"Do They Know It's Christmas?": An Open Letter from the Angel Gabriel to the Shepherds Abiding in the Field, Keeping Watch Over Your Flocks

To the Shepherds Abiding in the Field, Keeping Watch Over Your Flocks:

Be Afraid! Be Very Very Afraid!

I say this with love but also with frustration.

As a professional messenger it grieves me to no end to see such moments of complete heralding incompetence among you at the very time of the year when more people are reflecting on Christ than any other time.

Granted you are all rank amateurs in comparison with those like myself, but you are far more professional that the sheep you continually shepherd. Thus it would be a somewhat dubious excuse for me to chalk your ineptitude up to simple naiveté, though, I admit, that is part of the problem.

For crissake, lepers and the lame have better announcement skills than your selves!

Every Christmas you conservative shepherds who are admittedly on the fringe of the American Church seem to enjoy the great twirling frustrations you spin yourselves into as you whine and moan about how secular the non-Christian world is during Christmas.

Yes, each Christmas you ascend upon every ever-expanding mode of information dispersal (of which the Angelic Union has thankfully never had to strike over) to decry the fact that the American secular culture doesn’t recognize your particular brand of holiday cheer.

Those of you conservative shepherds who seem to have enough financial support to waste your time proceed to go out and threaten various non-Christian businesses and non-Christian governments not to attempt anything which might be deemed un-Christian during this holiday season; things such as suggesting employees say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” or not allowing a nativity scene or a Christmas tree on particular properties or even not allowing The Charlie Brown Christmas special to be played (which I happen to enjoy).

One can certainly understand why this approach is taken by you shepherds:

1) It works for the ACLU and other interest groups, why not for Christian groups?

2) Surely the fate of the kingdom of God in America rests upon how you all view Christmas and whether you allow the Salvation Army to panhandle (even though most of you conservative shepherds dislike the Salvation Army because it is deemed to be too liberal, ecumenical and focused on the social gospel).

3) It’s not enough that the secular American culture allows you to freely worship God in Christ and preach the Good News; they must be forced to acknowledge and agree with you in this holiday event. Really, why is it you think that it's so hard for non-Christians to acknowledge Christ?

4) It is a lot more fun and easy to gripe and whine than to preach the Good News of Luke 2:14 and 4:18-19.

It’s these last two points which are so interesting to me as an angel. There is this continual historical myopia among you evangelical shepherds (not that it is simply limited to them and not every human and angelic being) that the situation today is so vastly different than it was just the year before you born. Yes, it seems that each of you believe that prior to your own births the entire American culture was completely different with regards to Christmas than it is today. “Back in the day,” you say, "everyone in American cultural life (nearly) recognized Christmas as a Christian holiday. It is only now that our American culture has overlooked this Roman Catholic holiday" that is off by the actual date by some 6 months or so.

A side note:
Actually December 25th is the date of the pagan Roman festival honoring Saturnalia called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun."It is unknown exactly when or why December 25 became associated with Jesus' birth. The New Testament does not give a specific date. Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Jesus was born on December 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in AD 221. The identification of the birthdate of Jesus did not at first inspire feasting or celebration. Tertullian does not mention it as a major feast day in the Church of Roman Africa. The earliest reference to the celebration of Christmas is in the Calendar of Filocalus, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome in 354. In the east, meanwhile, Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus as part of Epiphany (January 6), although this festival focused on the baptism of Jesus. Christmas was promoted in the east as part of the revival of Catholicism following the death of the pro-Arian Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The feast was introduced to Constantinople in 379, to Antioch in about 380, and to Alexandria in about 430. Christmas was especially controversial in 4th century Constantinople, being the "fortress of Arianism," as Edward Gibbon described it. The feast disappeared after Gregory of Nazianzus resigned as bishop in 381, although it was reintroduced by John Chrysostom in about 400. In the Early Middle Ages, Christmas Day was overshadowed by Epiphany, which in the west focused on the visit of the magi. The prominence of Christmas Day increased gradually after Charlemagne was crowned on Christmas Day in 800. King William I of England was crowned on Christmas Day 1066.


In all actuality, the American (or even the Western) culture has changed very little in their reverence for “authentic” Christmas in the past 1000 years (I should know). Even a casual look at historical traditions (even over the past century) will give evidence of this.

Think about the traditional Christmas complaints:

The TV channels today don’t recognize “authentic” Christmas as they used to.

Nonsense! When have they ever recognized the true meaning of Christmas? Look back at past TV programs from the 50s. Where do they honor Christ? The Honeymooners, I Love Lucy, The Jack Benny Program, etc. Where is Christ mentioned? Nowhere. All of them are secular and commercial.

Recall The Charlie Brown Christmas special. In 1965, the show was complaining about over commercialization of Christmas.

BTW – It was the Coca-Cola Company, who asked Schulz (a Christian) to produce an animated Christmas special for television. Schulz, in turn, suggested hiring animator and director Bill Melendez, whom Schulz had worked with while creating a Peanuts-themed advertising campaign for the Ford Motor Company.

You know the Coca-Cola Company. They are the ones who began promoting Coke with Santa in the 1920s.

The movies today don’t recognize “authentic” Christmas as they used to.

Yes, remember all those great Christmas movies of the past: It’s a Wonderful Life (a grossly inaccurate portrayal of angels, but do you see our Union suing?), Miracle on 34th Street (which, in 1947, referenced the commercialization of Christmas), and all those various versions of A Christmas Carol starting in 1935.

BTW – A Christmas Carol, published in 1946, was the first Christmas story written by Charles Dickens. This was followed by:

o The Chimes (1844)
o The Cricket on the Hearth (1845)
o The Battle of Life (1846)
o The Haunted Man (1848)
o A Christmas Tree (1850)
o What Christmas is, as We Grow Older (1851)
o The Poor Relation's Story (1852)
o The Child's Story (1852)
o The Schoolboy's Story (1853)
o Nobody's Story (1853)
o The Seven Poor Travellers (1854)
o The Holly-tree Inn (1855)
o The Wreck of the Golden Mary (1856)
o The Perils of Certain English Prisoners (1857)
o Going into Society (1858)
o The Haunted House (1859)
o A Message from the Sea (1860)
o Tom Tiddler's Ground (1861)
o Somebody's Luggage (1862)
o Mrs Lirriper's Lodgings (1863)
o Mrs Lirriper's Legacy (1864)
o Doctor Marigold's Prescriptions (1865)
o Mugby Junction (1866)
o No Thoroughfare (1867)

Charles Dickens is a Christian.

In truth, when you get right down to it, both businesses (be it Coca-Cola or Walmart, the TV Networks or the film studios, the cartoonists or book publishers) and politicians (be they Republicans and Democrats or Constantine, Charlemagne and William the Conqueror) want money and votes. In order to get these things they will honor what they want to honor and refrain from what they want to refrain. Most importantly, THEY DO NOT WANT TO OFFEND!!!

Particularly businesses, they do not want at all to be involved in either religion or politics. Businesses do not want to offend either Republicans or Democrats. They certainly do not want to offend the religious, be they Christian or not! “The customer is always right, and let’s not get into a situation that makes the customer think that we think they’re wrong.”

But let us say that businesses did honor “authentic” Christian Christmas:

1) Which “authentic” Christian Christmas tradition should they honor? Roman Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox? Evangelical? Fundamentalist?

2) Should they focus on the shepherds or the Magi or both?

3) What color should each of the Magi be?

4) What color should the baby Jesus be? How about Mary and Joseph?

5) What specific interpretation of the “authentic” Christian Christmas tradition should various businesses focus on?

“They should focus on mine!” I hear you say.

Of course, businesses are quite willing and able to get their selves involved in interdenominational religious disputes. That’s quite good for business.

I recall when Mel Gibson (a Christian) made The Passion of the Christ. Protestant evangelical shepherds complained that it was too Roman Catholic. Protestant liberal shepherds complained that it was too focused on the events and not on the meaning of the events. Roman Catholic shepherds were complaining that it was too pre-Vatican II. Jews complained that it was anti-Semitic. Fundamentalist shepherds complained that it was anti-Semitic enough. I complained that it was too violent and didn't have any angels in the film, but I kept such complaints to myself.

Now imagine having that same dispute over Christmas.

But let us say that businesses did honor “authentic” Christian Christmas in a way that was acceptable to all Christian traditions:

1) Should Nike put Air Jordans on the feet of the Magi?

2) Should Pampers put name-brand diapers on the holy infant?

3) Should the heralding angels hold an Ipod playing the latest version of the Rod Stewart Christmas album? (Do not be afraid of bad Rod Stewart Christmases; we eventually took out John Denver for this reason. Be patient.)

4) Should the stable be cleaned by Mary with a Hoover vacuum?

5) Should the Magi bring an Elmo doll, a DVD of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (a very good adventure film, I think), and a Calvin Klein perfume?

“Of course not!” I hear you say. “That is offensive to my religious sensibilities and it’s the commercialization of Christmas! Businesses should not use the Christian religion to sell goods! Cleanse the Temple!”

