I cannot help but wonder what went through God’s “mind” between the time of completing creation and the events of Genesis 6. Even more – what changed from Genesis 6 to Genesis 9? There’s little we can know about it, besides that God set off on a mission – a mission that’s one of a kind.

See, when, let’s say your TV breaks down and you want to continue watching TV – you have two options. Either repair it or get a new one, the latter being the more convenient, easier one. While the flood was God’s way of starting all over again – more convenient and certainly quicker, his covenant with Noah and later on with many others is rather astonishing. He basically said “I won’t get rid of you, but will do whatever it takes to fix you up – make you look good again; as good as you were when I first looked at you.” This might also seem easy until you grasp the scale of the repair that needed to be done. Consequentially, that decision didn’t come at no expense for God. The toll was the death and resurrection of His Son – a rather high price, but as I said – a lot needed fixing.

Today we look at the story and it changes our lives. We get closer to it and realize – we’re invited to participate in it; to fellowship with God, to be part of his repair team. Little do we know about the task ahead of us, but that doesn’t seem to stand on our way of getting matters in our own hands. Yes, Jesus did say to go and teach, disciple and love, but He never said we ought to do it alone. Just because we have the manual doesn’t mean we know how to make everything work again. Neither are we capable of making this even remotely possible… without God’s enduring, faithful and loving leading. Reverse-engineering is not an option here.

We set off building churches and raising communities back on their feet until one day we (as inevitable as it seems) fail. It’s one of those devastating moments when we think “It’s all gone in vain; we messed up so big, there’s no hope of recovery.”

Because we believe we’re the ones who can make things look good again. We seem be deep in the belief that if we don’t do it – it can’t be done. Therefore, when we failed, it all failed.

But not God’s mission – it’s a different kind of a mission. It’s first of all – God’s mission in which we’re just participants. He initiated it, he sustains it, he envisions it, he guides it… he completes it. Period.

Take Jonah for example – God called him to fellowship with him, to participate in making things look good. He ran away. God shook him up on that ship, woke him up to the reality – he did repent and spoke words of hope and thanksgiving. So God thought – I might was well use him anyhow and called him a second time. As hesitant as we often are, Jonah set off to do the work. He didn’t only end up doing 1/3 of what he should have done, but he didn’t even do this right. Yet, this didn’t stop God from bringing the people of Nineveh to repentance.

So could we get it right for once? Can we look at our mission as what it really is – God’s mission? Can we endure the failure while standing on our feet with sheer confidence that what God has started God will finish? We’re not in this to win, it’s not a race. It’s a marathon and we’re in to finish.

Jesus uses the example of worrying to show us how strong our faith ought to be and how we need to live and consequently – pray. Let us turn to his words from Matthew 6:19-34:

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matthew 6:19-34, NIV)

The worrying which Jesus is talking about leads to division between us and God. In fact, the Greek word translated as the very “worry” means  “to part, to disunite, to divide, to distribute between.” Simply said, the more we worry about things different from God’s kingdom and our holy living, the farther we go from God. Instead of Him, we place money clothing, food and all the rest in first place.

So, it is necessary to keep an eye on how we’re doing in this aspect of life. It is important to check-up on our prayers as well. It is far too easy to drift away slowly in our prayers and one day end up being far from God’s way. Do you pray that it will be God’s will first or do the daily troubles and worries take His place? Is your faith strong enough to enable you to ask for His will, even when this means that you’ll face even more sufferings and struggles?

It’s a well known fact that we’re all standing before material needs and this continuously. However, it is our reaction to them that reflects our faith in God, not the needs themselves. Jesus’ promise to us is not for a flawless life and absolute safety and independence. If that was the case, it would actually draw us away from Him because there would be little need of a mighty God. But our Savior promised and gave us peace like no other. If we believe Him for our salvation, then we are also able to place Him at the top of our lives and prayers. Seek God’s kingdom first!

Being actively involved with photography for more than two years now, I’ve realized more than ever before how powerful a visual image can be. Moreover, how much an image can reflect and at the same time direct our perceptions of a certain subject. Take a bottle of Coke, for instance – it’s never advertised static, dry and lukewarm, with dull colors… ‘Cause, frankly, who wants a Coke like that. It more sounds like being British tea at 4pm – boring and a thing from the past (for most people, that is). The energetic and fresh Coke image also makes you wish the Coke be that way – it kind of sets the standard for you.

There’s so much thought going into graphic design when it comes to advertising. Sadly, though, there’s little thought put into the graphics and design accompanying our faith.Most imagery selected for church activities, youth camps, or even publishing is chosen based on a feeling… and quite likely, the direction given by imagery seen in the past. It’s not that it’s never thought about, but it’s hardly ever thought through. As long as it’s got a blue sky and clouds, some fancy bright sunshine and a cross – it’s just gotta fit as a background for the songs. ‘Round Christmas we add some red and green, because it’s the colors of the season, and we’re set again. As Spring comes it’s time to pull up the flowers from the gallery – they seem fitting, don’t they?

I say NO. Most of those images reflect a desire for escape from reality. The truth is, our faith isn’t always shining, nor is it always a sweet smelling flower. Furthermore, what direction are these images leading us to? Closer to what God? The one that just sits up in the clouds and listens to good music?!

Properly selected imagery should be leading us God’s way. The way that Jesus walked, the way that the apostles walked, the way we headed on this one day of our lives… but then started wandering along while being a bit confused.

Does the visual content we expose ourselves and others on Sunday actually show compassion? And how about love, endurance, suffering, victory, needs, tears and prayers… Or is it always polished with the effects that only make life look nicer and more attractive?

I believe that there’s enough talent and brain in every church to be able to select visual content worthy of the event and the God it is meant to lead us to. After all, we claim to be living the principle of giving our best for God – we ought to actually give our best in selecting proper images. The only other option is to show none, but there isn’t space for anything in between.

image by: Davinci | agency: Dreamstime.com

Ok, by now you should be interested.

A new thought occurred to me a few days ago and hasn’t left my mind ever since. It’s the thought of on-my-own type of Christian life. See, I was initially wondering on the topic of miracles and why they seem to not happen as much nowadays, yet we claim God has not changed. Sometimes we go so far, that we actually are satisfied with less – “Oh, I feel this is the miracle”… when God actually hasn’t even started.

I find it to be a matter of trust… Thus the title above. Speaking about myself, I’m discovering that in reality I don’t trust God as much as I used to. Give me a problem – I can solve it. If I figure I can’t – I can learn to live with it. Rarely, however, do I actually trust God to the extend of believing in a miracle. This goes for simple things such as daily provisions, but also for more major things, such as changing myself, others, the Church (universal)… people I know and I love.

The scary part is – I think it’s not just me that’s gone that far out there. I’m seeing more and more Christians either getting comfortable with pain and hurt, not believing it can be healed and/or changed… Or – even worse – going about it on their own. Struggling to make enough money for living. Unsuccessfully juggling with serving God and serving the company, school or whatever else.

Sadly, it’s only every now and then that I’m having those revelation moments in which I realize – Whether it’s with or without this or that… it doesn’t really matter. I can be dead and gone in an instant and then only one thing matters. But speaking about daily life… oh well, if I say I trust God I’d probably be lying. Cause trust, in my understanding, is not what I live out in practice right now.

This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

Often noted for being different and highly debated, the fourth Gospel of the New Testament, the Gospel of John presents to its reader an image and message of Christ, which is not simply different from those of the Synoptic Gospels, but also completes them. So it is with the parable of the Shepherd and His Flock, as the NIV Bible entitles it, found in John 10:1-21. This parable is only found in the Gospel of John, and although this paper will not discuss it at its entirety, I will make an attempt by exegeting the second part of the discourse – Jesus’ explanation of the parable, to make clearer its meaning for today’s readers. Before this, however, I ought to give some attention to the Gospel of John in general, as it will later aid the interpretation and understanding of the passage.

