Archive May 2009

You Must Be Born Again

This is a preview of the forthcoming publication, The View from Above. The official release will include explanatory and bibliographical footnotes that are absent from the preview.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.

"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? (John 3:1-10)

When I was in college, I had an economics professor who worked with a prison ministry. One day, as he was making a point about race and economics, he referred to himself as a "born again Christian." Since his topic was not religion but economics, he mentioned that in passing and said nothing more about it. When the class was over, another student walked over to me and suggested that we have lunch at a nearby restaurant, and so we went. I was minding my own business and deciding what I should order when he looked up from his menu and said, "What did he mean by born again?"

Since my food was the will of God, I would have gladly put down my menu to answer his question right away. However, I did not want to disappoint the waitress, so I ordered something sumptuous (I cannot recall what), and then went on to talk to my friend about God, sin, judgment, Christ, the atonement, faith and justification, and of course, the new birth, or what it meant to be born again. As far as I could tell, most of what I said was new to him, and he promised to give our discussion further thought.

This story illustrates my contention that we do not always need to be in a hurry to tell others that we are Christians or to preach the gospel to them. There are those who insist that if you do not make people aware that you are a Christian within several hours, days, or weeks of meeting them, then there is something seriously wrong with you. Perhaps you are ashamed of the gospel, so that you are too afraid to speak about your beliefs. Or, perhaps you are so deficient in your faith that your righteousness fails to overwhelm the unbelievers with the awareness that there is something different about you. Surely, if you are behaving as a Christian should, unbelievers will pick up on this and ask you about it. However, this way of thinking has no biblical warrant, and it is rather naïve and stupid. It betrays a lack of maturity and comprehension about spiritual things.

It is true that the Bible teaches us to be a light in this world by our good works, but it is always assumed that this is accompanied by the preaching of the gospel. It is just not true that if you behave like a Christian should, then unbelievers will automatically pick up on this and ask you about it. This false theory assumes some spiritual sensitivity in the unbelievers, but the Bible teaches that they are spiritually dull. Also, even if a Christian manages to distinguish himself in some situations, there are circumstances that are so ordinary that there is no opportunity for the Christian to naturally distinguish himself. As a whole, the church is to be a light in this world, but it is foolish to think that this can become naturally obvious in every single human relationship or interaction. The Bible never teaches this.

The only reliable way to draw attention to your faith is to bring up the topic and speak about it. And even when it comes to this, there is no rule that requires us to do it as soon as possible after we are first introduced to a person. Of course, in principle a Christian may preach the gospel to anyone at anytime, even to new acquaintances or complete strangers. It is also true that some believers may be too timid to do this, and may search for reasons to excuse themselves. But I am not referring to this aspect of evangelism. There is the issue of boldness, but there is also the issue of wisdom. When you are dealing with someone that you are likely to meet again and again, there is the option to wait until a convenient opportunity comes up to present the gospel.

In this case, I had been friends with this college student for months. I would see him several times a week, but not until that day did our conversation offered such a natural transition to an exposition of the gospel. And because he was the one who brought up the topic, and in such a direct and inquisitive manner, I was able to hold his attention for a great length of time without any protest. One could hardly imagine a more beautiful opportunity to present the gospel than being asked, "What did he mean by born again?" I do not say that you should wait for such a direct invitation. Something like this might never happen, but it remains that some contexts are better than others, some opportunities are superior to others, and some conversations are more easily transformed into religious discussions than others.

Again, a Christian should possess the boldness and the readiness of mind to approach a total stranger with the gospel, or to create the opportunity by forcing a conversation toward the desired direction. This should never been undermined. My point is that there are advantages to waiting for opportunities that enable you to naturally enter the topic. If such an opportunity does not come up, then there is nothing wrong with using a more invasive approach. I am, however, far from advocating a form of "friendship evangelism," where the Christian befriends the non-Christian, and impresses the latter with how normal, sociable, and attractive a follower of Christ can be. The "natural" opportunities that I speak of can occur within the first several seconds of meeting a person, or it might not occur until several months later. In any case, no Christian should be made to feel guilty for not immediately announcing his faith to every person he meets, or for not dazzling an unbeliever with his holiness in a few days, especially if the reason for this is not a lack of boldness and conviction, but wisdom, patience, and faith in divine providence.

The story also illustrates something that is more relevant to our discussion, and it is the fact that not everyone is familiar with biblical concepts that seem commonplace to us. My friend was almost twenty, and was raised in the United States. With so many churches and believers in this country, we might expect someone like this to understand what Christians mean by "born again" even if he does not believe in it. But the truth is that very few unbelievers understand this and other biblical doctrines. Other than outright admission, there are other indications of their ignorance. For example, it is not unusual for a non-Christian to assert that religion should be primarily about unity, tolerance, social justice, good works, and so on. He would speak this way to a Christian without supplying any support and without making any effort to preempt objections, showing no awareness that his statement contradicts what his hearer believes. An unbeliever would often speak this way assuming that the Christian agrees with him.

This indicates that, no matter how wide we think that the biblical worldview has been propagated in Western cultures, it has not penetrated the consciousness of most people. It is not only that they do not believe what we believe, but they are not even aware of what we believe. Furthermore, it is also obvious that even those who identify themselves as Christians often do not know what we think they ought to know. Ask a number of church members what it means to be "born again," and it is almost guaranteed that you will hear many different answers, all of them ridiculous. The idea is not commonplace after all. Now ask the pastors the same question, and it is unlikely that you will get much better results. Of course, one reason for this is that most church members and pastors are not born again. If most people in Western civilizations – if even most "Christians" – do not know what it means to be born again, then we need to make our exposition of the Christian faith much more clear and forceful before the world. We should not assume that people in any part of the world understands even the most basic Christian ideas, including those in our churches and seminaries.

God created man, and called him Adam. He was created upright, but he fell into sin, and sin produced devastating damages to every aspect of man. The moment he transgressed God's command, death came into him. His body began to deteriorate. It would continue to survive for many years, but it eventually expired and returned to dust. The life and light of God dissipated from his soul, and in the place of peace, joy, and clarity of thought came fear, shame, and confusion. Adam was the federal head of all mankind, that is, the representative. Thus when he fell into sin, all of mankind fell with him. Every human person produced since that time would inherit his corrupt nature, and would also come under the judicial condemnation of God.

There is an intellectual and an ethical aspect to the damage inflicted upon the fallen soul of man. We can summarize the condition of every non-Christian with two simple words – he is stupid, and he is sinful.

The non-Christian is stupid. He turns away from God's wisdom in his thinking and attempts to construct his own interpretation of the world using irrational methods such as induction, sensation, and science. He claims to value reason highly, but he is considered rational only by other irrational men. In the intellectual arena, men's credentials come from mutual approval. They refuse to receive the wisdom that comes from God, but instead bands together to build their intellectual Tower of Babel. But under the test of logic, every project crumples to dust. It does not matter what they say about one another. I have no respect for their opinion. Since there is not one non-Christian theory, discovery, or claim to knowledge that I cannot refute in under ten seconds, the only reasonable conclusion is that non-Christians are unintelligent. They are very stupid. Their thinking is characterized by ignorance and irrationality. This is especially pronounced when it comes to spiritual things.