Yes, there isn’t any outrage when Santa goes to Home Depot, but imagine if Joseph and a pregnant Mary showed up and got a room at Motel 6 because they’ll “leave the light on for you."

Do you really think businesses want to tempt that sort of fate?

As an anglophile, I frequent the British culture even during the Christmas holiday.

Great Britain (as you all know) has a state-run church. The Church of England is THE church of England and its religious leaders are frequently appointed by the British government. The state-run television networks are dutiful in providing religious broadcasting to the people of England. During the Christmas season, the religious broadcasting provides plenty of religious holiday cheer.

Even more so, the various non-religious television programs are extremely good at devoting their Christmas time to giving the viewing public the true meaning of Christmas.

Yes, the British are traditionalists at heart and have no problem whatsoever in giving public time to religious sentiments of the “authentic” Christian Christmas. Most of the British themselves are not religious even in the traditional and cultural sense of the word but they still have no qualms of televising without derision the view that Christmas is a time to celebrate the arrival of the son of God on earth and will then read the Christmas story from the Bible (I submit to you two recent examples: the episode called “Winter” on the show The Vicar of Dibley and the movie Bernard and the Genie).

Yes, the “authentic” Christian Christmas is recognized in Britain as it has for over 1000 years ... and still the vast majority of Britons are indifferent to Christ on a personal level. Yet, they look “across the pond” to the Western nation with the most commercial of Christmases and marvel at the great percentage of citizens who have a personal relationship with God in Christ.

Therefore, I submit that instead of b*tchin’ about how the secular American culture does not agree with you about how to best interpret and observe this particular Roman Catholic religious observance or whining like a bunch of stereotypical ACLU activists about how you're offended by the lack of “authentic” Christian Christmas observances, why not go out like the good little shepherds that you are and glorify and praise God for all the things that you have heard and seen, and actually tell people the following:

“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:10f.)

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14)

“Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” (Luke 2:29-32)

“The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18f.)

Stop sitting there sulking like a bunch of wounded sheep bleating and begging beneath the table of public cultural recognition when, in actuality, you are the one’s at the table and the culture is spiritually starving to death by your feet. Tell them how they can eat, offer them the food, invite them to the table. Don’t sit there moaning about the lack of corporate sponsorship for the Good News but actually go out and proclaim the Good News.

THEY WON'T KNOW IT'S CHRISTMAS UNTIL YOU GO OUT TELL THEM. THEY WON’T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET AND OBSERVE CHRISTMAS UNTIL YOU GO OUT TELL THEM.

So make like good little shepherds and get the flock out and into the world.

Yours Truly,

The angel, Gabriel, Esq.

P.S. That “bell-ringing” and “getting wings” nonsense from It’s a Wonderful Life is complete rubbish. We do not have wings. Still, you do not see us suing Frank Capra. Water off a ducks back. Anyway, I prefer Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Another Reason to Understand the Adam of Genesis 1 and 2-3 as Being Figurative and A-historical

In the past I have made known my view that the character of Adam as he is portrayed in the stories of Genesis 1 and 2-3 to be that of an a-historical figure.

This particular view does not necessarily negate the idea that there was indeed a “real” and “historical” person that we would identify as “Adam”. Indeed, basic logic necessitates that there must have been an “Adam”.

“We can all admit that Man currently exists. We can also all admit that there was a time when Man did not exist. Therefore, if Man does exist and there was a time when Man did not exist, I must presume that there was a First Man. From a quasi-historical sense then, this first identified man would be “Adam”. He is the first Adam as Christ is the Second Adam.”

Rather this view focuses on the actual portrayal of the character of Adam as he is portrayed in the stories of Genesis 1 and 2-3, as a symbolic figure and not a particular, historical individual.

One of the arguments made against my view is drawn from Romans 5:12-21:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 5:12-21)

The basic argument from this Scriptural reference is that the comparative relation made by Paul between Adam and Christ necessitates that both figures be understood as historical.

In the past, I have responded to this argument by noting that Paul’s purpose is to point to Christ and not to Adam. Paul is attempting to explain the person and work of Christ and is using the OT figure of Adam in his explanation. Such a purpose by Paul does not necessitate the historicity of Adam in Genesis 2-3. Such a use of Adam is similar to the author of Hebrew’s use of the “legendary” figure of Melchizedek in his explanation of Christ’s priesthood and kingship. See here and here.

That Paul’s purpose is to explain Christ and, as such, does not necessitate the historicity of Adam is bolstered by the apostle’s identification of Adam in Romans 5:14 as “who is the figure of him that was to come.”

I still believe that my counter-argument dispels the view that Paul’s argument in Romans 5 necessitates that Adam in Genesis 2-3 be understood as “historical”.

Regardless, this position in no way contradicts the various definitions of inerrancy that the church father’s formulated in 1979. :-)

Nevertheless, I have conjured another argument which might help others understand the a-historical argument that Paul is making with regards to the relationship between Adam and Christ and perhaps bolster the view of the a-historical nature of the story in Genesis 2-3.

Fundamental to Paul’s theology is Christ’s corporate nature.

Indeed, Paul’s Damascus road experience was fundamental to the formation of his Christian theology.

“And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4; cf. 22:7; 26:14; Gal 6:13-16)

In these words to Paul was revealed not only the truth of the resurrection of Jesus and what this meant to the truth claims of the Christians but also the amazing reality that the Christian community was incorporated in the person of Jesus Christ. Paul’s realization that all believers are “in Christ” becomes foundational to all the theology which follows.

Even the resurrection of Christ (of which Paul is witness) and its significance to the resurrection of the believer hinges upon Paul’s understanding of Christ’s corporate nature.

“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:12-23)

In this passage, Paul makes clear that the reason believers will be resurrected is that Christ is resurrected and all believers are “in Christ”, thus all believers will be resurrected in him.

(On a side note: Christ’s resurrection is the first resurrection of Revelation 20:5-6 in which those who take part are spared the second death. This is one of the many reasons why I understand the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20 to be current and not future.)

It is Christ that God resurrects because only he is worthy to be resurrected. Man is not worthy to be resurrected but deserves damnation for their sins. But by grace God’s resurrection of Jesus includes all those who believe in the Christ. Christ is the grace. He is the one that saves Man. Man is dead without Christ as grace. All who are outside Christ are in Adam and dead. All die in Adam but are made alive in Christ.

This analogy made by Paul is perfect to explain how Christ saves men from death. By taking the character of Adam in Genesis 2-3 and understanding the events of the story as the typological occurrence that damns all men, the apostle can then explain how it is that Christ saves all men.

Now this understanding of the corporate nature of Christ and Adam is one which was generally held among the theologians and scholars during the “golden age” of the SBC. Even today there are professors at SWBTS who still teach this doctrine. Of the more ultra-conservative and fundamentalist professors I have not heard such views espoused. Perhaps it is taught at SBTS since the Reformed traditions have tended to use it more in their theological formulations. Regardless, those SBC professors who do currently espouse the corporate nature of Christ and Adam generally hold to the position that just as Jesus Christ is historical, so the Adam of Genesis 2-3 should be understood as historical as well.

The problem with this argument is that if we take Paul’s argument of Adam as being literal and historical in relation to the literal and historical figure of Christ then we have to accept the idea that ADAM IS DAMNED.

The logic of holding to a literal and historical view of Adam in Paul’s explanation of the corporate nature of Christ results in the position that Adam as a literal and historical person in Genesis 2-3 was damned due to his sin and will not be resurrected with Christ into glory. Indeed, all who are not believers in Christ are damned and are in Adam.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:23)

Thus, all unbelievers are in Adam. They are all dead in Adam. All unbelievers are dead because they are in Adam. If they were not dead in Adam then they would be alive in Christ.

If Adam was a believer and alive in Christ, then all who are in Adam are similarly made alive by being in Adam in Christ. Such an idea is contrary to Scriptural teachings. However, the idea that Adam is not saved but damned (and all those in him) seems to run contrary to our understanding of the events which took place following man’s fall (Gen 3:21; 4:25. Yet, logically this is the position one must take if they are to simultaneously hold to the literal and historical view of Adam in Paul’s explanation of the corporate nature of Christ.

Therefore, it is best to take the character of Adam in Paul’s thinking as figurative and a-historical, while still holding firm to the meaning and truth of the apostle’s explanation. Furthermore, it is indeed best to understand the Adam of Genesis 1 and 2-3 as being figurative and a-historical.

The "Suffering Servant" and the Atonement

Well....I have to ask if you've read Isaiah 49-58. Those chapters are all about the promised Messiah and all matters related to him. Pay special attention to Is.chapter 53, and especially to verse 5. It um...kinda completely debunks your theory. In fact verse 10 says explicitly that it was indeed "the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer...".

Let me also throw in the quote from Psalm 22 in the Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, which is often added with Isaiah 49-58 when discussing penal substitutionary atonement.

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34)

Apparently, Jesus had a few favorite books of Scripture (Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah and Daniel). These are books that he most frequently quotes and which also appear to have had the most important impact on his theology as it was expressed in his message and ministry. I would also suggest that these books were the biggest Scriptural factors in his development of a messianic self-consciousness.

