The "Form" of God
I have a question regarding the "form" of God. I have been reading your Systematic Theology. In one place you cite Deuteronomy 4:15-18 stating that God has "no form." We know that God the Father is spirit (John 4:24); however, Phillipians 2:6 states that Jesus was in the form of God (the Father). Would this "form" be rendered as an unseen form? And if God has no form, in what sense is Paul saying that God has a form at all? Thank You.
Watch out for equivocations when thinking about theological issues. And please see my Commentary on Philippians for an exposition on that passage.
Commentary on Galatians (20)
Paul's broken and agitated language continues into verse 6, perhaps denoting great distress over the items being addressed. The expression, "those who seemed to be important," occurs in various forms in 2:2, 2:6 (twice), and 2:9. This is better seen in a translation like the ESV, since the NIV obscures the repetition and consistency. The ESV translates the expression as "those who seemed influential." The NASB has "those who were of reputation," and the RSV, "those who were reputed to be something." Verse 9 says, "those reputed to be pillars," but of course the connection with 2:2 and 2:6 must not be missed.
This notable use of the expression is probably sarcastic. Given the context and purpose of the passage (2:1-10), as well as the interruption within verse 6 itself (which we will examine below), Paul is obviously not stressing the exalted status of the Jerusalem apostles. To illustrate, it is likely that sarcasm is intended if within several sentences of broken and agitated language I were to refer to a group of men thus: "Those somebodies…those important people…oh, those big shots!…those high and mighty ones!"
As mentioned, it is possible that Paul is at least a little annoyed with the Jerusalem apostles in that they failed to prevent the Judaizers from going as far as they did. It is also possible that they were not very strong at implementing that aspect of the gospel under discussion, as suggested by 2:11-13. That said, the apostles were probably not the primary target of Paul's hostility here, even if a degree of disappointment with their performance is implied. He assumes their legitimacy in verses 7-9, and part of his present argument depends on this. Rather, the main force of the sarcasm is more likely directed against the inordinate deference – whether as a matter of conviction or merely a tool for manipulation – that the Judaizers attribute to the Jerusalem leaders, and in connection with this, their deprecation of Paul's ministry and authority through a false contrast against these apostles.
The interruption within verse 6 reads, "whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance." "Whatever they were" refers to the differences between Paul and "those who seemed to be important." These are probably the things that the Judaizers hold against Paul as the advantages that the Jerusalem apostles have over him, such as their earthly association with Jesus, including the fact that James is the natural brother of the Lord.
The carnal man equates these natural distinctions with spiritual advantages. But whether the Jerusalem apostles possess any spiritual advantage over Paul because of their earthly distinctions and experiences depends on how closely they followed the Lord's doctrine and example. Regarding this, the Gospels record their repeated confusion and unbelief. It was not until after the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that these apostles began to exhibit the knowledge, maturity, and boldness that Christ demanded from them. But the same resources that made them strong in the faith have been given to Paul, who has forsaken all human credentials so that he may know Christ in the power of his resurrection (Philippians 3:10).
Thus the Judaizers form their opinions about the spiritual status of men based on superficial, earthly, and non-spiritual factors. On the other hand, God's judgment transcends appearances, human credentials and associations, and other natural distinctions, showing "no partiality" (ESV). Therefore, the Judaizers' perspective is fundamentally contrary to God's, so that their respect for the apostles and their disdain for Paul count for nothing.
As long as we kowtow to human associations and credentials, we will fail to perceive true spiritual fruit and power, and we will fail to recognize counterfeit spiritual authority. From the perspective of one who has been called by God to the ministry, unless he is delivered from this carnal mentality, he will never attain the full extent of the spiritual freedom and boldness granted by the divine commission. He will be easily intimated by men, since his opponents will almost always include those who possess greater human recognition. But one who submits to God's perspective and standard of judgment can say with Paul that superficial credentials are irrelevant. They make no difference to him because they make no difference to God. And since God is not swayed by them, then neither is he.
