My Witness to a JW, Part 2
Ah, what a blessing that the JW decided to pay a return visit! Unfortunately, the hoped-for young JW partner did not come with him–I was hoping to be able to address 2 for the price of 1. But alas no.
This time I decided it was good to lay all of our cards on the table, so to speak. I told him that I know that he has come with his trained answers and that I have my set of answers, too. But rather we should talk more just as people rather than as mutual projects. He agreed.
My approach was to be upfront with him and say, "Look, I know that no matter what I say or suggest about interpretations or doctrines contrary to the Watchtower's, you'll have a trained, pat answer for it. I'm not interested in engaging that. For the fact is, it's not a genuine 'conversation' or even 'discussion'. You don't take my views seriously b/c you're not even remotely open to the possibility that on ANY point of theology that disagrees with the Watchtower's that I could possibly be right and that they could possibly be wrong. So instead, I'd rather talk about that very fact–that you depend entirely on their interpretations for everything and that I'm not confident that these are truly YOURS."
He of course assured me multiple times that in the 35 years he's been a JW that these are indeed "his" views as well. He's studied them and concluded that the JW interpretation is the (only) correct one.
For the whole two hours I essentially pressed this point, which had the predicted, thankful effect of limiting the number of times he could leap to his trained-pat-answer reservoir.
Interestingly, he admitted (though I don't know if this represents the JWs or not) that this "discreet" body of Watchtower interpreters can be wrong in gray areas and in eschatology. So objections that they got prophecies wrong now have a pat-answer: the admission that they have been wrong on it! He admits that Charles Taze Russell, their founder, got somethings right and wrong on the 1914 prophecy of Jesus' return (which is an invisible one, of course). That he and others continue to occasionally get things wrong is a huge admission, from what I can tell. They can just brush it off saying, "Well they didn't get the 'essentials' wrong." Wow, that's huge. I guess for someone 35 years committed to this belief-system, things like that don't faze him. He's already in for a pound. I wonder if those just in for a penny, whether it would affect them. Hmm...
There were a couple of moments where he didn't seem to know how to respond.
One was when he admitted that he was conforming to the Watchtower's theology completely and argued that this is biblical (for "unity"). He "conforms" because he "agrees". Then I countered that while that's the reason HE'S claiming, the truth is many "agree" because they want to "conform". And in truth, ALL of us face that temptation and there's a mix of both in all people. Claims that it's only one way is not at all honest. He seems to be frozen a bit by the statement that people agree b/c they want to conform. I have no doubt that in their system of pressures, that one hit home.
Another point was when I was trying to insist that interpreting the Bible is not quite as easy as he's claiming. If it were so easy, there wouldn't be so many problems. He then tried to insist that this was due to "independent" thinking, which I pointed out was tantamount to "disagreement with the Watchtower". All those who don't line up under the Watchtower are "independent" thinkers (which is a nice way of saying apostate and heretical). Then I pointed to the 1st century where the Jews and their bible experts got the interpretation of Jesus wrong–not so easy to interpret the OT, is it? He then pointed out that the problem was the Pharisees and their "independent thinking". I then countered by saying, "And that's the real problem isn't it? When you have a small group of people who control the interpretation of the Bible–what you should believe and think. Don't you think the Jews thought the Pharisees had it all right? And wouldn't they be pressured into conformity with their system of beliefs? Failure to do so would be the same result as the man born blind in John 9: de-synagogued."
Again, I kept on insisting that there was a monstrous danger in their system of authority: their leaders had too much power and authority over the correct interpretation of the Bible. While he denied any parallels to the Catholic church, I kept asking how different really they were from Catholics in the sense of an oligarchy controlling what all the others have to believe and practice. He kept pointing out small areas of "freedom" but I pointed out that the Catholics allow the same but the fundamental question of a minority controling absolutely the core beliefs and practices of the majority without question.
Another point that he didn't respond to was when I asked him whether he was allowed to disagree with these fundamental teachings. He said that he didn't disagree. I kept pressing, "Yes, but what IF you wanted to disagree? Could you?" He just kept insisting that he didn't. I kept insisting that that's the problem: there's no freedom to question and put their teachings to a TRUE test. He kept insisting that such an attitude showed "independent" thinking, which is of Satan. How convenient!
As far as I'm concerned we've reached an impasse around which there is no realistic progress. All he wants to do is hammer his 35 years of trained, conditioned answers to fulfill his works that will bolster his salvation.
He wants to come back for a 3rd (and supposedly final) meeting where he can share with me his "good news". I told him I already knew what his "message" was and wasn't interested b/c it's not good news to me at all. If he tries to insist on a final follow-up I'm going to insist that I will only agree upon it if he brings someone else along with him. Only that will make it worth my time.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
My Witness to a JW
By no means am I a "cults" expert. Doubtless, there are 1000's far more experienced and qualified than I. In fact, I consider it a semi-curse that I haven't had very many encounters with the cults, whereas a vast majority of my friends and peers seem to have been and continue to be inundated with them. I wish I had. I'd gladly invite them in and tell them about the true Christ and true Gospel. Bring 'em on. They just seem to avoid me.
Two weeks ago, a JW stopped me as I was literally going out the door for a family trip to Legoland. We made a follow-up for the following week–last Tuesday for 10 AM.
When that Tuesday and 11 AM rolled around and no JW, I thought I'd been stood up. But he arrived 11:05 AM and apologized for forgetting it was supposed to be 10 AM. Whew! God timed it, I supposed, b/c I only had 45 minutes to speak with him; that's all I needed, I suppose, to say what I wanted to say.
Those who know me might think that I planned to trot out the "big guns" of Koine Greek or knowledge gained from Walter Martin tapes, books, and apologetics classes. Of course, these are invaluable. But I knew that this guy (a Korean JW) would have "pat answers" to everything. He seemed quite well-trained and quite close-minded, even from our brief initial encounter. This, I expected.
And during our 45 minute meeting on Tuesday, despite pulling out the Greek New Testament and reading it and explaining the reasons why John 1:1 ought to be read the way that most every translation but theirs renders it (which I tried knowing it would likely fail but tried anyhow), he remained unconvinced and had his own Greek explanations (though clearly he didn't read Greek). Other texts that used to be effective against the JW's in the past were no longer. Again, this, I expected.
So instead, from the get-go I decided to employ another set of tactics, one that I figured they didn't have immediate, pat answers for. I decided (yea, felt led by the Spirit) to try to get across three simple things, and I did (though with no expectation of any "reaction/ response"):
(1) The JW Gospel is "Bad News" To Me: The JWs have a gospel that offers an earthly hope but not a heavenly one; they do not believe in an eternally existent soul beyond the body; they believe in a Jesus who is a perfect man and the embodiment of Michael the Archangel (but not God); they have a salvation by works.... In sum, they have an inferior gospel. As a Protestant, evangelical Christian I have EVERYTHING they have in their gospel AND MORE. My Gospel is superior to theirs. I have a superior hope, a superior forgiveness, a superior Jesus, a superior everything. Every benefit they have I have and more. How is accepting their message "good news" to me?
Now lest you think this is merely a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument, remember that in the New Testament both Paul and John often argued for the attraction and benefit of the Gospel by comparing it to the Mosaic law: you (Jews) have Moses but we (Christians) have Jesus; you have Law and regulation, we have grace and truth.
Most important of all, I have a superior Jesus to theirs. Now, of course, he countered with the "danger" of "over-exalting a mere man". And I conceded that if he were right then I was guilty of blasphemy. BUT, I also said that if HE was wrong then he was guilty of accepting the wrong Jesus.
For the most part, he had no response to this tack. It was one of the few moments that he had little to say, which means it didn't fall under his training program indoctrination.
Eventually, I got to point two which flows from point one:
(2) You'd Better Get Your "Jesus" Right: I all but pleaded with him to ensure that he got Jesus right. I said to him, "Do you realize that if you get Jesus wrong, you've got the whole thing wrong? You'll be wrong enough to lose your soul for all eternity. You think you're right; I think I'm right. You've got your pat answers, and so do I. Either one or both of us is wrong. If you are, then you're lost when you think you've been found. That's serious. How do YOU know you're right?"
I explained (Walter Martin style) that there are many "Jesuses running around the landscape". There's the Jesus of the Mormons, the JWs, the Protestants, the Bahai, the Muslims, and every liberal scholar seems to have a different Jesus his/her own (Cynic, Sage, Wisdom speaker, Miracle Worker, Marginal Jew, Revolutionary, etc.). All have some PhD guys standing behind their view along with a select interpretation of the Bible. Given so many Jesuses and so many zealous people (like this guy) standing behind them, how can he be sure that HIS Jesus is the right one?
Again, he had little to say in response to this other than a bare affirmation that he's being "biblical". To this again I said, "But how do you know your interpretation is correct? There are 100's of interpretations all floating out there, many by high ranking scholars. What makes you so sure you've got the right one?" This naturally led to point three (which unfortunately only a few like myself can have said:)
(3) I Have Confidence In Objective "Testing" Of My Faith: I then said, "You come from a closed community that refuses to interact openly with other scholars and viewpoints. You are trained to defend your beliefs and not to understand them or those of other differing viewpoints. As an evangelical scholar, I engage in a biblical scholarship realm that opens our evidence up to critiques from all sides. If my read of Jesus is wrong or sloppy or wishful-thinking-interpretation, good minds–believers or unbelievers–will jump all over it. That's the main benefit of open scholarship: to insure that you're not just kidding yourself. Haven't you asked yourself that question? How do I know that what I believe is right? How do I know that I'm not just "sure" because I'm in an insulated community that tells me we're right? I'll admit that some Evangelical Christians insulate themselves in little pockets and refuse to listen to others but they're easy to spot a mile away. If you really have the truth, it will stand up to scrutiny. You don't have to defend it with your trained, pat answers. It stands up. And my faith, my interpretations, my Jesus have withstood the open, honest testing of scholarship for centuries and continue to do so. Other "Jesuses" have not. And those who don't feel it can barricade themselves behind closed doors. Like yours does.