The fourth Gospel’s authorship is a widely discussed historical issue. However, the view which has been proposed and supported by both the text itself and the early church fathers, and namely, that the apostle John, the brother of Jesus initially wrote the Gospel is what this paper will assume. Concerning the original audience of the Gospel of John – as Kruse argues, the strong emphasis on Jesus’ messiahship and the original language of the text – Greek both suggest that the message was intended for a Greek speaking Jewish audience (Kruse 21). The purpose of the Gospel, however, is  an aspect of the book, which strongly impacts the meaning of the passage discussed in this paper.

John 20:30,31 is the Gospel’s own testimony about its purpose. In other words, this is “a clear declaration of the author’s intention in writing the book (Tenney 27).” The three keywords from this passage, which Tenney also points out are signs, believing, and life. Concerning signs, the Gospel of John uses signs to reveal Jesus’ nature. In the discussed passage, none of the seven signs in the Gospel is present. However, the emphasis on believing and having a new life is tremendous in John 10:7-18, which finds itself as a part of the teaching section after the sign of healing the man born blind and before the last sign – raising Lazarus from the dead. Thus, the passage becomes a concluding part of Jesus’ revelation through signs and discourses before the passion narrative begins. In the immediate context, the passage is in fact an explanation from Jesus’ side to the parable he has told but was not understood in the beginning six verses of chapter ten.

Detailed Study of the Text

Perhaps due to its nature, the selected passage of John does not pose any significant textual problems. The vast majority of translations agree on the interpretation of the message. However, again because of its nature, the passage incorporates a significant amount of cultural information, which from today’s standpoint needs to be read with increased attention. In the previous passage – the parable explained in the current one, Jesus uses an image from the the world of agriculture, which is also the everyday life of the majority of the people at the time. As a matter of fact, this historical reference is of significance to the today’s reader only because the imagery is not common today. The reference to the shepherd and the flock does not carry a significant meaning in and of itself.

What today’s reader needs to know concerning the agricultural image is that, as it is still done in villages in Bulgaria, for instance, there will be one shepherd for the sheep of more than one family. This is often a person hired especially for the job, and this does not mean that the person will be as responsible to the flock as the owners of the sheep for their own sheep. This is an important point, as Jesus uses it to contrast this “hired” hand with the care of the owner, who would lay their life for the sheep. Further on, it is necessary to note that the bound created between the flock and the shepherd is more significant than what one would expect. The sheep, as many other domestic animals, as well as pets, do establish trust in the shepherd. It is known that the sheep experience a great trauma in the first days with a new shepherd – a trauma of not recognizing the new voice, which is so strong that the sheep will run away instead of going out to gaze (Kruse 233).

A closer look at the passage calls for pointing out the very first phrase – “I tell you the truth.” This is a phrase which as O’Dail suggests Jesus uses “to indicate a new development in the discourse” (O’Dail 669). The development we witness as readers today makes the following words even more important – Jesus becomes even more straight-forward in his testimony, so that the people may believe.

The introductory phrase is followed by one of the seven “I am” statements in the Gospel, which would have echoed Exodus 3:14 – of God’s very first revelation to humanity in the form of a name, or something that suggests a relationship, a connection. The gate in this passage is the only entrance, as referred to by the agricultural parallel, but this entrance is more than something a person passes through. As the “I am” statement suggests, this is a “gate”, which is relational and deeply connected with the person – the only way in to the safe place, where the sheep or people are protected.

Verse 8 has brought about a discussion in the most critical readers – is Jesus disregarding completely those who were an entrance to God, a help for his revelation from the past – Moses, the prophets? If not, then whom is Jesus referring to? It appears to be in contradiction with the rest of Scripture to say that the first claim is true. Witherington is in agreement with this. He also goes on to say that “it must surely refer to all previous false shepherds, including those who had been leading before and now during Jesus’ day with whom Jesus was in a controversy at present” (Witherington 188). As a support one may also use Scripture’s own account – Jesus claims that his own did not listen to these false shepherds either. And just in the previous miracle the man born blind did not listen and believe the speculations of the Jewish authorities.

To increase the emphasis Jesus repeats in verse nine “I am the gate”. Just that this time the phrase is followed by an even clearer definition of what the discourse is all about. Some consider Jesus’ words here as posing a challenge in understanding the passage, because he shifts from describing himself as the good shepherd (verses 1 through 5) to describing himself even more as the only way to God. One way to approach this challenge is by pointing out some later Jewish practices where the shepherd himself would sleep at the entrance of the pen, and thus, Jesus being the good shepherd would also be the one sleeping at the entrance – being the entrance. Others have attempted to connect this passage with some Old Testament references to doors being the entrance to God’s presence. While these arguments might have some value, I would propose that the word “saved” from verse 9  – σωθησεται in Greek is related to περισσονor from verse 10, or “to the full,” as the NIV translates it. Both words carry a sense of completeness, being made complete, or complete through. Thus, while the adversary comes to steal, kill and destroy – ie. make incomplete, Jesus comes to give life – to bring completion.

This interpretation is of crucial importance for the implication of the passage by suggesting that it addresses both the current situation of humanity – living an incomplete life, and contrasts it with the possible life in Christ – the life of completeness, or humanity led towards a restored image of God. In addition to this, it is necessary to also point out the word “life” from verse 10. As it was said earlier, this is one of the three keywords which describe the purpose of the Gospel of John – so that the readers may believe and have life. Thus, Jesus the Shepherd comes to protect and to bring life, which is a complete life – nothing else is necessary, nothing more could be added.

Jesus continues his explanation in verses 11 through 13 to show by what means he brings life. For this he identifies once again with the good shepherd through another “I am” statement and contrasts the qualities of the one known to the sheep with the one who is a “hired hand”, a detached shepherd. “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” echoes verse 11b. Just as the shepherd who is leading his own family sheep so does also Jesus have something to lose if the flock is scattered or  a sheep – a person is snatched by a wolf. This is where the historical imagery becomes distant and impersonal to most of today’s readers, but what Jesus is saying is that he is one who cares for all people because they are his own. We are nobody else’s!

In verse 14 Jesus introduces one more aspect of the shepherd-sheep relationship – knowledge. It has been mentioned in the parable itself – verses 4 and 5 that the sheep will only listen to the shepherd they recognize, the voice they know. Jesus takes this metaphor and extends it in verse 15 to the intimate knowledge that is between him and the Father. This knowledge now applies also to those who are elsewhere in the fourth Gospel called Jesus’ “own” (Bruce 227). In other words, what Jesus is saying is that those who choose to follow him will benefit benefit this personal knowledge of God himself, which Adam’s sin has taken away. This is, a relationship restored, for there is no authentic relationship without intimate knowledge.

Verse 16 comes a bit abruptly in the story, introducing a thought which is not present neither in the parable, nor earlier in Jesus’ explanation. Keener makes quite an extensive discussion concerning this thought, trying to clarify who are the “other sheep.” Considering his conclusions, as well as Kruse’s claim that “the allusion is to the Gentile people, those who are not part of Israel” (Kruse 237) I would suggest that whatever the small details in meaning be, Jesus is obviously talking about missions and what is to come after his resurrection through the preaching of his disciples empowered by the Holy Spirit. What might be stunning as a claim to today’s reader is that it is till Jesus who brings them in. The implications of this for the ministry of believers today are immense. We ought to recognize that in spite of all human efforts spent on a new believer, it is still God who transforms and makes them become one.

To the modern reader the statement of verse 17 may create a confusion – does the Father have a conditional love for His Son? Would the father have not loved Jesus should he have decided to not lay down his life? However, this is surely not the issue at stake for John in writing the Gospel. What verse 17 is trying to communicate is that Jesus lays his life out of obedience to the Father’s will (Kruse 237). Salvation could not have been available today as it is if Jesus would not have laid his life down. The end of the verse is even more powerful. I would like to emphasize Jesus certainty in being resurrected in addition to what commentators say is carried in the meaning of these words. It is in these words that our assurance of resurrection should find itself. If Jesus could resurrect Lazarus, as well as himself, then what would be the barrier before resurrecting us?