At university, I often enjoyed times of theological discussion with skeptical unbelievers who loved to throw out theological conundrums about as much as I loved to answer them. One such conundrum frequently offered was that Jesus never explicitly declared himself to be God, (i.e., “I am God”). I usually responded with Scripture references such as John 8:58 and 10:38, but I also made the point out that the reason Jesus never explicitly stated that he was God was because he was more than just God. He was God and Man, the God-Man, fully God and fully Man. For him to say “I am God” would be incorrect. However, what he actually did declare was both far more interesting and shocking. Truly, the idea of one declaring himself to be a god was not unknown in the ancient world (think the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, the Roman Caesars and the Greek legends). Jesus declared himself to be the “Son of Man.” While such a title can simply mean a “man” or “human being,” the way in which Jesus used the term in various contexts, unequivocally states that he was identifying himself with the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13.

This is significant because the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13 is an apocalyptic figure of a corporate nature (Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27; cf. 7:14). Just like the other beasts in Daniel 7 represent particular kingdoms and groups of people, the “the Son of Man” represented the saints, the people of God, “true Israel.” The author who wrote Daniel 7 probably did not intend the apocalyptic “Son of Man” figure to be understood as an actual “historical” individual person. Thus, when Jesus appears, proclaiming himself to be the “Son of Man” and making further proclamations about his corporate nature ... THAT is radical. Jesus is not simply saying that he is the king of Israel but he is saying that he IS Israel in the truest sense of the word. He is the Holy One of God whose self incorporates ALL the saints of God from Adam to whomever the last believer ends up being. All believers (including both you and I) are in Christ and are a part of the true Israel which is Jesus Christ.

Now let’s turn to the “Suffering Servant” of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 49-53). These passages are quite similar to the “Son of Man” passage in Daniel 7 in that they reference and portray Israel as a corporate figure. Specifically, the “Suffering Servant” in these passages is the nation of Israel which God is restoring after the Babylonian Exile.

“And said unto me, Thou [art] my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Isa 49:3)

“And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.” (Isa 49:5)

“And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” (Isa 49:6)

“Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, [and] his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, [and] the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.” (Isa 49:7)

“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.” (Isa 52:13)

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isa 53:11)


We see this same idea of corporate Israel as the “Suffering Servant” in the previous chapter of Isaiah 41 and 44:

“But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away” (Isa 41:8-9)

“Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen...Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant.” (Isa 44:1)

“Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.” (Isa 44:21)

Just like the author of Daniel 7, the author of Deutero-Isaiah originally intended the “Suffering Servant” to be a representative of ALL Israel. It was Jesus who radicalized these passages and identified the “Suffering Servant” with himself (cf. Luke’s treatment in Acts 8:29-35).

In both of these OT allusions (Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53), Jesus is not saying something about the figures mentioned in the OT books but about himself as the Christ.

Furthermore, these passages were written 700 years prior to the birth of Christ but the tense these passages identifies the events affliction as having occurred in the past and not in the future. Even with the passages which reflect the future tense, the future events describe the “Suffering Servant” in ways which cannot refer to Christ. Notice that verse 10 states that the “Servant” will live a long life and have many children: “he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days” (Isa 53:10).

The original authorial intention and audience understanding of the “Suffering Servant” passages were not referring Jesus Christ. Again, the purpose of Jesus and the Church for making a connection between these passages and Jesus Christ to is not to interpret the OT figures but to interpret Jesus.

Jesus and the apostles do this throughout the NT. Good examples of this would be the identification of Mechilzedek with Christ. See here and here.


Now with specific reference to Isaiah 53 (particularly to verses 5 and 10) and how the meaning concerns the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

“But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isa 53:5)

“Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” (Isa 53:10)

At no time is the reader given the idea that God Himself is punishing the “Suffering Servant”. In neither of these verses or in any of these passages do we get any hint that the Christ took the penalty that should have gone to us because of our sins. Now the absence of penalty does not necessitate that Jesus Christ did not die BECAUSE of our sins or FOR our sins. Indeed, if we had not sinned there would have been no need whatsoever for Jesus Christ to have died at all. Truly, the death of Christ was absolutely necessary and essential for the salvation of Man to atone for Man’s sins.

Was Jesus “wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isa 53:5)? Yes, the Christ had to suffer for our sins because he was showing the perfect love and devotion in the face of suffering unto death expected of God from Man. But such suffering was not due to punishment from God.

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isa 53:3)

“But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isa 53:5)

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa 53:6)

Notice the NKJV translation of the Hebrew word paga, (“hath laid upon”). However, the NKJV everywhere else translates paga, as forms of “meet” or “intercessor,” particularly in the Hiphil (Isa 53:6, 12; 59:16; 64:4f.). Isaiah 59:16 is especially important because it speaks about an “intercessor” (paga, Hiphil participle) who is Righteous. Indeed, the idea of intercessor speaks to the heart of the purpose of the Atonement.

I do believe that these translations are more formed by theology than by Hebrew grammar.

Yes, it was God’s will because God desired to save Man from their sins (Matt 26:39, 42; cf. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38ff.; 7:17; 9:31). The suffering of Christ saves Man. God desired to allow Christ to suffer to save Man. However, this suffering was not punishment from God. We would all agree that the suffering of an individual does not necessarily mean that the one suffering is being punished. The idea of the innocent sufferer is the point of the book of Job.

Jesus taught on this theme himself when referencing, the tower that fell during its construction, killing the workers:

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-5)

Also, recall the man blind from birth:

“And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:1-5)

Perhaps Jesus is also alluding to his own suffering in this passage.


“thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” (Isa 53:10)

Also, remember that nowhere in Scripture is offering/sacrifice understood as punishing the offering/sacrifice (Think of it this way: when you tithe at your local church, do you consider the offering a punishment?).

Again, I’ve also thrown in the quote from Psalm 22 in the Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1; Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34)

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Isa 53:4; cf. Isa 49:14)

Notice that this verse states that it is Man that interprets the suffering of the “Servant” that God has abandoned him (note Mark 15:29-32 and Matt 27:39-44, particularly verse 43). But there interpretation is completely wrong.

“For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” (Psalm 22:24)

“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.” (Isa 49:15)

Too often when we read an OT quote in the NT we take the actual quote itself divorced from its OT context and then interpret its meaning in isolation. This is quite unwise because many isolated quotes do not reflect the intended meaning of the quote’s passage and the intended purpose of the quote by the NT author, particularly in the narrative books.

These passages are not stating that the “Servant” has been abandoned by God in his suffering. These passages are stating that God has not abandoned the “Servant” in his suffering.

In both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, the eschatological “Servant” is afflicted by Man.
In both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, Man sees the “Servant” suffering and believes that the suffering is the result of God either punishing or rejecting the “Servant.”
Both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 end with the revelation that not only has God not forsaken the “Servant”, but, ironically, he suffers because God is with him and this suffering is the reason why God vindicates him.

Couple the aforementioned passages with Ezekiel 18, the NT passages which identify Jesus’ death as non-penal and the general view of sacrifice as devotional, the idea of penal substitutionary atonement runs completely contrary to the actual meaning of the Atonement. To say that God punished Christ is to assert a view that Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and the NT writers who are alluding to these particular OT passages are, in fact, attempting to refute.




[Also, do not forget that the Satisfaction theory of the atonement was not developed until the 11th century by Anselm with his work, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). The Ransom theory of the atonement was generally held for a millennium before Anselm. Historically, traditionally, the Ransom theory has been the oldest, most popular and widespread view of the atonement but, today, no one believes it to be correct. The satisfaction theory was adapted, defended and elaborated upon by both Aquinas in the 13th century and Calvin in the 16th century when it became formalized as the penal satisfaction or penal substitutionary theory of the atonement.]

What I Believe About the Atonement of Christ

What do you believe about the atonement of Christ?

and

What did Christ really die for then? It wasn't my sin, it certainly wasn't HIS :-), so why the need to die?

The atoning work of Jesus Christ began at his incarnation and ended with his death, it wasn’t simply an atonement limited to his death. Jesus led the perfect human life. He was one to whom God said, “This is my son of whom I am well pleased.” This satisfaction of God for Jesus never subsided or ended or even paused. What is the ultimate evidence of God’s satisfaction with Jesus? The resurrection.

The perfect human life is one marked by complete love and obedience to the will of God. This is an obedience which must be complete, even unto death. This is a self—denying obedience and love which means the real possibility of that death. The perfect man with perfect obedience to the will of God is willing to die, to lose his life.

Thus, we see much of Jesus’ teachings about denying one’s self, obedience unto death, leaving behind all other things (including family), the Greatest Commandment, “take up your cross and follow daily”, “he who desires to gain his life must lose it”, etc.

That last one is the key: salvation comes from denying one’s self to the will of God even when it means death. Jesus wasn’t receiving any punishment. At least not from God! Men were punishing Jesus. They punished him because he was obedient to God. Thus, God rewarded his obedience.


We already had good examples and the law to live by and be judged by. What DID happen on the cross?

