wideandhigh.com » paper

John 10:7-18 – An Exegesis

Petar Neychev — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:26:30 +0000

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

John Wesley and Sanctification

Petar Neychev — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:18:41 +0000

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:

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>

Colossians 3:15-17 – An Exegesis

Petar Neychev — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:08:45 +0000

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

Philippians 3:10-11 – An Exegesis

Petar Neychev — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:04:37 +0000

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)

Romans 8:31-39 – An Exegesis

Petar Neychev — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:41:18 +0000

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

The Doctrine of God – The Problem of Evil

Petar Neychev — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:22:48 +0000

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

The Doctrine of God – God as a Creator

Petar Neychev — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:11:52 +0000

Being careful enough not to underestimate the remaining aspects of the doctrine of God one could confidently say that the doctrine of God as a Creator is of immeasurable importance – a firm foundation for the Christian (and also Jewish) faith. Due to the fact that this doctrine is what the Scripture addresses at its very beginning, and the role it plays as a foundation for the following doctrines on the person of God, a discussion on the topic will always involve certain references to issues such as: the problem of evil, the purpose of creation, Christianity (or faith) and science.

The brief overview of this doctrine from a Wesleyan perspective, which the current work aims to present to the reader, will undoubtedly touch these topics, but will not engage with them in details due to their complicity and vast majority of differing views. In the following lines you will be introduced to the doctrine of God as Creator. Although throughout the paper one may mainly read theological presuppositions and/or claims, the conclusion at the end will attempt to place the discussion in the practical context of life today.
Creatio en nihilo and the problem of evil

The latin term is used in theological language to express the idea of “creation out of nothing.” To dive into the depths of this statement directly I would mention several of the implications from it: God is the ultimate source of all things, since God is the Source of all things, there is nothing else than Him alone that is worthy of creation’s praise; all creation is dependent on God. The last major implication – that God creates with freedom and purpose will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

The first implication – that God is the source of all things has played a major role as a weapon against dualism – both in history and today. It is used as the main opposition to heresies claiming that all material is bad and only the soul is good. Next to that stands the recognition that God alone is worthy of our praise. This is closely tied with the dependence of humanity on God. By this various forms of superstitious faith are disclaimed. At the same time, the dependency on God and the creation out of nothing lead to some deviations such as believing that creation is out of God, but not out of nothing. If it would be so, theology would run into a problem, which Dunning describes as “an interpretation of creation as emanation, where God’s nature is projected into reality like the rays of the sun emanate from the source, as in Neoplatonism. In that imagery the distinction between infinite and finite reality are obscured.” (Dunning, 224) Thus, accepting that creation is out of nothing through the dependence on God one avoids the problem and emphasizes the importance of God’s continuous nurturing presence and power, which is what sustains creation in its existence.

Suggesting that everything is out of nothing through God immediately leads to the question of evil, and the logical conclusion that it must also be through God. If we were to choose dualism, the problem of evil would not be present, since in that case it is attributed to another person. However, according both the Old and the New Testament this is not the case. A careful interpretation of Scripture would show that the Old Testament writers attributed both good and evil to God. We find the same trend in the New Testament, which strengthens the connection and continuity between the two. Thus, moral evil in the Wesleyan tradition is defined as the “misuse of human freedom” (Lodahl 55) or in other words: “a perversion of the good the God created” (Dunning 242). The quest for resolving the problem of natural evil – the evil which is not a direct result of the actions or the lack thereof of humans, still continues in the sense that there is not such a clear-cut and simplified explanation.

The goodness and the purpose of creation

The creation account in the book of Genesis introduces an interesting repetition of the phrase “it was very good.” This suggests that creation indeed was very good in the eyes of its Father – the Creator. As Lodahl states it, this means that “creation is capable of fulfilling God’s purposes” (Lodahl 63). This is how close the connection between creation’s goodness and its purpose is! In addition Dunning suggests that a creation with a purpose implies a personal Creator. Knowing the purpose of a person, however, requires that we have a revelation from the person themselves – in this case, God’s personal revelation through His Word and Jesus Christ.

The term providence is often used to describe the purposeness of God, but as well to lay emphasis on the claim that He also “guides to the achievement of that purpose” (Dunning 256). If we would agree on the purpose of God and continue with discussing the ways in which he helps creation and more specifically – humanity to achieve it we will still end up before two general categories of providence – general and special. The general providence has to do with God sustaining creation in a way that it depends on Him for each and every moment, while special providence concerns the human affairs.

There are two important practical implications which should not be omitted: what is “good” according to God, and how he guides us towards that. The answer of both can be derived from the careful analysis of the passage in Romans 8:28-29. It makes clear that “good” is for humans to be conformed to the image of God’s Son, but not any form of self-centered gain or pleasure, which often happens to be the result of a misinterpretation. The passage goes deeper to show that not each and every single experience in the believer’s life comes directly from God. However, God is always able to lead each event to result in the “good” which was previously briefly defined.

