Stephen McAlpin's Blog

How I Evaluate Pastors & Sermons

2012-01-19T13:57:00.000-08:00

MESSAGE OUTLINE

Sermon Title:

Text/Subject for Sermon:

Introduction:

Main Points/ Key Concepts:

Conclusion:

Usages of Contextualization (e.g., illustrations, quotations, etc.):

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Exegesis:

--Was the sermon based on sound exegesis? Why or why not?

--Was there one big idea addressed by the sermon? If so, what was it?

--Did the body of the sermon develop the ideas from the text & introduction? Why or why not?

--Were the exegetical ideas from the text connected with the overarching storyline of the bible?

--Was the application/conclusion based on the exegetical ideas presented in the body of the sermon? Why or why not?

Application:

--How, if at all, does sermon direct listeners to depend on Christ?

--Would you say that the preacher preached to the whole heart (mind, will, emotions), or just to one or two elements of it?

--Were listeners challenged and engaged through the pastor's use of second person pronouns (i.e, you, you all)?

--At the end of the sermon, would listeners be left asking “So what?” In other words, was there a clear summary of the main ideas followed by a clear, practical application? Why or why not?

Communication:

--Describe the pastor’s communication style (i.e., speaking persona). In this persona, was he likeable?

--In the introduction, did the pastor manage to grab the audience’s attention early on?

--Was the pastor consistently engaging? Did he keep your attention?

--In what ways did the pastor communicate well (i.e., strengths)?

--Are there any ways the pastor could have improved his communication (i.e., weaknesses)?

Divorce in the Church: What the Bible Teaches

2012-01-19T12:10:00.000-08:00

When God created mankind, he intended for men and women to be united in lasting marriages that glorify him. However, some marriages result in divorce because of brokenness from sin. In fact, divorce is extremely prevalent in modern culture, with about half of all marriages (including those of Christians) resulting in divorce and the divorce rate steadily increasing.[1] Thankfully, God is well aware of how brokenness has affected mankind’s marriages and has addressed the issue of divorce in both the Old and New Testament.[2] In the church, it is important for pastors similarly to recognize brokenness in marriages and understand what the Bible teaches concerning divorce, so that they can effectively counsel struggling married couples. Therefore, in this paper, the topic of divorce will be examined as it relates to pastoral counseling. Relevant biblical texts from the Old Testament and New Testament, as well as psychological data, will be surveyed and reflected upon. Ultimately, a conclusion will be reached about guidelines for pastorally counseling Christians who are considering divorce. Hopefully, a proper biblical, theological, and psychological understanding will prevent divorce in the church.

In Genesis 2:24, after an explanation in Genesis 2:18-23 of how men and women are designed for one another in God’s image, God outlines his design for marriage between a man and woman. In the ESV, Genesis 2:24 reads, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” In this passage, it becomes clear that God designed marriage to be a covenant relationship of oneness.[3] A few elements of this relationship are worth noting. First, God has a set pattern for familial relationships. He intends for a man and a woman to be united in a marital relationship as husband and wife, have children, raise their children as a father and mother, and then cleave from their children so that they might follow the same pattern. In this unity, and in these roles, a man and woman properly reflect God’s image and thereby glorify him. Second, the set pattern for familial relationships results in oneness. Marriage results in oneness because it is a covenant between God and mankind, with oneness being the covenant-blessing (Proverbs 2:16-17; Malachi 2:14). And as a covenant between God and mankind, it is lasting and not designed to be disobeyed.[4] Third, the set pattern for familial relationships, and the resulting oneness, allows for married couples to return to their nakedness without feeling ashamed. That is, the experience of biblical marriage is an illustration of redemption; it symbolizes restored unity between God, men, and women.

Of course, it should be noted that mankind’s original sin against God (Genesis 3) brought corruption into the flesh and made it possible for men and women to experience brokenness in marriage. Because of sin, the reality is that many marriages do no work out as God intended them to. Many people – both husbands and wives - disobey God’s covenant stipulations for marriage, and the result can be that a husband or wife pursues divorce. Divorce is not in any way ideal - marriage is ideal - but it is allowable by God in certain circumstances.

In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses provides the people of Israel some stipulations for divorce, regulating it but not explicitly approving of it. In the ESV, the passage reads:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance."

In this passage, it should be observed that Moses was simply regulating a practice that was already occurring because of sin. This passage should not be understood as an endorsement by God of divorce, or even as an endorsement by God of remarriage. Jesus himself makes this point in Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5, when explaining how to interpret the passage.[5] The stipulations for divorce were intended to warn husbands not to divorce too quickly, on frivolous grounds, and to protect the rights of the wives involved.[6] In fact, it could be argued that the stipulations were intended to preserve marriages. When a man takes a wife and marries her, he should remain married to her – that is the biblical ideal. Of course, the ideal both assumes and demands the covenant-faithfulness of both partners involved.

Of note is that it seems “indecency” was something that was considered substantial grounds for divorce in biblical times. However, “indecency” is very ambiguous term and has been the subject of much debate. One thing that is clear, however, as Kostenberger has noted, is that, “The phrase was not needed or meant to address the issue of divorce in the case of adultery, for, according to the Pentateuch, adultery was punishable by death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22).”[7] Adultery was grounds for death, as a curse for disobedience of the marriage covenant. The term “indecency” likely refers to other substantial (and not trivial) offenses. Again, this is not to say that God approves of divorce. It is just to say that the LORD does not approve of it when a husband divorces his wife for some sort of indecency, one of them remarries, and then they the husband tries to re-marry his original wife. God wants the original marriage covenant upheld.

Beyond the passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, there are many other passages in the Old Testament that deal with the topic of divorce. Important passages to consider include Leviticus 21:7-14, Deuteronomy 22:13-29, Ezra 10:3, Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3:1-14, Ezekiel 44:22, and Malachi 2:16. Overall, throughout the entirety of these and other teachings in the Old Testament, it comes clear that God hates divorce. Kostenberger has observed,

"Not surprisingly, a reading of these passages – all of which portray divorce in a highly negative light – reveals a continued espousal of the creation ideal of marriage given in Genesis 2:24, persistent divine opposition to divorce (since it undermines creation ideals), and…a concern for marital purity in the lives of those in positions of spiritual leadership."[8]

Truly, God does seem to oppose divorce and appeal for covenant-obedience in marriage. He is the one holding the covenant together, by his holy character, and so those who believe in him and are united in him must be obedient in upholding his image in marriage. That is his ideal.

In Mark 10:2-12, Jesus teaches about divorce, qualifying the Old Testament’s teachings on the matter. In the ESV, the passage reads:

"And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?' He answered them, 'What did Moses command you?' They said, 'Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.' And Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'"

The passage makes evident at least a few important ideas about divorce. First, marriage is more than just an arrangement certified by a legal process.[9] It is a covenant-relationship that is defined by lasting oneness. Second, divorce is allowable in a legal sense, but its allowance is clearly related to sin. Without sin, divorce would not exist. Divorce is not the work of God, but of sin. It is God’s desire for married couples to be faithful to their covenant and stay married. Third, God does not endorse divorce but instead prohibits it. Therefore, Christians should not even consider divorce as God’s ideal. Fourth, divorce is considered by God to be adultery, and remarriage after divorce is also considered by God to be adultery (regardless of the circumstances). They only way a spouse is not responsible for making the other spouse an adulterer is if adultery has already been committed.[10] Ultimately, it must be concluded that after divorce, remarriage is not permissible as long as both spouses are living.

In the end, there are only two explicitly legitimate ways for a marriage to end. The first way is through the death of one’s spouse (Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39), and the second way is through a non-Christian spouse divorcing a Christian spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15). In both situations, remarriage would be permissible. Some scholars have argued God permitted divorce when sexual immorality (e.g., adultery, etc.) occurs, but the Bible (in its terminology) is a bit ambiguous about whether or not this would be a truly legitimate grounds for divorce, let alone remarriage. Those who choose to divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality (on the basis of passages like Matthew 5:32) may be justified in doing so, and should not be judged harshly by other Christians, but it must be affirmed that the Bible is ambiguous on the subject of the legitimacy of that matter. Whatever one chooses to believe about adultery being grounds for divorce, one’s view must uphold the sacredness of the marriage covenant; divorce must not be seen as part of God’s creation design.[11] Of course, one important situation to note is when a spouse disobeys the marriage-covenant somehow (e.g., adultery, abuse, etc.), is confronted by the other spouse, is put under church discipline by the elders at the church, but still refuses to repent. A spouse refusing to repent, despite being under church discipline, would have to be considered a non-Christian. As such, if the spouse refusing to repent wanted a divorce from the Christian spouse, it would be acceptable for the Christian spouse to remarry later.[12]

Having considered the biblical teachings about divorce, it is also important to consider how divorce psychologically affects both spouses and their children.

When spouses go through divorce, there are at least a few psychological consequences that each partner may experience. First, unhappily married spouses may not experience any increase in their happiness after divorce, in comparison to those who remain married. If a spouse is already unhappy, depressed, or has low self-esteem, it is likely that divorce will not improve but could actually make worse these conditions.[13] Additionally, there may be an increase in a spouse’s stress, lack of emotional support from friends and family, and conflict in relationships.[14]

The children of spouses who go through divorce also may experience some psychological consequences. Regarding how children are affected, scholars have noted, “They have been prone—more than children of intact families—to emotional and academic difficulties, conduct and adjustment problems and increased substance use in the wake of parents divorce.”[15] Beyond short-term consequences, what happens in the long-term may also be significant. For instance, children whose parents have divorced may experience long-term difficulty in building trust and commitment in their relationships. As they enter into relationships, they may have an ingrained fear of failure and abandonment that could cause great difficulty in intimacy.[16] Additionally, it would be likely for children of divorced parents to be sexually promiscuous, engaging in sexual behavior outside of the commitment of marriage.[17] Even further, it is very likely that they would have lifelong challenges in their family relations, as it would be difficult for children to have wholesome relationships with both parents after divorce.

In conclusion, pastoral counselors must remind couples considering divorce of God’s ideal for marriage, as seen in the Bible. As Kostenberger has noted, “God’s ideal holds true even in a fallen world where sin is an ever-present reality and where divorce does occur.”[18] Through the bible’s teachings, couples must be reminded of how their marriage is a covenant-relationship that is rooted in worship of God,[19] as well as the implications of that. They must be reminded of how they are both sinners saved by Jesus Christ, and thereby called to show grace to one another. Also, it may be useful for pastoral counselors to share insight about the psychological consequences of divorce. However, if either spouse chooses to proceed with divorce (for a reason other than adultery), they must be put under church discipline. Hopefully, though, through appealing to the bible’s teachings and the relevant psychological data, pastoral counselors will be able to effectively call married couple to remain married and work things out. Through a renewed commitment to establishing a regular lifestyle of confession and forgiveness, working towards growth and an agenda change, building a relationship of love, dealing with differences with appreciation and grace, and protecting marriage,[20] couples may find in their marriages what they were once looking for in divorce.

---------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES

  [1] Fridrik H. Jonsson, Urdur Njardvik, Gudlaug Olafsdottir, and Sigurdur J. Gretarsson, “Parental divorce: Long-term effects on mental health, family relations and adult sexual behavior” in Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2000, Volume 41, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 101.
  [2] Andreas J. Köstenberger and David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 223.
  [3] The Journey, “Divorce and Remarriage” (St. Louis: The Journey Fellowship, 2007), 2.
  [4] Ibid., 2.
  [5] Köstenberger and Jones, 224.
  [6] Ibid., 225.
  [7] Ibid., 224.
  [8] Ibid., 225.
  [9] The Journey, “Divorce and Remarriage,” 3.
  [10] Ibid., 4.
  [11] Köstenberger and Jones, 231.
  [12] The Journey, “Divorce and Remarriage,” 5.
  [13] Linda J. Waite, Don Browning, William J. Doherty, Maggie Gallagher, Ye Luo, and Scott M. Stanley, Does Divorce Make People Happy?: Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages (Chicago: Institute for American Values, 2002), 4.
  [14] Leah Cameron, "The Possible Negative Emotional and Psychological Consequences in Children of Divorce" in ESSAI: Vol. 6 (2008), available at: http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol6/iss1/152, accessed January 9, 2012.
  [15] Jonsson, Njardvik, Olafsdottir, and Gretarsson, 101.
  [16] Judith S. Wallerstein, PhD and Julia M. Lewis, PhD, “The Reality of Divorce: Reply to Gordon (2005)” in Psychoanalytic Psychology 2005, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Educational Publishing Foundation, 2005), 453.
  [17] Jonsson, Njardvik, Olafsdottir, and Gretarsson, 104.
  [18] Köstenberger and Jones, 236.
  [19] Paul David Tripp. What Did You Expect? What Did You Expect?: Redeeming the Realities of Marriage (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 33
  [20] Ibid., 9-10.

-------------------------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY

----Cameron, Leah. "The Possible Negative Emotional and Psychological Consequences in Children of Divorce" in ESSAI: Vol. 6 (2008). Available at: http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol6/iss1/152. Accessed January 9, 2012.
----Driscoll, Mark and Grace Driscoll. Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2012.
----Köstenberger, Andreas J. and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
----Jonsson, Fridrik H., Urdur Njardvik, Gudlaug Olafsdottir, and Sigurdur J. Gretarsson. “Parental divorce: Long-term effects on mental health, family relations and adult sexual behavior” in Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2000, Volume 41. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
----Tripp, Paul David. What Did You Expect?: Redeeming the Realities of Marriage. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
----Waite, Linda J., Don Browning, William J. Doherty, Maggie Gallagher, Ye Luo, and Scott M. Stanley. Does Divorce Make People Happy?: Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages. Chicago: Institute for American Values, 2002.
----Wallerstein, Judith S., PhD and Julia M. Lewis, PhD. “The Reality of Divorce: Reply to Gordon (2005)” in Psychoanalytic Psychology 2005, Volume 22, Number 3. Educational Publishing Foundation, 2005.
----The Journey. “Divorce and Remarriage.” Saint Louis: The Journey Fellowship, 2007.

An Exegetical Study of Isaiah 53:6-9

2012-01-01T20:07:00.000-08:00

PART I: THE BIG PICTURE

Plot Finding: As a whole, the book of Isaiah is focused upon one main idea. That idea seems to be that God is holy and demands holiness from his people. [1] However, as this idea develops throughout the book of Isaiah, it becomes clear that God’s people were not living in holy obedience to him. Rather, because of their corrupted values, they had turned to other nations and gods. As such, they faced covenant curses for their disobedience. The plot-line of the book climaxes when it declares that the wrath of God against his people will be satisfied by the death of the Servant, in sacrificial atonement. The Servant is declared to be the one who perfectly fulfills the Law, as the Lord, and will make eternal salvation possible for all who believe in him. By his sacrificial atonement, all of God’s true people will be able to enter into and eternally live in the economy of his New Covenant, experiencing all the blessings of his everlasting kingdom.

Motive: The major reason the book was written was to reveal the next stage of God’s plan of salvation for his people. This twofold stage involved, firstly, God warning his disobedient people of their coming exile from the land and subsequent loss of privileged relationship with him, which were the curses related to their breaking of his covenant. Secondly, it included the promise of future deliverance on both a physical, temporal level and a spiritual, eternal level, which would be the blessing related to their obedience in having faith. Altogether, the book of Isaiah serves to bridge the gap between the Old and the New Covenants. Isaiah teaches that although God’s people have not been able to fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant, God will fulfill the requirements for them, and in so doing will also usher them into a New Covenant.

Author: There is much dispute in critical scholarship regarding the authorship of the book of Isaiah. Many scholars advocate the view that multiple authors were involved in the creation of the book. However, there is not sufficient evidence to doubt the historical, traditional view of single authorship by the prophet Isaiah himself. Others, however, hold to a single-author position, such as the conservative Old Testament scholar J.N. Oswalt, who notes,

"The historic position of the Church was derived from the apparent claims of the book beginning at 1:1. That verse seems to say that everything which follows is a report of the visionary experiences of Isaiah the son of Amoz. Furthermore, in 2:1; 7:3; 13:1; 20:2; 37:6, 21; and 38:1 words are attributed directly to Isaiah. While Isaiah is not named as the source of any of the materials in chs. 40–66, it is evident that the burden of proof is upon those who propose other sources, for no other sources are named." [2]

With all this in mind, it seems most likely that - as the traditional view holds - the book of Isaiah was written solely by the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz. Oswalt’s view that the book itself seems to be a sort of anthology of Isaiah’s prophecy to Israel, perhaps composed by him over a period of time and then organized in such a way as to make his message most clear to readers, seems to account well for the book’s symmetry and logical, thematic organization. [3]

Origin: Determining the exact date when the book of Isaiah was written is difficult, as the book seems to have been composed over a long period of time. However, the book itself does identify the time period during which Isaiah himself lived and prophesied, which can help readers to estimate when the book was written down in its entirety. In dating the prophet Isaiah’s life, the conservative biblical scholar M.G Easton asserts,

"He exercised the functions of his office during the reigns of Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (1:1). Uzziah reigned fifty-two years (B.C. 810-759), and Isaiah must have begun his career a few years before Uzziah’s death, probably B.C. 762. He lived till the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, and in all likelihood outlived that monarch (who died B.C. 698), and may have been contemporary for some years with Manasseh. Thus Isaiah may have prophesied for the long period of at least sixty-four years." [4]

Such information makes it likely that Isaiah lived, prophesied, and composed the book which bears his name sometime before the final exile of Judah - that is, before 586 B.C.

Targeted Audience: The specific, targeted audience of the book of Isaiah was the people of Judah. They were targeted because they were not living obediently as God’s holy people (i.e., his covenant people) and were therefore in threat of exile as punishment for their disobedience.

If Easton’s chronology related to Isaiah’s lifespan and ministry cited above is accurate, then the book would have been written before the exile, if one also assumes that Isaiah himself is the author. And in that the book contains no mention of Isaiah ministering outside o the territory of the nation of Judah, it may also be assumed that Isaiah penned the book that bears his name in that same geographical area.

In addition to its specific purpose for God’s people in Judah, the book of Isaiah also has a more general purpose. It uniquely contributes many ideas about the nature and character of the Servant, and many of these ideas are quoted in the New Testament in order to show how Jesus Christ (in his life, death, and resurrection) fulfilled the role of the Servant. As scholar Brevard S. Childs has correctly observed, “The suffering servant retains its theological significance within the Christian canon because it is inextricably linked in substance with the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is and always has been the ground of God’s salvation of Israel and the world.” [5] Thus, by studying the book of Isaiah, readers today can gain a deeper understanding of the relevance of the sacrificial atonement to the lordship of Jesus Christ, the one true Suffering Servant.

Format: When considering the type of literature, it seems best to classify the book of Isaiah on a general level as prophetical literature. However, on a more specific level, it should be noted that as prophetical literature the book of Isaiah features such subgenres as narrative, poetry, prose, and apocalypse. Altogether, it is a masterfully composed piece of literature.

Culture: The book of Isaiah could be said to have or be addressing multiple historical settings, in that it was composed over a long period of time and speaks about the past, present, and future of God’s people. Many scholars have divided the book into different parts in order to reflect the different historical settings to which the book relates. However, it seems best to affirm the overall unity of the book and allow for it to stand as one piece of literature useful for all of God’s people.

When the book was written, the social setting of Judah was very troublesome. Obedience to God and his covenant was not popular; people had turned to other gods and other governments that seemed more appealing (on a surface level) to them. The people of Judah did not understand - or simply did not care about - how to be in right relationship with both God and one another. As a result, they had adopted a pagan culture which was only making things worse for them. In how they lived as a whole, they were not really any different from any other nation in the world.

Selected Passage, Situated: In this study, one passage in particular from the book will be examined, Isaiah 53:6-9. This passage addresses both the sin of God’s people and how God will deal with the sin of his people. God deals with the sin of his people by providing the Servant as sacrificial atonement on behalf of them, in an ultimate act of grace. The big idea pointed at by this passage, that a new covenant should be expected by God’s people, foreshadows the climax of the storyline of the Bible (i.e., the advent of Christ).

PART II - THE PASSAGE OBSERVED AND INTERPRETED

Final Hebrew Text: Isaiah 53:6-9

(53:6)

כֻּלָּנוּ כַּצֹּאן תָּעִינוּ

אִישׁ לְדַרְכֹּו פָּנִינוּ

וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בֹּו אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ

(53:7)

נִגַּשׂ וְהוּא נַעֲנֶה

וְלֹא יִפְתַּח־פִּיו

כַּשֶּׂה לַטֶּבַח יוּבָל

וּכְרָחֵל לִפְנֵי גֹזְזֶיהָ נֶאֱלָמָה

וְלֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו

(53:8)

מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח

אֶת־דֹּורֹו מִי יְשֹׂוחֵחַ

כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים

מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמֹו

(53:9)

וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים קִבְרֹו

וְאֶת־עָשִׁיר בְּמֹתָיו

עַל לֹא־חָמָס עָשָׂה

וְלֹא מִרְמָה בְּפִיו

Rationale for Textual Decisions

53:6

The MT seems like the best text for this verse, considering the general lack of variation in the major alternative texts (LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.).

53:7

In 53:7a, the apparatus of the MT proposes that the conjunction (waw) may be prefixed to the wrong word. It suggests that it should not be prefixed to the pronoun but instead to the following verb. [6] Such a proposal would allow for a smoother reading. However, this proposal is not supported by any variant texts. Therefore, the proposal should be rejected. The more difficult reading should be preferred.
In 53:7b, 1QIsa^a shows an alternative word for the MT’s “his mouth,” and this alternative is also present in 53:7e. 1QIsa^b supports the alternative, though it is slightly different, but the LXX and other texts do not. [7]
In 53:7c, 1QIsa^aand 1QIsa^b show an alternative for the MT word translated “slaughter.” The alternative appears to be a passive participle which possibly would be read as “being slaughtered.” [8] Since the prepositional prefix does not make much sense with a passive participle, and since other texts do not support the alternative reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the MT is preferred.
In 53:7d, 1QIsa^ashows “like a sheep” where the MT shows “and like a sheep.” That is, there is no conjunction present in 1QIsa^a. The conjunction is present in the LXX and 1QIsa^bthough, [9] so the MT’s reading should be accepted.
In 53:7e, 1QIsa^adoes not show an imperfect verb as the MT does. [10] The MT is preferred because the reading of 1QIsa^ais not supported by other texts.
The apparatus of the MT proposes that 53:7e be deleted, [11] perhaps in order to smooth out the paragraph because 53:7e seems redundant in light of 53:7b (which is identical). However, there is no support for this proposal in any variant texts. Therefore, the proposal should be rejected. The more difficult reading should be preferred.

53:8

In 53:8a, the LXX offers a variant reading (ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη) that differs in a few ways from the MT. [12] In English, the LXX could be read as, “In his humiliation the judgment of him was taken.” 1QIsa^b supports this alternative reading. However, 1QIsa^asupports the reading of MT. [13] In light of this support, and because it makes the most sense grammatically, the reading of the MT is preferred.
In 53:8a, 1QIsa^bshows a different form of the verb in the MT translated as “he was taken.” This alternative is not present in other texts, though. The LXX and 1QIsa^a support the MT, [14] and so the reading of the MT is preferred.
In 53:8c, the LXX reading (ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ) is once again slightly different. [15] In English, the LXX could be read as, “for the life of him was taken from the land.” Again, the LXX variations seem like scribal interpretation of the MT more than reliance upon a different source, and they are not supported by other main texts. The MT is preferred.
In 53:8d, the apparatus of the MT proposes a replacement, in order to make “transgression” into the plural “transgressions.” [16] However, there is no support for this proposal in any variant texts, and it should therefore be rejected. The more difficult reading should be preferred.
In 53:8d, 1QIsa^aand 4QIsa^dshow an alternative reading which could be translated as “his people” instead of the MT’s “my people.” However, the harder reading of the MT is supported by both the LXX and 1QIsa^band is to be preferred. [17]
In 53:8d, at the end, the LXX shows an alternative reading of “he was led into death (ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον) instead of the MT’s “a plague spot for them.” [18] The LXX’s reading, which supplies a verb where the MT has a noun, is supported by 1QIsa^aand is grammatically smoother than the MT. However, the more difficult reading of the MT is supported by both 1QIsa^band 4QIsa^d, [19] and is consistent with the other ideas of the line, and so it is preferred.
It is notable that the idea of the Servant dying or being stricken with a plague “for them” is absent in the LXX. However, as Bartholemy has noted, most variant texts support the reading of “for them,” as it appears in the MT. [20] Thus, the LXX likely reflects a scribal correction in light of the difficult grammar and idea of the MT. The absence of “for them” causes for the validity of the previously mentioned alternative (“he was led into death”) to be further questioned in its authenticity. Thus, the MT is preferred.

53:9

In 53:9a, there is a lot of controversy amongst the various texts in regards to the subject of the verb. The MT shows a third person, masculine, singular verb. 1QIsa^bagrees with the MT. The LXX shows the first person form of the verb. [21] However, 1QIsa^a shows a third person, masculine, plural verb. The reading of 1QIsa^a makes the most sense logically, considering that a person, after dying, is not able to put his grave anywhere - only the living can do that. Due to the discontinuity amongst the witnesses, the reading of 1QIsa^ais preferred.
In 53:9b, where the MT shows “and with,” 1QIsa^ashows an alternative. The alternative is not substantiated by other witnesses and shows evidence of correction. The MT is preferred.
In 53:9b, the LXX shows, “And the rich for the death of him” (καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ). [22] Notably, the preposition differs from the MT. The preposition of the MT is preferred. Despite this prepositional difference, the LXX also serves as a witness supporting the reading of the MT when considering another alternative reading proposed by 1QIsa^a. [23] The MT is preferred in both cases.
In 53:9d, at the very end, 1QIsa^aand 4QIsa^d both support an alternative to a word in the MT translated as “in his mouth,” adding another consonant to the end of the word. However, 1QIsa^absupports the MT. [24] The MT is preferred.

Final English Translation of Isaiah 53:6-9

53:6a All of us like the sheep have gone astray;

53:6b a man to his own way we have turned

53:6c and the LORD has caused to encounter in him the iniquity of all of us.

53:7a He was oppressed and he was being afflicted,

53:7b yet he will not open his mouth;

53:7c like a sheep to the slaughter he will be led,

53:7d and like a sheep to the faces of those shearing her was muted,

53:7e so he will not open his mouth.

53:8a By oppression and by judgment he was taken;

53:8b but who will consider his generation?

53:8c For he was cut off from a land of living ones,

53:8d by a transgression of my people, a plague spot for them.

53:9a And they put his grave with criminal ones,

53:9b and with a rich one in his death,

53:9c upon no violence he did,

53:9d and no deceit in his mouth.

Translation Notes

53:6a

The translation “all of us” allows for its parallel usage in 53:6c to be clear in the English.
In the phrase “like the sheep,” the article (i.e., “the”) has been assimilated and appears only as a daghesh forte. Its appearance should not be ignored, as it draws attention to the simile of God’s people being like “the sheep” (i.e., a flock of sheep), [25] and thus is translated despite not being entirely smooth English. Also, despite “the sheep” having a singular nature, the line could be understood as meaning “all of us are like a flock of sheep.”
The verb has been translated as “have gone astray.” It should be noted, however, that the primary idea of the verb is the action of erring by wandering. [26] Context (esp. 53:6b) lends the idea that that this erring by wandering is expressed through going one’s own way; that is, erring by wandering from God’s way. Thus, to say that “all of us, like sheep, have gone astray” seems like the most correct translation.
Maintaining the grammatical order of the line - Subject, Prepositional Phrase (Object), Verb - in the English is crucial to proper interpretation, in light of the parallelism with the next line.

53:6b

The order of the Hebrew line - Subject, Prepositional Phrase (Object), Verb - is significant for parallelism and should be maintained in the English translation, so that it might be correctly interpreted, despite it seeming a bit awkward according to rules of English grammar.
The correct English translation of this line is difficult, due to the plurality of the verb and the lack of an explicitly plural subject.
The literal translation of “a man” allows for the parallelism with 53:6a to be apparent. Also, it allows for the development of the lesser-to-greater comparison of the line (there is a notable shift from “a man” to “we”) to be clear to the reader.
In the phrase translated “to his own way,” it should be noted that “own” does not appear in the Hebrew. Logic has been used to supply the word “own” in to qualify “his way,” to reflect the correct interpretation of the the Hebrew in English. Normally, this type of interpretation would be left up to the reader, but the English does not make good sense without the supplementation. “Own” makes it clear that man’s way is being contrasted with God’s way.”
“We” is not explicit (i.e., an independent pronoun) in the Hebrew text but is instead contained within the verb.

53:6c

The prepositional phrase including God’s name has been translated as “and the LORD.” It could also read as “and Yahweh.” Regardless of the name chosen for translation purposes, the important thing for the reader to recognize is that the subject of this line is the God of Israel.
The verb is difficult to translate into English, especially considering that its object is a prepositional phrase. It has been translated as “caused to encounter” in order to convey the causative aspect of the LORD’s work in the encountering of mankind’s iniquity with the suffering servant’s person.
The word phrase translated as “all of us” is the same one used to begin 53:6a.

53:7a

In regards to the verb, context makes it clear that the subject (he) is the recipient of the oppressive action. Thus, the reflexive “He was oppressed” seems appropriate as a translation.
The participle is difficult to translate into English. It seems best to translate it as “was being afflicted” in order to allow the participle to reflect the past-tense and ongoing action.

53:7b

The conjunction has been translated loosely as “yet” because the grammar seems to convey that the Servant’s action (that he will not open his mouth) in 53:7c will occur in spite of the conditions of 53:7a and 53:7b.
The imperfect tense of the verb is notable for translation. The future aspect of it implies that the Servant will not, at any time in the future, open his mouth in response to the oppression and affliction that he had to endure. Thus, it has been translated as “he will not open.”