Then I said, "Imagine you have to get home in a rough storm. There are two planes that can take you home each with a pilot. Pilot 1 assures you he's the best pilot and for proof tells you that he can give you his mom, his wife, and best friends as references. Pilot 2 shows you a license, a Board of Examiners who are among the top pilots in the country, 100's of flight miles, and has withstood constant testing and scrutiny by his peers as to his skills. Which pilot would you trust?... And so why should I trust your "gospel" that comes from a closed, insular community?"
Again, all he had little to say to that except that he has to "follow the Bible", but again this utterly failed to address my question which was how does he know his read on the Bible is the right one?
In the end, I of course failed to bring him to his knees in repentance over a false gospel and a false Christ. No surprise there. But without having to rehash systematic theology in all of its details, I believe I witnessed to him in the most effective way possible I could think of in 45 minutes (assuming that he would do most of the talking in that 45 minutes, which he did). I made it clear that what he believed touched on SOME of the truth of the Gospel but that his gospel was not very good news. He had nothing to offer me and yet I had everything to offer him.
I doubt he'll come back. I hope he does. I hope he sends everyone in his church and their elders to my door. I'll just keep telling them the same thing....
Two weeks ago, a JW stopped me as I was literally going out the door for a family trip to Legoland. We made a follow-up for the following week–last Tuesday for 10 AM.
When that Tuesday and 11 AM rolled around and no JW, I thought I'd been stood up. But he arrived 11:05 AM and apologized for forgetting it was supposed to be 10 AM. Whew! God timed it, I supposed, b/c I only had 45 minutes to speak with him; that's all I needed, I suppose, to say what I wanted to say.
Those who know me might think that I planned to trot out the "big guns" of Koine Greek or knowledge gained from Walter Martin tapes, books, and apologetics classes. Of course, these are invaluable. But I knew that this guy (a Korean JW) would have "pat answers" to everything. He seemed quite well-trained and quite close-minded, even from our brief initial encounter. This, I expected.
And during our 45 minute meeting on Tuesday, despite pulling out the Greek New Testament and reading it and explaining the reasons why John 1:1 ought to be read the way that most every translation but theirs renders it (which I tried knowing it would likely fail but tried anyhow), he remained unconvinced and had his own Greek explanations (though clearly he didn't read Greek). Other texts that used to be effective against the JW's in the past were no longer. Again, this, I expected.
So instead, from the get-go I decided to employ another set of tactics, one that I figured they didn't have immediate, pat answers for. I decided (yea, felt led by the Spirit) to try to get across three simple things, and I did (though with no expectation of any "reaction/ response"):
(1) The JW Gospel is "Bad News" To Me: The JWs have a gospel that offers an earthly hope but not a heavenly one; they do not believe in an eternally existent soul beyond the body; they believe in a Jesus who is a perfect man and the embodiment of Michael the Archangel (but not God); they have a salvation by works.... In sum, they have an inferior gospel. As a Protestant, evangelical Christian I have EVERYTHING they have in their gospel AND MORE. My Gospel is superior to theirs. I have a superior hope, a superior forgiveness, a superior Jesus, a superior everything. Every benefit they have I have and more. How is accepting their message "good news" to me?
Now lest you think this is merely a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument, remember that in the New Testament both Paul and John often argued for the attraction and benefit of the Gospel by comparing it to the Mosaic law: you (Jews) have Moses but we (Christians) have Jesus; you have Law and regulation, we have grace and truth.
Most important of all, I have a superior Jesus to theirs. Now, of course, he countered with the "danger" of "over-exalting a mere man". And I conceded that if he were right then I was guilty of blasphemy. BUT, I also said that if HE was wrong then he was guilty of accepting the wrong Jesus.
For the most part, he had no response to this tack. It was one of the few moments that he had little to say, which means it didn't fall under his training program indoctrination.
Eventually, I got to point two which flows from point one:
(2) You'd Better Get Your "Jesus" Right: I all but pleaded with him to ensure that he got Jesus right. I said to him, "Do you realize that if you get Jesus wrong, you've got the whole thing wrong? You'll be wrong enough to lose your soul for all eternity. You think you're right; I think I'm right. You've got your pat answers, and so do I. Either one or both of us is wrong. If you are, then you're lost when you think you've been found. That's serious. How do YOU know you're right?"
I explained (Walter Martin style) that there are many "Jesuses running around the landscape". There's the Jesus of the Mormons, the JWs, the Protestants, the Bahai, the Muslims, and every liberal scholar seems to have a different Jesus his/her own (Cynic, Sage, Wisdom speaker, Miracle Worker, Marginal Jew, Revolutionary, etc.). All have some PhD guys standing behind their view along with a select interpretation of the Bible. Given so many Jesuses and so many zealous people (like this guy) standing behind them, how can he be sure that HIS Jesus is the right one?
Again, he had little to say in response to this other than a bare affirmation that he's being "biblical". To this again I said, "But how do you know your interpretation is correct? There are 100's of interpretations all floating out there, many by high ranking scholars. What makes you so sure you've got the right one?" This naturally led to point three (which unfortunately only a few like myself can have said:)
(3) I Have Confidence In Objective "Testing" Of My Faith: I then said, "You come from a closed community that refuses to interact openly with other scholars and viewpoints. You are trained to defend your beliefs and not to understand them or those of other differing viewpoints. As an evangelical scholar, I engage in a biblical scholarship realm that opens our evidence up to critiques from all sides. If my read of Jesus is wrong or sloppy or wishful-thinking-interpretation, good minds–believers or unbelievers–will jump all over it. That's the main benefit of open scholarship: to insure that you're not just kidding yourself. Haven't you asked yourself that question? How do I know that what I believe is right? How do I know that I'm not just "sure" because I'm in an insulated community that tells me we're right? I'll admit that some Evangelical Christians insulate themselves in little pockets and refuse to listen to others but they're easy to spot a mile away. If you really have the truth, it will stand up to scrutiny. You don't have to defend it with your trained, pat answers. It stands up. And my faith, my interpretations, my Jesus have withstood the open, honest testing of scholarship for centuries and continue to do so. Other "Jesuses" have not. And those who don't feel it can barricade themselves behind closed doors. Like yours does.
Then I said, "Imagine you have to get home in a rough storm. There are two planes that can take you home each with a pilot. Pilot 1 assures you he's the best pilot and for proof tells you that he can give you his mom, his wife, and best friends as references. Pilot 2 shows you a license, a Board of Examiners who are among the top pilots in the country, 100's of flight miles, and has withstood constant testing and scrutiny by his peers as to his skills. Which pilot would you trust?... And so why should I trust your "gospel" that comes from a closed, insular community?"
Again, all he had little to say to that except that he has to "follow the Bible", but again this utterly failed to address my question which was how does he know his read on the Bible is the right one?
In the end, I of course failed to bring him to his knees in repentance over a false gospel and a false Christ. No surprise there. But without having to rehash systematic theology in all of its details, I believe I witnessed to him in the most effective way possible I could think of in 45 minutes (assuming that he would do most of the talking in that 45 minutes, which he did). I made it clear that what he believed touched on SOME of the truth of the Gospel but that his gospel was not very good news. He had nothing to offer me and yet I had everything to offer him.
I doubt he'll come back. I hope he does. I hope he sends everyone in his church and their elders to my door. I'll just keep telling them the same thing....
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Ephesians 1:22– The Ultimate Dative of Advantage
There may be well over 20 distinct uses of the dative case in Koiné Greek in the New Testament. Students groan and grumble at the prospect of having to memorize them (though it's slightly better than the 30 + uses of the genitive). Granted, not all of them yield the most profound biblical insights. The dative of advantage, however, is a mighty exception, especially as it is used in Ephesians 1:22, which reads: "And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church."
That last prepositional phrase, "to the church", is what's in view. Why is this important? Because it is the climactic statement of a whole series of grand and awesome truths about the power and resource that we possess as Christians. It begins in v. 18 where Paul prays that "the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know..." Know what? What is so important? From here comes repeated shotgun blasts of descriptors each of which surpasses even our most energized moments of glory in this life. All of that to say that what we tap into in our best hours are mere drops in the oceanic reservoir available to us. What is this resource?
(1) "the hope to which he has called you" which he specifies as "the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints". God has laid up for us eternal riches for us. What good is that if that's in the future, though? What about now? Well, it is important because this "hope" and "inheritance" both point to one thing: our current status as children of God. Paul links our favored status as children of God with our inheritance in Romans 8:17a which says, "and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ". This future hope has been secured for us because our fundamental identity has changed. We are forever God's children, therefore, not only do we have a future hope but a present power. This is explicitly stated in the next phrase:
(2) "and his incomparably great power for us who believe": There is no separation between the future hope and the present power. Both come from the same reality of our justified status before God and reconciled relationship that created more than just a "neutral" state for us; we were positively pulled toward the King of Glory and have received crowns of honor as beloved Sons and Daughters, Heirs to the Kingdom. For "believers" only, this power comes. What does this power look like?