In the context of the doctrine of providence one may also raise the question of free will, and how much of that is present having said everything above. Although this is a very delicate topic, for which we seem to lack ability to fully comprehend rationally, there is still some guidance. The main Wesleyan theological suggestion to this issue is that “God does not determine one’s choices, but He influences them” (Dunning 258). This “influence” however, always leaves room for the person to act differently if they willfully decide not to conform to the will of God. How this is possible in the context of a mighty God Creator could be explained only through God’s love for His creation. This love explains the self-limitation of God.

The Genesis Account

The biblical account of the creation offers a rich field for work for both theologians and scientists. Although most biblical scholars today would agree that the biblical account of creation cannot be used as a scientific proof (or disproof), a number of people, including Christians tend to claim it as such. From a theological viewpoint it is clear that this is not the intention of the writer. In addition, when speaking about God’s transcendence and freedom in the story of creation we cannot claim that this text can be called a scientific account, because speaking or writing about such would involve a previous experience of the same. Yet, we have not had the experience of a divine Creator calling a world into being out of nothing. This is also the reason why we can only use analogies as we touch the issue. Thus, a scientific discussion based on the biblical text would be invalid. This, however should not be confused with the attempts of human reason to grasp at least until some degree the mystery of the created order, as far as it does not try to answer the question “How?”, which would be impossible having explained the relationship between the Creator and creation.

From a theological perspective the account in Genesis gives us a very good description of God’s nature. One of the aspects which are not as obvious, but yet, well covered is the issue of the Godhead. Dunning summarizes it very well, also providing biblical support for the claim:

“The biblical witness testifies that the Father, Son, and Spirit were all involved in the creation act/process (Col. 1:16-17; John 1:3; Gen. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6; Ps. 104:30). Thus when we speak of God the Creator, we speak of the total Godhead”

Thus, the creation account, seen from a Wesleyan perspective does not explain scientifically the “how” of the act/process, but at the same time leaves an open door for the search of reason towards finding out more about it, in spite of the fact that a full comprehension of it is not within our capabilities.

Conclusion

The inevitable practical application of the proper interpretation of the doctrine of God as Creator involves a major change in the person’s life. It does not provide and easy way out of the problem of evil, but certainly brings comfort through the stress on purposeness and constant, unceasing sustenance by God. It once again makes us ponder about God’s greatness and might in the fact that He who is able to create out of nothing is willing to be so personal with us. Finally, other than preventing us from misinterpretation, this doctrine provides solid ground for understanding the remaining of God’s Word as it is intended – strongly resisting the scientific drives of today’s thinking.

Bibliography

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

Lodahl, M., The Story of God: Wesleyan Theology and Biblical Narrative. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1994.

Runyon, T., The new creation : John Wesley’s theology today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998

The Doctrine of God – God as a Person

Petar Neychev — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:52:29 +0000

Probably one of the most discussed topics about the nature of the God of the Christian religion (further referred to as God) is this of his personality. Where does the question “Is God personal?” lead us? On the surface it might even seem easy to defend the doctrine of a personal God using his incarnation in the body of Jesus Christ. This however, leads to the complication of explaining how God the Father and God the Holy Spirit fit under the characteristic “personal”, since the idea of God also incorporates the trinity. If one agrees to accept God as personal, how would they deal with the implications from that? On the other hand, if we say God is not personal, then how do we explain the clear explanation of the Bible about God’s active and results-producing relationship with creation?

Due to the vast variety of questions concerning God’s personality, in the current work I would like to guide the reader through a selected path of understanding the implications of it. Placed in the context of new-born Christians this aspect of God’s nature will inevitably lead to a crucial impact on the understanding of the trinity, redemption and salvation of humanity, and the all-encompassing development of the redeemed through their life.

Thus, I would like to set the foundation of this paper as follows: God is personal, and there is no need of further defense of that statement, although due to the interrelatedness of this presupposition with the inferences from it one may be presented partially. Second, the personal aspect of God’s nature plays a major role in the act of salvation of humanity. In addition, the spiritual growth and the maintenance of the relationship God-humanity and the understanding and implications of the trinity have to do with God being a personal God. These three I would like to discuss in the following pages.

The Personal God and the Salvation of Humanity

A brief introduction to God’s love and the expression of it in creation is necessary before we continue with salvation and how God relates to people through it. One of the most encompassing aspects of God’s personality is his love. This aspect of itself can also be used for defending the claim that God is personal, because it suggests a certain type or relationship which cannot be accomplished in the interaction between mere substances. Thus, love inevitably comes out (results from) of the nature of the relationship God has with us. One may argue that this is a self-defending claim, but the fact that God initiated this relationship and he restores is must not be neglected, and from that follows that God is the beginning of the circle. Although at times it is underestimated as a significant point, God’s love is the connection between God himself and the salvation of humanity. By carefully examining the account of creation and the overall view of Scripture on it, it becomes clear that God did not need to create an object (creation) in order to be able to practice his love. He could do that within his own person – the trinity. Thus, it can be concluded that God has created out of his willingness to create, but not out of a necessity.