The last verse we will look at from this passage is 18, and it continues to emphasize Jesus’ authority over life and death. It is the statement that Jesus lays his life of his own accord, that makes salvation a God-thing. It is in this claim that we see in full Jesus’ authority, which is instituted by the Father himself. It is in Jesus’ voluntary sacrifice that the commandment to love is made complete by example. In addition to all this, I have to point out that in the act of salvation Jesus does not act by himself. It is important to know that besides the Holy Spirit given to believers after the resurrection and ascention, and Jesus’ death and raising, the Father is also fully involved. Thus, it is the whole of the Triune God that is acting in order to bring new life and later restore the created order.

Conclusion

As a conclusion I would like to point out several theological truths that this passage supports. The first is that there is no other way of salvation apart from Jesus. Just as there is only one way for the sheep to enter the pen, so there is only one way to heaven. Secondly, life finds its completion solely in the union with God. In fact, it is the new life in Jesus which is complete. Through this one may understand that fullness of life describes a relationship. It is not an abstract term, but a very real necessity for all of mankind. Nothing can be satisfactory apart from the restored relationship with Christ. And lastly, it is only by God’s grace that we receive salvation and all that comes with it. None but God himself has the authority to take life and give life.

Bibliography

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John – Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John – A Commentary Vol. 1. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003

Kruse, Colin G. The Gospel According to John – An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003

O’Day, Gail. “John,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 9. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.

Strong, James. Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries – Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words. E-Sword,  1890

Tenney, Merrill C. John: The Gospel of Belief – An Analytic Study of the Text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988

The Holy Bible in the following translations: NIV, NASB, Bulgarian 2002 by United Bible Societies, Textus Receptus Greek New Testament from Stephanus 1550 (e-Sword)

Witherington, III, Ben. John’s Wisdom – A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995

This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

It could often be noted that in speaking about the life of a believer theological language is neglected for the sake of so called “practical considerations”, thus denying the encompassing nature of theology. This tendency emerges and becomes even more obvious when speaking about sanctification as a reality in the life of believers. Is sanctification to be observed and interpreted only from a “lived-out” perspective – the way we see it expressed through the believer’s behavior and attitude, or is it to be considered also theologically, and thus made even more complicated? While the former is clearly a more attractive and easy, the latter approach provides the individual with a broader understanding of the issue, as well as defends the claim that theology properly understood is practical at all times. This latter approach is also the one which will be used in the following pages as the reader will be taken on the bumpy road of understanding John Wesley’s words on that matter – his doctrine of sanctification. Thus, the reader will be presented with the essence of Wesley’s doctrine, its relationship with other doctrines that are crucial, as well as the implications of all this. Finally, a biblical and experiential critique of the doctrine of sanctification will be presented.

The Doctrine of Sanctification According to John Wesley

Before we move on to the details of the doctrine, I would like to turn to the context in which Wesley places it. For him it is crucial that one has this understood properly, because it can lead to further non-biblical beliefs. In his sermon “Justification by Faith” Wesley argues that sanctification is “the immediate fruit of justification”. This in essence means that sanctification begins at the moment of justification. Later on in the same sermon Wesley makes even a bigger argument against those who claim that one needs to be sanctified before justified. He points out that Scripture refers to those who need justification as sinners, which he would say does not apply to those who are sanctified – “for it is not a saint but a sinner that is forgiven… God justifieth not the godly, but the ungodly; not those that are holy already, but the unholy” Wesley’s strong position on the sequence of justification followed by sanctification is important, because by this one is able to agree that faith alone is the condition for justification. Having said that faith is the sole condition for justification and that sanctification comes after justification, then faith also becomes the crucial requirement for sanctification.

From a Wesleyan point it is also important that one sees sanctification as an integral part of salvation. As quoted from the minutes of the Second Conference from 1745 in his book A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, inward sanctification begins “in the moment a man is justified… From that time a believer gradually dies to sin, and grows in grace” (Wesley ch17). Although Wesley does not completely deny the fact that one might be sanctified instantaneously he would argue that for the most people this happens as a process – it happens gradually. Both sides of this can be argued pro and con from testimonies of people’s experience. The view of sanctification as a process, however, involves the recognition of the presence of sin in saved and sanctified people, although not so strongly as in those who are not sanctified. All Wesley attempts to say is that “sin is only suspended in them (those who have an instantaneous experience); it is not destroyed… They are all love today; and take no thought for the morrow” (Wesley ch26, italics mine). Translated in today’s common language this would mean that although a person might be entirely sanctified the chance that they will “lose it” is present. Then they will have to begin the process again – and through this the believer grows in grace, understanding, and practice. In addition to this, Wesley points out that even within a process the transition happens in a certain moment – whether recognized or not, it is there.

So what does this lead to? To a conviction that just as salvation, sanctification is not once-and-for-all – it can be lost, and therefore has to be maintained. This profound connection automatically denies any practice of antinomianism as a part of the life of a saved Christian, for all who are justified are to “press on to maturity (or perfection)” (Hebrews 6:1, NASB, also see Wesley ch26).

There is one more valuable observation to be made concerning Wesley’s understanding – concerning this of perfection. Earlier in the paper it was mentioned that sin is still present in the believer’s life, no matter how far they are in the sanctification process. Wesley argues on account of Scripture that because mankind is bound to live a life currently in a fallen world and live a life currently in and from a fallen body, we all are prone to temptation, and therefore to sin. In addition, in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection Wesley remarks that there is no account of “any general state described in Scripture, from which a man cannot draw back to sin” (Wesley ch25). He speaks of perfection as sinlessness only available in heaven. This, the presence of sin cannot and should not be used as a valid measurement for the presence of sanctification. This, consequently leads to asking the question What then is a valid measurement? Or in other words – what is the essence of sanctification according to John Wesley?

“It is ‘perfect love’ (1 John 4:18). This is the essence of it” (Wesley ch26). Truly, this is as simple as it can be. Although some of today’s theologians have complicated this simple truth, Wesley would call back to Scripture’s Old and New Testament commandment expressed in fullness by the answer to the question of Jesus in Like 10:27 – “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (KJV). Even more – Wesley would go that far to suggest that this is “the end of the commandment… all the commandments in one.”

However, just as in any other relationship, love can be a tricky thing. One might love for the wrong reason, one might love the wrong thing, and certainly all people love certain things more than others. On multiple occasions Scripture addresses these issues as well – one might need to recall the first of the ten commandments given through Moses, or the parable of Jesus in Luke 16:13. In a sense Wesley does a good interpretation for us by incorporating in his doctrine the truth that one should strive for the things which lead to “the enjoyment of God in time and in eternity” (Wesley ch10). One should “love the creature, as it leads to the Creator”(Wesley ch10). In the same chapter of A Plain Account of Christian Perfection he goes on also to emphasize how important it is that one keeps God at first place. A verse he wrote expresses well what he meant:

    “Is there a thing beneath the sun,
That strives with thee my heart to share?
Ah! tear it thence, and reign alone,
The Lord of every motion there!”

However, one should be cautious against interpreting this in an extreme form – for the Bible calls for a balanced love for God first, but also for humanity, as well as for the created world in which we are placed.

To continue with the quote from Wesley on sanctification being perfect love – “its properties, or inseparable fruits, are, rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks (1 Thessalonians 5:16ff)” (Wesley ch26). Yes, the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification does provide at least some means for recognition of the fulfillment of it, this is – how to know the sanctified from the non-sanctified. For John Wesley the Spirit is the strongest testimony of our sanctification. However, he also adds that one may or may not recognize sanctification at first. He relates it very well to the experience of justification, where the testimony of the Spirit with our own spirit differs from one person to another (Wesley ch25). Sooner or later, however, the fruits of that love for and of God will be outwardly evident, and then is sanctification realized

Critique and Analysis of the Wesleyan Doctrine of Sanctification

Having covered the basics of the doctrine of sanctification it is due now to turn to Scripture and experience, and evaluate how realistic this doctrine actually is. In consent with Wesley I will turn firstly to the Bible, and attempt to support the essence of the doctrine, as well as its practice.