(3) "That power is like the working of his mighty strength": Packed into that phrase are 4 words that all mean "power":
(3a) First, there's "power" which is conceptually carried from the first part of v. 19. The term is dunamis which has a very general use. It can specifically refer to a kind of angel, though that's not in view here. It can also refer to a miracle. But in this context it has likely a general reference to "power" in general seeing that the next 3 terms are going to expand and specify a bit on that more general term.
(3b) Second, there's "working" or energeia from which we get "energy" in English. Its 8 NT uses seem to refer mainly if not only to supernatural powers at work. For example, it is the word used to describe God being in control of everything in Philippians 3:21. It refers to resurrection power in Colossians 2:12. The work of Satan is described with this word in 2 Thessalonians 2:9. Such power is available to US as Christians–in us and working for us.
(3c) Third, there's "mighty", iscuos in the Greek. Like dunamis the word has a broad range of uses and functions to emphasize the "capability" of doing something. Its use as an attributive genitive is fitting in this context (hence, "mighty strength", see next).
(3d) Fourth, there's "strength", kratos in the Greek. Its focus is the strength or the intensity of the power to accomplish a deed. It's often interchangeable with dunamis but also is used in the context of sovereign rule. It is used in praises to God in association with his ruling power in Revelation 1:6; 5:13 and Jude 1:25.
Each individual usage is not Paul's point. And there is no indication that he means for us to pause and meditate on each one (though this is not altogether a terrible practice). Rather, it is the rhetorical force generated by the combined uses that packs Paul's polemic punch (just like alliteration!). What is this power and strength for?
Verses 20-22a tell us that God "exerted" these things "in Christ". Ah, this makes good sense to us. Christ is the Son of God, the son of privilege and honor. Naturally, all this power flowed in and through Christ.
Verse 20 tells us that such powers were responsible for Christ's resurrection, the power to conquer death. Needless to say, humanity has not (and never will) conquer death by exercise, pharmaceuticals, or technology. Such is ever beyond our power. Even "immortality" through procreation or the creative spirit (books, paintings, monuments) will one day dissolve to dust. Resurrection power is by its very nature divine power.
If that weren't clear enough, not only is the magnitude of this power measured by conquering death but positively by exaltation to heaven. This is not merely "transport" power, the lifting up of a body to the immaterial, heavenly realm (though the amount of energy it takes for rockets to leave the earth and break orbit is considerable!). But this is the power that comes with authority. As verse 21 clarifies this exaltation put Christ "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come". The power to rule over not only human but likely angelic powers is in view. All of creation will bow to him.
As far as creation itself goes, life and death are among its mightiest powers, hence resurrection power is quite amazing. But considering that all creation itself will submit to Christ, I think, speaks even more of this almightiness. To be certain, this submission is in mind as v. 22a says, "And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things".
Yes, this is Christ who wields all this power and might and glory. And none of this surprises us. He is the exalted Son of Man from Daniel 7. He is the Image of God from Colossians 1. He is the Sustainer of the universe from Hebrews 1. He is God of very God from John 1.
What is a shocker, what rocks us back on our heels is to read the 3 words of what comes in v. 22b:
Why did Christ receive all of this power? To give it "to the church".
What did Christ do wtih all of this power Give it "to the church".
What was the purpose of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension? To give power "to the church".
Where do we find the greatest reserve of power in the world? Where He gave it: "to the church".
And before we shake our heads in abject disbelief or before we are too quick to exalt ourselves as the power-center-of-the-universe, we read at last in v. 23 , "which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all". Now here's the connection. Christ has not deposited this power in his church apart from Himself. He has given it to the church because the church is Himself, or more accurately, we are the representation and extension of Himself in the world. We are His body, Christians, "little Christs", types of Christ walking and talking on this fallen orb.
All of this amazing power comes in and through Him. The church is His "body" and thus He is the one who animates it and gives it its life and power. That is why He "fills all in all", perhaps referring to the known creation or perhaps mainly to His body. Thus, no true power of Christ can be exercised apart from His person and purpose. We are not like children who have been handed guns and knives and told to do whatever we want. Instead, we are children who've been handed instruments of power that respond only to proper use, like knives that only can cut if wielded by a surgeon for the saving of lives.
What is this "proper use"? Read the rest of Ephesians to find out! But if you're a Christian you already know. Proper use include things like: growing in holiness, preaching the gospel, serving others, worshiping God, and fighting spiritual warfare. When done by the Spirit and for His purposes, we as Christians wield the mightiest powers in the universe.
If you don't feel that way or don't see your life reflecting this, then now you understand why faith is so important. Faith is not simply something you exercised for that moment of salvation, or for times of struggle. Faith is the conduit by which the Christian exercises this power of God. Only those who start with a belief that this is true will even begin to appropriate it. This is why Satan will attempt ever and always to undermine your faith in this truth. This is why he uses doubt and discouragement and depression as some of his main weapons–because they undercut your access to your only and almighty power. Don't let this happen!
Readers of fantasy novels know the fantasy formula: the story begins with a nobody weakling from a nowhere village. Suddenly, a prophecy is made known and this nobody is foretold to be a mighty king or warrior (or princess for the ladies). Through a series of trials and tribulations, the nobody becomes a somebody and eventually THE Somebody who becomes the most powerful person in the universe (often with the help of a magical sword, ring, stone, necklace, bracelet, wand, etc.).
For the Christian, this is no "fantasy". We all were nobodies before Christ. But because HE endured the trials and tribulations of death and judgment for us and gave all the benefits "to the church", we are who are "in Christ" have become "somebodies", in fact, THE Somebodies of the universe, higher than even the angels! We are the most powerful beings in this universe apart from God Himself. Believe it. Then live it.
That last prepositional phrase, "to the church", is what's in view. Why is this important? Because it is the climactic statement of a whole series of grand and awesome truths about the power and resource that we possess as Christians. It begins in v. 18 where Paul prays that "the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know..." Know what? What is so important? From here comes repeated shotgun blasts of descriptors each of which surpasses even our most energized moments of glory in this life. All of that to say that what we tap into in our best hours are mere drops in the oceanic reservoir available to us. What is this resource?
(1) "the hope to which he has called you" which he specifies as "the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints". God has laid up for us eternal riches for us. What good is that if that's in the future, though? What about now? Well, it is important because this "hope" and "inheritance" both point to one thing: our current status as children of God. Paul links our favored status as children of God with our inheritance in Romans 8:17a which says, "and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ". This future hope has been secured for us because our fundamental identity has changed. We are forever God's children, therefore, not only do we have a future hope but a present power. This is explicitly stated in the next phrase:
(2) "and his incomparably great power for us who believe": There is no separation between the future hope and the present power. Both come from the same reality of our justified status before God and reconciled relationship that created more than just a "neutral" state for us; we were positively pulled toward the King of Glory and have received crowns of honor as beloved Sons and Daughters, Heirs to the Kingdom. For "believers" only, this power comes. What does this power look like?
(3) "That power is like the working of his mighty strength": Packed into that phrase are 4 words that all mean "power":
(3a) First, there's "power" which is conceptually carried from the first part of v. 19. The term is dunamis which has a very general use. It can specifically refer to a kind of angel, though that's not in view here. It can also refer to a miracle. But in this context it has likely a general reference to "power" in general seeing that the next 3 terms are going to expand and specify a bit on that more general term.
(3b) Second, there's "working" or energeia from which we get "energy" in English. Its 8 NT uses seem to refer mainly if not only to supernatural powers at work. For example, it is the word used to describe God being in control of everything in Philippians 3:21. It refers to resurrection power in Colossians 2:12. The work of Satan is described with this word in 2 Thessalonians 2:9. Such power is available to US as Christians–in us and working for us.
(3c) Third, there's "mighty", iscuos in the Greek. Like dunamis the word has a broad range of uses and functions to emphasize the "capability" of doing something. Its use as an attributive genitive is fitting in this context (hence, "mighty strength", see next).
(3d) Fourth, there's "strength", kratos in the Greek. Its focus is the strength or the intensity of the power to accomplish a deed. It's often interchangeable with dunamis but also is used in the context of sovereign rule. It is used in praises to God in association with his ruling power in Revelation 1:6; 5:13 and Jude 1:25.
Each individual usage is not Paul's point. And there is no indication that he means for us to pause and meditate on each one (though this is not altogether a terrible practice). Rather, it is the rhetorical force generated by the combined uses that packs Paul's polemic punch (just like alliteration!). What is this power and strength for?
Verses 20-22a tell us that God "exerted" these things "in Christ". Ah, this makes good sense to us. Christ is the Son of God, the son of privilege and honor. Naturally, all this power flowed in and through Christ.
Verse 20 tells us that such powers were responsible for Christ's resurrection, the power to conquer death. Needless to say, humanity has not (and never will) conquer death by exercise, pharmaceuticals, or technology. Such is ever beyond our power. Even "immortality" through procreation or the creative spirit (books, paintings, monuments) will one day dissolve to dust. Resurrection power is by its very nature divine power.
If that weren't clear enough, not only is the magnitude of this power measured by conquering death but positively by exaltation to heaven. This is not merely "transport" power, the lifting up of a body to the immaterial, heavenly realm (though the amount of energy it takes for rockets to leave the earth and break orbit is considerable!). But this is the power that comes with authority. As verse 21 clarifies this exaltation put Christ "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come". The power to rule over not only human but likely angelic powers is in view. All of creation will bow to him.