The freeing love of God which is found in humanity, meaning the free will of man given to him by God, has been misused and as a consequence of that the Fall of man occurred. After the Fall God’s love finds an expression in the deliverance of man. In thinking about this, today we tend to connect the terms “God” and “person” through Jesus Christ. This is a sound thinking, but in and of itself it does not embrace the fullness of God’s personal approach to the issue. Looking at the deliverance in the Old Testament story of Israel we see God revealed as a person, but this person is not bound (although it may at times be alluded to with expressions such as: God’s voice, for instance) to the in-flesh understanding which we associate with Jesus. The book of Exodus in its description of Yahwe’s interaction with Moses is painfully clear that God is present personally and through that he brings about the deliverance of the nation of Israel from Egypt. From this we see that because of his being personal in relationship with us in time God cannot be distant from us, although he is not dependent on creation. The result of all this is that God is present with us because he is a personal God.

Another result of the personality of God and his relationship with humanity is the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which was already mentioned. The significance of the incarnation is very much grounded in the fact that through the in-fleshing of God the humanity was and is able to comprehend him on a higher level. Besides the fact that Jesus came in a human body to become the all-satisfying blood sacrifice, simply by his coming he shows the power of God – that there is no limit as to how he is able to come present among us.

A personal relationship with a personal God in the life of Christians

Although the applications of God’s “personhood” concerning man’s redemption and salvation are many more than what was said, and in fact beyond the scope of this paper, they are not the only area in which humanity meets God personally. God’s work in a human being is not restrained to salvation alone, but it continues in the cognitive, experiential, and physical development of that man or woman for the remaining of their lives. And in this area the personal incarnation of God in Jesus Christ impacts us on everyday basis. In his exemplary life Jesus stresses multiple times on the aspects of life, which distinguish us as persons.

It is the words of Jesus“love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (John 13:34, GNB) that verbalize the idea of the interaction of a holy God with the fallen people, which are to seek back conformity to the image of a personal God in which they have been created. In Jesus we see the original image towards the restoration of which Christians are to progress. And this message of Christ does not stay in any opposition to the overall stress of the commandments which God gave to the people of Israel, for they also concern their communal life – the relationships among them and of them with their God. And I believe it is also worth mentioning that even as we talk about the nation of Israel and God’s story with them, we refer to the latter as their God, which suggests belonging and interaction, and these continually. So it is not only Jesus in the New Testament or the God of the Old that was personal to us and made a difference through that – today we still cry out “Our Father!”

In his book called God in the Present Tense D.S. Corlett states it very simple and yet powerful: “we can love an experience, but an experience cannot love us” (Corlett, 43). If there is any ambiguity as to what he means, it should vanish as we clarify that he is talking about entire sanctification – one of the major focuses of Christian life in the Wesleyan tradition. This is to say that nothing is possible with God if we consider him anything less than a person. Entire sanctification is to be a relationship in which we love God and due to his love for us, as we are in his presence we become closer and closer to him. This is in brief how Corlett puts in words the meaning of the personal God with whom we are in a personal relationship. And the practical applications and results of all that become evident in our relationships with the people in our world.

The trinity and God as a person

One of the most difficult aspects of God’s personality to comprehend for humans is the one which the doctrine of the trinity attempts to describe. It is also accepted that the Old and New Testament do not provide for us a clear doctrine, although one is needed to explain the mutual existence in compatibility as found in the Scripture of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the trinity is meant to describe how the person of God is in fact not as a human person, but in complicity reaches far beyond. To use a vague language – the trinity is the explanation of how three persons can be one.

As it was mentioned earlier, the relationship of love within the trinity – the way Jesus refers to the Father, and the Father to the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the midst of that, this relationship is a reason why we could say that God did not need to have an object to love because he can exercise his love within himself. It would be beneficial to add that the relationship within the trinity itself is a result of God being a personal God. Multiple times Jesus speaks of the Father suggesting a mutual knowledge, similar to which he wants us to have with him. Although there might be many questions about how things are within the being of God, this aspect of him will inevitably have impact on how we take God as an example for relationships.

Conclusion

As a conclusion of the brief review which was made on God’s personality and it’s meaning to Christians, I would like to mention a few main ideas. First, probably the most vivid result of God being a person is his presence in his creation, which is expressed through the relationship he has initiated and established. Second, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ speaks about his desire to re-establish the broken connection between creation and Creator, and continue to nourish it. Third, only through the relationship between us and God as persons will we grow towards the image humanity has been created in initially. And finally, although we may never comprehend the mystery of the trinity, today we should seek the importance it places on a relationship between persons.