Wesley’s understanding of sanctified life is strongly tied to the biblical understanding of love. And if one might argue on the biblical view on any other topic, I would dare to suggest that it is love that nobody within the orthodox Christian world would raise against. In fact, even in this moment I believe a pastor’s voice somewhere echoes the words of the expert of the law from Luke 10:27. Often, however, the hermeneutics of this passage is preoccupied with the parable following these words, thus missing the preceding question “what must I do to inherit eternal life”, as well as Jesus’ reply “Do this and you will live.” Love is also pointed out as the distinguishing mark of those who follow Christ in John 13:35 – certainly, then is love the mark of those who follow Christ today. I simply find it not necessary to elaborate more on this, as it is clear that love must be present in the life of a new born believer. The scriptural evidence is so strong that whoever disagrees certainly has more serious problems than the proper understanding of sanctification. What I believe is more important to address is the connection of this love with sanctification, and this is what we turn to now.

The doctrine of Christian perfection, as Wesley calls it, is an entirely relational doctrine – as is the doctrine of justification, as well as any other Christian orthodox doctrine. This is to say that Christian perfection can only exist in a relationship with God. The restoration of the image of God can only be attained if there was a God with an image we can possibly be restored to. Thus, I come to conclude that one needs to relate with God, in order that any progress is made. This is where love comes in. One cannot be in a relationship without love. Moreover, one cannot be in a relationship with God without a love for God, and subsequently for humanity, as well as for the remaining of creation. Scripture continually calls humanity towards holiness and this in integrity. Some examples of this are Hosea 6:6 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The testimonies of this love are often found in apostle Paul’s introductions of his letters to the churches of Christ.

Thus, what sanctification ends up being is a process of becoming better in loving. This is why it seems so natural for Wesley to come to his conclusions concerning sanctification’s nature and expression – love inevitably involves a choice, therefore one might choose to not live a life of perfection – sanctification can be lost. Secondly, love is never static, as it involves interaction, which in itself is dynamic – thus, one either grows up towards loving more, or does not. Thirdly, love is not legalistic. Thus, it is clearly no contradiction for Wesley that one that is entirely sanctified is still prone to sin (although not regular, usual, or repetitive). And finally, love is to be maintained, therefore the Christian life is to be lived with a maintenance mentality, as opposed to once-attained – attained-forever. This is also why Wesley is so strongly opposed to antinomianism.

Yet, one might still consider asking “How realistic is this doctrine?” It is fully realistic. In addition to the Bible Wesley also turns to experience for confirmation of Christian perfection, and namely to the testimonies of people. One of these testimonies closer to our day is of C.W. Butler which reads:

“I confessed to him my need and my heart hunger. We parted company in Lansing, and I boarded the train for Perry, a distance of perhaps thirty-five miles. On board that Grand Trunk train the thing happened. I truly crossed Jordan and entered Canaan without a spoken word or any outward manifestation; but I stepped off the train in Perry, Michigan, with the blessing. … The atmosphere of my soul was all love” (Smith 22).

This, as well as many other testimonies confirm the understanding of the process of sanctification as the transformation of being, or renewing in the image of Christ, through love (Dunning 465). Experience, however, remains also a valid reason to believe the attributes of sanctification as well.

Communicating the Doctrine of Sanctification Today

After discussing the various aspects of the doctrine itself, as well as the implications of it, what remains to address is the manner in which it is being communicated today. John Wesley lived and taught this conviction in the 18th century, which involved a certain socio-economic and philosophic environment. Today, this environment has changed, but we are still to teach the same concept. This, is how the Christian message meets contextualization – re-phrasing the same content for a group of people of a specific time and place.

Having focused mainly on the love aspect of the various detailed aspects of the doctrine, I would suggest that today’s post-modern individualized community demands a relational explanation of the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification. Inspired by Jesus’ words in John 15:13 I would suggest that friendship can serve for a good practical explanation of the doctrine. And this is because friendship demands a relationship, which consequently awakens the individualized post-modern mind and heart to the necessity of one. Friendship also requires love as a condition for acceptance, understanding, and development. Friendship is not to be taken for granted, just as Christian perfection – one needs to maintain it. Friendship, in fact, is an integral part of the life of a person – whether it is realized or not – in the same sense as sanctification is an integral part of the life of a believer – whether recognized or not. These are simply some of the reasons why I suggest that friendship is used as a metaphor for explaining Wesley’s understanding of Christian life.

Conclusion

A discussion on the topic of Christian perfection should have only one essential goal – to bring people to the experience of it. Be it through explaining it, and thus providing understanding, or through resembling it – this is, providing an example. As it has become clear from the current discussion, Christian perfection also has one essential goal – to lead to the Creator. This is, to utilize God’s grace and mercy for the sake of one’s heart, mind, and life being shaped as this of Christ. In other words, the sole purpose of sanctification is to enable people to live out the reality of God’s love, testify of it to others, and consequently expand God’s kingdom.

Bibliography

Dunning, H. Ray, Grace, Faith and Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988

Outler, C. Albert, Heitzenrater, p. Richard, ed. John Wesley’s Sermons – An Anthology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991

Smith, B. ed., Flames of Living Fire – Testimonies to the Experience Of Entire Sanctification. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1950.

Wesley, John, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. 26 October 2006, <http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/ plain_account/index.htm>

This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

The implications of Jesus’s incarnation, life, death, and resurrection are the ultimate central point in Christianity. One can elaborate on various topics concerning the biblical text, its context, today’s translations, etc. ,etc. but if the question “So what?” is omitted, then Christianity would become a mere scientific and religious exercise – something Christians are obligated to avoid. This is also what Paul is trying to communicate to the first century church in Colossae – Christ has died, you have been saved, live like it! A message no less valid for the church of God today. The New International Version of the Bible entitles the bigger passage of Colossians 3:1-17 “Rules for Holy Living”. However, I would dare to re-caption this as “Living Out the God Who Lives In.” In the following pages I will attempt to discuss the passage of Colossians 3:15-17 and its meaning within God’s call for all people.

The context of these three verses is crucial to understanding them properly. So far in the letter Paul has portrayed Christ’s magnificence and how believers are made alive in it. Verses 15-17 from the third chapter are a part of a passage in which Paul begins to explain what is to be removed from the believers’ lives – Col. 3:5-9, and why – verses 1-4. From verse 10 and on Paul gives a quite literal and detailed guidelines as to how a believer should live, in order to reflect what Christ has made them in his death and resurrection, or at the moment of conversion of the non-believer. This makes the discussed passage a description of the results of one’s faith. This is, one cannot be a believer and not live as shown. This is not optional – it is the only possible way to live.

After writing about the foundational and uniting power of love – of Christ, for Christ, as well as for others around us, and the rest of creation, Paul goes on to explain how the peace of God is to be the driving force of the Christian community. Lincoln comments on that phrase: “They are to let this peace have its sway and take control both at the center of their individual lives and in the one body that their calling had in view” (Lincoln 648). Paul makes clear the calling to peace, but this in the context of being united – a call to being one body. What I find is the most amazing about this passage is the final phrase, often missed for the sake of the bigger concept – be thankful. Considering the difficulty of being in unity with others this command Be thankful! can cause quite some struggle. One is not instantaneously thankful for the people they have to be united with. For Paul, however, the case is that thanksgiving goes hand in hand with answering God’s call, living in Christ and for Christ. The theme of thankfulness in Colossians comes up over and over – before, within, and after the discussed passage. Knowing of the sincerity of the thankfulness Paul is talking about, as well as his call to live “overflowing with thankfulness” from chapter 2:7, I would suggest that this could be seen as an expression of what we would call today integrity, or authenticity – being devoted to God no only in receiving, but also in giving. Not only when it is easy, but also when it is difficult – as is the case with building each other up in unity.

