Dear Fellow-Believers,
Greetings to all and welcome to our web-site for The
Unity of the Spirit
April 8, 2012
Resurrection Sunday or Easter 2012
On this Easter Sunday of 2012 we finish up our series
on the writings of NT Wright with a superb article written on the meaning
of Easter by Wright entitled "Christ is Risen from the Dead, the
Firstfruits of those Who have Died". We hope you will take the
time to read and study this outstanding article by Wright and may it
be a blessing to your growth and walk with God:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Italian_Bishops_Christ_Risen_First_Fruits.htm
May God bless you all as we remember the significance
of Christ's resurrection each and every day that we live!
Richie Temple and Scot Hahn
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
scot@unity-of-spirit.org
March 23, 2012
NT Wright: In His Own Words
As mentioned in the first post from this series (see
below), NT Wright has written a commentary series on the entire
New Testament especially designed to be accessible to everyone.
The
New Testament for Everyone series is an 18 volume set, but
all of the titles are available individualy as well. The idea behind
these works is well stated in the Introduction:
"[The New Testament writings] were never meant
for either a religious or intellectual elite. From the very beginning
they were meant for everyone.
That is as true today as it was then. Of course, it
matters that some people give time and care to the historical evidence,
the meaning of the original words (the early Christians wrote in Greek),
and the exact and particular force of what different writers were saying
about God, Jesus, the world and themselves. This series is based quite
closely on that sort of work. But the point of it all is that the message
can get out to everyone, especially to people who wouldn't normally
read a book with footnotes and Greek words in it. That's the sort of
person for whom these books are written." [N.T. Wright, Mark for
Everyone (Louisville, 2004), ix-x]
So here you have the work of one of the world's foremost
Bible scholars (who is also a wonderfully skilled communicator), writing
to make the gospel clear for all to understand. What a great idea!
What follows are quotations from the glossary, which
can be found in all of the works and is specifically designed to explain
certain key words that form the foundation upon which a proper
understanding of the New Testament is built. Much of the body of the
commentary is enlightening and enjoyable reading, but without the basic
understanding of what the authors of the NT meant by the words they
used, much can be missed. A lifetime of scholarly work devoted to understanding
the original intent and meaning of the New Testament writings has, in
the glossary of these books, been boiled down to its simplest form.
Here we have some of our favorite entries:
covenant
At the heart of Jewish belief is the conviction that the one God, YHWH,
who had made the whole world, had called Abraham and his family to belong
to him in a special way. The promises God made to Abraham and his family,
and the requirements that were laid on them as a result, came to be
seen in terms either of the agreement that a king would make with a
subject people, or of the marriage bond between husband and wife. One
regular way of describing this relationship was ‘covenant’,
which can thus include both promise and law. The covenant was renewed
at Mount Sinai with the giving of the Torah; in Deuteronomy before the
entry to the Promised Land; and, in a more focused way, with David (e.g.
Psalm 89). Jeremiah 31 promised that after the punishment of exile God
would make a ‘new covenant’ with his people, forgiving them
and binding them to him more intimately. Jesus believed that this was
coming true through his kingdom-proclamation and his death and resurrection.
The early Christians developed these ideas in various ways, believing
that in Jesus the promises had at last been fulfilled.
[N.T. Wright, Mark for Everyone (Louisville, 2004), 228]
good news, gospel, message, word
The idea of ‘good news’, for which an older English word
is ‘gospel’, had two principal meanings for first-century
Jews. First, with roots in Isaiah, it meant the news of YHWH’s
long-awaited victory over evil and rescue of his people…Since
for Jesus and Paul the announcement of God’s inbreaking kingdom
was both the fulfillment of prophecy and a challenge to the world’s
present rulers, ‘gospel’ became an important shorthand for
both the message of Jesus himself and the apostolic message about him.
Paul saw this message as itself the vehicle of God’s saving power
(Romans 1.16; 1 Thessalonians 2.13).
The four canonical ‘gospels’ tell the story of Jesus in
such a way as to bring out both these aspects (unlike some other so-called
‘gospels’ circulated in the second and subsequent centuries,
which tended both to cut off the scriptural and Jewish roots of Jesus’
achievement and to inculcate a private spirituality rather than confrontation
with the world’s rulers). Since in Isaiah this creative, life-giving
good news was seen as God’s own powerful word (40.8; 55.11), the
early Christians could use ‘word’ or ‘message’
as another shorthand for the basic Christian proclamation. [N.T. Wright,
Mark for Everyone (Louisville, 2004), 231-232]
heaven
Heaven is God’s dimension of the created order (Genesis 1.1; Psalm
115.16; Matthew 6.9), whereas ‘earth’ is the world of space,
time and matter that we know. ‘Heaven’ thus sometimes stands,
reverentially, for ‘God’ (as in Matthew’s regular
‘kingdom of heaven’). Normally hidden from human sight,
heaven is occasionally revealed or unveiled so that people can see God’s
dimension of ordinary life (e.g. 2 Kings 6.17; Revelation 1, 4-5). Heaven
in the New Testament is thus not usually seen as the place where God’s
people go after death; at the end, the New Jerusalem descends from heaven
to earth, joining the two dimensions for ever. ‘Entering the kingdom
of heaven’ does not mean ‘going to heaven after death’,
but belonging in the present to the people who steer their earthly course
by the standards and purposes of heaven (cf. the Lord’s Prayer:
‘on earth as in heaven’, Matthew 6.10), and who are assured
of membership in the age to come. [N.T. Wright, Mark for Everyone (Louisville,
2004), 232]
holy spirit
In Genesis 1.2, the Spirit is God’s presence and power within
creation, without God being identified with creation. The same Spirit
entered people, notably the prophets, enabling them to speak and act
for God. At his baptism by John, Jesus was specially equipped with the
Spirit, resulting in his remarkable public career (Acts 10:38). After
his resurrection, his followers ere themselves filled (Acts 2) by the
same Spirit, now identified as Jesus’ own Spirit: the creator
God was acting afresh, remaking the world and them too. The Spirit enabled
them to live out a holiness which the Torah could not, producing ‘fruit’
in their lives, giving them ‘gifts’ with which to serve
God, the world and the church, and assuring them of future resurrection
(Romans 8; Galatians 4-5; 1 Corinthians 12-14). [N.T. Wright, Mark for
Everyone (Louisville, 2004), 232-233]
kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven
Best understood as the kingship, or sovereign and saving rule, of Israel’s
God YHWH, as celebrated in several Psalms (e.g. 99.1) and prophecies
(e.g. Daniel 6.26f.). Because YHWH was the creator God, when he finally
became king in the way he intended this would involve setting the world
to rights, and particularly rescuing Israel from its enemies. ‘Kingdom
of God’ and various equivalents (e.g. ‘No king but God!’)
became revolutionary slogans around the time of Jesus. Jesus’
own announcement of God’s kingdom redefined these expectations
around his own very different plan and vocation. his invitation to people
to ‘enter’ the kingdom was a way of summoning them to allegiance
to himself and his programme, seen as the start of God’s long-awaited
saving reign. For Jesus, the kingdom was coming not in a single move,
but in stages, of which his own public career was one, his death and
resurrection another, and a still future consummation another. Note
that ‘kingdom of heaven’ is Matthew’s preferred form
for the same phrase, following a regular Jewish practice of saying ‘heaven’
rather than ‘God’. It does not refer to a place (‘heaven’),
but to the fact of God’s becoming king in a through Jesus and
his achievement. Paul speaks of Jesus, as Messiah, already in possession
of his kingdom, waiting to hand it over finally to the Father (1 Corinthians
15.23-8; cf. Ephesians 5.5). [N.T. Wright, Mark for Everyone (Louisville,
2004), 233-234]
life, soul, spirit
Ancient people held many different views about what made human beings
the special creatures they are. Some, including many Jews, believed
that to be complete, humans needed bodies as well as inner selves. Others,
including many influenced by the philosophy of Plato (fourth century
BC), believed that the important part of a human was the ‘soul’
(Gk: psyche), which at death would be happily freed from its bodily
prison. Confusingly for us, the same word psyche is often used in the
New Testament within a Jewish framework where it clearly means ‘life’
or ‘true self’, without implying a body/soul dualism that
devalues the body. Human inwardness of experience and understanding
can also be referred to as ‘spirit’. [N.T. Wright, Mark
for Everyone (Louisville, 2004), 234-234]
present age, age to come, eternal life
By the time of Jesus many Jewish thinkers divided history into two periods:
‘the present age’ and ‘the age to come’ –
the latter being the time when YHWH would at last act decisively to
judge evil, to rescue Israel, and to create a new world of justice and
peace. The early Christians believed that, though the full blessings
of the coming age lay still in the future, it had already begun with
Jesus, particularly with is death and resurrection, and that by faith
and baptism they were able to enter it already. ‘Eternal life’
does not mean simply ‘existence continuing without end’,
but ‘the life of the age to come’. [N.T. Wright, Mark for
Everyone (Louisville, 2004), 237]
resurrection
In most biblical thought, human bodies matter and are not merely disposable
prisons for the soul. When ancient Israelites wrestled with the goodness
and justice of YHWH, the creator, they ultimately came to insist that
he must raise the dead (Isaiah 26.19; Daniel 12.2-3) – a suggestion
firmly resisted by classical pagan thought…
…Only the bodily resurrection of Jesus explains the rise of the
early church, particularly its belief in Jesus’ messiahship (which
his crucifixion would have called into question). The early Christians
believed that they themselves would be raised to a new, transformed
bodily life at the time of the Lord’s return or parousia (e.g.
Philippians 3:20f.). [N.T. Wright, Mark for Everyone (Louisville, 2004),
238-239]
YHWH
The ancient Israelite name for God, from at least the time of the Exodus
(Exodus 6.2f.). It may originally have been pronounced ‘Yahweh’,
but by the time of Jesus it was considered too holy to speak out loud,
except for the high priest once a year in the Holy of Holies in the
Temple. Instead, when reading scripture, pious Jews would say Adonai,
‘Lord’, marking this usage by adding the vowels of Adonai
to the consonants of YHWH, eventually producing the hybrid ‘Jehovah’.
The word YHWH is formed from the verb ‘to be’, combining
‘I am who I am’, ‘I will be who I will be’,
and perhaps ‘I am because I am’, emphasizing YHWH’s
sovereign creative power. [N.T. Wright, Mark for Everyone (Louisville,
2004), 242-243]
We hope you considering augmenting your Bible study with the use of
these insightful books by NT Wright.
Richie Temple and Scot Hahn
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
scot@unity-of-spirit.org
March 15, 2012
NT Wright: In His Own Words
This week we offer a few highlights from the latest
volume from the Christian Origins and the Question of God series,
The
Resurrection of the Son of God (2003). It should be noted that
this book is the largest and most detailed of the three in the series
and offers much in the way of explaining the Jewish, Greco-Roman and
other ancient civilizations' viewpoint on the question of 'What happens
when we die?'. You will also find here a well reasoned argument in the
second half of the book for the claim that the bodily resurrection of
Jesus of Nazareth stands as the central, undeniable truth undergirding
the veracity of the entire New Testament message.
And now we present NT Wright from The Resurrection
of the Son of God:
“…granted the wide range of views about
life after death in general and resurrection in particular, what did
the early Christians believe on these topics, and how can we account
for their beliefs? We shall discover that, although the early Christians
remained, in one sense, within the Jewish spectrum of opinion, their
views on the subject had clarified and indeed crystallized to a degree
unparalleled elsewhere in Judaism. The explanation they gave, for this
and much besides, was the equally unparalleled claim that Jesus of Nazareth
had himself been bodily raised from the dead…Despite what is sometimes
suggested, we shall discover substantial unanimity on the basic point:
virtually all the early Christians for whom we have solid evidence affirmed
that Jesus of Nazareth had been bodily raised from the dead. When they
said ‘he was raised on the third day’, they meant this literally.
[N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, 2003),
9-10]
“The word ‘immortality’ is often take to imply, not
just that the humans in question happen to be in some sense still alive
after their deaths, but that there always was within them, as for Plato,
an immortal element, perhaps the soul, which is incapable of dying.
But this, as we saw earlier, is not the view of those biblical writers
who, it seems, came to believe that their relationship with YHWH would
continue after their death. Such continuation was based solely on YHWH’s
character (as the loving, powerful creator), not on anything innate
within human beings.” [N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son
of God (Minneapolis, 2003), 130]
“Granted that the early Christians drew freely on Jewish traditions,
and engaged energetically with the pagan world of ideas, how does it
happen that we find virtually no spectrum of belief about life after
death, but instead an almost universal affirmation of that which pagans
said could not happen, and that which one stream (albeit the dominant
one) of Judaism insisted would happen, namely resurrection? Let us be
quite clear at this point: we shall see that when the early Christians
said ‘resurrection’ they meant it in the sense it bore both
in paganism (which denied it) and in Judaism (an influential part of
which affirmed it). ‘Resurrection’ did not mean that someone
possessed ‘a heavenly and exalted status’; when predicated
of Jesus, it did not mean his ‘perceived presence’ in the
ongoing church. Nor, if we are thinking historically, could it have
meant ‘the passage of the human Jesus into the power of God’.
It meant bodily resurrection; and that is what the early Christians
affirmed. There is nothing in the early Christian view of the promised
future which corresponds to the pagan views we have studied; nothing
at all which corresponds to the denials of the Sadducees; virtually
no hint of the ‘disembodied bliss’ view of some Jewish sources;
no Sheol, no ‘isles of the blessed’, no ‘shining like
stars’, but a constant affirmation of newly embodied life.”
[N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, 2003),
209-210]
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those in the Messiah,
Jesus’: Romans 8.1 has become one of Paul’s most famous
sentences… The ‘condemnation’ in question is the Adamic
condemnation spoken of in 5.12-21, which in turn looks back to the condemnation
of sin in 1.18-3.20. The reason this condemnation is taken away for
those ‘in the Messiah’ is given in verses 2-11, with constant
reference to the resurrection: God has done what the Torah could no
do, condemning sin in the flesh of the Messiah, as the representative
of all his people, and by his Spirit giving life, in the present in
terms of a new orientation and mindset (8.5-8), in the ultimate future
in terms of bodily resurrection…the one who accomplishes the resurrection,
both of Jesus and of believer, is the living God himself, as Paul regularly
insists; but the means by which he will accomplish it is the Spirit.
The Spirit, here as throughout Paul’s thought, is the present
guarantee of the future inheritance, and of the body which will be appropriate
for that new world…
...those who live ‘in the Messiah’, in the interval between
his resurrection and their own, stand on resurrection ground. They ‘set
their mind on the Spirit’, rather than on the flesh…As a
result, they enjoy ‘life and peace’ in the present as well
as the future…
Here, as in Philippians and elsewhere, the final resurrected state of
the justified is described as ‘glory’. By this Paul seems
to mean, not luminosity, but the dignity, worth, honour and status that
the Messiah’s people will enjoy, sharing that of the Messiah himself,
whose ‘glory’ is now that he is the world’s true lord.
As Paul said in 5.17, those who are his will share his kingly reign.
This corresponds to the meaning of the request put by James and John
to Jesus in Mark 10.37: they ask to sit at Jesus’ right and left
in his ‘glory’. They do not imagine that they, or he, will
be shining like torches; and indeed Matthew’s version of the saying
(20.21) has ‘in your kingdom’. That is the point here: those
who patiently walk through the present wilderness, being led by the
Christian equivalent of the pillar of cloud and fire, in other words,
by the Spirit, will eventually receive the ‘inheritance’…
…It is true that, as in Philippians 3.20-21, ‘glory’
here is a characteristic of the risen body; but, again as in that passage,
it is here also a function of it. The risen body will be ‘glorious’
in that it will no longer be subject to decay and death. But those who
are raised will also enjoy ‘glory’ in the sense of new responsibilities
within the new creation. This leads the eye towards the ‘inheritance’,
the theme we met in Galatians 3 and 4 and Ephesians 1 and which now
forms the main theme of verses 18-25. this part of Paul’s larger
picture of the world to come, the promised new age, focuses not so much
on what sort of bodies those ‘in Christ’ will have in the
resurrection, but on the sphere over which they will exercise their
rule.
Verses 18-24 insist that the sphere in question is the whole renewed
cosmos – and, indeed, that the cosmos will be renewed precisely
through the agency of those who are thus raised from the dead to share
the ‘glory’, that is, the kingly rule, of the Messiah. Paul
is more precise in verse 21 than some of his translators: the creation
itself, he says, will be set free from its bondage to decay ‘unto
the freedom of the glory of the children of God’…The marginalization
of this part of Romans 8 in much exegesis down the years has robbed
Christian imagination of this extraordinary picture of the future; only
by restoring it to its rightful place – which is, after all, in
Paul’s build-up to the climax of the central section of his most
important letter! – can we understand the larger picture within
which his vision of resurrection makes sense. It is a picture in which
the corruption and futility of creation itself, created good but doomed
to decay, is seen as a kind of slavery, so that creation itself, too,
needs to experience its exodus, its liberation. And God’s people,
indwelt by the Spirit, find that they themselves, being in their own
mortal bodies part of this same creation, groan in labour-pains as they
await the birth of God’s new world. The Spirit is, once again,
the gift that indicates what the future holds, here seen in terms of
the ‘first-fruits’ metaphor, the first sheaf of harvest
offered as a sign of the larger crop still to come. The Spirit thus
again provides an inauguration of the eschatological fulfillment, even
in the present time… [N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son
of God (Minneapolis, 2003), 255-258]
“The contrast between that which is seen and that which is not
(2 Cor. 4.18a) could by itself, of course, come straight from Plato,
and might imply a dualism in which physicality, present and future,
was downgraded in favour of a non-physical world and human existence.
But this ontological dualism is questioned in the second half of verse
18, and disproved entirely in 5.1-5. Verse 18b indicates that the contrast
is actually an eschatological one: ‘eternal’, again, could
be read platonically, but the following passage indicates that it has
to do, as usual in Paul, with ‘the age to come’, over against
the present evil age in which the apostle lives, whose evidences are
visible all around. These things are only for a time, he says; the age
to come will last.” [N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son
of God (Minneapolis, 2003), 366]
“Why then does Paul speak of the new body as being ‘in
the heavens’? Does this not mean that he thinks of Christians
simply ‘going to heaven’ after their death? No. This is
one of the passages [2 Cor. 5.1-4] which have supplied later tradition
with the materials for an unwarranted Platonizing of Christian hope.
As with Philippians 3.2-21, and indeed 1 Corinthians 15.47-9, the temptation
of the tradition has been to drive a steamroller through what Paul actually
says, clearing his careful words out of the way to make room for a different
worldview in which the aim of Christian faith is ‘to go to heaven
when you die’. The tradition has always found it difficult to
incorporate ‘resurrection’, in any Jewish or early Christian
sense, into that scenario, which is perhaps why orthodox Christianity
has found it hard to respond to secular modernity at this point. ‘Heaven’
for Paul, here as elsewhere, is not so much where people go after they
die – he remains remarkably silent on that, with the possible
exception of Colossians 3.3-4 – but the place where the divinely
intended future for the world is kept safely in store, against the day
when, like new props being brought out from the wings and onto stage,
it will come to birth in the renewed world, ‘on earth as in heaven’.
If I assure my guests that there is champagne for them in the fridge
I am not suggesting that we all need to get into the fridge if we are
to have the party. The future body, the non-corruptible (and hence ‘eternal’)
‘house’, is at present ‘in the heavens’ as opposed
to ‘on earth’ (epigeios) (5.1); but it will no stay there.
For us to put it on on top of our present ‘house’, (clothes,
bodies, houses, temples and tents; why mix two metaphors if four or
five will do?) will require that it be brought from heaven (5.2). This
is a key passage not only for understanding Paul but for grasping similar
language elsewhere in the New Testament.” [N.T. Wright, The Resurrection
of the Son of God (Minneapolis, 2003), 367-368]
Richie Temple and Scot Hahn
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
scot@unity-of-spirit.org
March 7, 2012
NT Wright: In His Own Words
As a continuation of our presentation of some of the
best that NT Wright has to offer, we now present extensive quotes from
the second book in the Christian Origins and the Question of God
series, Jesus
and the Victory of God. This is, once again, a detailed study
that may not be suitable for all, but the insights contained herein
are worthwhile of further reflection.
We hope you find useful these excerpts from NT Wright's
views on:
The Gospels
“The fact that Jesus was an itinerant prophet
meant, clearly, that he went from village to village, saying substantially
the same things wherever he went. Local variations would no doubt abound.
Novelty would spring up in response to a new situation, or a sharp question
or challenge. But the historical likelihood – and it is very likely
indeed -- is that if he told a parable once he told it dozens of times,
probably with minor variations; that if he gave a list of (what we call)
‘beatitudes’ once, he gave such a list, probably with minor
variations, dozens of times; that he had regular phrases with which
he urged repentance, commended faith, encouraged the desperate, rebuked
those he considered hard-hearted, spoke words of healing…
…Within the peasant oral culture of his day, Jesus must have left
behind him, not one or two isolated traditions, but a veritable mare’s
nest of anecdotes, and also of sentences, aphorisms, rhythmic sayings,
memorable stories with local variations, and words that were remembered
because of their pithy and apposite phrasing, and because of their instantly
being repeated by those who had heard them. Again and again he will
have said cryptic words about having ears to hear, about the first being
last and the last first, about salt and light, and particularly about
Israel’s god and his coming kingdom. My guess would be that we
have two versions of the great supper parable, two versions of the talents/pounds
parable, and two versions of the beatitudes, not because one is adapted
from the other, or both from a single common written source, but because
these are two out of a dozen or more possible variations that, had one
been in Galilee with a tape-recorder, one might have ‘collected’.”
[N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 170]
Kingdom of God (Jewish Perspective)
“The most important thing to recognize about
the first-century Jewish use of kingdom-language is that it was bound
up with the hopes and expectations of Israel. ‘Kingdom of god’
was not a vague phrase, or a cipher with a general religious aura. It
had nothing much, at least in the first instance, to do with what happened
to human beings after they died. The reverent periphrasis ‘kingdom
of heaven’, so long misunderstood by some Christians to mean ‘a
place, namely heaven, where saved souls go to live after death’,
meant nothing of the sort in Jesus’ world: it was simply a Jewish
way of talking about Israel’s god becoming king. And, when this
god became king, the whole world, the world of space and time, would
at last be put to rights….
The phrase ‘kingdom of god’, therefore, carried unambiguously
the hope that YHWH would act thus, within history, to vindicate Israel…
…Monotheism and election, the Jews’ twin beliefs, focused
themselves into a story which issued in a great hope: there was one
god, he was Israel’s god, and he would soon act to reveal himself
as such. Israel would at last return from exile; evil (more specifically,
paganism, and aberrant forms of Judaism) would finally be defeated;
YHWH would at last return to Zion…
Thus, week after week, and year after year, Israel kept alive the memory
of what YHWH had done in the past to show that he was king, both of
Israel and of the whole world, and so kept alive the hope that his kingdom
would soon come, and his will be done, on earth as it was (they believed)
in heaven. God’s kingdom, to the Jew-in-the-village in the first
half of the first century, meant the coming vindication of Israel, victory
over the pagans, the eventual gift of peace, justice and prosperity.
[N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 202-204]
“His announcement of the kingdom was a warning
of imminent catastrophe, a summons to an immediate change of heart and
direction of life, an invitation to a new way of being Israel. Jesus
announced that the reign of Israel’s god, so long awaited, was
now beginning; but, in the announcement and inauguration itself, he
drastically but consistently redefined the concept of the reign of god
itself. In the light of the Jewish background sketched in The New
Testament and the People of God Part III, this cannot but have
been heard as the announcement that the exile was at last drawing to
a close, that Israel was about to be vindicated against her enemies,
that her god was returning at last to deal with evil, to right wrongs,
to bring justice to those who were thirsting for it like dying people
in a desert. We are bound to say, I think, that Jesus could not have
used the phrase ‘the reign of god’ if he were not in some
sense or other claiming to fulfill, or at least to announce the fulfillment
of, those deeply rooted Jewish aspirations. The phrase was not a novum,
an invention of his own. It spoke of covenant renewed, of creation restored,
of Israel liberated, of YHWH returning.” [N.T. Wright, Jesus and
the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 172]
The Kingdom of God (Christian Perspective)
“The Christian Reappropriation
…The god in question, in the phrase ‘kingdom of god’
and its cognates, is still, without a doubt, the god of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, the one true god of Jewish monotheism, who claims an allegiance
that excludes the worship of idols and the absolute claims of pagan
rulers. The people of the kingdom are called to holiness…The god
who was thus becoming king had a true people, who would be vindicated
when the kingdom finally appeared…They would then be established,
as Israel had hoped to be, as the vicegerents of the creator god, ruling
over his world. This familiar combination of monotheism and election
gave rise, as naturally as did the Jewish expressions of the same beliefs,
to eschatology: the creator would act again within history, to bring
the kingdom fully to birth…What we find across the board in early
Christianity is a firm belief in the presentness of the kingdom, alongside
an equally firm belief in its futurity, these two positions being held
together within a redefined apocalyptic schema.
Jewish apocalyptic, then, has been rethought, not abandoned, within
early Christianity…The early Christian rethinking has taken place
because the crucified and risen Jesus has turned out to be the central
character in the apocalyptic drama. The point of the present kingdom
is that it is the first-fruits of the future kingdom; and the future
kingdom involves the abolition, not of space, time, or the cosmos itself,
but rather of that which threatens space, time and creation, namely,
sin and death…
We have seen that early Christian kingdom-language shared the theological
lineaments of the Jewish usage. Yet, even at a surface reading, this
early Christian kingdom-language has little or nothing to do with the
vindication of ethnic Israel, the overthrow of Roman rule in Palestine,
the building of a new Temple on Mount Zion, the establishment of Torah-observance,
or the nations flocking to Mount Zion to be judged and/or to be educated
in the knowledge of YHWH. A major redefinition has taken place.
The clue to this redefinition lies in the controlling story itself.
We are not faced with a new story altogether, but with a new moment
in the same story…Specifically, the [Christian movement] sees
itself as the time when the covenant purpose of the creator, which always
envisaged the redemption of the whole world, moves beyond the narrow
confines of a single race, and calls into being a trans-national and
trans-cultural community. Further, it sees itself as the time when the
creator, the covenant god himself, has returned to dwell with his people,
but not in a Temple made with hands…We cannot, in other words,
take the easy way out and suggest that the early Christians used kingdom-language
in a completely non-Jewish sense. Their reworking…was generated,
not by the abandonment of the classic Jewish story, but by the belief
that they were living in its long-awaited new phase.” [N.T. Wright,
Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 214-219]
“Jesus’ redefinition of YHWH’s kingdom,
as we have studied it so far, indicates that in his view the kingdom
was indeed present, but that it was not like Israel had thought it would
be. Israel’s god was becoming king in and through the work of
Jesus…Even before the great events that would inaugurate the kingdom
on the public stage and in world history, that kingdom was already present
where Jesus was…His public ministry was itself the true inauguration
of the kingdom which would shortly be established.” [N.T. Wright,
Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 472]
The Sermon on the Mount
“The Sermon on the Mount
The sermon – to take it for the moment as a whole – is not
a mere miscellany of ethical instruction. It cannot be generalized into
a set of suggestions, or even commands, on how to be ‘good’.
Nor can it be turned into a guide-map for how to go to ‘heaven’
after death. It is rather, as it stands, a challenge to Israel to be
Israel.
…Whatever they have meant to subsequent hearers or readers, I
suggest that the beatitudes can be read, in some such way, as an appeal
to Jesus’ hearers to discover their true vocation as the eschatological
people of YHWH…
It is easy to generalize the beatitudes, and thus harder to think one’s
way out of anachronism. But the specific historical context I have suggested
cannot be so easily avoided in the case of the words about salt and
light (Matthew 5.13-16). They sound a challenge to Israel: she is to
be the salt of the earth, the light of the world. That always was her
vocation: to be a nation of priests, to be YHWH’s servant, so
that his glory might reach to the ends of the earth. But the salt has
now forgotten its purpose. The light has turned in on itself. The city
set on a hill was meant to be the place to which the nations would flock
like moths to a lamp, but she has done her best to make herself, and
the god to whom her very existence bears witness, as unattractive as
possible. There is rebuke within the challenge. Israel, called to be
a lighthouse for the world, has surrounded herself with mirrors to keep
the light in, heightening her own sense of purity and exclusiveness
while insisting that the nations must remain in darkness. But with Jesus’
wok the way is open, for any Jews who will dare, to find out what being
the true Israel is all about. By following him, by putting his agenda
into practice, they can at last be true Israel.
…Instead of defining ever more closely the outward action necessary
for the keeping of Torah, thereby proving one’s loyalty to YHWH’s
covenant, Israel was challenged to discover the meaning of the commands
in terms of totally integrated loyalty of heart and act.
The antitheses [in the sermon (Matthew 5.21-48)] do not, then, focus
on the contrast between ‘outward’ and ‘inward’
keepings of the law. They are not retrojections into the first century
of a nineteenth-century Romantic ideal of religion in which outward
things are bad and inward things good. They emphasize, rather, the way
in which the renewal which Jesus sought to engender would produce a
radically different way of being Israel in real-life Palestinian situations.
…It can, no doubt, be generalized into a universal ethic, as has
happened to most of Jesus’ teaching. But the question of its original
meaning is not thereby resolved…The question of how to apply the
sermon to different times and places is another matter, and cannot be
allowed to dictate the question of historical origins.” [N.T.
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 292]
Meaning of 'Messiah' and 'Son of God'
“…the word ‘Messiah’, within
Jesus’ world, does not refer, in itself, to a divine or quasi-divine
figure. There are puzzling and opaque texts in the Hebrew scriptures
which speak of the king as one speaks of Israel’s god. There are
passages where the roles of YHWH and of the king seem to be intertwined.
But there is no evidence to suggest that the various messianic and quasi-messianic
figures who flit through the pages of first-century history thought
of themselves, or were thought of by others, in this fashion. So, when
Peter says to Jesus ‘You are the Messiah’, and when Caiaphas
says the same words but as an ironic question, neither of them should
be understood as either stating or asking whether or not Jesus thinks
he is the incarnate second person of the Trinity. Subsequent Christian
use of the word ‘Christ’ (the Greek translation of ‘Messiah’),
and indeed of the phrase ‘son of god’, as though they were
‘divine’ titles has, to say the least, not helped people
to grasp this point; but grasped it must be if we are to understand
Jesus in his historical context.” [N.T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 478]
“Several text from this period speak of the king
as ‘son of god’. The use of Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 is attested
at Qumran in a messianic context, and there are other references which
show that ‘son of god’ as a messianic title was known in
various circles in this period. But we must stress that in the first
century the regular Jewish meaning of this title had nothing to do with
incipient trinitarianism; it referred to the king as Israel’s
representative. Israel was the son of YHWH: the king who would come
to take her destiny on himself would share this title.” [N.T.
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 486]
“Messiahship, and the identification with Isreal-in-the-purposes-of-YHWH
which it implied, was central to Jesus’ self-understanding…
Jesus, then, believed himself to be the focal point of the people of
YHWH, the returned-from-exiled-people, the people of the renewed covenant,
the people whose sins were now to be forgiven. He embodied what he had
announced…
Jesus’ redefined notion of Messiahship…pointed on to a fulfillment
of Israel’s destiny which no one had imagined or suspected. He
came, as the representative of the people of YHWH, to bring about the
end of exile, the renewal of the covenant, the forgiveness of sins.