Because we could never ever obey the law (and thus God) to the point that we could achieve our own salvation. There is no way that we can earn salvation by works – thus God said grace by faith in Him through Jesus Christ. By this we can very generally mean that we our identified with Christ in his life and death. Thus, Jesus’ perfect obedience and his due reward is given to us by grace.

What did happen on the cross? Jesus was put to death by men who rejected him and his obedience to God (thus they rejected God!). The death of Jesus in such a manner appeared to seal the idea to all men (both Jew and Greek) that this man was not the messiah, he was not right with God, he was not THE way.

Yet, God raised him up! God raised Jesus up into eternal glory with the Father. This resurrection proved God’s approval of Jesus, his mission and his message. He had been completely and utterly vindicated by God for eternity. And because God has thus vindicated Christ, God has made Jesus Christ the method by which grace is offered to all men who cannot achieve salvation themselves. Those who follow Christ are thus undeservingly saved. Their sins are forgotten. Their sins are not given the due punishment. They are not given their due punishment.


How does it help me if He's not taking my punishment.

It helps you because though he is not taking your punishment, you are receiving his reward. No man can earn a reward for eternal life with God because all men have sinned. Only complete obedience to God earns eternal life. We are hopeless and doomed. However, because God loved man and desired eternal fellowship with Him He offered His son as the means by which man could be saved. Not because he would take our punishment but because we could accept his reward.


How does that go along with verses like Rom. 6:23 etc.

“For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Just as it says: one who sins will die. The punishment for sin is eternal death. We have all sinned and we all deserve death. But we can receive eternal life through Jesus Christ because it is only he who death can not overcome. Why? Because he did not sin.

What is the appropriate penalty of a man’s sin? The answer is eternal damnation. But Jesus was only dead for 3 days. That’s not even a sliver of the eternal punishment of just one man. If Jesus was taking the penalty for our sins he should BE ALWAYS dead. But he’s not. He isn’t eternally damned because he wasn’t receiving an eternal punishment – he wasn’t receiving any punishment. At least not from God! Men were punishing Jesus. They punished him because he was obedient to God. But since he was perfectly obedient to God unto death – God rewarded his obedience with resurrection and a glorified body.


How does this view fit with the lamb being sacrificed to pay the penalty for the sins of a specific person all through the old Testament?

OT sacrifice is not about punishing the sacrifice but about man showing to God that the person is sorry for his or her sins and desires to make reparations. Thus the person takes something of value and offers it up to the Lord. The person takes a prized lamb and sacrifices it – burns it up – completely destroys it to show his sorrow.

Notice that it is not simply about killing the lamb but consuming it. If the idea was simply about death then there would be no need to burn it up.

Notice that not all sacrifices involve death of an animal. There are grain sacrifices and other vegetation sacrifices. Notice that Cain offered a sacrifice from the field to God. Notice, God did not reject his sacrifice because it wasn’t a lamb but because Cain’s heart was not in the right place.

Notice that Noah offered a sacrifice to God following the Flood. Why? He had not sinned. He was simply thanking God and showing his love for God. And to God it was a sweet aroma. Why would God consider punishment a sweet aroma? Really, God says that he takes no joy in the punishment of the wicked. Of course, the sacrifice of Jesus was also called a sweet aroma to God. Would God delight in the punishment of His beloved son? Of course not! God saw how much Jesus was willing to do to show his love for God and obey His will (and show his love for humans). Such a self-sacrifice was extremely pleasing to God.

Look throughout the OT. Sacrifices are often done by people who are not seeking God’s forgiveness of a particular sin but because they want to show their thanks and love to God. OT sacrifice is not about punishment but about showing love to God.

The attempted sacrifice of Isaac was not at all about appeasing the wrath of Yahweh by making Isaac be punished for the sins of Abraham. Rather, this was a test of God to see how much Abraham loved God.

Sacrifices are negated if the one making the sacrifice does not have his heart right. In fact, God hates such sacrifices because they are nothing to him because they mean nothing to us. If the point of such sacrifice was simply penalty then it would not matter if man did not care.


I am convinced that this is the correct interpretation of the atoning work of Christ. It solves so many problems and so perfectly conforms to the OT view, the teachings of Paul and Hebrews, and perfectly conforms to the teachings of Christ.

Remember also how we were crucified with Christ and will be raised with Christ. The corporate nature of Christ in which we are seen by God through his Son necessitates that in some spiritual manner we ourselves were present with Jesus on the cross. Paul is adamant about this point in Galatians, Romans, etc. If Christ was receiving a punishment, then so were we because we were there in a corporate sense. Also, the obedience to God unto death of Christ is also expected of us as believers. We are called to “take up our cross daily,” we are called to be obedient unto death as martyrs if necessary, and we are called to lose our life. Such expected obedience to take up our cross and follow Christ is not so that God can punish us but because it is that perfect obedience to God that is perfectly exemplified in the life and death of Christ.

Other posts on the subject:

The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

A Discussion On The Atonement

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY

I continue to study the Biblical concept of the atonement, corporate natures and original sin.

All of these issues are interconnected in the Scriptures among the various writers in both the Former and Latter Testaments.

1) The atonement of Christ was not a matter of God punishing Jesus Christ for our sins. Such an idea is nonsense! The idea of the penal substitutionary atonement is complete bollocks. It has absolutely no Scriptural, theological or logical basis in reality. Such an idea runs completely counter to the Scriptural witness and truth and is completely contrary to what actually occurred in the atoning work of Christ. The idea of penal substitutionary atonement runs completely counter to the justice and grace of God as He Himself continually states throughout Scripture. Of all the bosh of Reformed Calvinism (including perseverance of the believer, limited and unlimited atonement theories, irresistible grace, etc.) this is the most nonsensical and is really the basis for most of the bosh that follows.

2) The idea that mankind is punished for the sin of Adam is complete nonsense. Granted, it has more evidential weight than penal substitutionary atonement theories, but it is equally wrong. We as humans are not punished for the sin of Adam. That is a theoretical line of thinking that is rejected by the prophets, by Jesus, and by Paul explicitly. We as humans are punished because we have sinned like Adam. If we had not sinned like Adam God would not have punished us.

Really, why would God punish someone who has not sinned? Do we really think that God punishes those who are innocent? What kind of god is that? What hope do we have in salvation if the innocent are punished? Yahweh is a god of justice, patience and mercy and is not vindictive upon those who are innocent. A god who punishes the innocent is no better than the powerful who prey on the poor and weak. And it is these powerful ones who God frequently denounces and punishes for such actions? Would God then not need punishing if he afflicted the innocent?

Does this go against how many of us view the God of the Bible? Read Ezekiel 18.

Now what does this inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative passage say about our concept of a God who punishes humans for the sin of Adam? Are we out of whack about who God is? What does this passage have to say about US as believers of God in Christ? What does this passage have to say about the theory of penal substitutionary atonement?

3) Yes, this is just one reason why penal substitutionary atonement is an incorrect theory. God is not going to punish a son who does His will. God is not going to punish a son for the sins of his father. God is not going to punish a son who is innocent.

God rewards His Son for his faith and devotion to God in the face of punishment BY MAN. Jesus bore the suffering of being subjected to rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death BY MAN. Jesus bore the sins that MAN inflicted upon him in the form of rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death, etc.

“Father forgive THEM for THEY do not know what they are doing.”

Perfect and absolute devotion and obedience unto death. Jesus was perfect and sinless and never wronged but always followed the will of God. He did not inherit ANY “sinful nature” from Adam and was not punished for any “inherited” sin. He had the capacity to sin but ALWAYS withstood its temptation and always followed the will of God … yet he died.

But what was the result of such a blameless and devoted life?

GOD RAISED HIM UP FROM THE DEATH UNTO ETERNAL FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER.

That was his reward.

But what of humans who are ALL sinners and who are guilty of their own sins? What becomes of us? We were created as mortals from dust and never created to be immortal. We have no natural right to live. That we have sinned and rebelled against God completely negates any hope of an idea that we can enjoy eternal fellowship with God.

Yet, God by grace has deemed that His Son Jesus Christ will be the means of grace to humans. All who follow Christ shall be saved despite their sins because they are seen THROUGH Christ. The believer is seen by God through the prism of the perfect Christ and thus we share in the inheritance (the reward) that God has given to Christ. We shall be raised up from death unto eternal fellowship with the Father.

We are not saved because God has punished Christ; we are saved because God has rewarded Christ. God did not punish Christ. God does not punish those in Christ.

What happens to the sins that should be punished? We deserve punishment for our sins. Our sins deserve punishment. What happens to our sins? God FORGIVES them. He does not count them against us. We are declared righteous in Christ.

THOSE SINS GO UNPUNISHED!!!

You Reform-minded Calvinists may have a very tough time with the idea that God allows sins to go unpunished but that is what God says he does. That’s GRACE. Yep, they disappear unto the void. They go completely unpunished. No one in Christ is duly punished for their sins and Christ is also not duly or unduly punished.

What is the point of this article, again?