The non-Christian is sinful. To commit sin is to transgress God's moral laws and precepts in any way, whether in one's thoughts, motives, desires, or actions. The Bible, of course, includes many such laws and precepts, and they define for us right and wrong, good and evil, and how to distinguish between them. Even those who have no access to God's verbal revelation, or who reject it, are instinctively aware of some of the broader principles of God's moral code for mankind. These may not be in sharp focus in their thinking. In them they seem more like faint memories, and when they surface, they are usually suppressed, distorted, or explained away.

In the non-Christian man are strong motives, desires, and dispositions toward evil, toward beliefs, thoughts, and actions that are contrary to God's commands. It is not that unbelievers have no concept of morality, but they suppress in their minds what they instinctively know about God and his holiness, and in their wickedness they invent their own standards to replace the precepts of God. In other words, non-Christians call evil that which is good, and call good that which is evil. And they do this so that they can call themselves good even as they perform evil and defy their Creator. Nevertheless, they cannot even live up to the standards that they set for themselves. Thus the non-Christian is an intellectual failure, and he is an ethical failure.

The non-Christian is a defective person. There is something wrong with him. There is not just something wrong with what he thinks or what he does – a person is what he thinks and what he does. There is something wrong with his person, with him – all of him. Every non-Christian is a bad person, a rotten person. He is this way from the moment he is conceived. He is dead on the inside, and dying on the outside. Any religious or philosophical doctrine must be false that denies the true condition of man, that proposes a superficial solution, or that proposes a solution that is powerless to effect the necessary change.

Jesus said that the only solution is for a person to be "born again." The word rendered "again" can also be translated "from above." The Bible teaches both ideas. It refers to the need for regeneration of the soul, and to the "new creation" of the inner man. But in the Gospel of John, a prominent contrast is made between that which is "from above" and that which is "from below." And Jesus referred to his disciples as "not of the world" even though they were still living in the world. So both ideas apply. It is indeed a second birth, but it is not a second natural birth, but a different kind of birth. It is a birth of the spirit, in which God gives divine life to the soul of man, reviving his spiritual senses, enlightening his mind with truth, orienting his dispositions toward righteousness.

Jesus said that unless a man is born again – unless he is born from above, given birth by God in the spirit – he cannot "see" and he cannot "enter" the kingdom of God. The word "see" refers not to sensory perception, but to intellectual perception about spiritual things. That is, unless a man is born from above, he cannot truly grasp the things of God. He cannot understand the truth about God or believe what he has revealed to us. The word "enter" refers to participation. That is, unless a man is born from above, he cannot be a part of God's family of love, truth, and righteousness. A person can become a citizen of God's kingdom only by being born into it. In other words, unless a person is born again, or born from above, he will always be on the opposite side of God, and of all that is good and true.

There is only one Father, he has only one divine Son, and there is only one Holy Spirit. The Father has granted to the Son a fixed number of individuals, chosen before the creation of the world. All who are born again necessarily belong to the Son of God, and indeed all who belong to him will believe on him. We are not born again by believing in Christ, since no one who is still dead in the spirit can believe in the truth. This is man's problem in the first place, and he cannot rescue himself out of it. Rather, all those whom God has chosen belong to Christ, and all who belong to Christ will be born again, and all who are born again will show themselves as such by believing Jesus Christ.

As in natural birth, the spiritual birth is not a work that you perform. It is not something that you do; it is something that God does. It is something that happens to you, that happens in you by God's sovereign decision, and that he causes by the power of his Holy Spirit. And once it happens, you will do what your new spiritual nature dictates. Just as a human person is moved by a natural desire for human food, a child of God has a natural desire – natural as opposed to artificial or pretended – for spiritual food, that is, to consume the word of God and to perform the will of God. It becomes the most natural thing for this person to believe in the truth, to entrust his life and soul to Jesus Christ, and to love and worship God.

This is why all non-Christian religious and non-religious proposals fail. Unless a man is born from above, born of God, he cannot perceive or participate in God's kingdom. But God regenerates only those whom he has chosen in Christ. Therefore, there is no one who is a non-Christian who can say that he is born from above, that he is a child of God. It does not matter what religion he belongs to. It does not matter what philosophy he affirms. It does not matter how much education he has, or how many good deeds he has done. It does not matter if he is strong, wealthy, or clever by the standards of the world – men's approval does not imply God's approval. It does not matter if he claims to search for the truth, yet not by accepting revelation from God, but by utilizing the means that he thinks he has, and that he thinks are reliable, such as his physical senses, inductive reasoning, and the scientific method. It does not matter if he reaches deep within or stretches far beyond for enlightenment. All is futile. Nothing that man can do can make a difference. Only a new creation, a new birth from above can remove man from the kingdom of darkness and place him in the kingdom of light, from the bondage of Satan to the righteous liberty in God.

Most people are not born again, or born from above, and it is often easy to tell who they are. Murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, robbers, deceivers, atheists, agnostics, all those who admit that they are non-Christians, and all those who tolerate or approve of them, as long as they remain such, will certainly not inherit the kingdom of God. The demonic nature is right there on the surface. Some people are not as obvious. It is, in fact, not difficult to see what they are, but clear perception requires us to discard some of our assumptions, and to look pass appearances.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, even one of the Jewish rulers. He was educated in religion according to the standard of men. He admitted that Jesus performed miracles, and that at least on the basis of these miracles, Jesus must have come from God. As a side note, Nicodemus must have been familiar with the record of the false prophets and magicians in Scripture, so he knew that deceivers could produce tricks or miracles. And he realized that the miracles Jesus performed were beyond these – they must have been numerous, spectacular, overwhelming.

Nevertheless, Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and the opinion expressed by Nicodemus fell short of this. Any opinion of God that falls short of seeing him as God falls infinitely short. Just as God is infinitely superior to man, as long as a person judges God to be a mere man, no matter how special a man, this person is wrong by an infinite measure. It should not surprise us that Jesus told him that he must be born again, born from above, in order to perceive and participate in the kingdom of God. No matter how much religious education Nicodemus had, and even though at least a part of that education was sound, he was a man of the world, a man "from below," so that his perception was limited to this perspective.

No matter how religious a person appears to us, and no matter how established he is in religious circles, if he fails to sincerely and intelligently acknowledge that Jesus was and is the Christ, the Son of God, he remains a person of the world, dead in the spirit, and not born from above. Many seminary professors, church leaders, denomination directors, will be thrown straight into hell when they die, not because they are these things, but because they have not been born again. Perhaps they have learned to say the right words, as a parrot imitates its master, but only a born again person can confess the truth with understanding and belief, and afterward grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ, bearing much fruit.

There is another principle, a broader one, that helps us to identify those who are not born again. Many Christians fail to think clearly on this issue, and affirm that a person can acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, but deny the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. But on what basis do these people confess that Jesus is God and Christ? The truth is that the person who denies biblical inspiration and inerrancy is worse than Nicodemus. Of course we cannot say that he truly believed the Scripture until he also believed in what it said about Christ, but at least he affirmed the authority of Scripture in principle. This is more than we can say about those who reject the doctrine. So let us not deceive ourselves and deceive others. A person who is born from above will naturally believe the truth that God has revealed. And since God has revealed truth to us in the Scripture, a born again person will naturally believe the Scripture – all of it – and it follows that he will believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. There is no promise of life for anyone who affirms anything less than this.