To accomplish this, an obvious first-century option for a would-be Messiah
would run: go to Jerusalem, fight the battle against forces of evil,
and get yourself enthroned as the rightful king. Jesus, in fact, adopted
precisely this strategy. But, as he hinted to James and John, he had
in mind a different battle, a different throne.” [N.T. Wright,
Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 538-539]
“…Jewish thought in our period used various
symbols and ideas to communicate the prevailing belief that, though
Israel’s god was the transcendent creator, dwelling in heaven
and not to be contained within earthly categories, he was nevertheless
both continually active within the world and specially active within
the history of Israel herself. The symbols in question are well known:
Shekinah, Torah, Wisdom, Logos, and Sprit.
Israel’s god dwelt (in principal; and he would do so again) in
the Temple; his tabernacling presence (‘Shekinah’) functions
as had the pillar of cloud and fire in the wilderness. He revealed himself
and his will through Torah…He sent his Wisdom to be the guide
of human beings…Language about the Logos became…a way of
speaking about the one true god active throughout the cosmos…Finally,
the Spirit of YHWH was active both in creation and in inspiring the
prophets, and was the supreme equipment of the Messiah himself (Gen.
1.2; Num. 11.17, 23-9; 2 Kgs. 2.9, 15; Neh. 9.20; Isa. 11.2; 42.1; 48.16;
61.1; 63.11).
Turning this around, we find that the Messiah is closely related to
most of these symbols, these ways of speaking and thinking about divine
activity…This does not reinstate what I denied in chapter 11,
the idea that pre- or non-Christian Jews ‘believed that the Messiah
was “divine” [see quote above from p.478]’. Rather,
it emphasizes that the Messiah, if and when he appeared, would be the
agent or even the vicegerent of Israel’s god, would fight his
battles, would restore his people, would rebuild or cleanse the house
so that the Shekinah would again dwell in it.
…The language of Shekinah, Torah, Hokmah (Wisdom), Logos, and
Spirit were ways of affirming YHWH’s intimate involvement with
his people and his world, at the same time as affirming also his sovereignty
and transcendence over the whole cosmos. They were, in that sense, ways
of talking about the personal presence and action, within creation and
within Israel’s life, of her transcendent creator god. Ultimately,
the deliverance that would come for Israel, rescuing her from foreign
domination, restoring her rulers as at the beginning, establishing her
in peace and justice for ever – this deliverance, even though
wrought through human agents, could and would be the work of YHWH himself.
The God of the exodus would reveal himself as the God of the renewed
covenant. The great act of deliverance would be the supreme moment in,
and the supreme vindication of, the story of monotheism itself.”
[N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 629-631]
“I have argued that Jesus’ underlying aim
was based on his faith-awareness of vocation (‘I was sent to…’
or ‘I came to…’ is the language of vocation: cf. e.g.
Mt. 9.13/ Mk. 2.17/ Lk. 5.32; Lk. 19.10). He believed himself called,
by Israel’s god, to evoke the traditions which promised YHWH’s
return to Zion, and the somewhat more nebulous but still important traditions
which spoke of a human figure sharing the divine throne; to enact those
traditions in his own journey to Jerusalem, his messianic act in the
Temple, and his death at the hands of the pagans; and thereby to embody
YHWH’s return.
Jesus’ beliefs, therefore, remained those of a first-century Jew,
committed to the coming kingdom of Israel’s god. He did not waver
in his loyalty to Jewish doctrine. But his beliefs were those of a first-century
Jew who believed that the kingdom was coming in and through his own
work…
Speaking of Jesus’ ‘vocation’ brings us to quite a
different place from some traditional statements of gospel Christology…As
part of his human vocation, grasped in faith, sustained in prayer, tested
in confrontation, agonized over in further prayer and doubt, and implemented
in action, he believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world,
that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be.
He was Israel’s Messiah; but there would, in the end, be ‘no
king but God’.
I suggest, in short, that the return of YHWH to Zion, and the Temple-theology
which it brings into focus, are the deepest keys and clues to gospel
Christology. Forget the ‘titles’ of Jesus, at least for
a moment; forget the pseudo-orthodox attempts to make Jesus of Nazareth
conscious of being the second person of the Trinity; forget the arid
reductionism that is the mirror-image of that unthinkable would-be orthodoxy.
Focus, instead, on a young Jewish prophet telling a story about YHWH
returning to Zion as judge and redeemer, and then embodying it by riding
into the city in tears, symbolizing the Temple’s destruction and
celebrating the final exodus. I propose, as a matter of history, that
Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation: a vocation, given him
by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what,
in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by
himself. He would be the pillar of cloud and fire for the people of
the new exodus. He would embody in himself the returning and redeeming
action of the covenant God.” [N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory
of God (Minneapolis, 1996), 651-653]
Next week we will take a look at a few of the better
sections from the third book in this series, The Resurreciton of
the Son of God.
Richie Temple and Scot Hahn
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
scot@unity-of-spirit.org
February 27, 2012
NT Wright: In His Own Words
As promised in the last blog entry, we would like now
to offer a series of posts with quotes from some of NT Wrights best
works. Many of these are scholarly books that we don't necessarily recommend
to the general public. Nevertheless, they offer many key insights into
the historical background of NT times as well as to the original NT
message as set forth in the NT. We will begin this series with specific
citations from The
New Testament and the People of God, the first in a projected
series of five detailed studies which together form Christian Origins
and the Question of God, basically a comprehensive theology of
the New Testament.
Listen in as NT Wright now discusses in his own words:
History
“…history, I shall argue, is neither ‘bare facts’ nor
‘subjective interpretations’, but is rather the meaningful
narrative of events and intentions…."
"There is not, nor can there be, any such thing as a bare chronicle
of events without a point of view. The great Enlightenment dream of
simply recording ‘what actually happened’ is just that:
a dream…
It is therefore chasing after the wind to imagine that anyone, ancient
or modern, could or can ‘simply record the facts’…There
is no such thing as a point of view that is no-one’s point of
view. To imagine, therefore, as some post-Enlightenment thinkers have,
that we in the modern world have discovered ‘pure history’,
so that all we do is record ‘how it actually happened’,
with no interpretative element or observer’s point of view entering
into the matter—and that this somehow elevates us to a position
of great superiority over those poor benighted former folk who could
only approximate to such an undertaking because they kept getting
in their own light—such a view is an arrogant absurdity.
All history, then, consist of a spiral of knowledge, a long-drawn-out
process of interaction between interpreter and source material…there
is in fact no such thing as ‘mere history’…all history
is interpreted history.” [N.T. Wright, The New Testament and
the People of God (Minneapolis, 1992), 82-88]
New Testament Worldviews (General)
“When we are dealing with Jesus and his significance, with
Paul and his, with the gospels and theirs, we are in the first instance
studying people and movements whose worldviews (and consequent aims,
intentions and motivations) included, at a high-profile level, elements
that are today known as ‘religious’. They believed, that
is, in a god who was actively involved in their personal and corporate
lives, who had intentions and purposes and was capable of carrying
them out through both willing and uncomprehending human agents as
well as (what we would call) ‘natural forces’. We are
therefore studying human history, in the recognition that the actors
in the drama, and hence in a sense the drama itself, can only be fully
understood when we learn to see the world through their eyes.”
[N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis,
1992), 118]
“…‘theology’ highlights what we might call
the god-dimension of a world view. Many thinkers, politicians and
even biblical scholars notoriously dismiss ‘theology’
as if it were simply a set of answers that might be given to a pre-packaged
set of abstract dogmatic questions, but it cannot possibly be reduced
to that level. It provides an essential ingredient in the stories
that encapsulate world views; in the answers that are given to the
fundamental worldview questions; in the symbolic world which gives
the worldview cultural expression; and in the practical agenda to
which the worldview gives rise. As such it is a non-negotiable part
of the study of literature and history, and hence of New Testament
studies.” [N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of
God (Minneapolis, 1992), 130-131]
New Testament Worldviews (Jewish)
“There is then, across the range of Jewish writing that we
possess, solid unanimity on certain major and vital issues…
There is one god, who made the entire universe, and this god is in
covenant with Israel. He has chosen her for a purpose: she is to be
the light of the world. Faced with national crisis, this twin belief,
monotheism and election, committed any Jew who thought about it for
a moment to a further belief: YHWH, as the creator and covenant god,
was irrevocably committed to further action of some sort in history,
which would bring about the end of Israel’s desolation and the
vindication of his true people. Monotheism and election lead to eschatology,
and eschatology means the renewal of the covenant…"
"These, then, were the beliefs that gave shape not merely to
a religious worldview but to the various different movements, political,
social and particularly revolutionary, that characterized the period
from 167 BC to AD 70. The basis of the eager expectation that fomented
discontent and fueled revolution was not merely frustration with the
inequalities of the Roman imperial system, but the fact that this
frustration was set within the context of Jewish monotheism, election
and eschatology. The covenant god would act once more, bringing to
birth the ‘coming age’, ha olam ha-ba, which
would replace the ‘present age’, ha olam ha-zeh,
the age of misery, bondage, sorrow and exile.” [N.T. Wright,
The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, 1992), 247;
279]
“As good creational monotheists, mainline Jews were not hoping
to escape from the present universe into some Platonic realm of eternal
bliss enjoyed by disembodied souls after the end of the space-time
universe. If they died in the fight for the restoration of Israel,
they hoped not to ‘go to heaven’, or at least not permanently,
but to be raised to new bodies when the kingdom came…”
[N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis,
1992), 286]
“Thus the Jews who believed in resurrection did so as one part
of a larger belief in the renewal of the whole created order. Resurrection
would be, in one and the same moment, the reaffirmation of the covenant
and the reaffirmation of creation. Israel would be restored within
a restored cosmos: the world would see, at last, who had all along
been the true people of the creator god. This is where the twin Jewish
‘basic beliefs’ finally come together. Monotheism and
election, taken together, demand eschatology. Creational/covenantal
monotheism, taken together with the tension between election and exile,
demands resurrection and a new world. That is why some of the prophets
used gorgeous mythical language to describe what would happen: lions
and lambs lying down together, trees bearing fruit every month, Jerusalem
becoming like a new Eden. This, too, was simply the outworking, in
poetic symbol, of the basic belief that the creator of the universe
was Israel’s god, and vice versa. When he acted, there would
be a great celebration. All creation, in principle, would join in.”
[N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis,
1992), 332]
New Testament Worldviews (Christian)
“Who are we? We are a new group, a new movement, and yet not
new, because we claim to be the true people of the god of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, the creator of the world. We are the people for whom
the creator god was preparing the way through his dealings with Israel.
To that extent, we are like Israel; we are emphatically monotheists,
not pagan polytheists, marked out from the pagan world by our adherence
to the traditions of Israel, and yet distinguished from the Jewish
would in virtue of the crucified Jesus and the divine spirit, and
by our fellowship in which the traditional Jewish and pagan boundary-markers
are transcended…"
"…Israel’s hope has been realized; the true god
has acted decisively to defeat the pagan gods, and to create a new
people, through whom he is to rescue the world from evil. This he
has done through the true King, Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, in particular
through his death and resurrection. The process of implementing this
victory, by means of the same god continuing to act through his own
spirit in his people, is not yet complete. One day the King will return
to judge the world, and to set up a kingdom which is on a different
level to the kingdoms of the present world order. When this happens
those who have died as Christians will be raised to a new physical
life. The present powers will be forced to acknowledge Jesus as Lord,
and justice and peace will triumph at last.” [N.T. Wright, The
New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, 1992), 370]
“It is basic to early Christianity that the Jewish hope has
already been fulfilled. ‘All the god-given promises find their
“yes” in Christ’, said Paul… It was precisely
because the early Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth, whom
they had regarded as Messiah, had himself been raised from the dead,
that they were able to reverse the linguistic process, taking resurrection
as the fixed literal point and treating the return from exile as the
great metaphor which explained its significance…"
"…the Christians believed that Israel’s god, being
the creator, would physically recreate those who were his own, at
some time and in some space the other side of death… that there
would be a new, bodily, life the other side of the grave, which could
not be reduced to terms simply of a generalized Hellenistic-style
immortality, was everywhere taken for granted in the early period…"
"New, bodily human beings will require a new world in which
to live. In this transformed world order, the veil will be lifted
for all time. The realities of the heavenly world will be visibly
united with the realities of the earthly."
"The fourth and final aspect of the Christian hope is the expectation
of the return of Jesus…
…since that ultimate future is not a disembodied bliss but a
renewal of the whole created order, in which evil will be judged and
defeated, that renewal, that judgment, and his return will belong
closely with one another.” [N.T. Wright, The New Testament and
the People of God (Minneapolis, 1992), 459-462]
Next week we will cite some of the highlights from the second book
in the Christian Origins and the Question of God series.
[The vast majority of this post was compiled and written by Scot
Hahn, as will be the next several in this series on NT Wright. My
thanks to him for all his time and effort in doing this and for all
the help behind the scenes that he continually provides for this web-site.]
Richie Temple and Scot Hahn
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
scot@unity-of-spirit.org
January 25, 2012
NT Wright and The Kingdom New Testament
The world of biblical studies has recently seen the
publication of several new translations or fresh editions of already
existing versions that have enriched our ability to understand the Bible's
message in its original intent and also in more modern English. This
is no easy feat and the scholars who worked on these projects should
be greatly commended. One new version is NT Wright's own personal translation
of the New Testament under the American title of The
Kingdom New Testament. NT Wright is one of the foremost biblical
scholars of modern times and he is easily the most widely known. He
has served in many positions over the years both in the Church of England
and in academic institutions such as Oxford University. Most recently,
he served as the Anglican Bishop of Durham in England for a number of
years and since last year has now returned full time to the academy
in his new position as the Chair of NT Studies at St. Andrews University
in Scotland. At the age of 63 he has already authored over 50 books,
numerous articles, and served in the British Parliament's House of Lords.
His books range from NT academic studies for the scholarly community
to more popular presentations of NT topics for the primary benefit of
the common man.
If I remember correctly, I first became aware of Wright
through his articles in the publication Bible Review over two
decades ago around 1990. I was only mildly impressed at the time since
much of what he was speaking about was in regards to Paul's Letter to
the Romans and a few of the specific points he made I disagreed with
- a disagreement which continues to this day on that specific topic
despite a full commentary by him on the subject. I became much more
impressed with him in his sterling debates with the ridiculous "Jesus
Seminar" which sought to discredit the historicity of the Gospels.
Wright devastatingly exposed the fallacies of their untenable historical
positions and showed the factual historicity of the Gospels in the light
of their original purposes. As I began to read his other writings -
especially his major works The
New Testament and the People of God (1992), Jesus
and the Victory of God (1996), and The
Resurrection of the Son of God (2003) - it quickly became apparent
that this was a man who knew much that could benefit me and the church
at large. From that time I've read almost all of his major works as
he has published them and also kept up with his articles, sermons and
lectures that were published in various forums and publications.
To this day I believe that Wright is actually a better
historian than biblical scholar - though outstanding at both - and that
his understanding of major biblical themes is better than his detailed
exegesis of individual passages and verses. He is, of course, very British
in his perspective on many things thus reflecting the social-democratic
and anti-imperialistic norms of the post WWII British society in which
he grew up. This, of course, affects his views on certain topics such
as politics, economics, and social justice which he can swerve off onto
at any moment in his writings. Unfortunately, as with many scholars
who grew up in post WWII European style welfare states, he at times
[wrongly] reads these ideologies back into the biblical text as though
such systems of government, economics, etc. are the logical extension
of biblical ethics. However, his ethical positions on personal morality
are biblically conservative and consistent - against the grain of modern
British society - on modern hot-button moral and ethical issues such
sex, marriage and the godly lifestyle that should be the norm of Christian
life. As a scholar, when Wright delves into - and sticks to - history
itself as well as to the strict exposition of the biblical text in its
own historical context, he is amongst the very best and I would endorse
all that he writes on these topics as worthy of deep consideration.
Certainly Wright is not for everyone - he can be very wordy and way
beyond the grasp of the common man at times - but at the same time he
is also an extraordinary individual of immense learning and abilities
whose articulate and bold advocacy of the truths of biblical Christianity
is unparalleled today both in the church at large and in the wider intellectual
society.
Fortunately, Wright is highly respected across denominational
lines and therefore the benefits of his scholarship have affected Chritianity
as whole. He knows the orthodox theological borders within which he
must navigate, hedge and limit his biblical insights as expressed in
his writings in order to gain acceptance within his own Anglican denomination
as well as in the wider Christian world. But this is a "skill"
which all biblical scholars with jobs or vested interests in institutional
Christianity must acquire - and, it is something that should always
be kept in mind by serious readers of their works. Though Wright is
somewhat of a lightening rod for many in the more biblically conservative
denominations of the Christian world - especially on the somewhat fuzzy
details of his position on justification by faith - I would emphasize
that overall I believe his writings have been amongst the most valuable
contributions to the life of the Christian church over the last quarter
of a century. I also believe his grasp of the overall themes and flow
of the biblical story has done much to re-orient and re-energize
modern Christian scholarship towards a more truly biblical perspective.
All of this results in a more accurate biblical scholarship by Christian
scholars and leads to many corresponding godly applications to real
life for the common man in the midst of this present modern - and all
too - evil age in which we live.
One of the many things that NT Wright has going for
him is that his Ph.D. advisor was G.B. Caird, a man, if anything, whose
biblical perspective and scholarship was even more biblically sound
than Wright's. Simply put, Caird's biblical scholarship was ground-breaking
and of immense importance in recapturing a biblical understanding that
was in accordance with its original historic, cultural and linguistic
contexts. Unfortunately, Caird died in his mid-60s leaving unfinished
many scholarly projects that he wanted to complete. It is easy to see
Caird's influence on Wright, and Wright certainly acknowledges as much;
nevertheless, Wright's own scholarly output has far exceeded that of
Caird while sometimes expanding on themes developed by Caird and at
other times going in new directions that are not in line with Caird's
thought. This, of course, is the normal academic process.
Much of Wright's NT understanding can be gleaned from
his newly published original translation of the New Testament which
in America is entitled, The
Kingdom New Testament. Perhaps, the best way for most interested
people to get a better and deeper understanding of his translation is
to also read his very accessible commentary series (The
New Testament for Everyone, which can be bought as a set or
in indivdual volumes) from which Wright actually developed the first
version of his translation. It is a translation that is not meant to
replace others but rather to augment, in modern English, one's understanding
of the New Testament message. It can be simply read and enjoyed, or
it can be used comparatively along with other major versions for deeper
study. Below, I quote from some of its passages to give the reader a
feel for its vocabulary and flow:
1. "The book of the family tree of Jesus the Messiah,
the son of David, the son of Abraham." Matthew 1:1.
The opening phrase "the book of the family tree"
is indicative of the fresh, modern and clear language that Wright uses
throughout his translation. It makes for an easy flowing story as one
reads through his version. Also, the word christos in Greek
is sometimes translated by Wright as Messiah, Christ or King, depending
on the context. This enables him to emphasize the various nuances of
the word. I would personally prefer that he stick to Christ and/or Messiah
since I believe that King does not give the full sense of christos
which really means "God's annointed Savior and King".
2. "This, you see, is how much God loved the world:
enough to give his only, special son, so that everyone who believes
in him should not be lost but should share in the life of God's new
age." John 3:6.
The Greek word monogenes which is traditionally
translated as "only begotten" is here translated correctly
and beautifully as "special." The word means unique or special.
In addition, the word "son" is not capitalized reflecting
the fact that first century believers would not have understood this
word in the sense of later trinitarian theology. The Greek words zoe
aionios which are traditionally translated as "eternal life"
are translated by Wright correctly and importantly in various ways thoughout
his version such as "the life of God's new age," "the
life of the coming age," or "the life of the age to come."
The term specifically means "life in, or of, the future age of
the kingdom of God." The term "eternal life" is fine
as a translation if one understands it in the above sense; however,
it can be misleading if it is understood in a non-biblical platonic
sense of life in "eternity," a timeless realm beyond earthly
existence unto which an immortal soul ascends after escaping from a
body at death.
The following is another example, among many, in this
translation of what would normally be translated as "eternal life"
in other versions:
"The wages paid by sin, you see, are death; but
God's free gift is the life of the age to come, in the Messiah, Jesus
our Lord." Rom 6:23
3. "The result is this: since we have been declared
"in the right" on the basis of faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus the Messiah." Rom 5:1.
Wright often translates the Greek words traditionally
translated as "justified", etc. as some version of "declared
in the right", etc. This accurately reflects what Paul intends
- as does "justified", etc. The words can be used interchangeably.
The key is accurate understanding - that is, one is "acquitted"
of sin and therefore accepted as "in the right" with God.
4. "When the kindness and generous love of God
our savior appeared, he saved us, not by works that we did in righteousness,
but in accordance with his own mercy, through the washing of the new
birth and the renewal of the holy spirit, which was poured out richly
upon us through Jesus, our king and savior, so that we might be justified
by his grace and be made his heirs, in accordance with the hope of the
life of the age to come." Titus 3:4-7.
There are several things to comment on in these verses.
First, note that "holy spirit" is not capitalized, and this
is true throughout Wright's New Testament translation. Next, the word
following "holy spirit" is translated "which" rather
than "who" or "whom". All of this reflects accurately
the fact that the "holy spirit" was not seen by the New Testament
believers as a separate "person" as in later trinitarian theology,
but rather as God's own personal power and presence. Notice also that
here Wright uses the word "justified" which he also sometimes
translates as above as "declared in the right." He uses these
phrases interchangeably according to the context. And finally, notice
that the phrase traditionally translated as "eternal life"
is also here translated as the "life of the age to come."
I think that the above examples give a fair representation
of the fresh renderings offered by Wright which help the reader to understand
the New Testament through the eyes of a first century believer rather
than as someone living in, say, a post-Nicene world several centuries
later or even in today's world. There is no perfect translation and
this one certainly is not either. Nevertheless, it gives real insight
into a correct understanding of the New Testament in many places and
I would highly recommend it to any student of the Bible.
Next month I will offer some examples of Wright's New
Testament understanding from some of his other works.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
December 25, 2011
Christmas Day
On this Christmas day we send our greetings to all
of our friends and fellow believers in celebration of the day our savior,
Christ Jesus our Lord was born. There is no better section of scripture
that encapsulates the joyous Christmas message of what actually happened
in the reality of historical time and its meaning
for Christians for all time than Galatians 4:4-7. I present it below
in a range of beautiful translations:
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent
forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those
who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6
And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our
hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father'! 7 So you are no longer a slave, but
a son, and if a son, then an heir through God." (ESV)
"But when the set time had fully come, God sent
his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under
the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are
his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit
who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a
slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made
you also an heir." (NIV)
"But when the right time came, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, subject to the law. 5 God sent him to buy freedom for
us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very
own children. 6 And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit
of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, “Abba, Father.”
7 Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since
you are his child, God has made you his heir." (NLT)
May God bless you all as we celebrate the reality
and meaning of Christ's life each and every
day that we live!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
October 30, 2011
Reformation Sunday
In much of the Protestant world of Christianity the
last Sunday of October is designated as Reformation Sunday in remembrance
of the momentous events that began in the fall of 1517 when Martin Luther
courageously took a stand against the widespread corruption in doctrine
and practice that was current in the Roman Catholic Church of his day.
Having grown up in the Protestant faith this day has a great deal of
meaning for me. Though my own particular childhood church tended to
pay less and less attention to its significance as I grew up through
my teenage years, that church was originally founded on Reformation
principles and they were ingrained in me through our church services,
Sunday school classes, special events, and most importantly, my own
personal study of the scriptures which both my parents and ministers
encouraged me to pursue.
This personal study of the scriptures - a legacy of
the Reformation - has been a life-long joy for me and it began as far
back as I can remember. I cannot remember any time in my life that I
did not believe the Bible to be the most special of all books; that
is, the one book - far above all others - that was uniquely "inspired
by God" and that contained God's words for life. In my earliest
days I began with the King James Version (KJV) and the Revised Standard
Version (RSV) which remain today as two pillars of English translations
of the Bible. However, over the past fifty years many other translations
or revisions of the Bible in English have appeared which are both more
accurate and more readable than either of these two venerable versions.
Though I use and recommend a wide range of versions, there are three
in particular that I use most often and that I primarily recommend to
others for one's own personal reading, study, and memorization. These
span the translation spectrum from essentially literal (ESV) to balanced
(NIV) to more free (NLT) and are all the product of some of the best
Bible translation scholarship in the world today:
1. The English Standard
Version (ESV):
2. The New
International Version (NIV):
3. The
New Living Translation (NLT):
I hope that each reader of this web-site will check
out and read up on these excellent translations or versions of the Bible
by consulting their web-sites. Take the time to get to know them well.
Each of these popular translations ultimately owes its existence to
the Reformation which sparked what is now a five hundred year quest
for biblical understanding and a parallel quest for communicating that
understanding to the common man through translations and various forms
of commentary. Though each of these versions of the Bible can be used
very well as one's primary Bible for personal reading, study, and memorization,
they are also very useful for comparative study of particular biblical
passages. Therefore I recommend that a person own a good copy of each
of them at least for comparative purposes. In addition, each of these
versions can also be used in a very clear and useful Study Bible format
in which a huge amount of valuable historical, cultural, literary, and
linguistic information can be accessed at one's fingertips. Yes, it
takes some time and effort to master the formats of these Study Bibles;
however, it is time that is very well spent and can yield a great deal
useful understanding.
In sum, when each of the above versions of the Bible
is used and understood in the light of its own translation philosophy
- literal, balanced, free - the biblical text and meaning is normally
clear for those who truly want to see and understand it. The Study Bible
format can enhance this understanding as well by providing more background
information. This is all a huge and priceless legacy of the Reformation
and those of us who are heirs of it have a corresponding responsibility
to take advantage of these and similar resources so that the light of
the truth of God's word can shine forth to modern hearers of its message
today.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
August 29, 2011
Summer Travels and Thoughts
This summer my wife Dorota and I visited Europe together
and saw several different countries, cities and regions over the space
of about three weeks. There were many great experiences on this trip
but the highlight, aside from simply spending time together with Dorota,
was certainly spending about 10 days in Poland visiting her family and
then being able to fellowship with our dear brothers and sisters in
Christ both in Krakow and in our annual summer Bible conference in the
Polish mountains. It was an especially eventful time for me, not only
because of the wonderful fellowship and events of this summer, but also
because it was the 30th anniversary of when I first visited Europe during
the summer of 1981.
That first six-week trip, consisting primarily of travel
through the Soviet Bloc of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself,
set me on a new course in my life that has influenced almost everything
that I've done since that time. At the time I was 26 years old, had
already worked many different jobs, lived in many different places,
and seen about half of the states of the United States. This was mostly
a result of being very involved in helping plant, build and lead home
Bible fellowships for the previous eight years since graduating from
high school. Fortunately, by this time I had also somehow managed to
gain a college education in history and political science from North
Carolina State University and I was contemplating a career in Soviet
and East European Studies which had been my specialty at NCSU - thanks
to several outstanding professors who had inspired me. I decided that
the best way to gauge my real interest in this field was to visit these
countries and see them for myself. Equally, I also had a desire to help
people in those countries to come to better know God and to live for
him through gaining a more accurate knowledge of God's word from the
Bible. From the very beginning I believed that if I could help just
one person in this regard then it would be worth all of the time, expense
and effort involved.
And so on July 1, 1981 - with the backing and prayers
of many others - I set out for West Berlin, Germany and continued through
the next six weeks over the Berlin Wall to East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and then to the Soviet republics
of Moldavia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Russian
Republic. Given my background I was probably about as prepared as anyone
could be for such a trip; however, given the difference between the
communist world of the East and the free, democratic world of the West
at the time nothing could really have prepared me adequately for what
I was to experience. It was the hardest thing that I had ever done up
until that time and when I finished I never wanted to return to that
region of the world again. The communist oppression, lack of freedom,
economic hardship and sheer difficulty of life was far greater than
anything I had seen to that point in my life. And, it did not help that
I got sick twice along the way including having mononucleosis for the
last two and half weeks in the Soviet Union. However, I also believed
that I was there for a purpose and that God was guiding me along the
way. The people I met, the experiences that took place, and the undeniable
working of God - in me, through me and despite me - made vivid impressions
on my mind and heart. And so, after recovering from mononucleosis after
returning to America I was ready to go back again.
That opportunity came about through a summer school
program in Krakow, Poland in the summer of 1982. It was here that I
met two people - a teacher of Russian and a teacher of English who were
also leaders in the summer school program - Leszek and Olga Druszkiewicz.
We developed a close friendship and began to study the Bible together;
and, from that point we also began to gradually build a Bible fellowship
that has continued under their leadership until this day. Nobody could
have better friends as brothers and sisters in Christ than these two
dear individuals who have done so much to help so many others since
that time. Thankfully, over the next five years I was able to live,
study and work in Krakow and to experience some of the greatest years
of my life and to meet what are today some of my dearest friends, family,
and brothers and sisters in Christ. Most importantly, it was here that
I met my dear wife and closest friend, Dorota. It would be impossible
for me now to contemplate my life without her. Though our life together
since that time has certainly not been easy - just as no believer's
life is easy in the midst of this present evil age - it has nevertheless
been filled with the joys of close companionship in living our daily
lives and endeavoring to serve our God.
Thirty years is a long time but that first trip and
the years that followed do not seem that long ago to me. I am thankful
for each day along the way and for all the close friends, family and
fellow believers that I've come to know and love during that time. I
hope for much more to come in all respects. Unfortunately, reality has
a way of breaking into the best of times and this past year I've personally
seen the death of several Christian friends or relatives that have had
an influence on my life including one of the smartest and wisest men
I've ever known, Ferenc Jeszenszky, from Budapest, Hungary. Without
that first trip thirty years ago I certainly never would have had the
joy of knowing him and what a loss that would have been. He will always
remain an example of godliness to me, Dorota, and all who knew him.
And, as Olga Druszkiewicz reminded us at our Polish Bible conference
this summer of 2011, such events should remind us both of the brevity
of life and the necessity to make each day count in our life with God.
And so with thankfulness for the past 30 years and with hope for our
lives ahead I will close with the words of the Psalmist which he spoke
to God,
"So teach us to number our days aright that we
may gain a heart of wisdom." (Psalm 90:12)
May we make each day count for God's purposes as we
live together for him.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
July 4, 2011
July 4th is Independence Day in the United States.
It's a day in which the birthday of the United States is celebrated
because it is the day in which the Declaration of Independence was approved
and the US officially declared its independence. I'm often asked questions
about this by fellow Christians in relation to two points of interest
and controversy. First, was the United States created as a nation "under
God"? And, second, was/is the United States a Christian nation?
The answer to the first question is an unequivocal
"yes". That is, the Declaration of Independence, America's
founding document, is crystal clear that the United States was founded
"under God." The answer to the second question is both "yes"
and "no". That is, the vast majority of Americans at the time
of America's founding as the United States were Christians of one sort
or another with a common Christian ethic - despite differences on doctrinal
details - which bound them together. Thus, the United States was a Christian
nation in that the vast majority of its citizens were Christians. However,
legally, the United States was not and is not a Christian nation. Instead,
it has championed religious freedom from its very beginning, especially
in the U.S. Constitution which sets forth the fundamental governmental
structures and laws of the land. It is precisely because of this freedom
that religion, and Christianity in particular in all of its different
flavors, has flourished in the United States and continues to do so
today.
The following is an article that I wrote some time
ago which touches on both of these issues:
One
Nation Under God?
I hope everyone has a wonderful 4th of July week!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
June 27, 2011
"Men of Truth"
Favorite Historical Individuals from the Renaissance
to the Present
Each year as the school year comes to a close I have
my European history students draw up a list of their favorite historical
individuals in European history from c. 1500 to the present - that is,
the period of time that we cover in our course. Sometimes I do this
with my U.S. history students as well. The ground rules include that
the individuals chosen must be people of some noted historical prominence
and influence. Beyond that, it's up to each individual to choose his
own. We then write them on the board with each listed in a column side
by side with the others. Then each student explains his picks and, finally,
at the end we compare the lists with one another and form a final consensus
list. It is always an interesting and enjoyable time for us all. At
the end I always add my own list as well which I fortunately have the
opportunity to refine each year.