As far as creation itself goes, life and death are among its mightiest powers, hence resurrection power is quite amazing. But considering that all creation itself will submit to Christ, I think, speaks even more of this almightiness. To be certain, this submission is in mind as v. 22a says, "And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things".
Yes, this is Christ who wields all this power and might and glory. And none of this surprises us. He is the exalted Son of Man from Daniel 7. He is the Image of God from Colossians 1. He is the Sustainer of the universe from Hebrews 1. He is God of very God from John 1.
What is a shocker, what rocks us back on our heels is to read the 3 words of what comes in v. 22b:
"to the church"
Why did Christ receive all of this power? To give it "to the church".
What did Christ do wtih all of this power Give it "to the church".
What was the purpose of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension? To give power "to the church".
Where do we find the greatest reserve of power in the world? Where He gave it: "to the church".
And before we shake our heads in abject disbelief or before we are too quick to exalt ourselves as the power-center-of-the-universe, we read at last in v. 23 , "which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all". Now here's the connection. Christ has not deposited this power in his church apart from Himself. He has given it to the church because the church is Himself, or more accurately, we are the representation and extension of Himself in the world. We are His body, Christians, "little Christs", types of Christ walking and talking on this fallen orb.
All of this amazing power comes in and through Him. The church is His "body" and thus He is the one who animates it and gives it its life and power. That is why He "fills all in all", perhaps referring to the known creation or perhaps mainly to His body. Thus, no true power of Christ can be exercised apart from His person and purpose. We are not like children who have been handed guns and knives and told to do whatever we want. Instead, we are children who've been handed instruments of power that respond only to proper use, like knives that only can cut if wielded by a surgeon for the saving of lives.
What is this "proper use"? Read the rest of Ephesians to find out! But if you're a Christian you already know. Proper use include things like: growing in holiness, preaching the gospel, serving others, worshiping God, and fighting spiritual warfare. When done by the Spirit and for His purposes, we as Christians wield the mightiest powers in the universe.
If you don't feel that way or don't see your life reflecting this, then now you understand why faith is so important. Faith is not simply something you exercised for that moment of salvation, or for times of struggle. Faith is the conduit by which the Christian exercises this power of God. Only those who start with a belief that this is true will even begin to appropriate it. This is why Satan will attempt ever and always to undermine your faith in this truth. This is why he uses doubt and discouragement and depression as some of his main weapons–because they undercut your access to your only and almighty power. Don't let this happen!
Readers of fantasy novels know the fantasy formula: the story begins with a nobody weakling from a nowhere village. Suddenly, a prophecy is made known and this nobody is foretold to be a mighty king or warrior (or princess for the ladies). Through a series of trials and tribulations, the nobody becomes a somebody and eventually THE Somebody who becomes the most powerful person in the universe (often with the help of a magical sword, ring, stone, necklace, bracelet, wand, etc.).
For the Christian, this is no "fantasy". We all were nobodies before Christ. But because HE endured the trials and tribulations of death and judgment for us and gave all the benefits "to the church", we are who are "in Christ" have become "somebodies", in fact, THE Somebodies of the universe, higher than even the angels! We are the most powerful beings in this universe apart from God Himself. Believe it. Then live it.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Hendiadys and 1 Tim 2:12
In a recent article in "New Testament Studies" entitled "1 Tim 2.12 and the Use of oude to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea" Philip B. Payne sets forth an argument in an attempt to bolster the egalitarian viewpoint. He states in his introduction that his paper will show "that the overwhelming majority of the uses of oude in the undisputed letters of Paul combine two elments to expess a single idea" (235).
The term often associated with this idea is "hendiadys" (from a Greek phrase of 3 words "hen" (one) "dia" (through) "dys" (two) or "one through two") which is the idea of two items combined to form a single item or idea.
The classic example of hendidys in the NT is Ephesians 4:11. Here the hendiadys is set up with very blatant grammatical markers. Paul says that God gave (to the church) "some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers". In Greek it's (transliterated):
The "men-de" construction common in Classical Greek. There it functioned as a strong adversative, setting up a "on the one hand (men) ... on the other hand (de)". In the NT, some of this is preserved but it can often function simply to group together items in a list. Both "men" and "de" are second-position in a clause as you see above--after the article. The item in question, then is the final word: didaskalous. For it is not joined with the other nouns by "tous de" like the others. Rather it is joined by "kai".
Now in English, we end a list of items with "..., and" to indicate to the reader/ listener that this is the final item. Greek does NOT do this. So if "didaskalous" was meant to round off the list to make it five items, it would have ended this way: "... tous de poimenas, tous de didaskalous". The final "de" would have linked it in a series with the others and the article would follow the pattern of the previous four. Instead we have "tous de poimenas kai didaskalous". What is this?
This is hendiadys. Here the pattern was set for how the other terms were grouped: by "tous" + "de" following the first "men". Now "kai" has a multiplicity of functions, and hendiadys can be one of them. But the context and grammar must set it up; you can't just take every instance of "kai" and force the pairings into a hendiadys relationship. Here, the obvious break from the grammatical pattern (anticipating "tous de") reveals the purpose of "kai": hendiadys.
Hence, "kai" here is not merely linking "didaskalous" with "poimenas" as part of a list but bonding the two together as a single concept: Pastor-Teachers or Teaching Pastors.
In 1 Tim 2:12 where it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to be silent", this, Payne argues, is an instance of hendiadys (though he avoids the term "hendiadys" as it's often disputed as to its meaning).
His argument is this: a majority of uses of the grammatical construction of "ou(k)" + "oude" + "alla" in Paul set up a hendiadys. He goes so far as to argue that a majority of Pauline uses of "oude" alone are a hendiadys. In other words, when Paul uses "oude" you can expect to read it like one reads "tous de poimenas kai didaskalous " from Eph 4:11.
Payne takes a large sampling of Pauline uses of "oude" and argues how, in each case, because they two concepts are related or relatable, they therefore are a hendidys. He even goes as far as to call many of the two elements compared "equivalent" or having "equivalent meanings." He breaks down the Pauline usages of "oude" into five possible "joining" uses: to join into one thought (1) equivalent ideas, (2) natural pairs, or (3) two separateideas, or to express two ideas in order to (4) focus on the same verb, or (5) express separate ideas. He argues that the distribution of these uses are as follows: (1) seven, (2) four, (3) six, (4) four, (5) zero. The point being that in no instance does "oude" link two separate ideas that stay separate.
One example comes from Gal 1:1 "Paul an apostle--not from men nor through man--but through Christ Jesus" (ouk ap' anthropon oude di' anthropou alla dia Ieisou Christou). To make this one idea, it is to be thought of something like "Paul an apostle not-from-men-through-man but through Christ Jesus".
After citing a grocery list of such examples he believes makes his case, he then goes on to 1 Tim 2:12 and concludes that the same is going on here. Thus, Paul is telling his listeners that he does not permit a woman to "teach-exercising authority" or as some would spin it "teach authoritatively" or "teach with (oppressive) authority". Hence, Paul is forbidding a specific kind of teaching: one with oppressive authority. So then women who don't teach this way can still teach/ preach/ be pastors.
Does this make the case?
There are quite a number of core problems with this approach and how it is carried out. They will be listed here in no particular order:
(1) Lack of Secondary Source Support: Hundreds of commentaries and exegetical sources have been published on the Pauline literature that delve deeply into the Greek text. Payne offers almost no corroboration of his conclusions with any of the major works. Now this does not necessarily discount the possibility that he has discovered something brand new. But such newness raises suspicion as it seems to assert that everyone else has missed this point, one that he has cleverly ferreted out. Or it could mean that everyone else considered and dismissed it for obvious reasons.
(2) Imprecise (Possibly Loaded) Categorization: It seems either cavalier or ignorant for Payne to suggest trot out the idea of "equivalence" in words or phrases without some serious discussion as to its justification. Many scholars with an expertise in grammar and linguistics have vigorously argued that such "equivalence" simply does not exist. True synonymy is rare. Even words commonly interchanged in the same expression can have shades of different meaning in different contexts. Obviously, by labeling pairs as "equivalents", it makes it easy to argue for a hendiadys. But this also betrays a tautology and a front-loading whereby the initial parameters are set up to lead naturally if not inevitably to the assumed conclusion. It is like setting up an experiment so controlled and manipulated as to force a result that leads to a preconceived, intended conclusion rather than allowing for an experiment to proceed inductively in order to see and accept what results occur. In short, this is poor scholarship.
(3) Blurring of Distinction: Emerging from the above point, what Payne attempts to do in every instance of "ou(k)... oude" (with our without "alla") is to blur or eliminate the distinction between the paired expressions. But this cannot be justified, and Payne seems to know this as he contents himself with a minimal amount of demonstration coupled with a bold conclusion. So in the Gal 1:12 example when Paul speaks of his apostleship as not sourced "from men" nor "through man", these are not the same things at all. Yes, they are related but not the same. They share the idea of "man" being the source (in contrast--alla--with Jesus Christ, the God-man) but they are not "equivalent" ideas. This is seen in the distinct uses of the preposition. The "apo + genitive" seems to have a source sense to it, sometimes emphasizing the source being a person not a thing (cf. Matt 6:13). That it's plural may also point to a body of people, commissioners. And the "dia + genitive" has more agency in mind not source. And the singular may emphasize the idea of "man" (vs. God) or "any man" or a single, man despite his position in this life (like a priest, king, or rabbi). In any case, there are two distinct elements here--related, yes, but not to be blurred into a single thought. Paul is likely saying that his apostleship did not come through a body of commissioners nor did it come from a single person occupying a high level of authority. No human agency was involved: it came rather from Jesus Christ, from God. The two elements cover the range of possibilities and Paul means to cover both which are distinct though related.