The second keyword in the passage is “word.” After writing on peace, Paul turns to explain that the Gospel itself is to also rule among the believers. As Thompson suggests that “the Colossian believers are to allow the word to continue to guide, direct, and shape them. Paul envisions this taking place in quite specific and concrete ways…” (Thompson 86). These ways are what to today’s believer would perfectly describe a regular worship service – “as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing…” (Col. 3:16, NIV). Biblically, Paul’s reference can be tracked to his own words from chapter 1:28 – his proclamation and admonition for the sake of people being presented perfect in Christ. What Paul is saying here to the church is that they should continue on teaching, correcting, etc. each other. However, not rigorously, but in all wisdom – as an expression of worship to God,, and what is crucial – for building each other up.

Paul’s third point in this short paragraph serves as a conclusion of the said so far, as well as a transition to what is to come – “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed” (Col. 3:17, NIV). It is not difficult to figure out that the ways one communicates are by speaking and doing things. Thus, what Paul says here actually concerns the whole life of the believer. He also claims that the whole life of the believer is to be lived in the name of Christ. This is only the beginning statement supporting this claim – in the following nine verses every other call Paul does is for the sake of Christ. This sets a proper understanding of why one should do what they are called to do. Christians should serve because they are serving the Lord, they should love because they love the Lord, they should obey because it pleases the Lord…

Paul strongly ties the life of the believer with Christ. In fact, he does it so, that he absolutely ignores any instance of saying or doing something that is not in the name of Christ! And if one thought this is a revolutionary statement, then they should continue reading the last words of the paragraph – “giving thanks to God the Father through him”, meaning through Jesus. Garland, in his conclusion on the passage nicely formulates the message of Paul for today: “Only giving ourselves completely to Christ and allowing his transforming power to fumigate and permeate our thoughts and actions will solve the sin problem in our lives. Because we have been raised with Christ and renewed by Christ, living a life pleasing to him is the fruit of our new nature” (Garland 222).

In conclusion I would like to point out the strong relevancy of Paul’s message for today’s church. As sure as it can be, God’s call is still valid – the church has to be united in Christ, in love. In addition, believers today, even more than in Paul’s days are to submit all their lives unto God. This means that one can only apply Paul’s image in the complete surrender and dedication to God in Christ – especially in the time of communal worship. Paul’s last word, however, remains – in applying all of this, be wholeheartedly thankful!

The Relevancy of the Message of Paul Today

In Personal Aspect

Being taught when you think you know it already is an issue I am still dealing with. In that sense, Paul’s call for teaching each other in all wisdom, and edifying one another challenges me a lot to become more open for accepting correction, as well as criticism. In addition to this, I would say that the attitude of Paul towards God’s peace in this paragraph really impressed me. It helped me have an “a-ha” moment where I realized that the members of one body can only keep together when they are at peace with each other. This makes me think of whether I actually contribute to the body in peace or not? Am I a kind of Christian that edifies, or not? Often the answer for me is negative, but Paul’s testimony is powerful.

In addition to all this I would like to emphasize the application of Paul’s verse 17. It strikes me with the clear concept of holiness, as understood by Wesleyans, but also with its simplicity. I believe that today quite a number of Christians have not even come to the realization of the fact that each and every area of life is to be lived in Christ and for Christ. I guess the relevant question to ask myself is what did I do today that did not lead to Christ? Or what did lead to him?And how shall I allow God to perfect me in doing the latter?

For the Church

I would hesitate to point out only one aspect of Paul’s message as relevant for the Church of God today, but I would emphasize the Word of Christ dwelling richly as we teach and admonish each other… with all wisdom. It often is scary to see how much heresy there is today, simply because the Word does not dwell in the Church as it should. Proclaiming the gospel does not only include a preaching plan, but also a life-time modeling plan. Leaders in the church of Christ are to become what they preach and show it to the people they preach to.

In addition to this, worship in the communal sense of it, I feel like, today is experiencing more low’s than up’s. Worship is created with God at the other side – He alone is the aim. I believe that once this idea is communicated, modeled, and emphasized more, less and less people will experience disguise during the regular Sunday service by simply looking at the people they’ve argued with during the week. Worshiping the same God together, just as prayer, is a unique and powerful unification tool… Unfortunately not optimally used today.

Whatever the approach, however, I would say is predestined unless it is founded on Paul’s words from verse 14 in chapter 3: “put on love.”

Bibliography

Garland, David E., Colossians/Philemon, NIV NT Application Commentaries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1998

The Holy Bible: NIV, NASB, Bulgarian Contemporary Translation

Lincoln, A.T., “The Letter to the Colossians, in New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 11, Nashville, Abingdon, 2000, pp.551-669

Thompson, Marianne Meye. Colossians and Philemon. Two Horizons Commentary. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 2005

This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

Sanctification and Christian perfection are the two heavy theology terms that in general lines reflect what Paul is writing about to the Philippian church in chapter 3, verses 10 and 11 of his letter. Well representing Paul’s style, however, this passage does not speak of theology in a commentary style – the same content is there, but it is served to the audience in a much more personal and effective way. A brief discussion on this is what will be presented to the reader in the following lines – what Paul’s message is and why it matters to Christians today.

The short passage on which this paper is focused falls in a significant way in the whole of the letter. Although referred to as a mere “warning against Juzaizers” this passage is a part of the final direct teaching from Paul’s side towards the Philippians, with the exception of a few verses in the beginning of chapter 4. It should not be surprising then that Paul escalates with such a greatness in his argument, with the end being the ultimate purpose for his life. This short passage is so rich of meaning, that it is difficult to select what to discuss and what not, but let us focus mainly on the most important.

The first look at the passage provides us with the observation that within three verses apostle Paul uses twice the root of the verb γινώσκω, which means to know, both times with Jesus Christ being referred to as the subject – in verse 8 and the beginning of verse 10 (another instance can be found in the beginning of the letter – 1:9-11). This would naturally raise the question What does it mean for Paul to know Christ? Moises Silva comments on this question by saying that „Paul appears to define knowing Christ as the believer’s experiencing of Christ’s own death and resurrection“ (Silva 163). He goes on to relate the concept of knowing Christ to the one of being baptized into union with him based on Paul’s writing in Romans 6:3 (Silva 164). Finally, „to know God in the biblical sense is also to be aware of his will and to be willing to obey him“ (Thielman 177).

Having said all this, we can move towards asking the legitimate question What does it take to know Christ? This question first of all leads us to noting the variation in translation of the beginning of verse 10. The modern NIV translates it „I want to know…“, which neglects the connection made so clear in the Greek and represented in NASB – του γνωναι, which means „that I may know“. For Paul it takes considering everything he has had as a profit to him loss for the sake of Christ – ancestral heritage, the covenant-bearing sign of circumcision, training in the Old Testament law… everything he constituted of as a righteous Jew.

This was looking backwards from the passage. Looking forward into the passage, however, brings about three more phrases which are no less complicated. Along with knowing Christ Paul needs to know or experience the power of His resurrection. This δύναμις is first of all what sustains the believers – „the source of power in the lives of believers“ (Hooker 529). Silva reaches the conclusion that Paul actually refers to the spiritual transformation happening with in the believer’s life as they „behold his glory“ (Silva 164). Both interpretations somehow refer to a strong identification with Christ through which this power is experienced.

The importance of clarifying this phrase is revealed when one looks at the next two. Paul adds with an „and“ that the „fellowship of sharing in his sufferings“, as well as „becoming like him in his death“ (Phillipians 3:10, NIV) is also a goal, which subsequently leads to the ultimate aim. Hooker talks about the frist phrase as a requirement for the one before it (Hooker 529), which I do not agree with. The Greek text does not support that with the given sentence structure. Further, the original text does not contain „sharing“. κοινωνία itself carries the meaning of it, but being simply in the fellowship of sufferings is descriptive enough of the level of necessary identification with Christ, as well as of what Christians experience in their life – called to live it in a world which is against them.