Bibliography

Carson, D.A., The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996

Corlett, David S., God in the present tense: the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1974

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

Pinnok, Clark H., Most moved mover: a theology of God’s openness. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001

Strauss, Lehman, The first person: devotional studies on God the Father. Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1967

Entire Sanctification – Reflections Upon

Petar Neychev — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:46:07 +0000

Much can be said about living life. Even more can be said on that topic from a Christian perspective – about living life in the way that God has called us to do it. Living holy lives is what God has called us to and as interesting as it may be, everyone has more or less their own opinion on how that call may be answered. One of the generally accepted views mentions entire sanctification as a crucial part of that type of life. This view is what some call today Wesleyan theology. It is also what I would like to discuss in this paper. I will present to the reader a view on entire sanctification as a part of God’s desire for our lives which can be addressed both doctrinally and practically. As an example I would like to share with the reader my personal attitude towards the topic, which will also serve as a conclusion for the paper.

The doctrine of entire sanctification may sound extremely complicated to some and yet not enough encompassing to others. Personally I see a very simple but still profound reason for sanctification as a part of the Christian life. Sanctification is necessary because God has called us to it. The Bible mentions twice, in Leviticus 11:44 and 1 Peter 1:16 – “Be holy, because I am holy” (GNB). If the goal before us is to become more like God, transformed in His image, then we need holiness. It is difficult to narrow down holiness and put it in words because this is God’s very essence – what is most high of Him, and at the same time derived from Him. This is also the reason why He swears by it in Amos 4:2. God’s faithfulness is higher than any other and it must be sworn by something even higher – His holiness.

Sanctification, in my understanding, is a point of the Christian life which opens broader opportunities for our service in God’s name, to which we are called explicitly by Jesus. The time of reaching entire sanctification is one of many cleansing experiences which removes original sin from our nature. Still, in and of itself it is not enough for the removal of original sin. Entire sanctification is rather marking the end of the process of cleansing, completing it.

Entire sanctification is not reachable by man alone. It is in each and every aspect initiated by God. It is first made possible through God’s prevenient grace, which enables us to start the process of repentance. Then God helps us with His love, correction, and work through the Holy Spirit after we have repented and believed in Him, to continue our journey of getting to know Him better, and at the same time removing what is sinful from our nature. All these steps, however, are not accomplished without our participation. We ourselves are the ones to make an active choice of going through that painful process. When we make that choice and remain faithful to it we will be able to see, interpret correctly, and imitate the example of love and righteousness we are given by God. Thus, I would conclude that entire sanctification is made possible by God, initiated by Him, but cannot be reached without our own choice for it. Moreover, in our desire for this sanctification the focus must always be God, but not a personal perfection or pride. I believe we must desire sanctification for God’s, but not our own sake.

Because of that goal of entire sanctification the fruits that it produces are also for the Kingdom of God. Entire sanctification enables the Christian to completely be used by God without their restraining selfishness, desire for sin, and hesitation in working within God’s will at all costs.

This doctrine itself surely does not embrace all aspects of the entire sanctification in fullness, and this is why sometimes it may be difficult to explain it to Christians in simple, non-theological words. I would like to share a few aspects of the approach I would choose if I am to do that today.

First of all, I would be hesitant to use many people as an example of entire sanctification. It happens very often that a person, especially when they are still alive, is presented as an example and after that automatically taken as a role model. This is a very dangerous step in my opinion because people may be tempted to focus on the role model more than on God. What happens then if a non-pleasant truth about this role model is revealed? Personally, I have the tendency to explain the ideas I deal with in a very straight-forwarded way. I see myself explaining the doctrine with simpler words, and using biblical examples for the different aspects of it. For instance, I would use apostle Peter to show that there are many sanctifying moments in our lives, which are usually surrounded by correction from God’s side, an opening of our eyes so that we can see what we have done wrong. Peter experienced a sanctifying moment, in my opinion, after he denied Jesus in the court yard. Paul experienced a sanctifying moment when his eyes were opened again after the Damascus experience with Jesus.

In general, I believe that different examples must be used to show different aspect of the doctrine. If one decided to use one single example, then there will always me something missing in it, and therefore restraining the meaning of sanctification. I may as well use hypothetical situations from the life of the person I am talking to – how would they have reacted in a situation from the past if they were entirely sanctified.

When it comes to communicating the message of holiness and the doctrine of entire sanctification to a congregation it becomes a bit more complicated. In this case one would have to be careful with using examples from the lives of people from the congregation, so other, more general approaches must be chosen.