(4) Assumes Without Sufficient Proving That Relationship = Hendiadys: In the end, Payne takes related but distinct words/ phrases, shows that they are related, blurs any distinctions, and concludes that they are one-thought (hendiadys). Attempts to do this border on the absurd, but they must be done to keep the arguming flowing. The classic bungle is with Romans 9:16 where it says that God's mercy does not (ou) depend on the man who desires nor (oude) the man who runs but (alla) on God who has mercy. Here he struggles to argue that desire and effort (run) are conceptually one idea by arguing for a conceptual parallel to "pursued the law" in vv. 31-32. This is hardly an argument since there is nothing lexically of "desire" here. Only "dioko" which can mean "run" can have some parallel to "trecho" of v. 16. Payne, again, merely assumes that "desire" is in there (after all every action comes with a desire to do it, right?) and concludes that v. 16 means "desire combined with effort". Now this goes against any sensible thinking. Verses 31-32 do not parallel "desire" and "effort", only "effort" if anything. It does not exemplify a pairing-into-one idea that Payne hastens to argue. And conceptually, it misses an important point he is making in making the distinction: salvation cannot be the result of what one wills or what one does. This conclusion is drawn from the prior examples shown. Paul makes the point that Jacob and Esau were determined before any had done any works (effort). Esau, Hebrews 12 tells, us sought for the blessing with tears but was refused (effort). Paul then after v. 16 gives the example of Pharaoh which is not an example of works/ effort but will/desire. For it was Pharaoh's heart that was hardened, hindering his will from choosing to set Israel free (desire). The two pack a powerful punch precisely because they are distinct. No option for boasting is allowed here. Paul short-circuits any argument for human contribution to salvation: no works, no will. You don't earn or merit salvation, neither do you choose it. God works and wills it for you. This perserves a full doctrine of grace.
English uses a similar construction to "ou(k)... oude" with "neither-nor". Suppose I say, "As a pastor, he is neither knowledgable nor skilled." Am I saying, "As a pastor, he is not knowledgable-skilled"? or worse "knowledgably skilled"? or worst "skillfully knowledgable"? No, I am saying he does not possess either of the two attributes of "knowledge" or "skill". If I wanted to say "knowledably skilled" I would have and could have said so that way. For the "neither-nor" in English has very much the same function as "ouk ... oude" in Greek: to bring two related but distinct ideas together. Sometimes the two ideas are VERY related but still distinct. Few terms in Greek are truly "equivalent" and the use of "ouk ... oude" certainly does NOT make them so.
(5) Assumed Negative Meaning of authentein: In his introduction, he states that his argument seeks to show that this hendiadys "is the most natural way to interpret 1 Tim 2.12 within its context and identifies many instances where oude joins an infinitive with positive connotations to an infinitive with negative connotations." (236) He cites BDAG who defines it as "assume a stance of independent authority". Here again is a kind of logical tautology. As a hapax legomenon, there are no other NT examples of using this word. So how is its meaning derived? From the context. So what about the context justifies a negative use? Are there descriptions of negative surrounding the context? Are there examples of this? Does Paul employ any negative adverbs or adjectives to describe the situation as negative? If anything, the admission that "to teach" is a "positive" word only corroborates the context as a positive one. What is going on is that those who have assumed the meaning of the texts have imported an artificial context into the passage and concluded its usage as negative. This filters into a lexicon where others can point to as determinative of its "meaning".
If Paul is truly attempting to identify a narrow, specific group of women who are wrongfully exercising authority (vs. the rightful way), how Paul does it in 1 Tim 2 is certainly the most confusing if not inept attempt. Paul has made it very clear in ch. 1 that there are a group of false teachers. Paul knows how to identify and pick out a specific group, telling Timothy to discipline such teachers. None of that language is present in 1 Tim 2. Rather than Paul saying, "Timothy, command such women to not exercise their authority in this ungodly fashion, for it distorts the way of godliness" or something like that. Instead we get Paul saying, "I do not permit a woman to..." a general statement devoid of specificity. Indeed, the entire context is one of "all-ness". 1 Tim 2:1-7 is a clear command for all to pray. Verse 8 segues into a command for men to pray. Now unless one seeks to argue that this is some-men not all men, this is not justified in the text. No where does Paul specify a select group of men who are to pray. Predominantly, v. 8 is taken universally to apply to all men, and rightly so. But then v. 9 connects with v. 8 in two grammatical ways. First with "hosautos" (similarly). This means that whatever was said in v. 8 applies to v. 9. But what is the parallel? Prayer? No, since the text goes to talk about how a woman dresses. The natural conclusion is that since v. 8 applied to all men, similarly, v. 9 applies to all women. The connection is forged second by the absence of a main verb in v. 9. Only an infinitive is present. This is because the infinitive is grammatically linked to the main verb in v. 8: boulomai. Paul says in v. 8, "I wish for men..." and this carries to v. 9, "similarly, [I wish] for women to order themselves..." If one argues for vv. 9 ff to be limited to a particular group, one must argue the same for v. 8. Again, this will only betray eisegesis, the vain attempt to make the text say something that it fails to naturally says--to push and tweak the text to fit a preconceived and passionately held position.
In the end, Payne juggles and bungles his use of Greek in an attempt to bolster a preconceived conclusion. Reading the article feels like watching a scene where a newly minted private is brought to a battlefield and told, "It's not dangerous here." He is led by the hand hastily through the best parts of a blasted out town. The guide quickly points out the streets that are devoid of fighting, though gunfire can be heard in the distance, sometimes not so distant. A flurry of activity sometimes is seen in the streets but before he can stop to assess the situation, he is hastily told everything is fine, there is no fighting and told to move on. He is led finally to a safe compound, a garrison well-walled and protected. "See?" the guide says, "it's not dangerous here at all!" The private frowns, unconvinced.
A similar reaction results from reading this article.
The term often associated with this idea is "hendiadys" (from a Greek phrase of 3 words "hen" (one) "dia" (through) "dys" (two) or "one through two") which is the idea of two items combined to form a single item or idea.
The classic example of hendidys in the NT is Ephesians 4:11. Here the hendiadys is set up with very blatant grammatical markers. Paul says that God gave (to the church) "some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers". In Greek it's (transliterated):
tous men apostolous, tous de propheitas, tous de euaggelistas, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous
The "men-de" construction common in Classical Greek. There it functioned as a strong adversative, setting up a "on the one hand (men) ... on the other hand (de)". In the NT, some of this is preserved but it can often function simply to group together items in a list. Both "men" and "de" are second-position in a clause as you see above--after the article. The item in question, then is the final word: didaskalous. For it is not joined with the other nouns by "tous de" like the others. Rather it is joined by "kai".
Now in English, we end a list of items with "..., and" to indicate to the reader/ listener that this is the final item. Greek does NOT do this. So if "didaskalous" was meant to round off the list to make it five items, it would have ended this way: "... tous de poimenas, tous de didaskalous". The final "de" would have linked it in a series with the others and the article would follow the pattern of the previous four. Instead we have "tous de poimenas kai didaskalous". What is this?
This is hendiadys. Here the pattern was set for how the other terms were grouped: by "tous" + "de" following the first "men". Now "kai" has a multiplicity of functions, and hendiadys can be one of them. But the context and grammar must set it up; you can't just take every instance of "kai" and force the pairings into a hendiadys relationship. Here, the obvious break from the grammatical pattern (anticipating "tous de") reveals the purpose of "kai": hendiadys.
Hence, "kai" here is not merely linking "didaskalous" with "poimenas" as part of a list but bonding the two together as a single concept: Pastor-Teachers or Teaching Pastors.
In 1 Tim 2:12 where it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to be silent", this, Payne argues, is an instance of hendiadys (though he avoids the term "hendiadys" as it's often disputed as to its meaning).
His argument is this: a majority of uses of the grammatical construction of "ou(k)" + "oude" + "alla" in Paul set up a hendiadys. He goes so far as to argue that a majority of Pauline uses of "oude" alone are a hendiadys. In other words, when Paul uses "oude" you can expect to read it like one reads "tous de poimenas kai didaskalous " from Eph 4:11.
Payne takes a large sampling of Pauline uses of "oude" and argues how, in each case, because they two concepts are related or relatable, they therefore are a hendidys. He even goes as far as to call many of the two elements compared "equivalent" or having "equivalent meanings." He breaks down the Pauline usages of "oude" into five possible "joining" uses: to join into one thought (1) equivalent ideas, (2) natural pairs, or (3) two separateideas, or to express two ideas in order to (4) focus on the same verb, or (5) express separate ideas. He argues that the distribution of these uses are as follows: (1) seven, (2) four, (3) six, (4) four, (5) zero. The point being that in no instance does "oude" link two separate ideas that stay separate.
One example comes from Gal 1:1 "Paul an apostle--not from men nor through man--but through Christ Jesus" (ouk ap' anthropon oude di' anthropou alla dia Ieisou Christou). To make this one idea, it is to be thought of something like "Paul an apostle not-from-men-through-man but through Christ Jesus".
After citing a grocery list of such examples he believes makes his case, he then goes on to 1 Tim 2:12 and concludes that the same is going on here. Thus, Paul is telling his listeners that he does not permit a woman to "teach-exercising authority" or as some would spin it "teach authoritatively" or "teach with (oppressive) authority". Hence, Paul is forbidding a specific kind of teaching: one with oppressive authority. So then women who don't teach this way can still teach/ preach/ be pastors.