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY

Loving Those You’ll Never Know

“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings [or, gospel] of great joy, which shall be to all people.” (Luke 2:10)

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace towards men with whom He is pleased.” (Luke 2:14)

“You shall love your neighbor as your self.” (Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27-36; Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; John 15:12, 17; Lev 19:18; Rom 13:8-10; 15:2; Gal 5:14; Eph 4:25; Jam 2:8; 1 Pet 2:17; 1 John 2:10; 3:10-18; 4:7-21)

“‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” (Matt 25:35-45)

In the pursuit of more Christ-like and peaceful life here on earth, I have been continuing to think about the 2nd Greatest Commandment, “Love your neighbor as your self,” and how one can greater achieve this command in everyday life.

We love ourselves (for, because God loves us, we should also love us).

We love our family and our friends (for, because God loves our family and friends, we should also love our family and friends [Matt 12:46-50; 19:19]).

We love our acquaintances and those in need (Luke 10:27-36).

We even love our enemies (for, because God loves our enemies, we should love our enemies [Luke 6:27-35; Matt 5:43-47; Jonah 2-4]).

But what about those people who we never meet, those people who never meet us, those who we never encounter in our lives but do see form afar? How do we love them?

This is not really an unimportant question or one that does not deserve our attention.

1) God loves those who we don’t know, thus we should also love them (John 3:16; 1 John).

2) We never know when we might meet them (Luke 19:1-10; 16:19-31; John 1:45-50; 4:7-29).

3) Such love allows us to more easily love those we do encounter (1 John 2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21).

4) Such love enables us to be better Christians (1 John 2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21).

How do we do this? Let us first create a scenario in which one would come upon numerous individuals of whom one would see for the first time, never meet, and probably never see again. Such situations can be school, work, malls and stores, film theatres, restaurants, and driving around from one place to the next (yes, even here). Since we are now in the Holiday season when both Christian and secular culture exudes the brotherhood of man and the mercy of God, and both Christian and secular culture laments how the capitalist system negates the reason for the season among both the selfish buyers and competitive sellers of the shopping experience, perhaps we could all take this time of the year to practice loving those who we do not know.

1) The “Image of God.” Whenever your eyes fall upon someone that you do not know, focus your attention upon the “image of God’ in that person and how much God loves them as much as he loves you (Gen 1:27; John 3:16).

2) God. Think about how much God loves you and realize that God wants you to love that other person as much as He loves you.

3) The Brethren. If you are struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of someone who you do currently love whom may or may not resemble that person, trying to love that person with the same sort of love you give to your friends and family. An old man or woman could be your grand parents. A man or woman could be your parents, uncles and aunts. Children could be your children or your cousins (Matt 12:46-50; 19:19).

4) Your Self. If you are further struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of them as being your self. We recall the second greatest commandment as “you shall love your neighbor as your self.” (Matt 22:39). Such a commandment clearly implies that Man is to love Man as his self and that He is to love his self. Such self love should not be considered as selfishness or pride or even that one is to love one’s self more than others. Rather this commandment contradicts any idea of self-loathing or that others are of more value than our selves. Such a commandment proclaims universal equality in worth and thus universal love (any idea of Buddhist self-denial is completely absent in this ethic). Therefore, we get the extension of this command on how we should ethically treat others: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31). This “golden rule” implies not only love of those we know or encounter but also love of those we do not know and will never encounter because they are of the same importance as ourselves and those we know.

5) Christ. If you are further struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of that person as Christ. Remember that Man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Because Man is created in the image of God, he or she has value, worth and should be loved. This is why the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves while the greatest commandment is to love God (Matt 22:37-40). We should love others as our selves because others and ourselves are made in the image of God and have that same value and worth. We note that the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) first begin with Man’s love of God (20:1-11) and then proceed to Man’s love of Man (20:12-7). This is a noticeable reason why Jesus says that on the greatest and second greatest commandment depends the whole of the Law and the prophets (Matt 22:40). Therefore, because Man is made in the image of God, and God loves Man, when we as men love other men, we are not only loving Man made in the image of God, but we are also loving God (Matt 25:35-45).

Therefore, ask God to make you more loving towards those you do not know (Matt 7:7; 25:35-45; 1 John 4:7).

Read the Gospel narratives and see how Jesus loved those he had just met (Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 10:21; Matt 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; 25:35-45; Luke 7:13; 10:33; 15:20; 19:1-10; John 1:45-50; 4:7-29) and practice doing likewise(1 Pet 3:8; 1 John 3:17; Jude 1:21-22).

God wants us to love and those who ask for help in following the commands of God will not be turned away.

In this holiday season, let us practice the Christian faith so that we may perfect it all the rest of the year and the rest of our lives. Remember the Great Commission:

“The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18; cf. Isa 61:1-2; Lev 25:10)

It's Only Symbolic or It's Symbolic!

On the one hand, Southern Baptist leader say that water Baptism is a symbolic action of what has occurred in the life of the believer but that if any believer is not properly Baptized by immersion, or not baptized by a church that believes in the security of the believer then he or she shouldn’t serve in the SBC. Certainly, what has occurred in the life of the believer is still the same but the symbolism isn’t there. So you have to go back and make sure the symbolism is accurate just as it was in the New Testament or who cares what the reality is.

On the other hand, Southern Baptist leaders also say that the Lord’s Supper is symbolic but it is symbolic in such that we really don’t have to do it in the way that it was done in the New Testament with other non-Baptist believers, with actual wine, or with believers outside of a local church setting. Because, yes, the Lord’s Supper is the Lords and, yes, it is represented as the whole body of Christ throughout history and not simply the local congregation, and, yes, the proper NT mode of drinking the “blood” is wine but its all just symbolism really and as long as the reality of the event is okay then it doesn’t really matter if how we do it is 100% correct because Southern Baptist churches have always done it this way and we don’t really need do it the way the NT did because we need to be more tolerant and gracious concerning the established traditions of the local Southern Baptist Churches which means that any individual believer who believes or practices a different form of communion other than that of the local Southern Baptist Church should be prevented from serving in the SBC because we really do not need that sort of thing here upsetting our way of doing things by practicing the NT form of communion and making all the other SBC members look bad by comparison by taking the mode of communion as practiced in the NT seriously while everyone else is doing it wrongly and though the person who is doing it differently is not forcing other believers to bend to his or her will, the very fact that he is not following the established way and not conforming to what we do is an effrontery that cannot be overlooked lest more people begin to follow the NT teaching on this matter.

ONLY WARREN CAN GO TO NORTH KOREA

The spokesperson told Associated Baptist Press that Warren is expected to speak during the summer of 2007.
Warren acknowledged his trip could be used by the Korean government for propaganda or further persecution, but he said it is worth the risks.
He also asked church members to pray for him in his travels.
According to a Religion News Service report, North Korean leaders will allow Warren to preach in a stadium that will seat 15,000 people. Warren may preach in a larger venue if he can fill the seats, he said.
Saddleback members celebrated the news as a victory for religious freedom. But some critics said it will only bolster North Korea's oppressive regime.
Ingrid Schlueter, producer and co-host of a Christian talk show on the VCY America Radio Network, called Warren’s visit a “massive propaganda event in promotion of the world's most brutal and oppressive regime." In a July 4 column for the right-wing Christian Worldview Network website, Schlueter said Warren won't "call the communist faithful to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" because he preaches a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.”
“Not for a moment do these leaders worry that they will have a Christian revival on their hands by letting Mr. Warren speak," she said. "Rick Warren is loved and feted because his message is absent the cross and Christ's call to die. That's why he is popular and politically useful.”
Schlueter also compared Warren’s trip to Billy Graham’s visit to communist Russia in 1982, during which Graham "became a shill for the Communist Party in Russia."
Warren had told his congregants that he called Graham to ask for advice on his trip, since Graham traveled on a brief, tightly controlled tour of North Korea in 1992.
Warren acknowledged North Korean leaders may exploit his trip. "I know they're going to use me, so I'm going to use them," Warren told reporters.

A few points of comment:

- Because North Korea is a closed, poor and backwards society in relation to the rest of the world, I question the awareness of the North Korean people to the nuclear issue that is otherwise known throughout the rest of the world.

- Warren is correct: this is a great opportunity (from God!) to preach the Gospel message to the people of North Korea at a time when the threat of nuclear war is growing in that region. To not go would be unchristian.

- For the last fifteen years (after the fall of European communism), the remaining Communist countries (Asia and Central America) have been slowly adopting an approach of “religious glasnost”. The Spirit is moving in these societies and the communist leaders are attempting to deal with it. Part of their response is to allow some greater freedom of religious expression. Hence, Billy Graham to North Korea, Pope John Paul II to Cuba, and Warren to North Korea. But just like the economic glasnost of the Soviet Union, such a policy, I believe, will ultimately lead to the downfall of these communist regimes. I have considered the possibility that perhaps the current communist regimes no longer see Christianity as the threat it once did. However, if so, they are quite blind and let’s let them continue to be so.

- Christianity has a great track record of helping to liberate people from communist societies. Examples:

o The ministry of Pope John Paul II in Eastern Europe
o The writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
o The underground Christian movement in Romania
o The ministry of Billy Graham
o Christianity’s general opposition to the Soviet Union in Europe

- In many respects, this is the modern equivalent of Paul going to Rome.