Of course, each list tells as much about the values
and historical perspective of the person who makes it as it does of
the significance of the individuals chosen. My list is no exception
to this rule and it, therefore, reflects my own Christian beliefs and
values as well as my concern for the advancement of the knowledge of
the truth. My list, which follows below, is actually a combined list
- from any country - of my favorite historical individuals from the
past 500 years or so, though it is necessarily, due to Europe's influential
place in the world in this time period, dominated by Europeans. The
list is presented chronologically rather than in order of importance.
These were all people who were willing to take bold stands on behalf
of the truth, usually at risk to their own lives. I hope you'll read
up on them all and that it will spur your own appreciation of the thanks
that are due to such men and women who stood for the truth.
1. Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)
The greatest man of his day and recognized as such
during that time. A "Renaissance Man" in the best sense of
that phrase. Erasmus was a biblical scholar, textual expert, writer,
educator, diplomat and - most importantly - an earnest and devout Christian.
Though he remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church throughout
his life, he was a sharp and fearless critic of its structure, corruption
and superstition. He believed in living as much as possible according
to the simplicity of NT Christianity. As a scholar, his critical Greek
text which he collated became the basis for Luther's translation of
the NT into German and William Tyndale's translation of the NT into
English. Though he was not willing to break with the Roman Catholic
church as Luther did, his words and deeds provided the springboard from
which Luther and the Reformation sprang full flame into history. Despite
not breaking with the Roman Catholic church, Erasmus himself was often
in peril due to his unwillingness to not speak the truth as he understood
it and was often forced to seek refuge under the protection of others
because of the shifting political alliances of his day.
2. Martin Luther (1483-1546)
The man who, through his courageous stand for the truth,
changed the world. No one has affected the world of the last 500 years
more than Martin Luther and no one has had more influence on the advancement
of the truth than he. We are all his beneficiaries in countless ways
- spiritually, politically, economically and socially. Luther's stand
on the simple biblical truths of
1. justification and, thus, salvation solely by grace
through faith in Christ,
2. the authority of the Bible in all matters of faith
and practice, and,
3. the priesthood and equality of all believers before
God
broke the institutional monopoly of the Roman Catholic
church in 16th century life. From this a spiritual revolution sprang
which begat a corresponding political, social and economic revolution.
All of these revolutions continue to this day. Needless to say Luther
was, for most of his life, a man whose life was in danger at nearly
every moment due to his commitment to the truth.
3. William Tyndale (c. 1492-1536)
The true father of the English Bible who was also one
of the greatest reformers of the Reformation. Though John Wycliffe had
earlier in the 1300s translated the NT into English from Latin, Tyndale's
translation of the NT from the Greek was much more accurate and it set
the basis for almost all major versions and revisions of the Bible -
including the KJV - up until 20th century. All English speaking Christians
anywhere in the world are thus indebted to him. But so is Shakespeare
and all of British and American language and literature up until the
20th century. In addition, his knowledge and understanding of the scriptures
was perhaps the most accurate of all of the reformers. He lived constantly
on the run and eventually paid for his commitment to the truth with
his own life.
4. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
A devout reformed Christian, jurist, diplomat, educator
and active participant in the church controversies of his own day. Grotius
is often considered to be the father of international law. He wrote
valuable works on Just War theory and the laws of war, seeking to bring
about a more just society during a time of much European conflict, often
revolving around religious controversies. His expertise and wisdom were
internationally recognized much in the same way as Erasmus. However,
due to his commitment to the truth as he understood it he was often
on the run or in exile and served many different nations in diplomatic
roles despite himself being Dutch.
5. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
A devout Christian, philosopher, mathematician and
scientist. He was fully involved in the Scientific Revolution of his
day but did not buy into many of the assumptions or conclusions of his
scientific predecessors or contemporaries, in particular Descartes.
Though he defended the scientific method, he did not believe that it,
or empiricism, could be the only basis for understanding or discovering
truth. He was a very independent thinker who was extremely concerned
to understand truth in all its dimensions and refused to be limited
by the religious or scientific "correctness" of his day. He
was a Jansenist Roman Catholic Christian, which in essence means, a
Roman Catholic who believed in a world created and governed by God,
that man was sinful and in need of a savior, and that salvation was
by grace through faith in Christ alone. The famous "Pascal's Wager"
is the essence of common sense and just as true today as then.
6. King William (of Orange) (1650-1702)
The steadfast foe of the ambitions of Louis XIV, William
of Orange first governed the Dutch Republic and then took the crown
of England as King William III together with his wife Mary in the English
Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. As a staunch protestant he defended
and advanced the cause of freedom, rule of law, and biblical Christianity
against the centralizing political absolutism and threatening Roman
Catholicism of Louis the XIV and others of his day. All who read the
Bible in their own vernacular and live in freedom under some system
of constitutional rule of law are heirs and beneficiaries of his accomplishments.
7. John Locke (1632-1704)
One of the great men of Western Civilization. Locke
was first and foremost a devout Christian who also became the father
of modern empiricism and classical liberalism. His writings on natural
rights, representative government, human understanding, and religious
truth all were key elements in the British Enlightenment from which
the European Enlightenment sprang. Though still revered today in many
ways, the religious aspects of his thought and writings has almost been
forgotten. This is unfortunate for it was actually his strong Christian
faith that was the foundation of his own life and also, he believed,
the most "reasonable" faith and world-view through which the
God-given rights of man must be viewed.
8. John Wesley (1703-1791)
Wesley was a man who lived for God and the spread of
God's word "in season and out of season." Though he insisted
that he was Anglican throughout his life, he gave birth to the Methodist
movement that reached the common man in both word and in deed. Wesley
firmly believed in justification by faith - from an Arminian perspective
- but coupled this with a strong emphasis on caring for the needs of
God's people in the 18th century England where he lived. In fact, despite
heavy criticism from traditional religious circles there was perhaps
no man who did more for the people of England during the 18th century
even though he had to work in non-conventional ways throughout most
of his life. His life deserves to be appreciated first and foremost
for his stand for the truth of God's word without which his actions
on behalf of the social welfare of God's people would have been meaningless
to him.
9. George Washington (1732-1799)
Washington was rightfully considered the greatest man
of his day. Though modern scholars have tried to play down his Christian
faith, they have not succeeded in doing so. Recent biographies and,
most importantly, his own writings, clearly show his faith to have been
central to his life, though in governmental affairs he promoted the
freedom to exercise one's own religious belief in accordance with one's
own conscience. In fact, he exemplified how a Christian man of strong
faith could lead at the highest levels both in war and in government
for the benefit of the common people of his day. He remains the paramount
example of a military and political leader with integrity and dignity
in pursuit of a righteous cause no matter the cost to himself. The political
changes he helped to effect and the governmental structure that he helped
to both shape and to put into action led to the establishment of a nation
where political and religious freedom has flourished and where the free
pursuit of the truth has been considered a natural right of all.
10. Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Perhaps the greatest political leader of the 20th century.
Churchill was a man who cherished freedom and was willing to give his
all to preserve it. He was also a man who was willing - despite huge
criticism - to see evil for what it really was in the form of both "Bolshevism"
and "Nazism". Though he was ostracized for many years due
to his convictions and his bold statements in the face of these evils,
he was eventually called upon to lead Britain against all odds to victory
in what he called its "finest hour". Every person who lives
in freedom today is indebted to him for his stand against the enormous
evils of his time.
Like all of us, all of the above individuals were flawed
human beings. However, what separates them was their personal character
in their willingness to overcome their weaknesses, their flaws, and
their own ambitions to undertake the tasks that were necessary in their
own generations despite the costs to their own lives. In one way or
another they were all men of truth of whom we are all the beneficiaries
of their efforts today. I hope those who read this blog will read up
on each of them. If you do, be sure to put yourself in their shoes and
to appreciate their lives in the midst of the realities of their own
times. If you will do this you will gain a greater appreciation of some
of the men who stood for the truth in their own days and, therefore,
left us an example and a legacy to follow, enjoy and preserve.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
March 14, 2011
Understanding and Applying the Truth of the Bible
One of the most well known sections of scripture relating
to the Bible's inspiration, authority and purpose is II Timothy 3:14-17:
"But as for you, continue in
what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you
learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the
sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through
faith in Christ Jesus."
"All Scripture is breathed out [inspired] by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training
in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for
every good work." (ESV).
When I was very young I accepted these words (originally
read in the KJV) at their face value without any sophisticated theory
of scriptural inspiration. Because of that I read, read and read the
Bible with a reverence for the words that I was reading and with a humble
receptivity that this was God's word to me and to my fellowman. This
gave me a good overall scope of the Bible as a whole at a very young
age. Over the years as I've continued to read and study the Bible I've
come to a greater understanding of how the Bible originally came about
and how to most properly read it and apply it to life in the light of
its original historical context and its various literary forms and structures.
However, this has only increased my appreciation and reverence
for it. I've never ever felt the need to depart from the basic reverence
with which I have always approached the Bible and the older I've become
the more fully I appreciate the living truth of God's word that the
Bible reveals in all its many ways. As someone who has studied and taught
history for much of my life I can say that there is no other book in
history that comes even remotely close to the Bible in the truth that
it imparts. And, of course, this truth is as important, meaningful and
relevant today as at any time in the history of the world.
This brings up the subject of how to understand and
apply the truth of the Bible in a way that is both accurate and relevant
to our lives today. Whenever, for example, I hear someone say, "Jesus
said this" or "Jesus said that" my guard immediately
goes up. I'm much more interested in knowing what Jesus said and meant
in the light of the Bible as a whole rather than simply what "Jesus
said." He himself appealed over and over again to the Old Testament
and often his statements are taken to mean something that is at variance
with what his closest followers including Paul, for instance, clearly
said and meant. It is sometimes said for instance with regards to the
subject of "non-resistance to evil" and "pacificism"
that pacifists "appeal to Jesus" while those who don't believe
that this point of view presents the whole picture "appeal to the
Bible." I stand squarely in this latter category since the words
and deeds of our Lord and Savior must themselves be understood both
against the background of the Old Testament and in the light of how
they should now be understood and applied in the new covenant era as
explained in the Book of Acts and the NT Letters. Paul, for instance,
is a much better guide for what Jesus meant than a post modern church
pastor, a civil rights activist, or even a modern professor of NT studies
who may not give us the full picture of what Jesus meant in the light
of the new covenant perspective.
The Bible, of course, tells the story of God's relationship
with man moving from "creation" in Genesis 1-2 in the Old
Testament all the way to "new creation" in Revelation 21-22
in the New Testament. In between its books progressively unfold God's
plan of salvation which he ultimately brings about through his Son,
Jesus Christ. Christians should read and study the Bible in the light
of this overall scope of the unfolding story of the Bible as a whole.
They should gain a good knowledge of the Old Testament, read the Gospels
in the light of the Old Testament, and then they should focus
on that part of the Bible - The Book of Acts and the NT Letters - which
specifically deals with the new covenant brought about by Christ's life,
death, resurrection and the giving of the Spirit. All of this should
then be understood in the light of Christ's future second coming and
the final establishment of God's kingdom. To study any biblical topic
in depth one should study it in the light of this progression of the
unfolding of the biblical plan.
So, in sum, to best understand and apply the truth
of the Bible to life:
1. Read and understand the Bible as an unfolding story
from the Old Testament through the Gospels to the New Testament Letters
culminating in the Book of Revelation.
2. Focus on the new covenant truth of being a child
in God's family and a new creation "in Christ" as set forth
in the Book of Acts and the New Testament Letters.
3. Then, as a Christian who is a new creation "in
Christ" apply this truth to the situations of life in which you
are involved by continuing to believe in Christ, and
live a Christ-like life, until Christ's return!
As we do this we grow up into Christ in all things.
But learning to do this is a lifetime growth and walk as a child in
God's family. It takes time, effort, perseverance, and the concern to
grow in understanding and applying the truth of the Bible in our lives.
Note: The "Bible Versions" section under
"Recommendations" has recently been updated to reflect the
recent updates in major Bible translations.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Martin Luther King Jr. Day, January 17, 2011
Modern Conceptions of "Freedom," "Equality,"
and "Tolerance" in the Light of a Christian World-View
Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the United States.
It is a federal holiday in which we celebrate the life of a Christian
man who, through dedication and the ultimate self-sacrifice, sought
to bring about a society in which people are judged "by the content
of their character rather than by the color of their skin." Having
personally lived through the struggle this entailed in the American
South, I consider Martin Luther King Jr. to be one of the greatest leaders
in American history. In fact, as with other people, most Christians
today welcome the political, legal, and religious freedoms, equality,
and tolerance that now exist in much of the Western world. The benefits
to individuals and to society as a whole that have come out of the historical
processes that brought about these legal rights are obvious. Anyone
who has ever lived under political tyranny certainly appreciates political
freedom. Anyone who has ever lived under legal discrimination certainly
welcomes legal equality. And, anyone who has ever been forced to accept
certain religious, political, or scientific dogmas undoubtedly welcomes
the freedom to seek out and determine the truth for himself in an atmosphere
of tolerance. Nevertheless, we would almost all agree that for
such ideals as freedom, equality, and tolerance to have any real useful,
honorable, or practical meaning they must be specifically defined and
qualified; otherwise, they become vague, mystical, open-ended,
and even misleading concepts that often can do more harm than good.
It is ridiculous to simply be in favor of, or believe
in, "freedom," "equality," or "tolerance"
as though they have intrinsic value in and of themselves - apart from
specific definitions and qualifications. No reasonable person would
hold such an opinion. For example, though in general I am in favor of
"freedom" of speech, my students in my history classes are
by no means free to say anything they want, anytime they want, about
any subject they want, or with any type of language that they choose
to use. Instead, their freedom - of speech, in this case - is limited
by their age, by the rules of the school, by the laws of the state,
and by the direction of the adult teacher. To go a step further, it
is obvious that very few people in our societies would support the "freedom"
of individuals or groups of people to physically harm, steal from, or
kill other people. Clearly, similar qualifications are necessary for
the concepts of "equality," "tolerance," etc. as
well if they are to have a useful meaning in society. So, when we speak
of "freedom," etc. in Western societies we usually readily
acknowledge that what we are in fact speaking of are freedoms that,
though cherished, are also necessarily limited for the good of society
as a whole. It then becomes a matter of determining the lines of demarcation
for freedom in different spheres of life. Apart from that understanding
the simplistic advocacy for "freedom," "equality,"
and "tolerance," etc. - as though these terms have a good
and meaningful intrinsic value in and of themselves - has no reasonable
or useful meaning in a civil society that is in any way devoted to the
common or public good.
In addition, for a Christian it is always more important
to do what is morally or ethically "right" irrespective of
whether one has specific political, legal or religious "rights"
in any given society. As a Christian my first responsibility is always
to live in accordance with God's will irrespective of what kind of government
I live under or irrespective of the freedoms that exist or don't exist
in a given society. In short, a Christian is always responsible to do
what is morally or ethically "right" in God's eyes irrespective
of whether he has the legal "right" to do so or not and also
irrespective whether he also has the legal "right" to do what
is morally or ethically wrong. Nor does legal freedom, equality or tolerance
equate to, or imply, something that is moral or ethical. No unethical
or immoral thought, word or deed can be "baptized" or "cleansed"
with modern conceptions of "rights" such as "freedom,"
"equality," or "tolerance" so as to make that thought,
word or deed ethical or moral. Instead, a thought, word or deed is ethical
or unethical, moral or immoral, based on its own intrinsic rightness
or wrongness as determined by God alone.
Traditionally, in Western societies the standard for
determining what is morally right and wrong in society has been the
belief that man is created in the image of God and is thus responsible
to live righteously before that righteous God to whom he must ultimately
give account. On this basis it was long held to be true by almost all
members of society that there are certain thoughts, words, and deeds
that are intrinsically right or wrong - that is, absolute moral values
that society should not allow, condone, or promote; otherwise, they
would be to the detriment, and undermining, of the common good of society
itself. In terms of concrete acts such as murder, theft, etc. many of
these have always been rather easy to find a consensus on and to enforce
in legal terms. Others - such as one's thought-life - are almost impossible
to legalize against, or to enforce, and rarely has there been the desire
or attempt to do so. Nevertheless, no one in society would have thought
that every thought is therefore morally good simply because it was legally
allowed or tolerated. In addition, through most of history no one in
a Western society would have thought that the mere legal allowance or
toleration of certain words or deeds made them moral. Instead, society
as a whole continued to believe that there were certain moral absolutes
of right and wrong - intrinsic to man's nature and responsibility before
God - that did not change, irrespective of the legal status of certain
words or deeds.
Over the last two hundred years or so this whole way
of thinking has increasingly come under attack from many directions
as God has been dethroned from his supreme position in Western societies
and the secularization of society has progressed. Though the more traditional
view of God-centered intrinsic values still exists amongst vast numbers
of people, modern Western societies are now quickly moving more and
more towards the relativistic rule of thumb that "anything is o.k.
to believe and to do so long as it doesn't hurt someone else."
Though this may very well be the best "ethic" that a modern,
relativistic and secular society can come up with, it is certainly not
a good enough standard for ethical or moral right and wrong for those
who profess the Christian faith. Nor, is it necessary to simply let
societies degenerate into such a mindless way of thinking without putting
up resistance to such notions and without offering a better way forward.
Biblically based Christians are obligated by their faith to recognize
that there are certain beliefs, words, and deeds that are simply intrinsically
wrong - and therefore are harmful to individuals and to society as a
whole - irrespective of whether science, social science, law, or modern
society at large recognizes that they are wrong or harmful. Therefore,
though in a secular society certain actions may be legally tolerated
- or even promoted as "rights" or "freedoms" that
offer a supposedly meaningful "diversity" in and of themselves
- the Christian, to remain true to his faith, cannot in good conscience
agree that these actions are "equally" good, moral, or even
"o.k." - even if they are baptized and cleansed in the name
of high sounding and modern secular conceptions of "freedom,"
"equality," "tolerance," or, increasingly, the catch-all
ethic of "diversity." For the Christian, "good"
is still good and "evil" is still evil irrespective of what
modern ideals, slogans, or even science, may say. So, yes,
I am personally very much in favor of political, legal, and religious
freedom, equality, and tolerance. However, I am certainly not
in favor of "freedom" without common sense limitations and
qualifications; "equality" without obvious and necessary distinctions;
or "tolerance" and "diversity" of evil, corruption,
or immorality.
As a Christian minister, Martin Luther King Jr. would
certainly have agreed with the above qualifications. His quest was not
for "freedom," "equality," or "tolerance"
per se; but rather for the freedom, equality, and tolerance that would
enable a person to develop, and to be judged by, the content of his
character as lived before God. To forget this is to forget who Martin
Luther King Jr. was and what he and the Civil Rights movement in America
actually stood for. Whenever a society loses the firm foundation by
which it determines what is ethically right and wrong it cannot help
but crumble from within. In Western societies that foundation has always
begun with God and man's responsibility to him. It is not exclusive
to Christianity but it certainly developed out of it. John Locke, the
17th century English Christian philosopher, who set out so beautifully
the principles for representative democracy and natural rights given
to man from God - upon which England, the United States, and other nations
have rested - passionately believed that, " a society based on
the consent of the members implied that each was a moral agent fully
capable of understanding the moral postulates on which society rests."
(The Reasonableness of Christianity p. X). For Locke, since
each person was created in the image of God that person also had a natural
capacity to recognize right from wrong. However, given that man was
corrupted by sin, he also believed that the understanding of these "moral
postulates" rested much more securely on a proper understanding
and acceptance of the truths revealed in the Bible. Locke is also normally
recognized as the father of both modern empiricism and also classical
liberalism - two very modern concepts that have led to the development
of both modern rights and modern science. Yet he believed that in matters
of moral rights and wrongs only God's standards could be determinative.
So what about today? If this traditional standard is done away with
what standard can replace it? Can modern reason, or modern science,
or modern social science, or a person's inner feelings, desires and
passions now be the faithful guides to determine moral rights and wrongs
rather than God? I will answer with a quote from another American Christian
churchman, general, and statesman who recognized Locke's importance
and has perhaps done more than anyone else in history to secure the
political, legal and religious freedoms, equality, and tolerance we
all now enjoy:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead
to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor
to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props
of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with
the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could
not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let
it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation,
for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which
are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And
let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion
of religious principle." (George Washington, Farewell
Address to the Nation, 1787).
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Christmas Day, December 25, 2010
The World-Changing Effects of the Christian Faith
As I pause on this Christmas morning to contemplate
the true meaning of Christ coming into the world for the salvation of
mankind, my mind turns to the world-changing effects that the Christian
faith has had on individual lives and on Western society as a whole
over these last two thousand years. Anyone who has grown up over the
last half-century as I have and is familiar with both history and the
Christian faith cannot help but realize that the influence of Christian
faith on the culture of the world at large is now decreasing and that
the influence of ideas reminiscent of the ancient Greco-Roman world
are increasing. In the secular society of today the beliefs and values
of traditional Christianity are increasingly seen as being intolerant,
backward, and passe' while the ancient Greco-Roman values of reason,
tolerance and diversity are increasingly promoted as the standards of
a modern, progressive and liberal society. This change has been coming
on for the last couple of centuries; nevertheless, it is undeniable
that it has been picking up speed over the last few decades. Indeed,
in yesterday's Christmas Eve column in the New York Times Ross Douthat
- himself a Roman Catholic Christian - states, "Christians need
to find a way to thrive in a society that looks less and less like any
sort of Christendom - and more and more like the diverse and complicated
Roman Empire where their religion had its beginning 2,000 years ago
this week."
Though I find general agreement with Douthat's viewpoint,
what is often lost in any discussion of this topic are the hard and
cold facts of what the Greco-Roman world was actually like
and the dramatic civilizing and humanizing effects that the
introduction of Christianity into the ancient Greco-Roman world had
for that time. This overwhelmingly positive world-changing effect of
the Christian faith has continued to be - despite many instances of
corruptions and perversions - the single most important liberating,
healing, and stabilizing factor in the history of the world since that
time. Whatever corruptions and perversions have arisen in history along
the way are totally dwarfed by the life-changing and society-changing
effects that the Christian faith has had on millions and millions of
lives since its introduction into the Greco-Roman world of the first
century. Unfortunately, the multi-cultural perspective of the teaching
of history that has dominated our public schools and universities over
the last few decades has tended to turn upside down the actual historical
realities of the ancient Greco-Roman world and of the alternative positive
transforming effects of the Christian faith in individual lives and
society as a whole in the history of the last 2000 years. Though the
Roman Empire was indeed on the whole religiously and morally "tolerant"
and "diverse" - with the exception of insistence on Emperor
worship! - it was also religiously and morally confused, socially stratified,
brutal, and mired in the depths of the cynicism and despair of a world
that was thought to be ruled by "fate". It was only the introduction
of the Christian faith into that Empire that brought about individual
liberation, a sense of acceptance and equality before God, and a firm
hope in the midst of so much despair.
Far from being the oppressive historical religion that
multi-cultural historians and atheists have made it out to be, it is
simply and clearly a matter of the historical record that the Christian
faith when introduced into the Roman Empire produced the exact opposite
effect. Any honest history - see histories written at least before the
last couple of decades - will make clear this dramatic and world-changing
effect. As an example I quote from the masterly A History of the
Modern World - an AP European History textbook - in describing
the true historical effects of the Christian faith upon the Roman world:
"It is impossible to exaggerate the importance
of the coming of Christianity. It brought with it, for one thing, an
altogether new sense of human life. Where the Greeks had demonstrated
the powers of the mind, the Christians explored the soul [life], and
they taught that in the sight of God all souls [lives] were equal, that
every human life was sacrosanct and inviolate, and that all worldly
distinctions of greatness, beauty, and brilliancy were in the last analysis
superficial. Where the Greeks had identified the beautiful and the good,
had thought ugliness to be bad, and had shrunk from disease as an imperfection
and from everything misshapen as horrible and repulsive, the Christians
resolutely saw a spiritual beauty, even in the plainest or most unpleasant
exterior and sought out the diseased, the crippled, and the mutilated
to give them help. Love, for the ancients, was never quite distinguished
from Venus; for the Christians, who held that God was love, it took
on deep overtones of sacrifice and compassion. Suffering itself was
in a way divine, since God [the Son of God] had also suffered on Cross
in human form. A new dignity was thus found for suffering that the world
could not cure. At the same time the Christians worked to relieve suffering
as none had worked before. They protested against the massacre of prisoners
of war, against the mistreatment and degradation of slaves, against
the the sending of gladiators to kill each other in the arena for another's
pleasure. In place of the Greek and pagan self-satisfaction with human
accomplishments they taught humility in the face of an almighty Providence,
and in the place of proud distinctions between high and low, slave and
free, civilized and barbarian, they held that all men and women were
alike because all were children of the same God."
"On an intellectual level Christianity also marked
a revolution. It was Christianity, not rational philosophy, that dispelled
the swarm of greater and lesser gods and goddesses, the blood sacrifices
and self-immolation, or the frantic resort to magic, fortune-telling,
and divination. The Christians taught that since there was only one
God the pagan gods must be lesser demons, and even this idea was gradually
given up. The pagan conception of local, tribal, or national gods, disappeared.
For all the world there was only one God, one plan of Salvation, and
one Providence, and all human beings took their origin from one source.
The idea of the world as one thing, a "universe," was thus
affirmed with a new depth of meaning. The very intolerance of Christianity
(which was new to the ancient world) came from this overwhelming sense
of human unity, in which it was thought that all people should have,
and deserved to have, the one true and saving religion." (A
History of the Modern World, p. 16).
When we think of the true meaning of Christ coming
into the world for the salvation of mankind let us always remember that
the true Christian faith that was "once for all delivered to the
saints" (Jude) in the midst of the darkness, confusion, and despair
of the Greco-Roman world of the first century was, and continues to
be, the only true light that can dispel the darkness of this world in
any individual life and in any realm of life in the world today. In
sum, it's world-changing effects continue to this day.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
November 8, 2010
Review of the Newest Edition of the NIV
The newest edition of the New International Version
(NIV) is, in my view, an outstanding revision and up-dating of the NIV.
It can now be read and/or compared with other versions on-line at: www.biblegateway.com
At the same web address one can also read the translators notes about
their latest revision along with examples of the choices they made and
why. Personally, my only major criticism of the new revision is the
decision of the translators to continue to use the "singular they/their/them"
rather than the more traditional "generic he/him/his" which
is still used and taught in most schools today. This decision will make
for some awkward and strange language at times, especially for those
who are accustomed to the NIV 1984. As a long-time NIV user I will state
openly that this decision is indeed disappointing to me. Nevertheless,
it must be emphasized that this new edition of the NIV is extremely
accurate and clear as to meaning and - in the NIV tradition - it is
usually very readable as well. It should be a great help for those who
are seeking to know and better understand God's word as revealed in
the pages of the Bible. It will now take its place amongst a plethora
of excellent English Bible versions that have recently been published
within the last two decades including among others: the NRSV, ESV, HCSB,
and the NLT. In sum, the new NIV will certainly be able to be used as
a main version for those who prefer it and as a second or comparative
version for others. Either way it will make a major contribution to
the better understanding of God's word and for that we should be thankful
- both to God first and foremost, and then, to the dedicated translators
of this new edition.
When I think back to what it was like reading the Bible
while I was growing up in the 1950s, 60s and 70s I can't help but be
thankful for the many excellent English Bible versions that are available
today in the English speaking world. I grew up with the King James Version
(KJV) and then gradually shifted with my church to the Revised Standard
Version (RSV) which had recently been published about the time I was
born. The KJV was beautiful language but definitely a struggle to understand.
The RSV was much easier to understand but also lost some of the beauty
of the KJV. During my teenage years I started to also read newer more
modern English versions that were being published. These included the
New English Bible (NEB - a version I still love to read with its British
English) and Good News For Modern Man (GNB). I pretty much devoured
the New Testaments of both of these versions and they helped me greatly
to understand the New Testament at a time when I was really intent on
understanding its message. Ever since that time I've been appreciative
of the variety of English versions of the Bible and I am thankful that
they've continued to grow both in number and in quality.
In the mid-1980s I began using the New International
Version (NIV) as my primary reading, study, and memorization Bible.
It was first published in the 1970s and the revised in 1984. I had already
committed vast quantities of the KJV to memory but the NIV was a great
advance in both accuracy and readability to the KJV and I knew that
it would be helpful for me personally as well as for others. In many
ways the NIV revolutionized the world of Bible reading and understanding
for English Bible readers. The NIV Study Bible and NIV Student Bible
have also easily been the best of their kind and have done so much to
help people to understand the message of the Bible. In more recent times
other versions have come along that are also excellent English Bible
versions both in terms of accuracy and readability. These include the
NRSV, the ESV, the HCSB, the NLT, and the most recent revision of the
NIV tradition, the TNIV. Any one of these versions of the Bible could
suffice to be a person's main version for regular use and they're also
all useful for comparative study. Personally, I recommend them all;
however, in my view none of them is any better overall than the NIV
for general use. That is also what most English Bible readers apparently
have thought since the NIV has continued to be, far and away, the best
selling English version of the Bible in the world.
Despite this, about a year ago it was announced that
this 1984 edition of the NIV would be revised and replaced by a new
edition of the NIV which is to be published in book form in 2011. It
was thought, and I agree, that a language and content update was needed.
The TNIV which was published in its latest edition in 2005 was an attempt
at doing this. However, despite being an excellent translation overall,
many of its gender language changes were not accepted by many people
including many traditional NIV readers. So for a variety of reasons
it was decided to replace both the NIV 1984 and the TNIV with a new
single edition of the NIV. As of November 1, 2010 this edition has been
published on-line and, therefore, interested readers can already make
use of it at bible gateway. At the Bible gateway web-site this version
is now labeled NIV 2010; however, it also is sometimes called NIV 2011
in various places since it will be published in book form in the spring
of 2011. When it eventually is actually published in book form it will
simply be called the NIV.
Over the last week I've spent a great deal of time
reading and looking over this latest revision of the NIV. In my view,
this new edition of the NIV is a very accurate, and usually, a very
readable version of the Bible. However a few things need to be made
clear right from the beginning. First the point of departure - or text
upon which updates for this new edition has been made - is the text
of the TNIV 2005 rather than the text of the NIV 1984. This is important
because any update or change in this text must be approved by 70% of
the NIV translators for it to appear in the new revision of the NIV.
Therefore, this new edition of the NIV is in reality a revision
of the TNIV 2005 rather than the NIV 1984. Importantly, however,
this new revision will now replace both the NIV 1984 and the TNIV 2005
and will now become the only edition of the NIV that will eventually
be sold. Understanding all of this will help the reader to understand
the changes that have been made in this new NIV edition and why it differs
far more from the NIV 1984 than from the TNIV 2005. In this light let
me make a few observations:
1. I would strongly emphasize that about 95% of the
text that was in the NIV 1984 and probably 97 % of the text that was
in the the TNIV 2005 is still the same in this new edition of the NIV.