Does this make the case?
There are quite a number of core problems with this approach and how it is carried out. They will be listed here in no particular order:
(1) Lack of Secondary Source Support: Hundreds of commentaries and exegetical sources have been published on the Pauline literature that delve deeply into the Greek text. Payne offers almost no corroboration of his conclusions with any of the major works. Now this does not necessarily discount the possibility that he has discovered something brand new. But such newness raises suspicion as it seems to assert that everyone else has missed this point, one that he has cleverly ferreted out. Or it could mean that everyone else considered and dismissed it for obvious reasons.
(2) Imprecise (Possibly Loaded) Categorization: It seems either cavalier or ignorant for Payne to suggest trot out the idea of "equivalence" in words or phrases without some serious discussion as to its justification. Many scholars with an expertise in grammar and linguistics have vigorously argued that such "equivalence" simply does not exist. True synonymy is rare. Even words commonly interchanged in the same expression can have shades of different meaning in different contexts. Obviously, by labeling pairs as "equivalents", it makes it easy to argue for a hendiadys. But this also betrays a tautology and a front-loading whereby the initial parameters are set up to lead naturally if not inevitably to the assumed conclusion. It is like setting up an experiment so controlled and manipulated as to force a result that leads to a preconceived, intended conclusion rather than allowing for an experiment to proceed inductively in order to see and accept what results occur. In short, this is poor scholarship.
(3) Blurring of Distinction: Emerging from the above point, what Payne attempts to do in every instance of "ou(k)... oude" (with our without "alla") is to blur or eliminate the distinction between the paired expressions. But this cannot be justified, and Payne seems to know this as he contents himself with a minimal amount of demonstration coupled with a bold conclusion. So in the Gal 1:12 example when Paul speaks of his apostleship as not sourced "from men" nor "through man", these are not the same things at all. Yes, they are related but not the same. They share the idea of "man" being the source (in contrast--alla--with Jesus Christ, the God-man) but they are not "equivalent" ideas. This is seen in the distinct uses of the preposition. The "apo + genitive" seems to have a source sense to it, sometimes emphasizing the source being a person not a thing (cf. Matt 6:13). That it's plural may also point to a body of people, commissioners. And the "dia + genitive" has more agency in mind not source. And the singular may emphasize the idea of "man" (vs. God) or "any man" or a single, man despite his position in this life (like a priest, king, or rabbi). In any case, there are two distinct elements here--related, yes, but not to be blurred into a single thought. Paul is likely saying that his apostleship did not come through a body of commissioners nor did it come from a single person occupying a high level of authority. No human agency was involved: it came rather from Jesus Christ, from God. The two elements cover the range of possibilities and Paul means to cover both which are distinct though related.
(4) Assumes Without Sufficient Proving That Relationship = Hendiadys: In the end, Payne takes related but distinct words/ phrases, shows that they are related, blurs any distinctions, and concludes that they are one-thought (hendiadys). Attempts to do this border on the absurd, but they must be done to keep the arguming flowing. The classic bungle is with Romans 9:16 where it says that God's mercy does not (ou) depend on the man who desires nor (oude) the man who runs but (alla) on God who has mercy. Here he struggles to argue that desire and effort (run) are conceptually one idea by arguing for a conceptual parallel to "pursued the law" in vv. 31-32. This is hardly an argument since there is nothing lexically of "desire" here. Only "dioko" which can mean "run" can have some parallel to "trecho" of v. 16. Payne, again, merely assumes that "desire" is in there (after all every action comes with a desire to do it, right?) and concludes that v. 16 means "desire combined with effort". Now this goes against any sensible thinking. Verses 31-32 do not parallel "desire" and "effort", only "effort" if anything. It does not exemplify a pairing-into-one idea that Payne hastens to argue. And conceptually, it misses an important point he is making in making the distinction: salvation cannot be the result of what one wills or what one does. This conclusion is drawn from the prior examples shown. Paul makes the point that Jacob and Esau were determined before any had done any works (effort). Esau, Hebrews 12 tells, us sought for the blessing with tears but was refused (effort). Paul then after v. 16 gives the example of Pharaoh which is not an example of works/ effort but will/desire. For it was Pharaoh's heart that was hardened, hindering his will from choosing to set Israel free (desire). The two pack a powerful punch precisely because they are distinct. No option for boasting is allowed here. Paul short-circuits any argument for human contribution to salvation: no works, no will. You don't earn or merit salvation, neither do you choose it. God works and wills it for you. This perserves a full doctrine of grace.
English uses a similar construction to "ou(k)... oude" with "neither-nor". Suppose I say, "As a pastor, he is neither knowledgable nor skilled." Am I saying, "As a pastor, he is not knowledgable-skilled"? or worse "knowledgably skilled"? or worst "skillfully knowledgable"? No, I am saying he does not possess either of the two attributes of "knowledge" or "skill". If I wanted to say "knowledably skilled" I would have and could have said so that way. For the "neither-nor" in English has very much the same function as "ouk ... oude" in Greek: to bring two related but distinct ideas together. Sometimes the two ideas are VERY related but still distinct. Few terms in Greek are truly "equivalent" and the use of "ouk ... oude" certainly does NOT make them so.
(5) Assumed Negative Meaning of authentein: In his introduction, he states that his argument seeks to show that this hendiadys "is the most natural way to interpret 1 Tim 2.12 within its context and identifies many instances where oude joins an infinitive with positive connotations to an infinitive with negative connotations." (236) He cites BDAG who defines it as "assume a stance of independent authority". Here again is a kind of logical tautology. As a hapax legomenon, there are no other NT examples of using this word. So how is its meaning derived? From the context. So what about the context justifies a negative use? Are there descriptions of negative surrounding the context? Are there examples of this? Does Paul employ any negative adverbs or adjectives to describe the situation as negative? If anything, the admission that "to teach" is a "positive" word only corroborates the context as a positive one. What is going on is that those who have assumed the meaning of the texts have imported an artificial context into the passage and concluded its usage as negative. This filters into a lexicon where others can point to as determinative of its "meaning".
If Paul is truly attempting to identify a narrow, specific group of women who are wrongfully exercising authority (vs. the rightful way), how Paul does it in 1 Tim 2 is certainly the most confusing if not inept attempt. Paul has made it very clear in ch. 1 that there are a group of false teachers. Paul knows how to identify and pick out a specific group, telling Timothy to discipline such teachers. None of that language is present in 1 Tim 2. Rather than Paul saying, "Timothy, command such women to not exercise their authority in this ungodly fashion, for it distorts the way of godliness" or something like that. Instead we get Paul saying, "I do not permit a woman to..." a general statement devoid of specificity. Indeed, the entire context is one of "all-ness". 1 Tim 2:1-7 is a clear command for all to pray. Verse 8 segues into a command for men to pray. Now unless one seeks to argue that this is some-men not all men, this is not justified in the text. No where does Paul specify a select group of men who are to pray. Predominantly, v. 8 is taken universally to apply to all men, and rightly so. But then v. 9 connects with v. 8 in two grammatical ways. First with "hosautos" (similarly). This means that whatever was said in v. 8 applies to v. 9. But what is the parallel? Prayer? No, since the text goes to talk about how a woman dresses. The natural conclusion is that since v. 8 applied to all men, similarly, v. 9 applies to all women. The connection is forged second by the absence of a main verb in v. 9. Only an infinitive is present. This is because the infinitive is grammatically linked to the main verb in v. 8: boulomai. Paul says in v. 8, "I wish for men..." and this carries to v. 9, "similarly, [I wish] for women to order themselves..." If one argues for vv. 9 ff to be limited to a particular group, one must argue the same for v. 8. Again, this will only betray eisegesis, the vain attempt to make the text say something that it fails to naturally says--to push and tweak the text to fit a preconceived and passionately held position.
In the end, Payne juggles and bungles his use of Greek in an attempt to bolster a preconceived conclusion. Reading the article feels like watching a scene where a newly minted private is brought to a battlefield and told, "It's not dangerous here." He is led by the hand hastily through the best parts of a blasted out town. The guide quickly points out the streets that are devoid of fighting, though gunfire can be heard in the distance, sometimes not so distant. A flurry of activity sometimes is seen in the streets but before he can stop to assess the situation, he is hastily told everything is fine, there is no fighting and told to move on. He is led finally to a safe compound, a garrison well-walled and protected. "See?" the guide says, "it's not dangerous here at all!" The private frowns, unconvinced.
A similar reaction results from reading this article.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The BIOLA Job
Normally, this site is only for NT-related discussions, but I'll make an exception today.
After a rigorous set of interviews, by the grace of God, BIOLA officially offered me the 1-year full time position: Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies. Praise God!
Highlights from the interview process:
* The first interview: I got the strong impression (to my surprise) that my association with D.A. Carson was hindering rather than helping me. I think they were afraid I was a "Mini-Carson", which, to them, was not necessarily a good thing.
* New Testament Theology: After finishing the guest-lecturing, I shook hands with a student who told me, "If I wasn't graduating I'd take all of your classes." That's encouraging!
* In-class Evaluation Feedback: I was overwhelmed reading the feedback students gave about my teaching/ lectures. The Dean was apparently quite impressed by the strong, positive feedback also. One that stood out was a student who basically said, "I thought I was going to hate Greek but now I actually look forward to it." Yea!
* The Biblical Studies Interview: One professor was essentially asking me, "Do you read the Bible?" (in response to the idea that I don't do quiet times). I don't blame them for wondering!