When we speak with non-Christians, we must see through appearances and go beyond mere symptoms. Of course, we may begin our approach with any issue that we like or that is convenient. A conversation may begin with food, weather, career, politics, even religion. But very soon we must use it to lead to deeper questions, and especially to draw attention what is wrong with the non-Christians as people. What kind of people would say what they say about food? What kind of people would assume what they assume about the weather? What kind of person would take their view of work, education, parenting, ethics, and so on?

Even when we discuss these topics with them on a superficial level, the conflict of ideas between us should become evident right away. But what are the reasons for the conflict? We provide arguments for these beliefs, and so do they. If we believe in accordance with the Scripture, we will find that our arguments crush theirs every time and on every issue. But they cling to their positions. Why? Why are they so irrational? Why are they so dishonest, so immoral? What kind of people are they? Ah, they are stupid and sinful people. We have come upon it. We have come to the root of the matter – they must be born again, born from above, to even perceive what we perceive, to see the truth that is so clear and simple to us.

When an unbeliever comes to you with an objection or a comment about something that disagrees with the Christian faith, what do you do? Do you answer the objection or respond to the comment, and then stop and wait for the next one? If you have been educated by the Scripture in right beliefs and in the way of right reasoning, then of course you can defeat any objection and address any comment, but you must go further than that. Because the Bible has given you insights about the non-Christian, you understand him better than he understands himself, so it is up to you to push the conversation in a direction that will allow you to tell him what he needs to hear. His hostile objection is just an excuse. His comment – perhaps one that has no apparent relation to religion at all, but that conflicts so much with Christianity – is just a symptom.

There is nothing wrong with the Christian faith. He thinks the way he thinks, and he acts the way he acts, because there is something wrong with him. He is broken, defective, unintelligent, and wicked to the core. He is a stupid and worthless piece of spiritual garbage. He has no redeeming qualities. He must be changed. He must be born again. You need to tell him that. You need to show him that. Of course, I do not say that if you preach the truth to him, then you will cause him to be born again, or that he can decide to be born again. No, that is up to God. But you need to preach the truth to the unbeliever, as a witness against him and as a witness to the truth about God, so that perhaps God may show him mercy and bring conviction to his heart, and convert him through faith and repentance.

So you answer the objection, but you also point out the foolishness of the objection, and then ask, "What kind of person are you, that you would think like this? See, you think you are a smart and rational person, but you are really a stupid and irrational person. But why are you so stupid? Why are you so irrational? Because there is something wrong with YOU. Your stupid objection is a product of sin's effect on the mind, an effect of the fall of man. Only Jesus Christ can save your mind and give you light."

If the unbeliever remains stubborn, even though he has lost the debate, or if his comment, question, or objection has to do with a conflict between Christian and non-Christian ethics, then you should say, "Now I have answered what you said, but what kind of person are you, that you would insist on believing a lie, even though I have refuted you? Why are you so dishonest, although you claim to respect truth and reason? Or, what kind of person are you, that you would think this way, that you should make such a protest, or ask this question? Do you not see it? You are an evil, sinful, rotten person. Why are you so despicable? It is because you were born a child of the devil. But Jesus Christ can save your soul and give you life."

Jesus' teaching that a person must be born from above to perceive and participate in God's kingdom defines the way that we look at the non-Christians, and thus also the way we perform evangelism and ministry. The doctrine requires Christians to stop flattering the unbelievers, and to stop lying to them about their condition. Our debate with unbelievers, and with many of those who call themselves believers, can be reduced to this basic difference – they are from below, but we are from above. So our message to them is not that we are very much the same, only that they are misinformed and misguided, that if they would only hear us out, they could decide to make that slight adjustment and become like us.

Rather, we must tell them, "You have a problem, a big problem. It is not something superficial that you can easily fix. You are ignorant, but you cannot fix this problem by learning a little more information. Your intellect is so broken that you cannot learn what you need to know. You are irrational, but you cannot fix it by gaining more practice or exercising more care in your thinking. Your mind is so confused and stupid that you can never learn the way of right reasoning as long as you remain the person that you are. You are evil, wicked, immoral, and filthy. But you cannot do anything to change that, try as you might. In fact, you are so stupid and sinful that you cannot truly understand what it means to be righteous and how to live up to it. You see, you are the problem. You are not an intelligent person who lacks opportunity. You are not an ethical person who makes mistakes. You are an unintelligent person. You are an unethical person. You need a power that is greater than you and that is outside of you to change you into something else. You must be born again. You must be born from above to see into and to live in the realm of God."

The doctrine also defines how Christians ought to understand themselves. Even before the creation of the world, God chose to justify and to adopt me through Jesus Christ. When I was born, I inherited Adam's corruption in my soul and body, just like everyone else, and shared in the effects that sin produced in the intellectual, ethical, and physical aspects of man. Then, at God's appointed time, his eternal decree regarding my salvation was made manifest, and I was changed. I was born from above. The life of God flooded my soul, and the light of Christ filled my mind, and opened my eyes – that is, my spiritual or intellectual perception – to the truth, and I believed the gospel. The Spirit of God came into me, and testified to me that I was the son of God, and declared to my conscience that I was justified and sanctified in Jesus Christ.

On the outside, I may look like everyone else, since the change was not a physical birth, a birth from below, but it was a spiritual birth, a birth from above. I remain a human person, as non-Christians are also human, but the similarity is only superficial. In the spirit I belong to an altogether different spiritual race, a race that is so much superior in substance – in intellectual capabilities and in ethical dispositions – that it is sometimes difficult to makes satisfactory comparisons. You can compare a man to a dog, but they are so different in some areas that it might not make sense to do so. Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace between men, but that he came to bring a sword that would disrupt even the most intimate relations. Of course, the race of God had been in conflict with the race of Satan since the fall of Adam, but Christ made the divide clearer than ever before.

I am a man from another world. I can comprehend the things of the spirit, and belief in the doctrines of God is natural to me. It does not strain me to believe the truth, because I see truth for what it is, and I can testify to what I perceive in the realm of God. In the natural, I am a descendent of Adam, and I can also grasp all that the non-Christians believe. I know how they think, what they believe, and the reasons that they provide to justify their beliefs and their actions. But I can also see that they are wrong, and I can show how they are wrong, every time. So I am a Christian not because I am ignorant or gullible, or because I do not understand the non-Christians' positions and arguments. I understand them, and I see that they are wrong, but that the faith of Jesus Christ is true. I stand in judgment over the thinking of unbelievers. But the non-Christians cannot rise to my level of thinking and perception, since as Paul wrote, the things of God are spiritually discerned, grasped by a mind that is capable of processing spiritual things.