The end of verse 6 completes the thought that Paul started in verse 2, so that we could read, "I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders…those men added nothing to my message." Again, it was not that Paul submitted his message and ministry before the apostles for their evaluation. He knew that he was right, and if the apostles had contradicted him or attempted to add to his message, they would have been wrong, and Paul would have continued without change, although perhaps less effectively due to resistance from Jerusalem. So without implying submission or inferiority, the verse makes a factual statement, that the Jerusalem apostles added nothing to Paul's gospel. This in turn means that, although it makes no difference to Paul, the apostles agree with him and not the Judaizers.
The solidarity between Paul and Jerusalem is deeper than the mere fact that the apostles "added nothing" to his message. Verses 7 and 8 indicate that the apostles acknowledge two things – that Paul has been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, and that God has been at work in Paul's ministry as he carries out this task. Thus these verses describe a positive recognition of Paul's legitimacy and authority.
This recognition is in turn characterized by two things. First, Paul's legitimacy and authority are not conferred but perceived by the apostles. God was the one who conferred upon Paul his ministry to the Gentiles. Jerusalem could neither replace nor oppose God on the matter. Second, the legitimacy and authority of Paul parallel that of Peter, whose place is usually not questioned at least because of his earthly association with Christ and foundational role in the church since the beginning. And if Paul is just as legitimate and authoritative as Peter, then to undermine Paul is also to undermine Peter.
If this discredits the Judaizers' account of Paul's relationship with Jerusalem, verse 9 proceeds to complete the refutation. "Those who seemed important" are finally named – they are James, Peter, and John, the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church. Contrary to the hopes and claims of the Judaizers, instead of censoring or correcting Paul's message, they gave him "the right hand of fellowship." This clasping of the right hand signals an official friendship between the two parties.
This in effect puts the Judaizers, who oppose Paul, outside of the apostolic circle and the main thrust of the Christian movement. Thus since Jerusalem agrees with Paul, and Paul disagrees with the Judaizers, this means that the Judaizers are in fact the real deceivers and false teachers, and the enemies of the gospel. By this point in the letter, Paul has provided more than sufficient refutation to all those arguments of the Judaizers that are based on personal attacks, although he will go even further starting from verse 11, which will then lead to his main theological summary and argument.
Nevertheless, contrary to some commentators, there is no indication of a close partnership here. Still more remote is the suggestion that the text balances out the emphasis of Paul's independence in the previous passage. Neither is there any suggestion of "mutual accountability" or direct cooperation. Even if their relationship entails any of this, it cannot be derived from these statements. All that can be inferred from the passage is that they agreed to go their separate ways knowing that they would labor toward the same overall goal.
These errors of interpretation seem to come from a modern philosophy of ministry, taken from recent secular policies regarding business management and human cooperation, and imposed by force upon the biblical text. Theological errors often occur when a non-biblical theory or standard is accepted as "good," and since the Bible teaches that which is "good," it is then assumed that it also endorses this theory or standard. This reverses the proper order. Rather, since the Bible is our ultimate authority, we derive from it our idea of good, and then evaluate any theory or standard by this. And when we do this, we see that the Bible does not teach a rigid principle of "team ministry," or "mutual accountability," and neither does it condemn ministries that exercise some sort of independence from the usual authority structures. Thus we must refrain from making either positive or negative judgments regarding a church, ministry, or person on this basis alone.
These apostles agreed to focus on different parts of the church's overall mission. Christ commanded his disciples to preach to the world, but the commission belongs to the entire church, and not to any one person. Moreover, the work of evangelization consists of more than the act of speaking the gospel. Many related tasks must be done to make it possible and effective. These include the generation and distribution of financial resources, the work of administration, theological research and education, ministries of mercy, and bringing up godly children by their parents in the home. All these and many other factors contribute to the church's overall success in fulfilling Christ's command for spiritual world conquest. And the recognition of this principle is necessary before the church could properly honor the role of each member of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:14-26).