* The All-Talbot-Chair Interview: The very first question was raised by a professor who asked, "Reading here about how you do creative writing on the side, do you have a 'Harry Potter-like' book buried somewhere? After all we have to, what, raise $55 million for the new Talbot building, right?" Honestly, if I had J.K. Rowling's money, I'd give hugely to BIOLA, no doubt about it.
* Various individual interviews: Meeting with the Vice-Provost, the Provost, and Talbot's Dean (twice) was an amazing thing. These are godly men with decades of wisdom and maturity that I'd be happy to achieve half of in the same lifetime. Even that All-Chair meeting was, whew, like a slice of the Kingdom come.
Thank you all, all of you who supported, prayed, encouraged, and wrote positive feedback on my behalf. I hope to live up to the high calling to which the Lord and you have brought me.
After a rigorous set of interviews, by the grace of God, BIOLA officially offered me the 1-year full time position: Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies. Praise God!
Highlights from the interview process:
* The first interview: I got the strong impression (to my surprise) that my association with D.A. Carson was hindering rather than helping me. I think they were afraid I was a "Mini-Carson", which, to them, was not necessarily a good thing.
* New Testament Theology: After finishing the guest-lecturing, I shook hands with a student who told me, "If I wasn't graduating I'd take all of your classes." That's encouraging!
* In-class Evaluation Feedback: I was overwhelmed reading the feedback students gave about my teaching/ lectures. The Dean was apparently quite impressed by the strong, positive feedback also. One that stood out was a student who basically said, "I thought I was going to hate Greek but now I actually look forward to it." Yea!
* The Biblical Studies Interview: One professor was essentially asking me, "Do you read the Bible?" (in response to the idea that I don't do quiet times). I don't blame them for wondering!
* The All-Talbot-Chair Interview: The very first question was raised by a professor who asked, "Reading here about how you do creative writing on the side, do you have a 'Harry Potter-like' book buried somewhere? After all we have to, what, raise $55 million for the new Talbot building, right?" Honestly, if I had J.K. Rowling's money, I'd give hugely to BIOLA, no doubt about it.
* Various individual interviews: Meeting with the Vice-Provost, the Provost, and Talbot's Dean (twice) was an amazing thing. These are godly men with decades of wisdom and maturity that I'd be happy to achieve half of in the same lifetime. Even that All-Chair meeting was, whew, like a slice of the Kingdom come.
Thank you all, all of you who supported, prayed, encouraged, and wrote positive feedback on my behalf. I hope to live up to the high calling to which the Lord and you have brought me.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Death, the Death Penalty, and Scripture
"I don't believe in the death penalty because there's
something too final about putting someone to death.
Once it happens, there's no going back and there's no opportunity
for repentance, salvation, or basically a second-chance."
The above was spoken to me many years ago by a Christian friend.
A part of me, most certainly, feels for that sentiment. After all, we live in an age of grace, second-chances, and redemption. Christ came to seek and save the lost. As believers we are called to forgive no matter what. God chose to transform lost people rather than simply destroy them.
That being said, does this therefore compel if not obligate a Christian to hold to the above sentiment regarding the death penalty? Does the fact of our living in the new covenant mitigate if not eliminate such strong enforcements of criminal law?
Once again, this boils down to a question of allowing Scripture to speak to us on its terms rather than banking on our well-meaning but often misguided and blurry feelings on the matter, or forwarding well-intended philosophical arguments without basis in Scripture.
THE DEATH PENALTY IN SCRIPTURE
The first question that must always be addressed is whether Scripture itself directly addresses this issue. Many issues are not, ranging from abortion to Sunday school. Certainly principles exist to indirectly and sufficiently address these issues. But a direct consideration is foremost in any discussion if such exists.
And in this case it does, so it deserves primary consideration.
1. Old Testament:
It is patently absurd to deny the fact of the death penalty as described and enforced in the OT Mosaic law. No fewer than 45 times in the Law (between Exodus 20 and the end of Deuteronomy) is the phrase "put to death" (NIV) discussed. These texts describe who is and who is not to be punished in this way.
Specific crimes worthy of capital punishment include some of the following: striking and killing someone (Ex 21:12); kidnapping and selling into slavery (Ex 21:16); cursing parents (Ex 21:17); desecrating the Sabbath (Ex 31:14); sacrificing children to Molech (Lev 20:2); adultery (Lev 20:10-13); beastiality (Lev 20:15-16); blaspheming the Lord (Lev 24:16); anyone going near the tabernacle except the priests and Levites (Num 1:51); worshippers of Baal (Num 25:5); false prophets (Deut 13:5).
Now such a list may seem daunting and may give the false impression that the Lord hands down death for just about anything. A complete reading of the Law steers one very clear of this conclusion. Far more offenses are punishable by fines or compensated for by making offerings.
A classic example of the Law being careful to hand down punishments "depending on the situation" is found in Deuteronomy 22:22-30. Here there are 4 situations of sexual contact, each with a punishment based upon the nature of the offense.
First is a clear case of mutual-consent adultery. At least one offender is married. Both are to be put to death (v.22). This sets the basic standard but opens the door to questions about slightly different scenarios.
The second is different than the first only because one of the persons involved, the woman, is betrothed/pledged/engaged but not actually married. In this case, the Law makes it clear that the betrothal is equal enough in the eyes of God to deem that person "married" and therefore both are treated under the first case and are to be put to death (vv. 23-24). So not being "technically" married doesn't give the persons a death penalty "out." But what if there's the situation where the woman (perhaps regretting the consenual act later) falsely claims she was raped (the third scenario) to save her own skin and put all the blame on the man? This is why the text specifies that it applies if it takes place "in a town" (v. 23). Israel had small villages and even its larger towns' housings were crammed together. It was practically impossible for someone to resist rape, kick, scream, run without someone noticing it. As a general rule, the lack of noticeable protest (which would be heard by someone in a town/ village) before, during, or immediately afterward points to mutual consent.
The third scenario involves rape, this time directly. The man who rapes the betrothed woman (evidenced by that she "screamed") is to be put to death but not the woman (vv. 25-27). This law actually contains two principles in one. First, it makes clear that rape is a sexual crime normally punishable by death. Second, it makes allowances for a woman raped not in a town but "in the country" (where there's nobody around). Isolated, there can be no proof of her protestations. Could she have lied? Yes, but then the man could be guilty of rape without proof in her favor either. The Law, it seems, defaults to the woman, favoring her over the man, which is consistent with God's pattern of favoring those in a more helpless position in society.
The fourth scenario switches to a woman who is not married ("a virgin") but who is raped. Now the third scenario makes it clear that rape is normally punishable by death. But what changes the punishment is that the woman is unmarried. The married woman who is raped will be taken care of (presumably) by her husband (as the Law would require). But the unmarried woman, though innocent, would be generally considered unclean by the culture and her victimization would unfairly relegate her to a life of destitution which was the result of many women who did not get married. This is why the punishment is a fine plus the requirement to marry her without a divorce option.
(By western American standards this seems like adding insult to injury- to require the victim to marry the offender. But in 1st century Jewish culture, it would be a greater insult to NOT require this as she wouldn't have the victim-acceptance as we do today and she will all but likely live a life alone, outcast, and die destitute. Every woman in that society would whole-heartily agree that this Law is not only good but highly preferrable. "Force that man to make up for his crime by devoting his whole life to supporting me! And I can even berate him all my life and he can't divorce me!")
All this to say that the Law makes provision for capital punishment yet doesn't do so lightly. Also God makes it clear that no act of such punishment happens out-of-his-hands as if He were not sovereign. The claim that death is "too final" makes it seem like it is an act that can circumvent the sovereignty of God, that someone could be put to death who "should have" had the chance to repent or return but was not given the chance. As if God snaps his fingers and says, "Aw, too bad! If only..." This is not the biblical picture.
Note how God affirms his absolute sovereignty at the conclusion of the Law and in specific regard to the death penalty:
"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39).
This is an affirmation that NOTHING happens beyond the bounds of a sovereign God. Not even those put to death. Death is not final. God is final.
2. New Testament
At this point, one can assert, "Well, that's the OLD Testament! That was well and good then, but we live in the NEW Covenant that has changed the rules. It's forgiveness not punishment, salvation not condemnation, grace not Law."
Unquestionably, we do live in that era and there has been a fundamental paradigm shift (while the content and standard of the Law is upheld if not the bar raised). But is there evidence that any of this mitigates or eliminates the need for capital punishment as evidenced by the Mosaic Law? When Jesus Christ "fulfilled" the Law, did he end the practical necessity of the civil laws?
Again, we go to where capital punishment is discussed in the NT.
Matthew 15:3-9 (esp. v. 4): Here Jesus discusses the Pharisees' traditions which have altered the reading of the Law. One such Law is the capital crime of cursing one's parents. No where does Jesus speak of undoing, mitigating, or softening the Law as a result of his death or the New Covenant. Quite the opposite, he scolds the Pharisees for softening the strength of Laws like these: "Thus, you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (v. 6). Jesus always upheld the Law and often raised it back up to the original standard if not a bit higher.
John 8:1-11: Some have used this encounter with the adulterous woman to demonstrate that Jesus was soft on the Law, especially capital punishment, all in favor of grace and forgiveness. Again, a close reading of the text betrays no such thing. When the Pharisees confront Jesus with the adulteress and correctly state that the Law requires her condemnation (though the adulterous man is oddly missing!), far from denying the Law or washing it away in favor of forgivenses, Jesus states the "cast the first stone" principle. Again, a closer look at that shows that Jesus IS calling upon the people to stone her under the Law. But by saying, "If any of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone" Jesus is not requiring sinlessness by the ones casting stones (for this was not required by the Law, yea, it was impossible).