This makes for a great deal of continuity from Genesis to Revelation
in this new NIV with its predecessors. Therefore, for the most part
when a person reads this new edition he still feels at home in the NIV
tradition. The differences between the different editions are small
on a quantitative basis and are usually also small on a theological
meaning basis. However, the differences that will be apparent to everyone
are the gender-language updates in English usage. If you are used to
the NIV 1984 then these changes in the new edition of the NIV are likely
to seem quite significant. If you are used to the TNIV 2005 then these
changes are likely to seem more minor. Unfortunately, since English
language usage is so varied throughout the world it is simply impossible
to please anybody all the time. In my view, the NIV 1984 reads more
naturally than either the TNIV 2005 or the new NIV 2011 in places where
certain types of gender-language changes have been made. Nevertheless,
this new NIV 2011 is definitely an upgrade in the accuracy of the meaning
of the text from the NIV 1984 and is also an upgrade in gender-language
usage from the TNIV 2005. In addition, many of the most obnoxious gender-language
changes can be easily "corrected" with one's own pencil or
pen so as to make the text read more naturally.
Personally, I will continue to use the (now
new) NIV as one of my main Bible versions for regular reading
and study. I will also recommend it to others. But I will also
continue to use the NIV 1984 at times since I think it sometimes reads
more naturally than this new edition. In addition, I will also continue
to use many other versions for reading and comparative purposes. On
biblegateway.com I normally use three to five different versions next
to each other in parallel columns whenever I read the Bible on-line
for comparative study purposes. They are: the ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB or
NLT. These versions give me a nice spectrum of the different translations
available in English and they're all excellent versions based on somewhat
different translation philosophies and somewhat different, though overlapping,
target audiences. I will now replace the TNIV with this new edition
of the NIV since this is the latest update by the NIV translators. However,
when I just want to read the Bible for myself in the morning,
for instance, the version I will use will be any of the above, though
the ESV is the one I use most often because it is the most literal,
maintains the most continuity with past English versions of the KJV/Tyndale
tradition, and is - to my ears - the most beautiful expression of dignified
English.
2. Examples: Since there is so much continuity between
this new 2010(11) edition of the NIV with its predecessors of the NIV
1984 and the TNIV 2005 I think that the best thing to do is simply give
some examples of new updates in this new edition. Here are some non-gender
language examples from Paul's "Letter to the Romans" of what
I consider to be amongst the better updates in the new NIV 2010(11):
Romans 1:5 reverts to "the obedience that comes
from faith" of the NIV 1984 from the "faith and obedience"
of the TNIV 2005. This is a good change that emphasizes that Christian
obedience springs from faith in Christ.
Romans 1:16 begins now with "For" showing
the continuity of thought from v. 15 to v. 16.
Romans 3:20, 28, etc. the NIV 1984's somewhat controversial
"observing the law" becomes the more literal "the works
of the law." I actually prefer "observing the law"; however,
the more literal "works of the law" will make this more acceptable
in many circles due to debates springing from the so-called New Perspective
on Paul. The meaning, however, is exactly the same so the more literal
"works of the law" seems to be the best choice.
Romans 3:25 "justice" of both the NIV 1984
and TNIV becomes "righteousness" in the new NIV which maintains
the proper context of "the righteousness of God".
Romans 8 and in many other places, "sinful nature"
becomes "flesh" together with an outstanding footnote about
this in Romans 8. "Sinful nature" (or other context oriented
translations) is still retained in some places in Paul's letters including
a couple of times in Romans 7 but usually the Greek sarx is
now translated "flesh". This is a much debated and (in my
view) welcome change, especially with the excellent footnote in Romans
8 (and in other places) that explains it.
Romans 8:6 gets my vote as the single best updated
verse. It becomes
"The mind governed by the flesh is death, but
the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace."
This is an outstanding translation and a great improvement
over earlier editions which implied that the Spirit "controlled"
a believer's mind!
Romans 12:1 becomes "this is your true and proper
worship" - very nicely stating a difficult text to translate.
Romans 16:25-27 is an outstanding upgrade in translation
in the new NIV and includes the new upgrade of "obedience that
comes from faith" rather than "faith and obedience" of
the TNIV, thus maintaining consistency with 1:5.
I could keep going through the NT Letters like this
but this is enough to give the reader a feel for the type of changes
that have been made. I would note also that I read straight through
I and II Timothy and Titus and found the new NIV version to be outstanding
all the way through with only minor changes. One particularly good upgrade
was the change to "the servant of God" from "all God's
people" (TNIV) in II Timothy 3:17. In my view, of course, the traditional
"man of God" would be even better.
3. For the most part, the only changes that I've seen
so far that I don't like have to do with changes - or non-changes -
from the TNIV 2005 to this new edition of the NIV 2010(11) with respect
to gender-language translations and updates. This, of course, is no
surprise given that I consider many of the changes in gender-language
usage as: (1) needless - since traditional English usage was already
"gender accurate" or "gender-inclusive" if properly
taught and understood without biases; (2) often causing more confusion
in their own right than that which they seek to correct; and, (3) not
only pandering to political correctness but also actually often being
"offensive" to many godly people of traditional values who
were brought up to speak English in a more traditional way. Of course,
in the world of political correctness "offensiveness" seems
to only be considered valid if it goes in one direction.
Nevertheless, quite a few of the gender-language translations
carried over from the TNIV are certainly good such as using "person"
for "man" in various places such as Rom. 3:28, 5:7, etc. However,
the decision by the translators to continue to use - and to even expand
the use of - the "singular they/their/them" instead of using
the traditional and more grammatical "generic he/him/his",
etc. makes for very awkward and strange English at times. This will
also make this new NIV version unacceptable as a main version to many
faithful Bible readers - including many who are faithful readers of
the NIV 1984 and who were promised in the late 1990s and then again
only a few years ago that the NIV 1984 text would never be changed and
would continue to be published as such. Given the promises made to these
readers over the years it borders on the unethical to not continue to
publish in some format the NIV 1984 for those who prefer it.
The NIV 1984 is still the best selling English version
of the Bible in the world. There are over 400 million of them in print.
Millions of the readers of this version rejected the TNIV and stuck
with the NIV because it is a translation that communicates truth in
a simple and clear language that they understand. The decision to expand
the use of the "singular they/their/them" and at the same
time to discontinue the NIV 1984 is almost a slap in the face to these
people. It is as if the translators think that they know better than
what the market itself clearly shows when one compares the sales of
the NIV 1984 with the TNIV 2005. The translators, of course, insist
that this type of gender-language usage is now the way English speakers
around the globe overwhelmingly speak. They also attempt to back this
up with various statistical and language studies. However, the "generic
he/him/his" can be, and has been, equally well defended. Most schools
still teach this form of English and the idea that it is only "a
few" or "English purists" (both terms being used dismissively)
who resist changes away from traditional English usage is simply nonsense.
Most people will, of course, simply decide this issue for themselves
based on how natural the language reads to them, especially in the light
of how they were taught to speak/write English as they were growing
up and in the light of the language they are used to encountering in
the books and Bible versions they read. So, as with the TNIV, we'll
see how this language is actually accepted by the Bible reading public.
Most likely its acceptance will be varied depending on where people
live in the English speaking world, the churches and/or Bible fellowships
they attend, and the circles in which they move in their daily lives.
Here are a few examples of gender-language updates
in the new NIV:
a. Genesis 1:26 has now become "mankind"
rather than "human beings" (TNIV) or "man" (NIV
1984). Personally, I think this is a good update but I'm sure it will
be controversial from both ends of the gender-language spectrum. All
three possible translations are equally accurate and no single translation
would appeal to everyone.
b. Genesis 6:1ff reads a little more clearly than in
the TNIV, but still somewhat strangely. The NIV 1984 sounds most natural.
c. Psalm 1:
I quote and then will comment:
1 "Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of
water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers."
This translation of this cherished Psalm is generally
accurate and understandable and it is probably also an improvement on
the TNIV translation. Indeed, as my good friend Scot Hahn says, it is
"no worse" than any of the other modern versions! :) However,
the English is obviously forced and awkward. It is quite clear to any
reader familiar with the Bible that the translators are trying to not
have to use either "man" or the "generic he/his/him"
throughout the Psalm even though that is a good way to have the Psalm
sound and communicate accurately as it did to its original audience
- and, as it traditionally has done to English audiences in the KJV,
RSV and NIV for centuries and decades. I have highlighted the places
where this avoidance is taking place. Every single person whom I've
heard comment on this new translation of Psalm 1 in the last few days
has said the exact same thing about the awkwardness of the language
- independently of each other.
I really don't understand what the problem is here.
The NIV is supposed to be a functionally equivalent or dynamically equivalent
translation. The idea is to reproduce the same understanding and impression
in English as the original language did to the original readers. But
the Psalms were poetic and were produced to be sung in worship. Who
can say that about this translation of Psalm 1? The original NIV 1984
is easily the most natural (and traditional) reading and the one that
should still stand. The NIV 1984 version is known, cherished and memorized
by millions of faithful Christians around the world. Why change it?
Every other translation has its own problems. Fortunately, it is easy
enough to "correct" this new translation with one's own pencil
or pen in one's own Bible so as to make it read like more normal, natural
English. I can only hope that the outcry against this particular translation
of this beautiful and cherished Psalm will be so great that the translators
will soon revise it back to the natural reading of the NIV 1984. Until
then, as I've said above, it is at least accurate and understandable
- and, correctable!
d. Psalm 8: this is a good update with the strange
and awkward "mortals" (TNIV) being thrown out in favor of
"mankind" and/or "human beings".
e. Psalm 15 is an improvement on the TNIV; however,
it is still very awkward in trying to avoid the "generic he/him/his"
and replacing these with the "singular they/their/them".
f. Psalm 112 is still pluralized throughout which seems
to contradict what is said in the translators notes about having deleted
pluralizing language which was abundant in the TNIV. The translation
of this Psalm, thus, remains the same as the TNIV and is much more awkward
than the more natural translation of the NIV 1984.
g. Micah 6:8 in the new NIV says "He has shown
you, o mortal, what is good ..." This is very strange English.
Again, front and center is the fear of using "man" and thus
the resort to awkward and strange English. I don't know of a single
English speaking person who would use "mortal" in such a context.
h. The "generic he/him/his" is still occasionally
used in this new edition of the NIV. Ironically, one example is Psalm
14:1:
The new NIV says "The fool says in his heart,
there is no God." This is a return to the NIV 1984 and is a good
translation.
The TNIV had pluralized it to say "Fools say in
their hearts..." so as to avoid the generic "his".
Given the prevalence of their use of the "singular
they" one would think that the translators of the new NIV 2010(11)
would use the "singular they" here as they do in almost all
other contexts and read,
"The fool says in their heart..."
But, apparently, it is acceptable according political
correctness to assume in this context that only males can be fools -
thus, the acceptable retention of the "his"! :)
There are many other uses of gender-neutral language
throughout the new NIV. Sometimes they're a problem for me and sometimes
they're not. Sometimes they cause me dissonance as I read and I have
to stop and figure out what is being said, usually because there is
a disagreement between pronoun and antecedent noun in number. At other
times the changes seem relatively natural. Occasionally, they seem to
stick out like a sore thumb. I certainly respect the expertise of the
translators of the NIV; however, I also know that for the most part
they work in universities and seminaries - the main bastions of politically
correct language. The language that is spoken there is certainly not
representative of how the general English speaking population speaks
or - irrespective of how it is spoken at times colloquially - expects
English to be written and understood.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize again that
in most ways I believe that this new edition of the NIV 2010(11) is
an outstanding translation of the Bible that will be very useful in
reading, studying and sharing God's word. It will surely find its niche
among the many other Bible versions that are available. How much acceptance
will it find? Will it become as popular as the NIV 1984? Only time will
tell. In particular, if traditional NIV users don't accept it because
of its gender-language changes who is going to recommend it to others?
Nevertheless, as I've stated above, it will certainly be one of the
main versions that I will personally use and I will also recommend it
to others - at least as a comparative version for study purposes, if
not as a main version for regular use. However, I also hope that the
translators will remain open to future updates based on feedback from
sincere believers who care deeply about a Bible version that has long
been dear to them - and, who twice were promised that there would be
no changes to that version.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
October 31, 2010
The NIV 2011 Edition On-line
As many of you know I've long been a strong advocate
of the NIV/TNIV as one of the best and most useful Bible versions in
the English speaking world. No other English translation has done a
better job of combining biblical accuracy in translation with readability
for the common man. About two weeks ago Biblica, the organization
which sponsors the NIV, announced that the new NIV 2011 edition would
be made available on-line beginning November 1. This is several months
before it will be published in book form, coming out sometime around
spring. To say the least, this is good news! The NIV has been the best
selling English Bible in the world for many years and it has been in
need of an update for some time. The TNIV was an update that was published
in 2001 and then again in 2005. Though popular in many circles, the
TNIV was highly unpopular in others. In particular, many long-time users
of the NIV thought the TNIV went too far in its gender-language updates.
Because many, if not most, NIV long-time users kept using, buying, and
recommending the NIV instead of the TNIV. Biblica ultimately
made the decision in the summer of 2009 to make a new 2011 edition of
the NIV that would replace both the current NIV 1984 edition as well
as the TNIV.
It will, of course, be impossible for the NIV Bible
translators to please everyone - including me - with all of its translation
choices, especially since English is simply too varied a language in
how it is used throughout the world. Nevertheless, I feel almost certain
that the NIV 2011 edition will be a version that will represent amongst
the best in current biblical scholarship as well as in dynamic equivalency
translation faithfulness into the English language. It is unlikely that
there will be many major changes in the translation from previous editions
and the likelihood is that there will be a relative balance between
the best of the NIV 1984 and the TNIV 2005. If that is the case the
new NIV will continue to be one of the most useful English versions
of the Bible in the world today.
I will look forward to blogging about this new NIV
2011 edition in the weeks ahead. However, let us all give the translators
the benefit of the doubt even when we differ on certain translation
decisions and English usage. When used together with other more literal
translations (e.g. ESV) and more free translations (e.g. NLT) this new
edition of the NIV will surely enrich the resources that English speaking
Christians have for personal Bible reading, study, and outreach. Let
us enjoy this new Bible resource and use it for the promotion of God's
purposes in the world.
The NIV 2011 can be accessed at the Bible Gateway web-site
in our right hand margin column or simply: www.BibleGateway.com
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
August 19, 2010
God and Government: Main Principles
As the last post on this topic of "God and Government"
I think it might be useful to set out a brief summary of the main principles
that we have discussed in previous posts. I hope this will be useful
to those interested in this subject.
1. God is the Creator, Sovereign Ruler, and Ultimate
Judge of all that takes place in the heavens and earth. He created the
universe with a plan in mind, he has been working in history since the
creation to bring that plan to pass, and he will ultimately achieve
that plan according to his own purposes and will. (e.g. Gen. 1:1ff;
Psalm 103:19; Eph. 1:3-14).
2. Mankind was created in the image of God to rule
over God's earth on his behalf. Man is responsible to live a godly life
as one created in God's image by loving God and by loving one's neighbor
as oneself in accordance with God's standards of holiness, righteousness
and justice. Man has freedom of will to do this and is thus accountable
to God and subject to God's rule and judgment of the world. This will
culminate in God's final judgment of the world after Christ's return.
3. Given the sinfulness of mankind, God has ordained
human government as a means of repressing, deterring, and punishing
evil as well as for the promoting the common good of mankind. In doing
this government helps in achieving God's purposes in this world. Though
there is no particular form of government that the Bible sets forth
as being the best form in this present evil age, all governments are
responsible to God for carrying out and promoting righteousness, justice
and mercy in relation to their citizens, subjects, or residents. To
the degree that it does not carry out these God-ordained purposes government
loses its legitimacy in terms of it being an agency via which God's
righteousness, justice and mercy can be achieved; however, God himself
can still work in and through such governments in achieving his ultimate
purposes for mankind.
4. Since government is ordained by God mankind is expected
to be subject to it and to support it as a God-ordained human institution
that is set-up for the benefit of mankind. Therefore, government institutions
and laws should be obeyed unless there is a clear conflict with obeying
God. When that occurs the Bible is clear from Genesis to Revelation
that mankind's responsibility is "to obey God rather than man."
5. Since government is viewed as a God-ordained institution
for the benefit of mankind the work of government is also viewed as
godly and in accordance with God's own over-arching governance of the
world. There is a clear distinction in the Bible - both OT and NT -
between mankind's responsibility towards his neighbor in inter-personal
relations within society vs. government's God-ordained responsibilities
as an institution in regards to the making, administering, and upholding
of societies' laws for the benefit and protection of society as a whole.
So, for instance, the individual in normal personal and societal relations
is not to avenge himself; however, governmental agents are specifically
assigned this role in order to protect society and punish and deter
evil. In short, the Bible speaks of the role of governmental law and
of government agents in the highest possible terms. Just laws are viewed
as necessary, proper, and in accordance with God's plan for mankind.
Governmental agents are viewed as the upholders of God's justice in
this world - without which evil would flourish.
6. Because of this godly nature of governmental service
believers themselves - who are even now citizens of God's kingdom in
heaven - are still commanded to pay taxes to support government and
to honor those who carry out its duties. In addition, believers themselves
ethically can, historically have, currently do,
and certainly should participate in government's positions,
functions, and duties. This would include every aspect of just government
including the use of force as necessary and irrespective of the historical
period, form of government, or the imperfections that are a part of
any human institution. As in all cases of biblical understanding and
application believers must endeavor to understand the original intent
and meaning of these biblical principles and then apply them with wisdom
to their own unique situations in the times and places in which they
live - not as legal commands, but in the new way of the Spirit and not
in the old way of the written code.
7. In conclusion, there is a consistency in the biblical
view of government from Genesis to Revelation. Government is a temporary
and partial means by which God brings a measure of peace, justice and
order to the world in the midst of this present evil age. This will
continue until the time when God intervenes in the world through Christ's
second coming to bring about a final judgment of the world and then
to usher in the new and everlasting age of the kingdom of God in a new
heavens and earth. Only then will God's kingdom fully come and God's
will be fully done, "on earth as it is in heaven."
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
July 12, 2010
God and Government: The Biblical Mandate for the Governmental
Use of Violent Force on Behalf of Justice
The Bible is clear that eternal life in the future
kingdom of God is the true hope of the Christian believer and, whether
recognized or not, the only true hope for the resolution of the problems
of mankind in this world. Christian believers are even now citizens
of that kingdom which is now in heaven and, via the gift of the Spirit,
have a down payment of the life of that future age even while living
in the midst of this present evil age. The mission of the Christian
church is to proclaim the good news of participating in that coming
kingdom by way of believing in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living
God who died for the sins of mankind and who was raised from the dead
by God. Ultimately, the future kingdom of God will be ushered in only
by the personal return in power and glory of Christ himself. In sum,
it is not the efforts of man that will bring about God's kingdom but
rather the divine intervention of God himself by way of his Son, Jesus
Christ.
Throughout history, since the time of Christ's ministry
on earth in the first century there has been a good deal of confusion
about the kingdom of God. In particular, one of the major errors has
been the idea that the kingdom of God can be established on earth via
the efforts of man himself. The church as a whole has at times fallen
victim to this idea. Eventually, a theology developed called post-millenialism
that taught that Christ would return to earth after the church
built the kingdom of God on earth. In the late 19th and early 20t centuries
this theology became highly influential in combination with 19th century
ideas of progress and the movement of societies towards an ultimate
utopia in which peace on earth would reign. This theology and philosophy
mixed well with social Darwinism and imperialism of the times. Two American
Presidents who adhered to postmillenialism to a greater or lesser degree
were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, the hopes of post-millenialists
along with many other 19th century delusions were blown apart in the
Great War of 1914 - 18. Roosevelt and Wilson were both highly moral
Christian men who made many great contributions to American society;
however, the post-millenial views contributed at times to unrealistic
thinking on both of their parts as seen, in particular, by Wilson's
slogans of WWI being "the War to End all Wars" and "the
War to Make the World Safe for Democracy". As with most people
their ideas were fluid and changing but post-millenialism was part of
the mix that produced some of their more utopian ideas.
The Bible, on the other hand, from Genesis to Revelation
is anything but utopian. It is open, honest, pointed and clear about
human nature, the bondage of sin, and the reality of evil. Nowhere does
the Bible ever pretend that mankind can solve these problems. Instead,
government is ordained and instituted as a temporary, though important,
means of restraining evil until the time when God intervenes in the
affairs of mankind to establish his kingdom in a new heavens and earth.
This will only occur as the result of the second coming of Christ which
will take place at a time in the future that only God knows. The Bible
is also clear that the Christian church is to proclaim the good news
of this coming kingdom. However, neither the church - nor government
on behalf of the church - is to use the weapons of human warfare to
try to establish God's kingdom on earth (John 18:36; Eph. 6:10f; II
Cor. 10:1f). Instead, the light of that kingdom is made known through
the fruit of the Spirit in believers lives and the good news of that
coming kingdom is proclaimed by believers by both their words and deeds
to the world.
Nevertheless, the kingdom of God itself is not yet
here. Believers do not yet reign and yet they still live in this world.
Marriage still takes place. Children still are born. People work and
strive to make a living and human societies are built to support the
multi-faceted spectrum of life. Believers live within these societies
and must deal with and participate in the realities of human society.
This includes human government - government ordained by God himself
- including the realities and means that are necessary to bring about
effective government according to God's standards. For those who are
willing to look at the full biblical picture there can be little doubt
that the Bible includes as part of just government the proper use by
government of violent force, as necessary, on behalf of justice. There
are numerous examples of this both in the Old Testament and in the New
Testament. In short, coercion - based on the potential or actual governmental
use of violence on behalf of justice - is part of the foundation upon
which human government and human society must rest in this present evil
age. Romans 13:1-7 - which is the central biblical passage on the subject
- is unflinchingly bold and clear on this topic:
13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that
exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you
have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and
you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for
your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does
not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger
who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one
must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the
sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes,
for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue
to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom
honor is owed." (ESV).
Verse 4 states as clearly as it is possible to state
it that the governmental authority who is ordained by God (v. 1) is:
a. one who is "God's servant for your good"
b. one who "does not bear the sword in vain"
c. one who is "an avenger who carries out God's
wrath on the wrongdoer"
Verse 6 then clearly states that taxes are to be paid
- by believers and unbelievers alike - for the specific purpose of enabling
the governmental authorities to "attend to this very thing".
Surely, no honest reading of this passage can dispute
the God-ordained role of government to use force (violence), as necessary,
against wrongdoers in the pursuit of justice. Surely, no honest reading
of this passage can dispute that it is the responsibility, not only
of unbelievers, but of believers as well, to pay taxes so that
governmental authorities can carry out their God-appointed duties, including
the use of violent force, on behalf of justice. It must be emphasized
that, when properly understood, there is not one word in the entire
Bible from Genesis to Revelation that contradicts this view.
Of course, man's relationship with God and his fellowman
is one of the chief topics of the Bible right from the start in Genesis
chapter 1. Both in the Old and New Testaments the individual believer
is to:
a. Love God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength
b. Love one's neighbor as oneself
This is implied from the start in Genesis, specifically
taught in the OT Mosaic Law, and then confirmed by Christ and the NT
writers. Christ taught that the whole Mosaic Law rests on the foundation
of those two commandments (Matt. 22; Mark 12, etc.) and the same two
commandments continue as the basis for godly living throughout the rest
of the NT (Rom. 12 & 13; Gal. 5; James 2, etc.). In short, in both
the Old and New Testaments these two greatest commandments set the foundation
for all other ethical principles. However, the principles of loving
God and loving one's neighbor do not nullify the need for government.
Instead, those principles demand the necessity of having government
because only proper government - including its use of force - can protect
individuals in society in the midst of an evil age. There are different
spheres or roles within life and society which modify, qualify, or build
upon the general ethical principles of the Bible that are set out for
all. Thus, in general society, in one's personal relations
with others one endeavors to overcome evil with good, to not avenge
oneself, and to live in a way that upholds truth, biblical morals, and
the common good of society. Examples of such general biblical ethical
teaching would be Lev. 19 in the OT and Romans 12 in the NT - from among
many others.
In one's family relations, however, there
is a unique and proper order to honoring one's parents, to the marriage
of a husband and wife, and to the raising of children, etc. that is
specific to family relations. There are specific obligations
within these relationships that do not hold for one's obligations to
one's neighbor in society as a whole. In society in general one does
not always, or even normally, correct or punish one's neighbor for slights,
discourteous actions, or even for most non-violent grievances against
oneself. Instead, one normally endeavors to overcome evil with good
and corrections, etc. would be dependent upon the situations and relations
of that particular societal order. There are, however, specific duties
of children to parents, of husband to wife and wife to husband, of parents
to children, etc. that modify or qualify or build upon one's basic obligations
to one's neighbor in society as a whole. One honors one's parents in
a way that is greater than how ones honors one's neighbor in society
in general. One is to have sexual relations with one's spouse as part
of a marriage relationship - something that is specifically forbidden
throughout the Bible with someone outside of that relationship. And,
one teaches, corrects, punishes, and nurtures one's children in a way
that is specific to that relationship. For a parent to allow slights,
discourteous actions, and any type of disobedience by one's children
on the basis of the biblical statements such as "do not avenge
yourselves" or "do not repay evil with evil" or "overcome
evil with good" would be a gross misapplication of general biblical
principles meant for normal societal relations - but which are modified
by specific parental responsibilities to train up their children in
the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Another specific role or sphere of life in which special
requirements apply to the relationships relates to role of governmental
relations in society. Whereas believers in general relations with
their neighbors in society are to love their neighbors as themselves,
to do to others what you would have them to do you, to not avenge themselves,
to not repay evil for evil, but; instead, to overcome evil with good
- government, on the other hand, has a specific role defined by God
to both do good and to suppress, punish and deter evil. In
this relationship government is even authorized and expected to use
violence as necessary in order to bring about the justice and order
necessary for human society in this present evil age. Believers are
specifically told to submit to this governmental role, to pay taxes
for the god-ordained role that it performs and to show special respect
and honor for those who undertake these god-ordained duties. Given that
these are godly activities that are ordained by God himself and that
believers are commanded to support the governmental authorities who
perform these duties, it would be the height of hypocrisy to say that
believers themselves could not or should not serve in the role of governmental
authorities because these authorities carry out duties that believers
are expressly forbidden to undertake such as "love your neighbor
as yourself", "do not avenge yourselves", "do not
repay anyone evil for evil", etc.
Unfortunately, however, this is precisely the position
taken by believers who teach that the NT prohibits the Christian believer
from using violent force even in governmental positions. This point
of view is usually based on interpreting the Sermon on the Mount as
a new set of laws - that is, legalisms to be followed according to the
letter - set forth by Christ rather than as correcting the misunderstanding
or misapplication of principles of truth set out in the Mosaic Law.
In fact, this truth as set forth by Christ was meant to be understood
in the light of the OT prophetic statements such as God requiring his
people "to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your
God" (Micah 6:6f). Jesus goes on to confirm, illustrate and teach
these principles throughout the Gospels (Matt. 9:13, 12:7, 18:33; 23:23).
In no way was Jesus doing away with the ethical teaching of the OT Law.
The teaching of Romans chapters 12 & 13 - understood together in
their own context - confirms the same OT position that believers have
general societal obligations to love their neighbors including not to
avenge themselves while at the same time it is precisely the role of
government to do just that - as the avenger of God against the wrongdoer
(Ex. 20-23; Lev. 17-19; Rom. 12 -13). To take the position that Christian
believers are prohibited from serving in secular positions of governmental
authority where violence must be used is to confuse the general
societal obligations of believers in regards to their neighbors
with the specific spheres or roles in society that have their
own specific obligations and requirements and thus modify, qualify or
build upon, the general societal obligations inherent in the ethical
obligation to "love your neighbor as yourself." The reason
for this governmental role is so that individuals can fulfill their
general societal obligations - both working together for the good of
society as a whole.
This common confusion about societal roles or spheres
is a "category mistake" in the exact same way as it would
be to say that a parent cannot punish his child with spanking, etc.
because that would conflict with the statements to "love your neighbor
as yourself", "do to others as you would have them do to you",
"do not avenge yourselves" or "do not repay evil with
evil". But this ignores the fact that it is certainly no love for
one's neighbor to let your child run wild causing havoc to society.
Nor is it love for one's neighbor to allow your neighbor to be robbed,
raped or murdered by criminals. Nor is it love for one's neighbor to
allow a country to be attacked and taken over by a brutal totalitarian
government. Government is ordained by God and believers ethically
can, historically have, currently do, and
certainly should participate in it - as with all other aspects,
roles, or spheres of life - so long as that particular governmental
service is being conducted in accordance with the general principles
of Romans 13:1-7. There are a huge number biblical examples - both in
the OT and NT - in which believers (or those who become believers) -
serve in various governmental positions.
Tellingly, not once in the Bible is a believer - or
convert to Christ - ever told to resign his government position on the
basis of that position being inherently evil nor is there ever even
the slightest hint that governmental service is somehow "unclean"
for a believer to participate in. Instead, the glowing portrayal of
governmental service laid down in Romans 13:1-7 puts governmental service,
if anything, on a pedestal as a profession that in and of itself is
doing God's work in a unique, special and necessary way for the good
of society - so long as it is in accordance with principles of Romans
13:1-7 itself. Just government is godly and it requires the use of violent
force, as necessary, if it is to be effective. This certainly includes
police work on its many levels according to the given society and it
also extends to the concept of just war since the only alternative would
be for a government to allow the wholesale promulgation of evil and
injustice that government is itself ordained by God to prevent, suppress
and punish. Arguably, two of the greatest evils that mankind can be
faced with are brutal totalitarian government at one extreme and total
anarchy at the other extreme. Proper, just, and orderly government is
a great good in this world and is one of the greatest possible barriers
to the promulgation of evil. Because of that believers are specifically
commanded to pray for their governmental leaders so that as believers
they can lead "quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty"
and, in the process, help carry out God's purposes of bringing the knowledge
of the one true God and his salvation through Christ to the world (I
Tim. 2:1-7).
But the Bible is also the most realistic of all books.
Mankind is far from perfect. Therefore no human governmental system
or legal system is, or will be, perfect; and, the pursuit of justice
in police work, in a legal system, or in war will also never be perfect.
But this is all the more reason why modern participatory democracies
have a greater responsibility in making their political, legal, and
defense systems as just as possible. It is also all the more reason
why those - such as believes - who believe in justice should participate
to a greater or lesser degree in the system according to their own callings,
abilities, and situations in life. Even voting is a major participation
and opportunity for promoting good that was not available for most of
mankind during human history.
Finally, when government becomes on the whole unjust
or when it moves towards totalitarian control or towards anarchy there
are no specific biblical instructions as what to do. Of course, the
believer's basic responsibilities of loving God and loving his neighbor
remain the same. And, if living in this godly way brings persecution
since there is no protection from an unjust or broken legal system then
the believer is left with the general biblical principle that it is
honorable to suffer for doing what is just and that God's justice and
the believer's reward for righteous living will ultimately be accomplished
in God's purposes and according to God's timetable. If, however, the
believer lives in a society and historical situation in which he can
help restore or bring about a more just governmental system then it
seems to follow that this would be a godly and responsible thing to
do. Nowhere does the Bible praise suffering simply for the sake of suffering.
It is suffering for righteousness sake that the Bible praises. Paul
himself suffered persecution often; however, as a Roman citizen he also
demanded and expected that his rights as a Roman citizen be respected
and upheld. He did not simply passively acquiesce in the face of injustice.
In the same way believers should demand and expect that their rights
within modern governments be upheld. Arguably, they should also participate
in whatever way appropriate to them to make their societies more just.
To not participate in righting an injust society when it is possible
to do so seems to be against the whole tenor of both the Old and New
Testaments. This could be true of any number of historical governmental
systems but it is perhaps especially true that those who live in participatory
representative democracies have a special obligation to strive for just
societies since they have legal rights in helping to do so.