Concerning „becoming like him in his death“, I would suggest a relation to v.8b from chapter 2. In the context of this letter, this death does not refer to a physical experience. In the earlier passage of the letter – 2:8 Paul describes what Christ had to become in his death – humble and obedient. I believe this addresses well the notions of disunity among the Philippians. In addition, it makes it clear that without this, the ultimate goal of attaining to the resurrection of Christ is unavailable.

About this ultimate goal commentators have claimed that Paul expresses a specific uncertainty marked by the Greek εἰ πῶς. Knowing that this is clearly Paul’s ultimate goal it is unexpected to hear that he has doubts about it. I agree with Thielman that this uncertainty is more of a prevention for the Philippians from taking God’s mercy for granted, as well as placing God’s role in the process of salvation on a high stand (Thielman 173). Thus it is not to be misinterpreted as a doubt in the attainment of the resurrection from Paul’s side. With this definition of Paul’s ultimate aim, which surely enough lays in the future, our passage concludes, at the same time making a transition to the following one. Not much is necessary to be said as a summary of our brief discussion, but the following sentences can serve as such.

Verses 10 and 11 of chapter three are only a part of Paul’s message on sanctification and Christian perfection. In spite of this, Paul is able to warn his audience that this continuous growth in one’s relationship with Christ cannot take place without a certain price being paid – namely, the price of suffering, as well as dying to oneself for the sake of Christ and others. Paul’s powerful language, however, not only warns the listener of the needed dependency upon God on the way to the final goal, but it also assures them (mind the context of the whole letter, esp. 1:6) of the availability and possibility of getting there. As for the reader today – this passage can only be the highest challenge for humbly and obediently letting oneself to be transformed by the power of Christ distributed through the Spirit in our lives… on daily basis.

Bibliography

Hooker, Morna D., „The Letter to the Philippians,“ in New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 11, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Silva, Moises. Philippians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Thielman, Frank. Philippians. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

The Holy Bible in the following translations: NIV, NASB, Bulgarian 2001, Textus Receptus Greek New Testament from Stephanus 1550 (e-SWORD), Greek New Testament (Majority Text) (e-SWORD)

This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

The excerpt of Romans 8:31-39 is a passage in which Paul skillfully addresses concepts crucial to the Christian faith without using the traditional terminology for that. Yet, his words are powerful and with no doubt, when properly interpreted in their context powerfully communicating the apostle’s message. In the following pages I would like to walk with the reader on the hermeneutical road of interpretation of this passage, bringing clarity to its intended meaning, and giving guidance as to how to approach the difficulties scholars face with it today. However, before one takes this step some background information needs to be provided as a safeguard against misinterpretation.

Based on the evidence of the text itself it is firmly accepted that apostle Paul is the author of this letter to the church in Rome. Given the further details in the text it is also agreed upon that Paul “writes Romans while in Corinth during the third missionary journey (Acts 20:2-3). This is probably in A.D. 57, give or take a year” (Moo 17). Commentators argue that this late period of Paul’s ministry is also the reason for the “doctrinal discussion” (Moo 17) in Romans.

The church in Rome itself is different from the other churches Paul has written to. From Scripture we know that Paul is not the one who has organized the church, as he himself states that he has never been there. In fact, the Bible does not tell us in detail how this church has come to be. All there is concerning this is the reference in Acts 2:10 that there were Jews from Rome, who supposedly went back and started the church. However, at the time of Paul’s letter the church consisted mainly of Gentiles, who have just recently become the majority.

Concerning the purpose of writing and the overall theme of the letter commentators throughout the centuries have come up with various conclusions. The purpose of the letter, which is accepted by the author includes but is not restricted to: Paul’s mission, the Roman church itself, the proclamation of the Gospel, and unity in Christ. Thus, the overall theme also becomes hard to distinguish. Probably the most encompassing suggestion would be that of the Gospel with a more distinct emphasis on Christology and God’s righteousness (Moo 21-26).

The final piece of background information which requires special attention is the context of the passage within the letter, as well as in relation to the passages straight before and after it. Although some scholars disagree, the general opinion is that the passage of chapter 8:31-39 is a logical conclusion (supported by the Greek text itself) to the arguments laid out by Paul in chapters 5-8 (Wright 609). The Greek text of verse 31 clearly points out that what is to follow has to do with what has been said so far: “What shall we then say to these things” (Romans 8:31a, KJV)? Concerning the immediate connection with the previous verses – 31 through 39 are a powerful confirmation of the arguments for the Jews’ belonging to God from chapter 7 on, and at the same time a good foundation for the claim that Gentiles also belong to God – chapter 9.

As we have laid out a firm foundation for the proper understanding of the passage, we now turn to the more in-depth discussion.

Exegesis

For good or bad Romans 8:31-39 does not present any extreme cultural challenges to the reader today. Yet, it will be beneficial for the reader to acknowledge two aspects of the passage with special attention.

The first is to be found in verse 32: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all” (Romans 8:32a, NASB). This is a clear reference to Abraham’s offering of Isaac in Genesis 22:12,16. The power of this connection becomes obvious when one considers the importance of this event in the Old Testament in its proper interpretation. By using this analogy Paul beautifully connects to the Jewish minority in his audience to proclaim once again that it is not by works but by faith in Christ, His Spirit, and God’s promise that one is declared righteous and thus God’s own. Earlier in his ministry Paul has written to the Galatians that “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Galatians 3:6). This emphasis of Paul’s words not only connects to the Jews, but also, and I would suggest – especially to the Gentiles. It prepares the ground for Paul’s  further explanation in chapter 9 that Gentiles are also adopted on the very same grounds – God’s promise. Considering all this one can now see how before saying something Paul makes it clear that this something concerns all believers, both Jews and Gentiles. Only then he continues to elaborate more on his point.

The second aspect of the passage which needs further clarification of a historical nature is found at the very end – verse 39. Here Paul, after he has made his point, concludes that nothing is able to separate us from the love of Christ. A clarification is necessary here because of the culturally specific meaning of height and depth. In the ancient world these words were used to “denote the celestial space above and below the horizon” (Arnold 53). This could lead to the misunderstanding that Paul is referring to spiritual beings since then it was understood that they dwell in these places. However, commentators agree that “there is little lexical evidence that these terms have such a denotation” (Arnold 53). The use with which also Moo and others agree is spacial – for the sake of a stronger emphasis. Thus, the message Paul is communicating is simply that nothing, truly nothing can separate us from the love of Christ.

Surprisingly enough, the discussed passage from the message to the Romans does not raise any crucial differences in translation of words. Modern translations agree with the core thought of the Greek text, adding only minor changes for clarity’s sake. The main struggle for scholars, however, is connected to the punctuation of verses 33 and 34. Wright points out that if taken as in the RSV the treatment of verse 34b as a question disrupts the natural flow of Paul’s expression. The NIV and NRSV, however, maintain the suggested flow of the passage thus claiming “that because God is the justifier, and because the Messiah has died, was raised, and now intercedes, there can indeed be no one to lay a charge against God’s elect” (Wright 613). This punctuation suggests the possibility of further trinitarian claim: “Who will separate us from Christ’s love? (Expected answer: No one; the Spirit, after all, has poured out love for God into our hearts)” (Wright 613). Paul, however, continues differently, thus not explicitly in defense of this suggestion.

Concerning the overall flow of the passage I see two main sections. The first one is Paul’s series of rhetorical expressions – verses 31-34, which leads to the theme of God’s love, and the second constitutes of verses 35-39, which emphasize this love’s inseparability from the believers. Although he could have presented his point, which is summarized in the last two verses of the chapter, right away, Paul wants to make sure he has established a good foundation to build on. Throughout both sections he escalates the tension in the reader, and only when he has received the full attention does he present the main point. Moo points out how the technique of “omission of connecting words between sentences” which is more obvious in the Greek text supports this escalation. Lastly, by the use of rhetorics Paul “is not asking his readers for information; he is trying to draw us into the discussion in a way that a flat assertion will not” (Moo 285). Witherington III agrees with Wright that Paul’s opening in verse 31 introduces what is to come as a conclusion of what has been said so far in the first part of the letter (Witherington III 231). Thus, the connection which was mentioned above is established.