53:7c

The Hebrew word translated as “sheep” is different than the one used in 53:6a. The particular term used seems to draw attention to one individual sheep in a flock. [27]
In the prepositional phrase translated as “to the slaughter,” it is notable that there an assimilated article is extant. If 53:7d and 53:7e are taken as parallel units, this article could be applied to the word “faces” as well, which would make the English translation more smooth.
The Hophal verb reflects passive action with a causative voice that will happen in the future, and thus has been translated in a way that highlights how the sheep (i.e., the Servant) will be the recipient of action from an outside force. He “will be led” in the same way that a shepherd leads his flock, but in a negative sense, to slaughter.

53:7d

Once again, a different Hebrew word for “sheep” is used. Interestingly, the word used here could be translated as “ewe,” meaning that it has a singular and female nature. It should be noted that this feminization has been done by the author for an emphatic effect in the simile - the Servant is clearly a male, as made clear by other verses which are literal.
There are a couple things to note about the prepositional phrase translated as “to the faces.” First, parallelism with 53:7d has allowed for the article to be used along with “faces.” Second, “the faces” probably should be understood as a phrase of speech meaning “before,” “in front of,” or “in the presence of.” However, “to the faces” has been maintained in order to reflect the parallelism of the Hebrew.
“Those” has been supplied as the masculine plural subject of the participle. The actual subject is ambiguous. With this ambiguity in mind, it could be said that the third person, feminine, singular pronominal suffix (the recipient of the action) draws special attention to its antecedent (the female sheep).
It is difficult to determine the correct way to translate the Niphal verb. It could be either passive or reflexive. While a reflexive translation seems consistent with the willingness of the Servant to sacrifice himself, as seen throughout the context of the pericope and poem at large, a passive translation seems more consistent with the verbal system of 53:7 in particular. Thus, the passive translation has been favored.

53:7e

53:7e is identical to 53:7b, and this parallelism must be noted. However, in order for the phrase to make sense logically in English, the preposition has here been translated more strictly as “so,” in that it has more of a comparative force than than the conjunction of 53:7b.

53:8a

The word translated “oppression” is rarely used in the OT, but the context of this line helps with determining the correct range of translation for the word. It is a means, related in some way to judgment, by which the Servant will be taken away. In light of the Servant’s apparent willingness to be taken away (evidenced in other verses), this word should not be understood as meaning that he was taken away against his will.
The Pual tense of the verb identifies the Servant as the recipient of the action, in that it expresses intensive action with a passive voice; he is the one being taken away.

53:8b

The conjunction has been translated as “but,” as this seems logical in regards to the grammar. The interrogative pronoun frames the clause (53:8b) as being a question about the nature of what happened in 53:8a.
“His generation” is the object of the verb (translated “considered”), as indicated by the definite direct object marker.
The structure (in particular, the word order) of this line is significant in that it draws attention to the generation of the servant, due to its prominence in being before both the interrogative pronoun and the verb. However, a literal translation does not make sense in English (it would read, “but as for his generation, who will consider?”.
The meaning of this line is somewhat ambiguous, mostly because of the wide range of meaning available for the definition of the Servant’s “generation.” Most likely, in light of 53:8c, the term refers to the fleshly descendants of the Servant who will not be able to be born because of his sacrificial death. The Servant will be the last of his generation; he will not have any fleshly offspring.
The question, “But who will consider his generation?” seems to be rhetorical. The most logical answer seems to be that none of those who take him away will consider his generation.

53:8c

Due to the context (esp. 53:8a), the Niphal verb should be taken with a passive voice, so that it reads, “he was cut off.”
The prepositional phrase has been translated literally as “from a land of living ones” in order to reflect the singular nature of land and the plural nature of those living. An alternative reading, “the land of the living,” is also possible if the unit is considered to be a figure of speech or to be a proper name.

53:8d

The prepositional phrase which begins this line (by a transgression) is interesting for a couple reasons. First, the preposition matches the same one used twice in 53:8a, creating a connection between the ideas there and here. Second, the word “transgression” itself is singular. One transgression is the cause of the Servant being stricken for God’s people. And it is by being a plague spot for them that he was oppressed, judged, and taken away from a land of living ones.
As Dominique Barthélemy has noted, determining the correct pronominal suffix of “people” is difficult. It could be taken as either “my people” (as in the MT) or “his people” (as in the variant text 1Q-a). However, the easier reading of “his people” is likely the result of scribal corrections to smooth over the reading. The more difficult reading of “my people” is to be preferred, even though it leaves ambiguous the antecedent of “my,” in that it appears to be the more original reading. [28]
The Hebrew word translated “a plague spot” is difficult to understand in English, at least in this particular context (i.e., a verbless line). The Servant has been stricken from the sins of God’s people to the extent that he has become a plague spot for them. That is to say, he has become a curse for them, receiving the full wrath of God on their behalf. [29]
The prepositional phrase has been translated as “for them,” connecting with the previous three Hebrew words to form the complete phrase which is translated as “from a transgression of my people, a plague spot for them.” [30]

53:9a

It seems that the “waw” could be taken either as a consecutive or as a conjunction here. The consecutive has been preferred because of the overall verbal system of the poem. However, the prophetical nature of the line, which is evidenced by the imperfect verb, should not be ignored in interpretation.
“His grave” seems like the most logical choice for the object of the verb, despite word order in the line. Word order seems emphatic, focusing attention on the prepositional phrase which describes where the Servant put his grave.
In light of parallelism with 53:9b (in which “with appears” with a conjunction prefixed), “with” seems like an appropriate translation here. The preposition should not be taken as a definite direct object marker.
The translation “with criminal ones” makes clear that the Servant’s grave was put with the graves of criminals, rather than with the ambiguous term “criminals,” which leaves open the possibility (in English) that he put his grave with (i.e., in the presence of) living criminals.

53:9b

The translation “with” is preferred due to the prefixed conjunction and parallelism with 53:9a.
The translation of “a rich one” has been used for the same reason as “criminal ones” in 53:9a.
The prepositional phrase “in his death” seems to modify “and with a rich one” in particular, due to parallelism.

53:9c

The preposition has been translated as “upon” in order to reflect how the line is describing the lack of a basis or grounds (in the Servant’s own life) for the Servant’s death.
The word order of Hebrew line has been maintained in English to show parallelism with 53:9d.

53:9d

The word order in Hebrew, which reflects parallelism with 53:8c, draws attention to the prepositional phrase “in his mouth” (a prepositional phrase exists where a verb should), and thus has been maintained in English.

Grammatical Features for Interpretation

53:6a

The phrase translated as “all of us” is interesting for at least three reasons. First, the identity of the subject (“us”) is ambiguous. Since it is first person, it includes the speaker, but beyond that it seems to have an unlimited range of inclusion in light of the varying . Though it could be understood specifically as “all of Israel” or “all of Judah,” it most likely means the more general and inclusive “all of God’s people” in light of the theme (sacrificial atonement) and consistent ambiguity of pronouns in 53:6 as a whole. Second, the prefixed qualifier “all” draws emphasis to the guilt of the whole of God’s people - none are excluded from the judgment, not even the speaker. Third, the phrase both begins 53:6a and ends 53:6c, meaning that it functions as a frame for the introduction to the poem.
It is unusual to see two prepositional phrases (“all of us” and “like the sheep”) in a row at the beginning of a line. The prepositional phrases function together to create a simile. It could be said that the simile (“all of us, like the sheep”) functions as the subject of the verb (to go astray).
The verb is parsed as Qal Perfect 1CP, which is notable in that it refers to the subject’s action of going astray as having occurred in a past, completed way.

53:6b

The common, singular noun translated “a man” signifies a shift in the person and number of the subject being discussed. 53:6a began with a common, plural subject (“us”), which was compared to another plural subject (“the sheep”). The shift in focus to an individual, from greater to lesser, is emphatic and draws attention to the all-encompassing nature of the judgment. All of God’s people are like both a flock (corporate) going astray and a man (private) turning away. The whole people, including each individual, have been found guilty.
The prepositional phrase “to his own way” could be seen as the object of the verb, despite being fronted. The fact that it is fronted is notable for parallelism.
Once again, the verb is parsed as Qal Perfect 1CP. The verbal system remains consistent. In this instance, however, the verb’s subject does not have an explicit antecedent in the line. The ambiguous “we” is used instead. The antecedent seems to be “all of us,” found in 53:6a. The lack of “all of us” in 53:6b could be seen as emphatic, in that its absence in 53:6b draws even more attention to its reappearance in 53:6c.
The subject of the verb, “we,” is evidence of another shift in personhood. The shift here is from the lesser “a man” to the greater “we.” Again, this shift is emphatic in that it conveys the all-encompassing nature of the judgment.

53:6c

The conjunction which begins the line, prefixed to the name of the LORD (the subject), has been translated as “and” in order to show how 53:6c continues developing a series of ideas.
The use of God’s name (Yahweh, or “the LORD”) is emphatic, as it is the only proper name in the whole of 53:6.
The verb is parsed as Hiphil, Perfect, 3MS. The shift from the use of Qal verbs to a Hiphil verb is significant in that it conveys the causative aspect of the LORD’s work. It means that the Servant’s encounter with the iniquity of the sin of all God’s people has been caused directly by God himself. It was God’s plan that the Servant bear the sins of God’s people. Additionally, the perfect nature of the verb reflects how God’s causative work is a completed action. God, in his sovereignty, had always planned for the Servant to act as a sacrificial atonement for his people.
The prepositional phrase “in him” modifies the verb, creating a setting for the action (i.e., the encounter) to occur. It is interesting to describe the encounter as occurring in a person. It seems to mean that the Servant bears the consequences of sin on an internal level in his very personhood (that is, holistically), and not just on an external level (as might be reflected by a pronominal suffix on the verb, which does not occur here).
The antecedent of “him” is unclear and not explicitly revealed in this verse. However, context (esp. the next few verses) makes it clear that is the Servant who is being referred to here.
“Iniquity” is the object of the verb, as evidenced by the definite, direct object marker. It is part of a construct chain that serves to qualify the nature of the iniquity. The construct chain allows for the addition of the article (i.e., “the iniquity”). Altogether, it is “the iniquity of all of us.”
“All of us” ends 53:6c, just as it began 53:6a. As a frame to the verse, it surrounds a complex system of nouns and pronouns. Most importantly, it shows that the all-encompassing judgment that God’s people (as a whole, and as individuals) deserve has been atoned for in the person of the Servant alone. Those for Such an argument serves to deify the Servant; only God himself could bear the sins of all his people in a righteous way. Of course, it is important to recognize that the use of “all of us” does not signify universal inclusion in Christ’s substitutionary atonement. It is specific for God’s chosen people (i.e., his elect) which includes the prophet himself. Regarding the definitive range of “all of us,” conservative Old Testament scholar Edward Young observes, “Those for whom he served as substitute are designated all of us. In this phrase the prophet includes himself and all for whom he speaks. It is not warranted to draw from these words a doctrine of universal atonement.” [31] Thus, in accordance with Young’s observation, it should be concluded that “all of us” was a term referring specifically to those who had been granted faith in Jesus Christ in light of his substitutionary atonement for them.

53:7a

There are a few things to note about the verb, translated as “He was oppressed.” First, it is translated as such (i.e., reflexively, with the subject functioning as the recipient of the action) because it is parsed as Niphal, Perfect, 3MS. With the introduction of a Niphal verb, there is a noticeable switch from the verbal system of 53:6 - a new system is introduced. Still, the Perfect nature of the verb communicates a completed action. It seems that the action being described in 53:7 (and in what follows) is a historical, poetical description of 53:6c. Notably, the focus is on the Servant himself. He is the subject of the verb, although ambiguously so.
The pronoun, which has a conjunction prefixed to it, is emphatic. It draws attention to the Servant the subject of the verb’s reflexive action, and it also functions as the subject of the participle. It is unusual to see a conjunction prefixed in such a way, as it makes the line difficult to understand properly, but it seems appropriate considering how it is emphatic and introduces the participial phrase. The place of the conjunction allows for a contemporaneous action to be communicated, while still emphasizing that the Servant as the subject. [32]
The Niphal Participle, which is masculine and singular, conveys the idea of a contemporaneous action in the past. That is, while the Servant was oppressed, he was being afflicted. [33]

53:7b

The conjunction is difficult to translate, as will be discussed below in 53:7e, but has been taken to mean “yet” along with the logic of 53:7a. The Servant not opening his mouth seems to be an action done actively, in spite of what happened to him.
Along with a negative particle, the author shifts to using a Qal, Imperfect, 3MS verb here (translated “he will not open”). The most notable aspect of this shift is the difference between the reflexive nature of the Niphal verb and participle and the more direct nature of the Qal verb. What this highlights is that the Servant himself chose to not open his mouth (presumably, this means that he chose not to say anything), despite being oppressed and afflicted.
There is an emphasis on holiness of the Servant’s mouth, in particular. Such terminology refers the reader back to earlier parts of Isaiah.

53:7c

The prefixed preposition (“like”) leads into an extended simile, poetically describing 53:7a and 53:7b. The Servant is liked to a sheep. In this simile, there is an evident connection in semantics with the simile of 53:6a, where all of God’s people are liked to sheep who have gone astray. However, the Servant is portrayed in a positive light as a sheep, whereas God’s people were portrayed in a negative light as a sheep. The different word for “sheep” helps the reader to make the distinction between the negative and positive aspect.
The second prefixed preposition (“to”) introduces a phrase (“to the slaughter”) which functions as the object of the verb (“he will be led”), despite fronting it. The fronting is emphatic and shows parallelism with 53:7d.
The verbal system shifts once again and uses a Hophal, Imperfect, 3MS verb. Such a verb expresses causative action with a passive voice and thereby focuses attention on what will happen to the subject (i.e., the Servant), creating a situation/setting for him to respond to in an active way. His response eventually is seen in 53:7e.

53:7d

The conjunction (“and”) introduces a new line of the poem, continuing the simile about the Servant through its prefixed location on the prepositional phrase (“and like a sheep”). The feminine gender of the sheep is to be understood as a simile as well; the gender of the sheep does not refer to the actual gender of the Servant. This truth is made explicitly clear by the return to the masculine gender in the description of the Servant in 53:7e.
The second prepositional phrase (“to the faces”) could be considered to function as the object of the verb, but only insomuch as it describes the setting in which the subject (“a sheep”) acts.
The Qal Participle, which is masculine and singular, has a 3FS suffix. This means that the sheep is receiving the continuous action (of shearers) being expressed by the participle. With this in mind, the verbal system’s return to using the Qal conjugation is interesting in that it communicates direct action by others towards the subject.
Immediately after the participle, a verb parsed as Niphal, Perfect, 3FS is used. The return to the Niphal is important, as it reminds the reader of 53:7a. In 53:7a, it seems clear that the verb and participle are passive in voice. If the Niphal verb is to be taken as having a similar passive voice, then the implication is that the sheep has been muted by others being sheared in their presence (instead of muting herself while being sheared in their presence). Considering that it would be illogical/impossible (or at least highly unusual) for a sheep to mute herself, it seems correct for the context of the simile to say that the sheep was muted by those shearing her. The idea being conveyed, that a sheep was bound so as to be mute while being sheared, is similar to the idea that the Servant was bound while being afflicted. This translation, of course, makes understanding the conjunction (and thereby general meaning) of 53:7 a difficult task.

53:7e

The opening conjunction of the line is once again difficult to translate. The fact that the line is identical to 53:7b must be considered but should not cause the reader to translate the preposition exactly the same, given the difference between 53:7a (a literal description) and 53:7c and 53:7d (an extended simile). If the conjunction here is taken as working along with the prepositions translated “like,” then “so” seems like the most logical translation. The only issue is that the translation “so” communicates that the Servant will not open his mouth because, like the sheep being sheared, he was muted. This means that - assuming that 53:7b’s conjunction is to be taken as meaning “yet” - the Servant will both actively not open his mouth (despite what happens to him) and passively not open his mouth (as a result of what happens to him). Such an insight seems correct, at least within the simile-context of this verse.

53:8a

The grammar of this line is a bit unusual in that two prepositional phrases, joined together by a conjunction, are before the verb. Attention is drawn to the circumstances (as described by the prepositional phrases) in which the action occurred.
Once again, the verbal system shifts, and this time a Pual, Perfect, 3MS verb is used. Using a passive voice, the Pual conjugation here expresses an intensive action that is already completed. Thus, “he was taken” is the correct translation. The significance of the Pual conjugation here is that it works along with the circumstances created by the prepositional phrases to communicate that the Servant was harshly taken by others in ways unbefitting of him. He was taken away by others (according to their own plans), but in an ironic twist ended up truly being taken away on behalf of those others so that he (according to God’s sovereign plan) might be a sacrificial atonement for them.
In general, the idea of being “taken away,” which is expressed by the verb, relates to and likely would remind readers of their exile from Egypt. Additionally, post-exilic readers (i.e., those reading after 586 B.C.) would have been reminded of their exile from Israel/Judah. The Servant, though undeserving of such a fate, was taken away into exile for the people of God. He was cursed for them, in a Deuteronomic fashion.

53:8b

The conjunction (“but”) that is prefixed to the definite, direct object marker at the beginning of the line causes “his generation” to be the first thing of note in the line (rather than a verb or a subject). Thus, “his generation” is the focal point of the line. Such an idea points to and might refer the reader back to the Abrahamic covenant, where the seed/generation of Abraham received a promise. Although many of God’s people would have considered Abraham’s generation, as well as their own, none (it seems) have considered the Servant’s generation.
The placement of the interrogative pronoun in the middle of the line makes the grammar of the line difficult to translate smoothly into English. Still, it’s placement right after “his generation” is noteworthy. The personal, relational nature of the interrogative pronoun (in that it means “who”) immediately forces the reader to consider the generation that the Servant will not have. Scholar Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. has noted that, as a rhetorical question, it also seems to lament the thoughtlessness by the people in doing away with the Servant. [34]
The Piel conjugation of the verb conveys an intensive action with an active voice. That is, it causes the question being ask to essentially be, “who will intensely meditate for an extended period of time on his generation (or lack thereof)”? The point being made by this conjugation is that the generation of the Servant should be meditated upon in an intense, lasting way. When one does truly consider the Servant’s generation, it becomes clear that while he did not have any physical offspring, all who have faith in him (as the Christ) are his spiritual offspring and share in the blessings of the covenant promises offered to Abraham’s offspring.

53:8c

The preposition (“for”) causes this line to function the reasoning for asking the rhetorical question of 53:8b. When considering the generation of the Servant, it must be understood that “he was cut off from a land of living ones.” By being cut off from the living, he was not able to have any physical offspring. His physical family line ended with his being “cut off.”
The Niphal, Perfect, 3MS conjugation of the verb focuses on the passive nature of the Servant being cut off. He was cut off by an outside force. 53:8d goes on to describe the identity of that force. The verb of 53:8c serves to emphasize the power of that outside force.
The preposition phrase “from a land of living ones” serves to describe how exactly that the Servant was cut off. The author’s use of the word translated “land” likely would have reminded readers of God’s covenant with his people, which tied the people’s inhabitance in the land to their relationship with God. In being cut off from the land (i.e., in being exiled), the Servant was receiving the curse for covenant disobedience, as if he had no relationship with God.

53:8d

The opening preposition (“from”) introduce the outside force by which the Servant was cut off from a land of living ones - a transgression of God’s people. The singular nature of the “transgression” is interesting. Committing one transgression alone is enough to be damned according to the code of the holy LORD. Most likely, this one transgression of the people was a failure to love/worship the LORD, a failure to live rightly as the people of God, as is made evident by the construct chain which includes the term “my people.”
That the Servant became “a plague spot for them” likely would have reminded readers of their exile from Egypt, during which the Egyptians were plagued by the LORD.

53:9a

The verbal system’s return to using a verb of the Qal conjugation here (and in 53:9c) is noteworthy in that it is speaks of completed action through the use of the consecutive waw. The completed action of others putting the Servant’s grave with criminal ones is contrasted with the lack of violence done (in a completed sense) by the Servant himself (as seen in 53:9c). The servant was undeserving of having his grave placed with criminal ones; though innocent, he was considered a criminal on behalf of the people of God (who were the true criminals).

53:9b

In that the line is verbless, but connected to the previous line (53:9a) through the use of a conjunction prefixed to a prepositional phrase, the verb from 53:9a should be seen as silently functioning here as well. In other words, 53:9b could be interpreted as meaning, “And they put his grave with a rich one in his death.” Thus, a distinction can be seen between the grave in 53:9a and the grave in 53:9b. While the status of the Servant as being alive or dead while at his grave in 53:9a is uncertain, it is certain here in 53:9b that the Servant is dead in his grave. This means that 53:9b does not contradict 53:9a, or even associate the rich with the criminals; rather, 53:9b simply conveys that the grave of the Servant will be moved in his death. Although he died alongside criminals, he was placed with the rich after dying. Such a statement hints at the true nature of the Servant. Of course, the benefit of being buried with the rich must be tempered with the fact that it was still a negative thing for the Servant to have to die at all. As Oswalt has noted, “The point is not that the Servant escaped from injustice (in death), but that his treatment was unjust from start to finish.” [35]
The injustice of the Servant’s death is seemingly intended to be held in contrast with the justice of the destruction of Israel and Judah. The injustice is that the Servant is suffering and dying in the place of those who should be suffering and dying, the people of God. [36]

53:9c

The preposition (“upon”) leads into a statement that makes it clear that the Servant himself did nothing to deserve the punishment he received.
The phrase “no violence” likely refers to the Servant’s innocence in action, in that 53:9d refers to his innocence in speech. In all that he did, the Servant lived according to God’s will. Further, he lived his life so that others could have life, and not death.
The Qal, Perfect, 3MS verb speaks of the Servant’s actions in a completed (and even ultimate) sense. None of his actions, from start to finish, were violent. Such a judgment could only be made about the Messiah, and could certainly not be made by inhabitants of Judah and Israel.

53:9d

The conjunction (“and”) connects this line with the previous one, which has a similar theme - the holiness of the Servant. Along with doing no violence, the Servant is said to have no deceit in his mouth. A notable difference between 53:9c and 53:9d is that 53:9d conveys a similar idea but is actually verbless. This will be discussed below.
The Servant’s lack of deceit expresses (in a negative way) the fact that everything he said was the truth. The negative aspect of the statement (i.e., saying “no deceit” rather than “truth”) forces the reader to consider those who are deceitful (Satan, demons, liars, false prophets, etc.). Along with the description of his perfect behavior, the description of his perfect speech creates an image of him that is entirely blameless.
Where a verb would be expected (because of parallelism with 53:9c), there is a prepositional phrase (“in his mouth”). The lack of a verb is emphatic; it seems intended to focus attention upon the mouth of the Servant. The mouth of the Servant had already been talked about in 53:7b and 53:7e, as well as all throughout earlier parts of the book of Isaiah. Most notable in the discourse about the mouth in the book is that the mouth of mankind is contrasted with the mouth of the LORD. Whereas man’s mouth is unclean, the LORD’s mouth is clean. The Servant, despite being a man, has the clean mouth of the LORD. His very mouth is able to utter the Word of the LORD. The Servant is the one whom the LORD, by his Word, covenantally promised would come to redeem his true people and deliver them into their inheritance.

Key Words for Observation and Interpretation

In Isaiah 53:6c, the Hebrew verb הִפְגִּיעַ (Hiphil, Perfect, 3MS) is a key word worthy of further, in-depth study because of difficulty in properly translating it. The verb is derived from the stem פָּגַע and this stem appears in Scripture 46 total times, across 43 different verses, in either the Qal or Hiphil conjugation. The Qal conjugation is by far more common, as it is used in 40 of those total appearances. The Hiphil conjugation is less common, as it is used in only 6 of those total appearances. Further, 3 of those appearances of the Hiphil conjugation occur in the book of Isaiah alone (Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:12; Isaiah 59:16), with the other 3 appearances occurring in Jeremiah 15:11, Jeremiah 36:25, and Job 36:32. [37] Therefore, the use of the Hiphil conjugation in Scripture could be considered very rare, used almost exclusively in poetry/prophecy, and even particular to the author of Isaiah himself. Such a consideration should influence how the verb is understood by interpreters.

When trying to arrive at the proper definition, Isaiah’s usage of the Hiphil conjugation of the word should be examined first, in order to understand the context of its usage. In Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12, the verb has an object which is either iniquity itself (53:6) or the transgressors who did the iniquity (53:12). These concepts are very related and similar. However, whereas Yahweh is the causative force (Perfect) behind the verb’s action in 53:6, the Servant himself becomes the causative force (Imperfect) behind the verb’s action in 53:12. Together, the two usages lend the idea of the Servant bearing the iniquity of others in such a way as to receive in himself the negative consequences of the iniquity, all for the sake of the transgressors. Isaiah 59:16 makes this idea more clear, adding some additional ideas to the definition. There, where the stem is used to form a masculine, singular participle in the Hiphil conjugation, the idea of the LORD being a provider of righteous salvation to his people is conveyed. As such a person, he is described as acting in a way similar to the action seen in Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12. This helps make it more clear that the Hiphil conjugation of the stem פָּגַע relates to the idea of mankind receiving ultimate atonement for sin through the work of the LORD. הִפְגִּיעַ conveys the idea of mankind’s sin being placed upon the Servant in such a way that it encounters his personhood, becomes associated with him, dies with him in his death, and is wiped away completely as he imputes righteousness upon those who have been atoned for. While the CHALOT sums this idea by using the definition “let strike” for the verb, [38] BDB is probably more correct in using “cause to light upon.” [39] However, neither of these dictionaries provide a definition that exactly conveys the meaning described above. In particular, neither of them properly convey how sin is encountered in the very nature of the Servant himself, for the sake of God’s people. Thus, “caused to encounter” has been preferred as the most correct translation of הִפְגִּיעַ in Isaiah 53:6c.

In Isaiah 53:8d, נֶגַע is another another key word worthy of in-depth study because of its lexical significance. As a noun, it appears 78 times total in 62 different verses. Notably, 61 of those appearances occur in the book of Leviticus, chapters 13 and 14. [40] There, in those passages, the word is associated with the Holiness Code as a label for conditions (e.g., diseases, wounds, etc.) that make a person unclean. The Levitical usage of the term is probably most crucial for understanding the usage in Isaiah 53:8d, due to the connection between the Law’s provision for the uncleanliness in Leviticus 14 (i.e., a sacrificial atonement involving sheep), the sheep similes of Isaiah 53:6-7, and the overall theme of sacrificial atonement in the pericope. The uses of the word in Deuteronomy generally reflect this same theme, as they hint at a priest being able to make clean the unclean condition of a person. Other, earlier usages of נֶגַע are also notable though. For instance, in Genesis 12:17, the word is used to refer to a condition of affliction which God causes to fall upon Pharaoh and his family as a curse/punishment. Similarly, in Exodus 11:1, the LORD himself uses the term to describe to Moses the condition of affliction by which he is going to curse Pharaoh and Egypt. Traditionally, the word in Exodus 11:1 has been understood to mean the one final “plague” that the Egyptians were cursed with before they let God’s people go into their exile (in which they sojourned to the Promised Land).

The CHALOT defines נֶגַע as having three potential meanings, all of which are fairly related in nature. They are “plague, affliction,” “blow, assault,” and “mark, skin disease.” [41] In a similar fashion, the BDB provides “stroke,” “plague,” “mark,” and “plague-spot” as all being possible definitions. The distinction between the definitions in both lexicons seems to be whether or not context allows for the condition of affliction to be attributed to the LORD.

Considering the context of the pericope (Isaiah 53:6-9), in which one individual - the Servant - gains the identity of being a נֶגַע for the people in accordance with God’s will (to be a sacrificial atonement for them), it seems to best to consider the argument to mean that he becomes a “plague spot” for them. That is, he is stricken by God in such a way that he becomes legally unclean, and so unclean that only God himself could have the power to make him clean again. In becoming a נֶגַע for God’s people, from the iniquity of all of them being encountered in his person, the Servant will certainly die for them. Such is God’s plan for their atonement; his love for his people is so great that he will sacrifice himself (in the form of the Servant), that they might be saved and (in faith) become perfectly obedient servants like him - free from curses, and free for blessings.

The Structure Observed and Interpreted

As a general structure, the pericope could be divided as follows: An introduction to the suffering of the Servant (53:6), and the actual suffering of the Servant (53:7-9). [42] More particularly, the verses could be seen as fitting into the following outline:

Isa. 53:6a - A simile about the waywardness of all the people of God

Isa. 53:6b - The waywardness of individual people of God

Isa. 53:6c - Atonement for all the people of God in the Servant’s sacrifice

Isa. 53:7a - A description of the Servant’s suffering

Isa. 53:7b - The Servant’s response to his suffering

Isa. 53:7c - A simile about the Servant being killed

Isa. 53:7d - A simile about the Servant being silent

Isa. 53:7e - The Servant’s response to his suffering

Isa. 53:8a - The way by which the Servant was taken

Isa. 53:8b - A question about the effect of the Servant being taken

Isa. 53:8c - The Servant’s exclusion as the ground for the question

Isa. 53:8d - The way by which the Servant was excluded.

Isa. 53:9a - The people’s negative response to the Servant’s sacrifice

Isa. 53:9b - An ironic element of the people’s negative response

Isa. 53:9c - The Servant’s innocent actions as an adversative basis for the people’s response

Isa. 53:9d - The Servant’s innocent speech as an adversative basis for the people’s response

Noticeably, the logical progression of the pericope has many different layers of meaning. Many of these layers exist because of parallelism in the poetry. With that in mind, parallelism in Isaiah 53:6-9 must also be observed in-depth. In particular, the use of semantic parallelism in the pericope will be observed.

Semantic parallelism in the pericope can be seen first in Isaiah 53:6, between lines 53:6a and 53:6b. The word order (which is: subject, prepositional phrase, verb) makes the semantic parallelism between the lines very evident. In specific, the type of semantic parallelism that 53:6a and 53:6b seem to display is synonymous parallelism. The second line seems to say the exact same thing as the first line, interpreting the simile of the sheep for readers by stating the point using different, more literal terms. Through the parallelism, the point is made that all of God’s people (like sheep), both as individuals and as a corporate people, are wayward in how they have turned away from their master’s way.