- In most respects, Rick Warren is our generation’s Billy Graham. I say that quite seriously with not any aspect of hyperbole.

- I am anxious to hear Warren’s message.

I myself considered a scenario in which I was given such an opportunity in order to state what my message would be. Naturally, in an actual event, I would precede such considerations with copious days of prayer and fasting, but for this exercise I did not seem necessary.

Certainly, the sermon would be a presentation of the THE Gospel message. Of course, the focus of the sermon would be JESUS. I note that the critic cited in this article Ms. Ingrid Schlueter, labeled any message that Warren would give as a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.” I do believe this person is ignorant either of Warren’s message or the message of the Gospel. I am always intrigued by those who deem another persons gospel message or theology as “man-centered”. Usually (though I do not know in her case), the person making such a statement prefers a “God-centered” gospel and theology. In my own exploration of the gospel and theology, I have always seen both the positives and negatives of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies. To this end (in the great tradition of Protestantism, neo-orthodoxy, “moderate” Baptist theology, and basically what I believe to be the approach most obviously advocated in the NT), I have a adopted a Christ-centered gospel and theology. One plus to such an approach is that it has all the benefits of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies with none of the drawbacks. Therefore, I would preach Christ. I will always preach Christ. The day that I decide not to preach Christ in a message is the day I hope that God “calls me home”.

In this vein, here are my hypothetical N. Korean sermon topics:

• Christ
• The Gospel
• Man made in the image of God
• The Greatest and Second Greatest Commandments
• NT Ethics in General
• Soul competency
• Priesthood of the believer (equality)
• Peace, love of enemies, etc.
• God loves them.
• “End of the Spear” as illustration
• Salvation by Grace through Faith in Christ


Given enough time, I would weave all of these topics and points together to make one grand presentation of the Gospel message of Christ in their context and what their appropriate response should be. But that is just me.

I am sure that Warren will give a good message which I am anxious to hear. Really, what an opportunity! I do believe that every Christian should pray for Warren and his message during this missionary visit. I am sure (given Saddleback’s modus operandi) that they will have people praying constantly (Billy Graham does a similar thing during his crusades). Nevertheless, I would like to see very many Christians praying for this mission. One would hope that “pastor envy” will not get in the way of an individual’s desire to see the Gospel preached – though I know it does.

I do have one question, though: will Bibles written in Korean be allowed? I would certainly hope that Warren and company will be able to distribute Bibles to the people. In a communist country it may not be allowed. Or it might be allowed in order to easily find and persecute believers. Again, it is a risk to take in order to preach the gospel.

Three Questions on the Inerrancy of Scripture

Here is a presumed evangelical scenario and three questions (the main question being at the end) for your thoughts.

First the milk:

PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS SCENARIO OR ITS THREE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE!!!

This scenario and its questions are designed to make one ponder their faith and their relationship with God in Christ. Too many believers have such a struggle with uncertainty concerning the theology of the Faith that they are often fearful of either asking or even considering particular questions about our Faith. Many believers are so unsure of the intellectual side of the Faith that they treat theology like a glass bowl so delicate that the slightest question could forever smash it.

While I myself see the Faith and its theology as an indestructible castle built upon the foundation of God in Christ, individual believer’s faith is not so indestructible. Therefore, if you are struggling with doubts, disregard all of this but pray to God to help you with your doubts.

Now to the meat:

Amongst learned evangelicals it is common knowledge that only the original autographs of the New Testament are inerrant. Every single copy of the NT that we currently possess contains errors in the text which change the meaning of what we believe to be some aspect of the Scripture. Hypothetically, only the original documents written by the apostles are free from error. Let it be known that none of the known errors in the various ancient NT manuscripts alters any significant doctrine in any way. One of the points of significant doctrines being significant is that they are repeated by the author numerous times in a book, numerous times in the author’s various books and numerous times in various books by various authors.

But two points:

1) With specific reference to the autographs, nowhere does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself either as a whole or with an individual book. The idea of inerrancy is a logical corollary to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures but it is a foreign idea in the Scriptures. In truth, it was a doctrine formulated by at Princeton Theological Seminary in the latter half of the 19th century.

2) The inerrancy of the autographs is a hypothesis that cannot be proven due to the fact that we do not have the original autographs and we never will. They have long since been destroyed by time and there is no way to recreate them.

The apostle and/or his secretary wrote down the original Scripture on an original scroll, parchment, etc. This original scroll is the original autograph and is the document or version which is deemed by all learned evangelicalism to be THE inerrant copy.

Now for the three questions:

1) If the apostle and/or his secretary made copies of this original inerrant document, were these copies made by the apostle and/or his secretary inerrant?

2) If we agree that the original autographs are inerrant, if we agree that the subsequent copies contain errors, then which copy of the original autographs contained the first error? The first copy, the second copy, the third or fourth?

3) Since we do agree that only the first editions of the autographs are inerrant and all the other editions contain errors, then there are only 27 inerrant editions of the NT documents and 100s of millions of errant editions. There could only be one complete inerrant version of the entire NT which was very early on completely lost to history and the Church while there are 100s of thousands of subsequent editions that we still have and have never been lost. Thus, we can practically presume that God has had no problem at all giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice documents that have errors in them. If this scenario is indeed the case, then why would God not mind giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice original autographs with original errors in them?

Word Play From Genesis 1.

Check out this word play from Genesis 1. This is a brilliant bit of writing. The writer must’ve been the best of his generation. The puns are flying faster than in a Marx Brothers movie.

God ['elohiym] let the waters [mayim] bring forth [sharats] the crawling creatures [sherets] and the open [paniym] sky [shamayim] brings forth fowl [`owph] that fly [`uwph] above the earth ['erets].

The Wonderful Blessings of Being a Southern Baptist.

I wrote this piece back in May of 2006 but never got around to posting it due to other engagements. Since I was recently questioned by a good friend about my criticism of the SBC, I searched through my files to find this piece.

Let us take some time today to remind ourselves of the wonderful blessings of being a Southern Baptist.

No division over homosexuality – While most other Christian bodies in America our suffering and even splitting over the issue of homosexuality, Southern Baptists are riding thru the storm.

Pro-Scripture – Southern Baptists have a high view of Scripture and take it very seriously in matters of the faith and in their personal walk with God. It is very nice to have the Scriptures as an authoritative and fairly objective source for handling matters of our Faith.

Pro-discipline (mostly) – For the most part, Southern Baptists (like our Anabaptist ancestors) hold church discipline as a norm and a commandment by Christ. As Dr. Mohler recently highlighted, church discipline is an extremely effective means by which we can save a fellow believer from falling away.

Loving, devoted people - Southern Baptists are a very loving people and devoted people. We take the command to love God and our neighbors very seriously and we seek to live out these fundamental Christian principles in our daily lives. We are extremely devoted to the task of spreading this love to the rest our nation and the rest of the world.

Evangelistic – We are extremely devoted to the task of spreading this love to the rest our nation and the rest of the world. I really do not know of a more evangelistic body of believers in the history of Christianity. From Smyth to Carey till today, Baptists and evangelism have gone hand in hand and we have made the Great Commission in Matthew our primary collective task. Southern Baptists in particular have done more to evangelize the world than any other believing body.

The Cooperative Program – The Cooperative Program is the genius of Southern Baptists. It is the most brilliant invention of the evangelical, free church community and it has been the driving success of all our endeavors. There really is nothing more important to Southern Baptists as a body, save God Himself.

North American Mission Board – The NAMB has been an extremely successful agency of Southern Baptists helping to plant new churches across the country and pave the way for our most successful conversions and discipleship.

International Mission Board – The IMB is the greatest missionary success story since St. Patrick. During the Golden Years of the Southern Baptist Convention the IMB (then the Foreign Mission Board) sent missionaries from China to Paraguay, planting churches, building hospitals and converting people from paganism to new life with God in Christ.

Pragmatism – Say what you want about the tradition-minded members of the SBC; we are still the most pragmatic denomination out there. This is almost wholly due to two main factors: we are evangelicals and we are Americans. Evangelicalism in terms of its approach to spreading the gospel to various cultures must be pragmatic by nature. We have to grow, bend and evolve in order to preach the Word. Also, America is a capitalistic society of high growth, constant change and feverish drives to win; we as American evangelicals have used such cultural characteristics to proclaim the Gospel. And that has been a great thing!

Diversity – One might say with some degree of accuracy that the “big tent” which is the SBC has been shrink over the past quarter century. Nevertheless, the SBC is still the most diverse Protestant denomination in all Christendom. We have conservatives, moderates and liberals, errantists and inerrantists, white, blacks, Asian, Hispanics, Africans, Europeans, Landmarkists, Fundamentalists, small churches, large churches, mega-churches, charismatics, non-charismatics, Canadians, South Americans, modernists, post-modernists, traditional churches, contemporary churches, emergent churches, house churches, dispensationalists, non-dispensationalists … I don’t know about you, but I like being amidst such different approaches of practicing the Faith.