This birth from above is not a work of man. I did not give birth to myself in the spirit, nor did I cause God to do so. And it did not happen because I deserved it. If I was so good that I deserved regeneration, justification, and adoption, then I would not have needed these things, for I would have been born from above in the first place. No, God decided to adopt me, justify me, and sanctify me in eternity, before the creation of the world, without regard to my faith and conduct. Rather, my faith and good works are the products of his divine decree, not the cause of it. Thus to note my privileges as a believer, as a member of the superior spiritual race, is not to boast about myself, but to boast about the grace and the power of God, and to make nothing more than a factual statement.

This is how every Christian should understand himself. It is astounding that those who claim to be Christians would resist this, and would criticize those who speak like this. Like the Pharisees, hypocrites respect a person after he is dead, and they would practically worship him when it is fashionable to do so, although they would condemn someone who is alive for saying the same thing. This is why I am often criticized by "Christians" for merely repeating the doctrines of the prophets and the apostles, as well as Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, and for teaching them with the same attitude and force. Luther is praised, and Calvin is exalted, but let no one dare repeat what they said!

Thus I cite Spurgeon for their benefit: "What is a Christian? If you compare him with a king, he adds priestly sanctity to royal dignity. The king's royalty often lies only in his crown, but with a Christian it is infused into his inmost nature. He is as much above his fellows through his new birth, as a man is above the beast that perishes." He says it well: The Christian is as superior to the non-Christian as a man is above a brute. This is the teaching of Scripture, and of all those who have respect for God's work in regeneration.

Let us not be hypocrites, but be true to our profession of faith. If we say that we stand with the prophets and the apostles, the Reformers, and the great theologians and preachers of the past, then let us also declare the same doctrines that they taught, in the same boldness of speech with which they declared them to their generations.

Witness and Testimony

This is a preview of the forthcoming publication, The View from Above. The official release will include explanatory and bibliographical footnotes that are absent from the preview.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.

"Come and see," said Philip.

When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."

"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.

Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."

Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." (John 1:6-8, 32-34, 44-49)

John was sent from God "as a witness to testify." Here is another great theme of the Gospel, and it consists of the two ideas of witness and testimony. The witness refers to the person, and the testimony refers to what the person does as a witness. The two ideas are inseparable, and they explain each other. We are interested in what the Gospel means for a person to be God's witness, or one who testifies about the things of God.

The Gospel shows us that a testimony is mainly a verbal statement. Verse 15 reads, "John testifies concerning him….saying." Then, verses 19 and 32 say that he offers his testimony, and this is followed by a record of his verbal statements. Later in 18:37, Jesus tells Pilate, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." He came to testify to the truth, and the nature of his testimony is such that a person would listen to it. His testimony is a verbal statement.

We must add something else to this idea of a witness. John 3:11 says, "I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen." John 3:31-32 gives us something similar: "The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard." A testimony is a verbal statement about what "we know." In other words, a witness is someone who talks about someone or something, and he is supposed to know what he is talking about. He is supposed to be familiar about the truth of the matter.

A testimony is a verbal statement of one's knowledge about someone or something. This knowledge comes from what a person "has seen and heard." We must discuss what this means, since it does not refer to empirical sensations at all. Anyone with theological aptitude should immediately detect this – the truth is staring you in the face in John 3:31-32 – but we will take some time for it to make sure. In any case, we must first complete this part of the discussion by considering whether there is such a thing as a non-verbal witness or testimony.

There is a sense in which something non-verbal can function as a testimony. However, something like an item, an event, or an action can be a testimony only as a symbolic gesture that represents a verbal statement.

For example, when a nation lands on the moon, its representatives (the astronauts) plant a flag on the ground. The flag serves as a witness and offers a testimony. But in itself the flag means nothing and says nothing. Rather, it is only a symbol or a sign that represents a testimony the content of which can only be expressed in an abundance of words. In this case, the testimony might include the ideas, "We were here," or "We have achieved this level of technological development," or "This is proof of our determination and intelligence." The flag might represent all of these ideas. In fact, notice that as long as its meaning is not defined by words, it remains ambiguous. One might just as easily interpret it to mean, "This is proof of humanity's vainglory, for we would devote millions of dollars to shoot ourselves out into space when we cannot even take care of the problems on earth."

Likewise, a flag on Mount Everest might mean, "This is proof of our resolve, stamina, and achievement." But I might interpret it to mean, "This is proof of your futile life and selfish attitude, since you were willing to risk your own life and part with your loved ones just to show that you can do something so foolish and useless." What does the flag mean? No one can tell unless it is explained by a verbal statement either before or after the fact.

A non-verbal witness "speaks" only in a symbolic manner that awaits verbal interpretation, so even a non-verbal witness presupposes a verbal testimony. This is how we are to understand biblical passages that refer to non-verbal witnesses such as the works of Christ. For example, Jesus says that the "work" that the Father has given him to perform "testifies" that the Father has sent him (John 5:36). But this testimony makes sense only because an entire theology, verbally expounded, is presupposed. That is, the ideas of "Father" and "sent," and the principle that his "work" authenticates his commission, are not conveyed by the actions themselves.

Elsewhere, Jesus says, "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves" (14:11). Again, to believe because of the miracles presupposes the verbal assertions and explanations; otherwise, one would not know what to believe because of the miracles. When Jesus says to believe because of the miracles, he means to believe what the people might refuse to believe without the miracles. That is, verbal assertions and explanations have been made prior to and apart from the miracles. To paraphrase, Jesus is saying, "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me on the evidence of the miracles themselves." Or, "If you do not believe my words just because I spoke them, then believe my words because I perform miracles." This is why the Gospel often calls his miracles "signs," since they are historical events that symbolize and authenticate the verbal testimonies about Jesus Christ.

An essential characteristic of biblical testimony is that it is never truly based on human sensation or observation, even when the testimony comes from so-called "eyewitnesses." Almost any instance in the Bible of anyone testifying to anything about God will serve as an example, and a person who reads through the Gospel of John will encounter many of these. For now we will limit ourselves to illustrations drawn from the present context.

In 1:15, John the Baptist testifies, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me." Whether he refers to a metaphysical or chronological priority, since the Christ would be an incarnation of deity, or to a superiority of rank or status, since the Christ would be greater than any prophet, the "before" in "he was before me" cannot come from any empirical sensation or inference from observation, for the simple reason that this "before" was not anything that could be physically seen, heard, or observed. In fact, based on verses 31 and 33, at this point John the Baptist might not even know the human identity of the Christ. It was certainly impossible for him to have drawn the inference that the Christ was metaphysically prior or spiritually superior based on empirical observation.

Then, in 1:29, John sees Jesus and says, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" First, it was impossible for anyone to know that Jesus was the Christ just by looking at him. Otherwise, Jesus would have exhibited essential differences from the rest of humanity even in his appearance, which would be contrary to the testimony of Scripture. In addition, if it could be known that Jesus was the Christ just by looking at him, then John the Baptist would not have needed to say anything. In fact, a major part of his ministry would have been unnecessary. Second, it was also impossible for anyone to know that Jesus was "the Lamb of God" and that he came to take away the sin of the world" by seeing, hearing, or observing him. These statements are rich with theological content that had no necessary relation to the physical appearance of Jesus. Verse 31 states the reason for John the Baptist's ministry. This was part of his testimony, and it was also something that could not be inferred from sensation or observation.

