Lessons from Hebrew

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:1

This verse says more than you might realize at first. In fact, there are things that are impossible for you to see in this verse when you read it in English. So here are three lessons from Hebrew to show you the depth of theology that is contained in just this one verse.

1) God

The Hebrew word that we translate into English as "God" in the Old Testament is "elohim." It's not technically a proper name. Even more peculiar is the fact that it's in plural form. Literally, it means "gods" in the most generic way. In other parts of the Old Testament, the same word is used for the false gods that are worshipped by the Gentiles and often by even Israel itself.

Why is this significant? From the very first verse of the Bible, we see this mystery of plurality referred to as singular. The singular God of heaven and earth is referred to in the Hebrew text as a God of plurality. From the very first verse of the Bible, we are being pointed to the doctrine of the Trinity, the truth that God exists as three in one: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2) Created

The Hebrew word that we translate into English as "created" in this verse is "bara." And it's only used in association with God. A different Hebrew word is used when we see the word "created" translated into English in association with man. That word is "asah."

Why is this significant? From the very first verse of the Bible, a very important foundation is being laid. Even though God will go on to create man who himself will have the ability to create as one who bears the image of God, the sense in which God creates is fundamentally different from the sense in which man creates. God creates out of nothing (hence, the popular Latin phrase "ex nihilo"). But not man. Man can only create using the materials that God created out of nothing.

3) The heavens and the earth

This one to me is most fascinating. The Hebrew word that we translate into English as "heavens" in this verse is "shamayim." Similar to "elohim," it's in plural form ("im" ending). But, more specifically, the "ayim" ending in Hebrew always refers to the number two. So, most literally, the word "shamayim" means "two heavens."

Why is this significant? The traditional evangelical view is that there are three heavens. The clearest evidence for this in the Bible is when Paul describes his experience of being caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2). The traditional evangelical view holds that the first heaven is the air we breathe (the earth's atmosphere); the second heaven is the realm of the sun, moon, and stars (outer space); and the third heaven is the realm where God dwells.

So how do we reconcile the traditional evangelical understanding of three heavens with the Hebrew text, which clearly communicates that there are two heavens?

From the human perspective there are three heavens. But from God's perspective there are two heavens, the natural and the spiritual. In other words, God sees the first two heavens (both in the natural realm) as the same.

Three lessons from Hebrew to show you the depth of theology in just this one verse, the first verse in the Bible. Imagine the depths we have to descend into in the entirety of the Old Testament.

Lessons from Church History: Part 3

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
"See, this is new"?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
Ecclesiastes 1:8-9

With this third and final lesson from church history, I begin with the same big idea I've highlighted at the beginning of the last two posts: the reason it's so important to study and know church history today is because there is nothing that the church in the 21st century is currently dealing with that the church hasn't dealt with at some point in the past (in one form or another).

The first monastic movement in the church arose towards the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th century. Located in Egypt, it wasn't long before it began to spread rapidly not only in the East but also in the West. The monastic movement was especially prominent during the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century).

What's so interesting to note is that almost every order of monasticism began with a radical commitment to self-denial (asceticism) but all of them eventually led to self-indulgence, which only shows that the flesh is of no avail when it comes to spiritual transformation (Colossians 2:23). Sadly, this has been evidenced in the modern day Catholic Church, where an initial vow of celibacy (commitment to self-denial) has eventually led many priests into gross sexual immorality (self-indulgence).

Is asceticism bad? Is the monastic movement intrinsically unbiblical? Not necessarily. Jesus calls all Christians to a life of deliberate self-denial (Luke 9:23-24, Matthew 6:16-18, Matthew 9:14-15). But the problem is when this asceticism becomes an external law that we impose on ourselves and others (Colossians 2:20-23, 1 Timothy 4:1-5) rather than the result of the internal transforming power of the gospel (Romans 6:17) that sets us free from bondage to the cares, riches, and pleasures of this life (Luke 8:14).

The latter will lead us to lives of joyful self-denial and self-sacrifice (Matthew 6:19-21, 13:44; Hebrews 10:32-34, 13:13-14).

But history (and the Bible) has shown us that the former will almost always lead to licentiousness (Colossians 2:23).

There's nothing new under the sun. So let's learn from church history and deny ourselves not as a means to spiritual transformation but because the power of the gospel has set us free from bondage to the world. Following Jesus in the life of self-denial is when, having had our eyes opened (2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 1:18) to the fact that here we have no lasting city, we joyfully seek the city that is to come (Hebrews 13:13-14).

Lessons from Church History: Part 2

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
"See, this is new"?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
Ecclesiastes 1:8-9

Why is the study of church history so vital for the health of the church today? Because there is nothing that the church in the 21st century is currently dealing with that the church hasn't dealt with at some point in the past (in one form or another). There is nothing new under the sun.