The second and third appearances of semantic parallelism in the pericope occur in 53:7. Most obvious is the semantic parallelism between 53:7b and 53:7e, in that the lines are identical. Such parallelism between these two instances must be considered synonymous, with the first instance (53:7b) functioning to end a literal statement and the second instance (53:7e) functioning to end a simile statement. As the two lines function together in the verse, the surrounding context (i.e., the other lines in between) lends the reader insight regarding the meaning of the synonymous lines. The Servant not opening his mouth during his oppression and affliction is shown (through simile, and then the second instance of the line) to be related to his role in being sacrificial atonement. He has kept his mouth holy, as the Word of God, in order that he might be able (as the perfectly obedient one) to be worthy as the sacrificial atonement for the people of God. The third appearance of semantic parallelism, which is between 53:7c and 53:7d, is what forms the simile used to make that point clear. In those lines, prepositions are what makes the parallelism clear. Since 53:7c and 53:7d each contribute a different idea to the simile, they should be understood as demonstrating synthetic parallelism.

The fourth appearance of semantic parallelism in the pericope is found in verse 53:8, in lines 53:8a and 53:8d. The parallelism is made evident by the repeated use of the same preposition (translated “by”) throughout these two lines. It is used three times total. The syntax of the two lines is not identical but does have enough similarities that the point is made clear: by a transgression of God’s people, the Servant became a plague spot, and it was for that reason he taken away from a land of living ones by oppression and judgment. In this, the ironic nature of the Servant’s death is highlighted; he was killed by the very ones he was dying for, so that they might be saved from themselves and know their God (by his sacrificial atonement).

The fifth appearance of semantic parallelism is found in verse 53:9, in lines 53:9c and 53:9d. The parallelism in those lines, which is synthetic, is made most evident by the similar syntax. 53:9c begins with a preposition, then has a negative particle, then has the object, and then a verb. 539d begins with a conjunction, attached to a negative particle, has the “object” (the line is verbless), and then has a prepositional phrase (instead of a verb). Although there are some slight differences, they are emphatic (in order to draw attention to the second line), and do not take away from the parallelism. For instance, the first line contains a preposition but the second line contains a conjunction, and the first line has a verb where the second line has a prepositional phrase. The parallelism evidenced in the two lines helps to convey the importance of the overall holiness of the Servant by drawing attention to two specific aspects of his holiness, his conduct and his speech. Out of these two things (his conduct and his speech), his holiness in speech gains the most attention. The conjunction in the second line allows the idea of the verb from the first line to carrying over into the second line (as in stating that he did not say anything deceitful), while still allowing the clause to appear as its own line in the poem, and the verbless nature of the second line allows for attention to be drawn to what has not occurred in the Servant’s mouth (the reader would expect a verb there, only to find the prepositional phrase).

In observing the structure of the pericope, it becomes clear that the overall theme is God’s grace in providing the Servant as sacrificial atonement for all of his wayward people. Parallelism in the pericope highlights both the disobedience of God’s people and the obedience of the Servant, making it clear that mankind’s only hope for a redeemed relationship with the LORD is found through placing one’s faith in the Servant. As the Messiah (i.e., The Son of God in the flesh), the Servant is the only one able to atone for the sins of God’s disobedient people.

PART III - THE PASSAGE IN ITS BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The Passage Situated within Old Testament Literature

Isaiah 53:6-9 includes numerous references to other parts of the Old Testament, importing many themes into the pericope, and these references are important to recognize in light of how they aid in correct interpretation. The major theme imported by the Old Testament references is that of God’s covenant with his people, but minor themes are also imported. Minor themes include the Law, covenant disobedience, curses related to the people’s relationship with God, curses related to the people’s occupation of the land, sacrificial atonement for disobedience, and the Word of the LORD. For this study, in its particular focus, the references that are related to sacrificial atonement will be of most importance.

In Isaiah 53:6a, 53:7c, and 53:7d, there are various uses of the word “sheep” (multiple Hebrew words are used) which reference the Old Testament idea of sacrificial atonement. Of course, it should be noted first that the uses of the words for “sheep” are within the context of similes, in which they are used to convey ideas about the character of either the people of God or of the Servant. Both the people of God and the Servant are compared to a sheep, with the people reflecting the negative characteristics of a sheep and the Servant reflecting the positive characteristics of a sheep. On this subject, Oswalt notes,

"When we are compared to sheep, it is their tendency to get themselves lost that is given prominence (v. 6). But when the Servant is compared to sheep, it is their nondefensive, submissive nature that becomes the basis of comparison. Both he and we may be compared to sheep, but when we are two, different pictures emerge. In us the negative characteristics are seen, whereas in him it is the positive ones. He shares the same nature with us, but in him it is transformed." [43]

Beyond referencing the nature and characteristics of sheep (as they relate to the Servant and the people of God), the similes about sheep also reference the animals used in the Law’s sacrificial atonement rituals. One notable reference is found in the Passover rituals, where - interestingly - the same various words used for “sheep” in Isaiah 53:6-7 describe the animals being sacrificed. The same word translated “sheep” in 53:7c ( שֶׂה) is used in Exodus 12:3-5 to describe the sheep used by the people of Israel in their household Passover sacrifices, and the word for “sheep” in 53:6a ( צאֹן ) appears in Exodus 12:21 to describe the animals used by the elders for sacrifices. These references are important to recognize because of the role of the sacrifice in the passover - it protected the people from the judgment of the LORD, in which he would cause a plague (and death) to fall upon anyone who had not sacrificed the appropriate animal and spread its blood upon their household’s door. Whereas in the Passover the sacrifice of sheep was intended to be a symbolic expression of the people’s faith in the LORD, and not an ultimate sacrifice for their sins, the sacrifice of the Servant (the true sheep) in Isaiah 53 was the thing to which the symbolic expression pointed; that is, the LORD’s own sacrificial atonement for the sins his people.

Beyond just the reference by the words for “sheep,” though, the sacrificial atonement of the Servant as it is described in Isaiah 53:6 also references other parts of the Old Testament by proclaiming that the Servant became a plague spot for the people of God. Though primarily a reference to both the plagues of the exile from Egypt and the plague of the Passover, the Servant becoming a plague spot also references the unclean lepers in Leviticus 13-14. Through this reference, it becomes clear that the Servant made himself into the most despicable person of all by becoming unclean as a plague spot for them. But, as God, he was also able to act as the sacrificial lamb of atonement for the sin of everyone’s uncleanliness that he had taken upon himself. The Servant was the very provision of God, according to his sovereign plan, who was able to transfer all iniquity upon himself, to satisfy ultimately the wrath of God. [44]

An additional reference to other parts of the Old Testament that is important to note relates to the nature of the Servant’s suffering (being oppressed and afflicted). Using similar terminology as Isaiah 53 (regarding the nature of the Servant’s suffering), Exodus 3:7 describes the oppression and affliction of God’s people who were suffering in Egypt, and God’s promise of deliverance is offered to them. [45] In its allusion to that original promise, Isaiah 53:7 could be seen as offering an ultimate promise of deliverance - this time, from the very consequences of mankind’s sin against God. The sacrificial atonement of the Servant, as it is described in the pericope, makes it possible for all of God’s people to be eternally delivered from the oppression and affliction of hell. Furthermore, the suffering of the Servant was something he was willing to do for God’s people without any questioning. For although the people of God cried out in their oppression and affliction, the Servant remained silent when being oppressed and afflicted on their behalf, proving his obedience to the will of the LORD in all things. [46]

The last reference to other parts of the Old Testament that is important to note is the very death of the Servant himself, as described in Isaiah 53:9. In that verse, the people of God (who were themselves criminals, according to their transgressions of the Law) are stated as being the ones who killed the Servant and put him in the grave. The Servant’s innocence is declared in 53:9c and 53:9d, and his innocence should be taken as relating to the entirety of the Law in the Old Testament. That is to say, he was innocent before both God and men, but was killed for them and put in the grave nonetheless. As such, his death was a sacrificial atonement with the power to cleanse all those whom he atoned for from the entirety of the Law’s consequences. The whole Law was fulfilled by the Servant in his death.

The Passage Situated within New Testament Literature

In the New Testament, Isaiah 5:6-9 and its surrounding context (i.e., the fourth Servant Song) is alluded to and quoted often. This is because the general idea of the pericope - that the Servant has died a death of sacrificial atonement for the people of God - became reality in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the cross, Christ perfectly fulfilled all of the prophecies about the Servant. The whole New Testament looks back in remembrance upon that actual event, which is the climax of all history, teaching about its implications for the true people of God. In line with that function, the scholars Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach have noted that, “According to Isaiah 53, the Servant of the Lord is punished in the place of God’s people, as their substitute, to make atonement between them and God. The New Testament uses this passage to speak of Christ’s death in penal substitutionary terms.” [47] Thus, the role of Isaiah 53:6-9 in the New Testament is incredibly significant, and so the various (direct) allusions, quotations, and echoes of the pericope will be explored below. References in the gospels will be examined first, followed by other books of the New Testament.

Matthew 27:57-60 appears to reference the pericope. Specifically, Isaiah 53:9a and Isaiah 53:9b seem to be referenced. In the ESV, the passage reads:

"When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away."

Notably, if the passage in Matthew 27 is actually a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:9a and Isaiah 53:9b, then it lends the modern reader understanding about how to interpret the Hebrew lines, which are difficult to understand for both textual and grammatical reasons. The rich man of Isaiah 53:9b is not necessarily wicked; rather, he is one who simply takes the body of the Servant from the original grave with criminals and then places it into a new grave, his own.

In the gospel of Mark, there seems to be at least a few references that are worth noting. First, in Mark 8:31 the ESV reads, “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.” This appears to be a claim by Jesus that his ministry will be a fulfillment of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Regarding this claim, Watts has observed,

"Jesus’ predicating his messianic Son of Man identity with Isa. 53’s sufferings was apparently utterly unexpected, as was the consequent notion that Israel’s peace would come through his bearing, even to death, the Deuteronomic wounds and sicknesses of idolatrous Israel’s exilic judgment." [48]

The statement by Jesus in Mark 8:31 is interesting, as Watts has noted, because by it Jesus made a claim about himself than most of his contemporaries would not have expected. Their idealized view of a Messiah was probably similar to that of the powerful kings of other nations, and yet Jesus - the actual Messaiah - predicted that his suffering, death, and resurrection were essential to the establishment of his reign and his kingdom. This point is important in how it lays the foundation for the second apparent reference to the pericope in the gospel, which can be found in Mark 9:31. The ESV reads, “For he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.’” In that verse, the connection with Isaiah 53:6-9 is made once again, reiterating that Jesus will not only undergo the same sufferings as the Servant in the pericope, but also that he will overcome them through resurrecting from death. Jesus seems to reiterate all of this in Mark 10:33. In the ESV, the verse reads,

“See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles.And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”

Although the reference is not quite as direct as others, the verse seems to allude mostly to the nature of the Servant’s suffering. [50] Just like the Servant in Isaiah 53:6-9 was rejected by the very people he came to save, the people of God, so was Jesus rejected and condemned to a terrible death by his contemporaries in the land of Israel. However, as part of God’s plan, he was not confined to the grave, and he rose from it after three days, conquering with it the consequences of sin for all who place their faith in him as Lord.

In the gospel of Luke, the author takes special care to lay forth the prophetical background of Jesus’ death of sacrificial atonement. [51] This background becomes particularly relevant in the parts of the gospel where Jesus is taken away to be crucified, as it makes evident a few possible references to Isaiah 53. For instance, in Luke 23:9 the ESV reads, “So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer.” This passage contains a possible allusion to the silence of the Servant in Isaiah 53:7b and 53:7e. However, the reference is not explicitly connected by grammar. It is connected thematically, through the nature of Jesus’ response to those accusing him, who would later have him crucified. In such a thematic reference, Jesus is shown to be the innocent Servant who fulfills God’s will. [52] Beyond that, another possible allusion to the pericope can be found in Luke 23:18-25, where Jesus is delivered by Pilate to the Jews, to be crucified. Christ was delivered to the true criminals (i.e., criminals against God) as a criminal, unto death. [53] The way Luke describes the scene of the passion narrative connects it to both Isaiah 53:6c and Isaiah 53:8a. These references, when seen working together as parts of the whole structure of the gospel of Luke, make it clear that Jesus’ statement in Luke 24:46 (ESV) that “the Christ should suffer” may allude to Isaiah 53, in that Jesus’ death as a sacrificial atonement is a ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy about the Suffering Servant in the pericope. [54]

In the gospel of John there is a possible allusion to the pericope in John 1:29. In the ESV, the verse reads, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” In the verse, there is a very apparent reference to the Servant of the pericope (specifically, Isaiah 53:6c, 53:7c, and 53:7d) which is made clear through the word “lamb.” [55] John the Baptist’s exclamation is a confirmation that Jesus was the one who actually would fulfill the prophecies and function as a sacrificial atonement for the people of God, just as the Passover Lamb symbolically did for the people of God in the Old Testament. It is noteworthy that another person (specifically, a prophet), and not just Jesus himself, was recorded as connecting Jesus with the idea of the Servant from the pericope. The many testimonies about Jesus serve to show how he was truly the only one fit to act as the Servant, due to his complete innocence. Such truth is reaffirmed by Jesus himself in John 8:29 and 8:46. In these references, the New Testament scholar Andreas Köstenberger has observed,

"Jesus’ challenge in 8:46, 'Who among you can convict me of sin?' (stated positively in 8:29) coheres with the affirmation in isa. 53:9 that there was no deceit in the mouth of the Suffering Servant...Jesus’ calm, nonretaliatory response in 8:49 to the Jewish charge of demon possession, 'I honor my Father, and you dishonor me,' likewise evokes reminiscences of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (cf. 1 Peter 2:23, alluding to Isa. 53:7)." [56]

As Köstenberger has noted, the references to the pericope in Isaiah by John are numerous and serve to develop the identity of Jesus Christ as the Suffering Servant who would take away the sin of God’s people. His claim to sinlessness supports the notion that he is both God in the flesh and also the only suitable sacrifice for the sins of all of God’s people. Similar to the accounts in the other gospels, too, is the fact that Jesus’ ministry was in line with that of the Servants’ unto the point of death on the cross. In the ESV, John 19:9 reads, “He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, ‘Where are you from?’ But Jesus gave him no answer.” John’s description here of Jesus’ silence before Pilate, and then of his burial in 9:38-42 - first with criminals, then in the grave of a rich man - serve to reinforce the idea that Jesus’ life, death, burial, and resurrection were all in line with the prophecies of the pericope, and with God’s overall sovereign plan for the redemption of his people.

Remarkably, in all four of the gospels, the idea of Jesus’ death being a sacrificial atonement - in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 53 - is clearly observed. In particular relevance to the pericope of Isaiah 53:6-9, it is made clear by all of the gospel writers that the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples was a Passover meal eaten in preparation of Jesus’ death, a sacrificial atonement for the people of God. [57] That is, it is clearly that Jesus himself is the true lamb of God who - by his death, burial, and resurrection - takes away the sins of God’s people. Clearly, the gospel writers knew Jesus Christ as the Servant who is talked about in Isaiah 53:6-9, and modern readers also should make that connection.

Beyond the gospels, there are many other references to the pericope in the other books of the New Testament. For instance, the book of Acts contains at least a few potential allusions. One instance in which the pericope of Isaiah 53:6-9 (and its surrounding context) might be cited can be found in Acts 3:12-26, where Peter refers to Jesus by using the term “servant” and challenges the people to repent and believe in the gospel. Regarding this matter, New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall has observed,

"The original context of the citation is, of course, the passage in Isa. 52:13-53:12, in which a person described as the Lord’s servant is the object of great suffering and abuse, although in some ways he is bearing the sins of others and suffering because of them; his role is upheld by God, and ultimately he will be glorified...In the present context the language is used to establish who Jesus is and the fact of his glorification....the statement also serves to set the scene for the later use of a citation from Isa. 53 in 8:32-33." [58]

Truly, the passage in Acts 3:12-26 reflects the idea that Jesus had been accepted early on by the true (i.e., believing) people of God as the Servant from Isaiah 53:6-9. Christ’s death was accepted by the believing community as the sacrificial atonement which allowed them to have a restored relationship with God and be part of his eternal kingdom, as perfectly obedient servants.

Further, as noted in the quote by Marshall, the reference also serves to foreshadow the next reference to the pericope in Acts 8:30-35. In that passage, an Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip to identify the Servant in Isaiah 53:7-8, and Philip replied by identifying the Servant as Jesus Christ. Although many scholars have questioned the identity of the Servant in the fourth Servant Song, Philip makes it simple by stating that the identity of the Servant was Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ. [59] Notably, Philip’s use of Isaiah 53:7-8 allowed for the eunuch to associate himself with Jesus, repenting and believing in him. [60] Such a fact is notable because it is a demonstration of the true power of the sacrificial atonement of the Servant in Isaiah 53:6-9.

The book of Romans also provides at least one potential allusion to the pericope. In the discourse of Romans 8, there is a description of God that seems to allude to the fourth Servant Song, declaring that just as Christ suffered, so also those who believe in him will suffer. [61] That is, all those who place their faith in the Servant will be able to share in his nature through his sacrificial atonement. As Christians are obedient as God’s servants that will surely suffer with Christ, like the sheep led to the slaughter in Isaiah 53:7. [62]

1 Corinthians may also contain an allusion to Isaiah 53:6-9. The potential allusion can be found in the description of Jesus Christ’s death in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Regarding the potential allusion, scholars Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner have observed, “Notwithstanding a reference to the OT in general, the description of Christ’s death as being ‘for our sins’ may be an allusion to or echo of the portrayal of the Suffering Servant in Isa. 53:5-6, 11-12.” [63] In that verse, it seems apparent that the iniquities of God’s people encountered the person of Christ, and that he died for the sins of God’s people in order to provide them with absolution. The reference to Isaiah seems to be intended to encourage God’s people in the true nature of their lives - that they live for God, having received eternal life through the life, death, burial, and resurrection of the Servant.

1 Peter contains one of the most important references to the pericope, as it declares the absolute success of the Servant’s suffering. In 1 Peter 2:21-25, Peter reflects on Jesus’ suffering by incorporating several statement from Isaiah 53 in his description of the suffering, providing the believers with a model for how they ought to suffer in the world as God’s people. [64] Believers are called to live like Christ in the world, being an example of his Servanthood to all, expecting nothing more than a death like the Servant’s in Isaiah 53:9. However, Jesus’ suffering was not merely an example for other, already good people to follow. It was, as D.A. Carson has noted, “aimed at rescuing lost people, lost sheep, and it succeeded wonderfully.” [65] It succeeded to the point that it has the power to motivate Christians everywhere to share the gospel with others who are lost, that they might also become part of the people of God.

The book of Revelation provides the final allusions worth nothing. In Revelation 5:6, the “lamb, standing as though it had been slain” seems to reference both the Servant in Isaiah 53:6 and the Passover Lamb (which, as noted, the Servant himself serves as in an ultimate way of fulfilling the Law). In its reference, the passage (along with Revelation 5:5) develops the idea that the slain lamb perfectly fulfilled all of the requirements of the Law by adding that the Servant was of kingly descent. The New Testament scholars G.K. Beale and Sean McDonough have summed this thought up by noting, “The Isa. 53 background especially highlights the atoning aspect of the lamb’s sacrificial death and also applies the metaphors of ‘root’ (cf. Rev. 5:5) to the sacrificial victim.” [66] The use of the “lamb” terminology continues throughout the book of Revelation, with an increasing amount of value to its definition. With this truth in mind, the nature of the Servant’s death as a sacrificial atonement is able to be seen in an eschatological light. By dying on the cross, the Servant-King ultimately was establishing his reign and his kingdom. Further, as Beale and McDonough have also noted, “The sacrificial victim’s prophesied sinlessness in Isa. 53:9 partly underlies the ‘worthiness’ of Jesus in 5:9 (‘worthy are you...because you were slain.’).” [67] Such a statement means that Jesus’ death as a sacrificial atonement for God’s people also makes him worthy of praise, and thereby capable of providing lasting joy to all who worship him as the one true Lord. One other potential reference is found in Revelation 14:5, and that reference expresses the idea that all those who have made Jesus their Lord share in his guiltlessness as the result of his death as a sacrificial atonement for them. [68] In such an idea, the application is made clear that those who remain steadfast in Christ will be able to experience the joys of being with him in the new, heavenly city.

The Passage Situated within a Biblical-Theological Framework

The passage of Isaiah 53:6-9 has a unique biblical-theological function in the New Testament. Above all else, it serves to show how God in his sovereignty transitioned his people from living in one covenant economy (the old) to living in another (the new). In his death as a sacrificial atonement for the people of God, the Servant perfectly fulfilled all the stipulations of the Old Covenant, making it possible for all of God’s people to live in the economy of the New Covenant. The Servant’s death for God’s people made it possible for them to have eternal blessings instead of eternal curses; he made it possible for God’s people to have eternal life. As it functions in the Old Testament, the pericope provides something to which God’s people may look forward in expectation. As it functions in the New Testament, the pericope provides something on which God’s people may look back on in remembrance. That is, it points to the climax of all history, the climax of the storyline of the Bible itself - the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, in the end, all things are being made right by the Servant of Isaiah 53:6-9.

PART IV - SITUATE THE PASSAGE IN THE MODERN WORLD

The Passage Contextualized

Christians are called to share the gospel with everyone in the world, and the message of Isaiah 53:6-9 can be a great aid in this task because of how it points to the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ. However, in culture today - especially in Northeastern America - the message of Isaiah 53:6-9 is one that may be difficult for many people to receive well. There are some common cultural objections underlying this difficulty. In particular, it is likely that many people in the Northeast would not believe that sacrificial atonement for sins is necessary, due to the post-Christian and relativistic nature of the culture. [69] In other words, many people in this modern culture do not necessarily perceive themselves as sinners (since they believe morality is very subjective) and therefore do not perceive a need for sacrificial atonement.

Just because the audience has changed - from the people of Judah, the original audience, to Gentiles, the modern audience - does not mean that the message is no longer relevant. In fact, the universal truth of God as it is presented in Isaiah 53:6-9 is needed now more than ever, in light of the fact that many people have never heard about their need for the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is important to understand how the truth of Isaiah 53:6-9 can be presented in such a way as to be contextual in the culture of Northeastern America and reach as many people as possible with the message of the gospel.

When presenting the truth of Isaiah 53:6-9 to a modern audience, at least three ideas seem important to emphasize. First, it must be emphasized that the LORD exists and wants to have a relationship with people from all parts of the world, and from all parts of time. That is, when God created mankind, he made men and women to be beings of worship. We have always been beings of worship, and we are all always worshipping - either God or something/someone else. Second, it must be emphasized that all people are sinners and have gone astray from God. Every man and woman has turned to his or her cultural idols, which function as gods. People must be shown how they are trusting in things that will ultimately fail them in both this life and in eternity. Cultural idols like educational achievement and intellectual reform must be exposed for what they are truly, that people might be able to see how they sin. Third, it must be emphasized that God - in his plan, according to his perfect knowledge - has provided a means for all things to be made right. In providing Jesus Christ as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of his people, he - in his foreknowledge of who would come to him - made a way for the people of contemporary culture to have a right relationship with him (despite never knowing of him, their sin, or their need for his reconciling work). All people need to do is have faith in Jesus Christ, as he accomplished the work on the cross that is described in Isaiah 53:6-9.

The Passage Applied

When considering how the passage of Isaiah 53:6-9 applies to everyday life, it is important to recognize that the Christian life itself is a function of the Servant’s death as a substitutionary atonement. His obedience has made possible the obedience of all who have trusted in him as the Lord of their lives. Thus, Christians are responsible for living lives that minister to others in a way that extends the function of his substitutionary death. Following the example of the Servant, Christians must evangelize the lost and work towards bringing about social justice in the world. [70]

Obviously, for all those who are not Christians, the most important way to apply the truth of Isaiah 53:6-9 is to place faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. By God’s grace, the lost person must recognize his or her own sin, coming to the conclusion that death is the only possible result of disobeying God. As they come to see themselves wandering into death, they must turn their eyes upon Jesus, the one whom has encountered the consequences of all the sin of God’s people in himself. And they must trust in the fact that he - as God - lived a perfect life, died on the cross, and was resurrected from death. By doing so they will make him Lord, and all of the curse they deserve will be resolved in his sacrificial atonement. By faith, the lost person will be found in God and will become part of the eternal people of God.

Ultimately, for both the Christian and the non-Christian, Isaiah 53:6-9 is a call both to trust in the obedience of the Servant and to live obediently like him. In so doing, all those who trust in the Servant will also share in the blessings of the fact that he is also the King. All those who are living as obedient servants as Christ will inherit his kingdom, and be able to live with him for all eternity in the joy of his fellowship.

--------------------------------

ENDNOTES

¹ Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody: Prince Press, 1999), 796.

² John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 23.

³ Ibid., 25-26.

⁴ M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

⁵ Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 423.

⁶ K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, editors, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), 759.

⁷ Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (Boston: Brill, 2010), 435.

⁸ Ibid., 435.

⁹ Ibid., 435.

¹⁰ Ibid., 435.

¹¹ K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, editors, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 759

¹² Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), Isaiah 53:8.

¹³ Ulrich, 435.

¹⁴ Ibid., 435.

¹⁵ Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed., Isaiah 53:8.

¹⁶ K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, editors, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 759.

¹⁷ Ulrich, 435.

¹⁸ Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed., Isaiah 53:8.

¹⁹ Ulrich, 435.

²⁰ Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 397-398.

²¹ Septuaginta : With Morphology, electronic ed., Isaiah 53:9.

²² Ibid., Isaiah 53:9.

²³ Ulrich, 435.

²⁴ Ibid., 435.

²⁵ Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 838.

²⁶ Ibid., 1073.

²⁷ Ibid., 961.

²⁸ Barthélemy, 397-398.

²⁹ Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 619.

³⁰ Barthélemy, 398.

³¹ Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Volume III: Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 350.

³² John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 391.

³³ Ibid., 391.

³⁴ Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Isaiah: God Saves Sinners (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005), 358.

³⁵ Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66, 393.

³⁶ Ibid., 393.

³⁷ Research for this Word Study was conducted using Logos Bible Software.

³⁸ William Lee Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 288.

³⁹ Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 803.

⁴⁰ Research for this study was conducted using Logos Bible Software.

⁴¹ Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 227.

⁴² Gentry, Peter J. “The Atonement in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)” in Southern Baptist Theological Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2 (Louisville: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007), 24.

⁴³ Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66, 390-91.

⁴⁴ J. Alec Motyer. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 431.

⁴⁵ Young, 350.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 350-351.

⁴⁷ Steve Jeffrey, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, Crossway, 2007), 67.

⁴⁸ Rikk E. Watts, “Mark” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 182.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 190.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 201.

⁵¹ David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 385

⁵² Ibid., 393.

⁵³ Ibid., 393.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 401

⁵⁵ Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 419.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 458.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 500.

⁵⁸ Howard Marshall. “Acts” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 545.

⁵⁹ Marshall, 574.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 575.

⁶¹ Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 634.

⁶² Ibid., 637.

⁶³ Roy. E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “I Corinthians” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 744.

⁶⁴ D.A. Carson, “I Peter” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1034.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 1035.

⁶⁶ G.K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1101.

⁶⁷ Beale and McDonough, 1101.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 1131.

⁶⁹ Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach, 218.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 310.

--------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY
--Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

--Beale, G.K. and D.A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

--Bergey, Ronald. “The Rhetorical Role of Reiteration in the Suffering Servant Poem (Isa 52:12-53:12)” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 40, Issue 2. Louisville: Evangelical Theological Society, 1997.

--Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

--Brown, Francis and Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic edition. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 2000.

--Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Volume III. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.

--Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.

--Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus, and Notes. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1987.

--Chisholm Jr., Robert B. “The Christological Fulfillment of Isaiah’s Servant Songs” in Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 163. Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006.

--Easton, M.G. Easton's Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996.

--Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph, editors. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

--Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.

--Hugenberger, G.P., “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P.E. Satterthwaite et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1995.

--Jeffrey, Steve and Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach. Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, Crossway, 2007.

--Gentry, Paul J. “The Atonement in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)” in Southern Baptist Theological Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2. Louisville: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007.

--Holladay, William Lee, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1971.

--Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

--Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

--Ortlund Jr., Raymond C. Isaiah: God Saves Sinners. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005.

--Oswalt, J.N. “Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Servant of All” in Calvin Theological Journal, Issue 40. Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005.

--Oswalt, J. N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

--Oswalt, J. N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

--Pratico, Gary D. and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar: Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

--Septuaginta : With Morphology, electronic edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.
--Smith, Gary. Isaiah 1-39, The New American Commentary, Volume 15a. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2007.

--The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.

--Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Boston: Brill, 2010.

--VanGemeren, Willem A. Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

--Watts, John D.W. Isaiah 34-66, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 25. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

--Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Comforted, An Old Testament Study. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996.

--Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Volume III: Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.

--Ziegler, Joseph. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, vol. XIV, Isaias. Göttingen: Dandenhoed & Ruprecht, 1939.

James 2:5 - The Kingdom of Faith

2011-12-31T13:42:00.000-08:00

JAMES 2:5 (ESV) "Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

As we consider this passage from the Bible, there’s one main idea that we’re going to focus on. We’re going to focus on who can be in the kingdom of God.

First things first, you may be wondering, “What is this ‘kingdom of God’ you’re talking about?” Well, a kingdom is a group of people with certain values who are ruled over by a king.

The kingdom of God, in particular, is a group of people who believe Jesus is Lord, and King Jesus rules over these people for all eternity. In eternity, the kingdom of God will exist in paradise. Many call it “heaven.” Today, we know the kingdom of God as the church. The church is the kingdom of God being established. The church is not yet perfect, but someday it will be, by God’s grace.

Now obviously, the world we live in is very different from the kingdom of God. The kingdom of our world is broken and full of broken people. And the people of the world have broken values, like living for money or living for oneself instead of God. A person's worthiness to be part of the kingdom of the world is usually determined by how valuable you are. As a result, and as many of you know, life in this world can be very hard. Perhaps, for many of you, life in this world seems like hell.

Ultimately, life in this world, and all the things that the world values, won’t satisfy the cravings of our souls. We are all longing for something more than the world can offer.

Thankfully, there’s hope for everyone living in this broken world. Hope can be found in the kingdom of God. But who can be in the kingdom of God?

Anyone with faith in Jesus Christ can be in the kingdom of God!

