (not counting the dead sea scrolls). There are also fewer Old Testament manuscripts as compared with that of the New, probably because of the methods used in copying these documents.

Jewish Scribes were perfectionists when it came to copying the Scriptures. A Jewish commentary called the Talmud helps us better understand many of the regulations imposed on these Jewish scribes who copied God’s Word. Michael Vlach states:

• The copyist was required to sit in full Jewish dress after a complete bathing.

• Only a certain kind of ink could be used.

• Rules governed the spacing of words.

• No word or letter could be written from memory.

• Lines and letters were methodically counted.

• If a manuscript was found to have even one error it was destroyed. (This helps explain why only a few manuscripts survived.)

Interestingly, these strict requirements were a big factor in preserving the accurate transmission of the Old Testament. Many of these manuscripts are called Massoretic texts, which comes from the scribal name of the Massoretes. These scribes copied the Old Testament from about 500 to 1000 A.D., and they were scholars of the first rate.

Some critics questioned the accuracy of the Old Testament copies since the oldest copies we possess were from around 1000 A.D., and in fact there were not very many of these manuscripts with which to compare. However, a funny thing happened around the middle of the twentieth century. A young shepherd boy stumbled on some Qumran caves in the Palestinian area, only to find old jars with scrolls inside. These scrolls contained almost the entire Old Testament, and experts dated these documents to about 150 B.C. When scholars were able to compare these much older copies of the Old Testament with the meticulous copies of the Massoretes, they found they were over 95% in agreement, which is amazing. Of course, this was a big jolt to those critical of the Massoretic texts. For those of us who know God’s Word is truth, it was just another way that God’s providential hand affirmed His message. Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Returning to our topic regarding the formation of the Canon, we turn from a focus on the Old Testament to that of the New. It was generally recognized among the Jews of Jesus day and currently among the Protestant and Evangelical Christians of today that the authoritative section of the Canon known to us as the Old Testament was finished in the fifth century B.C. with the book from the prophet Malachi. Four hundred years after Malachi, God once again raised up Apostles and those associated with the Apostles to communicate further progressive revelation about God’s greatest form of communication, the Word Himself (Heb 1:1-4; John 1:1-18). What we have come to call the New Testament, thanks to the Church Father, Tertullian, has been divided predominantly into four sections: the gospels, history, epistles (Pauline and General), and prophecy. Unlike the millennia it took to create the Old Testament, the New Testament was written over a period of approximately fifty years. Another difference regarding the writers for the New Testament, as compared with that of the Old, relates to the geographic orientation of the authors, which is far wider for those of the New Testament, encompassing most of the known civilized world in the Roman Empire.

One might wonder about the process of recognition for those New Testament works that God determined to be authoritatively inspired. This process was conducted through about five phases in the History of the Church. In the first phase, the works themselves were created, starting with books like 1 Thessalonians or possibly even James (which were written close to A.D. 50) and ending approximately in A.D. 95 with John’s apocalyptic work of Revelation. During the second phase which occurred from A.D. 96-150, there was a growing desire among those within the Church for these authoritative works to be placed in a collection. Amazingly, without much consultation, Christian assemblies around the empire circulated and recognized as authoritative the majority of the works that we perceive by the title “New Testament.” In the third phase of this process, the church began to compile these books into a collection, as a standardized record of formally authoritative works. It was during this phase that a compilation called the Muratorian Canon was constructed which contained all the New Testament books except James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. During the fourth phase, which occurred during the third century, the Church’s desire for a recognized Canon continued. It was prior to and during this phase that various heresies arose, such as Marcionism, which had its own Canon that differed from the correct or orthodox Canon. Further, many works were formed from other heretical groups like the Gnostics that looked like books from the Bible but in all actuality were frauds. Many of these heretical groups even slapped the name of a known apostle like Thomas on their works so as to deceive the masses into thinking their books were legitimate. The formation of these heretical works and illegitimate lists of canonical books propelled the church to clearly define what it actually recognized as authoritatively inspired by God. Finally, it was during the fifth phase of this process and within the fourth century, after two persecutions which saw many copies of New Testament works destroyed, that Christians felt once and for all that a universally recognized set of books should be agreed upon.