Again, 1:32 states that John gave a testimony, and he said, "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him." Did other people see the dove? If not, then what John saw was not physical, not public, and not perceived by physical sight. But if other people also saw the dove, did they know that they were looking at the Spirit, or just a dove like any other dove? If they did not know that they were looking at the Spirit, then John the Baptist perceived something additional, or rather the true nature of the matter beyond the appearance of the dove, and again the knowledge was not derived from physical sight or sensation. And if all could see the dove, and all knew that they were looking at the Spirit, then this just means that all perceived something deeper than the appearance of the dove, since all other doves were only doves. True knowledge of the situation, then, was not only beyond the appearance or what was perceived by the physical senses, but it was other than what was perceived by the physical senses.

Verse 33 tells us the basis of John's knowledge and testimony: "I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me…told me." That is, John the Baptist testified on the basis of revelation. He did not testify on the basis of anything that he had seen and heard in the physical sense, but on what he had seen and heard in the spiritual sense.

When we return to 3:31-32, cited earlier, this principle is even more clear: "The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard." Jesus came from heaven and testified about God and the things of God, or what he had "seen and heard." But in this same Gospel Jesus states that "God is spirit" (4:24). He is not a physical object that can be perceived by the physical senses. Also, Jesus indeed came from heaven and took up a human body, but before this he did not have this physical body, and thus he did not have physical sense organs by which to perceive anything in the physical or empirical sense. Thus when the Gospel says that he testified of what he had "seen and heard" in heaven, it cannot be referring to physical or empirical perception, but only spiritual or intellectual perception.

This is true in every instance where the Bible states that a person provides a true testimony about God or spiritual things. It is never a reference to something that is based on the physical or empirical, even when seeing and hearing are mentioned. Rather, in every case, the person obtained or applied a spiritual insight or perception based on revelation. This sometimes occurs in conjunction with or on the occasion of a physical sensation, but the knowledge that is claimed and expressed in the testimony is never derived from or dependent on sensation.

This principle is essential to the foundation of the Christian faith. It was the operating principle by which all the prophets testified about God and the Christ who was to come. They testified according to knowledge, but the basis of this knowledge was revelation, and never sensation or inference from sensation. And when the Christ had come, this was the operating principle by which all the disciples recognized Jesus for who he was, even God in the flesh. This is evident in our text. Jesus called Nathanael "a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false." God was already at work in him. And when Jesus demonstrated supernatural insight, Nathanael responded, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

The passage forbids us to think that he reacted this way due to a gullible personality or a lack of intelligence, since only a few verses earlier, Nathanael was in a skeptical state of mind, asking with a tone of sarcasm, "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Rather, the heart of this "true Israelite" perceived Jesus for who he was upon meeting him. But his perception was not based on an empirical evaluation, nor was it inferred from what he saw, since at first Jesus did not demonstrate any power that was vastly superior to the prophets of old, yet the prophets were not perceived to be Messiahs. Jesus himself noted to him that afterward he would indeed see "heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

That is, the things that Nathanael was going to witness would catch up to his spiritual perception of Jesus, and not that his perception of Jesus would grow by greater and greater demonstrations of power and glory until he reached the conclusion that he was the Son of God. Indeed, if spiritual insight is limited to empirical sensation and inferences from it, then even if sensation is reliable (which the Bible denies), it would take nothing less than a show of omnipotence, perhaps the creation of a new universe, to demonstrate that Jesus was deity, the Son of God. However, even creation does not require omnipotence, but only great power. In any case, knowledge is available through more ready and reliable means, that is, by revelation.

The Gospel is careful to assert and reinforce this principle again and again, because it is also essential to the perpetuation of the Christian faith. As Jesus says near the conclusion of the Gospel, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Faith is intelligent assent to revelation, and any kind of faith must transcend sensation. The kind of faith that rests on the testimony of revelation apart from sensation altogether is not only the same, but it is superior, and more blessed.

If God's witness is one who has spiritual perception and who perceives revelation for what it is, as the truth of God, then he has knowledge of God and the things of God whether or not this knowledge is associated with any physical sensation or empirical verification. And he is able to provide a reliable testimony about God and the things of God when he speaks on the basis of his knowledge, based on and derived from divine revelation. That is, if knowledge refers to the mind's grasp of revelation, then even those who have not been with Christ in the flesh can be true witnesses for him – as the prophets who lived before his incarnation, and as we who have believed after his ascension.

The first disciples indeed saw Jesus with their physical sight, but they did not perceive who he was because of their physical sight. Rather, they were granted spiritual perception as to who he was, that he was God, man, and the Christ. As I contemplate the testimony of revelation about him, perhaps on the occasion of perusing the pages of Scripture, the Spirit grants me the same perception of the truth, that Jesus was the Christ, that he was God incarnate, that he died for my sins, and that he was raised for my justification. The Spirit enables my mind to perceive the living Christ now on the basis of revelation, so that I have a firsthand perception of him and a firsthand relationship with him. I truly know him, and I can testify about him with knowledge and conviction.

Is this true of you? Do you have the spiritual perception that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? Do you have the intellectual understanding that to believe in him is life eternal? And is divine revelation the basis of this perception or this understanding? Has the Spirit enabled your mind to grasp and affirm these things apart from sensation? If so, then you have true knowledge about the Lord Jesus, and you are a legitimate witness for him. You can invite people to "come and see," not in the physical or empirical sense, but to examine the testimony of revelation, so that the Spirit might grant them belief and insight into the truth about Jesus Christ. You have true knowledge about the Lord Jesus. You can provide reliable testimony that he is God, that he came to the earth in the flesh, that he died for the sins of those who would believe, and that anyone who believes in him has eternal life – he will inherit everlasting joy and glory, and a place at the Master's table.

Light and Darkness

This is a preview of the forthcoming publication, The View from Above. The official release will include explanatory and bibliographical footnotes that are absent from the preview.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:5, ESV)

The Gospel of John is a history of some of the things that were said and done when the incarnate Son of God walked the earth. It is a true testimony about past events, but more than an account of events, it is also a testimony about the meaning and significance of these events. It states the correct interpretation of the events described.

To illustrate, in John 12:27-30 a noise sounded from heaven. That was the event. Some of those in the crowd thought it had thundered, while others said that an angel had spoken. Perhaps this was so beyond the expectation of some of the people that they could not believe it. The confusion demonstrates that sensations are unreliable, and serves as an inspired example against empiricism. Nevertheless, some of them thought that they heard words, that an angel had spoken.

In contrast, John is able to provide an accurate and thorough interpretation of the event. First, he gives us the context. Jesus was praying to the Father, who responded with an audible voice from heaven. Second, John also tells us the meaning and significance of the event. Spoken words are noises, but they are noises intelligently arranged in a manner that convey meaning. John records for us not only the fact that noises were heard, but the words that the Father spoke from heaven. Then, he also tells us the reason for the event, as Jesus gave the explanation that the voice was not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the crowd that was present.