There are, of course, many other specific roles or
spheres of life in which relationships have their own specific requirements
that modify or qualify or build upon those ethical principles that the
Bible sets out for one's relationship to one's neighbor in society as
a whole. In ancient society this would have included master to servant
and servant to master relationships - something that rarely exists today
in the same way as existed then. As societies change the different types
of relationships that are inherent in societies change. Believers must
be able to understand the biblical principles of the OT and, especially,
the NT in their original contexts and then to apply those principles
- not legalisms - in new ways to the situations of today. This becomes
a life of growing and maturing in Christ and thus learning to live in
a Christ-like lifestyle: that is, "in the new way of the Spirit
and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom. 7:6). In other
words, by living as Christ lived and living as Paul and the other NT
believers lived within the real-life situations and historical circumstances
of their lives as they sought to bring the good news of God's salvation
to the world by way of their every thought, word and deed.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
June 14, 2010
God and Government: The Governance of Man as Ordained
by God
The Classic statement of the biblical view of proper
God-ordained government is found in Romans 13:1-7:
13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that
exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you
have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and
you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath
on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to
avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because
of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God,
attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes
to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to
whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (ESV).
This simple and direct exposition by Paul is consistent
with the biblical view from Genesis to Revelation and continues to set
forth the God-ordained purpose and view of proper government for today.
It is built on the God-ordained view of government set forth throughout
the Old Testament (e.g. Gen. 1:26-28; Dan. 2:21, 4:17) and is supported
also by Christ himself (e.g. John 19:11) and the rest of the NT writers
(e.g. I Peter 2:13-14; Titus 3:1). No faithful Jewish or Christian believer
would have ever considered that God did not rule the world or that human
government was not ordained by him and responsible to him. Those were
"givens" or fundamental "assumptions" of the biblical
world view of any faithful believer whether in the OT or NT era. This
can be seen even in the non-canonical inter-testamental book of the
Wisdom of Solomon:
"Listen therefore, O kings, and understand; learn,
O judges of the ends of the earth. Give ear, you that rule over multitudes,
and boast of many nations; For your dominion was given you from the
Lord and your sovereignty from the Most High; he will search out your
works and inquire into your plans. Because as servants of his kingdom
you did not rule rightly, or keep the law, or walk according to the
purpose of God, he will come upon you terribly and swiftly, because
severe judgment falls on those in high places. For the lowliest may
be pardoned in mercy, but the mighty will be mightily tested. For the
Lord of all will not stand in awe of anyone, or show deference to greatness,
because he himself made both small and great, and he takes thought for
all alike." (Wisdom of Solomon 6:1-7, NRSV).
This passage from the Wisdom of Solomon shows the implicit
and necessary qualifications to the more direct statements of Romans
13 that would have been clear to any faithful believer of the Old or
New Testament eras. In accordance with the Semitic way of speaking Paul
sets forth the teaching of Romans 13:1-7 in direct statements of absolutes
and leaves it to the reader to understand the necessary and implicit
qualifications in the light of the Bible as a whole. Clear statements
that qualify Romans 13:1-7 such as "we must obey God rather than
men" - if there was a conflict between man's law and God's will
- would have been obvious to believers of both the Old Testament and
New Testament as abundant examples from Genesis to Revelation show (e.g.
Daniel 3, 6; Acts 4:18-20; Rev. 1ff). Given the vast number of biblical
examples available to them from the OT, the implicit qualifying principles
such as always putting God first did not need to always be spelled out
- they were simply givens or fundamental assumptions of the biblical
world-view that any faithful believer would have recognized.
Romans 13:1-7 sets forth in clear terms the purposes
of God-ordained government and man's (believers and non-believers alike)
proper relationship and responsibilities to it. However, it is a biblical
"given" that government is responsible to govern justly by
providing for the common good and by punishing, suppressing and deterring
evil. When government does not consistently fulfill its God-given responsibilities
the believer must look to other biblical principles and to God himself
as to how to act in any given situation. Both the Old Testament and
New Testament counsel a consistent lifestyle of overcoming evil with
good along with not taking personal vengeance or repaying evil with
evil. Instead, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament vengeance
is left to God and God has ordained that this vengeance be executed
through his God-ordained governmental agents who are specifically appointed
to attend to this matter for the good of society as a whole. When such
government breaks down - as has happened so often in history - man (believers
and non-believers alike) must determine the proper course of action
to restore government to its proper function; or if that is not possible,
how to best live within the context of an unjust and repressive society
until, in God's providence, the possibility for change again exists.
The Bible, thankfully, is loaded with examples of believers
living under any number of different governmental situations from which
we can learn. Their responsibilities and responses to their governmental
situations varied. What always remained - and remains - the same is
the believer's view that God providentially rules and judges the world,
that God-ordained government is ordained to be just, and that the believer's
first and foremost responsibility is to live for God himself. All else
- e.g. to what extent to participate in a representative democracy,
to what extent to resist in an oppressive society, etc. - can only be
determined by those who live in those particular situations. To limit,
as some would do, the believers response to un-just government to options
such as nonresistant quietism, non-violent civil disobedience, or, in
time of war, to pacifism, etc. is to misunderstand and misrepresent
the role of believers in the biblical scheme of God-ordained government
within the light of God's over-arching purposes and plans for the world.
But, we will have to wait and deal more with that topic in our next
post.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
May 31, 2010
God and Government: God's Governance of the World
In the Bible - both in the OT and the NT - it is stated
and assumed throughout that God rules over the world. The classic statement
of this is in Psalm 103:19:
"The LORD has established his throne in heaven
and his kingdom rules over all."
God's wise and just governance of the world - that
is, God's "providence" - has two sides. First, the good, orderly,
and inter-connected world which God has created, which he governs on
an on-going basis, and which provides all that mankind - created in
God's image - needs for a godly life on earth (Gen. 1; Psalm 8; Acts
14, 17, Rom. 1:18-20, etc.). Second, God's governance of the world also
includes his punishment of sin and evil. In short, vengeance - carried
out in various ways including via God's human agents - ultimately belongs
to God alone (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19). God will reward
good and he will also repay with just punishment those who practice
sin in disobedience to his will. This will ultimately take place in
full at the time of the final judgment on "the day of God's wrath."
(Rom. 2:5-11; II Thess. 1:5-10).
Of course, this truth of God's providential rule of
the world does not always accord well with modern day human thinking
with respect to human beings' place in the world, their own human determination
of rights and wrongs, and their own conception of human - rather than
God-given - rights. Biblically, however, this vengeance of God against
his disobedient creatures is based on the truth that God is the creator
and human beings are actually creatures of God - not accidental products
of chance and evolution - who are responsible to live according to God's
will. Therefore, despite "the riches of God's kindness, forbearance
and patience" in waiting for people to come to repentance, the
day of God's wrath will ultimately come upon those who harden their
hearts against God. (Rom. 2:4; II Pet. 3:8-10).
Nevertheless, God's vengeance is not completely left
to the final judgment. Throughout history God has exerted his judgment
and vengeance in a partial way in his providential governance of the
world by various means. This includes, for example, the Noahic flood,
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, the various
plagues against Egypt including via the destroying angel, the partial
destruction of the Caananites by the Israelites, the punishment and
exile of the Israelites and Judeans via the Assyrians and then Babyonians,
and finally the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem via the Romans
in c. 70 A.D.
There are, of course, many more examples that could
be given and all of them show God's continual involvement in the governance
of the world since the time of creation. There is also no good reason
to think that God has ceased his active governance of the world even
if we no longer have direct biblical inspiration to enlighten us about
such situations as they occur. For those who have eyes to see and ears
to hear God's governance of the world becomes more and more evident
the longer one lives as do the corresponding limitations of human beings
to govern themselves well and to wholly solve their own problems.
Nevertheless, despite human limitations, God has appointed
human beings the God-given authority, right and responsibility to govern
themselves as an on-going extension of God's own governance of the world.
This is evident from the original creation of man in God's image to
rule over the earth and continues from Genesis to Revelation in the
Bible. There is no set single prescribed form of government; instead,
what is important is that rulers govern justly on God's behalf. This
governance includes two basic aspects as set forth in the Bible's clearest
exposition of the purpose of government in Romans 13:1-7:
(1) Promoting the common good of just society.
(2) Punishing, restraining, and deterring evil.
The forms of government in the Bible in which believers
themselves hold positions or participate include among others: tribal
government (Abraham and the OT Patriarchs, Job, etc.); tribal government
within over-arching empires (Abraham and the OT Patriarchs); theocracy
under Moses/Joshua/Judges (Israel in the wilderness and promised land);
theocratic kingdoms (Israel and Israel/Judah under rulers such as David,
etc.); Pagan empires of the OT (Joseph in Egypt, Israel/Judah in captivity
with examples such as Daniel, etc,); Israel in return to the land of
Israel under the leadership of Nehemiah while still under the rule of
Persia; the pagan Roman Empire of the NT with various local forms of
rule still allowed under Rome (Israel and the new covenant Church).
In all of these forms of government - both OT and NT
- the rulers were considered to be ultimately subject to God and also
"God-ordained" according to God's providential rule of the
world by the believers of their times (Dan. 4; Isaiah 40). This did
not, however, mean that believers agreed with all that was done by these
rulers or that believers were not first and foremost responsible to
live according to God's will. Nevertheless, in all of these forms of
government - whether pagan or theocratic - faithful believers held positions
of governmental responsibility. They could faithfully govern within
all these forms of government so long as what they were required to
do did not conflict with their greater responsibilities to God himself
(e.g. Daniel, etc.). If that occurred they were, as throughout the Bible,
responsible "to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). That
responsibility to God first is a clear biblical "given" from
Genesis to Revelation which no faithful believer would ever have considered
otherwise. Nevertheless, in most occurrences faithful believers could
govern even within pagan systems of government and accomplish much good
in the process. This, of course, is in complete accord with the godly
precepts of God-ordained government as outlined in Romans 13. No faithful
believer in biblical times, however, would ever have thought that the
governance of man was capable of perfection. Rather they saw it as a
temporary part of God's providential rule of the world which one day
would find its fulfillment in God's just and final judgement of the
world.
This has also been the dominant view of most Christians
and Christian rulers in the Western world since the time of Christ.
It is the view arising from the Bible itself as stated and assumed from
Genesis to Revelation. Perhaps the best illustration of this view is
the famous request for prayer by Benjamin Franklin at the deliberations
of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787 with which I will
close. There is probably no time in human history when the various forms
of human government available to mankind were more closely studied and
scrutinized by such a sincere and earnest group of men. And yet, Franklin
recognized the limitations of human understanding in such an endeavor,
as he stated,
"Mr. President,
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance
& continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments
on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes
as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human
Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom,
since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back
to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different
forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of
their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern
States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable
to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark
to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented
to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought
of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?
In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible
of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection.
Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All
of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances
of a superintending providence in our favor.
To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting
in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.
And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we
no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the
longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that
God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow
cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an
empire can rise without His aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the
Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe
this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed
in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We
shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be
confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down
to future ages ...
I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the
assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held
in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that
one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in
that service."
This request by Franklin was denied by the Constitutional Convention
due to their fear of sectarian interference in their work - not, because
they did not believe in God's providential rule. That denial, however,
most definitely did not disallow "God's governance in the affairs
of men" which has surely continued from that point all the way
until today irrespective of the actions of man. In sum, God governs
in the affairs of men irrespective of the actions of man, and yet, God
has also divinely ordained that man should govern justly over the earth
on his behalf. We will consider this more deeply in our next blog.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
May 10, 2010
God and Government: " 'Vengeance is Mine, I will
repay,' says the Lord."
Biblically, all people are created in the image of
God, are responsible for their thoughts, words, and deeds to God, and
one day will give a final accounting of their lives to God at the final
judgment. This responsibility of man to God and his ultimate accountability
to God is a biblical given, or assumption, that runs through the entire
Bible from Genesis to Revelation. No biblical writer nor any faithful
individual believer within the people of God - Old Testament or New
Testament - would have ever considered anything different. Biblically,
therefore, all ultimate judgment for human thoughts, words and deeds
is God's. That judgment can be exercised in this life as attested by
numerous biblical examples; however, God's final judgment and justice
will be finally and ultimately fulfilled at the last judgment. Man's
judgment of his fellowman is meant to be patterned on God's justice;
however, it is only temporary and partial and awaits the full revelation
of God's final judgment when God's perfect justice will be fully displayed.
Because ultimate judgment and justice belongs to God,
both the Old and New Testaments command God's people to refrain from
personal vengeance and to allow for God's vengeance to be exercised
instead. The key OT scriptures appealed to or alluded to throughout
the Bible are from Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 32:35 and are fundamental
with respect to God's responsibility and the responsibility of the old
covenant believer as set forth in the Mosaic Law:
First, the believer's basic responsibility:
"Do not seek revenge or bear
a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."
(Lev. 19:18 NIV, TNIV).
Second, God's overriding and ultimate responsibility:
"It is mine to avenge: I will
repay." (Deut. 32:35 NIV, TNIV)
The New Testament confirmation and continuation of
this view is found throughout the pages of the New Testament and is
perhaps illustrated most familiarly in Christ's Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. 5-7). However, it is most clearly and specifically stated in
Paul's Letter to the Romans 12:19 which confirms it as a bedrock way
of thinking for the new covenant believer:
"Do not take revenge, my friends,
but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written:
'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,'
says the Lord." (Rom. 12:19 NIV, TNIV).
In my lifetime of 55 years I would say that 95% of
the Christians that I have met assume that this viewpoint of personal
non-vengence is that which the New Testament represents in contrast
to the Old Testament. They believe that this viewpoint began
with Jesus and his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and then continues
throughout the New Testament as a new way of thinking and living in
contrast to the vengeful attitude of the Old Testament in general and
the old covenant Mosaic Law in particular. In a word, this way of understanding
is simply wrong and has brought huge misunderstanding into the field
of Christian ethics and morals.
The Old Testament in general and the Mosaic Law in
particular mandates personal non-vengeance, personal non-retaliation,
and personal love for one's enemies in a variety of ways (Ex. 20-23,
Lev. 19). All of these principles are also understood to be included
within the fundamental Mosaic Law's command for God's people to "love
your neighbor as yourself." (Lev. 19:18). All of these principles
are then confirmed over and over in the OT wisdom literature of Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Job 31:29-32; Psalm 15; Prov. 20:22,
24:29, 25:21-22; Ecc. 12:13-14). Finally, these principles in a variety
of ways are then made the focus of being the essence of true worship
for God's people in the OT Prophetic literature (Hos. 6:6; Micah 6:6-8).
In the Sermon on the Mount and in his other teachings
in the Gospels Jesus confirms rather than overturns these principles
of the Old Testament Law (Matt. 5-7, 9:13, 12:7, 22:34-40, 23:23). Both
in the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the Gospels Jesus is not teaching
something that is ethically new but rather correcting misinterpretations
and misapplications of the Old Testament Law. He begins the
Sermon on the Mount by specifically stating that he did not come to
abolish the Law and Prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17-20). And,
he ends his ethical teaching in the Sermon on the Mount by
summing up all that he said with the principle of doing to others as
you would have them do to you, which in turn, also "sums up the
Law and the Prophets":
"So in everything, do to others as you would have
them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matt.
7:12).
Paul, in turn, speaking after Christ's sacrificial
death, resurrection and the giving of the gift of holy Spirit confirms
the new covenant perspective in the same way. In fact, Paul - whose
ways were in Christ - does not quote Jesus, but rather quotes
directly from the Old Testament to confirm the continuing view
of the believer as being one of love for one's neighbor as seen, among
other things, by personal non-vengence and love for one's enemies. Vengeance
on the other hand, as in the Old Testament, is left to God.
And yet, at the very same time that both Old Testament
and New Testament believers are commanded to practice personal non-vengence
God's own vengeance is commanded to be executed both in the Old Testament
and the New Testament through the legitimately constituted governing
authorities who derive their authority and power from God himself (Rom.
13:1-7). These governing authorities are specifically called "ministers,
or, servants of God." They also carry the specific designation
of "avengers of God's wrath" who "do not carry the sword
in vain" (Rom. 13:4-6). Believers are commanded to support them
via taxes and with respect for their positions and there is no doubt
that several NT believers actually occupied such positions of authority.
How can these things be? That will be the subject of
my next blog post.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
April 18, 2010
God and Government: God's Final Punishment of the Unrighteous
Biblically, all human government derives its authority,
legitimacy, and proper purposes from God almighty who is himself the
sovereign ruler over all. This is stated and assumed from Genesis to
Revelation and explicitly expounded in Romans 13 by the apostle Paul.
Fundamental to this understanding is the truth that God is the creator
and that man is a creature dependent upon and responsible to and accountable
to God the creator. God actively rules and judges the world throughout
the Bible and he has also delegated a subsidiary rulership and judgment
of the world to man on his behalf.
Clearly, the Bible also teaches that all people will
one day be judged by God at the time of the final judgment of the world
and that the outcome of this righteous judgment will be final. For those
who are counted as righteous the outcome will be eternal life - that
is, life in the coming age of the kingdom of God. This will be life
in a new immortal, imperishable, and glorious body that takes place
in the imperishable realm of a new heavens and new earth of God's everlasting
kingdom. This is the ultimate biblical hope and God's true intended
destiny for mankind. For those who are judged as unrighteous the outcome
will be eternal punishment - that is, a punishment pertaining to the
final judgment and of the coming age. That final punishment will be
a just judgment measured out according to the works of an individual
and against the background of the motives of the heart. This punishment
will ultimately end in a final destruction of the unrighteous and its
effects will be final and, therefore, also everlasting.
Nowhere, however, does the Bible ever teach the concept
of everlasting torment in hell. Instead, misunderstanding of these basic
terms - eternal life and eternal punishment - has caused tremendous
confusion over the centuries and continues to cloud the proper understanding
of the biblical message. Would a good, loving and just God really condemn
a person - no matter how wicked - to unending torment? How does that
fit with the concept of justice that God expects from his creatures?
One person who voiced his opposition to the concept of everlasting torment
was Charles Darwin and he expresses what is an often cited view amongst
intellectuals, agnostics and atheists:
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish
Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems
to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father,
brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine." (From Darwin's Autobiography,
p. 87 as quoted in Janet Browne's recent biography Charles Darwin,
Vol. II, p. 432).
Though one can acknowledge some truth in what Darwin
says about the doctrine of everlasting punishment itself, the knowledge
of what final punishment actually will be, biblically speaking, was
available to him in the late 19th century just as it is to us today
- that was especially true for someone of his wide contacts, acquaintances
and eminent social position. His conclusion to reject Christianity is
nothing less than a cop-out and an excuse to go his own self-seeking
way. His problem with the doctrine should have been the launching point
for an investigation of a matter that seemed inconsistent with the truth
of the Bible as a whole - rather than, an excuse to reject Christianity
itself. That's what it was for me and that's what its been for countless
others in history up until today who have chosen to be honest in their
search for truth. Let's be clear: the God of the Bible and the Christ
of the New Testament are the supreme examples of love, mercy,
compassion, and forgiveness in all of history. They are also the
supreme examples of bringing true righteousness and justice to the world.
The sending of God's Son to die for the sins of the world is the greatest
manifestation of God's own righteousness and of his love for mankind.
Corresponding to this, the final judgment of the world will be the only
event that will bring true and lasting justice, deliverance, and righteousness
to the world. The wrongs of this present evil age will finally be righted,
the injustices of an unjust world will finally be redressed, and the
righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their father. What godly,
caring, compassionate, and righteous person would not want this to occur?
In sum, the final judgment of the world is certainly
something to be feared and dreaded by the ungodly and to be taken with
the greatest seriousness by all. However, it will be a just judgment
that is according to works and the motives of the heart of the individual.
Most importantly, the punishment of the ungodly will correspond precisely
to the justice of God. It will not be everlasting torment but rather
a punishment - however severe - that ultimately results in the final
destruction of the ungodly.
We have several articles relating to this topic in
our articles section of this web-site and I encourage you to read through
them. However, for the purpose of showing the consistent biblical
understanding of this subject - in contrast to the post-biblical
understanding that developed over the centuries - I present the following
excellent articles that were sent to me by Patrick Navas:
The
Final End of the Wicked
Everlasting
Torment Examined
Revelation
20:10
May our understanding of this immensely important subject
be formed by the consistent biblical witness of both the Old and New
Testaments rather than by the misunderstandings of post-biblical philosophies,
traditions, art, and literature.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
April 4, 2010
Resurrection Sunday
My last post in my series on God and Government dealt
with the biblical reality of a final judgment that will be coming upon
the world in the future. In this Easter weekend it is perhaps useful
to pause and consider the reality of what Christ's own resurrection
means for us today. Let us ask: Will there really be a future resurrection
of the just and unjust when every person will give account of himself
before God? That is a vital question that every honest and sincere person
should ask. It is amazing how many people who profess to be Christians
have themselves had a hard time committing to this truth. However, biblically
it is only a matter of believing in one crucial event which happened
in history and that, thus, leads to another. The Old Testament foretold
a resurrection of the dead and the New Testament clearly and boldly
testifies that Christ, who died for our sins, was then raised by God
from the dead never to die again. He is, therefore, the firstborn
from the dead. If we choose to believe that then it follows,
logically and biblically, that God will raise us from the dead in the
future as well. Therefore, the key to believing in a future resurrection
of the dead is to remember that you do in fact believe in the already
accomplished resurrection of Christ some two thousand years ago.
If God raised Christ from the dead he can, and will, raise us from the
dead as well. The apostle Paul himself emphasizes these very truths:
12"But if it is preached that Christ has been
raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection
of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even
Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching
is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found
to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that
he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact
the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ
has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your
faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have
fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope
in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."
20"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits
of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man,
the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam
all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own
turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong
to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to
God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power."
50"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all
be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable,
and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with
the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable
has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality,
then the saying that is written will come true:
"Death has been swallowed up in victory."
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"[h]
56"The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus
Christ.
58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always
give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that
your labor in the Lord is not in vain."
(I Cor. 15: 12-24, 50-58).
May these words of Paul to the church at Corinth be his words to us
as well!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
March 29, 2010
God and Government: The Righteous Judgment of a Righteous
God, Part II
Sam Harris who is considered to be one of the four
horsemen of the "new atheism" was recently interviewed for
a CNN article entitled "Philosopher: Why We Should Ditch Religion."
Harris, portrayed by CNN as a scientist/philosopher, is often grouped
together with three fellow atheists including the British scientist
Richard Dawkins, the U.S. philosopher Daniel Dennet, and the Anglo-American
journalist Christopher Hitchens. I can't imagine why anyone who has
read any of their writings would want to read much more - except to
help others to see their many errors - nor can I imagine much of anyone
that I would less like for the youth of our times to hold as role-models.
It is only in the modern times in which we now live that such morally
bankrupt people could be held up as intelligent paragons of wisdom.
Many books and articles have been written by others to show the many
historical, theological, scientific, and philosophical errors of these
writers. However, for the purpose of comparison of the biblical world-view
here is what Harris had to say:
"For the world to tackle truly important problems,
people have to stop looking to religion to guide their moral compasses,"
the philosopher Sam Harris told CNN.
"We should be talking about real problems, like nuclear proliferation
and genocide and poverty and the crisis in education..."
"These are issues which tremendous swings in human well-being
depend on. And it's not at the center of our moral concern."
"Religion causes people to fixate on issues of less moral importance,"
said Harris, a well-known secularist, philosopher and neuroscientist
who is the author of the books "The End of Faith" and "Letter
to a Christian Nation."
"Religion has convinced us that there's something else entirely
other than concerns about suffering. There's concerns about what God
wants, there's concerns about what's going to happen in the afterlife,"
he said.
"And, therefore, we talk about things like gay marriage as if
it's the greatest problem of the 21st century. We even have a liberal
president who ostensibly is against gay marriage because his faith tells
him it's an abomination."
"It's completely insane."
Well, "sanity" is of course very much in the eye of the
beholder. In contrast to what Harris says the Bible holds up each person's
individual responsibility before God as primary. The most important
issues of life are not the "big" issues that he describes
but rather the issues of daily life of each individual person before
God. The Old Testament Book of Ecclesiastes sums up the Old Testament
view as such:
"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden
thing,
whether it is good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NIV).
This of course is the biblical view throughout beginning with the creation
of mankind in Genesis 1:26-28 and continuing onwards. However, when
one flips upside down the biblical relationship of God as creator and
man as a dependent, responsible, and accountable creature we end up
precisely where the non-recognition of God and his standards leads as
clearly set forth in Romans 1:18-32 - that is, to a "depraved [debased
(ESV), reprobate (KJV)] mind to do what should not be done" (Rom.
1:28-32 NIV). By refusing to recognize the God of the Bible Harris,
in effect, becomes his own god and his own arbiter of right and wrong
for himself - and, please notice, the arbiter of right and wrong for
others as well. But, in contrast to what Harris says, it is precisely
his frame of mind that leads to the practice of personal and corporate
sin that brings about divine judgment throughout the Bible both in the
Old Testament examples - provided in the last post - as well as in the
New Testament, including in the Final Judgment.
In fact, following on the many examples of God's righteous
judgment portrayed in history throughout the Old Testament the New Testament
shifts it's focus to the Final Judgment. The Old Testament examples
of God's judgment become examples for New Testament believers of God's
righteous judgment that will take place in the Final Judgment at the
end of the age. The last books of the Old Testament provide the clearest
example of this shift in focus of thinking when it speaks of a future
resurrection that results in some of the dead awakening to life of the
age to come and others awakening to the shame and contempt of the age
to come (Dan. 12:2). This forms the background of what Jesus and Paul
both constantly refer to: a future and final resurrection of both the
just and of the unjust (John 5:24; Acts 24:15) with their corresponding
outcomes of life of the age to come ("eternal life") and punishment
or destruction of the age to come ("eternal punishment" or
"eternal destruction"). This final judgment thus began a demarcation
in Jewish and, then, Christian thinking of a present evil age in which
we now live that would be brought to an end by a final judgment and
then replaced by a coming future age in which God's righteous kingdom
would rule in a renewed heavens and earth. The day, or time, in which
God's final righteous judgment would take place became known, among
others terms, as "the day of the Lord" or "the day of
God's wrath." The agent through whom God would bring about both
this final judgment of the unjust and the liberating salvation of the
just would be the Messiah or Christ - God's anointed Savior and King.
It is around this Old Testament expectation, hope and fulfillment that
the entire New Testament revolves.
Right at the beginning of New Testament the righteous
judgment of a righteous God shifts dramatically to be focused on the
final judgment and its resulting condemnation of the unjust and salvation
of the just. With the coming of John the Baptist, Jesus the Messiah,
and then of Paul the apostle the entire biblical perspective changes.
God's righteous judgment as portrayed in the expression "the wrath
of God" is still at work in the world (Rom. 1:18ff) however, everything
is now primarily seen to be moving towards, and culminating in, that
which occurs "on the day of God's wrath when God's righteous judgment
will be revealed" (Matt. 3:7-10; Matt. 4:17; Rom. 2:5). The apostle
Paul sets forth the biblical scope of God's righteous judgment in the
New Testament's clearest passage on the subject in Romans chapter 2:1-11:
2:1 "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every
one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn
yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We
know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such
things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice
such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the
judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and
forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to
lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart
you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's
righteous judgment will be revealed.
6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who
by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,
he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking [1]
and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath
and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being
who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor
and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
11 For God shows no partiality." (ESV).
Paul's conclusion from all of this is that on the basis of works no
one will be justified in God's sight. Fortunately, God has provided
another way through the sacrifice of God's own Son for the sins of the
world. Thus, God's own righteousness provides a justification and salvation
solely on the basis of grace through faith in Christ (Romans 3:19-26).
The Gospel of John vividly presents the same truths:
16 “For God so loved the world, [9] that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes
in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already,
because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and
people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works
were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and
does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But
whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly
seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:16-19
ESV).
All that Jesus, as the Messiah of God, says and does in the Gospels
must be understood in this light. He is not a modern humanitarian philanthropist,
nor a civic minded secular humanist, nor a nature loving green activist,
nor a marching anti-war pacifist, nor a cynical yet hip college professor,
nor even a British socialist archbishop - all of which many 19th, 20th
and 21st century "scholars" would have us believe. Instead,
as the Messiah of God he is uniquely concerned with the welfare of God's
own people and then bringing others into that community of God's people.
He is God's unique Son who makes known his father God by his divine
words and works and who calls people to repentance and salvation in
the light of God's coming judgment and salvation. In fact, it is our
own attitude towards Jesus, the Messiah of God - faith in him or rejection
of him - that is itself the determining factor of our own individual
condemnation or justification with respect to the final judgment. We
can go even further than that and say with Jesus and Paul that the one
who believes in Jesus as the Messiah of God will not come into
condemnation at the final judgment but has already "passed
from death to life" (John 5:24; Eph. 2:1-8). This is the free gift
of salvation received through faith in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of
God. It is salvation from God's wrath to come at the final
judgment and unto life of the age to come in the glorious kingdom
of God. This is the "good news" of the gospel message and
it is also the central truth of the entire New Testament itself
(cf. John 3:16-36; John 20:30-31; I John 5:11-12).
But why is this message of "salvation" such
good news? Because from the biblical perspective God's final judgment
is indeed coming when every person will give account of himself
before God. People can ignore it, hide from it, or even laugh at it
as though it is a relic of the beliefs of a by-gone age. However, from
the biblical perspective it is indeed coming and every single person
will one day be subject to it. In the meantime God's providential rule
and judgment over the world continues and the responsibility of human
rulers to rule justly on God's behalf also continues (Romans 13). However,
at God's final judgment of the world the true justice that all of God's
faithful long for will at long last take place. In this truth God's
people can be at peace in the midst of a world marred by sin and injustice
- for, God's kingdom will finally come and God's will will be finally
done "on earth as it is in heaven."
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
March 22, 2010
God and Government: The Righteous Judgment of a Righteous
God, Part I
The Bible right from the very beginning in the Book
of Genesis presents God as the all-wise creator, sovereign ruler, and
righteous judge of the heavens and earth. As the crowning achievement
of God's creation man is created by God in his image to rule over the
earth in a godly manner. As such man is responsible and accountable
to God for his actions. This point of view continues throughout the
entire Bible and there is never any deviation from it. Every single
biblical writer wrote within this framework and none of them would have
ever even considered anything differently. To read and understand
the Bible correctly one must read it from this point of view. Unfortunately,
many people tend to read into the Bible their own modern values
of human rights and then judge God and man from their human point of
view. They thus turn the biblical view of God as creator and man as
creature on its head and thereby end up creating a skewed view of both
God and man. But let us insist on this fundamental biblical view: irrespective
of the rights, freedoms, and standards of justice guaranteed by human
governments, God's righteous standards for conduct, accountability,
and judgment remain the same. Following on this, each individual person
is responsible and accountable to God himself and will one day be judged
by him. All proper judgment of man by his fellowman is a subset of God's
own judgment of man and is to take place in the light of the truth that
man is a creature of God, the creator, and that man is created in the
image of God to rule over the earth on God's behalf (Gen. 1:26ff; Psalm
8).
This truth is consistent throughout the Bible from
Genesis to Revelation and is fundamental to understanding the biblical
point of view. God does not create and then withdraw from the world
to let it run on its own like a great clock. Instead, he is actively
and personally involved in providentially governing the world and he
himself judges repeatedly throughout the Bible. At the same time he
expects man to rule over the earth and to judge righteously on his behalf.
God's own judgment often proceeds from the fact that man has failed
to live, rule and judge righteously himself and thus needs God's own
divine righteousness expressed in his judgment on sinners and gracious
salvation for his people in the light of his over-arching divine plan.
There are many examples of God's own divine judgment throughout the
Bible. Let us list a few of the major ones in the Old Testament:
1. God's Judgment upon Man and Woman in the Garden
of Eden.
2. God's Judgment upon the human race in the Genesis
Flood.