One way of teaching a youth group about holiness I see is through games and made up situations. This is a more of a hands-on experience, and this is why I think it is also easier to memorize. Playing a game which involves separation of the people in two groups which encourage one group to show compassion, love, and support at very high costs may be a good choice. Concerning the older members of the congregation, besides preaching, I think that involvement in real compassionate ministry projects, or mission trips to poorer areas might help. I have the tendency to think that people almost always need to experience personally what they have heard being preached, so that they can strongly apply it in their lives as Christians, but not forget about it on Tuesday. I would also encourage a strong loving interaction within the congregation, especially when it comes to solving problems between individuals or leaders. Yet, one very difficult issue for me remains in the picture: how is a pastor supposed to teach about entire sanctification if they themselves have not experienced it? Yes, it may have a positive side – the congregation gets to experience it together with the pastor. On the other side, what I personally recognize as an obstacle (or at least at the time being I consider it such) is the fact that when one does not have experience in a certain area, it is very difficult to teach the others about it. I suppose now the strive for it is what is crucial to both the pastor and the congregation. There must be a mutual encouragement towards taking the tough road of changing yourself and drawing closer to the time when sin is not a part of your nature.

All what was said so far and my new understanding about it has impacted me strongly in two ways: first, I am even more convinced that entire sanctification is possible, reachable. I also established some sort of a general idea in my mind of what holy living is in practice – discipleship, complete submission to God, having a sinless nature. Living out love with increasingly less conditions. On the other hand, entire sanctification has become a goal in itself. A goal that everyone tells me, in one way or another, is unreachable at the stage of life I am in today. This has automatically created a certain negative feeling (which I would hesitate to call “hate”, although it has some similar characteristics) about the doctrine of entire sanctification and its complicity. I have gained knowledge about holiness principles of living and applying them in my life, but my problem at this very moment is that I am not encouraged to work towards entire sanctification. It is this major issue for me of not being able to reach it any time soon, and therefore, why do it. Although Fowler was trying to convince me that his stages are not ordered vertically, I do think they are in many ways, and I don’t like that. The interesting thing is that I do not have problems talking to other people about this very same doctrine and stage-oriented existence. It is sort of unpleasant when it comes down to me. What am I going to do with that understanding? I guess I need more time to assimilate it, try it out multiple times in practice… For now, I do not have an answer to that question, although it is a major one for me.

The Golden Calf of Israel and the True and False Worship Today

Petar Neychev — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:38:30 +0000

One of the corner stones of Christianity is the personal relationship between men and God. This intimate relationship is also one of the basic needs in our life. Understanding all this, we come to the question “How do we reach and maintain it – this crucial connection with God?” The answer is: through bowing down, prostrating, serving, venerating… worshiping God (ISBE, WORSHIP). Worship, true and false – today many find it rather simple, but as we will see later, it is not. Often, it is very difficult to distinguish true from false worship, but this is not to say that it is impossible. There is enough information in the Bible, concerning the basics of true and false worship, and some of them will be presented later in this paper.
The goal of this work is to present a comparison between the false worship, which we find in the Bible, more specifically in the book of Exodus, chapter 32, and the problem of false worship in contemporary Christianity. In the process of comparison, true worship will also be discussed.

One of the major causes for the great complicity of worship is the variety of people’s inner personal experiences and external expressions. A good example of inner experience would be “an imaginative event which brings us before … God” (Webber 46). On the other hand, body language is one way of externally expressing worship – physically bowing down, or even laying down (Webber 46). Christian worship, however, does not confine simply to imagination and body language, although one of those aspects of worship is often thought to be more important than the other, but still not excluding the latter from the list, and thus shrinking the concept of worship. Christian worship is a lifestyle. Thus, the question becomes – how do we maintain a life, which is pleasing to God? With all those differences and complicities in mind, sometimes it may be very difficult to discern true from false worship. This, however, does not mean that it is impossible. In fact, if one considers the examples of worship, which are found in the Bible, they will notice many clear guidelines.

The True and False Worship According to the Bible

Before I continue with the passage from Exodus, chapter 32, I would like to present to the reader a brief definition of true and false worship, derived and based on examples from the Bible, and information from secondary sources. Having in mind the desired size of this paper, only a short overall overview of the true and false worship in the Bible will be sufficient.
In general, there are two types of false worship in the Bible: worshiping the false god, and worshiping the true God in a false or unpleasing way (Godfrey 3). A clear example of the first type of false worship I mentioned, is found in Exodus, chapter 32. In this passage we are told, that the people of Israel are waiting on Moses to come down from Mount Sinai, where God is giving him the tablets of the Ten Commandments. They have already been waiting for forty days when they ask Aaron “Come, make us gods who will go before us” (Exodus 32:1, NIV). This act is a violation of the first commandment, which God gives to the same people earlier in Exodus, chapter 20:3.