Unlike the people of the world, God doesn’t show favoritism. He has a whole different set of values. He loves and accepts anyone with faith. As the great king, he will let anyone with faith into his kingdom. He will let anyone with faith into his church. And once you’re in, you’re in. No one can take away your membership and spiritual riches – they belong to you for all eternity. No one can rob you of the joy of faith.

All this is possible because of God’s power, because of his love. God is so loving that he sent his son Jesus Christ into the world. In the world, Jesus lived among and hung out with sinners like you and me. Even though he was a king worthy of royalty and royal banquets, he humbled himself to the point of being despised by the world and even had meals with needy and poor people like us. And then - in an ultimate act of sacrifice - Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was buried in the grave. But then - in an ultimate act of power - he resurrected from death and ascended into heaven to reign from his throne.

In heaven, King Jesus is reigning over the kingdom of God. By the power of King Jesus, all things in the kingdom of God someday will be made right. There will be justice for every person with faith. All faithful people in the kingdom of God will experience perfect redemption and gain unbelievable riches. The riches of God will satisfy our souls. It’s not something that you want to miss out on.

Even if you’re poor in this world, you can be rich in your soul by having faith. Faith in Jesus Christ costs nothing but will make you incredibly rich. All you have to do is repent and believe the gospel. That means having a relationship with Jesus, where you trust in him for everything your heart needs.

By faith, you can be in the kingdom of God and share in the joy of the King’s glory. Nothing is greater than the richness of having living eternal life in the kingdom of God. Sure, it may not make living in this world any easier, but it certainly will make your life more fulfilling. You’ll have peace and joy.

After all this talk, maybe you’re wondering, “so what”? Well, I think there are at least two ways that you can respond to this message about who can be in the kingdom of God.

First, go and experience the kingdom of God through a local, gospel-centered church. Journey through life with Christians. Live with us. Check out events, attend a service on Sundays, and get to know some people at your local church. Let us build a relationship with you. Learn about what faith is. Learn about what it means to love God and share his love with others. And teach us about things, too.

Second, consider placing your faith in King Jesus. Consider repenting from your sin and trusting in the Lord for everything your heart needs. By doing so, you could join into the kingdom of God for all eternity. If that's something you're interested in, pray to God and tell him that and also talk to a leader about it at a local, gospel-centered church.

Integrative Pastoral Counseling

2011-12-22T11:35:00.000-08:00

At the center of all effective pastoral counseling is proper biblical anthropology. This is because it is crucial to understand what the Bible says about the very nature of mankind in order to understand the process of bringing about lasting change in the lives of people. In this article, the creation account will be examined in order to determine how mankind was created to be and what has gone wrong since creation. Additionally, a biblical-theological framework for pastoral counseling will be established, reaching a conclusion about the role of integration in it.

In establishing a biblical anthropology, the best source is the book of Genesis, where there is an account of creation and a description of mankind’s nature. In Genesis 1, at least two features of mankind’s nature are described. First, mankind is described as being a creation of God. Observing mankind as created by God is important because, as Hoekema has noted, “An obvious implication of the fact of creation is that all created reality is completely dependent on God.”[1] Thus, it must be established that mankind is made to be dependent on God, in all of life. Second, mankind is described as being made in the image of God; that is, made in his likeness as personal beings. As personal beings, every man and woman has a heart – a mind, a will, and emotions – intended to reflect God’s image to the rest of creation.[2] Additionally, as Genesis 2:7 points out, mankind’s heart exists in the tension of the flesh (the natural element) and the spirit (the supernatural element).[3] Thus, mankind can either live in the flesh or in the spirit – either for himself/herself or for God.

As created beings, however, mankind has a core problem - sin. As Genesis 3 makes it clear, the very nature of mankind has been corrupted. In the sin of Adam and Eve, all men and women have sinned against God, meaning that all human beings are sinners (in their condition) who do sinful things (in their behavior).[4] Instead of living for God, all men and women have turned to living for themselves. And living for oneself, instead of God, only leads to death. Thus, all of mankind is in need of a solution for the problem of sin. Ultimately, the goal of pastoral counseling is to provide a solution to the problem of sin. It accomplishes this goal by leading people to trust in Jesus Christ and the redemptive change he alone has made possible. In addressing this core issue, it becomes possible to deal accurately with all other peripheral issues by keeping them in perspective.[5] This is because all of a person’s life can be rightly seen as existing within the context of God’s overarching, redemptive story.[6]

In the practice of pastoral counseling, it is essential that ministers rely upon a biblical-theological model. A minister called to use the Word of God in order to bring about gospel-centered change in the lives of his people. For instance, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) makes this clear, saying, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” This is his calling because the gospel must be the driving force behind all lasting change, as it alone brings redemption. As Tripp has noted, “This is important to realize because a restored relationship with God makes change in all of life possible.”[7] Thus, a minister’s overarching goal in pastoral counseling should be to preach the gospel to the counselee in all areas of his or her life. He must be primarily concerned with the counselee’s relationship with God and how that relationship works itself out in all of life. From this concern, he must help the counselee to live every aspect of life in obedience to God, just as they were made to live,[8] in an effort to bring about the renewal of the Holy Spirit that is discussed in Romans 12. However, even with the help of the Holy Spirit, working towards this goal can be a very difficult process. Not all counseling issues are discussed explicitly in Scripture, and a certain amount of interpretation is required in discerning how to apply biblical principles to everyday living. In such matters, a minister must do his best to act in line with Jesus’ call in John 21, functioning as a shepherd who feeds his flock so as to meet their practical needs. Further, very nuanced, practical forms of therapy may be necessary for certain individuals, depending on the issues they are dealing with. These forms of therapy can help to deal with the specific symptoms caused by the core problem of sin. Also, once a biblical foundation has been established in the counseling relationship, it may become important in some situations simply to provide practical advice (e.g., reminding a person to eat, sleep, go outside, have social interactions, etc.). The minister must use discernment in such situations.

Of course, it is important to note that not all issues people need counseling for are related to the core problem of sin. Some issues are simply more organic in nature (i.e., biophysical, psychological, etc.) and are - in biblical terms - related to the flesh more than the spirit. When dealing with issues that are more organic in nature, ministers must work alongside medical and legal professionals in order to provide counselees with the special care they need. In many instances, it may be important for a pastor to refer a counselee to a psychiatrist or doctor, or even to notify and call upon legal authorities for help. In so doing, a minister works to bring about holistic change in the counselee’s life. Referring a person does not mean abdicating responsibility for them, though. A minister should still work alongside the other professionals to provide spiritual care, with the goal of holistic wellness, making sure that the counselee is still connected in full to the local church. Hopefully, by God’s grace, lasting change will occur.

---------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES

  [1] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 5.
  [2] Ibid., 5.
  [3] Neil T. Anderson, Terry E. Zuehlke, and Julianne S. Zuehlke, Christ-Centered Therapy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 86.
  [4] Paul David Tripp, Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2002), 10.
  [5] Tripp, 9.
  [6] Ibid., 25.
  [7] Ibid., 7.
  [8] Ibid., 6.

------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Neil T., Terry E. Zuehlke, and Julianne S. Zuehlke. Christ-Centered Therapy: The Practical Integration of Theology and Psychology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

Carlson, David E. “Jesus’ Style of Relating: The Search for a Biblical View of Counseling” in Journal of Psychology and Theology, Issue 4, Volume 3. La Mirada: Rosemead Graduate School of Professional Psychology, Biola University, 1976.

Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

McLeod, Donald. “God’s Image in Man” in Banner of Truth, Issue 122. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth, 1973.

Powlison, David. Seeing with New Eyes: Counseling and the Human Condition Through the Lens of Scripture. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2003.

Tripp, Paul David. Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2002.

Emily McAlpin's Story (Video)

2011-12-21T10:00:00.000-08:00

My wife, Emily, recently shared her story at our church (Hope Fellowship). The following is a short video of her story.

Emily McAlpin's Story from Stephen McAlpin on Vimeo.

My 11 Favorite Albums of 2011

2011-12-18T12:45:00.000-08:00

The Antlers - "Burst Apart"
Wye Oak - "Civilian"
Fleet Foxes - "Helplessness Blues"
Radiohead - "The King of Limbs"
M83 - "Hurry Up, We're Dreaming"
Keep Shelly in Athens - "Our Own Dream"
Gotye - "Making Mirrors"
Caveman - "CoCo Beware"
The Chemical Brothers - "Hanna Original Soundtrack"
Tristen - "Charlatans at the Garden Gate"
Other Lives - "Tamer Animals"

I'd be interested to hear from others, as I know my preferences are limited. Did I leave anything out? Let me know of any good albums that should have been included.

Is Drinking Alcohol Ethical for Christians?

2011-10-26T14:53:00.000-07:00

Over the years, there has been much controversy about the use of alcohol in the Christian church. There are differing convictions about the ethics of alcohol usage by Christians, and many believers have become divided over the issue. Some people are convicted that prohibition is the correct biblical view, some are convicted that abstention is the correct biblical view, and some are convicted that moderation is the correct biblical view.[1] In this paper, these three different views will be explored briefly (in how they relate to the truth of the Bible), as will be the subject of how Christians should relate to society and to one another, especially when their views differ on this potentially divisive issue.

Historically, for roughly the first 1,800 years of the existence of the Christian church, believers consumed alcohol as both part of everyday life and as part of worship services, when wine was used for communion (i.e., the Lord’s Supper). Alcohol was generally considered to be something good, given by God to make life more enjoyable. Overindulgence, leading to the state of drunkenness, was considered a sin. However, in the last 200 years, some Christians in various denominations have taken different positions. Some have chosen to believe that both the secular and Christian community should prohibit alcohol because it is sinful according to the Bible, and some have chosen to believe that the Christian community should abstain from alcohol at certain times because it is not wise according to the Bible. Today, all three views exist in the church and the debate about the correct usage of alcohol rages on.[2]

The division in the Christian community is not surprising. When considering the range of opinion in the Christian community, it is important to understand that each of the three views typically held by believers - prohibition, abstention, or moderation – comes from a different interpretation of Scripture. The range of opinions is partially the result of the fact that there are many passages in Scripture that speak about alcohol consumption, with some of these passages seemingly encouraging the idea of consuming alcohol and others seemingly discouraging the consumption of it. Due to the limitations of this paper, only some of the main passages commonly used by the different views will be considered. In interpreting the Scriptures on this matter, though, it is important to remember that accurate interpretation of the Word requires keeping each passage in context but also determining how the timeless theological principles contained in the text apply to readers today. Since God’s truth is unchanging, what was true for the people of the Bible in regards to alcohol consumption is still true for the readers of it today.

That being said, the first view – prohibition – maintains that all believers should universally avoid consuming alcoholic beverages because they are intrinsically evil in nature and specifically forbidden by Scripture.[3] In this view, it would be sin for any person to drink alcohol. Additionally, prohibitionists challenge the lexical use of the words “wine,” “strong drink,” and other words that may reference alcoholic beverages in Scripture. They often claim that our English versions of the Bible were not translated correctly in regards to these words, which they see as having several possible definitions (despite scholarship which says otherwise). In verses where alcoholic beverages are viewed negatively, the words are understood by prohibitionists to be translated correctly (the objects being described are seen as alcoholic beverages), and in verses where alcoholic beverages are viewed positively, the words are understood by prohibitionists to be translated incorrectly (the objects being described are seen as non-alcoholic versions of beverages, like unfermented grape juice).[4] Such arguments are easily defeated by doing word studies on one’s own or looking at narratives like that of Noah. If wine was actually unfermented grape juice in the times of the Bible, then how did Noah misuse it to get drunk in Genesis 9:20-21? And how could such unfermented grape be made before the invention of the preservatives and processes needed to make it existed?[5]

Some denominations, churches, and Christian organizations have required in the past or still do require that their members adhere to the prohibitionist view. Among those with this perspective, all Christian leaders and laypersons alike are strictly forbidden from consuming alcohol. Additionally, prohibitionists often criticize secular people who consume alcohol for their perceived immoral behavior.

The second view, abstention, maintains that some (and perhaps even all) believers should abstain from consuming alcoholic beverages because they maybe be extrinsically evil in nature, meaning that certain circumstances in society and culture can make the usage of alcohol evil or at least unwise.[6] This view does not hold that alcohol consumption by all believers is specifically forbidden in Scripture, but it does hold that certain people should abstain from consuming alcohol. It could probably be said that there are two subcategories of abstentionists as well: those who voluntarily abstain from alcohol consumption because of personal convictions, and those who involuntarily abstain because of requirements put on them by others (e.g., denomination, local church, Christian organizations, etc.). While the former type of abstention (voluntary) is an acceptable point of view in regards to the teachings of the Bible, the latter type of abstention (involuntary) seems to actually function like prohibition and should not be considered an acceptable point of view in regards to the teachings of the Bible. As we will explore in another section, the Bible teaches that abstention is a matter of personal conscience, not something to be enforced or encouraged corporately.

Christians who voluntarily abstain from consuming alcohol typically cite a few common reasons, which could be considered their interpretation of Scripture’s general teachings on the subject of alcohol consumption. Some common reasons for abstention are: potential inhibition of a Christian’s moral discretion, potential of causing other “weaker” Christians to stumble in conscience or to sin, and potential limitations that consuming alcohol might put on a Christian’s public witness to the secular world. Various Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments typically are cited in these arguments, and some of these passages will be dealt with in another section of this paper (below). In sum, though, the position of abstention is seen as justifiable (or, the most “wise” way to live) because of the potential for alcohol consumption to be unethical.

The third view, moderation, is widely considered to be the historical view of the church and maintains that believers may consume alcoholic beverages in moderation and in a diligent manner, because they are a good gift from God.[7] Those who adhere to the view of moderation typically affirm alcohol’s use by Christians in both the Lord’s Supper and in everyday life (for both necessity and enjoyment). Alcohol is seen as a good gift from God, as part of his very good creation, that can make mankind glad through its proper usage. Additionally, moderationists affirm that there certainly are dangers associated with consuming alcohol, but that the proper response to such dangers is not abstain from or prohibit alcohol but simply to use it responsibility.[8] Abuse is seen as the problem, not alcohol or its consumption.

When considering the various views on the ethics of alcohol consumption by the Christian community, Scripture must be deciding factor in determining one’s view. God’s Word must be what informs the ethics of church. That being said, a few relevant and specific passages from the Bible will now be examined in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of what God’s Word says about the particular matter being studied.

Of greatest importance to our study is the example that Jesus Christ gave to his followers and that is recorded in the Scriptures. For the sake of this study, one story that highlights Jesus’ ethical example in the Gospel of John will be examined. John 2:1-11 (ESV) reads:

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him."

A few things are important to note in this passage, in regard to the ethics of alcohol consumption by the church. First, the context of the story is important. The Lord Jesus just had begun his earthly ministry and called his first disciples. That is to say, he was establishing the kingdom of God on earth, and one of the primary ways in which his reign was being established was through the provision of miracles. This story about Jesus turning water into wine was the first miracle that he provided to his followers and the world at large as an example of his deity. Additionally, the context of Jesus turning water into wine on the “third day” is significant because it hints at the type of miraculous work that Jesus does the third day after his death (i.e., resurrection).[9] Thus, the story about water miraculously being turned into wine on the third day is contextually significant in advancing the revelation of the gospel. In this sense, it could be argued that alcohol was used in a way that significantly propagated the gospel message. Second, the action of the Lord Jesus in this story is important. As the sinless Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ himself made alcohol from water (a miracle) for others to consume. This means that making and distributing alcohol was both part of proving his deity and establishing his kingdom. Making alcohol did not in any way compromise his sinless nature. Therefore, alcohol must be seen as a morally neutral substance. It could not possibly be inherently evil if the perfect, sinless Savior himself both made and distributed it for consumption. Also, consumption of alcohol could not possibly be evil behavior in itself if the perfect, sinless savior directly provided the means for it to happen. It was the will of the Lord Jesus for the people at the wedding to share in the wine that he miraculously created. Third, Jesus’ earthly ministry (and the ministry of his disciples) was not compromised by the fact that he was associating with people who were consuming alcohol and presumably getting drunk from it as they celebrated. Jesus did not rebuke anyone for consuming alcohol, despite the fact that he regularly confronted sin,[10] and allowed for himself to be considered an associate of drunkards.[11] Fourth, God was glorified by the proper consumption of the wine that Jesus made from water. It was commendable as the “best” wine, gave honor to the bridegroom, and allowed for people to experience joy. The storyline uses alcohol consumption directly to point to the big idea (e.g., overarching theme) that all people who have faith can share in the joy of God through the work of Jesus Christ the Lord. Just as Jesus turned water into wine, he will turn sinners into righteous people as he establishes the kingdom of God.

Another aspect of Scripture that is important to this study is the ethical standard that is set for church leadership in the Pastoral Epistles, since it directly deals with the issue of alcohol consumption. This standard is significant to all Christians because of the authoritative structures God has given to the church as an example: Christ is the head of the church, overseers follow in his example, deacons follow in the example of Christ and overseers, and laypersons follow in the example of Christ, overseers, deacons, and one another. One example of the ethical standard for church leadership will be examined in this study, the standard found in the book of 1 Timothy, where Timothy lists the qualifications of an “overseer” (i.e., pastor or church leader) and of a deacon to the church. 1 Timothy 3:2-3, 8 (ESV) reads:

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money…Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.

Of note in this passage is that alcohol in itself is not forbidden. Being a “drunkard” is certainly prohibited for overseers, and so is “being addicted to much wine” for deacons, but all alcohol consumption and wine is not forbidden. Being a “drunkard” is distinct from being a moderate consumer of alcohol, and the qualifier “much” is distinct from The distinctions leave open the possibility that some consumption of alcohol is acceptable for both overseers and deacons, so long as it does not lead to drunkenness or addiction. This is significant because it forces readers to consider why Scripture does not clearly forbid all alcohol consumption.[12] If God had wanted to completely forbid alcohol consumption by church leaders (as well as those following them), he would have stated that explicitly here or in another part of Scripture. And beyond alcohol itself not being forbidden, alcohol consumption is not even warned against.

Another aspect of Scripture significant for this study contains the guidance given to the Christian community about not causing one another to stumble. Romans 14 is a chapter of Scripture commonly used by some Christians to argue in favor of not causing a “weaker” Christian to stumble by ones’ own consumption of alcohol. One verse, Romans 14:21 (ESV), reads, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.” Many Christians have interpreted this to mean that it is most wise and ethical to prohibit or at least abstain from alcohol consumption. However, there are a few aspects of verse that must be considered before reaching such a conclusion. First, while it is certainly “good” not to cause another Christian to stumble, the content of such goodness is found in the unity of the church, not in one’s own ethical behavior. This means that the action of alcohol consumption stands as a morally neutral behavior. Second, in addition to the warning against causing another to stumble by eating meat and drinking wine, there is also a warning against doing anything that might cause another to stumble. This is significant because it shows that judging, criticizing, finding fault, etc. with Christians for eating meat or drinking wine are equal in their potential to cause another Christian to stumble. Both the libertine and the moralist who are in disagreement are challenged by this verse to get along with one another for the sake of the gospel. Third, the aspect of the aorist verb φαγεῖν (“to eat”) signifies a one-time action, and should be taken literally as such in regards to the call to not eat meat, drink wine, or do anything else that might cause another Christian to stumble.[13] Lifelong or even continual abstinence is not being advocated by this passage. One-time abstinence from anything that might cause another believe to stumble is what is being advocated, in order that the weaker Christian might be able to internalize the truth of the liberty found in the Gospel.[14] That is, Paul did not provide Christians with a lifelong instruction but a temporary instruction. It is meant to strengthen the unity of the church and the faith of the Christian with the weaker conscience.

Finally, a couple passages about the nature of alcohol itself should be considered. Psalm 104:14-15 (ESV) speaks of God and his work as it reads, “You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” In this passage we see that wine is among the gifts that God has given to man, a token of his grace that is intended to gladden the hearts of men when it is properly used.[15] If mankind is willing to accept that food can be used properly, then wine should be accepted similarly. Both food and wine are gifts from God that can be used rightly for enjoyment.

In conclusion, alcohol consumption is certainly ethical behavior for Christians when it is done in moderation. If it was ethical for Jesus, then it is also ethical for his followers. Additionally, abstention from drinking alcohol may also be seen as ethical behavior at certain points of the Christian life. Those who must abstain should strive to grow in their understanding of Christian liberty, though, and be careful to be consistent with their position in other areas of life that involve the same liberty (e.g., eating, working, etc.). Prohibition of alcohol consumption should not be seen as ethical behavior by Christians, however, due to its denial of the teachings of the Bible. A person's view on the matter is ultimately a matter of personal conviction, though. Although there may always be disagreement about this matter in the Christian church, believers must work together to rightly understand the Word of God and live in unity with one another. It is important that the church stands united in Christ and not divided over the issue of alcohol consumption, abiding in the joy of the LORD above all. And in its relationship to the secular world, the Christian church must follow the example of Jesus by associating with and sharing the joy of the LORD with sinners, even those who consume alcohol. When Christians partake in proper, moderate consumption of alcohol together with non-Christians (at weddings, in bars, in homes, etc.), it can be a wonderful opportunity to both share in the gladness of God’s gift and to converse about the gift of ultimate gladness, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENDNOTES

  [1] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., God Gave Wine (Lincoln: Oakdown Books, 2000), 3-6
  [2] Wikipedia, “Christian Views on Alcohol,” available online at , accessed 22 October 2011.
  [3] Gentry, 3.
  [4] Wikipedia, “Christian Views on Alcohol,” available online at , accessed 22 October 2011.
  [5] Oakdown Books, “God Gave Wine Book Page,” available online at , accessed 24 October 2011.
  [6] Gentry, 5.
  [7] Ibid., 6.
  [8] Wikipedia, “Christian Views on Alcohol,” available online at , accessed 25 October 2011.

  [9] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, The New American Commentary, vol. 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 153.
  [10] Gentry, 76.
  [11] Ibid., 74.
  [12] Ibid., 31.
  [13] Ibid., 123.
  [14] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 853.
  [15] Oakdown Books, “God Gave Wine Book Page,” available online at , accessed 24 October 2011.

My 10 Strangest Encounters with Boston Strangers

2011-10-14T10:23:00.000-07:00

For some reason, I seem to be constantly finding myself in incredibly weird situations with strangers. I'm not sure if it's something about me or the kind of places I hang out, but over the past couple years I've collected some interesting stories to tell. But judge for yourself whether or not they're really strange - and let me know your favorite one!

1. As I was shopping at Whole Foods, a woman on rollerblades (yes, she was shopping on her rollerblades) cut me off and nearly knocked me over. I've never wanted to dropkick someone so badly!

2. While on the T, I was using my iPhone when a teenage girl came up to me and demanded that I give her my phone so she could use it. Not wanting to write her off immediately, I asked, "Why?" to which she angrily replied, "Because I want to!" So I said "No," of course, but she followed up by asking ME why I said "No". So I told her again, "I said, NO! Because I don't want to"

3. During my wife's first visit to the Boston area (when we were still dating), a couple of druggie strangers approached us on the street to proposition her for a cigarette and hassle us for money. This escalated into them telling her that I'm a b****, one guy trying to fight me, and me nearly beating the crap out of them both, but ended with me telling them to both keep moving and "have a nice day," with one of the guys screaming "Hail Odin! Hail Odin!" at the top of his lungs as they retreated to the nearest liquor store.

4. I saw a guy in the Target parking lot doing some sort of Kung-Fu dance to music he was playing on a boombox. He ripped off his shirt as I walked by, going into the store, and continued dancing for quite some time.

5. As I was sitting in the waiting room of a barbershop, a big and tall international woman came in, sat down right next to me (i.e., crammed up against me), pulled down her shirt, and started breast feeding her infant. Then she got up and left, without even getting a haircut. It was one of the more awkward moments of my line. My haircut felt dirty.

6. After going out of on a date with my wife (again, we were still dating at the time), we were getting off the T (i.e., subway) in Central Square when a stranger ran up to us, barked in our faces ("WOOF!" "WOOF!"), and then ran off with a crowd - or, probably, pack - of guys.

7. During a time when I had a bad haircut, a group of homeless people all told me that I looked just like Justin Bieber. I'm not sure whether or not they were complimenting me, but it hurt a little.

8. Emily and I went to the beach during the day this past summer. While we were sitting at a picnic table having lunch, an elderly couple sat down next to us for a moment. The elderly woman then went to the restroom while her husband waited for her. Upon her return, she exclaimed, "Let's hit the rocks, Boobie!" Then they walked off, to hit the rocks, I suppose. We're not sure what "the rocks" were, what it means to "hit" them, or how on earth a fully-grown man gets the nickname "Boobie,"but we've adopted it as our catchphrase for leaving to do awesome things.

9. I went on a walk with my wife, and we made it into a photography date by taking photos of one another and stuff around the city. During one shoot, when my wife was taking my picture on a back road, a guy walking down the sidewalk exclaimed, "Get her number and screw her!" Then he waited a minute, and screamed even louder, "HEY MAN! I SAID...GET HER NUMBER...AND SCREW HER!" He then disappeared around the corner, and we moved to a more public area. Considering that I already have her number, and that she's my wife, I decided to just chalk that one up as a victory on my part.

10. While walking down the street at night with my wife and another couple, an old hobo in a wheelchair screamed out at us, "That PUNK stole my radio! He just came up and stole it!" He seemed very convinced. But for the record, I did not.

A Survey of Karl Barth's Ethics

2011-10-12T12:35:00.000-07:00

Karl Barth was a Reformed theologian who lived from May 10, 1886 to December 10, 1968, and is considered by many scholars to be one of the most important theologians in the history of Christianity. As a theologian, he wrote many important works, with the most famous of them being his Church Dogmatics. At various times in his life, he was also a pastor, a teacher, and a political activist. Barth is well known for his political activism in protecting Evangelicalism from “selling out” to falsehood in Germany, as well as for refusing to swear allegiance to Hitler.[1] Many of the lectures from his days as a teacher have also become quite famous. However, there is much controversy in Evangelicalism about Barth’s contribution to Christian thought. His dialectic style of writing made his theology very difficult to understand, and he also reached some conclusions about matters that differed significantly from the conclusions reached by most Evangelical scholars. Some examples of this include his doctrine of election, which hinted at the possibility of universal salvation, his doctrine of revelation, which left open the possibility that Scripture may not be inerrant, and his early doctrine of the ethics of creation, which he later retracted due to misuse by the Nazi’s.[2] Of course, despite the controversy surrounding him, Barth must be recognized for his brilliance in most matters of theology and for his contribution to Christian ethics. As someone who worked to protect the doctrine of Christianity, advocated biblical ethics, and lived out those ethics by opposing injustice in Germany, there is much that we can learn from Karl Barth today. In this paper, we will survey some of Barth’s main ideas about Christian ethics, exploring them and interacting with them. Considering how much Barth wrote on the subject of ethics and how his views changed between his early and late career, it will be difficult to cover everything of importance. In this survey, we'll focus mostly on the ideas he presents in his Church Dogmatics.

Before looking at the main ideas in Barth’s writings on ethics, it is crucial to note that there seems to be an overarching theme in all of his works. This apparent overarching theme - which is dialectic in nature - is that Christian ethics are both very problematic and very necessary. This means that there is a sort of tension surrounding Christian ethics. In promoting this dialectic theme, Barth taught that the pursuit of ethical behavior by Christians was problematic because the perfect will of God can never be the possession of sinful human beings, but he also taught that the pursuit of ethical behavior was inescapable by Christians because of the necessity for believers to discern and do the will of God.[3] The only thing making possible the tension-filled pursuit of ethics was the miraculous work of the LORD, the one who makes possible all things, including what is impossible to us.

Considering how problematic but necessary the pursuit of ethics was, in Barth’s view, it should be noted that Barth considered the knowledge of God (which is found by us in Christ) to be the basis for all ethical discussion. He believed that knowing God was essential to knowing and doing what is ethical, since ethics come from God, and therefore refused to talk about ethics apart from God. Although some people might find this view to be controversial or extreme, it does seem correct, considering that God is perfectly holy and the one who defines for us what it means to live holy (i.e., ethical) lives in the world. The revelation of his knowledge and primary, ethical example that God has given to us is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the absolute, ultimate reality of what it means to live rightly. He is the absolute ethical example. Further, he is the only one who holds that position. No other man, or anything else, can be an ultimate ethical example to us.[4]

One of Barth’s positive contributions to the field of Christian ethics came in his doctrine of reconciliation. In that doctrine, Barth advocated the idea that the dual nature of Jesus Christ – being fully God and fully man – was the utmost example of reconciliation. In Christ, God in the flesh, the holy God had made himself able to reconcile sinful man to himself. On this subject, Barth wrote, “In Jesus Christ God has decided in favour of man.”[5] That is to say, Jesus Christ was the example of how God could be reconciled with man, how man could be reconciled with God, and how one man could be reconciled to another man through love.[6]

In addition to his idea about Christ being the ultimate, ethical example, another one of Barth’s main ideas was that the Gospel makes Christians free to behave ethically (in line with the Law), by the power of the Holy Spirit. He wrote, “The Gospel itself has the form and fashion of the Law. The one Word of God is both Gospel and Law…In its content, it is Gospel; in its form and fashion, it is Law.”[7] In this sense, the Gospel is not divorced for the Law. Rather, it is the fulfillment of the Law. This fulfillment means that every Christian has freedom to obey the Law that Christ has fulfilled for us, with obedience coming by each one living in the reality of faith. This means that Christians are free in the Holy Spirit to behave ethically in the world, living holy lives that are pleasing to the LORD.