4. God's Judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.
5. God's Judgment of the Egyptians.
6. God's Judgment of the Caananites.
7. God's Judgment of Israel in the their captivity
to Assyria and Babylon.
Look at the context of each of these cases and it is
crystal clear the reasons why God exercises his righteous judgment.
In every case it is not forgotten that God is the creator and man is
the creature. God's judgment is not random but always in response to
idolatry, sin and corruption - usually on a massive scale. In other
words, these accounts portray the righteous judgment of a righteous
God upon his own creatures and creation in the light of his own created
order and his own divine plan. The biblical writers never forget this
point of view. It is always front and center in their minds and one
of the major points is setting forth these accounts.
From the very beginning of Genesis it is assumed that
man, created in God's image, knows intuitively from his own being and
existence that there is indeed a sovereign creator God whom he should
worship, trust and obey - a truth confirmed in God's creation itself
(cf. Rom. 1:18-20). Following on this, it is also assumed throughout
that man, created in God's image, knows instinctively from his own nature
right from wrong and is thus responsible and accountable to God as his
creator for doing what is right (cf. Rom. 2:14-15). Nevertheless, man
consistently chooses to ignore God and to practice evil. He thus brings
upon himself the consequent judgment of a righteous God. Of course,
judged by modern day standards of human rights and human freedoms these
judgments could be taken to portray God as an intolerant judge who does
not respect the diversity of human rights, customs, traditions or freedoms
in the world. However, judged by biblical standards this judgment is
seen to be the righteous judgment of a righteous God upon a sinful humanity
in which - as in the Genesis flood - "every inclination of the
human heart was only evil all the time" and thus manifested itself
in a sinful human society that was "corrupt in God's sight and
full of violence" (Gen. 6:1-13).
Let us remember that God's plan in creation was not
simply to create man and then let him do as he pleased - as though man
has some special intrinsic importance or sanctity in and of himself
apart from his proper relationship to God his creator. Instead, the
intrinsic value of man retains its intrinsic value only if man retains
his proper relationship to God his creator. Thus man's own standard
for his conduct toward his fellowman is seen in terms of his being created
in God's image and the responsibilities he has to rule over the earth
in this regard. God's own judgment of man is based on this truth. Following
on this, man's judgment of his fellow-man is also based on this truth
as set forth clearly in Genesis 9:
"And from each human being too, I will demand
an accounting for the life of another human being.
'Whoever sheds human blood,
by human beings shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made humankind'" (Gen. 9:5-6 TNIV).
This standard of judgment for capital punishment stands
on its head much of modern thinking concerning human sanctity of life
and human rights. Nevertheless, this righteous and godly standard continues
throughout the Bible and no biblical writer would have ever considered
this standard to be anything other than a just and righteous standard
(cf. Paul in Rom. 13:1-7; Acts 25:11). That is because biblically though
man's intrinsic worth is equal to all other men, his worth as a living
individual person is dependent upon living according to his proper relationship
to God as one who is created in God's image. When human beings no longer
recognize that relationship correctly their value system changes in
a corresponding way so that as the Greeks and the Renaissance thinkers
commonly said, "man is the measure of all things." This is
an inversion of God's created order and, biblically, nothing could be
farther from the truth. God and his righteous standards are
the true measure of all things and it is by those righteous standards
that God judges and that God's rulers are also to judge on his behalf.
Of course, there is more to these biblical examples
of judgment than just judgment itself. In each case God not only judges
man but also saves, cleanses, preserves and prepares in the light of
his own ultimate plans and purposes for the good of mankind. God's judgment
is always mixed with his mercy and grace. This, in fact, is a consistent
theme throughout the Bible. God's righteous judgment is always in relation
to the ultimate outworking of his plan for the good of his people and
creation. In Genesis 1-11 faithful Noah along with his faithful progeny
is a prime example of this out-working of God's plan. However, the entire
section of Genesis 1-11 also works together to prepare and point the
way to an even greater figure in God's plan whom we first meet at the
end of Genesis 11. That figure is faithful Abraham, the one in whom
and through whom, God will bring his blessing to the entire world (Gen.
12:1-3). But, in order to bring about this blessing to the world God
continues to exercise his righteous judgment and expects man to judge
righteously on his behalf. That perspective never changes in the Bible.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
March 8, 2010
God and Government: The Biblical Worldview
Throughout the Bible there are certain biblical givens,
or assumptions, that are common to all of the biblical writers. Though
these are stated or illustrated in various ways throughout the Bible,
they are often simply assumed without any need for explanation. Instead,
these assumptions formed the foundation for the biblical writers' worldview
- that is, their basis for understanding of all matters including that
of God and government. These biblical assumptions in relation to God
and government include the following:
1. God is the all-wise creator, loving sustainer, and
righteous ruler of the heavens and earth. As such, all things are under
his sovereign and providential rule and he is always at work - far beyond
human understanding - in guiding history to the fulfillment of his own
divine purposes both for mankind and for God's entire creation. Ultimately,
God's justice will prevail and God's purposes will be fulfilled.
2. God has created mankind in his own image to rule
over the earth on his behalf. As such, man is responsible to live according
to God's righteous standards in his relationship to both God and his
fellowman who is also made in God's image. The biblical standard for
justice is therefore summarized in the two great commandments of loving
God and loving one's neighbor as oneself. Man is responsible and accountable
to God for how he conducts his life in this light and man is also subject
to God's judgment both now and in the future for that conduct.
3. All governing rulers - whether believers, pagans,
or unbelievers - ultimately derive their power to rule from God and
are ultimately responsible to God for governing justly. Their rule is
for a limited time within God's overarching plan and their execution
of justice is limited by the reality of the institutions, situations,
and conditions in which they live. All - without exception - are accountable
to God for how they govern and all are subject to God's righteous judgment
both now and in the future.
It is vital to grasp the fact that this is the biblical
worldview all the way through the Bible. It begins in Genesis and goes
through the Book of Revelation. Though mankind lives under many systems
of government during the course of history, God's standard - that is,
what he truly desires from man - does not change in regards to justice.
It is based on the truth that man is created in the image of God. Due
to the entrance of sin the Bible looks at the world in the most realistic
way yet never loses sight of its foundations. Throughout the Bible allowance
is made for sin, man's hardness of heart, and the historical conditions
in which man lives. Nevertheless, God's righteous and just standard
always comes back to the truth that God has created man in his image
to rule over the earth. Therefore men should reflect God's image in
the righteous conduct of their lives. Though all men have fallen short
of this standard, this purpose of God has been set-forth, or demonstrated,
in the life of Jesus Christ, God's unique Son, who is himself the image
of the invisible God. Christ's example thus becomes the standard, ideal
and goal for all mankind. Ultimately, man's true destiny will only be
fulfilled when he himself is transformed into the image of God's Son.
This is a process that begins for a Christian in this life but will
only be fully completed at Christ's future return. Until that time governing
authorities are necessary - within the overarching plan of God - for
the promotion of the common good and for the suppression, deterrence,
and punishment of evil.
Much of what I've said above is a repetition of what
I've already set out in my article Biblical Justice in the Light of
the Biblical World View. Nevertheless, I thought it important to set
out these fundamental assumptions that are shared by all the biblical
writers. See my article for further explanation along with two other
articles on God's sovereign rule:
The
Reign of God
The
Sovereignty of God
Biblical
Justice in the Light of the Biblical Worldview
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
March 1, 2010
God and Government: Introduction
During the past fourteen months our weekly Adult Bible
Study Fellowship within Cary Christian Fellowship has been doing an
intensive study of the subject of "God and Government." We
began our study in the Book of Genesis and have gone all the way through
the Bible studying everything that we could find pertaining to every
aspect of this subject. For me personally the subject of God and government
has also been the focus of a life-long study both from the perspective
of the Bible and from the study of the related fields of history and
government. This personal study began with a growing interest in the
subject during my childhood up through high school. It continued through
my college academic studies in history, government and international
relations. Then it was put into practice by many years of living, studying,
working and traveling in many different countries with often radically
different governmental systems. It has also included over three and
a half decades of teaching the Bible in a variety Bible study fellowships
and house churches. And, finally, it has culminated in over a decade
of teaching all areas of AP history and government at Woods Charter
School, a college and university preparatory high school in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina where I have had some of the best students and colleagues
imaginable. Through all of these experiences - from childhood onwards
- I have been a devout Christian who was concerned to live according
to God's will. Because of this I have always endeavored to form my understanding
of the subject of God and government against the background of what
I believe to be a biblical world-view based on a proper understanding
of the Bible as a whole.
This topic is, of course, often contentious amongst
professing Christian believers. Nevertheless, it is too important a
subject to ignore. So let me say, whatever others may think of me or
my presentation of this subject it is my assumption that those who read
this are normally going to be Christian believers themselves who, like
me, are endeavoring to live principled Christ-like lives for God. It
is unreasonable to expect that we will agree on every detail and some
of us may simply disagree in principle on the topic as a whole. However,
it is my fundamental belief that a person is a Christian - justified
and saved - solely by God's unmerited grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
I believe that this salvation is a gift from God and not a result of
works on our part. Thus, a person can be a justified Christian believer
while at the very same time holding to a wrong understanding of particular
topics pertaining to the Christian life. I think it is obvious that
we are all to some degree at least in that category. In fact, we are
all at some particular point on the growth continuum that moves upwards
towards full Christian maturity - a maturity not to be fully attained
until Christ's return. Sincere disagreement on our understanding of
particular biblical topics should not, however, call into question the
Christian commitment of another professing believer. Due allowance should
be made for each of us to grow in our understanding of biblical topics.
Were there not a certain amount of at least apparent ambiguity in the
details on this and certain other topics there would be no disagreement
at all among believers. Thus, to frame this topic in the context of
true Christian commitment or personal obedience or disobedience rather
than differences in understanding is to poison the waters from the outset
and can be an impetus to compel someone to go against his conscience.
To do this is to go against the clear biblical teaching that God looks
on the heart and will judge all people not only by their actions but
also by their motives and intentions. Let us then frame this study with
a sincere search to understand and apply God's word to our lives in
the best way we are able despite our limitations as both fallible human
beings and maturing Christian believers.
By way of introduction let me now set forth two fundamental
guiding principles in this study along with some explanation of each:
1. As with all biblical topics we must first consider
this topic from the point of view of the original intent and meaning
of the Bible as a whole rather than from isolated sections.
The Bible presents a story of God's plans and purposes
for mankind and the world; then the on-going accomplishment of those
plans and purposes in both creation and the subsequent history of the
world; and finally, it presents the ultimate fulfillment of those plans
and purposes through the redemptive work of his unique Son culminating
in the final new heavens and earth of the kingdom of God. This is one
continuous story with many parts that is presented in many different
historical eras, through many different literary genres, and over a
period of thousands of years. To properly understand God's will for
the present day the Christian believer must properly understand the
biblical plan and history that preceded us and upon which we now stand.
This is also true of our understanding of the subject of God and government
which forms a part of that overall understanding of the Bible as a whole.
As we shall see, there is both continuity and change
in the biblical presentation of this topic. First, there is a general
continuity in the biblical picture of God's purpose for government from
Genesis to Revelation in the Bible. That purpose can be summed up by
the term - justice. That is, justice as defined by God the creator in
relationship to mankind - his creatures - whom he has created in his
image to rule over the earth. However, there are also certain changes
that take place in terms of believers' relationship to government as
we move through the Bible. For example, there is a change from the tribal
governmental situation of the Patriarchal era in the Book of Genesis
to that of Israel as a theocracy under the old covenant of the Mosaic
Law beginning in Exodus. Later, however, the Israelitic theocracy is
split, then taken into captivity and finally restored to its homeland.
In all of these situations Israel is forced to live under and deal with
ancient pagan governments of various kinds while at times still retaining
some limited form of local and religious self-rule. When we come to
the NT Christianity emerges out of Judaism with a fair degree of autonomy
in its local house-churches but under the civil governmental rule of
the Roman empire.
In all of these situations God's just desire for the
role of government remains the same (eg. Psalm 82). It is a justice
based on dealing with mankind according to the foundational truth that
God has created all mankind in his image to rule over the earth. All
people therefore are to revere God as the creator and to treat each
other with the dignity and respect inherent in each being made equally
in God's image. Government should be based on those two principles.
However, as the history of mankind unfolds from the Book of Genesis
onwards this basis for government is often not historically possible.
The hope therefore emerges for the righteous rule of God to one day
prevail and be established in a future Kingdom of God in a renewed earth.
In the meantime, due to sin, the hardness of man's heart, and the many
varied situations of history the believer must adapt himself to a variety
of different governmental systems that stretch from Genesis to Revelation
in the Bible. In all of these cases - both in the OT and the NT - the
study of this topic of God and government necessitates understanding
each scriptural section related to this topic in the light of its own
original intention and meaning within its own particular historical
context as well as in the light of the Bible as a whole. That is what
we will earnestly endeavor to do.
2. Once we have considered the scope of the entire
biblical view about God and government our fundamental and culminating
Christian perspective must then be shaped by the new covenant perspective
of the Christian believer.
The new covenant era of salvation began on
the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:1ff. and all of the NT Letters
are written in the light of that new reality. The new covenant was foretold
in the OT and is based on the sacrificial death and resurrection of
Christ and then the giving of God's gift of holy Spirit to all - both
Jew and Gentile - who have faith in Christ as the crucified and risen
Son of God. The new covenant is not a covenant of the letter, but of
a "life-giving Spirit" (II Cor. 3:6, Rom. 8:1-2) and those
who live within it are to live Christ-like lives "in the new way
of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom.
7:6). It must be emphasized that the new covenant era of salvation did
not begin in the period of time recorded in the Gospels. Otherwise
what did Christ die for?! Instead, the Gospels set the stage for the
coming of the new covenant era as recorded in the Book of Acts and the
NT Letters. Therefore, once we have considered the entire biblical view
about God and government our fundamental and culminating Christian perspective
must then be shaped by the new covenant perspective of the
Christian believer who - through faith in Christ and the corresponding
reception of the Spirit - is now both a new creation "in Christ"
(Eph. 2:8-10, II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:14-16) and, as such, someone whose
manner of life, as with the apostle Paul, is to be conformed to the
mind of Christ - but, only "in the new way of the Spirit, not in
the old way of written code" (Rom. 7:6; I Cor. 2:6-16, 4:14-17,
11: 1; 2 Cor. 10:5; Phil. 2:5ff; etc.).
Thus, the Christian perspective must be built on God's
original intent for mankind found in the OT as being created in the
image of God. Then on the example of the life and teachings of Christ
- who is himself the image of the invisible God - in the Gospels. However,
the primary and governing focus must be that of the new
covenant perspective in Christ as set forth in the in the NT Book
of Acts and the NT Letters. It is the Book of Acts that sets forth the
out-pouring of the gift of holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost that
began the new covenant era of salvation and it is both the Book of Acts
and the NT Letters that explain the proper understanding and application
Christ's life, death and resurrection in the new covenant era of salvation
that has followed. It is in the Book of Acts and the NT Letters that
we see the Spirit leading the new covenant believers into "all
truth" - that is, into a greater understanding of the new covenant
itself and into new and varied applications of the truths of the new
covenant, just as Christ himself had foretold.
Therefore, in terms of the subject of "God and
government" it is not, for example, the old covenant Mosaic Law
nor Christ's Sermon on the Mount that are the governing words on the
subject; rather, it is the whole-Bible view seen now from the perspective
of a new covenant believer in Christ. The fullest exposition of
the whole-Bible view as it pertains to the Christian believer in the
new covenant era is Paul's presentation in his Letter to the Romans
in chapter 13. That perspective is built on and in continuity with the
perspective of the entire Bible including that of the Old Testament
and of Christ himself. As Christians today, our own applications of
the biblical teaching about God and government - under whatever type
of government we ourselves may live - must therefore first and foremost
be governed by a correct understanding of Romans 13 and the companion
new covenant teachings such as I Peter 2:13-17, I Timothy 2:1-8, Titus
3:1-2, etc. Of course, as is true throughout the Bible, these verses
must always be understood along with the ever-present and consistent
biblical qualifier of "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts
5:29). Whenever any government demands that we obey it before, or rather
than, God our duty to God comes first.
The new covenant perspective presents the believer
in Christ as one who is even now a citizen of the coming kingdom of
God by virtue of having received the gift of God's Spirit. This gift
of the Spirit is the down-payment, or first-fruits, of the believer's
future inheritance in the coming kingdom of God. Perhaps the greatest
example for how to live as a Christian today as a citizen of God's kingdom
while also living under earthly governmental systems of this world is
the apostle Paul. Paul, of course, patterned his own life after Christ
and exhorted other Christians to do the same. Neither Christ nor Paul
would have ever even contemplated, much less sanctioned, any attempt
to set up God's kingdom on earth by force of arms or by waging war as
in some sort of religious crusade (John 18:33-36; II Cor. 10:1-5; Eph.
6:10-18). On the other hand, both Jesus and Paul would, and did, expect
that governmental authorities were responsible to God to execute justice
on earth in a manner consistent with the authority given those rulers
by God himself (eg. Rom. 13, etc.). In this they were entirely at one
with the Old Testament perspective (eg. Psalm 82, etc.). Both also believed
that proper governmental rule was normally a benefit to the accomplishment
of God's purposes (eg. I Tim. 2:1-8), though they also recognized, in
unity with the OT, that God could even turn unjust governmental rule
to the accomplishment of his own purposes - the crucifixion of Christ
being, of course, the supreme example of this.
Paul, however, lived in a very different situation
than Christ. He thus applied the principles - not the literal "letter"
- which Christ had taught and lived his own life under the changed conditions
of the new covenant era brought about by Christ's sacrificial death
and resurrection by which he mediated and instituted, via the Spirit,
a new covenant between God and man. Paul also lived in different political,
geographical and historical situations than Christ. While Christ was
on earth he lived as a Jew under the local religious rule of Judaism
but also under the over-arching civil rule of the Romans. During his
life he came face to face and dealt with the legal systems and power
of both Judaism and Rome. However, he had few legal rights in comparison
with Paul and his mission was quite, even radically, different since
ultimately he was sent to die for the sins of the whole world. His ministry
on earth was primarily to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, though
even then his whole life and teaching pointed forward to his future
sacrificial death, resurrection, giving of the Spirit, and the new covenant
to come. He thus ministered faithfully to Israel until it was time for
him to give his life as a ransom for the sins of the world as the mediator
of the new covenant; thus, opening up a new era in God's plan of salvation
for all mankind. Not via a covenant of the letter, but a covenant of
the Spirit; for, as the Apostle Paul was to later state, "the letter
kills, but the Spirit gives life" (II Cor. 3:6).
The new covenant, then, changes the biblical perspective
and the Christian believer must see everything through this changed
perspective. As such, Paul "whose ways were in Christ" becomes
one of the supreme examples of how to live as a Christian believer with
respect to the subject of God and government. Paul not only penned (or
dictated) Romans 13 but also - as a "dual citizen" of heaven
and Rome - he lived as a citizen of God's kingdom while also zealously
claiming his own legal rights as a Roman citizen. Paul's mission was
not die for the sins of the world but to bring the liberating life-giving
message of the new covenant to the world by being a "living sacrifice,
holy and pleasing to God" (Rom. 12:1-2ff). Thus, Paul's words in
Romans 13 must be understood in the light of his new covenant perspective
and his own personal example in the Book of Acts and in his NT Letters
of his own actions with respect to both local governments and the over-arching
Roman government. Thus, in contrast - but not in contradiction - to
Jesus Paul did not "turn the other cheek" to Jewish
injustice; instead, he demanded of justice both of the Jewish officials
and of himself in accordance with principles of Jewish law (Acts 23:1-5;
cf. John 18:19-23). Nor did he "go the extra mile"
in the face of either Jewish or Roman injustice. Instead, at times he
demanded his full rights as a Roman citizen and even relied on the use
of force - both actual and implicit - by Roman soldiers, as necessary,
in order to protect both his life and his legal rights as a Roman citizen
(Acts 23:10 - 35). Paul's teaching and example are both simply loaded
with principles which we as citizens can study and apply to our lives
today. Logically, we ourselves should follow his example by
asking how those new covenant principles relating to God and government
apply to us in our own situations today. This is ultimately the main
point of our quest for understanding in this study. Like Paul then,
let us do this "in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old
way of the written code" (Rom. 7:6).
I will end today's blog by presenting three articles
which deal with this topic from the perspective set out above. These
will give a pretty good feel for the topic as a whole. The first article
is an excellent, straight-forward exposition of Christian Citizenship
in the light of Romans 13 by my good friend Chuck LaMattina. The second
article is by me on the topic of Biblical Justice in the light of the
Biblical World-view. The third is by J. Daryl Charles on the subject
of Just War and is entitled "Between Pacificism and Jihad."
This Just War aspect of the topic is often the main point of conflict
amongst Christians on this subject of God and government and so it's
good to get it out on the table immediately so that we can think about
it as we move along. Charles' article presents biblical justice - and
by extension, Just War - as a sort of golden mean between the extremes
of pacifism and crusade (or Jihad). Since publishing this article not
long after the events of 9/11 Charles has written a similarly titled
book on the same subject.
Now, the articles:
Christian
Citizenship
Biblical
Justice
Between
Pacifism and Jihad
I will try to blog every week (or two) and then publish
them on Mondays. I welcome your comments and will try to interact with
them as best I can.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Feb. 18, 2010
New Year Web-site Up-date
The new year has been with us now for about a month
and a half and I've been working during this time on updating the web-site.
Now I'm ready to starting to blogging again on a more consistent basis
- hopefully, weekly. Over the years we've had quite a few compliments
about the web-site and it seems to have been useful and a blessing for
many. We appreciate those compliments and we also appreciate suggestions
for making the web-site even more useful. It has never been our purpose,
of course, to pretend that we have a corner on the truth. Instead, we
try to present our own biblical studies along with additional web-sites,
articles, etc. by others that we believe offer solid presentations of
biblical topics, even if we do not agree entirely on every biblical
issue. This has always been the purpose of The Unity of the Spirit
both in its newsletter form and now in its web-site form as well. In
short, our goal has always been to make available as much solid information
as we can about the Bible and about living the Christian life within
the context of endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond
of peace.
Let me review briefly the current format of the The
Unity of the Spirit web-site and explain our offerings and up-dates.
At the top of the page we have our headings for our own recommendations,
articles, book-reviews, and the archives of every past issue of our
newsletter The Unity of the Spirit. I've made a few up-dates
to the recommendations section and Scot Hahn has done an extensive revision
and updating of our book reviews. One thing I would call everyone's
attention to is that the NIV will be updated in a new edition coming
out in 2011 that will attempt to incorporate the best features of the
current NIV and the TNIV. At that time both the current NIV edition
and the TNIV will no longer be published. Hopefully, this new 2011 edition
will achieve the goals of the translators and will prove to be an excellent
version of the Bible for all-around use. It will probably be a good
first translation for many people and at least a second or third version
for comparative purposes for others. Of course, given the uncertainties
of Bible translations you might want to also be sure to have a good
current NIV and TNIV to hang on to as well.
Moving on, in the right hand column we continue to
present an on-line version of my book God's Plan of Salvation
as well as my on-line introductory class on understanding the Bible
entitled "God's Living Word". I wrote the first edition of
the book over 16 years ago and this on-line version represents a slight
variation of the second edition published in 2001. A book version is
available for free. Just e-mail me if you'd like one. If you listen
to the on-line class "God's Living Word" be sure to also use
the syllabus which was prepared primarily by Scot Hahn. In fact, if
you have a choice of listening to the class or reading/studying the
syllabus, do the latter!
Below these offerings we continue to list web-sites
where you can read many of the major Bible versions on-line. Bible Gateway
is particularly good for comparative study and most of the sights have
excellent additional information, articles, blogs, etc. about their
own versions as well.
Just beneath these Bible version web-sites we've listed
various interesting and informative web-sites relating to Bible study
or Bible related topics. Different people will find different sights
interesting for them and many will probably want to skip them all-together.
Many of these, however, are loaded with good articles on biblical topics
and related matters. I hope many of you will take some time to check
them out thoroughly and see what they have to offer. Though not always
agreeing with everything said on these web-sites, we believe that all
of them have excellent and interesting information, articles, blogs,
etc. A few comments on these web-sites:
Better Bibles Blog: this site is run by Wayne
Leman a Bible translator and linguist and has lots of interesting information
and blog discussions aimed at making better Bible translations. There
are a lot interesting contributors to the discussions and there are
a fairly wide range of theological backgrounds and viewpoints, though
theology per se is not allowed into the discussions except as to how
it relates to translation.
Koinonia: this is a site for many Bible scholars
who are associated with Zondervan Publishing Co. There are some very
interesting blogs and a wide variety of topics discussed about biblical
matters. It is theologically conservative on the whole.
The Centre for Public Christianity: this is
a very interesting, biblically sound, and informative web-sight dealing
with all manner of topics related to Christianity. It is centered in
Australia and its written and video/pod-cast, etc. presentations are
of the highest quality.
Evangelica: This is certainly one of my favorite
blogs. The sight is run by Michael Bird (Australian) and Joel Willitts
(American) who are both young (by my standards) biblical scholars and
academics. They try to keep the rest of us abreast of what is happening
in the biblical/theological world and their blog-posts run from the
simply informative to highly entertaining to both theologically interesting
and perceptive. Being one generation older than these guys and being
familiar with both the biblical scholars, etc. of my generation and
older it is interesting for me to compare the perspective of an up and
coming generation of Bible scholars, teachers, and academics.
C.S. Lewis Society: This name speaks for itself.
Though the biblical accuracy of C.S. Lewis sometimes leaves something
to be desired, he nevertheless was full of biblical, theological, historical
and literary wisdom. All of which was framed by his adult-life conversion
to Christianity and his serious study of the Bible and its applications
throughout the rest of his life. One can agree with his general train
of thought and his immense wisdom without feeling the need to agree
all of the details of his biblical exposition. This web-site offers
much and also has a keen focus on issues of intelligent design and the
surrounding debate.
Touchstone: this website is loaded with many
interesting articles combining biblical, theological, historical and
current events issues. There are very many contributors do it from a
variety of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox persuasions.
It is a publication of the Society of St. James which is theologically
conservative and seeks to present sound Christian scholarship to the
public on a variety of issues.
Evangelical Philosophical Society: this sight
is also loaded with many good articles and its blog is first class.
It deals in a serious way with many different issues from an evangelical
perspective with first rate scholarship.
NT Wright Articles: This web-site offers a
collection of most of the works of NT Wright with the exception of his
books which can all be found at www.amazon.com. or the like. NT Wright
is probably the most well-known biblical scholar in the world today.
He is also the Bishop of Durham in the Anglican Church and thus also
sits in the British House of Lords in the British Parliament. I've been
a familiar with him for over 20 years going back to his articles in
Bible Review and his debates in the USA with the so-called Jesus Seminar.
Since those times he has written hugely important and voluminous writings
on Christian origins both at a scholarly and popular level. I've read
most of these as they were published. His historical scholarship on
early Judaism and Christianity against the background of the Roman empire
builds on and expands the work of many earlier scholars and sets the
proper understanding of Christianity in its true historical context.
His writings, interviews, sermons, speeches, etc. are always interesting,
very often enlightening, and sometimes maddening :) ! Though I often
differ with some of the details of his biblical exposition (and of his
politics), his overall understanding and presentation of the biblical
message is very sound and is extremely refreshing coming from both the
world of academia and the world of mainline Christianity. We hope to
a do a book review of his major books soon. There is little that Wright
has not thought or written about and he is a staunch, articulate, and
persuasive defender - and advocate - of biblical Christianity as it
pertains to all areas of life.
The Paul Page: this sight that was begun and
is run by Mark Mattison is dedicated to the discussion of the so-called
"New Perspective on Paul". Briefly, this deals with endeavoring
to understand Paul and his writings from within his own Jewish historical
context. There are many flavors and aspects of this topic and this web-sight
offers a huge number of excellent articles from many different perspectives
on this entire debate.
The next four web-sites listed on the right hand column
are primarily devoted to detailed and academic research and study of
the scriptures. They are all excellent for that purpose and taken together
they seem to offer an almost limitless supply of information, leads,
and links to serious biblical study.
Finally, I list a brief outline of a work by Phillip
Johnson who was the driving force behind the intelligent design movement.
This is a summary of the basic principles of intelligent design in contrast
to those of Darwinian evolution. I know of no better resource for understanding
the basics of the debate. This is followed by a web-site run by the
Discovery Institute devoted to Intelligent Design and gives access to
most of the major books, articles, blogs, etc. associated with this
school of thought. Anyone willing to take the time to explore this sight
and the related sights to which it links will find a wealth of information
on this timely and extremely important topic.
I hope to start blogging on a weekly basis aiming at
Mondays. I hope you'll check in and I look forward to hearing from you
and growing together with you in Christ.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Dec. 25, 2009
Christmas Day and the Gospel of Life
The Gospel of John is often called the "the Gospel
of Life". It is not a biography of the life of Jesus. Instead,
it is a presentation of God's plan of salvation being effected by God
himself through the creative and redemptive work of his own "Word"
- through which God first creates the world and through which God eventually
brings salvation to the world in the human person of his unique Son,
Jesus Christ our Lord. The blessings of this redemption, salvation and
"life" are thus made available to the entire world and can
be received by anyone who freely chooses to accept and believe "that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have
life in his name." The beauty of the message of this "Gospel
of life" deserves to be front and center on this Christmas day
when we celebrate the coming into the world of God's unique Son. Following
are some key sections in the Gospel of John which present the story-line
from beginning to end:
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that
has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life
was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and
the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as
a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all
might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness
to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the
world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through
him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his
own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive
him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become
children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor
of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen
his glory, the glory of the one and only [Son], who came from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, "This
is he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because
he was before me.' ") 16 Out of his fullness we have all received
grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through
Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever
seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God [in his self-revelation]
and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
(John 1:1-18 TNIV).
John 3:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not
condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because
they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This
is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness
instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 All those who do
evil hate the light, and will not come into the light for fear that
their deeds will be exposed. 21 But those who live by the truth come
into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done
has been done in the sight of God. (John 3:16-21 TNIV).
John 17:
1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father,
the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.
2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal
life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is
eternal life: that they may know you, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory
on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father,
glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the
world began. (John 17:1-5).
John 20:
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples,
which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing
you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31 TNIV).
This is truly the "Gospel of Life"! May God bless you all
in this joyous season of the year as we remember God's love as expressed
through the redemptive work of his Son!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Nov. 11, 2009
Veterans Day
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month
of the year 1918 the guns of the Great War - eventually to be called
World War I - stopped. For many of those who experienced it the silence
that followed was deafening and the new reality that was created was
surreal. The armistice that was signed at that time between Germany
and the Allied powers led to the end of the bloodiest, most destructive,
and most geographically far-reaching war that the world had ever seen.
The political order of the world was changed forever and all of those
who participated in, or who lived through, that war were also changed
forever. Included in that number were many professing Christians - on
all sides - including my own American grandfather. In the following
year of 1919 President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the day of November
11 a day to be celebrated as Armistice Day in honor of those Americans
who served in the war.
Twenty years later on September 1, 1939 Nazi Germany
invaded the Republic of Poland thus beginning what came to be known
as World War II. This shattered the human illusion - perpetuated by
the pacifism of Western governments in the 1920s and 30s - that World
War I had, in fact, been a "war to end all wars" or a war
"to make the world safe for democracy". The massive death,
destruction and horror of World War II swamped that of World War I and
at its end brought us into the era of the nuclear age - an age in which
for the first time man had the power to literally destroy himself and
the entire inhabitable world by weapons of his own making. This war
also realigned the political order of the world, set the lines for the
Cold War, and changed the lives of all who participated in, or lived
through, it. So far-reaching were its effects that it touched all continents
and all peoples of the world to a greater or lesser degree. As with
World War I it also included the participation of many professing Christians
including my own father, two uncles, and many, many friends and acquaintances.