An illustration, which is related to worship of the false god can also be found in the New Testament. The narrative about the temptation of Christ in the book of Matthew, chapter 4:1-11, tells us about how Jesus refused to worship Satan, a false god. Verses nine and ten are the culmination of the story: “All this I will give you,” the Devil said, “if you kneel down and worship me.” Then Jesus answers, “Go away, Satan! The scripture says, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve only him!’ ” (Mathew 4:9-10, GNB). Jesus shows us that this worship is to be avoided.

On the other hand, there are multiple occasions in the Bible where people worship the right God in a false or unacceptable way. One of them is found in Genesis chapter 4:3-7. Here is the first sacrifice mentioned in the Old Testament. Abel gave the richest of his flock to the Lord, and He was pleased. The Bible does not mention how and when, but the two brothers must have known in advance what should be given as a true offering. Cane, however, did not worship God truly through his offering, and his sacrifice was not accepted. We read in verse five that Cane became angry because of God’s response. God answers with the following words: “If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling; but because you have done evil, sin is crouching at your door.” (Genesis 4:7a, GNB). Sin is a result of false worship.

Interestingly enough, the second of the Ten Commandments refers to the second type of false worship – worshiping the true God through false methods: “Never make your own carved idols or statues that represent any creature in the sky, on the earth, or in the water. “ (Exodus 20:4, GW). An example of worship through false methods we can find in the book of Leviticus, chapter 10:1-2, where the sons of Aaron offer burnt incense to the Lord in an unacceptable way, and because of this they are burnt to death, in the presence of God.

Both in the Old and New Testament there are examples of people, who worshiped God in pleasing ways. Starting with Noah, whose story of righteousness and trust in God from Genesis 6-8 tells us how he built an enormous boat, and gathered animals from all shapes and sizes in it. Then continuing with Abraham, who was ready to bring his son as a sacrifice to God as being obedient to Him in the book of Genesis 22:1-18. These figures are only a warm up, a preparation for Moses’ appearance on the stage in Exodus 2 and his role from then on. In the New Testament narratives we find people like John the Baptist, who faithfully obeys God’s commandment to baptize and prepare the way; and Jesus – although his status of Man-God, and one who is worshiped makes his worship different, one of his main tasks in ministry is to set an example of true worship.

Both in the Old and New Testament we see examples of personal and public worship. Although there are some changes in the sacrificial system of the New Testament worship, the main problems of false worship still remain, together with the question “How can we tell true from false worship?” From the examples above, one could conclude that in relation to those situations, from our point of view, it is rather easy to distinguish which is true and which is false worship. One main thing, which needs a serious consideration is that the people who were waiting for Moses to come down from the mountain, and Aaron’s sons – they all knew what to do and what not to, but yet they committed sin. In my opinion, the same is still valid for us today – Christians today are as informed as the people of Israel in the Old Testament, and the Christians from the church in the first century, and yet we make mistakes. The issue of true and false worship is still relevant, and through the following exegetical analysis on the text from Exodus 32, I would like to present some of the main problems of false worship, which could be applied to the Christian life today.

The Golden Calf Today

Tracing back the origin of the name of the second book from the Pentateuch – Exodus, we come to see that it is meant to be a crucial component of the story which begins with Genesis, and is brought to completion in Deuteronomy (NIV Study Bible 85). Most scholars agree that there is a certain Mosaic authorship trait in several statements in the book, but they also recognize some influence from the four underlying sources of the Pentateuch, known as J, E, D, and P (NIV Study Bible 2).

Liberation, law, covenant, and God’s presence are the four main theological themes in the book of Exodus (Keck 678-680). An important fact is that the whole second half of the book is focused on God’s presence – the building of a house of worship, which is pleasing to God, and which could ensure God’s presence among the people of Israel, even when they travel.

Chapter 32, which is in the main focus of this paper, is a part of this second half of the book, which deals with the topic of God’s presence. The chapter itself, together with chapters 33 and 34, creates an intended theological arrangement of the book of “command-disruption-implementation” (Keck 927). The block of chapters 32-34 is the disruption of the natural flow of command, followed by performance, suggested by the content of chapters 25-31 and 35-40 (Keck 927).

As we read chapters 32-34, we clearly see a significant development within it. Beginning with the disobedience of God’s commandment in the first six verses of chapter 32, the people of Israel set Moses in a position of asking for forgiveness from God. Towards the end of Exodus 32 we see the authority of Moses, and God’s punishment in action, as the Levites, under Moses’ commandment, go through the camp, “each killing his brother and friend and neighbor” (Exodus 32:27 NIV), and finally the people are struck by a plague because of what they have done. Chapters 33
and 34 present the narrative of Moses pleading for the Lord’s guidance throughout the journey which God led them on. The renewal of the covenant between God and the people of Israel in Exodus 34 makes the transition to the next block of chapters – 35-40.

Due to the limited size of this paper, I would like to focus the reader’s attention mainly on Exodus 32:1-6, and also several brief references from the book of Exodus, which will later help clarify the application of the passage to the contemporary setting.