Following this, verse 32 is seen as a mini set-up for the list of things which believers face, not as a mere possibility but as a reality (Witherington III 231). One term which requires special attention in this verse is charizomai. The meaning according to Strong’s Greek Dictionary is “to grant as a favor, that is, gratuitously, in kindness” (Strong G5483). The same word is used in Luke 7:21 for Jesus giving sight to the blind, as well as in Galatians 3:18, were Paul talks about Abraham’s inheritance given to him by God by promise, which is on God’s account. Thus, one can notice Paul’s emphasis that it is God who has given Christ, but even more – together with him we are given all things – a connection which the NIV makes more visible.

In verse 33 Paul presents a metaphor of a court room. Wright supports the deep theological importance of this and suggests a connection with the beginning of the letter where “the whole human family faced the judgment of God;… the whole world was in the dock, with no defense to offer against massive charges” (Wright 613). This time, however, Jesus is elevated to be the justifier, the defender, even more – the intercessor for those who are in Him. It needs to be emphasized that the term “justify” in this verse is the one carrying the meaning of “to show or regard as just or innocent” (Strong G1344). This is the term used by Paul on multiple occasions in Romans and other letters to communicate the concept of being declared righteous by God.

The metaphor is followed by the reality in the lives of believers – Christ’s love (Wright 613). This stated in the form of a question introduces a list of hardships, which is known as a type of affliction lists. These lists are used in Paul’s time for various reasons, and one of them is suggested to be Paul’s reason in Romans 8:35 – “demonstrating the triumph of virtue in all circumstances of life and over all adversity” (Fitzgerald 17). This is how far Paul extends his proclamation of Christ’s love! Special attention is to be given to the word “separate”, in Greek chorizo. This verb has been used eighteen times in twelve verses throughout the New Testament (Blue Letter Bible). The use of the term with the meaning of separation is found in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9 as well as several other occasions  referring to the division between a husband and a wife, between what God has put together and made one flesh. Now, for the Jewish minds in the audience this would be a powerful comparison. Paul is talking about being made one with Christ through His love. It is a personal intimate relationship, which bears fruit. Before we turn to see that there is more to the affliction list, let us consider also the use of “love” as it is so crucial to the passage.

The noun for “love”, agape used in this case derives from the verb agapao, the meaning of which in Greek in relationship to persons is “to love dearly” (Blue Letter Bible). This noun occurs multiple times throughout the New Testament in relation but not limited to the Father’s love for humanity (1 John 2:15), the Father’s love for the Son (John 17:24), and Jesus’ love for people (Mark 10:21). Thus, it becomes clear that in this passage, as well as in 1 Corinthians 13, for instance, Paul refers to the unlimited and perfect love of God which is available to all, and from which nothing can separate us. This is not love as in friendship love (phileo as in Matthew 6:5), nor is it a mere physical love (eros), but God’s type of love.

Back to the affliction list, in the same article Fitzgerald explains that “it was axiomatic in the ancient world that adversity is the litmus test of character” (Fitzgerald 17). This is to say that a person’s integrity is measured by the greatness of the hardships overcome. With this in mind we move on to Paul’s quote of Psalm 44:22: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered” (Romans 8:36, NASB). So far it would seem that Paul is boasting about his own integrity, for he has undergone the listed hardships except the one of “sword” (Wright 614). However, one needs to continue reading in order to see the whole picture. In the very next sentence – verse 37, Paul gives all the credit to “Him who loved us” (Romans 8:37b, NASB). I see this as a powerful tool which Paul uses to combine God’s justifying and overcoming power from the court metaphor with the love of Christ, thus reaching the peak of his arguments exactly before concluding with his main point.

The closure of the passage, verses 38-39, is often interpreted differently by different commentators. However, I would like to emphasize Moo’s interpretation since it creates fewer difficulties than those greatly differing from it. He suggests that the four pairs and “powers” are there to emphasize that nothing can separate believers from the love of Christ (Moo 284). For instance, he suggests that “death” and “life” refer to the “two basic states of human existence” (Moo 284). Dunn, however, proposes that what Paul is talking about through “death” is a hostile power, and “life” – the “life in this age to as one of suffering and not-yet-achieved salvation” (Dunn 507). Paul continues the list by mentioning all spiritual beings, the whole spiritual world – through the pair “angels” and “demons”, as well as the oddly inserted “powers” (Moo 284). Through these, as well as the often misinterpreted as spiritual beings  “things present” and “things to come” Paul is trying to encompass all there is to the life of the believer and say that none of it can separate him or her from the love of Christ. This is also valid for “height” and “depth”, which were explained earlier on. About verse 39, Moo suggests a connection of the last phrase of the chapter with the beginning of the book: “as the chapter began with “no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1), so it ends with the bookends of “no separation” (8:25,39)” (Moo 284). I agree with this, but would add that it is also a good wrap-up of what has been said in the previous verses of the passage, stating the main theme in a distinct way.

Having discussed the passage as a whole and in details, and pointed out some specifics it is now due to turn to some more specific theological implications of the text. As is was stated earlier this passage’s main theme is God’s love which is in Christ Jesus and it’s inseparability from the believer. This is in a nutshell what Paul is communicating to the Romans. Romans 8:31-39 powerfully supports the general theme of the letter – the Gospel, and especially the Gospel as Christological and theocentric. This, however, is only the overall main emphasis. As one goes into details they can discover that Paul is also addressing through his court room metaphor the proper understanding of the believers’ justification. In verses 32-34 he points out that it is declared on the basis of Christ’s death (Greathouse 192), and that “it is God who justifies” (Dunn 510). More specifically through his question and answer in verse 34 Paul expresses that Christ’s justification is all-encompassing. Period.

In this address to the church in Rome Paul does not omit to talk about God’s grace either. As it was shown above, this grace is freely, or as some other translations state it – graciously given to all. One can easily sense the tension here because of the predestination notions of the passage. This section of Romans has been badly misinterpreted as speaking of God choosing only a particular group, and thus all said so far would apply to them only. This, however is due to taking the passage out of the wider context of chapter 7, and especially 9, in which Paul extends his arguments, as mentioned in the beginning. Thus, God’s grace, one can conclude, is freely given to all and all are subject to Christ’s justifying love.

This love, which is in the center of the Gospel Paul proclaims to be, as outlined earlier, the crucial personal connection between humanity and God. This claim stresses the strength and power of the personal relationship with Christ, which is initiated and sustained by His love. Paul’s outstanding conclusion on the strength of Christ’s love, I believe, suggests a constantly open door for the believer’s reconciliation.

Conclusion

Although it is difficult to simply conclude on Paul’s words from Romans 8:31-39, I will make an attempt to summarize the main points, in order to present the reader with an even clearer and more distinct picture.

In his conclusion to chapters 5-8 Paul addresses the believers in Rome with one of his most powerful rhetorical arguments concerning God’s love expressed in Christ. His main concern for this moment seems to be the assurance of this love, portrayed in its strength and closeness to the believer. He states all this in a way which clearly confirms the reality of this love in the life of people – it is not an occasional event but a continuous activity. Paul skillfully succeeds to implement this conclusion also as a preparation for what he is to say in the coming chapters.

Thus, we are given a God-inspired masterpiece of encouragement and assurance of God’s utmost expression of believers belonging to Him.

Bibliography

Arnold, Clinton, ed.  Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary.  Vol. 3:  Romans to Philemon.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2002.

Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for ‘agapao (Strong’s 25) ‘ ” . Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. 5 May 2006.
<http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/ words.pl?word=25&page=1>

Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for ‘agape (Strong’s 26) ‘ ” . Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. 5 May 2006.
<http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/ words.pl?word=26&page=1>

Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for ‘chorizo (Strong’s 5563) ‘ ” . Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. 5 May 2006.
<http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/ words.pl?word=5563&page=1>

Dunn, J.D.G., Romans, vol.1, Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, TX, Word, 1988.