In 1954 President Eisenhower and the U.S. Congress changed the name
of Armistice Day to Veterans Day in honor of all veterans of America's
wars. In many other nations that same day of November 11 is still remembered
and commemorated as Armistice Day, Remembrance Day, or by other names,
in honor of veterans or veterans who died in World War I and other wars.
It is the united testimony of the entire Bible from
Genesis to Revelation that God has appointed man to rule justly over
the earth as those who are created in his own image (Gen. 1:26ff). There
is, however, no Biblical mandate for a specific type of government and
we see different forms of government throughout the Bible. What is important
is that it governs justly under God on behalf of its people. There is
nothing more tragic than when just government of whatever kind breaks
down. The foundations of orderly society are destroyed and the vulnerable
of the world become the prey of corrupt rulers (Psalm 82). When necessary
just government necessarily entails participating in just wars. To refuse
to do so is to neglect proper governmental responsibility and to leave
a nation's people prey to the destructive forces of evil and to all
the injustice that follows. As a Christian believer who fervently believes
in the God-ordained role of just government as well as in just war as
a necessary part of fulfilling just government - I also today "give
honor to those to whom honor is due" (Rom. 13:7). That is, I give
honor to those who in service to the just ideals of their nations are
veterans of their militaries in their nations' wars. As an American
I particularly pay tribute to my fellow Americans - including many relatives,
friends and even former students - who have served as veterans in wars
in which America has participated over the course of the last century
- the great majority of which I believe to have been just wars on behalf
of the welfare of the people who were otherwise subject to greater injustice.
Above all, I give honor to those fellow-Christians
who served honorably in these wars in the cause of justice, irrespective
of the difficulties and imperfections of the moral, ethical or practical
considerations that war often entails. War takes the complications of
life in this present evil age to perhaps its highest level; and, just
as the Christian should not seek to escape from the responsibilities
of life and citizenship in normal society, so he should not seek to
escape from the responsibilities of life and citizenship in wartime
society. The Bible is full of examples of believers who served in government
and military positions such as Joseph, David, Esther, Daniel, etc. These
even included service in Pagan governments of all kinds with no expectation
ever stated or implied that these believers should depart from those
positions - unless, they were compelled to live contrary to God's commands.
In Romans 13:1-7 the apostle Paul sets forth in plain
and simple language the fullest expression of the God-ordained purposes
of government and the believer's responsibility in regards to it. In
fact, Paul's teaching summarizes the entire Biblical perspective and
is itself a carry-over from the Old Testament perspective. On the whole,
this perspective would have been a given for the Jewish faithful including
Paul himself. Clearly, believers - both Old Testament and New Testament
- were expected and commanded to respect, honor, obey and even pay taxes
to support the purposes of just government. They thus become supporters
and implicit participants in just government including its just responsibilities
of promoting good and also of "bearing the sword" for the
restraint and punishment of evil. Clearly this includes what we today
would consider police work within our own nations, states, cities, and
towns. However, it would be artificial and naive to think that such
law enforcement stops at the borders of one's own nation. The upholding
of justice - including the use of military force - extends beyond one's
own borders when necessary. Threats to a nation's people are both internal
and external. This has always been the case. In addition, true justice
is justice under God and cannot be confined to a single geographical
area. To the degree that a government can increase that justice it has
an obligation to help do so. Ultimately, all people everywhere are responsible
and accountable to God and will one day be judged by him. Government
provides a temporary - though imperfect - measure of God's justice in
this present evil age for the promotion of good and the restraining
and punishment of evil until the time of God's final judgment when justice
will fully be brought to its fullest expression.
That Paul believed in these principles and put them
into practice himself is clearly shown by his own life in relationship
to the Roman government of his day and his own exercise of his rights
of Roman citizenship as set forth in the Book of Acts and his NT Letters.
Over and over he depended upon the Roman government - including the
implicit use of force if necessary - for his own protection as a Roman
citizen. However, this is simply a continuation of the same perspective
of government that began in the Old Testament and continues throughout
the New. Of course, as in all matters of Biblical ethics the application
of these principles must be made according to the given individual historical
situation and according to the conscience of the individual Christian
believer who is faced with real-life decisions in that historical situation.
As in all matters our first responsibility is to God himself. Therefore,
in matters of government responsibility - including military - if ungodly
acts are demanded of Christians who are citizens of a given state by
that state then our Christian responsibility is clearly "to obey
God rather than men." (Acts 5:29). But that is the exception, not
the rule. As a rule government is instituted for just reasons and those
who help carry out its just function - especially those who put their
lives on the line in its cause - are deserving of the respect and honor
due to them.
History, of course, will not be the ultimate
judge of the justness of wars or of the justness of the acts and decisions
of the individuals who fought in these wars; instead, as with all things
and all people, God himself will be the final judge. And, of course,
as in all things we can be assured that God's judgment will be just
in weighing both the acts and motives of the hearts of all of those
involved including sincere Christian believers (I Cor. 4:1-5). Most
importantly, we can also rest assured that this same God who created
the world with a purpose and plan in mind was actively at work during
those wars just as he has been actively at work throughout
history in bringing about his own sovereign purposes for the good
of his own people, his own creation, and to his own ultimate glory as
a merciful, just, and all-wise God (Gen. 50:19-20; Job 42:2-3; Psalm
103:19; Dan. 4:28-33; John 19:10-11; Rom. 11:33-36; etc.).
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Aug. 18, 2009
The Name "Christian"
Since New Testament times if a person is to know and
live for God he must come to God through his Son, Jesus Christ. This
is the essence of NT Christianity and the entire New Testament revolves
around it. The NT is focused on Christ because Jesus Christ was, and
is, the Son of God through whom God has most fully revealed himself
to mankind and through whom God has brought salvation to the world.
Very simply, Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life"
and through him any individual person can "come to the Father"
and "know the Father" as his personal God (John 14:1-10).
For those who choose to believe in, and thus follow, Christ there is
no more appropriate or honorable name than "Christian".
I have always loved the term "Christian".
It is a name by which I have identified myself since childhood because
I was born into and brought up in a Christian family and a Christian
church. The term "Christian" is biblical, appearing three
times in the NT, and it is significant in several respects. First, it
immediately identifies a person as a believer in, and follower of, Jesus
Christ, the Son of God. It is also a term that immediately identifies
a Christian as a member of the worldwide Christian community - a community
that transcends denominational and sectarian divisions as well as local
Christian churches of whatever kind. Finally, the term "Christian"
focuses immediate attention on that which is central to Christianity.
When people ask me what I believe as a Christian I usually sum it up
by stating the central truths of God's plan of salvation, all of which
focus on Christ:
1. Believe in Christ,
2. Live a Christ-like life,
3. Until Christ's return.
There is plenty of detail to be un-packed from these
central truths focusing on Christ and I have tried to do it some extent
in my own booklet "God's Plan of Salvation". However, the
best way to maintain unity in Christianity is to begin by focusing on
these most important central truths and then working down to the details
from there. Calling ourselves "Christians" helps to achieve
this and it is a name that can, and should, be borne humbly, proudly,
and honorably by "all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
- their Lord and ours" (I Cor. 1:2).
One of the highlights of my summer - from amongst many
- has been making the acquaintance of a young Christian scholar from
California by the name of Patrick Navas. Patrick is thirty years old
and is a student of history, theology, and biblical studies. He has
already published a major - and massively documented - book entitled
"Divine Truth or Human Tradition" which we will be reviewing
later. However, in recent weeks we've had the opportunity to read some
of his other articles many of which are focused on bringing unity to
the worldwide Christian community by presenting the original intent
and meaning of the the truth of the Bible itself rather than post-biblical
traditions, creeds, and institutional structures or dogmas. This, of
course, is the exact purpose of "The Unity of the Spirit"
web-site and we look forward to working together with him in the future
and making more of his work available on this web-site. What follows
is a highly recommended article which Patrick has written entitled:
"Thoughts
on the Name Christian".
Do yourself a favor and delve into it. It will bring
honor to the name "Christian" that we all as fellow brothers
and sisters in Christ humbly and proudly bear.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
July 4, 2009
The Meaning of Life
When I get up in the morning each day the first thing
I do is turn my thoughts to God and ask him to help me to live for him
to the best of my ability throughout that day. I then spend whatever
time that is necessary in prayer, Bible reading or study, and meditation
on the things of God to prepare myself for that day. I am admittedly
a "morning person" and I typically get up early to give myself
time to do this. In fact, I've been doing this for the last 35 years
of my life and it has become an established pattern and habit for me.
However, whether or not one is a "morning person" it seems
evident that in one way or another each of us should prepare our minds
each morning - whether through a few minutes or hours - to live for
God that day. Often I begin with some of my favorite Psalms such as
Psalm 1 which I read in either the ESV or NIV since they preserve the
original Hebrew singular representative "man" of verse 1 which,
though equally applicable to both men and women, being singular retains
the very personal aspect:
"Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
or stand in the way of sinners,
or sit in the seat of mockers.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
that yields its fruit in season,
and whose leaf does not whither.
Whatever he does prospers.
Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff that the wind blows away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will
perish."
(Psalm 1 NIV).
This Psalm has been a foundation for my life since
childhood. There are few Psalms that are as straightforward, vivid,
and to the point as this one, and it is not by accident that it was
chosen to be placed at the beginning of the Psalter as Psalm 1. This
Psalm sums up the Old Testament perspective of what makes man "blessed"
in this life. Now "blessed" is a word that's thrown around
a lot in popular culture as well as in popular Christianity. For a good
understanding of the word "blessed" in its biblical context
and for a good understanding of the entire structure and meaning of
Psalm 1 I highly recommend the NIV Study Bible notes on this Psalm.
Take the time to read them, study them and understand the Psalm in its
original meaning and context. However, what is immediately obvious to
any unbiased reader is that the "blessed man" is "blessed"
precisely, and only, because his life is lived in proper relationship
to God.
I've often been asked by others what is perhaps the
greatest question of all, "What is the meaning of life?" My
reply is always simple and straightforward, "To live for God."
Now one may give the same answer in other words such as "To live
in fellowship with God" or "To have a personal relationship
with God", etc.; however, these are simply different ways of saying
the same basic truth. Each answer may emphasize a different aspect of
living for God, but the meaning is still fundamentally the same. Of
course, the Bible states, implies, and assumes this answer right from
the beginning in the Book of Genesis and continues with the same answer
all the way through to the end in the Book of Revelation. Therefore,
at any place that one may look in the Bible this answer to the meaning
of life is the fundamental assumption that all of its writers begin
with and either directly or indirectly present, expound and advocate.
The Old Testament sets the basis for this understanding
of the meaning of life and its message carries over to become the foundation
of the New Testament as well. The God of the Old Testament is the same
God as the God of the New Testament and it is in the New Testament that
we read of the fulfillment of God's plans, purposes and promises for
mankind and the world through God's Son, Jesus Christ. The Old Testament
begins in the Book of Genesis by setting up the basic relationship of
man with God. In Genesis 1 and 2 God creates an inhabitable world in
which man, who is created in God's image, is set up to rule over in
a god-like, or godly, way in relationship with God and his fellowman.
Therefore, man is first and foremost responsible and accountable to
live for God according to God's standards. Second, man is responsible
and accountable to live in proper relationship with his fellowman who
is also created in God's image. Finally, man is responsible and accountable
to properly rule over, subdue, and steward God's creation in accordance
with God's original intent for it to glorify his name. Many other sections
of scripture - such as Psalm 8, Job 38-40, Rom. 1:18ff, etc. - confirm
this basic structure of life within God's created order which is then
assumed throughout the rest of the Bible.
Any right thinking about God, about the world in which
we live, about the meaning of life, and about man's place and meaning
in life must conform to this structure. Apart from this world-view everything
else is confusion and delusion. On the other hand, accepting this world-view
gives one the basic structure of life from which all meaning is derived
and through which all of life can be properly understood. It does not,
however, mean that life will be easy, pain free, or that one will therefore
understand all of the answers about the world, life, evil, etc. Instead,
the Bible is the most realistic of all books. It insists throughout
that man is a creature of God, created in God's image; but is not
God himself. Therefore, man's understanding always has been and always
will be limited. Man sees only a very, very small part of the entire
picture while God sees the entire picture both in terms of meaning and
in terms of actual reality. To pretend otherwise is to go against all
experience of history, personal practical reality, and indeed, common
sense itself.
Of course, many, many people do not accept this picture
of reality and, therefore, reject the reality of God and the concept
of "living for God" as being the answer to the true meaning
of life. That, of course, does not mean that they have a better answer;
in fact, it is much more fashionable these days to not have
an answer. If a person is truly searching for the answer to the meaning
of life then that person will, the Bible says, ultimately find it. God's
created order and his own personal governance of the world operate in
such a way as to providentially bring about his purposes for his people.
Since we all come from different backgrounds - much of that background
being beyond our control - the paths to reaching an accurate understanding
of the God of the Bible will vary widely. The person, however, who out
and out rejects the existence of a personal God sets himself against
God's created order which itself, the Bible makes clear, makes manifest
the reality of God himself (Rom. 1:18ff). The Bible in no uncertain
terms calls this person "a fool" and explicitly sets forth
the error, perversion and destruction to which this point of view leads
(Psalm 1, Psalm 14, Rom. 1:18ff). Invariably, people who choose this
route either consciously or unconsciously turn to other gods of their
own making or else they, in effect, become their own god.
It is important to note that this theme of either living
for or against the one true God of the Bible has been the central theme
not only of the Bible but also of history itself. It begins with the
story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden in Genesis 2 and 3, it works
itself out in the history of the world, and it continues to be the central
theme of life today. Accepting that "living for God" is indeed
the answer to the meaning of life simplifies an otherwise complicated
and confusing world. It brings meaning, purpose, clarity and structure
to all of life's difficulties, challenges, and questions. And most importantly,
it is the starting point for a lifelong relationship of coming to know
- and grow with - the personal God who created mankind to live in intimate
fellowship with him.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
June 8, 2009
Church and Churches Part II
In my last post I talked about my love for churches
- both the church buildings and the people of God in the local church
which meets in the church building. Just as my life revolved around
"church" growing up in the American South, so it has continued
to revolve around church life in my adult life. Over the last 35 years,
since the age of 19, I've participated in and helped found and establish
many different churches in many different places both here in the U.S.
and in Europe. There has never been a time in that 35 years that my
life did not revolve around helping to start, build, or establish some
type of church somewhere. Most of these were house churches - that is,
local groups of believers whose church life revolves around various
kinds of fellowships that take place in the homes of the believers of
those fellowships. In addition, I've helped start and build various
types of Christian fellowships on college campuses and, now also, at
the school where I teach. To me this is simply part and parcel of being
a committed Christian believer during the new covenant era of salvation.
This pattern for outreach and fellowship was begun by Jesus himself
as recorded in the Gospels and then became the norm of his followers
- based on Christ's commands to them - in the first century churches
that began at Jerusalem and then moved out throughout the Roman Empire
as recorded in the Book of Acts and NT Letters. As they preached the
gospel message they met first in the Jerusalem temple courtyards, then
local synagogues throughout the Roman Empire, and, ever increasingly,
in their own homes or other similar places (e.g. Acts 1:1-11; 5:42;
28:30-31).
Throughout Christian history alternatives to the religious
institutions of the day have often been necessary in order to accomplish
God's purposes of teaching the truth and caring for God's people. It
seems almost inevitable that almost all institutions will eventually
ossify and become in need of revitalization - institutional churches
are no exception. A few examples of this in history that come readily
to mind were the Lollards' who followed the leadership of John Wycliffe
in 14th century England, the many Reformation churches in Europe during
the 16th and 17th centuries, the Anabaptists of the same period, the
Great Awakening churches in America in the 18th century, and the corresponding
Weslyan movement in England during the same period of time of the 1700s.
In fact, the history of Christianity in America has been a continual
history of just that - revitalization upon revitalization - right from
its very beginnings in the Colonial era all the way down to the present
day. This has been greatly aided by the U.S. Constitutional principle
of separation of church and state - rightly understood. Of course, house
churches or other alternative churches have also flourished in countries
throughout history where persecution of Christianity existed, or exists,
such as in the first century church under the Roman Empire and in modern
China today.
The work of a church is a "noble work" in
God's eyes and those who desire to lead a church "desire a noble
task" (I Tim. 3:1ff). Arguably, good Christ-like leadership as
outlined in verses such as I Tim. 3, Titus 1, etc. is the single most
important factor in having a church that is truly representative of
"the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the
truth." Beyond that, it is obvious that the place where the assembled
people of God in a local area meet is relatively unimportant and a good
argument can be made for a central location together with various offshoots.
What matters most is that God is truly worshipped, that God's people
are spiritually built up, encouraged and strengthened, and that the
local church - wherever it principally meets - becomes God's alternative
to the world by teaching the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Much has been
written and much has been discussed about what makes for an authentic
church. In my view, the best standard is that set famously by Jesus
Christ himself, "wherever two or three are gathered in my name,
there am I in their midst." That certainly sounds like a NT church
to me and I believe all authentic churches should be built on that simple
concept laid down by Christ himself.
The church in Cary, NC which Dorota and I are a part
of is Cary Christian Fellowship. We call it a "fellowship of fellowships."
We have a Board of Directors (Elders) which founded the church and oversees
it on a continual basis. We also have one person, Scot Hahn, who is
legally ordained according to NC law and who is responsible to lead,
oversee, and pastor Cary Christian Fellowship on a daily basis. We have
a variety of fellowships which take place at different times and places
for different purposes. First, we have one large monthly fellowship
meeting in which we all come together that meets at David and Pam Hahn's
homestead "out in the country" - complete with a pond and
other down home "southern amenities" (most importantly David
and Pam themselves!) - during the good weather months. During the cold
weather months of the year we meet at David and Mary Seed's home which
has a special detached addition behind their home which is a perfect
setting for our larger monthly fellowship. Both of these places are
wonderful places for God's people to meet exhibiting the loving and
godly hospitality of their own owners who are themselves faithful patrons
and pillars of our church community.
We also have two regular weekly fellowships that are,
perhaps, what the rest of our "fellowship of fellowships"
are built around. One of these is led by Scot in his and his wife Kristi's
home. The other is led by myself in Dorota's and my home. These provide
weekly continuity in teaching God's word and building up all of us within
our local "ekklesia" or church. We also have several other
types of fellowships that meet at various other times and places, e.g.
a children's fellowship, a women's fellowship, etc. We also stay in
touch with what we consider to be our "sister church" in Krakow,
Poland that is independently led by Leszek and Olga Druszkiewicz and
the Polish believers there. This is a house church that Dorota and I
helped to start and were privileged to be a part of back in the 1980s.
We consider ourselves to still be members of it - at least "in
spirit" - to this day. The believers in that fellowship are particularly
dear to us and because of this we particularly pray for, love, and dearly
look forward to spending time with them as often as possible. Thankfully,
we are often able to do this in a wonderful small Bible conference that
takes place in the Polish Tatra mountains in the summer of each year.
For me personally, this Polish summer conference that has been organized
and led by Leszek and Olga and the other Polish believers there now
for 15 years, is always one of the highlights of my year and I will
speak more about it in a later post.
I believe that each local church functions best when
it is self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing. It can
then draw on resources from, or cooperate with, other Christian groups,
sources of information, or individuals as it sees fit at any given time.
This local control also allows for the greatest flexibility and the
ability to meet the needs of a local fellowship with its own local situations.
This is our model for Cary Christian Fellowship. So while our focus
is on our own local church, all of us in Cary Christian Fellowship are
also involved in the outreach of God's word in many other ways in our
communities. Some of these involvements are in joint cooperation with
other churches or else in special situations such as school groups,
etc. In this way we seek to work with fellow Christians in a cooperative
way and yet to retain the unique distinctiveness of our own fellowship
- both in what we believe and in our method and organization. Finally,
we maintain a web-site for Cary Christian Fellowship and also help sponsor
this Unity of the Spirit web-site in which we seek to support both our
own fellowship as well as to play our part in supporting the church
of the body of Christ as a whole throughout the world.
Let us never forget that when properly organized the
local church continues to be "the church of the living God, the
pillar and foundation of the truth." (I Tim. 3). This church should
be a people and a place where God's love is manifested, where God's
people are built up, and where God's truth is made known to the world.
Indeed, God's intent is "that now, through the
church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers
and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose
which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. 3:10-11).
So, what's happening in the world today? The church
of the living God - wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
May 9, 2009
Church and Churches
I have always loved churches and every time I see one
today something sort of jumps in my heart. I suppose this began to a
great degree because of my growing up in the American South. The Presbyterian
church I grew up in was very much a part of my life. We attended church
service and Sunday school regularly each Sunday. On Wednesday evenings
we also often attended a pot luck supper with an informal service or
other activities afterwards. I also attended kindergarten at this same
church and later both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. Many of my closest
friends also went to this same church while others attended other Protestant
churches such as Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist or another Presbyterian
church. I occasionally visited their churches with them as well. All
of these experiences were very typical of the Southern culture of those
times and still is, at least, to some degree. Perhaps more than any
other area of the United States, life in the South for a very large
number of people still revolves around their church.
Most of these churches are wooden structures and most
of them have a simple beauty about them. Many of them are also painted
white. Since they are Protestant churches they are also simply arranged
on the inside with pews facing a pulpit, often with pews behind the
pulpit for a choir, and at times adorned with a few stained glass windows.
As I've traveled around the United States and Europe in my adult life
I've encountered similar churches in some places; however, most areas
had much more ornate churches especially in the ascending order of Episcopal,
Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. When I lived in Wisconsin for a
year at the age of 19 to 20 the churches I encountered were almost all
Lutheran or Roman Catholic. Oddly enough, even those Lutheran churches
were more ornate than the usual Protestant churches - including Lutheran
ones - that I was used to in the South. Having only been in a Roman
Catholic church once by that time - for a funeral of the lone Catholic
in my Junior High class who died of an accident - I was stunned to see
the differences. It was a whole new world for me to see the ornate adornment
and size of many of those churches in Wisconsin. Of course, having now
studied, lived and traveled in Europe for almost thirty years I've come
to see a European continent of churches that possess an age, magnitude,
and adornment that most people in the American South could hardly imagine.
The great cathedrals and churches of Europe are simply astonishing in
comparison with the simple, though beautiful in their own way, churches
of the American South.
One of my favorite verses in the entire Bible is found
in Paul's First Letter to Timothy:
"Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing
to you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how
people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the
church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
(I Tim. 3:14 NIV/TNIV)."
I cannot think of many things more exciting and inspiring
than to be a part of "the church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation of the truth." In a world of multiculturalism, relative
beliefs and values, and with no sure certainty about anything, it is
nice to be a part of the true "counter-culture" of God's church
which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Of course, most of
us know that the Greek word "ekklesia" (church) in the New
Testament is never used of a "church building" as it is used
today. Instead, it refers to:
1. The local church consisting of Christians in a particular
area.
2. The assembled local church.
3. The church catholic or universal - that is, the
church of the body of Christ consisting of all Christian believers throughout
the world who are spiritually united "in Christ".
This "church of the living God" began as
a local church in Jerusalem and ultimately many thousands of local churches
throughout Judea and the ends of the earth (Acts 1). These churches
originally met primarily in homes and continued to do so for much of
the first few centuries after Christ's ministry on earth and his death,
resurrection and giving of the Spirit which began the church. Only later
did these churches begin to meet in buildings which they either built
themselves or else took over from pagan temples. Nevertheless, even
though they started to take on elements of the cultures and religions
with which they inter-mixed, most of these "churches" still
continued to represent the essential elements of the Christian faith
and the buildings where they met became known as "churches"
as well.
Wherever I am in the world I still love to gaze at,
visit, and learn about these churches - that is, the church buildings
and the people they represent. This includes churches that I see in
my own neighborhood and the region where I live in South or in any of
the places where I visit in the United States or world. One particular
highlight in relationship to this was to find that the small hotel in
which my wife Dorota and I were staying in Japan a year ago actually
had a small Christian church within it - a chapel that was used for
Christian weddings, services, etc. This was an unexpected and delightful
surprise and we immediately set out to investigate everything we could
about it. In short, it had a noble Christian heritage associated with
it just as is true of most churches however they may have changed through
the years.
It is certainly true that the history, culture and
traditions of a local community, city, region or nation are often found
in their churches. To understand and appreciate the people of that area
one needs to understand at least something about all that their churches
represent for them. A good starting place is to appreciate the good
that those churches have done and, hopefully, continue to do to whatever
large or small degree. Most of these churches - with some notable exceptions
- began with the noble purpose of truly trying to help God's people.
And, it is almost certain that all of our lives collectively as Christians
would be spiritually poorer without them. For most of the last two thousand
years these churches have been the most stable force in the societies
of their times, beginning in Europe and then carrying over to America
and much of the rest of the world. These churches were, and many continue
to be, the center around which life in all of its most important aspects
revolved. They were the spiritual, intellectual, educational, charitable,
social, and often, political centers of the lives of the local communities
that they represented. If for the last 35 years I have chosen to center
my own church life in what I consider to be the original New Testament
pattern of the earliest church - the house church - it does not in any
way mean that I do not appreciate what the more traditional churches
- centered in their own particular and often beautiful church buildings
- have done, and do, as well.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
April 12, 2009
Resurrection Sunday (Easter):
The Historical Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
Dead
On this Easter Sunday millions of Christians around the world celebrate
the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead. This, however,
is not just an event to be taken “on faith” in the popular
sense of that phrase. Instead, it is an event that is also rooted and
grounded in history – a history that is open to be seen by any
honest observer of the historical record. In early Christian history
the NT believers began a tradition of meeting regularly in their local
house churches on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday. They called
this day “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10) because it was
believed – based on eyewitness accounts from amongst their own
members - that the Lord Jesus Christ had been raised from the dead on
that day. Believing that Christ was the “firstborn from the dead”
and that his resurrection marked him out as “the Son of God in
power” this day came to be seen by many as a special day to meet
together for “all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
their Lord and ours.” (I Cor. 1:2; 16:1-2, Acts 20:7; See NIV
Study Bible notes on all of these verses).
Though there is no New Testament requirement that Christian believers
are obligated to meet regularly on this day, there can be no doubt as
to this historical development of the local Christian church gatherings.
The beginnings of this practice are witnessed to in the New Testament
itself and it is also documented in many writings of the first few centuries
after Christ. In each case they point to the significance of the resurrection
of Christ in the early Christian churches. The late NT scholar Bruce
Metzger sets forth the historical record about the resurrection of Christ
and the beginnings of the Christian Church stemming from it in his comprehensive
and outstanding book The New Testament: its Background, Growth and Content:
“The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming.
Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed
that after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from
the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and
conversed with them. The most obvious proof that they believed this
is the existence of the Christian church. It is simply inconceivable
that the scattered and disheartened remnant could have found a rallying
point and a gospel in the memory of him who had been put to death as
a criminal had they not been convinced that God owned him and accredited
his mission by raising him from the dead.
“It is a commonplace that every event in history must have an
adequate cause. Never were hopes more desolate that when Jesus of Nazareth
was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb. Stricken with grief
at the death of their Master, the disciples were dazed and bewildered.
Their mood was one of dejection and defeat, reflected in the spiritless
words of the Emmaus travelers, “ We had hoped that he was the
one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). A short time later the same
group of disciples was aglow with supreme confidence and fearless in
the face of persecution. Their message was one of joy and triumph. What
caused such a radical change in these men’s lives? The explanation
is that something unprecedented had occurred: Jesus Christ was raised
from the dead! Fifty-some days after Crucifixion the apostolic preaching
of Christ’s resurrection began in Jerusalem with such power and
persuasion that the evidence convinced thousands.” (Bruce Metzger,
The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content, p. 150ff)
Metzger’s account goes right to the heart of the resurrection
of Christ and the formation of the Christian Church. This Church began
on Pentecost and the subsequent local Christian churches began at Jerusalem
and then spread out throughout much of the Roman Empire during the course
of the middle decades of the first century as recorded in the Book of
Acts. At first this “good news” or “gospel”
message of salvation was spread by word of mouth and presented as the
fulfillment of Old Testament themes and promises. Eventually, eyewitness
accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ were collected,
organized and written down as “Gospels” and sent to either
individuals or local Christian churches for the further establishment
and propagation of the gospel message. Each of these accounts –
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – had their own original audience
and were written in a way so as to present the goods news about Jesus
Christ to that original audience in a way that would be best understood
by that audience. Only later were these four Gospels collected and presented
together in what became known as the New Testament. Given the original
individualized audiences of each Gospel it is impossible today to be
sure of the details as to why certain material was chosen to be presented
while other material in other Gospels was not and how that material
was specifically organized from the point of view of the writers. However,
there can be no doubt as to the collective historical testimony of these
Gospel writers nor about their collective overall purpose:
Luke, for example, states: “Many have undertaken to draw up an
account of the things that have bee fulfilled among us, just as they
were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses
and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated
everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly
account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the
certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4 NIV).
John also is crystal clear: “Jesus did many other miraculous
signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this
book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that by believing you may life in his name.”
(John 20:30-31 NIV).
Speaking with respect to the individual, yet united, testimonies of
the four Gospels about the resurrection of Christ, Dr. Metzger states
the following:
“Divergences in detail are certainly to be found in the accounts
of the first Easter, but these are such as one would expect from independent
and excited witnesses. If the evangelists had fabricated the resurrection
narratives, they would not have left obvious difficulties and [apparent]
discrepancies – such as those involving the number of angels at
the tomb, the order of Jesus’ appearances, and similar details.
That the accounts have been left unreconciled, without any attempt to
produce a single stereotyped narrative, inspires confidence in the fundamental
honesty of those who transmitted the evidence.
“The evangelists [the Gospel writers], moreover, give the impression
of being unconcerned to provide all of the evidence on which the church
rested its belief. That is, they offer only a part of the proof by which
belief in the Resurrection was created and sustained.” (Metzger
p. 150-1)
Of course, the overall presentation of the resurrection of Christ in
the four Gospels is also supported by the united testimony of the rest
of the NT documents including the Book of Acts, The NT Letters of Paul,
Peter, John, and James, and the Book of Revelation. These each present
the testimony of eyewitnesses – each in his own way – of
the resurrected Christ and their writings set forth not only the historical
fact of Christ’s resurrection but also its theological, spiritual
and practical significance for Christian believers.
The subsequent history of the Christian church in the early centuries
after Christ also supports the same conclusions regarding the truthfulness
of the resurrection of Christ and the vitality of the Church of Christ
that followed. Christians should never be afraid of the attempts by
secular scholars to cast doubts upon the historicity of the events of
the Christian faith. Most of these attempts are based on the false assumption
that miracles cannot occur, or at least, that written accounts about
miracles cannot be trusted as part of the historical record. They, therefore,
predetermine and necessarily skew the outcome of their investigation
of the historical evidence. This does nothing but bolster their own
preconceived opinions – and often lifestyles – that are
based on their own biases and choice to not believe in God or in his
Son, Jesus Christ. The true historical record, however, is overwhelmingly
clear for those who desire to see it. And, it is the NT documents themselves
that are, and deserve to be, the most fundamental and reliable historical
witnesses of the truth that the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth,
is indeed the risen Christ, the Son of God. It is also this victorious
“good news” that is indeed “the power of God for salvation
to everyone who believes.” (Rom. 1:16)
Richie Temple
This article has been filed under "Articles".