The Gospel of John is not an account of bare events, as in "A noise came from the sky," but an interpretation of the events, as in "The Father spoke from heaven for the benefit of the crowd in response to Christ's prayer." The Gospel does this for the person, work, and doctrine of Christ by presenting in this manner selected episodes from his life, beginning from the pre-incarnate Logos of God. This interpretation of the Christ necessarily goes beyond the observation of the senses, and beyond strict inferences from observable events.

When I say that revelation goes "beyond" the observation of the senses, I do not mean that they are on the same path, only that revelation completes what sensation started. No, I mean that revelation contains a higher kind of information than what sensation can obtain even if we regard sensation as reliable. But sensation is unreliable, and revelation has no necessary relationship with it. Rather, revelation is an entirely different way of knowing, and the only reliable way.

For this reason, it is no exaggeration to say that, logically speaking, one cannot be an empiricist and a believer at the same time. This is because the empiricist cannot know anything, and he cannot believe anything. This includes those who claim to hold revelation as the first principle of their worldview, but then insist that the reliability of sensation is the precondition for any access to revelation in the first place. In reality, then, the reliability of sensation is their first principle. Despite their pretensions, they are nothing more than empiricists, because if they make empiricism their starting point, then they can never be anything other than empiricists. Logically, they cannot be Christians, although we can take the route of charity and assume that these people are inconsistent with their own philosophy. Nevertheless, since they seem to insist that they are intellectually competent and thus alert to the implications of their epistemology, this route is chosen by force out of a reluctance to condemn them.

John is fond of using certain devices and terms to communicate what he wants us to know about Jesus Christ. As he reminds us, Jesus said and did many things. Although all four Gospels record the truth about Christ's words and deeds, none can record all of them. So when we perceive that there are certain features that seem peculiar to this Gospel, it is because John focuses on these aspects of Christ. Two rhetorical devices that frequently occur in this Gospel are contrast and symbolism (imageries, figurative language, etc.), and they are often used together, so that many contrasts are made by symbolic language. This is in turn associated with the people's misunderstanding or lack of understanding of these symbolic expressions, thus highlighting their spiritual obtuseness.

There are many examples, but a brief mention of a few of them will help you understand what I am talking about. When Jesus said that a person must be "born again," he was referring to something spiritual. But Nicodemus could not grasp this and processed it the only way he knew how, by thinking that Jesus was referring to a second natural birth, which of course, did not make sense to him. Then, when Jesus offered "living water" to the Samaritan woman, she thought that he was referring to natural, physical water. After that, when Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, those who heard him failed to perceive the spiritual meaning in this, and thus were offended. Jesus brought a revelation "from above," and at times used imageries to communicate spiritual truth. But the people who were "from below," as long as they failed to rise above their earthly mentality, could not perceive his meaning.

In connection with this, I should also mention that John relates the miracles of Jesus as "signs" that illustrate spiritual truths. Of course, when he tells us about the miracles that Jesus did, those miracles really happened. For example, Jesus healed a blind man in John 9. That really happened in the sense that the man was physically blind – he could not see – but afterward, he could. It was a public and physical miracle of healing. However, the healing was then used to illustrate something about spiritual blindness. There are numerous such examples.

Some people might find it strange and incredible that the characters in the Gospel failed to understand what might appear to us as simple symbolic expressions. However, one reason they seem straightforward to us is because of the deep influence that the Christian faith has had in our language and culture. We are not in the exact position as those who heard them the first time. Those who have not been immersed in a Christian influenced background might not find the expressions so easy to understand. As Christian categories and expressions lose their former hold in society, the people will also lose their understanding of the imageries in Scripture. That said, even those who seem to have a Christian influenced background often do not understand nearly as much as we might expect. This includes those who claim to be Christians. Ask ten people in your church what it means to be "born again." Happy are you, if you are in a church where more than one out of ten can give the correct answer.

It may seem to some people that the use of symbolic imageries and expressions render the Gospel's meaning a matter of subjective interpretation. This is not the case at all, since the Gospel itself explains the symbolic expressions that it uses. When the Gospel talks about water, light, death, and so on, it tells you what these things mean. So there is no need to resort to your imagination to determine the meaning of an expression, or to make it mean something other than what is intended by the Gospel. We can have a definite and accurate grasp of what the Gospel communicates.

A prominent and recurring contrast that John puts forth at the beginning of his Gospel is the one between light and darkness. The Word, or Jesus Christ, was the light, and he came into a world characterized by darkness. Although Jesus was the light in a unique sense, this set of contrast is applied also between those who follow him and those who do not. Thus Paul calls believers "children of the light." And when he cautions against improper relations with unbelievers, he writes, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?" In other words, Jesus Christ is the "true light," and Christians are also called "light" in a derivative sense. The rest of the world, including all non-Christians, are called darkness.

The dualistic nature of the contrast offers instructive implications. First, it divides the world into two groups. This means that there is more than one, and not everyone belongs to the same group. We are not all the children of God. We are not all one big family. And we will not all live happily ever after together. There are spiritual charlatans who deceive many into thinking that we all belong to the light. But even the light that they speak of is nothing but darkness. Remember, even Satan can make himself appear as an angel of light in order to deceive and to mislead. This is why John says that Jesus Christ is the true light.

Then, the dualistic contrast also means that there are not many groups. No matter how people identify and distinguish themselves, in the end there are only two groups, or two kinds of people. You belong to one or the other. You cannot say that you do not like either one, or that both are too extreme, so that you will join a third, or a fourth, or still some other. If you are not a Christian, you are a non-Christian, no matter what you call yourself as a non-Christian. It does not matter whether you are an atheist non-Christian, a Muslim non-Christian, a Catholic non-Christian, or a Buddhist non-Christian. In the end, you are all the same.

As a symbolic term, light is used in an intellectual sense and in an ethical sense. When used in the intellectual sense, it represents wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and clear mental perception. When used in an ethical sense, it represents righteousness, holiness, clean living and transparent lifestyle. In some contexts, both senses are intended at the same time. Accordingly, in the intellectual sense, darkness represents foolishness, ignorance, and a mind that is dull and blind. And in the ethical sense, it represents unrighteousness, all kinds of evil and filth, and shameful living.

Of course, Christ, the Logos, the true light, represents both wisdom and holiness in the most perfect and complete way. He is the very definition of intelligence and righteousness. And these are the qualities that should be exhibited by his followers. In contrast, all non-Christians are characterized by darkness – they are stupid and evil, irrational and unrighteous. This is the contrast that John makes again and again in his Gospel, and it also frequently appears in other parts of Scripture.

Some Christians deny both aspects of the contrast, but it is doubtful that these people are Christians at all, since such a denial reflects a lack of understanding or acceptance of the basic claims concerning the necessity and efficacy of the work of Christ. Then, there are some who acknowledge the ethical aspect of the contrast, but they tend to neglect or undermine the intellectual aspect. This is also very dangerous. The Bible teaches about this aspect of the non-Christian's condition in explicit terms and with numerous illustrations. To deny or ignore this would render much of the Bible nonsensical, and would amount to a rejection of the biblical doctrine on the fall of man and a repudiation of the work of Christ in redemption. If you do not affirm that all non-Christians are both stupid and sinful, both unintelligent and unrighteous, and if you do not affirm that Christians are made wise and holy in Christ, then you should examine yourself to see if you truly grasp or believe the gospel.