In this process of discussion, there were a few books that were disputed by some called Antilegomena such as Hebrews, a book in which the author was anonymous; James, a book that confused people about the relation of faith and works; 2 Peter, a book in which the Apostle Peter used a different style of writing than in his first epistle; 2 and 3 John which were disputed because of their limited circulation and private nature; Jude, which was disputed because he referenced a couple of works that Believers knew were not authoritative in and of themselves; and Revelation, which some questioned simply because of its teaching on the millennium. However, these disputes did not last long, and the entire set of twenty-seven books was universally accepted and recognized by the church as the authoritative written word of God by the middle of the fourth century.

The criteria that was usually associated with evaluating these books as authoritative revolved around questions like “Is this work inspired?” If it was, it would be consistent doctrinally with that of the Old Testament and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. “Does this book have Apostolic authority?” This means that the book was written either by an Apostle or someone closely associated with an Apostle like Luke to Paul. It was Jesus Who was sent by the Father, and Who in turn trained the Apostles and then sent them out with His message (John 20:21). “Was this work written during the Apostolic era?” Writings that were written after the Apostles died were not and could not be included in the Canon. “Does the church universally accept these books as authoritative?” There was an uncanny sense in the early church of what was and what was not genuinely inspired. Interestingly enough, both the Apostle Paul and Peter make citations which reveal that they perceived certain New Testament books on par with the authority of Old Testament Scripture (2 Pet 3:16; 1 Tim 5:18).

Officially, it was in A.D. 367 that Athanasius circulated his Festal Letter for Easter in which the Church revealed a fully agreed upon set of recognized Canonical works for both the Old and the New Testament. Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your Spirit.”

Discovering Canonicity in the Old Testament

Discovering Canonicity in the Old Testament

 Last month we addressed the topic of whether the church discovered or determined canonicity, and the clear answer is that the church simply discovered what God inspired and determined authoritative. The next question that one must ask is, “then how was the authoritative value of each book discovered?” The answer can be found by taking a brief look at church history to discern how our Canon came to be. We will begin with the Old Testament, but a brief word of advice, do not call this collection of books the Old Testament to your Jewish friends. To them, it is the Tanach, which is a conglomeration of the divisions for the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Chetuvim) and corresponds to our understanding of Law, Prophets, and Writings.

 What we call the Old Testament was well recognized by the time of Jesus. We can discern this truth from the words of our Lord as he communicates the three sectioned division of the Scriptures for His day: “ . . .  everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:44 (ESV). He also gave reference to the entirety of the Old Testament Canon in his citation of those martyred from the beginning of Genesis to the final martyr in the Hebrew Bible, found in Chronicles: “ . . . from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.” Luke 11:51 (ESV) Even Josephus, the Jewish historian, recognized that the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was complete and no more writings were composed after the reign of Artazerxes, which would be about the time of Malachi (the last book of the Greek Old Testament, and the pattern of books our Bibles generally follow today).

 From Artaxerxes (the successor of Xerxes) until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased. . . . For though so long a time has now passed, no one has dared to add anything to them, or to take anything from them, or to alter anything in them” (Josephus, Against Apion I. 8.).

 In AD 90, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Jewish scholars discerned the need to gather and affirm the books that they considered canonical at the council of Jamnia. Their conclusions correspond to the books we have in our Old Testament Bibles today.

 Other factors that help us understand the development of the Old Testament Canon and its recognized authority include the progressive collection of Old Testament books as seen in the immediate acceptance of the “Book of the Covenant” as the Word of God (Ex 24:3-8), the immediacy of storing Deuteronomy by the Ark after Moses wrote it (Deut 31:24-26), and Daniel’s reference to “the books” that contained the “law of Moses” and the prophets (Dan 9:2, 6, 11). Later Old Testament Books quote many earlier books as authoritative. Examples of these quotations include Jonah’s recitation of the Psalms (Jonah 2), Ezekiel’s mention of Job and Daniel (Ezekiel 14:14, 20), Daniel’s citation of Jeremiah 25 (Daniel 9:2), and the many citations of the books of Moses as referenced throughout the rest of the Old Testament from Joshua 1:7 to Malachi 4:4.

 Jesus’ affirmation of a closed Old Testament canon, Jewish tradition, and internal textual evidence all affirm a recognized inspired collection of works that the Jews deemed to be a standard authority. In our next newsletter we will continue this discussion on the discovery of the New Testament Canon, and some general principles reflective of the books considered canonical.

Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

 (*The above information was taken in large part from the notes for Dr. Michael Vlach)

Why Are There So Many Different Bible Translations ?