At this point it must be acknowledged that this freedom, found through submitting to the Lord, did not come without its demands. Barth saw the lordship of Jesus Christ and the freedom of the Christian as something that necessarily demanded obedience (i.e., ethical behavior). He wrote, “How can God be understood as the Lord if that does not involve the problem of human obedience?”[8] This means, essentially, that all those who receive grace must live in the world as those who have received grace in Jesus Christ. A man belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ when he is saved by him, and therefore must live for him.[9] Of course, mankind’s action in ethical obedience does not in any way add to the righteousness received in Christ. Rather, ethical obedience is simply to live in agreement with what Christ has already done. To what extent a man endorses Christ’s obedience (i.e., cooperates in sanctification) is the true measure of whether or not he is living ethically.[10]

When we consider the idea that Christ has fulfilled the Law for all of us (i.e., he has lived perfectly for us), and that our good actions (which are made possible by the Holy Spirit) simply confirm what he has done on our behalf, we are faced with the dilemma of having to discern whether or not there is good and bad behavior in the world by those who do not have faith in Christ. In other words, we must consider whether or not the unbelievers in the world can still do things that are good. In Barth’s line of thinking, it seems that the answer would be that good behavior is impossible for those without faith in Christ. He even wrote, “Man does good in so far as his action is Christian.”[11] This answer -which makes faith required for truly ethical action - seems to be quite logical, considering that every action done by man has a relationship with both God and other men in the world. That is to say, the very actions that may seem good to man may not seem good to God, for anything that is not done by man for the glory of God could not possibly be considered by him to be in line with his perfect will. Practically, then, we must learn to recognize seemingly good actions done by unbelieving mankind are but a cheapened replica of the life God wants us to live.

Of note in Barth’s writings is that he did address how God’s Law affects all of mankind. As a whole, he did not see the Bible as providing ethical principles for all mankind to live by.[12] Rather, he saw the Bible as containing ethical principles that were specifically for God’s people. These ethical principles for God’s people were contained in the Law. This is important to recognize becomes it frames God’s Law within the context of his covenant community, which as LORD he was responsible for (in that he bound himself to his people).[13] What God demands from all of mankind is not ethical behavior, but membership in his covenant community; he desires for people to join into that community by faith first, and then to obey him second. God calls all of mankind to holiness only insomuch as he calls all of mankind to himself.

Many people have often looked to the Ten Commandments as something by which all of mankind can be measured ethically. However, in opposition to this common view, one of Barth’s main points in his writings was that the Ten Commandments were given specifically to God’s people, within the context of the whole Law, and not useful for judging all of mankind. Speaking of the Ten Commandments, he wrote, “We are not at liberty to understand anything and everything by these things, but must keep to what they intend to say, and do actually say, according to the clear declarations of the context.”[14] This means that the blessings and curses associated with obedience and disobedience of God’s Law as given in the Ten Commandments are also contingent upon being a part of his covenant community. It is impossible for anyone to obey any of the Ten Commandments without first being a member of the covenant community.[15]

On a similar note, it is impossible for anyone who is part of the covenant community to truly disobey any of the Ten Commandments, the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, or any other ethical command in the Bible (on an absolute level, which would condemn a person to eternal death), in that Christ has fulfilled the Law in ultimatum on behalf of the covenant community. Still, the Law is useful in defining what obedience looks like for those who are found in Christ as part of the covenant community. The Law shows all those who are part of the covenant community their need for Christ. It draws people into the lordship of Christ, so that all who have faith in him might be servants like him. It means that people of faith must simply cooperate with what God is doing in them in order to be living ethically in the world. In this sense, the Law always is useful for the Christian life, in that it makes way for the realization of the Gospel. It is all about Jesus.

Considering all of these main ideas from Barth’s teachings, it is interesting to consider how he applied his ethical beliefs to his own life in protecting Evangelicalism in Germany and in refusing to swear allegiance to Hitler (amongst other things). Karl Barth was a man who certainly practiced what he preached and taught.

Early in his career, after World War 1, Barth was associated with a movement of theologians opposed to theological liberalism in Germany, and he and these theologians believed in what was called “Dialectical Theology.”[16] His aim in being part of this movement was to protect Evangelicalism from falsehood by exploring truth on all sides, exhaustively. This was important, considering how the Protestant church in his country was swaying towards an accommodating allegiance with the government. On the subject of how Barth protected Evangelicalism from falsehood, scholar John Webster notes, “One of Barth’s major points of disagreement with the liberal theological tradition concerned what he saw as its moralism, its all-too-easy identification with the Kingdom of God with the moral, socio-political or historical processes of bourgeois society.”[17] In this concern, Barth was worried that liberal theologians in Germany would create an ethics void of the Gospel that used morality to make them into a superior people able to persecute any people considered to be immoral.[18]

With the rise of Nazism in Germany and the Protestant Church’s attempt to side with it, Barth’s protest against falsehood in the church gained new importance and grew in its demands. He led the way in helping to write the Barmen Declaration. This declaration rejected Nazism as a whole and argued that the Church’s allegiance was to the lordship of Jesus Christ alone.[19] It advocated the idea that there could not be a church-state,[20] and that the church should oppose the state when it is acting unjustly in governance. Naturally, this stance meant resisting the lordship of Hitler. Barth was glad to do that and even mailed the declaration to Hitler himself.[21] Further, Barth went to record in refusing to swear an oath to Hitler and had to resign from his university teaching position at the time, as well as flee the country and return to his homeland of Switzerland.[22] Throughout the rest of his life, Barth did many other noteworthy things that could be considered an application of his social ethics. However, all of them could not possibly be surveyed in this paper. Nonetheless, all of this goes to show that Barth strongly believed in taking a political stance in order to protect the church itself from falsehood, a task that is important for every believer to consider his or her own responsibility in doing. Like Barth, every Christian must consider his or her role in applying ethical doctrine to everyday life. Perhaps we should each ask ourselves, "To what extent should the Gospel cause me (as an individual) to take political and ethical action in the world?" And perhaps also, "To what extent should the Church (corporately) take action?"

----------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES

  [1] Wikipedia, “Karl Barth,” , accessed on October 7, 2011.
  [2] Paul T. Nimmo, “The orders of creation in the theological ethics of Karl Barth” in Scottish Journal of Theology, Volume 60, Issue 1 (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2007), 24.
  [3] Michael Banner, “Book Review: David Clough, Ethics in Crisis: Interpreting Barth’s Ethics (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005). 164 pp. £42.50 (hb), ISBN 0–7546–3630–5” in Studies in Christian Ethics, Volume 20 (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007), 293-294.
  [4] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume II: The Doctrine of God, Part 2 (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 538.
  [5] Ibid., 511.

[6] Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, translated by John Bowden (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005), 377-378.
  [7] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume II: The Doctrine of God, Part 2, 511
  [8] Ibid., 512.
  [9] Ibid., 539.
  [10] Ibid., 540.
  [11] Ibid., 547.
  [12] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume II: The Doctrine of God, Part 2, 680.
  [13] Ibid., 682.
  [14] Ibid., 684.
  [15] Ibid., 684-685.
  [16] Wikipedia, “Karl Barth,” , accessed on October 7, 2011.
  [17] John Webster, Karl Barth (New York: Continuum, 2004), 143.
  [18] John Webster, Karl Barth, 143.
  [19] Wikipedia, “Karl Barth,” , accessed on October 7, 2011.
  [20] Clifford Green, editor, Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 265.
  [21] Wikipedia, “Karl Barth,” , accessed on October 7, 2011.
  [22] Ibid.

Isaiah 1:16-17 - Faith Brings Change

2011-09-27T19:40:00.000-07:00

Isaiah 1:16-17 (ESV). Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.

Introduction. In this passage of Scripture, the prophet Isaiah is talking to the people of Israel about how they should be living. God had chosen that nation to be his people, and this special relationship meant that the Israelites had very special laws for how they were supposed to live. God demanded holiness from them. However, as Isaiah has pointed out in the beginning of his book, the people of Israel had rebelled against their God and had chosen to live in sin – they had chosen to break God’s laws. This was not acceptable, and Isaiah the prophet had the task of making them aware of this fact and calling them to live holy lives for their God. By the words of Isaiah in this passage, God’s demands for holy living are made clear.[1] The prophet persuasively and forcefully calls on his listeners to change the way they live.[2]

Of course, the words of Isaiah were not only for the ancient people of Israel. They were also for us, in that the principles of the Bible are timeless. Today, this passage has great value for us because it teaches us about the ethical responsibilities of God’s people. By the words of Isaiah, many of us also may be called on to change the ways we’re living. We all will need to ask ourselves, “How can faith in God change our hearts and lives?” The text we’re studying seems to provide at least three ways in which faith can change our hearts and lives. In order to see these ways, we’ll take a look at the text verse-by-verse.

1:16a. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean.” In the first part of verse sixteen, God’s people are instructed, “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean.” In this set of imperatives, the LORD is instructing his people in how they should be dealing with their unclean hearts. As made clear by earlier and later parts of the book of Isaiah, the people of Israel were unclean because of their sin. They needed to deal with that sin, because of sin’s catastrophic effects. Sin, which could be defined as believing or doing things that are opposed to God’s will, disrupts both our relationships with God and with one another. It prevents our wellbeing, leading only to death.

On the surface level, God was calling the Israelites to ceremonially wash themselves clean. At that time, during the Old Covenant, this ceremonial, physical cleansing would have allowed them to participate in worship at the temple. However, on a deeper level, God was calling for a complete change of their hearts. He was calling them to change in such a way that they might go from being spiritually unclean to being clean, that they might go from being sinful to being righteous. This idea is made clear through the use of the two imperatives in which God says “wash yourselves” and “make yourselves clean.”

The instruction to “wash yourselves” is used because the outward action of washing is symbolic in that it reminds us of how faith in God brings about an internal change of the heart,[3] whereas the instruction to “make yourselves clean” is less specific and reminds us that after initially repenting and placing faith in God, we must live in repentance daily. Concerning this idea, biblical scholars Keil & Delitzsch note, “According to the difference between the two synonyms (to wash one’s self, to clean one’s self), the former must be understood as referring to the one great act of repentance on the part of a man who is turning to God, the latter to the daily repentance of one who has so turned.”[4] Thus, only a heart that has turned away from sin and to God - once and for all for salvation, but also daily for righteous living - can be considered clean in God’s eyes. Although this message was originally spoken to the Israelites, the overall principle for us to recognize here, in this set of imperatives, is that God is calling all people to repent from sin, place faith in him, and live holy lives.[5] Faith in Jesus Christ is what makes holy living possible - point #1 - faith makes our hearts clean.

So, considering that faith makes our hearts clean, my two questions – God’s questions, actually – are these: First, have you ever repented of your sin, acknowledging that you have offended a holy God, and believing that Christ bore the penalty for your sins in his death? Second, and only if you were able to answer “yes” to the first question, do you find yourself daily repenting for your sins? I cannot answer for you. But just between you and God, how would you answer those two questions?

1:16b. “Remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes. Cease to do evil.” The second part of God’s counsel to the Israelites, spoken by Isaiah, called for them to “remove the evil” of their deeds from before the eyes of the LORD. Interestingly, this would have been an impossible task for the Israelites to obey on their own, considering that God’s eyes can see everything. They certainly would have needed God’s help to obey this command. Nonetheless, the instruction is there, and so we must determine what it meant then and what it means for us today.

When considering this radical instruction, there are at least a few important ideas to note. First, God can see everything that we do. That means that, in his sight, we’re completely exposed for who we really are. There’s no hiding from God. He knows what sort of deeds we’ve been doing – good or evil. Just as Adam and Eve couldn’t hide their sin from God in the Garden of Eden, God’s people in Israel couldn’t hide their sin from him, and so today we too cannot hide our sin from God. He knows the good or evil of our deeds. Second, evil deeds are an intolerable sight to the eyes of God. As a loving but holy God, he cannot stand them, for they’re unholy. That means that human beings who are living unholy lives are also intolerable to the loving but holy God. In their sin, the Israelites were intolerable to God. They were living in violation of his law, and faced having to deal with the consequences associated with such disobedience. Today, there are also consequences when we disobey God. Those who do not have faith in him face the threat of hell for disobedience, and those who do have faith in him face the threat of a joyless, unsatisfying life for disobedience. Third, the holy God loves humanity so much that he has made the impossible task of “removing the evil” of our deeds possible. Having the evil removed from us is possible through faith in Christ alone; when we place our faith in him, God equips us with his Holy Spirit so that we’re made clean and have the evil of our deeds removed from his sight once-and-for-all. The Israelites were supposed to look forward to the coming of Christ, in faith, just as we look back on it in faith.

Don’t misunderstand: the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean we can get away with doing evil after we’re saved. As the Israelites learned, God demands ethical conduct from his people. The Israelites were called “to wrestle against the wickedness to which their actual sin had grown,”[6] and such a struggle was intended to deepen their reliance upon God. So we too must try, constantly, to remove the evil of our deeds from the sight of the LORD, deepening our reliance upon him. We must live ethically for God. We must not be content with having any sort of evil in our deeds. We must work to discern the evil in our lives, and then remove it. We must cease from doing evil, instead living in the reality of faith. As faith makes our hearts clean, so it is that - point #2 - faith makes good behavior possible.

As we consider the idea that faith makes good behavior possible, we’ll move on to verse 17, which will help us to see what that good behavior should look like.

1:17a. “Learn to do good.” In the first part of verse 17, God instructs the Israelites, “Learn to do good.” Obviously, this imperative creates a radical contrast between how the Israelites were described in verse 16 as living at the time (doing evil) and how they were supposed to be living (doing good). The contrast is significant because “to do good” is to do the will of the holy God, which is the way that God the Creator intended for humanity to live.[7] On the subject of what exactly “good” is in contrast to “evil,” Oswalt notes, “Good expresses that which is in keeping with the plan of creation (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 2:18), while evil expresses what is not in keeping with that plan (Gen. 6:5–7).”[8] Keeping with God’s plan is the good behavior that faith makes possible. That being said, simply to tell the Israelites to “learn to do good” was a way of telling them to get their hearts right with God, living in the ways that he had instructed them to live as his chosen people. Since we know that God is good, everything that is in line with his character and will is similarly good. So when we think of what “doing good” means, we should think of godly living. “To do good” is to do as God does, or would do. And it’s faith that makes acting like God possible. Faith makes his good behavior possible for us.

Now my question to you at this point is not, “How good is your behavior?” Frankly, I couldn’t care any less about that. Rather, my question to you is this: “What’s motivating your behavior?” That is, why are you trying to have good behavior, or why are you trying to have bad behavior? If you’re honest about it, your answer to this question will reveal what it is that you’re worshipping by your lifestyle – that is, your functional god. If the Lord Jesus Christ isn’t the reason you’re trying to live rightly, then your motivations lie in the wrong place. It’s like you’re being righteous for yourself, or even to please others. You’re worshipping yourself and other men. If you’re intentionally trying to behave badly, then you’re rebelling against the God who loves you. Once again, you’re worshipping yourself. You’ve put yourself in God’s place. The problem with bother of these lifestyles is that the false gods you’re worshipping, which are motivating you to act the way you are, can never off you the life you desire. In the end, they only offer destruction and death.

Today, people have all sorts of ideas about what it means to do good. Many people think that good is a self-determined or relative idea. However, being a Christian means that there is an ultimate, objective good that defines morality – that is, God, and the revelation of truth he has given us in the Bible. In the Bible, God gives us the “black and white” of what’s right and wrong. For instance, consider the Ten Commandments. God explicitly makes clear things that are wrong for all of humanity to do. Of course, there are many “gray” areas of life as well. In those gray areas of life, we must figure out how best to apply the principles of God’s Word. At times, this can be a very tough endeavor. It can be really challenging to determine good behavior from bad behavior, to determine right from wrong. In those kinds of situations, we must be very careful and deliberate. We must do what we think is good and loving (i.e., what God would do), using our faith in God as an opportunity to take responsibility for the redemption of the broken, evil world system around us. In fact, faith makes our hearts clean, faith makes good behavior possible, and – point #3 - faith makes us responsible for the world.

1:17b. “Seek justice, correct oppression, bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” In his Word to his people, God explicitly made clear some responsibilities that are included in the idea of doing good – namely, seeking justice, correcting oppression, bringing justice to the fatherless, and pleading the widow’s cause. Interestingly, these are responsibilities that all of God’s people had in Isaiah’s day, but were not doing. God’s people were not living in the reality of his goodness – they were living in disobedience, and the effects of their sin were huge. The sin of the Israelites not only had affected their own hearts, but also it had affected the way they were relating to the world around them. Faith and ethics work together,[9] and the Israelites’ failure to worship God (e.g., their sin) was affecting their ethical behavior. Like their false worship, their ethics were not pleasing to God. The same holds true today. When we fail to spend focused time worshipping God, we allow into our lives behaviors and deeds that we would never consider committing. Losing our focus on God, we lose focus on who we are and how we should act. In so doing, we fail to please God, and when we aren’t pleasing God, we can’t share fully in his joy.

The call to “seek justice” would have been something of a punch in the gut to the Israelites, as it draws attention to the idea that they had not been concerned at all about justice in their community. They weren’t concerned with others, only themselves. They were living in such a dead way that they had all but lost touch with what justice was. Although God had promised the Israelites many blessings – to be experienced in full in the coming of the Messiah - for obeying him, they were living as an unjust people. And because of that, they themselves were in threat of facing the curses of God’s justice.

The definition of “doing good” is further expanded by the call for the Israelites to “correct oppression.” A development of the idea of seeking justice, one of the things this imperative teaches is that the people God are responsible for identifying breeches of justice in the world, confronting wrong-doers who take advantage of others, and leaders others to demand change from wrongdoing. God’s people cannot be content with the world system being broken; we must initiate correction in the system. Additionally, this imperative teaches us that God’s people are responsible for helping others to learn how to do good. The morality and ethics of God’s people are intended to be passed on to others. Instead of this, however, the Israelites had been passing on immorality and unethical behavior. They had not been promoting the sort of lifestyle that pleases God and makes true joy possible for all who have faith in him.

Additionally, God’s requirement for the Israelites to “bring justice to the fatherless” made the idea of justice even more relational in context. Even at that time, God’s people were intended to function as something of an extended family. Those without fathers to care for them were to receive care from their heavenly Father by his family members, the people of Israel. This sort of justice was supposed to be a picture of God’s grace and how he loves the unloved. Of course, in their sin the Israelites had forgotten to extend justice to the fatherless. This act draws attention to the notion that the Israelites’ relationship with their heavenly Father was so broken that they did not even concern themselves with sharing his fatherly nature with the fatherless people of the world. Similarly, they had forgotten to taken up the widow’s cause, meaning that they had not been responsible in caring for those who had no living husband to provide for them. Although God had wed himself to his bride Israel, Israel had forgotten to share his husbandly nature with the widows of the world. Truly, the people of God altogether had forsaken their moral and ethical responsibilities.

Today, all those of us who have faith also must remember that faith cannot be separated from ethical responsibilities. Faith and action work together in the Christian life, as we work to express the Christ in us to the world around us. This means that when you take a stand for social justice and get your hands dirty helping the oppressed, you are engaged in worship of the God who loves them and who also takes up their cause. We must do good in the world by seeking justice in all sorts of ways, including and going beyond the ways mentioned in the text we’ve studied. However, for various reasons, many of us have forgotten to apply this truth to our lives. Some of us may be running from the truth – perhaps to avoid responsibility in doing good or to avoid being socially persecuted in doing good– and others of us may simply not care. Either way, we must see that a lack of participation in God’s justice is sin, and that such sin prevents us from experiencing the full joy of the LORD.

Conclusion. You may be left wondering, “So then, in what sense are Christians morally and ethically responsible today”? Or perhaps, “What now?” Well, thankfully, Jesus Christ summed up the answer for us into two simple commands when he said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). This means that justice is much simpler than it seems – it is as simple as loving God and showing the love of God to others. Justice can be as simple as saying “Hi” to your lonely neighbor, as simple as mentoring a student at the local elementary school, as simple as making a meal for someone in need, or as simple as giving away your financial resources to help others. Or it may even require you to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with someone who desperately needs to hear it. If this is a hard truth to realize or put into practice, then you must consider whether or not your faith lies in the wrong place.

As we place faith in Christ, that faith makes our hearts clean. Christ washes us with the Holy Spirit. Once the Spirit has cleaned our hearts, faith makes good behavior possible for us. Our hearts are transformed and made to be like Christ’s, and we so desire to behave like him. And with Christ’s good behavior possible for us, faith makes us responsible for the world around us. As God has loved us, we must share his love with the world.

God wants an up-close and personal relationship with you, so that your faith in him can bring about change in you, everywhere you go, with everything you do, and with everyone you know. He wants to be the very motivation for who you are and what you do. How personal is your relationship with him? Has your heart been made clean through faith in Jesus Christ? Have your deeds changed because of your faith? And if you do have faith, what difference is it causing you to make in your world? Only you can decide what sort of change can happen in your life and in the world around you. How will you respond?

----------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES

  [1] John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 98.
  [2] Gary V. Smith, New American Commentary: Isaiah 1-39 (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 108.
  [3] Ibid., 108.
  [4] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 63.

  [5] Oswalt, 98.
  [6] Keil and Delitzsch, 63.
  [7] Oswalt, 99.
  [8] Ibid., 99.
  [9] Smith, 109.

Christian Worship Music I Actually Like

2011-08-12T18:49:00.000-07:00

Let me say from the start that most "Christian" music is total crap, and I detest that record labels will stick a Christian name on crappy music just to make money. So I stay away from almost all "Christian" pop, rock, soundtracks, et cetera. I usually just listen to good, "secular" music instead of "Christian" junk. In addition, a lot of the "worship" stuff that mainstream Christian artists put out is so theologically weak and fluffy that it could be a song about loving Fruity Pebbles or the pretty sunrise just as easily as it could be about loving Jesus.

However, as a man of faith, I do find it necessary to have music that I can sing along with in worship of the Lord. You know, like the kind of music you sing at a church service - music that's good in both artistic and theological quality. I find it important to be able to worship at home, in the car, or wherever. So with that in mind, here are a few artists and albums (who are new or still putting out stuff) that I like:

All Sons and Daughters ("Brokenness Aside")
Chris Tomlin (Most of his albums are good and safe. I'm not a huge fan though)
Derek Webb ("She Must and Shall Go Free" was a life-changing album for me, "I See Things Upside Down" is also a masterpiece, though some might not consider that stuff worship. Random tracks recorded on other albums are good too)
Enter the Worship Circle (A rare exception in this list, as they haven't put out an album recently, due to the extremely good quality of their albums. The first albums they put out changed the way I listened to worship music)
Indelible Grace (Every album is phenomenal. Consistently good quality. Many of the artists on this list do work on these albums)
Matthew Smith ("Watch the Rising Day" is a wonderful album)
Sandra McCracken ("The Builder & The Architect," "In Feast or Fallow," and tracks recorded on other albums are all great. In my opinion, Sandra is the best singer/songwriter around these days. Go buy her stuff)
Sojourn ("Before the Throne" is a favorite. "The Water and the Blood" is also of good quality)
The Journey ("To See The Curse Remove" stands out above the rest of their albums, though they are all good and reflect what worship services look like there)

And so concludes my list. When looking for theological quality in music, the most important aspect is gospel-centeredness (i.e., whether or not lyrics are in line with the Bible in promoting Christ). When looking for artistic quality, the most important aspect is evocativeness (i.e., how well the music interacts with the mind, emotions, and will). I'm very fond of old hymns put to new music, or new hymns put to new music. Albums put out by worship teams from solid churches are usually a good bet, as you may already know or have noticed, but there are plenty of options out there. What about you? Are there any worship artists or albums you'd recommend? I know that I may have left out a few worth mentioning.

My Ten Favorite Beers

2011-08-07T22:07:00.000-07:00

I'm a man of limited means, and I always drink in moderation, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to enjoy a good beer! Part of life is knowing how to live it well. And I love to share the things I enjoy with others. So, with that in mind, the following is a list of some of my favorite affordable beers.

Delirium Tremens
Kentucky Bourbon Barrel Ale
Schlafly Tripel
Magic Hat Summer Lager
New Belgium Abbey Ale
New Belgium La Folie
Young's Double Chocolate Stout
Newcastle Brown Ale
Sam Adams Noble Pils
Victory Helios Ale

Most of these beers are available for decent prices on-tap or in bottles at nice bars and pubs throughout America, but finding such establishments may require some searching. Impress your friends by ordering them! Of course, I know that there are nicer, more expensive beers out there, and also that I may have missed some good ones. What are some of your favorite beers? Is there anything you'd add to this list or think I should check out?

Being a Missional Seminary Student

2011-08-02T17:26:00.000-07:00

INTRO TO BEING MISSIONAL AND BEING A SEMINARY STUDENT

Before we try to talk about what it means to be a missional seminary student, let’s define a few terms. To be missional is to live on mission for God, which is the duty of every Christian. It’s a term that includes the idea of loving the Lord God will all of one’s self, and loving one’s neighbors to the best of one’s God-given ability. In living like this, each Christian shares the love of God with the people in his or her context, and together with other believers, with the goal of reaching the entire world with the love of God through that collaborative effort. To be in seminary is to be in a full or part-time graduate school that prepares its students for some sort of vocational Christian ministry.

CHALLENGES FACING SEMINARY STUDENTS

As a seminary student, it’s incredibly difficult to be missional for at least a few reasons. First, most of one’s time as a seminary student is spent on-campus with Christian professors, Christian faculty, and other Christian students who are studying to be pastors, scholars, counselors, teachers, or something very weird. Very little, if any, time is spent communicating and interacting with secular people who are off-campus. This means that seminary students get used to talking in a language and using vocabulary that makes sense to seminary students but not to most common Christians, let alone non-Christians. Second, many seminary students live in on-campus housing, meaning that all of their neighbors are Christians going into some kind of ministry. Their neighbors also have a very controlled set of needs, limiting how another person in a similar situation can minister to them. Third, many seminaries pretend to be churches, but are not really churches. In actuality, they are academic communities functioning in a way that prepares students for spiritual ministry, which is much different than what real churches are and how real churches function. One example of this is that in functioning in their particular capacity, seminary communities typically function as completely or mostly separate from the secular community, whereas churches are in the midst of the secular community. These reasons, along with some others, make it difficult for seminary students to be missional, in the truest sense of what that means. However, there are options for being missional that can and should be explored by every seminary student. These will be discussed below.

WAYS TO BE A MISSIONAL SEMINARY STUDENT

1. Live in the city and commute to the school.

Living in the city opens up many unique opportunities for seminary students. Most importantly, it will allow the seminary student to be a good neighbor (in a multitude of ways) to people with real needs. It also allows students to establish a long-term presence in the secular community, giving them credibility in what all they say and do. Finally, when a student is living in the city, the culture is able to inform the student how they should be learning at seminary (which is positive). In other words, living in the real world teaches students what ideas to leave in the seminary classroom and what ideas to bring home with them and put into practice.

2. Join and serve regularly in a church in the city.

To be frank, churches in the city are typically more diverse in people, needs, etc. and more rewarding than churches in other places such as on-campus churches, residential churches, and suburban churches. They are the perfect place for young guns like seminary students to make a real difference and the pastors who lead them typically can offer the kind of practical training that seminary students need for a lifetime of ministry but can’t get in the classroom. Besides, isn’t being able to do real ministry the whole point of going to seminary? Put that stuff you’re learning to use! Churches can offer safe ways for students to grow including leading a small group, teaching a class, leading teams that serve the needy and poor, and taking out the pastor’s trash (just kidding – kind of).

3. Invest in your neighborhood.

People who have nothing to lose typically have very little to gain. Along the same lines, people who are invested into the community thrive with it or die with it. All of us who are Christians are called to invest into our communities, so that the gospel movement might truly flourish in them. But what does investing look like? Well, it depends on the context you’re in, but it can include such things as: spending money at local establishments (e.g., restaurants, businesses, etc.) that are in need, becoming a “regular” a certain places where people gather (e.g., cafes, bars, gyms, grocery stores, barbershops, etc.), attending community meetings, volunteering in government sponsored social programs, and having your neighbors over for a party or dinner. If you’re a student with limited time and funds, perhaps this means you should be studying at cafes or in the libraries of other universities, so that you’re multi-tasking. But investment in one’s community should also include seeking out contextual “platforms” for the gospel that will allow you to converse with and love people in away that they’ll understand, no matter the cost. The goal of such investment is to be a force of redemption in your community, as you seek the welfare of it. Just consider the expense of doing all this as part of your seminary tuition. If you give yourself away like this, God will provide you with everything you need.

4. Prepare the way for others.

Few seminary students are willing to - or realize the need to - make the sacrifices required for being missional. That means that it’s the job of the missional seminary student to recruit other students to join in the movement. Invite students to hang out with you in the city, perhaps taking them to some of your favorite spots, and cast vision for them. Also, realize that you have the opportunity to act as something of a “tour guide” for these students, as well as visiting family members, missionaries, and church planters. Try to create opportunities for others to be missional like you are, figuring out what that looks like in your context. Pray for churches, pastors, and others in your city. Be a resource.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I can only lead this discussion because I'm doing all of this stuff myself, or at least trying to. I'm a third year seminary student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary who has invested everything into living in Cambridge, MA (and surrounding areas) during my time in school. By no means do I have everything figured out, as you may have figured out already, but I'm doing what I can. If you're a seminary student reading this, then I challenge you to figure out what living missionally means for you, in your context. Don't waste what God has given you. Live on mission for God! Of course, some of these ideas will be useful for others who aren't seminarians (e.g., students, those trying to live/work in the city, etc.). In the end though, regardless of who you are, I'm interested to talk more with those who read this. Did any ideas stand out to you? What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

What's the role of the Law in our lives today?

2011-06-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

Someone recently asked me an interesting question about the Bible. Their question was essentially, "What's the role of the Law (i.e., the laws or "holiness code" given to Israel by God in the Old Testament) in our lives today? Can it be used to condemn the actions of either Christians or non-Christians?" Such a question, I think, is one that many of us have but may be afraid to ask.

When considering the purpose of the Law for us today, it needs to be first looked at in its original context - it was given to a particular people at a particular point in time, in order to set them apart as God's holy people and show them their need for Christ. If I had to sum its purpose up in one word, it would be that of "expectation." Originally, the Law showed God's people what sin was and gave them some basic legal guidelines for living in holy community. Obeying it had great benefits, like being able to experience the richness of God's covenant blessings, but did not ultimately save anyone. Ultimately, everyone would eventually find themselves condemned, in one way or another, by the Law. Everyone was forced to plea to God, at some point, for grace. So, even back then, it was faith in Christ (who was to come) that saved a person from their sin. Only those who had faith in God were truly righteous; this was likely but a small portion of people within the larger nation. This is made most evident by Abraham, who was considered righteous by God on account of his faith before the Law was ever given to Moses and all of Israel.