There are those who call themselves Christians, but who criticize this kind of talk as unkind. Now, if you refuse to say that all non-Christians are sinful, then you are not even a Christian. You are just a non-Christian criticizing the Christian faith as an outsider. However, if you say that all non-Christians are sinful, but refuse to also say that they are stupid, although this is also the clear teaching of Scripture, then you are at least a hypocrite. Who told you that non-Christians are intelligent? The Bible calls them fools. You have been deceived by the non-Christians, who present themselves to you as intelligent. As for me, I am not ashamed of the gospel, for through faith in Christ, I am saved from both intellectual and ethical darkness. The God who said "Let there be light" at the time of creation has caused the light of Christ to shine in me also. He removed me from the kingdom of darkness and placed me into the kingdom of his Son. This is what happens at conversion. This is what it means to become a Christian.

Our verse says that "the darkness has not understood" (NIV) the light. The verb can refer to grasping with the mind, but also to seizing something to overcome it. Thus some translations say "the darkness has not overcome" the light. Some commentators argue for one or the other, while others suggest that the ambiguity is deliberate. Both aspects of the conflict between light and darkness will play out before us in the course of the Gospel's narrative of Christ. They correspond to the intellectual and ethical emphases I just mentioned.

Non-Christians are unintelligent. Although their intellectual defect applies to all areas of their thinking, it is most evident when they are asked to engage in spiritual discussions. They fail to understand even the most basic spiritual concepts, and the more they try to argue against the truth, the more foolish they appear. They are also unrighteous, so that they would not only resist the light in thought and speech, but also in their actions and policies. The Gospel shows us that they would go so as far as to murder the Lord Jesus.

Of course, these two distinguishable factors in non-Christians are nevertheless inseparably related. Their lack of wisdom contributes to their evil nature and perpetuates it, and their evil nature maintains their prejudice against the truth. It is most important that we acknowledge this conflict, that there is this necessary hostility between Christians and non-Christians, and also the dual nature of this conflict, that it entails the intellectual and the ethical. This is necessary for a proper understanding of the Gospel of John, as well as for a proper understanding of our conflict with the world.

Non-Christians are stupid, so they do not understand what we say, and they do not perceive that we are right. All of their arguments and refutations are foolish and irrational. And they are sinful, driven by their wicked dispositions, so that when they cannot refute us, they persecute us. But our verse says that the darkness has not overcome the light. The light always wins, and it always wins just by being what it is. However, this does not mean that light is passive, since it always attacks darkness. It does this naturally, actively, and constantly. Light is always invading darkness, always destroying darkness. It attacks just by shining. This is what Jesus came to do, to destroy the works of the devil. And this is what Christians should do by their very nature as the children of the light.

In one of his sermons, George Whitefield said, "It is very remarkable, there are but two sorts of people mentioned in scripture: it does not say that the Baptists and Independents, nor the Methodists and Presbyterians; no, Jesus Christ divides the whole world into but two classes, sheep and goats: the Lord give us to see this morning to which of these classes we belong. But it is observable, believers are always compared to something that is good and profitable, and unbelievers are always described by something that is bad, and good for little or nothing." Let me restate this. There are only two kinds of people: Christians and non-Christians. The Bible always describes the non-Christians as bad and good for nothing.

If this is still unclear, let me say it again. If you are a non-Christian, the Bible likens you to trash to be burned at the dump. You think you are smart? You are stupid. You think you are useful? You are worthless. You think you have value and significance? You are a piece of human garbage. Jesus compares you to weeds among wheat. You are nothing but a parasite, a hindrance to all that is good and fair. You contribute nothing worthwhile to humanity. Once I was like you, but Jesus Christ rescued me from the garbage dump, and made me a prince and a servant in his kingdom. But my status is derived. Even now, without Jesus Christ, I would have nothing, I would be nothing. I would be filthy like you, useless like you. Jesus Christ is your only hope. He is anyone's only hope. Believe and be saved. Disbelieve and be damned.

This sort of preaching is unforgivable today. This is often the case even among those who identify themselves as Evangelical or Reformed, who complain about the diluted gospel of seeker-friendly churches, and who with great passion urge believers to preach the word of God. Well, this is the word of God. Are you going to preach it or not? Or are you going to suppress the truth under the guise of social civility and academic courtesy? And are you going to support me when I preach like this? Or are you going to distance yourself from me, or even criticize and persecute me? If you oppose what I preach and the way I preach it, then you are nothing but a hypocrite. You say you preach the gospel, but you refuse to tell the truth about mankind, and about the necessity and the power of Christ for salvation to anyone who believes.

You say that we must answer the world with gentleness and respect, but you allow the world to define these virtues for you. Then you criticize me for ignoring this unbiblical standard, even this pagan ethic. I am suspicious of you. It is as if you have never read the Bible or the prominent preachers that you claim to admire and follow, or it is as if you have never paid attention. Have you read the preaching of Elijah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Peter, Paul? Have you read the sermons of Augustine? Calvin? Luther? Whitefield? You are the one who is out of line. You are the reason why the church is weak and unfocused. You are like the Pharisees who would polish the tombstones of dead prophets, but who would have murdered them with their bare hands if they had lived when they prophesied.

The Christian faith teaches that all non-Christians are intellectually feeble and ethically bankrupt, and it teaches this in vivid terms. This is how the Logos sees the world. If you do not acknowledge this and align yourself with it, then you cannot understand redemption and conversion. You do not understand the gospel. How then can you claim to believe it? How can you claim to preach it? Do you even like the Christian faith, or is your faith in Christ just a big misunderstanding? What, have I made you angry? What are you going to do about it? Are you going to throw the Bible at me? Which one? The real one, or the romanticized version of it that exists only in your imagination?

Jesus and Reason

This is a preview of the forthcoming publication, The View from Above. The official release will include explanatory and bibliographical footnotes that are absent from the preview.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. (John 1:1, 9)

The Greek word translated "Word" in John 1:1 is Logos. There has been some debate as to what John has in mind when he refers God the Son with this term. Some of the Greeks regarded the Logos as the rational principle of the universe. It provided the structure that held everything together and regulated the operation of all of reality. It was this same principle that instilled reason in man, and provided him the ability to think, to distinguish, and to make deductions.

The question is whether John has this Greek Logos in mind when he applies the term to the Son of God. Some are concerned that, if this is admitted, then it would appear as if John is borrowing a Greek concept for use on something so fundamental to the Christian faith as the nature of Christ. Others suggest that John could not have the Greek Logos in mind since there are major differences between the Logos in John's Gospel and the Logos in Greek thought. To the Greeks, the Logos was not a personal entity, and they would have rejected the idea that the Logos could take up a human nature and walk among us.

Both of these objections are inadequate and inconclusive. Even if John has the Greek Logos in mind as he writes, it does not mean that his Logos is an adaptation from Greek thought, but it could be an answer to it. To illustrate, I could take the Chinese idea of "the King of Heaven" and use that as my starting point to speak about the Christian God. Whether or not that is advisable is a separate question, but it is possible, as long as I note the differences and add those things that are lacking along the way. I would not be borrowing the very idea of God from the Chinese, but using my existing understanding of God to correct their conception. And so, that the Greeks did not conceive of a personal Logos that could be made flesh has no relevance to the question. John could be asserting that God the Son is the reality of which their Logos is but a dim reflection, and along with this he introduces the idea that the Logos is in fact personal, and even had come in the flesh.