I often reflect on the direction that I should take the articles we post in the newsletter. Recently, it was suggested of me to write about why we have so many different translations of the Bible, and the benefits/drawbacks of each. As I pondered this suggestion, my mind returned to the multiple times that individuals have approached me on my reasoning for using the particular translation from which I preach, the differences between Bible translations, whether the King James Version is the most reliable translation, and how we received the Bible that we have today. At Brookes Bible College, I have taught a course that included the doctrine of Bibliology (the study of the Bible) at least three maybe four times. Each time that I teach this course, the students seem to be extra interested in the topic of how we have received the Bible we have today. Therefore, this is the subject upon which I have chosen to focus our newsletter articles for the year 2019.

Before we actually start thinking about translations, we have to run through the basics of how we received the Bible that we have today. Generally, there are four stages that must be considered. We will look at all the stages in the following months, while expanding on the last, which is the stage of translation. These stages include inspiration, canonization, transmission, and translation. I will briefly introduce each of these stages in this article, and then explain them in greater detail within the articles to come.

First, the stage of inspiration is descriptive of the original manuscripts, in which the Holy Spirit moved the human author of each text to communicate God’s revelation. The words that were written where co-authored 100% by both the human author and the Holy Spirit. These authors captured this revelation and recorded it in manuscripts. The original manuscripts are considered to be without error and completely infallible.

Second, the stage of canonization refers to the recognition of these inspired texts as just that, inspired. Many confuse the concepts of “determine” verses “discover” in this process. Some claim that the church determined what books would be considered inspired, and therefore be in the “canon” or “rule of standard” that we call the Bible. This idea would be incorrect. God is the one who determines what is inspired and what is not. However, through God’s providential guidance, He has revealed to man what works are inspired, and man has “discovered” these books that belong in a standard that we call the “Canon” or the “Bible.”

Third, these manuscripts had to be copied for distribution purposes, and over time, the original copies were lost. The copying of these original manuscripts is what we call “transmission.” Before Gutenberg invented the printing press, each manuscript of the Bible had to be meticulously copied by hand. This process occurred from the end of the first century to around the sixteenth century, roughly fifteen hundred years. Comparing the thousands of copies in our possession helps us to identify what was actually in the original manuscript.

Fourth, and finally, the stage of “translation” occurs when we take what we believe was in the original manuscripts, after comparing the copies, and translate the works into different languages. There are many things to consider when one translates ideas from a certain language into that of another. Issues of word definition, order of words in sentences, punctuation, and nuances of communication are just a few aspects that must be considered when evaluating different translations. So, tune in as we begin this new journey in 2019, answering the question, “Why do we have so many translations.” Until next time this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit?”

Bearing Fruit and Evangelism

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. John 15:5 (ESV)

 As we finish these articles on evangelism, I want to conclude with a reflection on the source and motivation of why we should evangelize. It is often stated, and rightly so, that evangelism is an aspect of obedience to God. This is true, but we are also Biblically commanded to obey in so many other areas as well. I am commanded to study God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15), discipline my children (Ephesians 6:4), love my wife (Ephesians 5:25), and shepherd Christ’s church just to name a few examples (1 Peter 5:2). All of these Biblical expectations are important, and I am called to obey both out of duty (Luke 17:10) and love (John 15:10). However, I also thoroughly believe that how much I do or how much I do not adhere to these expectations, including evangelism, is directly related to the magnitude regarding which I am abiding in Christ through disciplines like prayer, Bible study, church attendance, etc. As we abide in Christ, and mature in our relationship with Him, an outflow of this relationship is the producing of fruit. Now, unlike some commentators, I do not think that “fruit” is code for “new converts” necessarily, but I do believe that this passage teaches “fruit” is directly related to our witness for Christ. Consider the words of D.A. Carson regarding this passage.

 There has been considerable dispute over the nature of ‘fruit’ that is envisaged: the fruit, we are told is obedience, or new converts, or love, or Christian character. These interpretations are reductionistic. The branch’s purpose is to bear much fruit (v.5), but the next verses show that this fruit is the consequences of prayer in Jesus’ name, and is to the Father’s glory (vv. 7, 8, 16). This suggests that the ‘fruit’ in the vine imagery represents everything that is the product of effective prayer in Jesus’ name, including obedience to Jesus’ commands (v. 10), experience of Jesus’ joy (v. 11- as earlier his peace, 14:27), love for one another (v. 12), and witness to the world (v. 16, 27). This fruit is nothing less than the outcome of persevering dependence on the vine, driven by faith, embracing of all the believer’s life and the product of his witness.