Leadership cares about the “laity” and the “laity” trusts the leadership – This is undoubted by any serious examiner of the SBC. The SBC leadership really does care about the people and missions they are serving and really wants to make good on their given duties and responsibilities. And the “laity” really trusts the leadership – perhaps to a fault but it is still a good thing. Both of these facts are probably due to the concept of local church autonomy which enables a greater degree of freedom and distance between “leadership” and “laity”. The two very rarely cross paths so the distance between them makes the heart grow fonder.

Soul Competency (believer’s baptism, church autonomy, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, local church autonomy, etc.) – I love the fact that I am apart of a Baptist denomination that allows me to freely worship God and practice my faith. I would never want to be apart of any denomination that existed in a hierarchy. We all should be proud that we have inherited the traditions of Menno Simmons, Balthasar Hubmaier, John Smyth, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, E.Y. Mullins, Ralph Elliott, Dale Moody, Frank Stagg and H. H. Hobbs.

The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount

Matthew 5-7:27 (New International Version)

I am really interested in discussing the ethics and the interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Does any one have any thoughts or anecdotes about their experiences with the teachings of this Sermon?

All seminary students go over the Sermon on the Mount (if not on their own in their own personal studies, then in their classes of NT Introduction) and I have continued to give the Sermon some serious consideration over the years.

I have heard various lectures on the Sermon from Dr. Tolar, Dr. Crutchley, Dr. Ellis and Dr. Wenham. I have also read Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship, which is a great work, and various other interpretations by Albert Schweitzer, Leo Tolstoy, Stanley Hauerwas, Martin Luther Henry Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Francis of Assisi.

To me the matter comes down to how we approach Christian Ethics. I myself take my own form of the Absolutist View which takes the Sermon as a real sermon about matters that should be taken as a literal teaching to be literally applied in our daily lives.

Here is a Wikipedia definition of the Absolutist View:

“The Absolutist View rejects all compromise and believes that, if obeying the scripture costs the welfare of the believer, then that is a reasonable sacrifice for salvation. All the precepts in the Sermon must be taken literally and applied universally. Proponents of this view include St. Francis of Assisi and in later life Leo Tolstoy. The Oriental Orthodox Churches fully adopt this position; among heterodox groups, the early Anabaptists came close, and modern Anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Hutterites come closest.”

The aspect of my view of the Absolutist View which allows me to call it my own form is that I while I believe that the ethics of this Sermon should be taken as universal, the idea that one could enforce or even expect such a spiritual ethic to be universal is absurd.

In this, I agree with Ellis that there exists a two-tiered ethic between that of the OT and NT and between the world and the kingdom of God. The world works with an ethic like that of the OT which is “eye for an eye”. This is the ethical system of the world and it works (as Dr. Pierce states, the “eye for an eye” ethic is grace).

However, there is a higher grace that we see throughout the OT but which comes in both spirit and power at the coming of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The kingdom of God works with a higher level ethic which we could summarize as “love thy neighbor as thyself”, “love thy enemies”, and “universal forgiveness”. This ethic comes to absolute expression in the Cross. This ethic is about taking up the cross and following Jesus towards that self-submission, self-emptying, self-sacrificing obedience unto death for love of God and Man.

Notice this similar approach to the Beatitudes:

“One interpretation of narrative theologians is that the Beatitudes provide a corrective against an upside-down view of the power structures of the world that has been all but universally taken for granted. That is, the powers and principalities of this world - primarily referencing, but not meant to be exclusive to political, military and economic forces - appear to be the inheritors of power and dominion. In the Beatitudes, however, Jesus explains that the reality of things as seen from God's perspective is that the powerless who are the inheritors the future. It is the meek, the poor, those who suffer loss, those on the bottom of the social ladder, who will rule in the rightside-up kingdom of God. Jesus is attempting to jog his listeners' assumptions regarding security and hope, showing them that the kingdom of God is for those who hope in God and not in the power structures offered by the world. Though not specifically referenced and explained with much less poetry, these same themes are strongly espoused by the Apostle Paul in his letters to the Colossians and to the Ephesians. As for a more modern example, such an interpretation of the Beatitudes can be found in "Resident Aliens", by Stanley Hauerwas & William Willimon. In their book Jesus is explained to be showing his audience that "In God's kingdom, the poor are royalty, the sick are blessed." "The Beatitudes are not a strategy for achieving a better society ... they are an indication ... of life in the kingdom of God ... to produce a shock within our imaginations ... to see life ... in a radical new way." Similary, John H. Yoder, in his "Politics of Jesus" refers to Matthew 5 as part of a "call on the disciples of Jesus to renounce participation in the interplay of egoisms". This entire work attempts to show that such politlics of Jesus is the entire basis behind Christian pacifism - that the Jesus who has already conquered evil now calls us to follow him through the same heavenly humility.”

The Sermon the Mount is about this self-denying Faith of God in Christ. However, while such an ethic was accomplished in Christ, it is impossible for anyone to follow this ethic absolutely. Indeed, it is even practically absurd to expect believers themselves to adopt these principles for their lives.

To this extent, I have a modified interpretation of the Sermon similarly to that of Martin Dibelius.

“Martin Dibelius, presented another view also based on eschatology. His Unconditional Divine Will View is that the ethics behind the Sermon are absolute and unbending, but the current fallen state of the world makes it impossible to live up to them. Humans are bound to attempt to live up to them, but failure is inevitable. This will change when the Kingdom of Heaven is proclaimed and all will be able to live in a Godly manner. A similar view is also described in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, written in the late nineteenth century.”

But I differ with Dibelius in that while I do know that such an ethic is impossible for man, such a fact does not negate the reality of such an ethic and the pursuit of that ethic by the follower of Jesus. Indeed, the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is what we as believers are called to and what God expects. Thus, we should pursue that ethic in the way of Christ and pray for that Christ-like-ness. Will we always be perfect in such a practice? No, of course not. But God is gracious and that is why there is Jesus Christ as the means of grace upon Man. In this same way, we should expect believers to practice the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount but certainly be gracious in the inability of others to meet its high ethic. Why? Because God has been gracious and tolerant with our inabilities, thus we should be just as gracious with others.

I am really interested in discussing the ethics and the interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Does any one have any thoughts or anecdotes about their experiences with the teachings of this Sermon?

The Height of Goliath

The Bible records the famous strife between David and the giant Goliath, ending with the defeat of the latter. Goliath was "six cubits and a span" in height--over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). However, an earlier translation of this tale found in the Dead Sea Scrolls puts Goliath at just under two meters tall, rather than three meters as had been written in later versions. This greatly increases the validity of claims that Goliath may have been a real person, being gigantic in stature compared to the average height of a man in the early classical era of around 1.6 meters compared to around 1.75 today.

Creeds and Confessions

Another nice opportunity to express the problems of creeds and confessions

1. Heretics are deemed such, not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe wrong interpretations of the Bible.

Agreed. However, the distinction between believing the Bible and believing the wrong things about the Bible has not been made. Truly, when SBC leaders have complained about other Christians who disagree with them about the proper meaning of Scripture, the complaint is not that “they have misinterpreted the Bible” but that “they don’t believe the Bible.” Basically, people have been saying that those who do not believe in their own interpretation of Scripture do not believe in Scripture at all.

2. Modern US denominational creeds - faults and all - do not *make* or *force* anyone to believe anything. We simply do not have the military/political structure to do such a thing.

Really, denominational creeds do not force anyone to believe anything? I think you might want to ask the numerous missionaries, professors, and administrators who have been fired because they did not believe the BFM 2000. You might better inquire about the numerous churches which have been told that they could not be a part of a denomination because they did not believe the BFM 2000. Also, it might be best to ask around many of the Baptist state colleges who are under pressure to adopt the BFM 2000. Again, with references to professors, the matter of tension was not that the professors did not teach within the parameters of the BFM 2000 but that they did not believe it themselves.

Who needs a state military to coerce the other believers when you can simply threaten the future of their ministries and their well-being of their families?

Of course, now we are coercing all these same individuals to either adopt a particular view of alcohol consumption and “private prayer language” – neither of which is confessed in the BFM 2000 – or face the same consequences. Yes, the trustees at particular SBC agencies have taken it upon themselves to interpret Scripture for all Southern Baptists and then set doctrinal parameters for such matters.

It’s sort of like the U.S. judges who ignore a particular law and legislate from the bench. Some may cry “foul” about such an action, but the judges simply state that they have been appointed by presidents and congressmen who have been elected by the people; when they make any new law from the bench they are simply acting in accordance to the will of the people. Of course, the same SBC leaders who set doctrine in this same manner will then turn around and have “Justice Sundays.”

The Bible is data. The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.

I like your statement: “The Bible is data.The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.”

True, confessions and creeds do express a particular Christian group’s interpretation of the Faith (and not just the Scriptures). Be aware of the other authoritative interpretations of the Scriptures.