The first verse of chapter 32 alone introduces several aspects of the situation that the people of Israel faced before Mount Sinai. As the text suggests, Moses brought them out of the land of Egypt. This is not to suggest that Israel did not believe God intervened in this exit from Egypt. On the contrary – the problem is not with Moses’ leadership, but with Moses’ absence. Thus we see that the leadership is still God’s. The issue, however, is that God exercised His leadership through Moses. In the verse preceding the conversation between God and Moses up in the mountain, we are told that “he stayed on the mountain for forty days and forty nights” (Exodus 24:18 NIV), which is the phrase used to express a long period of time (Durham 419). When suddenly the people lost their direct connection with God for a long time, they also lost their peace. Patience was hard to maintain.

This tense situation partially explains the people’s attitude towards Aaron. The modern NIV translation suggests that the people “gathered around” (Exodus 32:1 NIV) Aaron, which is not as clear as the original word in Hebrew. The Hebrew word may be translated better as “come together upon, to, against” (Durham 416). Using this pressure as an advantage, the people of Israel urged Aaron to make them gods, who will lead them, because Moses is no more there to do it. The analysis of the Hebrew text clearly shows that the word translated today as “gods is truly a plural form of “god”. The God of Israel was gone with Moses’ absence. Another leading deity was needed (Durham 419). Thus, Israel violates the first commandment of God.

Because the text of the second verse is not very clear, there are some ambiguities concerning the process of making the calf, and also the material it was made of. Most scholars agree that the context suggests that Aaron made the calf form the gold, which was collected from the people of Israel (Durham 419), using wood with the shape of a calf, or a bag. Although there are uncertainties about the method Aaron used to make the calf, it is for sure that he did that, which weakens his statements in verse 24: “They gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf” (Exodus 32:24 NIV)! By this absurd statement Aaron only makes his situation before God, and before Moses even worse.

It is interesting to see in verse four that it takes but a moment for the people to recognize the calf as their own gods. The newly recognized meaning of the calf becomes even more complicated if verse four is interpreted in the light of verse one, where Moses is presented as the one who brought Israel out of Egypt. At first, one would suggest that the calf adopted the role of Moses – a connection with God, but not a new deity. After a second look, however, especially taking verse eight into consideration, it does not seem so easy to decide whether the calf was a new deity or a new Moses.

In verse eight, God tells Moses about what is happening in the foot of the mountain. There is an agreement among the English translations on God’s words in this conversation from verse eight, which words are the same as in the first narrative about the people before the calf in verse six. NIV translates it as “they have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it” (Exodus 32:8 NIV), and the Good News translation is: “have worshiped it and offered sacrifices to it” (Exodus 32:8 GNB). Also, if we look at a literal translation, the main meaning, which those words carry is the same: “they offered burnt offerings and brought near peace offerings” (Exodus 32:8 LITV). The Strong’s Numbers’ definition of the word worship (Strong 7812), which many translations use in verse eight, is the same as the word used by God in Exodus 24:1, when He commands Moses to come to Him with “Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel” (Exodus 24:1 NIV). This is to say that they worshiped the calf in a sense in which they earlier worshiped the Lord. The Bible does not tell that they have worshiped Moses in the same way. Thus, it becomes very difficult to defend the interpretation that the calf was accepted as a new Moses, rather than a new deity, or new gods.

Aaron announces the feast which takes place before the calf as a “sacred feast for Yahweh” (Durham 421). Those few words, take us back to the question: Are they worshiping new gods, and call them Yahweh, or they are worshiping the true Yahweh through wrong methods? The desired size of this paper does not allow me to go into more details on this topic, but this is not an obstacle for making a conclusion on verse five. Whether worshiping false gods, or falsely worshiping the true God, what the people of Israel did is not true worship.

The results of this act of false worship are revealed partially in the second half of verse seven. There we see how the people eat, drink, and finally rose up to play. The original meaning in Hebrew of the word play carries a sense of a “fornicating and adulterous intercourse” (Clarke Exodus 32:6). In comparison to that, the celebration which the seventy elders and Moses have at the time of confirmation of the covenant with God, does not end with a play (Exodus 24:11). The Bible shows here what are the results of false worship, whether to a false god or to the true God.

The narrative, however, does not end with the sin of Israel. After Moses learns about the disobedience of God’s people, he immediately tries to calm God’s anger. After the Lord relents, Moses comes back to the people and after he accuses them of what they have done, he helps them cleanse themselves (Exodus 32:27-28). In this act, the calf is also destroyed, and the words used to describe this suggest a complete destruction, which is reached when the people drink the grounded to powder calf. Despite all these actions and that Moses seeks the favor of God, there is still punishment for the committed sin. At the end of the chapter we read about a plague which struck the people, because of what they have done. Later, however, God shows his mercy, and the broken tablets with the Ten Commandments are written again (Exodus 34).