 Considering Carson’s interpretation of John 15, please allow me to communicate some implications that relate to evangelism for what I believe to be a result of abiding in the vine, or in Jesus. First, this means that we should encourage others to abide in the vine and further develop our relationships in Christ. Please notice that I wrote the word encourage. I believe that encouraging and leading by example are consistent with the spirit of this passage and are the appropriate ways that we should motivate others to grow in these spiritual disciplines that relate to the expectations consistent with abiding in the vine. Second, if we are developing these spiritual disciplines and abiding in the vine, personal evangelism should be a natural outgrowth of this process. Therefore, if we are not bearing witness or are not evangelizing others, we should check our connection with the vine. Third and finally, let’s not forget that the outcome of all this abiding in the vine and bearing of fruit is joy. Jesus states, “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” John 15:11 (ESV) So, obedience in fulfilling the commands or expectations of Christ by being a witness of the gospel message to this lost and dying world should result in joy. It’s even better when lost souls come to Christ, but let’s remember, that part of the equation is out of our control. Only the Spirit can make an individual alive in Christ (John 3:3).

Consider these thoughts, and until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”

Go Make Disciples

19 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,20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matthew 28:18-20

We call it the Great Commission! One of the most prolific and used passages in the pulpits of our churches. As well it should be, but let us take another look at this passage as we consider the eleventh month of our evangelistic series. So often, I have heard a speaker exhort his audience to the mission of evangelism, and then he often quotes Matthew 28:19-20. Such a use of the passage is accurate and correct but it may not be thorough. In this brief section, I cannot exhaustively deal with explaining in its entirety the text of the Great Commission, but I would like to focus on the concepts that are found in the four phrases “go,” “make disciples,” “baptizing,” and “teaching.” “Go” may not be in command form, but the intentionality of the need to “go,” or bear witness “as we are going” through our many and varied activities is clearly communicated by Jesus. The verb form of “baptizing” infers that one who chooses to follow after Christ will reveal his or her commitment to the Lord wholeheartedly and completely through the physical act of baptism. “Teaching” magnifies the need for followers of Christ to be instructed on a regular basis in the things of God through the Word of God.

 Finally, we turn to the concept of “making disciples,” which is the primary verb among the other four in this text. This concept encompasses both evangelism and what we know traditionally as discipleship. “Making disciples” is a very broad term that relates to all the functions of Christ’s church. It may surprise you that this idea includes fellowship, praise, benevolence, prayer, discipline, as well as teaching and outreach. As my Greek professor, Dr. Matthew Black, used to say on the campus of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, “Making disciples is exactly what we do on this campus and in these classrooms.” Now, in order for us to accomplish all these functions of the church, we must first perform evangelism.  We must share the good news of the gospel with the nations, that is with those in our immediate vicinity and the regions abroad. Sean O’Donnell writes.

 To “make disciples” is a broader concept than simply “to make a convert”—evangelizing a stranger in five minutes. The word “disciple” is a “slow, corporate, and earthy” word, as are “baptizing and teaching.” It is an educational term. We are to enroll people in the school of Christ and tutor them therein, meticulously mentoring them month by month, helping them mature in Christ.

 Therefore, the next time you think about the Great Commission or hear someone allude to Matthew 28:19-20, remember that the mission of Christ emphatically calls us to evangelize and share the gospel with a lost and dying world. However, also remember that “making disciples” includes so much more. When we send out Operation Christmas Child boxes all over the world, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. When we go out on GROW visitation or perform a GROW project by sharing the gospel at a coffee house, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. When we preach the gospel at the annual block party, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. When we visit the ill in hospitals or the widows in their homes, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. When we conduct our prayer meeting on Wednesday night, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. When we perform Biblical church discipline in a spirit of love and compassion, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. When we assemble together weekly on Sunday morning and Sunday night to praise God through song and listen to a message from God’s Word, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. When we offer opportunities for the folks in our congregation to meet the physical and emotional needs of others through the food pantry and the meal ministry, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. And when we conversationally tell someone else about how responding positively to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection through faith and repentance will lead to salvation from sin and death, we are being faithful to the Great Commission. I like what Sinclair Ferguson writes, “being the church is doing evangelism.” Therefore my beloved, let us continue to go and “make disciples” as we even now are involved in this great mission that was given to us by our Lord.

Until next time, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”