In 431, the council of Ephesus was convened. Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, had been strongly advocating for the teaching that Christ has two persons. He did so to correct the false teachings of those who were seeking to essentially deify and glorify Mary because she was "the Mother of God" (Theotokos). Nestorius sought to correct this false teaching by claiming that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of the Son of God. But, in so strongly opposing one false teaching (the deification of Mary), he himself fell into another false teaching by implying that Jesus has two persons. The council of Ephesus brought clarity to the issue by denying that Jesus has two natures and subsequently condemning Nestorius as a false teacher.

In 451, the council of Chalcedon confirmed what had been agreed upon at the council of Ephesus, namely, that Jesus has two distinct natures (human and divine) that are united in His one person, which is what we have come to know today as the hypostatic union.

The history of the church in general, not just the specific example of Nestorius, has confirmed that false teaching is the result not just of denying a particular biblical truth but of overemphasizing one biblical truth to the exclusion of another, which is why we must demonstrate great care in embracing a balanced view of the multifaceted teachings of Scripture.

I've been teaching through Paul's letter to the Romans and we've spent the past couple of months in chapters 9 and 10, where Paul is explaining why so many ethnic Israelites haven't come to faith in Christ . In chapter 9, Paul's argument emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. In other words, the reason so many Israelites don't trust Jesus is because God has chosen some for salvation but not all. In chapter 10, Paul's argument emphasizes human responsibility in salvation. In other words, the reason so many Israelites don't trust Jesus is because the majority of them are self-righteous and hard-hearted, refusing to believe that Jesus is the Messiah even though many Gentiles are putting their faith in Jesus.

Historically, this tension between the absolute sovereignty of God and human responsibility in salvation has resulted in two factions: Calvinism (which emphasizes God's sovereignty, named after John Calvin) and Arminianism (which emphasizes human responsibility, named after Jacobus Arminius).

An overemphasis on God's sovereignty (I'm not saying this is necessarily true of Calvin or of all who embrace Calvinism) often concludes that since God has only chosen some people to be saved and not all, then when the Bible says that God is "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9) or that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4) or that God "so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16), the "all" must be referring only to those God has chosen and not all human beings.

An overemphasis on human responsibility (I'm not saying this is necessarily true of Arminius or of all who embrace Arminianism) often concludes that since all human beings have the choice to either trust Jesus or reject Jesus, then when the Bible talks about names being "written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" (Revelation 13:8) or being "chosen in [Christ] before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4) or "those whom [God] foreknew [and] predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29), it must mean that before He created the world, God was able to "look down the corridors of time," see those who would trust Jesus, and it is those people He predestined, writing their names down in the Lamb's book of life.

Overemphasis on any particular biblical truth to the exclusion of another is usually the result of trying to force everything the Bible teaches to conform to our reason. We reason like this, "Since God chooses only some people to be saved, He can't possibly want all people to be saved. Since all human beings are responsible for whether they trust Jesus or not, God can't possibly be the one who ultimately determines that choice. Since Mary is a human being, she can't possibly be the mother of God."

But it really is true that God chooses only some people to be saved and at the same time He wants all people to be saved. It really is true that human beings are responsible for whether they trust Jesus or not and at the same time God has already unalterably determined who will trust Jesus and who will reject Him. It really is true that Mary is the mother of God and at the same time is only a human being. It really is true that Jesus, being fully God and fully man, has two separate, distinct natures and at the same time He is only one person.

Why? Because the Bible says so.

Whether we can make complete sense of it or not is irrelevant. And, if we're not careful, our insatiable desire to make complete sense of it all will inevitably lead us to embrace false teaching or, worse, to become false teachers.

There's nothing new under the sun. So let's learn from church history and embrace all that the Bible teaches without trying to force it to conform to our reason, instead asking God to transform us by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2).

Lessons from Church History: Part 1

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
"See, this is new"?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
Ecclesiastes 1:8-9

If we really believe what the Preacher--under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit--tells us in these verses, then one of the reasons why the study of church history is so important for the health of the church today is because there is nothing that the church in the 21st century is currently dealing with that the church hasn't dealt with at some point in the past (in one form or another). And if we are ignorant (whether purposely or not) of how the church has historically responded to and treated disease when it has begun to infect the the body of Christ, then we (especially church leaders) are like doctors who are ignorant of already existing treatments that have been proven effective because we are ignorantly in search of treatments of our own. But there is nothing new under the sun. So church history couldn't be more relevant for the health of the church today.

While reading for my church history class this week, this quote stopped me dead in my tracks:

Arius was not straightforward in his controversial methods and cleverly tried to cloud the issues. He was deposed in 321, but being an able and charming man he was befriended by eminent ecclesiastics like Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian.
--A.M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, p.54

Arius was a church leader between the 3rd and 4th century who taught that Jesus Christ was not co-eternal with the Father but instead was the first being created by the Father. Arius was vehemently opposed by those who recognized the threat his teachings posed to the gospel, most notably Athanasius of Alexandria. Arius was eventually denounced as a false teacher.

What struck me from what I read is how Arius, the man we have come to know as a false teacher, is described. He "was not straightforward in his controversial methods" and he "cleverly tried to cloud the issues."