"The poor" in verse 10 probably refers to impoverished Jewish believers, and thus "their poor" in some translations. Many of the Jerusalem Christians lived in abject poverty, due to famine, persecution, and other factors. The second part of the verse seems to exhibit some indignation on Paul's part, as he was already eager to do that "very thing" requested by the apostles. If there is any indication of direct cooperation between Paul and Jerusalem, here it is in verse 10, although the nature of this cooperation would be a different sort than what commentators wish to find, and sometimes illegitimately deduce, from the previous verses. This is not to assert that there is any malice between Jerusalem and Antioch. Rather, the point is that although the passage indicates an essential agreement between the two, it does not offer evidence of an intimate and involved ministry partnership as alleged by some commentators.
Some Comments on Cessationism
When asserting any proposition that is not a first principle of a system, the assertion is either arbitrary, or supported by premises that are stated or assumed. Thus when I make any significant assertion in my writing and teaching, I often refer to the basis for the assertion as well. In an ideal situation, I would set forth this basis as I make the assertion, or I will have already produced an exposition of it elsewhere, so that the basis can be assumed, and perhaps referenced in a footnote. This approach should be acceptable to any reasonable reader.
However, it is often inconvenient or impossible to attain the ideal, in which case I require myself to at least have in mind the reasons for making the assertion as I make it, so that I could present them if necessary. That is, I should at least be satisfied within myself and before God that the statement or position in question is biblical and rational, and that it serves to advance the faith and edify the church to assert it at this time. Then, in cases where I cannot assume for an assertion a basis previously explained and defended because I have yet to set it forth, it is still possible to assume it if it has been produced by others.
When it comes to the manifestations of the Spirit, I have yet to produce a substantial statement of my position and the biblical basis for it. And thus although I have made it clear that I affirm the continuation of the spiritual gifts, and that I in fact regard some cessationists as practical deists, so far I have refrained from making significant theological assertions and applications that assume the continuation of the spiritual gifts. One may consider my Biblical Healing an exception; however, the careful reader will see that there I do not in fact assert my position regarding healing on the assumption of the continuation of the spiritual gifts. Rather, the major assumption there is the absolute sovereignty of God, a doctrine that I have explained and defended at length in a number of places.
I have not invested the time and effort to produce my own exposition on the subject because other projects have taken priority over it. But it is not that I regard it as of secondary importance. In fact, I consider cessationism a shameful, dangerous, and crippling false doctrine. It has inflicted tremendous damage to the cause of Christ, and contributed to the dismal condition of some sectors of the church through history and in the present day. In their own ways, the charismatics and cessationists commit the same basic error, and that is to reject or ignore the application of genuine spiritual manifestations. Contrary to how some people would like to see the debate, neither side is entirely sincere. Just as some charismatics have unbiblical motives for wanting the spiritual gifts to continue, many cessationists hold their position for self-serving motives as well. Is it truly hard to believe that some cessationists prefer their position because of fear and unbelief? There are those who think we should leave such questions out of the debate, but we are investigating the topic as Christians, not as detached academics. Motives must be included in the discussion.
Some (but not all) cessationists have taken extreme abberations as test cases for charismatic teachings and practices. But it certainly does not contribute to sober discussion to use the likes of Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland to determine whether Scripture teaches the continuation of the spiritual gifts. The charismatics might as well use atheists to represent the cessationists, in which case they would win the debate immediately. Instead, there are a number of scholarly resources that refute cessationism, and it is against them that the cessationists must respond. Some examples include Jon Ruthven's On the Cessation of the Charismata, a major part of which is a refutation of Warfield's fantastical arguments, and D. A. Carson's Showing the Spirit, which is an exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Carson is to be commended for his courage in departing from the traditional but obviously anti-biblical exegesis commonly adopted by his colleagues. These works include extensive bibliographies. One may also pursue the works of J. Rodman Williams, Stanley Horton, William Menzies, and so on, but these and other authors are so diverse that I cannot offer a broad endorsement here.