Instead, Jesus is saying, "If you stone this woman, then don't just end with her, go all the way! Remember what the Law requires! Blasphemy requires death. Cursing parents requires death. Anyone here guilty of adultery or who has relatives guilty of that are punishable by death. Are you prepare to drag them out, too? Are you willing to be scrutinized as well? Go ahead and stone her but only if you're willing to go all the way with the Law like you're supposed to! Don't just make her an object lesson and walk away!"
So Jesus actually strongly affirms the Law: Go ahead and stone her, but if you do go all the way with the Law. His point was that Israel as a whole was hypocritical. Stoning a stranger, a known offender is easy. Applying that Law to yourself and your loved ones is another story. Jesus upheld the Law, even capital punishment. By redirecting it them, Jesus showed their unwillingness to uphold the Law not his. And when they all walk away (Pharisees included), Jesus has the choice to continue the stoning himself or, as the mediator of the New covenant and the Lord God himself, offer forgiveness. He does the latter but, not being easy on sin, commands her to go and sin no more. This is not an overturning of capital punishment. It is revelatory that this people was too weak to uphold the Law and live it, which is why they needed a savior and a newer covenant and someone to fulfull the Law for them.
Romans 13:1-5: Perhaps the best direct case for ongoing capital punishment emerges from Paul's statement in Romans 13:1-5. Here Paul addresses the broader issue of how believers are to relate to governments. Remember that Rome on the one hand was more civilized than many neighboring lands and on the other hand was full of its own corruptions and oppressiveness. It was hardly a perfect government. Yet this did not allow for an excuse to dishonor, rebel, or disobey that government. Paul argues that ALL governments, even corrupt ones, are instituted by God. That doesn't mean all the leaders are godly or certain ones shouldn't be overthrown. It is the institution that is sacred not its constituents.
Paul specifically outlines what about the institution that is important, none of which is apparently affected by the reality of the New covenant. Verses 3-5 make the primary reason for submitting to governments that their principal God-given purpose is to maintain order by creating "terror" for "those who do wrong" (v. 3). Paul goes so far as to call the government leader "God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (v. 4). Paul is not naive to the reality of evil laws and unjust punishments. But none of these isolated situations overthrows the more permanent reality that even the most corrupt governments maintain law and order and maintain the "fear factor" of doing wrong. Simply put, governments punish crimes and therefore keep the concept of a "crime" alive and well, as they should. Having some law, even if full of unjust ones, is preferrable to no law at all.
Most importantly, in verse 4, Paul uses the phrase "bear the sword" to describe the government's enforcement of the law and their bringing of fear and terror to the wrongdoer. This is an indisputable reference to capital punishment. This is concurrent and consistent with the following statement about being an agent of God's wrath. God's wrath always results in death and destruction. Paul upholds the government's right, yea, need to bring fear to society in general. The sword of capital punishment is one such tool, one alive and well under the New covenant, and under Paul, arguably the New covenant's greatest articulator.
Therefore, Paul generally upholds the government's right and divine purpose as enforcing laws punishable by that government in order to restrain sin in the world. He specifically mentions capital punishment ("the sword") as one such means governments can and ought to use to enforce the fear of wrongdoing.
* The conclusion it seems is that both Old and New Testaments uphold the need for sin to be restrained. One such important means is the death penalty, that which holds the greatest "terror" for wrongdoers. It is precisely the finality of death that restrains the sin. And since God is in control, He even has his purposes for seeing "innocent" people (innocent of that particular crime) wrongfully put to death under that nation's laws or seeing people put to death under unjust laws.
DEATH IN SCRIPTURE
This topic is far too broad to cover adequately so I will make a few comments only, those most pertinent to the discussion at hand.
First, it must be observed that as the Creator of Life, God retains the right to remove that life according to his will and timing. While there is a definite dignity and value to all human life, this has never deterred God from enacting disasters, judgments, and plagues that destroy that life en masse. Take the very first act of judgment: the universal Flood. However many people existed on the earth at that time, all were killed except for 8 people. Since then, God has shown no hesitation to have large quantities of people put to death for any number of reasons. While he never does it randomly, carelessly, or unrighteously, he does it still. He is the potter and has the right to crush whatever clay figurines he fashions. This is no less true in the New Testament. Even in the covenant of grace, the New Testament offers the most sweeping picture of death on earth: Revelation. Noah's generation may have been wiped out, but the sheer numbers of people now overshadow those then. In the numbers game, death swallows up its most victims in Revelation.
Second, because of universal sin in the Fall, humanity has forfeited the right to cry, "Foul!" for judgment and death. Romans 5 makes it clear that death spread through our sin. Though God enacts and allows death, sin is the principal cause that created and warranted every and all deaths that have subsequently occurred. Even so called accidents have their ultimate roots in sin: natural disasters come from a fallen world poisoned by sin (Genesis 3- even the ground is cursed, perhaps entropy?); car accidents result from carelessness, or faulty mechanics, or poor judgment, or imperfect car designs, etc. Our bodies are weakened because of sin and are susceptible to things a glorified body would not (diseases, injuries, etc.). Death results from sin. Capital punishment exists to enact death in order to prevent further spread of death (e.g., putting to death a serial killer) or the ruin of a life.
And even though from a human point of view, someone wrongfully convicted of a crime and put the death for it was "innocent," this innocence is only in the eyes of human law. In God's eyes, that person was a sinnner worthy of death and every day without death was simply his grace and mercy. And if God wanted to spare the person or give that person another chance, either he could have found a way to postpone execution, grant escape, resurrect the person, unearth evidence to the contrary, provide witnesses to prove innocence, or help that person evade getting caught in the first place. God is sovereign and is not without means of postponing death.
Third, especially for Christians death ought to be a non-issue. We've died twice. First, sin killed us. Second, we died with Christ. This is why Paul insists we see our lives as forfeit. Romans 8 speaks of us as lambs led to the slaughter. 1 Peter 4 calls us to "arm" ourselves with death, namely, to make death useful to us by not fearing it and seeing ourselves as already dead and every moment not-dead as a blessing and an opportunity to witness for Christ. Paul speaks of death as gain in Philippians 1. So far from fearing death, we embrace it, yea, arm ourselves with it.
Fourth, the totality of this is reflected in the complete absence of treating death with kid-gloves in the NT. Christians who are anti-capital punishment can speak about mercy, grace, and forgiveness all they want. But these are not inherently anti-capital punishment anymore than they are anti-holiness, anti-righteousness, and anti-law (though some have argued these things). The plain fact is that with all of the emphasis on grace, salvation, forgiveness, redemption, and grace, there is no indication at all on now treating the death-issue differently on a societal level. The New covenant changed many things. It changed how one views clean and unclean foods. It changed how we seek to be lights to the world. It changed our application of the Law. It changed our fundamental relationship toward people. In regard to death, it defeated death on the cross through Christ. But it did not instruct Christians to back off the death-penality issue. Nowhere do we see Paul or Peter advocating that Rome ought to relax its punishment laws so that they could have more chances to evangelize to people. If anything, the fear and reality of death helped them....
Fifth, the reality is that in the 1st century death was commonplace. We moan and groan about it today because we live in a society that's engineered to forestall death, make it painless, and minimize it at virtually all costs. We've become hypersensitive to its reality and even more fearful, as Christians, of it than our 1st century predecessors. This doesn't mean that Jesus and Paul took death lightly. They took it as reality, as something enacted by God and caused by sin. They didn't see the solution as trying to keep as many people alive as possible. They saw the solution as the gospel.
The imminent reality of death is what makes the gospel both attractive and imperative. It is precisely the lie of the expectation of being able to live long that makes 21st century westerners abandon their fear of the Lord. They trust too much in the healthcare system or their own cleverness or the government to protect them. I'm not suggesting that death is a fear-drug that manipulates someone to Christ. Instead, it's the medicinal tonic that wakes up a sleeper and a self-deceived fool who thinks that he can cheat death forever and put off the question of what happens after death. Believers who seek to feed the keep-away-death-at-all-costs mentality are only following the course of western society and in fact may be taking away a powerful and needful element for gospel preaching. This is not a call to treat death glibly or lightly. To the contrary, gospel preaching treats death with the utmost seriousness. Its reality is what makes salvation necessary. Christ came mainly to defeat death: that's the center of the gospel message. It is mistaken to treat death as the enemy of the gospel when it is one of its most powerful allies.
For myself personally, I do believe in the death penalty because there is NOT something too final about death. Finality belongs to God. And he uses death: (1) to teach us about life, (2) to unmask the reality of our weaknesses and need for a savior, (3) to rid the world of evil, (4) to restrain evildoers from fully living out the sin of their hearts, and even (5) to remind us of the unfairness of this world, this life . Governments exist primarily for this fourth purpose and to attempt to remove it from their hands is about as close to disobeying God's command to honor government authorities in Romans 13 as it gets.
Certainly grace and forgiveness are primary in the new covenant. But sin is still a stark reality and needs to be restrained in the world. The answer isn't to remove the sword from the hand of the government or make every effort to put off death as long as possible. This doesn't mean either that we forego medical treatment, medical research, or CPR. Death is real, unavoidable, and whose only solution is Christ.
The answer is to face people with the question and reality of death and present the gospel as their only answer. For it is. Christians who advocate to the contrary have forgotten that God is Final, not death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)