The oral law of the Pharisees – these were authoritative interpretations of the Pentateuch that the 1st century Jewish rabbis of Jesus’ day believed to be the correct interpretation of the OT faith. Really, the Pharisees believed the Bible to be inspired and inerrant but they also believed that they had the correct interpretation of the OT and forced such an interpretation on others, coerced everyone other Jew to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Jesus responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.

The canon law of the Roman Catholic Church – the Roman Catholics certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. They also believe that they have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to them through numerous Church leaders (apostles, the patristics, popes, councils, etc.). They believed they had the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and then coerced every other Roman Catholic to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Martin Luther responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.

The BFM 2000 of the Southern Baptists – Southern Baptists certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We also believe that we have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? Because we hold the Scriptures up very high and say that we only follow them. The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to us through numerous avenues. We believe that we have the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and are now coercing every other Southern Baptist to adopt our interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated).

Is this not the case?

#2 is why I have a very hard time buying into much of a distinction between a confession and a creed. Such distinctions seem to work only if one assumes that the central role of a creed is its use by a political state to force conformity.

Agreed. When the BFM was being devised a major concern was the traditional understanding of the Baptist faith that we are not a “creedal people.” Therefore, the distinction was made between creeds and confessions to remove any idea that people would be forced into believing the BFM.

“Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.”

Again, the use of the BFM 2000 has been to enforce conformity to it. Why else are people (who do not hold to particular aspects of the document) being fired left and right even when they agree to honor it as the SBC confession?

Why is no one who signs the document ever saying, “Yes, I agree with most of the document except perhaps A, B, and C.”?

Why are all SBC seminary professors now having to sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (a good 27 year old document) when it is not a SBC confession?


All the same, may the tribe of Williams and Harmon increase.

Heck, if Williams and Harmon are not advocating the enforcement of particular creeds (really, how would one today force the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" Creed on anyone?) but simply urging other evangelical believers to examine the past confessions of previous believers, then I certainly do support them!

The Man-made Argument for "Man made in the Image of God": An Argument Against the Complementarian View of God (Made by a Man Who Has It Made as a Man)

A new theological doctrine has emerged in our time; a doctrine which has emerged due to the emergence of feminism in evangelicalism. For centuries since the time when the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the feminine had long since been forgotten, ignored or misunderstood, the Church believed that Scripture taught that woman was inferior to man. The advent of Renaissance humanism, the individualism of the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent philosophical, sociological and scientific knowledge that accompanied the Enlightenment changed man’s understanding of both the human individual and human social and sexual natures. Such changes in understanding led to similar changes in how the Church and individual Christians interpreted Scripture (one massive change was the Reformation dictum of sola scriptura and the realization that the meaning of Scripture is not dependant upon the interpretation of Church leaders). Just as the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo changed how man viewed the creation and interpreted the Scriptural teachings about creation, so the arrival of social studies and the sexual revolution reformed the way many Christians (including conservative Christians) looked at male-female relations and the Scriptural teachings on the matter.

Thus moderate to liberal Christianity moved from a complementarian understanding of gender roles to an egalitarian position. Conservative Christianity, however, moved from an hierarchical understanding to the recently vacated complementarian position (as a conservative Christian who holds to egalitarianism, I really like the progress of my fellow conservatives).

The new theological doctrine has emerged in our time has proceeded from conservative complementarianism which has recently discovered that the Scriptures have taught complementarianism all along (silly us).

For conservatives in the modern age, complentarianism allows them to admit the equal worth of women and men while still maintaining separate but equal gender roles in the Church (though I have yet to hear what female role is afforded to women in the Church that men cannot hold). Of course, since moderate and liberal Christianity have come from the complementarian position, they know well the problems inherent in such a position.

The main criticism to which modern complementarians have had to respond is the idea that equal worth and equal substance can co-exist with subordinate positions. The very clever response by complementarians to this argument is the roles within the Godhead. The idea being that Father-Son have equal worth but the son is subordinate to the Father. I think this is a good reply to the criticism by egalitarians.

However, I believe that such an argument has lead to the theory which is quickly becoming doctrine that the roles within the Godhead are in fact not merely an analogy for the complementarian position but the basis!

Such an idea is based upon Genesis 1:27:

“So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

This is also on 1 Cor 11:3:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”

The traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:27 is that God created Man in His image thus Man in of itself is in the image of God and God created this Man in his image in two varieties: male and female. This traditional interpretation does not advocate that the differentiation in male and female reflects the being of God but that both male and female are created in the image of God.

The new interpretation of Genesis 1:27 argues that God created Man in His image and that the differentiation of male and female is a result of such a differentiation in the Godhead. The basic analogy would be that God as Father-Son is equated with Man as Male-Female. Such an idea apparently leaves out the Holy Spirit in the equation, which is odd because all thought God as Yahweh (presumably the Father) is in Genesis 1, references to the Son are absent (which is to be expected sense such an idea wasn’t even considered until the advent of Christ) but the Spirit of God is present (Gen 1:2) though certainly not recognizable in the Christian understanding.

Though this new interpretation is based on the desire to ground the new conservative view of gender roles in Scripture and in God, any further understanding of what these divine roles involve in relation to Man as Male-Female is completely absent from the discussion, aside from the general view that of subordination. Certainly, sexual characteristics are not considered because God is sexless. Thus, Father-Son can not relate to Male-Female in that the Father has male characteristics and the Son has female characteristics. Indeed, the only corresponding feature between God and Man is the coincidence of subordinate fellowship with a self-equal entity. Anything else is absent from the analogy.

There are a few problems with this interpretation of Genesis 1:27:

1) Such an interpretation is completely absent from the verse and passage of Genesis 1. It’s not there.

2) The idea of subordination is absent in this passage, either with God or within Man as male and female. Not there.

3) I myself would not mind such an interpretation because it strengthens my argument that God is eternally ONE person and not Three. Regardless, Trinitarian ideas are absent from Genesis 1.

4) Going to the other creation story of Genesis, this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 contradicts the J-writers contention that male and female were co-equal helpmeets (Gen 2:22ff.) until the fall of Man (Gen 3:16).

5) Such an interpretation of male and female forms is both completely absent from both the OT and NT and contradicts both the teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding gender relations.

6) Even if this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 were true, it is only relevant to married couples and has no relevancy to issues outside the family such as women pastors and the authority of women in the Church.

1 Cor 11:3 is the other key verse for modern complementarians. Their interpretation of this verse is that Paul is basing male “headship” and gender subordination on Man being created in the image of God and thus the female is subordinate to the male based upon their fundamental being as made in the image of God.

There are a few problems with this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3:

1) The doctrine of “headship” as taught by Paul in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians is NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. I cannot stress this enough. No where does Paul teach that “headship” is about “leadership.” Nowhere does Paul teach that “leadership” has to do with “headship”. This has been a perennial and general assumption without any or cultural Scriptural basis. With Paul “headship” is about sanctification. “Headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family. Read the appropriate Pauline passages concerning headship: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Ephesians 5:21-32 and gender issues. Also, read these passages in light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 and Ephesians 5:26.

Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. HOWEVER, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 points out, if the husband is an unbeliever but the wife a believer, the believing wife is the means by which God sanctifies the husband and children. Therefore, although the general rule in terms of headship is the husband, by Gods’ grace, the wife can be “head” if the husband is unbelieving. Reason for yourself: who is the “head” of a family in a single parent household? Who is the “head” of the family if the father dies leaving the mother and two younger children?

2) This passage has nothing to do with the fellowship within the Godhead. Reread the verse.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”

Notice that the terms “Father” and “Son” are absent in this passage (cf. 1 Cor 1:3; 9; 8:6; 15:24, 28). Notice what term is used: “Christ”, the Messiah, the “anointed one,” who makes righteous. Again, “headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family. Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. Jesus Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit by God. Christians are a part of Christ’s body and we thus share in the gift of the Holy Spirit by being in Christ’s body which is anointed with the Holy Spirit by God. Similarly, in marriage the husband and wife come together to become one flesh (i.e., one person) and (in Christian families) this union sanctifies the children.

[Paul, Luke and John all repeatedly deal with this issue of the results of the corporate Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Sprit in their works.]

3) The idea that the subordination of the male is based upon Man’s correspondence as the image of God is completely absent if not contradicted. Paul himself says in verse 7, “For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Thus Paul is not saying that the “role” of the female is based upon her fellowship with the male in the image of God but because the male is made in the image of God and she is his glory.

4) Even if this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 were true, it is only relevant to married couples and has no relevancy to issues outside the family such as women pastors and the authority of women in the Church.

Therefore, while the analogy of Father-Son and Male-Female is a good one insofar as it presents the ideas that subordination of one doesn’t lessen his or her equal value, such an analogy is only an analogy and we should not base our theology of God’s being on such an idea. I say this because too many SBC leaders and seminary students are grasping at any straw they can find to legitimate their views of gender roles in the face of overwhelming Scriptural opposition.

Abandon this line of theorizing; it will only lead to more heresy and the second generation of such thinking will cause far too much theological, ecclesiastical, social and familiar damage.

Just accept Jesus, Paul, Luke, the P-writer and the J-writer at face value and believe in the egalitarian position of gender roles.