With that context in mind, we also have to consider how the form and structure of the covenant economy changed with the coming of Christ and the "New Covenant." God's people became more distinct, in that the structure of being part of a nation became less important for salvation and the small amount of believing people became particularized as just being the church. Only those with faith were those who came to be identified as and make up the church. If the Old Testament was a time of "expectation," the New Testament (and our time now) is a time of "recollection" of how Christ fulfilled the Law for us. In his death on the cross, an act of sacrificial atonement for mankind, Jesus fulfilled - once and for all - the Law. That is, he paid the price for all sins. He paid the penalty due to all mankind for breaking the holy laws of God. And because of what he did in fulfilling the Law for us, all those who have faith in him no longer have to try to keep the Law. In this sense, we can say that the Law has no particular "use" for us today, as we deal with one another. Certainly, it still makes us aware of what sin is, but our lives our not in any way measured by whether or not we are obeying the Law. In fact, Christ obeys the Law for believers, through the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit writes the Law on our hears, by giving us a unique spiritual conscience, and allows for us to continually deepen in our reliance upon Christ. So, again, the real and only measure of our moral rightness (and the moral rightness of others) is whether or not we have faith.

In the end, the answer is this: the issue is not what we do (i.e., how well be obey the Law), but whether or not we rely - in faith - upon Christ and what he has already done for us (in obeying the Law on our behalf). In considering one another, we ought to spur one another on to deeper reliance upon Christ in faith. When we do that, we are able to live in the richness of the peace and joy of the gospel.

7 Albums I Like So Far in 2011

2011-06-13T13:44:00.000-07:00

Out of all the music that has come out so far in 2011, a few albums and demos have stood out to me as better than the rest. Rather than give an explanation or review for each (which I'm willing to do if there's interest), I'll just post the names of the albums and let you do the research. So, in case you want to listen to snippets or purchase them, I'll include a link to buy or download each album.

Austra - "Feel it Break" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ZIG5UW/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B004SU1B2E&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1J6WJKXFQBPMB2B23W4R

Death Cab for Cutie - "Codes and Keys" http://www.amazon.com/Codes-and-Keys/dp/B0052YOXN4/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307996990&sr=301-1

Fleet Foxes - "Helplessness Blues"http://www.amazon.com/Helplessness-Blues/dp/B004X0XA82/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307997022&sr=301-1

Thom Yorke, Burial, & Four Tet (A Collaboration) - "Ego" and "Mirror" http://www.pitchfork.com/news/41892-hear-one-of-the-thom-yorkefour-tetburial-collaborations/

Mogi Grumbles - "End of Line" http://moodgadget.com/mogigrumbles/

Radiohead - "The King of Limbs" http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Of-Limbs/dp/B004SQS9FA/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307997550&sr=301-1

The Antlers - "Burst Apart" http://www.amazon.com/Burst-Amazon-Exclusive-Version-Explicit/dp/B004WEIA4S/ref=pd_sim_dmusic_a_2

Well, that's all I've got for now. Of course, there are plenty of other good albums out that just didn't make this list, for whatever reason. What music has stood out to you this far in 2011? Let me know if I missed anything. I'd love to get some feedback.

Suffering, as dealt with by both belief and unbelief

2011-06-10T02:28:00.000-07:00

In the history of American unbelief, there have been many reasons why people have rejected Christianity. As presented in Christopher Hitchens’ book The Portable Atheist, one of the main reasons for the rejection of Christianity is that both God and Christians are perceived as necessarily causing human suffering. As a fact, such suffering has certainly happened in history as a result of Christianity. That cannot be disputed. However, it should be disputed as to whether or not such things as suffering should be considered a necessary result of God and Christians. In his book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, Christian pastor and apologist Timothy Keller has presented some reasons for questioning the reasons for rejecting Christianity presented by the authors in Christopher Hitchens’ book. In this article, both the historical arguments for rejecting Christianity and the modern responses to those arguments will be surveyed. The purpose of this essay is to gain a more charitable understanding of the views of both atheism and Christianity.

Over the course of time, the issue of human suffering has caused many people to question or reject the existence of God. The general argument of those with such views seems to be that if God exists and is good (as the Bible asserts), there should not be any pointless suffering in the world. Therefore, since there is pointless suffering in the world, the God of the Bible either does not exist, or, if he does, he is not good.[1] The existence of suffering has been perceived in this sense as evidence for the non-existence of God, or as evidence that he exists but does not intervene in history due to his lack of concern for such suffering.[2] Thus, with this perspective, some freethinkers have come to accept that those with faith are also non-responsive in the face of suffering, following the lead of the God they embrace, and that suffering is meaningless and demands unbelief.[3] Many freethinkers have seen this unbelief as a more practical solution than faith in God to the problem of suffering, since they do not believe in a personal God who intervenes in human history.[4] Speaking from this perspective, atheist Penn Jillette writes,

Believing there is no God means the suffering I’ve seen in my family, and indeed all the sufferings in the world, isn’t caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn’t bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.[5]

Such a perspective presents the choice of not believing in God as the best possible solution to suffering, presenting mankind as more efficient in dealing with suffering than God or those with faith in him (i.e., Christians). In the end, however, this line of thinking must be challenged for at least two reasons.

The first reason why the atheistic view should be challenged is that it does not allow God be the God of the Bible. Instead, it assigns to God a new, false identity and then attacks that false identity as if it were the identity given by the Bible. This straw-man argument presents him as limited in his attributes, often biased in his human-like perceptions, and does not accept the attributes he is presented as possessing in the Bible. A more charitable and intellectually honest view of God than this is necessary when looking seriously at Christian doctrine. If God is to be rejected, then at least he should be rejected for who he actually is - that is, how he is presented in the Bible.

The second reason why the atheistic view should be challenged is that, from a purely rational standpoint, the existence of human suffering is not necessarily a valid reason for the non-existence of God. If the God being considered is the God of the Bible, then the possibility of there being unknowable and mysterious aspects of God cannot be eliminated. If he possesses all the attributes assigned to him in the Bible – like infiniteness, for example - then he may have reasons for doing things that seem mysterious to us because they are beyond our comprehension as finite beings. That is to say, there may actually be reasons for suffering which allow God to be and act in exact accordance with the Bible’s description of him, including those passages that present him as being both good and personal.[6] Summing all of these ideas up, Keller concludes, "If you have a God great and transcendent enough to be mad at because he hasn’t stopped evil and suffering in the world, then you have (at the same moment) a God great and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue that you can’t know. Indeed, you can’t have it both ways."[7] Thus, maintaining God’s biblical identity is essential to the legitimacy of his relationship to suffering. Christianity presents him as responsible for suffering and having reasons for allowing it that are too mysterious for human beings to understand.[8] Though it does not explain the mystery as to why suffering exists, it does explain that God is eventually putting an end to all suffering, making everything right in the end for those who believe in him. In this sense, it provides hope to people as they endure suffering in life.[9] Though this may not answer all of the questions that people have about why things are the way they are, it does tell us, as Keller notes, “what the answer isn’t.” He observes that, “It can’t be that he doesn’t love us. It can’t be that he is indifferent or detached from our condition,” for “God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was willing to take it on himself.”[10] That is to say, Christianity teaches that God bears all suffering upon himself through Jesus on the cross and thereby at least has an ultimate solution for the problem of suffering. This must be kept in mind when honestly critiquing Christianity’s doctrine, especially in regard to whether or not God is “intervening” in any sort of way as a personal deity.

In their rejection of Christianity on the basis of the existence of suffering in the world, atheists have also made some interesting claims regarding the nature of justice. That is, they have perceived that things are either just or unjust, which has put them in a unique position. For example, they - in their unbelief – have claimed that it would be wrong both for God to exist and for human suffering to exist, and such a claim has put each atheist in a position of determining what is just for both God and the entire word. The dilemma with this view is that there exists no real, plausible basis for their standard of justice, save their own judgment. So, in having such a standard, they have placed an enormous amount of faith in their own cognitive abilities for understanding both God and the universe, which seems to be more than any finite human being can possibly claim.[11] Keller notes, “If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgment.”[12] Ultimately, then, it could be argued that this form of assurance has led atheists to have something of an alternative view of justice, one in which each person takes the place of God as the objective definer of justice. All this is to say that the critique atheists have made of Christianity – that it is worthy of rejection because God unjustly allows for things like suffering to exist – lacks the rational ground required of it to substantiate its claims. In the end, unbelief doesn’t seem to deal with evil and suffering any better than belief does. Both sides are faced with an enormous problem.[13] One side (unbelief) leaves this problem up to mankind to handle; the other side (belief) leaves it to God to handle. Regardless of who is responsible for the existence of all suffering, this at least makes clear that both believers and unbelievers are trying to do something about it.

Suffering in itself, however, is not the only concern of unbelievers. In the history of American unbelief, many people have rejected Christianity on the basis that it has directly caused suffering through cruelty and injustice, and may necessarily result in such things. That is to say, both God and Christians have been blamed for suffering. The religious are perceived as unjust for promoting other peoples’ belief in God. For instance, atheist Emma Goldman writes, “Consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devils, heaven and hell, reward and punishment, a whip to lash the people into obedience, meekness and contentment.”[14] The historical increase of belief in God has, for many, been depicted as nothing more than a result produced by the cruelty and injustice of the Christian religion. In this, many freethinkers would probably concur with the view of Spinoza when he wrote, “Superstition…is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear.”[15]

Such fear, it has been said, is reinforced by Christianity’s reliance upon the Bible. Christians who promote the Bible as exclusive truth have therefore been considered, for the most part, to be unjust. This is because the Bible has been perceived as something with such ambiguity in its meaning that it can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, and thereby used in an infinitive number of ways by the church. In this line of reasoning, the Bible has been seen as a tool of defense for the church to justify the suffering it has caused. Advocating this view, one new atheist thinker, Sam Harris, wrote, “The problem with scripture…is that many of its possible interpretations (including most of the literal ones) can be used to justify atrocities in defense of the faith.”[16] For those with a view similar to Harris, the seemingly unjust interpretations that are possible when reading the Bible, paired with the historical injustice caused by the church, have made both the entire Bible and Christianity itself worthy of rejection. In this view, faith itself has become the culprit responsible for all cruelty and injustice.[17] And as a result of such a view of the Bible and faith itself, many people like atheist Elizabeth Anderson have found it “hard to resist the conclusion that the God of the Bible is cruel and unjust and commands and permits us to be cruel and unjust to others.”[18] Of course, it must be considered how accurate it is to say that all Christians will be cruel and unjust, causing suffering.

Is it true that Christians have used fear to trick people into embracing their religion, causing suffering in so doing? Although the historical accuracy of this claim cannot be denied, it does not necessarily follow that that those perpetrating such acts were following the clear teachings of the Bible. Further, tucked within the claim that the doctrines of Christianity are used to incite fear is an assertion that they are unjust in demanding change from people, e.g., requiring people to believe in God in order to avoid hell. One fault in this line of thinking that becomes immediately apparent is the standard of justice by which Christians are being judged by atheists is often a standard based upon biblical concepts of justice. The fact that the criteria used by atheists to disparage the church are the same criteria by which has critiqued its own actions in order to prevent or stop ecclesiastical injustice is both self-contradictory and ironic. It seems inconsistent not to accept the standard of justice provided by Christianity but then to judge Christianity by that standard.

The argument that various interpretations of the Bible have been used to justify injustice and the infliction of human suffering must also be evaluated. It is both unfair an erroneous to equate various possible interpretations of the Bible with the actual meaning of the Bible. The atheistic proclivity for evaluating the Bible in this way has also involved unsubstantiated claims regarding who God is, what the Bible says, how it can be interpreted, and more. In reality, such unsubstantiated claims have probably been based on only the experiences of atheists, which means that they are also quite subjective. Of course, those experiences that have caused them to reject the Bible are in no way invalid experiences; they are just not objective experiences that all people in the universe must have with the Bible. For instance, many people who have faith have taken the Bible “as is” and have had very positive experiences with it. In fact, many devout Christians use the Bible to critique the church in order to prevent or stop suffering from being caused by less devout Christians. This should be in itself evidence that not all people use the Bible for evil. Thus, it seems more appropriate that blame for improper use of the Bible that causes suffering should be restricted to the false interpreters themselves, and not given to all parties of Christianity (e.g., God, the Bible, Christians, et al). Summing all this up, Keller notes, “While the church has inexcusably been party to the oppression of people at times, it is important to realize that the Bible gives us tools for analysis and unflinching critique of religiously supported injustice from within the faith.”[19] Thus, it is fair to say that both devout Christians and devout atheists are characterized by their critique of unjust religion. Such criticism is often done by both sides using the standards provided by the Bible, with both sides hoping for a different result than the one that has already been experienced in history. From this perspective, the best answer to the problem atheists have had with Christians seems not to be a rejection of the religion altogether, but rather a move towards challenging those who claim to be Christians to live up to their own standards.[20]

Considering that many who claim to be Christians do not live up to their own standards, it must be considered whether or not all those who profess to be Christians are actually Christians. This is such important subject to consider due to the fact that many professing Christians have caused suffering and thereby given others, like atheists, the feeling that there are valid grounds for reject Christianity. So to avoid mischaracterization, it is important to distinguish between true and false Christians when considering who is actually responsible for causing suffering. That is to say, there is a huge difference between devout Christians and those who are not devout, such as nominal Christians or fanatical Christians.[21] True devotion in Christianity is characterized by being saved by grace through faith, which is made possible by the work of Jesus Christ alone. Such devotion is intended to bring about a deep amount of gratitude to God for his grace, and subsequently humility in dealing with others. Those who live in the grateful reality of grace have every reason to show grace to others.[22] But there are also those who, by their own moral efforts, try to prove to everyone how devoted they are to God. Even still, there are others who think they can just call themselves Christians and live however they want. Thus, the people who are considered fanatics or nominal believers are in fact not committed enough to being saved by grace. In this alone, they misrepresent God and his church, but it becomes even worse when they cause others to suffer because of their extremism. This must not be tolerated. Keller observes, “When people have done injustice in the name of Christ they are not being true to the spirit of the one who himself died as a victim of injustice and who called for the forgiveness of his enemies.”[23]

What is so offensive and unappealing about these people who falsely profess Christianity, compared to those believers with true devotion, is that they fail to be fully committed to Christ and the gospel.[24] That is to say, the problem is not with faith itself but with how devout people are in their faith. Neither the nominal nor the fanatic is considered by devout Christians to be truly devout in their faith, due to their lack of commitment to Christ-likeness. Both are trying too hard to be something less or more than Christ, without being like him at all.

Unfortunately, people in these extreme categories have often have been the ones who come to represent Christianity, instead of truly devout believers who are much more Christ-like, in the perspective of atheists. With this in mind, it must be considered whether or not the atheists’ perception of Christianity has been conditioned by their experiences with the wrong kind of people. Perhaps they have just experienced the wrong kind of Christians (i.e., false or non-devout Christians), and thus have been limited in what other possible experiences might be had. It seems plausible to propose that they might have different views about Christianity if they had experienced more devout Christians, since those who have had good experiences with Christianity tend to be more accepting of it, while those who have had bad experiences with Christianity tend to be more rejecting of it. It is as Keller has observes,

"If you have known many wise, loving, kind, and insightful Christians over the years, and if you have seen churches that are devout in belief yet civic-minded and generous, you will find the intellectual case for Christianity much more plausible. If, on the other hand, the preponderance of your experience is with nominal Christians (who bear the name but don’t practice it) or with self-righteous fanatics, then the arguments for Christianity will have to be extremely strong for you to concede that they have any cogency at all."[25]

Such a perspective seems necessary when characterizing Christians. The religion itself promotes living with such things as wisdom, love, kindness, and insight, and so it only makes sense to accept that such devout Christians are not necessarily propagating fear in order to convert people to their religion. There are certainly others who are using fear to force people into oppression and suffering, but such non-devout nominal or fanatical Christians should be considered as their own group, distinct from real Christianity. The point is that, like atheists, devout Christians don’t approve of the religion being promoted by the non-devout, either.

Of course, it must be admitted that not all devout Christians are perfect. Many have serious character flaws that create negative experiences for others. However, the existence of such character flaws in the lives of Christians is not a valid reason for rejecting the Christian religion as a whole. Such character flaws do not necessarily mean that all Christians are hypocritical in how they obey Christ; they do not invalidate Christianity. This is true because Christianity does not teach that everyone who believes in God must be perfect; rather, it teaches that God shows grace to people in their imperfection.[26] In fact, faith is taught as possible by grace alone. Living by grace through faith is the defining factor of the Christian life, not moral perfection. Thus, as Keller observes, “The mistaken belief that a person must ‘clean up’ his or her own life in order to merit God’s presence is not Christianity.”[27] Further, it is often the people who are most in need of grace because of their character flaws that become Christians, due to a recognized need for God and the redemption offered by Christianity. In this perspective of things, it is fair to admit that many people who are atheists may be “better” than Christians in how well they live their lives. For instance, intellectual reform may be much easier to achieve in this lifetime, through atheism, than spiritual reform is possible to achieve in this lifetime, through belief. This is because Christianity’s promises of progress are guaranteed to come about in full in eternity but only in part in life, compared to atheism’s promise that moral achievement can come about in full in this life, eventually. Thus, as Keller writes, “We should expect that many Christians’ lives would not compare well to those of the nonreligious (just as the health of people in the hospital is comparatively worse than people visiting museums).”[28]

With all of these things in mind, it seems best to conclude that Atheism and Christianity need to come to a better understanding of one another in regards to the issue of suffering. The problem of suffering is not going away any time soon, but the problematic misunderstandings between Christians and Atheists can indeed improve. Christians could do better in preventing suffering and working for justice, showing love to Atheists. Atheists, it seems, could be more responsible in how they argue against Christianity. That is to say, both sides could be more charitable. If such improvements are made, then perhaps people from both camps could work together in the fight against suffering, preventing history from repeating itself in the horrible ways that it has occurred.

---------------------------------

ENDNOTES

  [1] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Penguin Group, 2008), 23.
  [2] Christopher Hitchens, “Introduction” in The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer Selected and with Introductions by Christopher Hitchens, ed. by Christopher Hitchens (Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2007), xix.
  [3] Elizabeth Anderson, “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?” in The Portable Atheist, 342.
  [4] Albert Einstein, “Selected Writings on Religion,” compiled by Miguel Chavez, in The Portable Atheist, 157.
  [5] Penn Jillette, “There is No God” in The Portable Atheist, 350.
  [6] Keller, 23.
  [7] Ibid., 25.
  [8] Ibid., 27.
  [9] Ibid., 27-28.
  [10] Ibid., 30-31.

  [11] Ibid., 26.
  [12] Ibid., 26.
  [13] Ibid., 27.
  [14] Emma Goldman, “The Philosophy of Atheism” in The Portable Atheist, 131.
  [15] Benedict de Spinoza, “Theological-Political Treatise” in The Portable Atheist, 22.
  [16] Sam Harris, “In the Shadow of God” in The Portable Atheist, 456.
  [17] Ibid., 457-458.
  [18] Elizabeth Anderson, “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?” in The Portable Atheist, 339.
  [19] Keller, 60.
  [20] Ibid., 62.
  [21] Ibid., 57.
  [22] Ibid., 60.
  [23] Ibid., 67.
  [24] Ibid., 57.
  [25] Ibid., 52.
  [26] Ibid., 53.
  [27] Ibid., 53.
  [28] Ibid., 54.

A Look at Barth's "Strange New World within the Bible"

2011-05-14T08:36:00.000-07:00

In his article, “The Strange New World within the Bible,” Karl Barth taught about a strange new world within the Bible that can be experienced only by faith. He propagated the idea that faith changes the experience that we have with the Bible, showing how our experiences with the Bible (in its various categories) are limited by our humanity. He also discussed how knowledge of God does not come to us through just reading the Bible but requires faith, promoting some of his views about the Trinity functions in relation to the Bible. In this essay, I will analyze his views in that article and note my reactions to them, integrating his thoughts with my own.

One of Karl Bath’s main ideas was that we as human beings are limited in how we read the Bible. He believed that the normal human experience when reading the Bible is to be confused by it and wonder, “what does this mean?” In this confusion and wonder, he did not think it possible that we can come up with the correct answer - God’s answer – about what the Bible means. He believed this because he recognized that God is hidden from us in his holiness (because of our sin), and he also believed that God’s truth in the Bible is hidden from us in a similar manner. That is to say, Barth believed that the normal human experience with the Bible is to lack understanding of what is being read. In our sinful human state, he argued, we cannot possibly understand the things of the holy God because of the distance between him and us. In sum, Barth perceived that both God and his truth are entirely hidden from us, creating great difficulty for us when we try to read the Bible and understanding its meaning.

In order to make up for our inability to discover the true meaning of the Bible, Barth believed that – in our sinfulness- we construct a false understanding of God and the Bible that seems right to us but is actually wrong. In this, he believed that we are projecting falsehood upon God and the Bible, a falsehood that but reflects our selves and ideas.[1] In light of this, Barth believed it was quite dangerous for human beings to try to find meaning in the Bible. Despite this danger, however, he thought that it is absolutely necessary for us to seek out the meaning of the Bible, due to the Bible’s power to heal us from our sin. He saw limitations in the Bible, but he also saw incredible possibilities in it. For instance, he saw the possibility for us to enter into the strange, new world of the Bible.

In discussing the limitations and possibilities of the Bible, Barth identified at least three categories of the Bible in which he thought it was difficult, if not impossible, for us to be able to accurately read and understand. These categories were those of history, morality, and religion. In his mind, the only way to overcome our own limitations in reading these categories of the Bible is to have faith in God, with this faith allowing the Holy Spirit to make it possible for us to know him and to know what he is saying to us through the Bible.

On the idea that the Bible contains history, Barth perceived a limitation to be that we can’t always understand what God is doing in history as it is described in the Bible. He partly blamed the writers of Scripture for this, in that he thought the human authors couldn’t properly explain – let alone understand themselves - how God was at work in human history. Nonetheless, he also recognized that other parts of Scripture perfectly witnessed to God’s revelation. In relaying such a witness to us the authors could not be blamed for the readers’ misunderstanding; only we, the readers, can be blamed for that. He recognized that, at times, the very most we can do in trying to understand the history of the Bible is to say that God is in control.[2] Without faith, he did not see us as able to understand anything more that that. Further, he saw us as not willing to even accept that answer. In faith, however, Barth saw an incredible opportunity for humanity to experience a permanent alteration in how we can understand the history of the Bible. Faith, he argued, allows us to enter into God’s special time – the time of revelation – and see all of history from that perspective. He wrote, “When God enters, history for the while ceases to be, and there is nothing more to ask; for something wholly different and new begins – a history with its own distinct grounds, possibilities, and hypothesis.”[3] This special time, the time of revelation, is the strange new world that we can enter into when reading Holy Scripture. Revelation makes it possible for us to experience history entirely differently as we begin to view all of our time to be either a time of recollection or a time of expectation of God’s revelation.

On the idea that the Bible contains morality, Barth believed that the Bible contains collections of teachings and illustrated ethics but perceived them as limited in their usefulness for those without faith.[4] That is to say, he did not consider the Bible to be a self-standing guide to morality; in fact, he did not think any sort of true morality exists apart from submitting to the lordship of Christ through faith.[5] He saw morality as inseparable from God, and therefore saw the morality of the Bible to be inseparable from faith in God. Furthermore, Barth did not consider God to be particularly concerned with human morality if it were to be separated from him, and thus found it worthwhile to criticize those who sought it out from the Bible (either in faith or not in faith). He considered such pursuits to be in vain, labeling the Bible as impractical for human morality. Barth even went so far in this belief as to say that, at points, the Bible is actually amazingly indifferent to our own sense of right and wrong.[6] Ultimately, that indifference exists because that the Bible is more concerned about what God is doing than what we are doing.

In all of these thoughts, Barth seemed to be claiming that there is a divine morality being witnessed to in the Bible that is wholly other than our own human morality, an object to which we must become subject to through faith. In this sense, Barth was pointing people to have faith in God and be led into the strange new world within the Bible in which God’s morality confronts us and becomes our own. He challenged people to submit to Christ and let him decide what morality is. We are supposed to be shocked by how understanding and finding value in the Bible is actually contingent upon having faith in God. Thus, the strange new world of the Bible draws us into it by drawing us away from our own, ordinary world.[7]

On the idea that the Bible contains religion, Barth perceived a limitation to be that we have a tendency to make false religion out of what all we see in the Bible, a false religion which can be contrasted with the true religion found in the strange new world within the Bible. That is, he recognized that within the Bible a true religion exists. Barth wrote, “In the Bible we have a revelation of true religion, of religion defined as what we are to think concerning God, how we are to find him, and how we are to conduct ourselves in his presence.”[8] Of course, Barth saw that true religion as far from us, like God, requiring faith to reach. Any attempt to understand the way to do religion apart from faith was flawed in his mind. Thus, he saw all of our attempts at religion to be, at best, a “grasping at” of something greater (i.e., the transcendent true religion).

Overall, Barth perceived all human religion to be wrong, a product of our reading our own ideas and understanding into the Bible (i.e., eisegesis) – and he thought that we are all inclined to find our religion through such eisegesis. Still, he believed that the transcendent, true religion could be reached through faith. His idea of this true religion was quite interesting though, as he perceived it to be nothing more than faith itself. Summing up these thoughts, he wrote, “All religions may be found in the Bible, if one will have it so; but when he looks closely, there are none at all. There is only--the “other,” new, greater world! [9] Thus, Barth made it clear that he believed there to be something greater than just man-made religion, something that “breaks through” our perception of the revelation of religion.[10] His promotion of faith as the only true religion was quite profound, but it also left the church in something of a defenseless position in determining how it ought to conduct itself in such things as apologetics, church government, teaching, and other matters. Such a defenseless position ultimately requires that we confess what the Bible says about these matters, and live in obedience to the Bible, but such confession and obedience is hard to qualify as being perfectly in line with what is required in God’s “strange new world.” That is to say, it is hard (in Barth’s line of thinking) to determine our success as a church in reading the Bible and making the right conclusions about how to confess and obey it.

In discussing our limitations in understanding the meaning of the history, morality, and religion of the Bible, Karl Barth was ultimately attempting to lead us into what he called the “strange new world, the world of God.”[11] His purpose in trying to show us this other dimension of Scripture, a dimension inaccessible apart from faith, was to help us to see that the entire Bible is really about living in the reality of that strange, new world. He was trying to show us that the entire Bible is really about Jesus Christ, witnessing to the revelation of him. Thus, when in faith we examine the Bible and ask the question, “What does this mean?” we end up finding out that all of its meaning is in Christ’s revelation. In coming to know that Christ is the answer to our every question, we gain access to a new worldview that changes everything for us. However, this is not an answer that we in any way deserve. On this, Barth noted, “Neither by the earnestness of our belief nor by the depth and richness of our experience have we deserved the right to this answer.”[12] Only the grace of God makes it possible for us to have the faith to see Christ throughout the whole Bible. Only the grace of God makes it possible for us to experience the event of revelation, in which we gain a new worldview, a new sense of being. And once we experience the grace of God in this way, we are forever carried away into a whole new place of eternal dwelling.

The place where the grace of God takes us is a place that changes us forever. It changes us in how we read the Bible, in how we live our lives, in everything. Once we have experienced the grace of God in this transformative way, our human limitations no longer matter; our weaknesses are overcome by the strengths of God, through the work of his Holy Spirit. Summing all this up poetically, Barth wrote, “There is a river in the Bible that carries us away, once we have entrusted our destiny to it – away from ourselves to the sea. The Holy Scriptures will interpret themselves in spite of all our human limitations…The Bible unfolds to us as we are met, guided, drawn on, and made to grow by the grace of God.”[13] In this, it becomes clear that we are not the ones who are interpreting the Bible; ultimately, God is interpreting us through the Bible. Through faith, the Holy Spirit meets us, leads us into the strange new world, marks us with the imprint of Christ as he is revealed in the text, and then makes us grow into the likeness of Christ. In all this, the Holy Spirit is doing the work of Christ. All this is to say that, when reading the Bible, we must learn to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, confessing and obeying, in order to truly get the most out of it.

On a certain level, Barth toyed with the idea that we may reject the strange, new world of God when presented with it. That is, he proposed that it may be possible to reject God when he reveals himself to us in the Bible. However, it is important to note that he only acknowledged that we may do so, not that we actually will. Ultimately, he believed that even if it is possible for us to reject God’s revelation, we could not possibly deny or prevent it from changing us. That is to say, we may be able to utter a “no” to God’s revelation, but he will reply to us by saying “yes,” and his “yes” will overpower our “no.” He wrote, “And it is certain that the Bible, if we read it carefully, makes straight for the point where one must decide to accept or reject the sovereignty of God. ”[14] In this, Barth saw that a person must either believe or not believe. So while he made the distinction between believing and not believing in God, he just thought it probably that all people will believe, eventually. For him, Christ is too big of a Lord to not be sovereign over those who reject him. Thus, he saw Christ as such a great Lord that he perceived him to be making everything in creation – all people – as new in him.[15] Considering the huge implications of this statement (i.e., that God saves all people, even those who reject him), I would have to disagree with Barth on. While it would be reasonable to say that God’s grace is irresistible to the point that all who are called by it accept it and are accepted by God, it is unreasonable to say that those are called by it but reject it (or even may reject it) will still be accepted by God. Those who reject God’s grace will not be saved. Barth’s view, on this matter, is dangerous in how it leaves open the possibility for universal salvation.