Earlier this year, Rob Bell released a book entitled Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Before the book was even released, it was swirling in controversy because of the trailer that was released as a preview to the book:

Then, after the release of the book, the controversy continued to stir, with Bell quite literally being put in the hot seat:

Now, I'm not going to lie. I haven't read a single page of Love Wins. And I don't have plans to read it anytime soon (though I'm not opposed to reading it). So I don't have any grounds for criticizing what Bell has written in that book. That's not my point here. Others have already done so thoroughly (e.g. Kevin DeYoung). But, in light of the concerns that others have raised about Bell's teaching, I can't help but recognize how the description of Arius could very easily be used to describe Bell.

Arius is described as "not straightforward in his controversial methods." In the video trailer for his book (first video above), Bell's method for communicating the ideas in his book is no doubt intentional because of how effective it is in creating interest. But, at the same time, this method of asking questions that might or might not be rhetorical (one can only find out by reading the book) is not straightforward, which was undoubtedly one of the contributing factors (if not the contributing factor) to the controversy that arose around the book before it was even released.

Arius is also described as a man who "cleverly tried to cloud the issues." In the MSNBC interview with Bell after the release of his book (second video above), the interviewer has to ask Bell the same question multiple times (the first question is admittedly unfair). The question is simple and straightforward: "Is a person's response to Christ in this life relevant to his or her eternal destiny?"And yet it seems like each time Rob Bell responds he "cleverly clouds the issue" in order to avoid answering the question conclusively one way or another, which is why the same question is asked multiple times.

I'm not questioning whether Rob Bell means well or not. I'm sure he does (and I'm not being sarcastic). But that's not the point. I'm sure Arius had all the best intentions (again, I'm not being sarcastic). He's described as an "able and charming man." And Rob Bell seems to be a very able and charming man as well. But there's a reason why the Bible warns that not many should become teachers. In doing so, we subject ourselves to a judgment of greater strictness before God (James 3:1) and at the same time greater scrutiny before others. It's not possible for a teacher to be completely separated from his teaching. So when we oppose the erroneous teaching of a particular individual, there's unfortunately no way to altogether avoid opposing the individual as well.

But we must "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). This isn't about Rob Bell just like it was never about Arius. This is about Jesus Christ. His gospel is at stake, just like it was in the 3rd and 4th century when Arius was gaining popularity even as controversy surrounded him.

Is Rob Bell a false teacher? Some evangelicals would say "yes"and some would say "no." However we answer that question today, what we must keep in mind is that there was a time when the jury was still out on Arius. There was a time when his teachings were widely circulated and embraced as the spiritual diet of multitudes of believing Christians. And if he had never been denounced as a false teacher, those teachings would still be widely circulated and embraced as the spiritual diet of multitudes of evangelical Christians today over 1500 years later. Who knows what state the church of Jesus Christ would be in today if Arius had never been denounced as a false teacher?

There's nothing new under the sun. So, for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of the church 1500 years from now if Jesus would tarry, let's learn from church history and, like Athanasius, "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

The Gospel According to Steve Jobs

Below is an excerpt from a phenomenal article written by Andy Crouch shortly after the death of Steve Jobs:

Steve Jobs was extraordinary in countless ways—as a designer, an innovator, a (demanding and occasionally ruthless) leader. But his most singular quality was his ability to articulate a perfectly secular form of hope. Nothing exemplifies that ability more than Apple's early logo, which slapped a rainbow on the very archetype of human fallenness and failure—the bitten fruit—and turned it into a sign of promise and progress.

...

The biblical story of the Fall pronounced a curse upon human work—"cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life." All technology implicitly promises to reverse the curse, easing the burden of creaturely existence. And technology is most celebrated when it is most invisible—when the machinery is completely hidden, combining godlike effortlessness with blissful ignorance about the mechanisms that deliver our disburdened lives. No company combined simplicity and hiddenness better than Apple under Mr. Jobs's leadership.

...

For people of a secular age, Steve Jobs's gospel may seem like all the good news we need. But people of another age would have considered it a set of beautifully polished empty promises, notwithstanding all its magical results. Indeed, they would have been suspicious of it precisely because of its magical results.

And that may be true of a future age as well. Our grandchildren may discover that technological progress, for all its gifts, is the exception rather than the rule. It works wonders within its own walled garden, but it falters when confronted with the worst of the world and the worst in ourselves. Indeed, it may be that rather than concealing difficulty and relieving burdens, the only way forward in the most tenacious human troubles is to embrace difficulty and take up burdens—in Dr. King's words, to embrace a "dangerous unselfishness."

Read the entire article here.

Listen to the Last of a Dying Breed

Don't Wave the Reformed Banner...

"...let's talk Bible."

Yes!

Where Is Your Sting, Death?

O Death, where is your victory?
O Death, where is your sting?
The sting of Death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:55-57

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Colossians 2:13-15

Read the manuscript here.

It's a Blood Issue