A work that closely resembles my own position, that presents in its own way some of the points that I would raise, and that does this in an accessible format, is Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts by Don Codling, a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and a Presbyterian pastor. If you are going to get only two of the books that I name in this article, get Codling and Ruthven. If you are going to get only one, get Codling. It is not the most substantial work, but all things considered, it is one of the best options for one who cannot afford to read several crates of books on the subject. It shows that not only is there no exegetical basis for cessationism, and that there are biblical reasons to expect the spiritual gifts to continue, but it also brings up what ought to be an obvious point, that the sufficiency of Scripture and the completion of the Canon in fact sustain no necessary connection to the cessation or continuation of the spiritual gifts in the first place. This work serves as an adequate basis to assume the continuation of the spiritual gifts (although there are many others to reinforce it), upon which we may construct other propositions and proposals regarding Christian doctrine and practice. Note that this work does not espouse Grudem's position on prophecy. Indeed, when dealing with false prophecies, it makes a serious and effective use of the power of excommuncation, the kind of stance (regarding excommunication itself, and not just as it applies to false prophets) that I have always asserted, but seldom seen in another writer.
Regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I will not say much here, except to point out two common but unacceptable arguments against the Pentecostal doctrine:
The first one alleges that if the baptism is a blessing or experience separate from regeneration, then this would create two classes of Christians. Grudem's Systematic Theology presents one example of this argument. He correctly points out some illegitimate distinctions, such as the distinction between "disciples" and "believers." But whereas there is solid biblical basis to affirm that all believers are disciples, or they are not believers at all, Grudem presents no satisfactory biblical basis to refute the distinction between those who have and have not been "Spirit-baptized." Putting it next to several false distinctions on a chart does not make this distinction false as well. The argument says that the baptism cannot be a second blessing, since if it is, then there would be two classes of Christians, and we know that there are not two classes of Christians. But this begs the question. Either one must show that there are not two classes of Christians, or the possibility remains that this doctrine proves that there are two classes of Christians. Adding to this the fact that Pentecostals usually teach that this baptism is available to every believer, the objection is rendered almost pointless. Here I do not side with or against the Pentecostal doctrine. I am merely pointing out a bad argument. See Howard Erwin's Spirit Baptism: A Biblical Investigation for a presentation of the Pentecostal doctrine. Another one is Spirit and Power by William and Robert Menzies. Of course, it is possible to affirm the continuation of the spiritual gifts but not the Pentecostal doctrine regarding the baptism. These are related but distinguishable issues.
The second argument against the Pentecostal doctrine is very common and significant, and pertains to a broad heremeneutical principle that extends beyond this debate. And that is, to varying degrees, it is asserted that doctrines are established only by the didactic portions of Scripture and not the narrative portions. But this principle is without biblical warrant and in fact contradicts how the didactic portions in Scripture themselves employ the narrative portions of Scripture. It is one thing to say that it might be more difficult to accurately establish a doctrine based on biblical narratives, so that much more care is required, and another thing altogether to forbid certain uses for these narrative portions, even in the face of contrary biblical examples. For more on this, see Roger Stronstad's The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. He rightly argues that this hermeneutical principle is an implicit denial of the authority of Scripture, or at least some portions of it, and also creates a canon within the Canon. Again, here I am warning against a bad argument rather than siding with either position of the debate on the baptism.
Now, we seek to please God and not men, and it is to him and not men that we are accountable for our beliefs and practices. Under God, there is indeed a relative accountability to men, and so we do explain ourselves and debate the issues. However, this does not mean that we must persuade them before we can decisively hold to our position and apply them in our lives. There are all kinds of reasons why people are not convinced of a true position, such as intellectual deficiencies, self-serving motives, or sometimes just a lack of information. Once a proper biblical basis is established, we must no longer be paralyzed by a persistent disagreement from the other side, but we must follow through with our convictions. In this case, this would mean a full-scale implementation of the spiritual gifts in our lives, churches, and ministries. And thus we must go where they will not follow, as we pray with the early disciples, "Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus" (Acts 4:29-30).
Recommended
Don Codling, Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts
Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata
D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit
Vincent Cheung, Biblical Healing
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers
Charles H. Spurgeon, An All-Round Ministry
Tony Sargent, The Sacred Anointing: The Preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
**