As for the nature of God himself, Barth believed that is greater than he is described in the Bible, unable to be described in his fullness through the use of the limited human language (in history, morality, religion, etc.). Thus, Barth perceived that our ability to gain an understanding of who God is by simply reading the Bible is also limited. He wrote,

"The powerful forces which come to expression in the Bible, the movements of peoples, and the convulsions which take place before us there, the miracles and revelations which constantly occur there, the immeasurable promises for the future which are unceasingly repeated for us there—do not all these things stand in a rather strange relation to so small a result – if that is really the only result they have? Is not God – greater than that?"[16]

In this thought, God is cannot be understood in our reading of the Bible as anything more than that which our human minds can – in their limitations – perceive him to be. That is to say, the Holy Spirit’s aid is needed (through faith) for true understanding of who God is.[17] Only by the work of God himself in us can we understand God; and more, this work occurs in the event of revelation coming to us apart from the text itself. All in all, Barth believed that the faith – made possible through the event of revelation - makes up for our inadequacies in being able to know God through the Bible itself. Only in faith, he believed, can we know God as God.[18]

While Barth’s appeal for God’s greatness as a “wholly other” being only understand through faith is to be appreciated, he does not give God enough credit in his greatness for how he has chosen to reveal himself to us in this present day – that is, through Scripture. It does not seem right to say that God is “wholly other” from the Bible, his chosen and primary means for revealing himself to us. Certainly, the Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to see him in Scripture, but it is not as if the pages speak nothing honest of his character. He is clearly there, and accurately represented; we are just blind to him, as he is hidden form us in that sense. Those of us who believe that the Bible is inspired and without error must at once reject the notion that God has a greater character than what he has revealed to us; we must reject that the revelation of Bible is hindered by the human element in its production and reception. The Bible –in its every word - is trustworthy and true, able to be believed in with confidence as it teaches us about whom God is. Sure, God is invisible and transcendent, far from us, but it is certain that he has made his attributes as such known to us through Scripture. According to the Bible, it does not seem possible for us reach any sort of enlightenment that is apart from or greater than the knowledge of God made accessible to us through faith and by the Bible itself.

Having established his arguments about our limitations in reading the Bible and discovering God through it, Barth moved on to a more positive discussion about the ways in which God’s revelation affects us and opens up possibilities for us. One of the main ideas he asserted was that knowing God changes time for us in both the present and the future, and not just the future. In other words, it could be said that he had a view of God’s strange new world as already being established in part but not yet established in full. That is to say, on earth, we are limited in how much we can be can be affected by the strange new world within the Bible, but we can still be affected by in a profound way nonetheless. Truly, we can enter into the new world of revelation now, marching onwards towards it in life (experiencing it) and reaching it in its fullness in death.[19] I found this to be an interesting way of discussing sanctification, as it made the process of sanctification contingent upon the event of revelation itself. In Barth’s view, the Bible thus seems useful to us today in that it can witness to this event of revelation that enables us to be sanctified. Also, it accounts for the necessary formation of the church – the event of experiencing the strange, new world while living in this world becomes that which draws Christians together as we all seek out communion with those who share in our citizenship.

All of this is to say that, in Barth’s view, the Bible certainly does have use for us today. This is a helpful clarification, for by making known all of his perceived limitations in how we can read the Bible and what meaning we can gain from it, he put us into a place of wondering how useful the Bible actually is for us today (even in faith). Of course, that we can experience the new world within the Bible in this life (i.e., while in the flesh) is to be considered something of a miracle. It should not be possible for us, considering our human limitations, and it is only made possible for us through the divine work of God himself. Our entrance into the promised land of revelation is thus his work, entirely, and not ours. And as we experience the miracle of revelation through the Bible, we are led into the eternal place where God dwells, a new world, and once the flesh passes away, it becomes a place that we can stay forever.

---------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES

   [1] Karl Barth, “The Strange New World Within The Bible” in The Word of God and the Word of Man, translated by Douglas Horton (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1978), 33-35.
   [2] Ibid., 35-37.
   [3] Ibid., 37.
   [4] Ibid., 37-38.
   [5] Ibid., 39.
   [6] Ibid., 38.
   [7] Ibid., 40.
   [8] Ibid., 41.
   [9] Ibid., 42.
   [10] Ibid., 41.
   [11] Ibid., 33.
   [12] Ibid., 33.
   [13] Ibid., 35.
   [14] Ibid., 41.
   [15] Ibid., 49.
   [16] Ibid., 47.
   [17] Ibid., 49-50.
   [18] Ibid., 48.
   [19] Ibid., 49.

A Study of Revelation 21:1-8, "Renewed Creation"

2011-05-10T13:58:00.000-07:00

The following is a study of Revelation 21:1-8 that was submitted for one of my classes (Exegesis of Revelation) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. It deals with the theme of the new creation as seen in the text; in other words, what eternity will look like for Christians. I wrestled with posting this in parts and adding practical applications, but in the end I decided to just post it "as is." Still, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how to apply the study, as well as other comments or questions. Feel free to comment at the end.

Greek Text of Rev. 21:1-8
1 Καὶ εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν. ὁ γὰρ πρῶτος οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ πρώτη γῆ ἀπῆλθαν καὶ ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι. 2 καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν εἶδον καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡτοιμασμένην ὡς νύμφην κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς. 3 καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς μεγάλης ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου λεγούσης· ἰδοὺ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ σκηνώσει μετʼ αὐτῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός], 4 καὶ ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, [ὅτι] τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν. 5 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ· ἰδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα καὶ λέγει· γράψον, ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί εἰσιν. 6 καὶ εἶπέν μοι· γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν. 7 ὁ νικῶν κληρονομήσει ταῦτα καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι υἱός. 8 τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρμάκοις καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος.[1]

English Text (Student’s Translation) of Rev. 21:1-8
1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth had passed away and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice from the throne saying; “Behold the dwelling place of God is with the men, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them, their God. 4 Then he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will there be mourning, nor wailing, nor will there be pain any longer, because the former things have passed away.” 5 And the one seated on the throne said; “Behold, I am making all things new” and he said; “Write, because these words are faithful and true.” 6 And he said to me; “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one conquering will have these things and I will be God to him and he will be a son to me. 8 But to the cowardly and faithless and ones having been detested and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and to all the ones lying their portion is in the lake burning with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

INTRODUCTION. The book of Revelation, widely assumed to be composed around 95 A.D., is actually a letter that was written by the apostle John for the benefit of the early Christian church, that they might not compromise in their faith because of the ungodly culture surrounding them.[2] Revelation, as a whole, is unique in its genre; however, in composing the letter, the author seems to have utilized the genres of apocalyptic, prophecy, and epistle.[3] The method, style, etc. that John has used in his composition serves to capture the imaginations of his readers, inspiring them to have hope in something beyond the grasp of the rational mind. Containing many allusions and references to both the Old Testament and New Testament alike (sometimes in adapted, completed forms), it also serves to bring to a close the one-story plotline of the Bible, linking everything in the story together in Christ and his work of re-creation.

The particular text under study, Revelation 21:1-8, fits into the greater structure of Revelation by being the finale to which the rest of the story points. As Beale observes, it shows that, “In the new world to come the community of the redeemed will be completed, perfect, inviolable, and glorious because God’s consummated, glorious presence will reside among them forever, whereas the unfaithful will be excluded from such blessing.”[4] It follows up a discussion in Revelation 20 in which the old creation was found to be unholy and therefore an unsuitable environment for both God and his re-created people, showing how his plan of salvation includes the idea that all things – including heaven and earth – are being made new.[5]

REVELATION 21:1. The section of Scripture being examined, Revelation 21:1-8, begins with the phrase “kαὶ εἶδον,” which means, “Then I saw.” This phrase is a formula used to introduce a new scene in John’s vision,[6] one that brings all other scenes to a close. The word “Kαὶ” references the past scenes of vision, noting that this scene is what is next (and final). With the verb “εἶδον” John introduces the idea that John has seen something, a vision. When the content of the vision is taken into consideration, John’s use of this formula (“Then I saw”) suggests that he has seen in his vision the fulfillment of an oracle of God in Isaiah 65:17-22.[7]

The main significance of the reference to the Isaiah account is that both it and John’s account speak of the new heaven and new earth. In this new scene of his vision, John saw “οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν,” which means, “a new heaven and a new earth.” In Isaiah’s account, God says in 65:17, “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.” Of note here is that the prophetic account in Isaiah describes God as creating the new heavens and new earth, while John simply mentions that he saw it, already having been completed by God. Still, what is most interesting for our passage is that the prophetic account in Isaiah describes God as the creator of the new heavens and new earth, referencing his action in Genesis when he acted to create the original heavens and earth. In this sense, the allusion to the Isaiah account links Revelation back to the Genesis account, showing how creation has been brought full circle into its state of newness.[8]

The briefness of the sentence in Revelation draws emphasis to the magnificence of what John saw; the heaven and the earth were seen as phenomenally “new” (καινός). “Heaven” and “earth” describe the entire created order, as they reference the Edenic creation account in Genesis in which similar terminology is used. Such terminology also reminds us that the Edenic created order, once considered “very good,” had been tainted by mankind’s sin, and that heaven and the earth have been known to be groaning for newness ever since the fall. With that reference in mind, it seems best to say that this newness ascribed to heaven and earth is comparative in nature. They are new in comparison to the old or former heaven and earth that has been tainted by sin. On this newness, Arndt, Danker, and Bauer comment that the heaven and earth are new “in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new,” and that, “in such a case the new is, as a rule, superior in kind to the old.”[9] That is to say, the newness seems to be a matter of quality more so than anything else (e.g., time of existence, state of being knowable, etc.).[10] Rather than just being another heaven and earth, the heaven and earth are new in character or nature, similar to the way in which the new covenant was superior to and a radical renewal of the old covenant[11] (Hebrews 8:7–13), or how the Holy Spirit recreates and radically renews the believer in Christ. Thus, conceptually, it seems best to think of the new heaven and new earth as a renewed heaven and renewed earth. They provide a setting for the new and eternal state of all things, including the believer’s existence.[12]

The new heaven and the new earth can be seen only because “the first heaven and the first earth had passed away and the sea was no more,” a complicated statement. Three questions arise that deserve comment here. First, in what sense are the “first heaven and the first earth” to be considered “first?” In answer, it may be that this descriptor identifies the creation in which mankind currently lives, distinct from that which will be “new.” In Isaiah 51:6, the prophet speaks on behalf of the LORD, noting the transitory nature of what John calls the “first” heaven and “first” earth: “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner; but my salvation will be forever, and my righteousness will never be dismayed.”

Second, how is “passed away” to be understood? The translation “passed away” comes from the second aorist participle form of ἀπέρχομαι, which is “ἀπῆλθαν.” Scholars note that participle’s meaning is probably “to discontinue as a condition or state, of diseases, etc.”[13] The same word is used in Revelation 9:12, 11:14, and 21:4 (as well as other places). In the first two instances, it is used to show how woes have passed with others to come. In the final passage, it is used to show how former things like death and crying are no longer extant because of the change in the condition of reality. Thus, in Revelation 21:1, “ἀπῆλθαν” seems to convey that the “first” heaven and “first” earth have seen their state or condition of being “first” pass by, as they inherit a new state or condition of being and become the “new” heaven and the “new” earth. That is to say, the passing away of their state of being “first” was the grounds for their “new” state to come. With the Genesis theme already in mind, it is clear that the “first” heaven and earth had to pass away because of the negative effects of sin. They had to pass away - being transformed into newness - in order that the perfect kingdom is set within a perfect environment.[14]

Third, what is the sense in which “the sea” is said to be “no more”? In trying to understand this ambiguous statement, it seems best to consider that it is made within the greater context of the positive new creation account (of the “new heaven” and the “new earth”). It is connected to the series describing how the “first heaven and the first earth had passed away” through the conjunction “καὶ” (“and”). Thus, in context, it is also a form of new creation typology that shows readers how the new creation is different and better than what is seen in Genesis and throughout history.[15] With that in mind, it is not just a literal description of the actual sea’s disappearance; John’s statement stands for much more than that, just as the terminology of the “heavens” and the “earth” also stands for more than just the physical. Thus, the “sea” seems to be more of a figurative than literal term, and as so is perplexingly ambiguous. In some ways, therefore, it seems best to that say John’s use of the term “sea” encompasses all the themes and images presented by John’s use of “the sea” in Revelation, as well as greater themes surrounding “the sea” in the one-story plotline of the Bible (i.e., the meta-narrative of God’s redemption). Themes like the original creation account in Eden, the Flood, and the exodus of God’s people through the crossing of the Red Sea stand out in particular.[16] Comprehensively, then, John’s statement that “the sea was no more” seems to communicate the disappearance of all ideas and things that are at variance with the character or state of being of the new creation,[17] as a climax to the one-story plotline of the whole Bible.

If, as seems likely, Isaiah 43:16-21 and Isaiah 51:9-11 - both reminiscences of God’s deliverance of Israel at the Red Sea crossing - have influenced Revelation 21:l, then the removal of the sea should be interpreted in their light. If so, John would seem to be drawing on the connection between creation, exodus and new creation already present in Isaiah and suggesting that a new and final return from exile has been completed for the people of God.[18] Douglas Moo observes that within the exodus narrative the sea plays the dual role not only of the life-threatening difficulties through which God successfully takes His people, but also of the means by which God judges and removes their enemies, drowning the Egyptian pursuers in its waters.[19] Two implications surface from this parallel. First, God is signifying to John that the forces of evil which have threatened God’s people through the ages are no longer present. It was from the sea that John had seen beasts and evil powers emerge, but that threat is now gone with the sea’s disappearance. Second, John’s readers, having reached the end of the long series of judgments that comprise the bulk of the book, are to understand that the means of God’s judgment upon His enemies and theirs is no longer needed. Judgment is concluded. Moo states, “Never again will creation be called upon to destroy the destroyers of the earth for all judgment will be past and salvation finally and definitively accomplished.”[20]

REVELATION 21:2. In this verse, John continues to describe what he has seen in his vision. The sentence structure, however, is a bit unusual and deserves attention. Regarding the grammar of this sentence, Aune notes,

"Here the formula καὶ εἶδον, 'then I saw,' functions to focus attention on a new aspect of the vision…The style of the clause is unusual, for of thirty-three uses of the phrase καὶ εἶδον in Revelation, this is the only instance in which the object of a vision, in the accusative, is inserted between καὶ and εἶδον."[21]

That is to say, “the holy city new Jerusalem” is in the accusative and placed between “and” and “I saw,” with the participial phrase following. It seems that, more than anything else, this grammar draws attention to the fact that the new holy city is seen as “coming down” (καταβαίνουσαν), with further description of that event provided.

The “coming down” (καταβαίνουσαν) of the holy city new Jerusalem is of great importance because of all that is associated with the theme of “descent“ in Scripture. On this theme, Osbourne writes,

"The καταβαίνουσαν (katabainousan, descending) of the New Jerusalem frames (3:12; 21:2, 10) the many 'descents' by which God has brought history to a close in the book (10:1; 16:21; 18:1; 20:1, 9). When the divine power “descends” from heaven to earth, his sovereignty reigns over the affairs of humankind. Moreover, in this last descent, heaven and earth are finally united. After 21:2, 10 there is never again any “from heaven to “earth,” for in the new heaven and new earth they are one."[22]

It could also be added that the “coming down” of the new holy city, as it is described, “is the essential quality it already has in the anticipatory experience of the church.”[23] Throughout all of history, God’s people have always longed to be restored in unity with him. Now, that longing is satisfied in perfection as God’s covenant with mankind produces its greatest effect.

There is much debate about the nature of the holy city new Jerusalem. Some view it as symbolizing only a place, some view it symbolizing only a people, and others see it as symbolizing both a place and people. Considering that it is described in both ways, it seems best to take the most comprehensive and challenging view, that it symbolizes both God’s people and their place.[24] Regarding the nature of the new Jerusalem as a place, Bauckham notes,

"As a place, the New Jerusalem is at once paradise, holy city and temple. As paradise it is the natural world in its ideal state, rescued from the destroyers of the earth, reconciled with humanity, filled with the presence of God, and mediating the blessings of eschatological life to humanity. As a holy city, it fulfills the ideals of the ancient city, as the place where heaven and earth meet at the centre of the earth, from which God rules his land and his people, to whose attraction the nations are drawn for enlightenment, and in which people live in ideal theocentric community. As a temple, it is the place of God’s immediate presence, where his worshippers see his face."[25]

On the nature of the new Jerusalem as a people, Osbourne writes, “Here the Holy City is like a “bride,” possibly echoing Isa. 54:5-6, where Zion is the wife of Yahweh who has been brought back back her husband’s love and rebuilt with precious stones (Isa. 54:11-12; cf. Rev. 21:19-21).”[26] With both perspectives in mind (that is, of the city as both a people and place), it can be seen that the city gains proper meaning as the complete fulfillment of all God’s promises.

REVELATION 21:3. Having already seen a vision, John’s other senses were engaged as he heard an interpretation of what he had seen. The interpretive formula, “καὶ ἤκουσα” (“And I heard”) both references the vision seen with the conjunction “καὶ” (“and”) and leads into its interpretation with “ἤκουσα” (“I heard”), a second aorist verb that draws attention to John’s return to the formulae used to frame all that is seen and heard. Such structure is for the benefit of readers, as it is a reminder that the greater context is that of a vision and its interpretation provided by God.

That which John heard was a “great voice from the throne.” The speaker of this voice is unidentified but most likely an angel of God, due to the voice being “great” and the location of its origin being “from the throne.” That the “great voice” refers to God in the third person, and not the first person, is further evidence that it is most likely a messenger’s voice and not God’s own voice. Such use of a messenger angel is consistent with the visions and interpretations of Revelation, and so it is no surprise to see it again here.

As mentioned, the content of the “great voice” is that of an interpretation of what John had already seen. The voice said, “Behold the dwelling place of God is with the men, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” Each part of this interpretation is of great importance, and will thus be dealt with accordingly.

“Behold” (ἰδοὺ) drew further attention to what had already been seen and added emphasis to the interpretation about to follow. In the creation of the new heaven and the new earth, God had made his dwelling place with men. As it once was in the Garden of Eden, so it is again, yet even better than before.

The “dwelling place” (σκηνὴ) of God, said to be “with the men” is of particular interest due to the theme of “dwelling” and how the word “σκηνὴ” has been used throughout Scripture. As Caird observes,

The word skene (dwelling) has a long and important theological history. It is the word regularly used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew mishkan (tent), which was the symbol of God’s abiding presence in the midst of Israel in the wilderness. John has thus chosen to use a term which implies that the promise of God’s presence has already had constant fulfillments in the past wherever Israel has been true to her calling[27]

Not only will the “dwelling place” of God be with the men, but also will he “dwell with them.” The phrase translated “he will dwell” comes from “σκηνώσει,” a future, active, indicative verb in the third person. Beale notes how the verb “σκηνώσει” here references Ezekiel 47:3 (where it appears with a prefix as “κατασκηνώσει”), which is a passage that promises that “the end-time temple will be ‘where’ God ‘will dwell’ (κατασκηνώσει) among the sons of Israel forever’,”[28] just as it is here fulfilled.

This phrase progresses the idea of dwelling; after having introduced the idea that the dwelling place of God will be with the men, John personifies that idea by naming God himself as present among the men. What was the dwelling place once symbolized has become a living reality. That God can dwell with his people is a testimony to the worthiness of the saints to stand in his presence; it is a testimony to their eternal righteousness. Additionally, it serves as a reminder that God himself already dwelt amongst mankind in the flesh as Jesus Christ during his life on the first heaven and earth. As promised, Christ has returned to his people to dwell among them once again, but this time for all eternity in the new holy city of the new heaven and new earth. In the new holy city, God will not be far but close to mankind as he rules sovereignty over everything. As Osbourne notes, “God will no longer dwell high and lifted up above his people, but will now ‘tabernacle’ in their midst.”[29] One other thing that is important about this progression is that it communicates fulfillment of the covenant established/renewed at Sinai, as seen in Exodus 29:45; Leviticus 26:11-12; Psalm 78:60; Jerermiah 31:33; Ezekiel 37:27; et al.

As John continues to progress the idea of dwelling, he qualifies that the men whom God is dwelling with “will be his peoples.” On John’s choice to use the plural term “λαοὶ,” which is translated as “peoples,” Bauckham writes, “In saying that ‘they will be his peoples’ (laoi), he prefers to the more usual ‘nations’ (ethne, cf. 2:26; 11:18; 12:5; 14:8; 15:3-4; 18:3, 23; 19:15; 20:3) the plural of the word used for God’s covenant people (e.g., Ezek. 37:27).”[30] This shows how God’s covenant is no longer for just people from the nation of Israel but to peoples from all nations. That is to say, there is a diversity of peoples – both Jews and Gentiles - in God’s holy city, the new Jerusalem.[31] Anyone who has been saved by God’s grace through faith shares in the blessings of his covenant community. Thus, all whom God dwells with will be “his peoples.”

Having developed and qualified the idea of dwelling, John ended his progression by asserting the idea that, as he dwells with his peoples, “God himself will be with them” (“αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτῶν ἔσται”). As sort of a summary of what has already been said, the main point is that “dwell with” is progressed into “be with.” This is an idea that hints at a complete eschatological fulfillment, as God’s own presence with man is part of the “new” creation just as it was in Eden.[32] The covenant has come full circle. Additionally, there are many other themes related to the idea that God is with mankind. Caird identifies some of theses themes, saying,

“God himself will be with them” is the assurance given to Moses at the burning bush (Exod. iii. 12), enshrined in the prophetic name Immanuel (Isa. vii. 14), echoed in the missionary hope of the restored nation (Zech. vii. 23), and ratified by him who made the title Immanuel his own (Matt. i. 23). Thus the voice from the throne gives the permanent guarantee of those privileges which have always been enjoyed by those who, refusing to be at home in the old order, have lived as citizens of the city whose builder and maker is God (Heb. xi. 8-16; cf. Gal. iv. 26).[33]

At the end of the sentence, it is noted that God will be with his people as “their God” (“αὐτῶν θεός”). Although many manuscripts exclude this phrase, it seems best to keep it in since it is the more difficult reading (and therefore most likely) and is attested to by the main manuscripts used by scholars.[34] It is an expanded description of how God functions with his peoples; he remains as their God, not compromising his own identity in any way.

REVELATION 21:4. Here, the voice from heaven describes the perfection of life in the new heaven and new earth by noting the implications of the former things passing away. All of the things listed as being no longer in existence are but an expansion of the comment in 21:1 that “the sea was no more.”[35] Thus, the things of this list ultimately represent all things in creation that stand at odds with God’s new creation and therefore cannot exist in eternity.[36]

The first implication of the first heaven and first earth passing away is that God “will wipe away every tear” (ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον) from the eyes of his people. This is a fulfillment of both Isaiah 25:8 and Revelation 7:17, passages which point directly to the work of Christ - the Lamb who gave himself up for sacrificial atonement - in making life in the new creation possible.[37] When considering Christ’s work, it is no surprise to see in the progression of the implications that “death will be no more” (ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι).

The things listed after death (mourning, wailing, pain) can be best viewed as things associated with death. Thus, they have something of an emphatic effect, with each referring the reader back to the non-existence of death. Death – brought into the world by sin - is the ultimate cause for everything else that is at odds with God’s new creation. Though these examples of death’s presence have existed ever since sin entered the world in the original Eden, they will be removed in the new Eden.[38] As the Second Adam, Christ obeys God’s commands and gives us life in a way that the first Adam never could. Beale notes that this idea references Daniel 5:11-13, a passage which teaches that the new creation is like a mixture of a new Eden and a new Jerusalem, in which everything is perfect; it is a place without sin or its implications and worth rejoicing over by the saints.[39] Thus, Revelation 21:4, in its negative form, seems to be communicating above all else that the new creation is worthy of all our joy.

REVELATION 21:5. Distinct from the “voice from the throne” in Rev. 21:3, which is likely an angel, is “the one seated on the throne” in Rev. 21:5, which is certainly God himself. His voice officially validates all that which has already been said in both the whole of Revelation and this vision itself.[40] In that his voice had not yet been heard directly, his message has unparalleled authority in how it validates everything.[41]

Seated on the throne, God says, “Behold, I am making all things new” (ἰδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα). In so speaking, he provides a greater, more comprehensive interpretation of all that John has seen in his vision. He references the vision with “Behold” (ἰδοὺ) and then provides an interpretative statement by saying, “I am making all things new” (καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα). Of interest is the force of ποιῶ, translated as “I am making,” as it is a present, active, indicative verb. This is a huge shift in the decription of how things are occurring in the vision; God’s interpretation indicates that he is currently making all things new in the present. In other words, that which John sees is currently being inaugurated in creation. It is not something that God is doing only in the future; the old, first world is – in the present - being recreated into the new, future world.[42]

That God’s work is a renewal process happening in the present (in an inaugural sense) is made especially clear through the allusions being made by God’s statement that “he is making all things new.” Regarding these allusions, Osbourne notes, “God’s statement alludes to Isa. 43:19a, ‘See, I am doing a new thing,’ and 65:17, ‘Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.’”[43] Interestingly, Beale connects the Father’s work of re-creation to Christ himself, saying, “In 2 Cor. 5:17 Paul sees the same Isaiah prophecy (Isa. 43:18-19 and 65:17) beginning to be fulfilled through Christ’s death and resurrection.”[44] Thus, it could be argued that God is making all things new through Christ.

The voice from the throne – God’s voice - also commands John to “write” (γράψον) on the basis that all of his words are “faithful and true” (πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί). Of note is that the verb describing the state of the words as “faithful and true” is parsed as present, active, and indicative (that verb is “εἰσιν”), meaning that the words are faithful and true in the present. Ultimately, this is the reason why John has been commanded to write; God’s revelation is for the benefit of the present church, that it may replicate the qualities found in the words of God. He is calling his people to have faith in him and live true as he is refashioning creation, remembering that, as Caird notes, “The agonies of earth are but the birth-pangs of a new creation.”[45]

REVALTION 21:6. Continuing his words for the church, with but one Greek word God declared to John, “It is done” (γέγοναν). On the parsing of this verb, Osbourne notes, “The perfect tense stresses a state of affairs resulting from an action…so this means salvation history is at an end and the future age can begin.”[46] Further, regarding the use of “γέγοναν” itself, Caird makes the connection that, “The one Greek word which proclaimed the end of God’s demolition work now proclaims the completion of his new creation. This, in the full and final sense, is the end: ‘All is over’ (cf. xvi. 17).”[47] Thus, the final work of God has been completed in the re-creation of the heaven and earth through Jesus Christ.

After making known the finality of his work, God provides an explanation as to how it was completed by declaring his name in two parts. First, God declares himself to be “the Alpha and the Omega” (τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ), using his name as the great “I am” (ἐγώ [εἰμι]) to show how he functions as such. This is a reference to both his name as the “I AM” in the Old Testament and to his description of himself in Revelation 1:8 as “the Alpha and the Omega,” declaring the interrelationship between the two. These references suggest that the one who is named as the “Alpha and the Omega” in Revelation 1:8 shares the same name as God the Father here on the throne, reminding readers that Christ is fully part of the triune God “I AM.” Second, God declared himself to be “the beginning and the end” (ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος), with this interpretive statement progressing the idea of his role in the new creation. That God himself is “the beginning” (ἡ ἀρχὴ) reminds us that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). That God is “the end” (τὸ τέλος) reminds us that the creation which had its beginning in Christ will also have its end in him.[48] That is, creation will have its eternal, completed status of “newness” in Christ (cf. Colossians 1:16). It was created for this reason, that he might be glorified.

As “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end,” God promises “to the thirsty” (τῷ διψῶντι) that he himself “will give from the spring of the water of life” (δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς), giving freely so that it comes to his people “without payment” (δωρεάν). In this statement, God provides both stipulations and blessings for obedience, evoking the idea of a covenant with his people. The stipulation is that he must be “thirsty” in order to receive what “the spring of the water of life” has to offer. The idea of being thirsty has many Old and New Testament references. Generally speaking, “thirst” is used to depict the soul’s desire for God.[49] Based off the structure and content of Revelation 21:6, it seems that one of the predominant Old Testament references to the idea of thirsting for God is that of Isaiah 49:10. Beale notes,

"Isa. 49:10 continues the string of references to Isaiah and is the basis for the metaphorical reward of water given for sustenance. The Isaiah text states that 'they will not hunger or thirst; nor will the heat or the sun smite them…and by fountains of waters he will lead them' (cf. also John 6:35). Isaiah’s 'fountains of waters' have now become 'fountains of the waters of life.'"[50]

Other passages come to mind, too. Beale adds, “The ‘living waters,’ which are a representation of eternal life, have their origin in God and the Lamb (so 22:1, 17, and similarly Jer. 2:13; Ps. 36:8-9; Joel 3:18; John 4:10; 7:38…).”[51] Perhaps also in mind is the conquest of David’s mighty men mentioned in 2 Samuel 23:13-17, which reads:

"And three of the thirty chief men went down and came about harvest time to David at the cave of Adullam, when a band of Philistines was encamped in the Valley of Rephaim. David was then in the stronghold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then at Bethlehem. And David said longingly, 'Oh, that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem that is by the gate!' Then the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate and carried and brought it to David. But he would not drink of it. He poured it out to the Lord and said, 'Far be it from me, O Lord, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?' Therefore he would not drink it. These things the three mighty men did."