The Problem of False Worship Today

As it was shown in the analysis of the passage from Exodus 32, there are several main reasons for the false worship of God. The lack of patience is what first strikes us as we read the narrative. The people of Israel have already been with Moses long enough, and have seen enough miracles in their journey, that they did not have a reason to doubt in his return. Yet, they were anxious and sought a way to substitute what they were missing.

If we hold the view that we offer worship to the Lord through all we do and think, it is not difficult to find examples of false worship from today’s life. How often do we lose our patience – not only for what we are waiting for from God, but also in our relationships with other people? And in those moments, what is coming against us, pushing us towards false worship? When we pray to God, most of the time we expect a quick answer, don’t we? But the reality is that it takes time until the majority of our prayers to God are answered. What is scary is that we, as followers of Jesus, know that this may happen – we hear it in sermons, we teach it in Sunday Schools, we read it in our Bibles. Despite that, often we decide not to wait any longer, and act alone… While at the same time God is preparing something for us.

When we act out of lack of patience, we are not only predisposed to false worship, but this itself is false worship, for it clearly shows how much we trust God. When people are not patient enough, and for long time they do not see an answer from God, they start losing their trust in God, the trust that there will be an answer. Trust is also a form of worship: “Abram put his trust in the LORD, and because of this the LORD was pleased with him and accepted him” (Genesis 15:6 GNB).

Another reason for false worship is disobedience. The nation of Israel did not obey God’s commandment not to make idols, and not to worship other gods, and God was not pleased by that. Despite the fact that today there are not very many golden calves created and being worshiped, there are enough other gods and other types of idols. I would like to focus the reader’s attention on what I consider the two most dangerous gods or idols in today’s life: non-material achievements and self.

As I mentioned earlier, in the beginning of this paper, we tend to think that we can avoid worshiping material idols. The non-material achievements however, such as a high position in the society structure, very often shift our focus away from God, and easily end up being our new gods. And as we saw in the narrative from Exodus, it is not enough to simply say “This is for the Lord!” People have to be reminded often, that building one’s self-assurance and pride, especially through such achievements, can hardly ever be applied for the Lord, but not for us. What happens when people
become self-centered is that they think of themselves as a substitute for God, and for God’s missing answer. Suddenly, we worship ourselves, but not God. Thus, we see how the disobedience of God’s commandment can take us far from God. And what people do when they are far from God is characterized by sin.

The story of Israel does not end at the point where they have sinned, and God is angry. The end of the story comes after Moses’ plea to God. The end of the story comes with the recreation of the the broken tablets of the law – Israel receives what God was preparing for them while they were worshiping the calf. Gad has not changed today – His mercy is big, but repentance is needed, for the strictly negative results of false worship and sin are great. The people of Israel were committing adultery at the end of the feast, which was proclaimed to be for the Lord. Yet they received forgiveness.

It should have become clear by now how important it is to prevent false worship of any type from happening in our life today. How could we achieve this? How could we make sure we offer only true worship to God? In my opinion, that can happen if we stick with what is known – if we practice only what we know for sure is pleasing God. There are enough ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ in the ten commandments, and also in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles from the New Testament. It seems to be very difficult for people to live within those guidelines, and this is where God’s mercy plays its role. This, however, does not mean that people should offer false worship to God with the attitude that they will easily be forgiven after they repent. As we saw, the people of Israel were struck by a plague despite Moses’ request for forgiveness.

Conclusion

To summarize what was already mentioned in this paper, the issue of true and false worship, within the Bible, and also today is a very important aspect of the Christian life. Being of such a great importance, I think that people today should worship in a way which is derived from the Bible or does not contradict with God’s commandments. Many will say that it is rather difficult, but we should accept this challenge, for we have God’s promise that He will not require us to do anything which is beyond our abilities (I Corinthians 10:13). This is why I believe that true worship is still possible, and this is what everyone in their Christian walk should aim for it. Personally, I think that if we avoid anything that we are not sure is true worship we will not lose much, and our worship will still be pleasing to God. How do we distinguish what to avoid from what to preserve? If the Bible is not enough for the complete answer of this question, the rest, in my opinion, is found in God’s personal revelation to each person , who has an open heart, and an open mind to listen.

Bibliography

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832) Electronic Edition: e-SWORD.

Durham, John I. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 3. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987.

Godfrey, Robert Dr. “Pleasing God In Our Worship”. The Highway. November 17, 2004. <http://www.the-highway.com/ worship_Godfrey.html>

Keck, Leander E., et al. The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 1. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Strong, James. Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong. S.T.D., LL.D., 1890. Electronic Edition: e-SWORD.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984.

Walton, John H., Matthews, Victor H, Chavalas, Mark W. The IVP Background Commentary Genesis – Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000.