Fitzgerald, J. T., Dictionary of the New Testament Background. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, pp. 16-18

Greathouse, William M., “Romans,” in Beacon Bible Commentary, Beacon Hill Press, Kansas City, MO, 1968.

James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries., 1890,  e-Sword.

King James Concordance, e-Sword

Moo, Douglas J., Romans.  NIV Application Commentary.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2000.

Textus Receptus Greek New Testament from Stephanus 1550, e-Sword

Witherington III, Ben.  Paul’s Letter to the Romans:  A Socio-rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2004.

Wright, N. T.  “The Letter to the Romans.”  The New Interpreter’s Bible.  Vol. 10. Nashville:  Abingdon, 2002, pp. 393-770.

The Bible in the following translations: NIV, NASB, RSV, KJV, KJV+TVM (e-Sword), NKJV, LITV, GNT, The Bible in Bulgarian by United Bible Societies, 2003

 This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

Probably one of the most controversial and often discussed aspects of the doctrine of God is this of evil. Whether as a result of a deep theological discussion or a simple everyday experience-based conversation, the presence of evil in the created order is strongly agreed upon. Thus, the issue at stake becomes “How do we deal with it?” It should not be surprising that there are various paths leading towards understanding the question and alluding to the answer. In the following lines the major of these will be briefly presented, accompanied with their strongest arguments. As a separate section the Wesleyan approach will be outlined in greater detail, in order to offer a perception which is more balanced. Following this the author will present a concluding section on applying the Wesleyan approach in everyday life and ministry in today’s world. This is how the author will present and defend the stand that the problem of evil, although unresolvable is yet surmountable, and it is not in contradiction with the remaining characteristics of God which are clearly stated in the Bible.

Various Perspectives on evil

As it was mentioned in the introductory words, there are various ways of perceiving one of the greatest paradoxes of theology – the good God and the obvious presence of evil in his creation. I would like to begin by presenting a view according to which evil is but a mere illusion – it is not real. J.R. Zurheide in When Faith Is Tested points out that Christian scientists attempt to resolve the problem through a series of logical syllogisms. Thus, starting out with “God is All” they reach a conclusion claiming that “Sin and Sickness are not real.” It underlines a quite unreasonable leap, which is additionally argued down by the integrity of the doctrine of God as Creator of all. Zurheide very well formulates the consequences of this view and the logical conclusion of the syllogism mentioned above:

“Be that as it may, by arriving at the conclusion that matter does not exist, Christian Scientists also claim that pain, sickness, suffering, and death are both illusory and the result of false beliefs. Try sharing the unreality of pain with one who has just unintentionally hit the thumb with the hammer…”

Thus we can quickly arrive at the opinion that “the concept of illusion does not help to resolve the problem of evil since it raises too many questions about itself.”

Another attempt is the one which Zurheide calls “Eliminating “God is Great”. Starting with the simple name of it, and without any dry theological argumentations this statement would sound ridiculous to the believer. The ones in favor of process theology, however, together with Rabbi Harold Kushner will argue pro-. This view tries to resolve the paradox by removing of the causes for it – the claim that God is omnipotent. Kushner, for instance, argues based on the book of Job that:

“If we have grown up, as Job and his friends did, believing in an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing God, it will be hard for us, as it was hard for them, to change our way of thinking about Him… But if we can bring ourselves to acknowledge that there are some things God does not control, many good things become possible.”

Several of the critiques of this standpoint include the suggested dualism (Zurheide 30), and the inconsistent and unclear use of terms such as “bad” and “good” by the author of the quotation himself. Process theology is also not accepted as a correct perception, which is well expressed by Wright in the following words:

“It is difficult to see how these themes in process thought can be squared with biblical faith. On a more ironic level, we might feel we have enough prolems of our own without having to help God continue his development with his as well.”

I would like to combine the following two approaches in one discussion, since there is a strong similarity between them. The perception of evil as good and the one of evil as necessary have in common the specific dignity they assign to it. The first way, supported by Leibnitz and Sanford, suggests that evil is actually helping the developing world (notice the connection also with process theology here) by enhancing the good there is. A vivid example here could be the saying “What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger.” Evil is also given the role of helper for individuals to understand God better.

On the other hand, the issue of evil as necessary could also be referred to as the “free will defence” (Wright 84). To describe it briefly, this is a view in which the argument is that God could not create a free-will-driven being without the presence of evil. Otherwise man would automatically do the proper thing, and thus freedom is lost. The bottom line of this argument is the following:

“The free will defence… maintains that God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good but that it was not within God’s power to create a world containing moral good without creating one containing the possibility of moral evil.”

To briefly summarize the effects of these two views one can state the following: When we see evil as good we proclaim that there is peace (as opposed to the constant battle) between God and evil. The psychologist Carl Jung goes as far as saying that we need not speak of a trinity, but of a quaternity – where he secures a place for Satan within the Godhead. Concerning the view of evil as necessary one may argue that since creation and all within it come from God then the logical way of thinking is also under his power. This is to say that the last quotation from Wright can be denied by saying that God could have created a world in which the impossible now could be possible, but his love and the desire he had for man did not prevent him – God limited himself because of his love.

A Wesleyan Approach

Compared to the ones mentioned above, the Wesleyan approach to the problem of evil stands out with its balance and biblical support, and at the same time recognition of the reality which mankind experiences in the world. From the following lines it will also become clear to the reader that the Wesleyan approach does not seek to clearly define the origin of evil from its very beginning, but to guide the believer in dealing successfully with the present (and very practical!) characteristics of it.

Remaining true to the biblical foundation this approach claims that “God was the sole Source of all existence” – ex-nihilo (Dunning 241). From that statement one can also conclude that “since all that is derives from God’s will which because of his holiness can only be good, nothing in existence can be intrinsically evil” (Dunning 241, italics mine). This eliminates the contradiction with the remaining aspects of the doctrine of God which are present with the views presented earlier.

The Wesleyan approach perceives evil in two categories – moral evil, which is in its essence sin, and natural evil, which is referred to also as physical evil. The moral evil, or sin is viewed as “man’s rebellious will, his refusal to acknowledge the Lordship of his Creator” (Dunning 252). Thus it becomes relatively easy to comprehend the moral evil, since it is grounded in the individual. The issue of natural evil, however is one of various unknowns. And here is where the Wesleyan approach stands out by not emphasizing on the origin of this evil, but on dealing with it and its end. The biblical emphasis is clearly communicated through the passage from Revelation 21:1, which reads: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had vanished” (NEB). The cross of Christ is perceived as “God’s final word to the issue of suffering” (Dunning 254). This is the way in which mankind triumphs over evil, instead of being lost in the unsuccessful attempts to discover the origin of it. This is how the Wesleyan approach opens the door for mankind to seek God’s love in a world contaminated with evil.

Conclusion

After having a general overview of the approaches to the problem of evil one may still remain with a certain discomfort concerning the practical application of all said so far. It should be made clear that the final answer from a Wesleyan view is in response to the question “How do we overcome it?” but not “How do we resolve the paradox?” By distinguishing between the two kinds of evil, this approach allows the individual to seek victory over evil though the cross of Christ (through redemption, faith, and hope), and mankind as a whole – by being dependent on God’s love and the personal relationship with him, the results of which apostle Paul formulates very well:

“ For I am certain that nothing can separate us from his love: neither death nor life, neither angels nor other heavenly rulers or powers, neither the present nor the future, neither the world above nor the world below – there is nothing in all creation that will ever be able to separate us from the love of God which is ours through Christ Jesus our Lord ”(Romans 8:38-39, GNB).

Bibliography

Dunning, H. Ray, Grace, Faith and Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988

Plantinga, Alvin, God, freedom, and evil. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 1977

Wright, Nigel G., A theology of the dark side : putting the power of evil in its place. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003

Zurheide, Jeffry R., When faith is tested : pastoral responses to suffering and tragic death. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997