For other articles and more detailed information on this topic see:
Articles:
“The
Resurrection of Christ” – the entire Vol. 6 Issue 1 of “The
Unity of the Spirit”
“The Lord’s
Day” – Wikipedia article
“Easter” –
Wikipedia article
Books:
The
New Testament Documents. Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce
The
New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content by Bruce Metzger
The
Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
April 3, 2009
Freedom of Religion and Spiritual Freedom
One of the great ironies of life is that the political
right to "freedom of religion" does not of itself bring about
true "spiritual freedom" for the individual person. The Bible
makes it crystal clear that all of mankind is in bondage to sin, death
and the power of Satan's realm of darkness in this world (e.g. Rom.
3:9-20; Eph 2:1-2). Thus, freedom of religion is not an end in itself.
Instead, true spiritual freedom for the individual person is only available
through God's redemptive work in Christ. It is received by any individual
person through personal faith in Jesus Christ and then, at a practical
level, through the corresponding obedience that comes from that faith
as a set-free believer learns to serve others in love. Thus, a person
can be politically free and and yet in spiritual bondage at the very
same time. On the other hand, a person can be in political or social
bondage and yet be spiritually free at the very same time. As the apostle
Paul made clear:
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't
let it trouble you - although if you can gain your freedom do so. For
those who were slaves when called to faith in the Lord are the Lord's
freed people; similarly those who were free when called are the Christ's
slaves." (I Cor. 7:21-22 TNIV).
This paradox is of paramount importance in the New
Testament and it has the effect of relativising all political, social,
and economic life situations in this "present evil age" for
the Christian believer in the light of the far greater "life of
the age to come" which believers in Christ will receive in full
after Christ's return. Thus, believers are already "free in Christ"
(Rom. 8:1-17) and yet still live in the light of their future hope of
the "glorious freedom of the children of God" which is still
to be received in full after Christ's return (Rom. 8:18-25). Political,
economic, and social freedoms - as important as they can be in the alleviation
of misery and suffering in this present world - are simply overwhelmed
by both the present and future freedom that is accomplished in and through
Christ. This, of course, is the "good news" of the "gospel"
- and it is a good news that cannot ultimately be bound by any political
power of this present evil age (II Tim. 2:8-10).
The apostle Paul - himself a free-born Roman citizen
with all the rights implied therein - lived his entire Christian life
in the light of his "dual citizenship". First and foremost,
he was a citizen of God's kingdom with its seat of government in heaven
(Phil. 3:20). To his mind the Christian house churches that he established
were nothing less than colonies of that kingdom of God in the midst
of the darkness of the world. However, he also took seriously his rights
as a Roman citizen and, above all, used those rights to help him accomplish
God's purposes in spreading the "good news" of the redemption,
salvation and freedom that was now freely available to all in Christ.
His words to his fellow citizens in God's kingdom were bold and clear:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
Stand firm then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke
of slavery."
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to
be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather,
serve one another humbly in love." (Gal. 5:1, 13).
Let these words guide us as well!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
March 23, 2009
The Local Autonomy of Christian Churches
One of the interesting and far-reaching results of
the progression of freedom of religion is the autonomy which local churches
and/or individual denominations now have in determining their own beliefs,
structures, and modes of worship. To use the language of many denominations
and churches, they are each in their own way self-supporting, self-propagating
and self-governing. No governmental body tells them what to believe,
how to support themselves, or how to govern themselves so long as they
do not break laws set up for the general good of society. This situation
is taken for granted by most people in America and, to a lesser extent,
in other Western nations. However, it is really simply an extension
of the principle about which I spoke in my previous post of "Cuius
regio, eius religio" - that is, "whose the region, his the
religion."
My European history and American history students usually
look at me with a bit of hesitancy when I first tell them this. However,
in the progression of religious freedom the "whose the region"
has now progressed from the rulership of princes over principalities
in the Holy Roman Empire, to individual nation-states with national
established Churches, to finally, the autonomy of individual religious
organizations such as denominations or local churches - including traditional
churches and house-churches - in truly free societies. So in America,
for instance, it is no longer the prince who determines the religion
of his region. Nor does the government of either the United States,
or even individual states within the United States, determine the religion
of the nation or individual states. Instead, each individual denomination
or local church makes that determination and they are autonomous within
the property (church building, home, etc.) and religious sphere (church
affairs) of that denomination or church. This is an historically incredible
advance in freedom of religion and should be recognized and appreciated
as such by all of those who live in such a situation. It should also
be jealously guarded within the political sphere of any country who
has such a situation. It is specifically this type of freedom of religion
which makes for the vitality of religious life that flourishes in the
United States and in other nations where this freedom exists. It is
also the very freedom upon which the great advances in biblical studies
and biblical understanding - now available on a massive scale - has
taken place over the last couple of centuries. On the other hand, in
those nations where there is an "established national church"
- either officially or unofficially -religious vitality has eroded through
the centuries because that established church has attempted to maintain
itself, not by superiority of religious belief and practice, but by
imposition of its own dogmatism in the face of competing threats to
its dogmatism from without, whether religious or secular. This situation
is true, amongst other places, in much of Western Europe today.
Now it is certainly true that true Christian vitality
often is strengthened and enlivened in difficult situations even including
persecution. However, the same effect is often produced when each autonomous
religious institution must continue to uphold, defend, and refine its
own beliefs and practices in the face of competing ideas in a free society.
I have lived in both the former and latter situations. All things considered,
I am glad at this point in my life to be able to continue to grow with
God both as an individual, within my own local church, and together
with the wider Church of the body of Christ in the midst of all the
religious and spiritual variations, competition, and complications of
a free and open society. But I am also in spiritual unity with those
who don't have these opportunities and my prayers are certainly with
fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as they also endeavor to live
for our God in more perilous situations (Eph. 6:18!).
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Feb. 28, 2009
A Brief History of the Development of Christian Churches
As a person who grew up in the United States of America
I also grew up with the concept of freedom of religion imbedded in my
life and thinking. Few Americans realize just how unique we are in this
respect. The desire for freedom of religion was one of the prime factors
in founding and establishing the different colonies of North America.
It was also one of the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution
as expressed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Ever since
it has been a "given" of American life. Visitors from Europe
such as Alexis de Toqueville in the 1830s marveled at it. And, it remains
as vibrant today as at any time in our history. For most of the history
of the Western World, however, this freedom has not existed.
Christian churches began as house-churches during New
Testament times. They spread in this form for most the next three centuries
sometimes enduring persecution in a very fierce form. These churches
began with minimal structure outside of their own local leadership but
increasingly grew to become more institutionalized. This institutional
Church eventually became the state church of the Roman Empire in the
4th century and thus came to be called the Roman Catholic Church. From
the time of the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century
A.D. until its split in 1053 A.D. there was only one institutional Church
that one could be a member of in Europe. In fact "membership"
was expected, demanded, and initiated through infant baptism to almost
the entire population of Europe. Europe, therefore, became known as
"Christendom" -that is, the land of the Christians.
In 1053 A.D. this Church split into the Roman Catholic
Church which continued to be dominant in Western Europe and the Eastern
Orthodox Church which became dominant in the East. Thus from 1053 to
the 16th century there were two institutional Churches - the Roman Catholic
Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East. However;
there was still generally only one option for the Church to which one
belonged; it simply depended on whether one lived in the West or the
East. With the coming of Martin Luther and the Reformation beginning
in1517 that began to change. First, after the Peace of Augsburg in 1555
it became possible to be either an "Evangelical" (Lutheran
Protestant) or a Roman Catholic. This still, however, was not determined
by one's choice but rather by the choice of one's local ruling prince.
The Latin phrase to describe this situation was "Cuius regio, eius
religio" that is, "whose the region, his the religion."
This "choice" of Churches was further extended about 100 years
later in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years'
War. Rulers could also choose Calvinism, thus making for three legal
Churches in Western Europe. If one did not like the religion that the
ruler chose one could always move to a different region; however, this
was more easily said than done given the realities of the living conditions
of those times.
Fortunately, from that point to the present Western
and Central Europe have slowly - very slowly - moved towards a continent
where freedom of religion became first "tolerated" and, more
recently, a "right" - even in countries that have "established"
or "official" national Churches - because of the European
Union. During most of the history of Europe even up until fairly recent
times, however, "dissenters" - of whatever shape, form or
variety - were officially persecuted. Therefore, they were often forced
to meet, just like the churches of the first three centuries, in the
homes of their participants.
As a teacher of both European and U.S. history I have
a great love for the traditional churches mentioned above because I
know of the truth that they preserved through the centuries and the
many social and humanitarian services that they provided to their communities
during those times. I also grew up in a tradition Presbyterian church
and I am thankful for what I learned there and for the people who provided
Christian examples for my own life. However, I also have a great love
for the freedom, flexibility and simplicity of the house-church concept
that has existed since New Testament times. For most of the past thirty-five
years - since I was eighteen years old - I have been a leader of some
type of house church no matter where I lived. During this time-span
the house-church movement has become a world-wide phenomena to the point
that it is now estimated to make up 10% of all churches. The movement
began as an attempt to return to the simplicity of first-century Christianity
as presented in the New Testament Letters and Book of Acts. It has been
relatively successful in accomplishing that goal and, at the very least,
has provided a grassroots impetus for Christian outreach and renewal
to the world-wide church of the body of Christ that never would have
been accomplished through traditional Churches alone. Though I have
no desire to see house-churches replace the more traditional churches,
I do think that almost all churches benefit by at least having home-based
Bible study fellowships, prayer groups, etc. as part of their ministry.
I also think that house-churches benefit by having larger gatherings
with other churches - either other house churches or traditional churches
- on a regular basis. In short, I think that there are benefits in having
both regular large meetings for common fellowship and worship as well
as regular small meetings for more personal fellowship, prayer and in-depth
study of the Bible.
Certainly, the New Testament makes it clear that where
the church meets is relatively unimportant. What matters is what
takes place when the church meets - that is, that God is truly worshipped
and that God's people are truly built-up so as to be able to better
live in a Christ-like manner. I am very thankful, however, that I have
the freedom to choose which forums in which I can most effectively participate
- and, to let others have that same freedom of choice as well!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Feb. 14, 2009
Valentine's Day and other Special Days
Today is Valentine's Day in the United States as well
as in various other parts of the world. As usual with such "holidays"
the history of Valentine's Day is a combination of ancient paganism,
Medieval Christian traditions, and modern commercialism. Apparently,
it was during the time of Chaucer in the High Middle Ages that Valentine's
Day took on its more amorous connotations of love between men and women.
So how should a Christian view such days and what are
Christians responsibilities in regards to them? Paul's Letter to the
Romans provides a pattern that we can apply to our own situations:
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome
him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat
anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one
who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains
pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are
you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own
master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord
is able to make him stand.
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems
all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The
one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God,
while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives
thanks to God." (Romans 14:1-6 ESV).
As a Christian who does not regard any particular day
as any more important than any other day, I simply use a "holiday"
as an occasion to join in the spirit of the day in the best sense of
what it purports to signify. But I also try to point out the reality
of its historical beginnings and to what degree it accords with biblical
truth. This is also what I do for Christmas, Easter, etc. - all of which
have similar backgrounds based on a mixture of pagan, Christian, and
finally, modern commercial notions.
As for Valentine's Day, I mainly focus on this, the
25th year of marriage with my wife, Dorota. It is very meaningful for
me because I take the time to be especially thankful for the life we
have together. Dorota's name is derived from the Greek "Dorothea"
which means "gift from God". No name could be more appropriate
as far as I'm concerned, for she has truly been a "gift from God"
for me. The unlikelihood that our lives would one day intersect and
that we would be married makes our marriage all the more "of God".
I'm thankful for every year and every day we've had to give to each
other, to share with each other, and to serve our God together.
May God bless us with many, many more!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
January 31, 2009
The Human Race and the the New Man (humanity) in Christ
January has been an interesting time in American politics
with the inauguration of the first black American President of the United
States, Barak Obama. I was fortunate to be able to watch the entire
inauguration ceremony on television since my school was called off due
to snow. Irrespective of one's political views it is certainly remarkable
to see the United States progress as a society to the point where a
black man can be elected to the highest office in the U.S. government.
Growing up in the American South near the end of the so-called Jim Crow
era when legal discrimination in the South was the norm it would have
been difficult then to have predicted such an occurrence in my lifetime.
But the South and, America in general, have changed dramatically since
that period of time. Racism still exists, of course, but there is far
less of it than even a couple of decades ago. In fact, I would say that
ironically racism is much more prevalent in large northern American
cities and in many other countries than it is in the American South
today.
Biblically, the concept of race falls short on two
counts as having any intrinsic significance . First, all people are
descended from one man and one woman - Adam and Eve. As the Apostle
Paul stated,
"From one man he made every nation of men, that
they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set
for them and the exact places where they should live." (Acts 17:26
NIV)
Thus, the only real "race" is the human race
and in that sense all people are equal before God. All other so-called
"races" are sub-categories of this larger one and are, on
the whole, bogus because of our common ancestry from Adam and because
of intermarriage through the centuries. In fact, much of what is thought
of as "race" is really "ethnicity" - that is, commonality
on the basis of common history, culture, language, etc. There is certainly
no "pure race" in terms of blood-lines and there are no races
that are more intrinsically more worthy than others before God. Instead,
as human beings who are created in the image of God all people have
the same intrinsic value to God as all others and are, on that basis,
to receive the same respect and dignity due to all. They should be judged
by their fellowman - and will one day be judged by God - "not by
the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
- as Martin Luther King Jr. famously said. (cf. Rom. 2:5-11).
Second, as a result of God's redemptive work in Christ
all differences amongst God's people - political, economic, racial,
ethnic, gender, etc. - are done away with "in Christ". As
Paul's Letter to the Galatians puts it so beautifully:
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves
with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor
female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26-28).
God has, therefore, created in Christ Jesus one "new
man (humanity)" (Eph. 2:10ff NIV, TNIV). This makes for a new people
of God who are "heirs together, members together, and sharers together"
in all that God has promised to his people (Eph. 3:6). In the fellowship
of God's people, then, there should never ever be any type of prejudice,
bigotry, or discrimination on the basis of race. Instead, all are equally
members of the body of Christ and all stand equally as children before
God their Father.
What then about governmental discrimination on the
basis of race? The Bible, science and history all demonstrate the fallacy
of the concept of superior and inferior races. And, unfortunately, the
last two centuries have shown just how harmful this type of racial misunderstanding
can be. Therefore, just as before God, so it should be before governmental
authorities: a citizen, a resident alien, a visiting foreigner, or indeed,
an illegal alien, should all be judged, not by the color of their skin,
but by the same laws that are common to all.
Richie Temple
For a very good overview of the concept of "race"
see here
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
January 18, 2009
The State of the Dead and The Christian Hope of Resurrection
It has now been three weeks since my father died and
I've been pretty busy going through his papers, etc. and putting things
in order together with my mother. It has been a time of quiet reflection
for myself about the life of a man whom I loved and whom I believe that
I will see again at the resurrection of the just on the day of Christ's
second coming and with whom I will share an inheritance in the future
kingdom of God. On the Sunday night Dec. 28 that he died I remember
looking at him lifeless on his bed. The stark reality of the words of
James 2:26 rang through my mind over and over:
"For just as the body without the spirit is dead,
so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:26 HCSB).
No verse could have been a better summary of both my
father's entire life and his present state in death. His life was built
on the simple truth of a "faith expressing itself through love"
(Gal. 5:6 NIV, TNIV). But at the end of his life when he no longer had
any strength to give he expired, gave up his spirit, and died. My mother
was at pains that her minister not use the common language of "passed"
or "passed on" at his burial or funeral service but rather
"died". Her minister was glad to accommodate her since, I
believe, this also more closely followed his own beliefs.
So what do I believe about death? First, I believe
that death is real and not the "passing" from one stage of
"life" to another stage of "life". Such ideas are
completely unbiblical and have come into Biblical theology and the beliefs
of people in churches through Greco-Roman, pagan, and new-age thought
over the centuries. In the Bible, however, death is a "foe"
and is specifically called "the last enemy" which is yet to
be destroyed. Simply put, death is death and not life. And, it is not
good, but evil. And yet, the New Testament also promises Christians
that not even "death" can "separate us from the love
of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8). And so, those
who are dead "in Christ" are not forgotten by God; instead,
they "rest" in Christ and "await" the resurrection
because "whether we are awake or asleep we will live together with
him" at his return (1 Thess. 5:10 NIV, cf. NLT).
This has actually been the principle belief of Christianity
since its very beginning. The question, however, arose long ago as to
what happens between death and resurrection. This period of time eventually
came to be called "the intermediate state" - that is, intermediate
between death and resurrection. Despite many varied and often opposing
opinions through the centuries as to what happens during this time,
the Biblical answer is simple and, at least for the most part, clear.
For the believer in Christ, at death, the "spirit" - life
principle - is committed to God and Christ in heaven and the believer
"falls asleep" in Christ until the day of Christ's return
(Acts 7:54-60, I Thess. 4:13-18, I Cor. 15, etc.). The dominant Old
Testament and New Testament picture presents death as a state of unconsciousness
for the believer in "Sheol" - the realm, or state, of the
dead. For OT and NT believers alike death was real, not the passing
from one stage of life to another. Death was death and not life. It
was only the promise of the justice of God and a future resurrection
of the just and the unjust, when God's people would finally be vindicated
and evil be destroyed, that gave believers hope and comfort. As the
apostle Paul, in accordance with his ancestral faith, stated,
"But this I confess to you, that according to
the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing
everything laid down in the Law and written in the Prophets, having
a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be
a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So I always take pains
to have a clear conscience toward both God and man." (Acts 24:14-16).
However, it was only Christ's resurrection from the
dead that made this hope vivid and real for the NT people of God (II
Timothy 1:8-10). God's promised resurrection began with him and he is
the prototype for all believers who will also one day follow after him
in being raised to life and immortality. He is "the firstborn from
the dead" and "the firstfruits of those who will rise from
the dead." It is because he lives that we can now live "in
him" - in faith, hope and love. And, it is also because he now
lives, that though we may one day die, we will also live again "through
him" and "with him" forever. This is my comfort and hope
for my father. He is now dead, asleep in Christ, and will one day rise
to receive the gift of eternal life - life of the age to come - in the
future kingdom of God after Christ's second coming. Let this be the
comfort and hope for us all. As the apostle Paul said so well,
"Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant
about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who
have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe
that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still
alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not
precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come
down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel
and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together
with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will
be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these
words." (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
Richie Temple
See also: The
Biblical Hope and
The Hope of Glory
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
December 31, 2008
A Eulogy of Father
My father, Landis McNeill Temple, died on Sunday night
Dec. 28. He was one of the greatest men - indeed, Christian men - I've
ever known. The following is my Eulogy of him which I presented at his
funeral service or, more properly, a "Celebration of the Life of
Landis McNeill Temple" on Wed. December 31 at West Raleigh Presbyterian
Church in Raleigh, N.C.:
A Eulogy of the Christian Life of My Father, Landis
McNeill Temple
By his Third and Youngest Son, Allen Richard (Richie) Temple
December 31, 2008
“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.”
(Proverbs 25:11 NRSV, ESV)
My father was, very simply, one of the greatest men I have ever known.
The older I have become the more he has stood out for me as the single
most important example amongst those whom I personally know of how to
live my own life in relationship to others. Indeed, more and more I
see him in me. Although we rightly honor him today for the many, many
good works of service that he performed on behalf of others, the father
I knew was, above all else, a man of principled Christian character
– a character which manifested itself in many different ways throughout
his life, depending on the times and situation. Like so many others
of his generation – which, if not the greatest, was certainly
one of the greatest – his life and values were shaped in the midst
of the world in which he grew-up and lived. He was born and raised in
a large Christian family on a farm in Lee County, North Carolina. He
grew up during the Great Depression and fought and was wounded in World
War II. He finished college on the GI Bill and after graduating from
North Carolina State University spent his entire professional life helping
develop North Carolina’s road and bridge system into one of the
nation’s best. He also lived his adult life as a dedicated Christian
layman, a devoted husband, a strong and providing father, and, finally,
as a progressive Democrat and Christian volunteer.
All of this took place in the midst of the tensions of the Cold War,
the tumults of the racial tensions of the Civil Rights movement that
so divided the South, and finally, in the midst of the more recent decline
in Christian values and the sweeping social changes of modern America.
Through all of these times the principled Christian character of Landis
McNeill Temple, the father whom I knew, did not change. Never once in
my entire life did I ever see him compromise on what he would consider
to be his bedrock principles, beliefs, and values – irrespective
of the cost. He was, however, wise enough to grow and adapt in accordance
to his own personal situation, age, and the times in which he lived
– while still holding to those bedrock principles, beliefs and
values.
The Landis McNeill Temple whose life we celebrate today is for most
of us the Landis McNeill Temple of more recent memory. That was, in
a sense, the kinder, gentler version whose life was known to many –
including his daughters-in-law, his grandchildren, his great grandchildren,
and the many, many other people whose lives he touched. This was a man
who in his retirement was freed from the daily pressures of working
for a living and was able to devote himself fully to serving others.
This man was not only my father but also my friend and I will always
remember this more recent time of his life with great endearment.
There was, however, another aspect of my father’s life that
was, for me, even more important because it helped form in me the character
that I have carried throughout my own life in the many varied and challenging
endeavors that I’ve undertaken or faced personally. This was the
sterner father of my childhood and teenage years. It was the same Landis
McNeill Temple of principled Christian character. However, that character
manifested itself at that time in a more no-nonsense and straightforward
manner. After all, my father whose character was formed during the times
of the Great Depression and World War II wasn’t raising daughters;
he was raising sons to become men. Simply put, my father expected us,
his sons, to know what was right and to do it. When we did there was
not praise but simply the acknowledgement that duty had been fulfilled,
as should be expected. At most, there might be a little nod of the head
in our direction. On the other hand, when we did not do what was expected
there were consequences – very direct – and without discussion.
After all, we knew what was expected.
My mother has at times mentioned to my brothers and me how my father
softened in his later life, hoping that we her sons would understand
that. Indeed, my father himself has at times said that he was perhaps
too stern with us in our childhood. Well, maybe and maybe not. The older
I get the more I think that that kind of attitude, which is so against
the grain of modern Western society, is just what is needed, though
perhaps leavened somewhat with a mixture of tenderness. Personally,
I cherish the memories of all that I learned during those days. And,
I do not think the lessons I learned would have been as effective for
me personally had they been delivered in any other way. Let me share
with you some of the most precious of those memories and the lessons
I have learned from them. We are all familiar with my father’s
sterling example in deeds. But these memories have to do with words
that he, my father, spoke to me, as a son, while I was growing up; and,
the profound impact that those words have had on my life in so many
ways ever since. That is why I have sub-titled this eulogy:
“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.”
1. Race Relations: When I was very young – around eight years
old – in the early 1960s racial tensions were at a fever pitch
in the South. One day I was out playing with my brother Steve and some
of our neighborhood friends. Somebody – I don’t remember
who – made a racial slur and ……….. my father
heard it. Immediately, he told us to come into the house. He then sat
us down and very directly and sternly told us, “ We are all equally
important to God, irrespective of the color of our skin – I never,
ever want to hear a racial slur coming from your mouths again.”
He never did, because his point was made – very directly –
and, because we observed that very same belief, principle and value
in his own life through his own actions during those years. He was far
ahead of his times in that belief because such an attitude was very
much against the grain of the segregationist South in which we lived.
But those words that were so “fitly spoken” were embedded
in my heart from that day onward and they have always enabled me –
whether here in America or in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
where I have lived, worked and traveled – to look at people without
any racial or national prejudice whatsoever; but rather, to deal with
each person as an individual human being who, like me, was created in
the image of God and was, therefore, intrinsically worthy of dignity
and respect.
2. Baseball: In my childhood and teenage years sports dominated much
of the life of my family. Both of my older brothers were athletes and
so was I. We constantly practiced, played together and played in school
and community leagues. When I was fourteen I was playing in Junior League
baseball and my father was my coach. During that year I was tearing
up the league with my hitting and by near the end of the year I gotten
at least one hit in every game. In one of the last games I got a base
hit and while rounding first base slipped, fell, and dislocated my left
thumb. Our assistant coach, Ken Creech, came out and grabbed my hand,
looked at it, and then popped my thumb back into place. Nevertheless,
I was still in a lot of pain. I continued to play, however, and the
next time I came to bat I had to hold the bat with my right hand a few
inches above my left hand so as not to put any pressure on my left thumb.
I was, however, afraid to swing at the ball for fear of the pain and,
of course, for fear of how ridiculous I might look. Therefore, I took
five straight pitches without swinging so that the count became three
balls and two strikes. As I stepped out of the batter’s box to
calm myself for a moment a voice - a booming stern voice - broke the
tense silence throughout the ballpark. “Richard!” - not,
mind you, “Richie”; but …. “Richard!”
….. “if you’re not going to swing at the ball, I’ll
put somebody in there who will!” That voice was, of course, my
father’s voice and everyone in the ballpark could hear it. He
didn’t say, “Richie, are you o.k.?” or “Richie,
take a little time to get in touch with your inner feelings.”
Instead, he was stern, direct and to the point. And so, I knew what
was expected. On the next pitch – I don’t remember if it
was a strike or a ball; it didn’t matter to me at that time because
from the moment I had heard that voice I was set in my mind to swing
irregardless – I swung and hit a hard ground ball that bounced
over the third baseman’s head for a single. After that I continued
to play every game until the end of season getting at least one hit
in every game – while, of course, holding the bat with my right
hand a few inches above my left to relieve the pain in my left thumb.
The lessons that I learned from these words that were so “fitly
spoken” were many. First, my father taught me that as his son
on a team he coached I was not only to receive no special treatment;
but, if anything, that more was expected of me than others (he would
not, of course, have said those words to anyone else on the team). Second,
I learned that if I was to undertake any endeavor in life that shrinking
from the task or feeling sorry for myself or complaining would do me
no good at all; instead, if I was to compete – in a game or in
life – I needed to do my best irrespective of the obstacles in
my way. I cannot adequately express how deeply those words and the lessons
learned from them were embedded in my heart from that moment on. I have
carried them with me in all that I’ve done ever since.
3. Learning English: When I was a junior in high school I constantly
complained to my parents about having to take English. I – at
the age of 17 - felt it was worthless, boring and a waste of my time.
In the last discussion about this that I had with my father I demanded
to know “Why do I need to take English?” His reply was short,
stern, and to the point: “Because you do!!” That was the
end of that discussion and we never discussed it again. But what I didn’t
understand – or refused to acknowledge - at that time was that
I did not, at that age, know what I needed to learn to help me in my
future life. I was simply too young and did not know the usefulness
of mastering English for my future life. My father, of course, did and
he expected me to simply acknowledge and trust that adults simply knew
more about what I needed to learn than I did. Mine was a generation
where “father (and other adults) knew best” – not,
the other way around. Ten years later I was to teach English for five
years to doctoral students and college professors at one of finest universities
in Poland. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life. In my
first semester I also had the joy of teaching a young doctoral student
in physics named Dorota Sendorek. She was the best English student I’ve
ever taught and one of the greatest lovers of the English language I’ve
ever known. Today, her name is Dorota Sendorek Temple, my wonderful
wife of twenty-four years.
4. Going to College: My first attempts at going to college were less
than successful. I was involved in many other things that I thought
were more important and was dismayed with the general attitudes prevalent
on college campuses during the 1970s. My parents, especially my mother,
believed I had the ability to do well in college and believed that it
would benefit my life greatly. In our last discussion about it my mother
told me of all the benefits of getting a college education. She was
right, of course, but I had a counter argument for everything she said.
My father, however, after listening for a while simply said to my mother,
“He doesn’t need to go to college. He can be a good citizen
without going to college.” Those words went straight to my heart
and there is probably nothing he could have said that would have more
inspired me to go to college. Not because I was rebellious and wanted
to do the opposite of what my father said. Instead, his saying those
words made me realize that they were not encouraging me to go to college
just because it was thing that everyone else was doing at the time and,
thus, it was expected of me as well. They really did want what was best
for me and they really did believe that a person’s worth had nothing
whatsoever to do with one’s education or academic achievements.
And so, I did, in fact, complete my college education, doing quite well
and achieving a fair amount of distinction in doing so. More than that,
however, it opened up doors for me for the rest of my life that never
would have been possible without a college education and college degree.
Indeed, for the last ten years I have taught high school history at
Woods Charter School in Chatham County – a college preparatory
school. During that entire ten year period I have also been responsible
for college preparation for the school, an area in which we have achieved
a great deal of success. What are the first words I say to my students
in preparing them for college? They are, “You don’t need
to go to college to be a success in life. College will never make you
any better than anyone else and you can be just as good of a citizen
by not going to college as by going to college. However, we are a college
preparatory school; so if you’re here, this is what we expect
of you ……” And so, my father’s words “fitly
spoken” motivated not only me, but have also, through me, motivated
many of my own students as well.
It is this father whom I will always remember and cherish. A father
who taught me by both words and deeds. Not by deeds alone, but by words
also - words “fitly spoken like apples of gold in a setting of
silver”.
In one of the last conversations I had with my father – just
a few weeks ago – he told me that he was fearful of the world
that the next generations including his sons and their wives, and his
grandchildren and great grandchildren would be living and growing up
in. My response was to remind him of the world that he himself grew
up in - the world of the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War
and the tumultuous changes of life in the South. I told him that he
had set an example for others to follow - an example that would not
be forgotten - and that those who followed could, by living with the
same principled Christian character that he had lived, deal with challenges
of their own generation as well – however great they might be.
And that, I believe, will prove to be true. Surely, no greater statement
could be made about any man’s life.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
December 25, 2008
The Birth of Christ
May God bless you all on this day when we especially
commemorate the significance of the birth of our savior, Christ Jesus
our Lord! Following is a beautiful rendition of the birth of Christ
in the New Living Translation from Luke 2:
"At that time the Roman emperor, Augustus, decreed
that a census should be taken throughout the Roman Empire. ( This was
the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) Everyone
went to register in the cities where their ancestors had lived. And
because Joseph was a descendant of King David, he had to go to Bethlehem
in Judea, David’s ancient home. He traveled there from the village
of Nazareth in Galilee. Joseph went there to register with Mary. She
had been promised to him in marriage and was pregnant. While they were
in Bethlehem, the time came for Mary to have her baby. She gave birth
to her first child, a son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid
him in a manger because there wasn’t any room for them in the
inn. That night in the fields near Bethlehem there were some shepherds
guarding their sheep. All at once an angel came down to them from the
Lord, and the Lord’s glory flashed brightly around them. The shepherds
were frightened. The angel said to them:
“Don’t be afraid! I have good news for
you, a message that will fill everyone with joy. The Savior—yes,
the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, King David’s
hometown! You will know who he is, because you will find him wrapped
in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.”
Suddenly a great army of heaven’s angels appeared
with the first angel, singing praises to God:
“Praise God in heaven! Peace on earth to everyone
who pleases God.”
Then the angels left the shepherds and went back to
heaven. The shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem
and see what the Lord has told us about.” They hurried off and
found Mary and Joseph. And there was the baby, lying in the manger!
After seeing him, the shepherds told everyone what had happened and
what the angel had said to them about this baby. Everyone who heard
the shepherds’ story was amazed, but Mary kept all these things
in her heart and thought about them often. As the shepherds returned
to their sheep, they were praising God and thanking him for everything
they had seen and heard. It had been just as the angel had told them."
(Luke 2:1-20 NLT).
This is certainly a beautiful translation of this life-changing historical
event. What a great day that was for those involved and for those of
us who, ever since, have received the benefits of "the grace and
truth" which came to us through God's beloved Son, Jesus Christ.our
Lord (John 1:1-18)..
With much love in Christ,
Richie and Dorota Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