The mighty men fought off the enemies of God’s people in order to bring water back from the wells of Jerusalem for their king. In that story, those who conquered gained the water of the holy city. However, it was not free of cost then, and David poured it out as an offering to God. What was not free then is now free to all who conquer in Christ, the truer and better David whose own sacrifice of blood on the cross made it possible for all believers to partake of the living water drawn from the springs of the new holy city of Jerusalem. Considering the vast amount of possible allusions by this idea of being “thirsty” for God, it seems best to just understand the idea in the most comprehensive way possible, in context. The “thirsty” are thus those who “turn to Christ rather than the world” for satisfaction.[52]

Those who do turn to Christ rather than the world for satisfaction receive the living water (cf. John 4:10-14)[53] from the spring “without payment.” Considering that the water offers eternal life to those who partake of it, it’s nature as coming “without cost” to believers hints at the theme of Christ bearing the cost himself for us on the cross (i.e., sacrificial atonement). Even more so, it references and brings an end to the invitation of Isaiah 55:1 which says, “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat.” In the end, the reference in Isaiah, along with other potential references, causes Revelation 21:6 to function as both a reminder of and a final invitation to partake of God’s salvation.[54]

REVELATION 21:7. As a promise, God states that, “The one conquering will have these things.” The participial phrase “ὁ νικῶν” is that which is translated as “the one conquering.” Regarding this translation and the force of the participle, Osbourne notes,

The opening ὁ νικῶν (ho nikon, the one who overcomes/conquers) is drawn from the conclusion of each of the seven letters, where it contained the eschatological promises given to all those who were “victorious” over the world with its temptations and suffering. They are the “thirsty” who drank freely of the water of life. They have “conquered” by the blood of the Lamb and by their testimony (12:11); ironically, as the beast “conquers” them by taking their lives, they conquer him by giving their lives.[55]

The one who is conquering is said to receive “these things” (ταῦτα). Regarding how to best define “these things,” Osbourne notes, “The best solution is to take the broadest possible referent…since this is in effect a summary of the book.”[56] Thus, “these things” are probably all of the blessings associated with the new creation, the inheritance of those who are conquering through their faith in Christ. This idea of inheriting blessings by fulfilling stipulations (i.e., by conquering) is a referent to the idea of God’s covenant.

God declared the covenant blessings for each Christian when he said, “I will be a God to him and he will be a son to me.” This is an enormous progression of ideas, for it essentially asserts that the entire one-story “salvation” plotline of the Bible is coming to fulfillment. In this declaration, God made it known that the covenant he made with such men as Moses, Abraham, and David is being fulfilled in the blessings of the new creation.[57] Further, a potential allusion by this statement to Isaiah 55:1-3 shows how all those who thirst for God will inherit the covenant promises, which are described as being everlasting and sure.[58] Thus, the blessings being offered by God here are of an eternal nature; he will eternally be the God of all who conquer, and each conqueror will have eternal sonship in him. All is this is gained through Christ alone; it is he who imparts these blessings onto believers. Ultimately, in offering this promise, God is encouraging the earthly church to persevere until the end of life, conquering through faith in Christ; only such endurance in him will allow them to inherit the fullness of the covenant’s blessings.[59]

Revelation 21:8. In contrast to the list of blessings for God’s covenant people stands the list of people who will be cursed for their disobedience, as indicated by adversative use of “but” (δὲ.).[60] In the greater context of Revelation, it can be seen that the contrast between covenant obedience and covenant disobedience is ultimately a distinction between living as members of the holy city new Jerusalem and living as members of the false city Babylon. Since the Book of Revelation was written by John for the church, it seems best to conclude that this list is primarily a warning to the church – the members of the holy city new Jerusalem – not to partake in the disobedience of the false city Babylon, and secondarily serving to show the ultimate punishment for those people outside the church who live in opposition to God.[61] Altogether, the list seems to draw together the sins of the book of Revelation, summing up what will most certainly not be included in the holy city new Jerusalem, and should thus be no part of the believers’ lives.[62]

God declared that the fate of those defined by him as “cowardly,” “faithless,” “ones having been detested,” “murderers,” “sexually immoral,” “sorcerers,” “idolaters,” and “all the ones lying” – that is, the ones who can be identified by the sins of the book of Revelation – is to be cast into “the lake burning with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” This description of their fate should be taken literally in the sense that it portrays eternal punishment for the wicked; they will be eternally damned for their sin, not allowed entrance into the city of the new creation. Their fate should remind the church not to participate in sins identified with them and with the “second death,” but to live in the present as those who are destined for an eternal renewal of life.

----------------------------------------------------------

ENDNOTES
  [1] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 675-76.
  [2] G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation in The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 4.
  [3] Ibid., 37.
  [4] Ibid., 150.

  [5] Ibid., 150.
  [6] David E. Aune. Word Biblical Commentary, volume 52C: Revelation 17-22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 1113.
  [7] Ibid., 1116.

  [8] Grant. R. Osbourne, Revelation in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 729.
  [9] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 497.
  [10] Osbourne, 729.
  [11] John Sweet. Revelation (Philadelphia: Trinity International Press, 1990), 297.
  [12] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation in The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 381.
  [13] Arndt, Danker and Bauer, 102.
  [14] Aune, 1133.
  [15] Douglas Moo, “The Sea That is No More: Revelation 21:1 and the Function of Sea Imagery in the Apocalypse of John” in Novum Testamentum 51 (2009): 148.
  [16] G.B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John The Divine (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1966), 262.

  [17] Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1903), 275.
  [18] Moo, 165.
  [19] Moo, 165.
  [20] Ibid., 167.
  [21] Aune, 1120.
  [22] Osbourne, 732.
  [23] Caird, 263.
  [24] Osbourne, 733.
  [25] Bauckham, 132.
  [26] Osbourne, 733.
  [27] Caird, 263.
  [28] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1046.
  [29] Osbourne, 734.
  [30] Bauckham, 137.
  [31] Sweet, 298.

  [32] Bauckham, 140.
  [33] Caird, 265.
  [34] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1048.
  [35] Ibid., 1049.
  [36] Osbourne, 736.
  [37] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1049.
  [38] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1049.
  [39] Ibid., 1050.
  [40] Sweet, 299.
  [41] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1052.
  [42] Caird, 265.
  [43] Osbourne, 737.
  [44] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1052.
  [45] Caird, 266.
  [46] Osbourne, 737-738.
  [47] Caird, 266.
  [48] Kendell H. Easley, vol. 12, Holman New Testament Commentary, vol. 12: Revelation; Holman Reference (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 396.
  [49] Mounce, 385.
  [50] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1056.
  [51] Ibid., 1056.
  [52] Osbourne, 738.
  [53] H.D.M. Spence-Jones, The Pulpit Commentary: Revelation (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004), 510.
  [54] Easley, 396.
  [55] Osbourne, 739.
  [56] Ibid., 739.
  [57] Ibid., 740.
  [58] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1057.
  [59] Ibid., 1057.
  [60] Osbourne., 741.
  [61] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1059.
  [62] Osbourne., 740-741.

--------------------------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al. The Greek New Testament, 4th edition. Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Aune, David E. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 52C: Revelation 17-22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.

Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Beale, G.K. “Eden, The Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation” in Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, 48 no 1 (2005): 5-31.

Beale, G.K. The Book of Revelation in The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

Beale, G.K. “The Purpose of Symbolism in the Book of Revelation” in Calvin Theological Journal, 41 no 1 (2006): 53-66.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. The Book of Revelation. London: Oliphants, 1994.

Caird, G.B. The Revelation of St. John The Divine. New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1966.

Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition, 4th edition. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Easley, Kendell H. Revelation in Holman New Testament Commentary, volume 12. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Gundry, Robert H. “The New Jerusalem: People as Place, Not Place for People” in Novum Testamentum, 29 no 3 (1987): 254-264

Massyngberde Ford, J. The Anchor Bible, Volume 38: Revelation. New York: Doubleday, 1975.

Mathewson, David. “New Exodus as a Background for ‘the sea was no more’ in Revelation 21:1C” in Trinity Journal, ns 24 no 2 Fall (2003): 243-258.

Moo, Douglas. “The sea that is no more: Rev. 21:1 and the function of sea imagery in the Apocalypse of John” in Novum Testamentum, 51 no 2 (2009): 148-167.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation in The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

Osbourne, Grant R. Revelation in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M. The Pulpit Commentary: Revelation. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.

Sweet, John. Revelation. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of St. John. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1903.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001).

Utley, Robert James. Hope in Hard Times - The Final Curtain: Revelation in Study Guide Commentary Series, Volume 12. Marshall: Bible Lessons International, 2001.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996.

10 Things I'll "Miss" about Being a Bachelor

2011-05-05T15:30:00.000-07:00

Using my hair as a napkin
Eating with my switchblade
Playing video games until my eyes are so bloodshot I can't see. Or more likely, playing video games at all
Only watching awesome movies
Reusing clothes, sheets, and towels until they smell or are normally moist.
Drinking from the jug, container, etc. unless a cup is absolutely necessary.
Shadowboxing in front of a mirror to get pumped up before big events or dates
Doing anything that involves ignoring a disclaimer or warning sign
Seeing how many energy drinks I can handle before I go insane with rage
Making blog articles that glorify the bachelor life

Reactions to Barth's Church Dogmatics, Volume 1.2, §21, 22, 23.1, and 24.1

2011-05-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

The following is a summary of the main points from sections 21, 22, 23.1, and 24.1 in Barth's Church Dogmatics, volume 1.2. I've also included my (brief) reactions to these main points. Hopefully, it will serve to be an informative summary that spurs you on to further thoughts. This completes my reading of CD 1.2, and so future posts will focus on other matters. For those needing more, I'm currently writing an essay that interacts with Barth article, "The Strange New World within the Bible" and will post that in the next week or so.

SECTION 21. In “Freedom in the Church,” Barth asserted that it is impossible for the Church to be freer than is allowed by Holy Scripture. He wrote, “Freedom in the Church is limited as an indirect, relative and formal freedom by the freedom of the Holy Scripture in which it is grounded.”[1] This “freedom” is probably best understood as the freedom for talking about God in doctrine and dogmatics (i.e., making truth statements). In this statement, it is important to note that Barth limited both the kind of freedom the Church can have and the kind of Scripture that offers that freedom. In his view, the Church’s freedom is limited by the fact that he didn’t believe the Bible to be free of error; thus, he made the Church’s freedom to be grounded only in the parts of Scripture that truly witness to what is Holy.

In his arguments, Barth ended up making the very nature of the Church’s freedom in dealing with the Bible to be quite ambiguous.[2] Our humanity, paired with the humanity of the biblical authors, was seemingly too big of an obstacle for him.[3] Thus, he called believers to be responsible in trying to discern the witness to the Word in Scripture (through having faith), but ultimately did not believe it possible for the Church to achieve pure exposition on its own.[4] Barth seemed to think that men, if given enough freedom, would necessarily abuse Scripture in order to support their own ideas and actions.[5] This was a recurring theme in his writings and was related to his low view of the Bible’s inspiration, in which he believed that the Bible may have errors and is possible to be consistently misunderstood.

As a result of these human limitations, Barth perceived the Church’s only true freedom to be obedience to Holy Scripture in faith.[6] This faith was but a response to what God had already done. Thus, faith was the factor in Barth’s view on Church freedom that made up for all the ambiguity. In faith, the members of the Church cooperate with the work of the Holy Spirit in allowing Christ’s obedience to be actualized. So, for Barth, obedience to Holy Scripture in faith ultimately was to obey Christ, as he obeys Holy Scripture.[7] He recognized that this obedience is a choice, but only on the level of being a choice for each individual to surrender to God and thereby gain a new identity in Christ (together becoming the Church).[8] In sum, he believed the Church as confronted by God into being obedient to Holy Scripture - that is, set in movement by God - with that confrontation providing an opportunity for the response of actual obedience.[9] I find myself agreeing with Barth on this point, as it is an echo of the voices of other Reformers like Calvin and Luther. We cannot truly obey God without first being accepted by him. Further, without the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to understand Scripture and obey it in the way that God considers pure. The Holy Spirit’s aid in interpretation allows for us as Christians to receive satisfaction and hope from the text that is not available to the one without faith,[10] so that it becomes the “the determining force of our whole existence.”[11]

SECTION 22. In “The Mission of the Church,” Barth taught that finding pure doctrine is the mission of the Church. He admitted that the existence of pure doctrine becomes possible through a miraculous event but qualified it as an intangible thing. He wrote, “The proclamation of the Church is pure doctrine when the human word spoken in it in confirmation of the biblical witness to revelation offers and creates obedience to the Word of God.”[12] He did not view this miracle of pure doctrine as a human success but as a divine success; furthermore, he saw this divine success as being masked in human failure. He thought that in human proclamation God acts so that his pure doctrine transcends our impure doctrine. [13] Thus, for Barth, it didn’t exactly matter how badly Christians proclaim truth, as God’s good is sure to overcome our bad.

Barth saw this transcendent “overcoming” of our bad by God’s good (in the pursuit of pure doctrine) as an event that consistently happens in the church alone through the cooperation of Christian faith and God’s work.[14] In this event, the cooperative work of mankind is to simply cling to the grace of God and rely on him entirely in faith.[15] Then, God provides a miracle to the Church, pure doctrine. In this miracle, Jesus Christ becomes really present in the presence of the Church,[16] able to provide the pure doctrine needed by the Church due to his form as the perfect man-God; that is, God contextualized for humankind. Therefore, in Barth’s perspective, the Church can indeed have pure doctrine, but only as something that remains transcendent and set apart from it. It exists above and beyond the Church. All the Church can really know is Christ, trusting in him to provide the transcendent through the works of the Holy Spirit. This was, in the end, Barth’s complex “way out” of saying that the Church has pure doctrine in the Bible alone.

SECTION 23.1. In “Dogmatics as a Function of the Hearing Church,” Barth continued his arguments for ambiguity in matters of discussing pure doctrine, citing our humanity as the possibility for error in everything related to discussing God.[17] I found that he left himself in a position where nothing could be said about God with certainty, which is a bad place to be trapped in as a Christian. Of course, he argued that God’s promise calls for unambiguity in pure doctrine[18] and our faith in trusting in him to provide it, but he never offered any real certainty that God will actually provide the unambiguity that is called for by his promise. And even if it were to come, it would remain as something transcendent and intangible. Thus, the Church is left in a position where it has no real manifestation of its authority (e.g., a Bible which is pure doctrine), as it must wait in every act of proclamation for God to act in transcendence and provide pure doctrine.[19] I think that Barth said all this because he was afraid of what the Church might claim for itself (in authority, power, etc.), abusively, if it were to have pure doctrine in a form that does not necessarily require God’s transcendence to be pure.[20] Though his arguments certainly prevent potential abuse of the Bible by the Church, they differ from the teachings of the Bible about itself, as well as from typical Evangelical arguments.

SECTION 24.1. In “Dogmatics as a Function of the Teaching Church,” Barth asserted that the Word of God, when heard, demands to be taught correctly by the church, and that it is our task as believers to provide pure teaching to the world. He wrote, “The Word of God, when it is heard, demands the service of the Church; it demands to be proclaimed and made known; and since it wills to be made known to men, it demands human speech, human tongues and human words.”[21] Though Barth’s initial idea – that the Church is required to share the Word of God with all mankind – is good, we must be cautious of its implications. In particular, his idea that the Word of God wills to be known is quite dangerous if not qualified. We affirm that the Word of God necessarily must go forth from the Church out into the world,[22] but we deny that it will be known by universal mankind (because of Scripture’s clarity on this matter) and must therefore be cautious to declare that it’s God’s will for all men to know his Word. Nonetheless, the call to teach the Word is good, and remembrance of God’s truth should indeed call the Church to this purpose, which is its true life.[23] As the Church shares the Word of God with the world, it must guard itself from heresy in both its mode of teaching and in the substance of its teaching.[24] All in all, the Church must be protected from doctrine that is not pure as it both hears and Word and speaks it to others. This is a good reminder and should not be ignored.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES

  [1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2, edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, translated by G.T. Thompson and Harold Knight (T&T Clark International, 2004), 661.
  [2] Ibid., 671.
  [3] Ibid., 713.
  [4] Ibid., 734.
  [5] Ibid., 737.
  [6] Ibid., 687.
  [7] Ibid., 693.
  [8] Ibid., 670.
  [9] Ibid., 671-672.
  [10] Ibid., 738.
  [11] Ibid., 740.
  [12] Ibid., 743.
  [13] Ibid., 751.
  [14] Ibid., 768.
  [15] Ibid., 755.
  [16] Ibid., 752.
  [17] Ibid., 798.
  [18] Ibid., 799.
  [19] Ibid., 801.
  [20] Ibid., 807.
  [21] Ibid., 845.
  [22] Ibid., 848.
  [23] Ibid., 849.
  [24] Ibid., 851.

Reactions to Barth's Church Dogmatics, Volume 1.2, §19

2011-04-01T15:15:00.000-07:00

The following is a summary of the main points from Section 19 in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, Volume 1.2, along with my reactions to those main points. In this particular section, Barth deals with the topic of Holy Scripture. This particular section is worth studying because of how controversial Barth's views are. In spite of this controversy, too, he raises a lot of good points worth noting and learning from.

SECTION 19. In the first part of Section 19, Karl Barth wrote about the witness of Holy Scripture, discussing the Bible's relation to revelation and the Word of God (amongst other things). Barth’s view of Holy Scripture is nuanced and hard to understand, but in his dialectic writings we can se that he clearly rejected the Bible as itself being divine revelation. In this, he broke from the standard view of the Bible held by other Reformers and most Evangelicals. He took the position that the Bible is only a witness to divine revelation.[1] Barth not only noted the non-revelatory nature of the Bible but also qualified the mentioned characteristics of the Bible as being possible only by the Holy Spirit. Essentially, he asserted that the Bible is not internally Holy or the Word of God; it only gains these characteristics externally by the Holy Spirit. Thus, to experience the Bible as Holy, the Word of God, and a witness to divine revelation is to have a transcendental experience with it (made possible by the Holy Spirit).

For Barth, the transcendental experience that believers have with Holy Scripture was that which necessitates obedience to God’s will. He considered obedience defined by anything other than this transcendental calling to be illegitimate, as the transcendental was the only thing he considered a true interaction with the triune God.[2]

These two aspects of Barth’s view of Holy Scripture raised serious concerns and questions in my mind. I am concerned that he does not accept the Bible to be the inspired work of God, and therefore divine revelation, due to how this minimizes the authority of the text. Though he functions as if the text is inerrant because of its witness, he theorizes that it is full of errors because of its humanity. His view does not seem to take the Bible on its own terms; moreover, it focuses more on the limitations of human authors (i.e., prophets, apostles) than on the capability of God to overcome such limitations.[3] I think Barth limited God’s ability to inspire human authors, mostly due to his low view of human writing and language. He did not seem to accept that idea that God could ordain such things as the Bible as an acceptable means of revelation, and he did not seem to even consider that a man-made work inspired by God could actually be without error. Oddly, though, he seemed to accept the spoken words of men as divine revelation while rejecting the written words of men as divine inspiration, making it seem like he simply didn’t trust material means as able to be divine in nature as much as he trusted non-material means. This seems like an inconsistency. His view also makes it questionable as to why believers should even read the Bible. Sure, it has power as a witness of divine revelation, but for him a spoken word or random experience could seemingly be just as much of a witness. It seems that, according to Barth’s line of thinking, the only real value of the Bible is that it is something in our own language that we can consistently turn to for a witness of divine revelation.[4] But in this witness it is not an exclusive or absolute; it is a human word, a subjective interpretation of revelation. To him, Revelation was something ongoing that couldn’t possibly be contained in a finite form. This makes our belief in it as a witness necessary but ultimately indefensible,[5] which is a paradoxical dilemma for Christians.

In the second part of section 19, Barth wrote on Scripture as the Word of God, noting that it becomes revelation (i.e., the Word of God) through the Holy Spirit’s work in transforming the human expression and the witness.[6] Similarly, he noted that the canon of the Bible, established by the church, is also a unique witness that points to revelation. He thought that the church is limited in its capacity to understand the canon but believed that the canon of Holy Scripture had value for the church nonetheless. He saw that through it, the Word of God was able to govern the church. Barth wrote, “We will not be obedient to the Church but to the Word of God, and therefore in the true sense to the Church.”[7] That is to say, the church is an authority only insomuch as it relies on the Word of God; the very life of the church depends on God’s Word. I found this to be a profound and accurate observation. However, I disagree with the extent to which Barth took the idea. He went on to say that the church couldn’t honestly believe that the canon is closed, since only God knows what the church will need in the future.[8] The church is forced to rely on Christ alone as its Lord, since revelation is Christ alone, but his means of revelation are uncertain. In this he has left room for proclamation to be the continuing Word of God to and for the church,[9] but he has also left open a dangerous window for heresy to enter into the church through false teachings and uninspired books. Ultimately, it seems that Barth asserted that it is faith and not inspiration that gives the Bible its power over the church.[10] For him, this was the very attestation of the Holy Spirit.[11] I think that this is a dangerous line of thinking for the church because it means that there is nothing in written, final form given to the church for its governance. The church has only has the experience of revelation (through the witness of such things as the Bible) to govern it. Barth argued that the Bible is still a useful authority for the church, on the basis of the function (not the substance) of the Bible, but his arguments are not convincing enough. Ultimately, we are better off and right in accepting that the Bible is the direct revelation of God, the governing authority for both the individual believer and for the church as a whole.

Despite the problems raised by Barth's views, there are still many good things to learn from him. To discover these good things, we must look at the concepts behind his arguments. For instance, it is true, as he argued, that God in revelation is the only source of authority for the church. It is also true that God really communicates with us through our reading and hearing of the Bible, by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit allows for believers to have knowledge about God despite our humanity, which is a miracle. As this relates to Scripture, we are able to understand by the Spirit how Holy Scripture applies to our everyday lives. All of these are concepts that Barth begins with, and we would do well to think through their implications for our own lives, according to our own beliefs.

-------------------------
ENDNOTES

   [1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2, edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, translated by G.T. Thompson and Harold Knight (T&T Clark International, 2004), 457.
   [2] Ibid., 458.
   [3] Ibid., 463.
   [4] Ibid., 464.

   [5] Ibid., 461.
   [6] Ibid., 473.
   [7] Ibid., 475.
   [8] Ibid., 476.
   [9] Ibid., 496.
   [10] Ibid., 533.
   [11] Ibid., 537.

Evaluation Of All GCTS Courses

2011-03-30T12:06:00.000-07:00

I like evaluating things. It's what I do. So, below, you'll find a list of all the courses I've taken at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary to fulfill the requirements for the M.Div program. I've categorized the courses according to quality (i.e, how much I benefited from them).

I've gone ahead and projected my remaining courses into this list based on how beneficial I think they'll be. Those will be marked with an asterisk (*). My hope is that it'll be helpful to anyone considering taking classes at GCTS, professors looking for a review, or even to anyone just curious about my experiences here. I'd be glad to discuss this further and explain my reasoning with anyone who is interested, so feel free to comment or contact me for more details.

Excellent

Martin Luther - Dr. Isaac
Life & Theology of Karl Barth - Dr. Anders
Exegesis in Revelation - Dr. McDonough
Exegesis in Judges (CUME) - Dr. Hugenberger
Exegesis in OT Prophetical Books* - Dr. T. Petter
Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility* - Dr. Lints
Systematic Theology III* - Dr. Lints

Good

Basic Greek I - Dr. Keazirian
Basic Greek II - Dr. Keazirian
Hebrew I (Summer)- Dr. D. Petter
Hebrew II (Summer) - Dr. D. Petter
Systematic Theology I - Dr. Anders
Systematic Theology II (J-Term) - Dr. Smith
New Testament Survey (Semlink) - Dr. McDonough
Old Testament Survey (Semlink) - Dr. Stuart

Fair

Gospel of John (CUME) - Dr. Um
Church Planting* (Summer) - Dr. Schutz
Preaching: Principles & Practices in Preparing Relevant Biblical Sermons - Dr. Robinson
Preaching for Modern Listeners* - Dr. Arthurs
Interpreting the New Testament - Dr. Shively
Introduction to the Old Testament - Dr. Niehaus

Bad

Spiritual Formation for Ministry - Dr. Schutz
Pastoral Ministry - Dr. Swetland
Introduction to Pastoral Counseling* - Dr. Pendleton
Preaching the Old Testament (J-Term) - Dr. Kaiser

If you're a GCTS student, you'll probably note that I'm missing a few classes. That's because I transferred in some classes from another seminary, substituted classes to fulfill requirements, and took a class through the B.T.I. at Harvard Divinity School. These were the courses that fit my schedule for a 3-Year M.Div plan, which I'm scheduled to complete in May 2012 (I'm taking most of this summer off).

Reactions to Barth's Church Dogmatics, Volume 1.2, §16

2011-03-21T14:11:00.000-07:00

The following article includes a summary of the main points from section 16 in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, Volume 1.2 along with my reactions to those points. At the end of the article, I'll expand on the topic of election in Christ by including some notes from class lectures at GCTS. I hope it'll be informative and insightful to those who read.

SECTION 16. In the article entitled “The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” Barth wrote on the Holy Spirit as both the subjective reality and possibility of revelation. He began the section with a statement that sets the tone for the whole argument. He wrote, “God’s revelation occurs in our enlightenment by the Holy Spirit of God to a knowledge of His Word. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is God’s revelation. In the reality of this event consists our freedom to be the children of God and to know and love and praise him in His revelation.”[1] His point here puts both the entire discussion about God’s revelation for us in the context of the Holy Spirit’s work.

On the subjectivity of revelation, Barth taught that revelation’s reality depends entirely on God; God acts for man and on man to make revelation real for him. That is to say, God’s actions are what make possible man’s action in faith and obedience, and man only has the ability to act in faith and obedience through the working of the Holy Spirit in him.[2] In this we see that God has come to man freely, and not vice versa. This means that we can’t know God according to our own devices. It is the Holy Spirit doing the work of Christ in us. We are certainly responsible for responding appropriately to the work of the Spirit though, coopering with that process of revelation in us (including both justification and sanctification).

How it is that we can know God by the Holy Spirit is in all fact a mystery too great for us to know.[3] Truly, then, we can take no credit for knowing God. We can’t know how to get to him, and we can’t know how he got to us. We must accept this as the mystery of revelation. In particular, it relates to the mystery of the Trinity and how God functions as three-persons-in-one. In ourselves, we lack the knowledge of the triune God.

An important thing to understand about the subjectivity of revelation is that God turns man into a recipient a revelation by his Holy Spirit, and that the actualization of this event in the lives of multiple people results in the church’s existence. [4] Each person’s dependence upon Christ unites him or her with other believers in the community of Christ.[5] On this matter, Barth wrote, “Existence in Christ and existence in the church are seen and understood as an actual unity, although the difference that exists between them is as great as that between existence in heaven and existence on earth.”[6] Thus, though all Christians exist in Christ and in the church, each believer also maintains uniqueness in how they are an evidence of Christ. An implication of this is that each person should use his or her unique manifestation of God’s grace (spiritual gifts, etc.) in such as way as to glorify Christ. Additionally, all Christians must therefore depend on each other, just as each one depends on Christ. When we do so, Christ sustains us in his name.[7] In Christ, our human nature is met by Christ’s nature. Christ’s nature in us gives us life.

The life of the church in Christ (by the Holy Spirit) is the reality of the church, the subjective reality of revelation.[8] In this sense, “By Christ we will never be anything else than just what we are in Christ…We are brethren of the Son of God, hearers and doers of the Word of God.”[9] The Holy Spirit is the bond of peace that puts believers in this position with Christ. [10] Thus, the work of the Holy Spirit is ultimately nothing other than Christ’s work.[11] It is accomplished in us when we have faith.[12]

On the possibility of revelation, Barth taught that the Word of God, brought to man through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, is that which makes it possible for human beings to be recipients of divine revelation. Even more so, however, he also believed that receiving the Word of God in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was really itself revelation. He wrote, “In no less a sense than the incarnation of the Word in Christ, it is the divine act of lordship, the mystery and the miracle of the existence of God among us, the triumph of free grace.”[13] Personally, I found myself surprised by how he equates the spoken Word with the manifest and written Word. I agree that God’s work in speaking is equal, but I think that we must be careful about considering our own experiences with God as equal in authority with Christ and Scripture, due to our limited understanding of reality. I do think, however, that we must indeed rely on the Spirit for our faith and obedience, being hearers and doers of the Word as the Spirit leads.

CLASS NOTES: Barth speaks a lot about God's children having their master unavoidably in Christ. This sounds like a good doctrine at first (because of what it means for God's children), but his definition for "God's children" is far more inclusive than it seems to be in this section (assuming it seems to be just Christians, or those who have faith in Christ during their lifetime). Ultimately, Barth views all people - that is, universal humanity - as God's children. Thus, in his perspective, all people unavoidably have a master in Christ. He admits that some experience him as a master in this life while others don't, but he claims that all people should eventually be reconciled to God on account of the work of the Holy Spirit to make Christ the master of humanity. Related to this is his idea that God does not predestine or elect individual human beings to either heaven or hell; instead, he has predestined and elected Christ alone on behalf of all humanity. He is not ordaining some to heaven, some to hell; rather, he is ordaining that he is "for us all" in Christ. Thus, God's only will is that of salvation in Christ. Even though some will say "no," to God in this lifetime, God's "yes" to them should eventually overtake their "no." They may seem to be damned to hell, but since Christ is for them they should be saved eventually. In Christ, all humanity is elect. The human will is only temporary and will eventually be subjected to the divine will; an apparent distinction of the human will (to either reject Christ or accept him) is a dialectic that exists so that people may be witnesses to one another of the Gospel (in either rejecting or accepting Christ) in varying levels. For instance, he might say that some people reject Christ in this lifetime in order to people why we need God's election in Christ. Barth thinks that this dialectic must exist in order for people to understand the gospel, and that is how he explains evil's existence. So, while evil exists in this world in order to exemplify how the Gospel works, it should eventually be made good in Christ. Non-human evils such as Satan and other fallen angels should eventually be cast into a state of nothingness. Of course, it is important to note Barth's emphasis on how things should be, not on how they will be. He leaves room for mystery, thinking that this is ultimately an unknowable matter to discuss. Still, he has made some extremely dangerous assumptions about how things should be. Barth's views in this particular area of his theology could therefore be accurately defined as "possible universalism." It is one of the areas of his theology in which he departed from the other Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.). In light of the Bible's clear teachings on eternal punishment, Evangelicals (including those in the Reformed camp, like me) have to disagree with him on this matter. We should still take his many writings into consideration though, not rejecting him as a whole, due to the brilliance of what he has to say on other things.

-----------------------------------------------

ENDNOTES

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2, edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, translated by G.T. Thompson and Harold Knight (T&T Clark International: 2004), 203.
[2] Ibid., 205.
[3] Ibid., 205.
[4] Ibid., 210.
[5] Ibid., 211.
[6] Ibid., 212.
[7] Ibid., 218.
[8] Ibid., 215.
[9] Ibid., 240.
[10] Ibid., 241.
[11] Ibid., 241.
[12] Ibid., 242.
[13] Ibid., 249.