One proposed alternative is that John has in mind not the Greek Logos, but the "Word" or "Wisdom" in the Old Testament and Jewish literature. This "Wisdom" is said to be with God since the beginning, and is said to be an agent in the creation of all things. Thus there appears to be more similarities between this and the Logos in John's Gospel. However, we must not overstate the implication of this observation. The fact that the "Word" in John's Gospel may have more similarities with the Jewish "Wisdom" than the Greek "Logos" is no necessary indication that John must have in mind the Jewish Wisdom rather than the Greek Logos, or the Jewish Wisdom to the exclusion of the Greek Logos. It remains possible that John has the Greek Logos in mind, or that he has both the Jewish Wisdom and the Greek Logos in mind, or that he has neither one in mind.

The issue is of secondary importance, since what this Gospel and the rest of the New Testament say about Jesus Christ retain a complete and inflexible meaning regardless of any Jewish or Greek context in John's mind. Nevertheless, the debate brings our attention to the question of who or what Jesus was in relation to the creation and the operation of the universe, and to the rational nature of man. Does the Logos order and control the universe? Is it the Logos that enables man to think and to reason? We can understand the nature of the Logos from the teachings of the New Testament alone.

By the rational principle of the universe, we mean the intelligence that determines the structure of creation, and the power that regulates its operation. We refer to the Wisdom that conceives the design and the nature of all the various object in creation, and the Power that maintains the relationships between these objects. We find that Christ meets this description. Paul writes, "For by him all things were created…all things were created by him and for him…and in him all things hold together…in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 1:16-17, 2:3). Then, we read in Hebrews 1:3, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." And back in John's Gospel: "In him was life, and that life was the light of men…the true light that gives light to every man" (1:4, 9).

Thus with a few words Christ is said to fulfill the entire conception of the Greek Logos, and even exceeds it, in that he is a person. If Logos is Reason, then Christ is Reason personified. And the Word made flesh was Reason incarnate. Again, Scripture says that all wisdom and knowledge are in him, and it says that all things were created by him, and that he is the one who sustains creation. Notice that it does not only say that he created and now sustains the universe, but that he is characterized by "wisdom and knowledge." So whether we call him Reason, or Wisdom, or Knowledge, Christ is the divine Mind or Intelligence that created and now sustains the universe. He fulfills and exceeds the Greek Logos, and he is what he is regardless of the Greek Logos, or whether we have any contact with Greek thought. It is entirely legitimate to call him Mind, or Intelligence, or Reason.

So, does John have in mind the Greek Logos? It does not matter. But is God the Son the rational principle of the universe? Yes, he is. This makes Jesus Christ the incarnation of supreme intelligence, and of wisdom and reason. Therefore, the disciples of Christ are rationalists in the highest sense of the word. Christians are the disciples of Reason. His revelation is our first principle, and our knowledge comes from valid deductions from it. Although he satisfies the idea of Reason, and although Scripture asserts that he is the Mind that created and now sustains the universe, some refuse to acknowledge this for fear that it would appear as if we are appealing to or agreeing with Greek thought. But this is to spit on Christ to spite the Greeks. It does not matter what the Greeks thought. And outside of the Old Testament, it does not matter what the Jews thought. The New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is Reason, Mind, Wisdom, and Intelligence.

Reason, then, is the way God thinks. This is reflected in the order and design of the universe, and in the ability in man to engage in logical thought. Thus when "reason" is used in a sense that is void of content, it amounts to the bare laws of logic. That is, reason without content refers to logic. When content is included, it refers to God's mind, part of which has been revealed to us through the Scripture. That is, reason with content refers to truth. And we have been enabled to think like him by the regeneration and illumination of the Spirit. As Christians, we can think according to Logic – the structure of God's thought. And with logic, we can understand, process, and apply Truth – the content of God's thought.

Let us consider some of the implications.

Since Jesus is Reason, we should exalt Reason to the highest place. It is a testimony to the success of Satan's deception that Christians have an almost superstitious fear of reason. Part of this is due to unnecessary and inaccurate definitions. One use of the word assumes an exclusion of religion or revelation. But as you can see by the way we defined reason above, the rejection of religion or revelation is an unnecessary addition to the bare idea of reason. Another use of the word has it refer to the human ability to think or to discover. But such a meaning carries with it a huge baggage that has been smuggled in without warrant, and not by logical or linguistic necessity.

If reason is necessarily associated with anti-biblical thought, then of course we should be wary of it. But our discussion should have eliminated all doubt that reason belongs to us, and if there is any remaining reservation, we should learn to get over it. I could use the word "wisdom" and refer to the same thing. The word is sufficient. For example, I could say that Jesus is Wisdom, and therefore we must serve God in a manner that follows and applies wisdom. For this statement, I would mean approximately the same thing whether I use the word "mind," or "wisdom," or "intelligence." But I would choose to use the word "reason" even when I do not have to, because Christians have such a hang-up over it, and I hope that by rubbing it in their faces, I will help them get over it. It is a good word, and not to be hijacked by the unbelievers so that they may gloat over us with it.

The typical discussion on the relationship between faith and reason is misguided. Given what we have said above, we must reject proposals like faith against reason, or faith with reason, or faith beyond reason. In these proposals, the loaded version of reason is referred to, that is, one that is inseparably tied to man's ability to think apart from revelation. But we must reject this loaded meaning, and rather use the word in a way that is consistent with our own worldview, which would equate faith with reason. In fact, anything that does not make faith and reason identical must be false. The only legitimate conception on the relationship between faith and reason is that faith is reason.

You say, "Reason is limited." But God's reason is not limited. Stop using yourself as the reference point for everything in the universe, and you shall greatly expand your mental horizon, and the scope of your intellectual perception. For me, it would make no sense to say that God is beyond reason, since to me that would mean that God is beyond himself, or beyond his own ability to think. My view of reason leaves man's ability far behind, because it is a baggage that I have no obligation to accept regarding my use of this word or idea. If God can reason, and if God is reason, then the word does not have to be reduced to man's ability to think.

Another implication is that we must serve God with our thinking, with the utmost care and diligence in the use of reason. Consider what this means to our theology, preaching, education, and so on. We could spend many hours discussing these positive implications of the Christian's affinity to Reason; however, since we must mention a few other implications, I will leave it to you to spend more time thinking about how the proper use of reason should promote the health and soundness of Christian faith.

When God created man, he breathed life into him, and gave him a rational spirit. After man rebelled against God, the corruption of sin inflicted severe damage to his mind, including his desire and his ability to think in accordance to reason, to logic and to truth. This explains why non-Christians are very stupid. Any non-Christian of any period, any place, and any persuasion, can be easily defeated by a proper use of reason. There is no non-Christian view on any subject in all of human history that can withstand more than several seconds of logical analysis. And it takes several seconds because we are often too slow.

Nevertheless, the non-Christian has not turned into an animal. There remains a spark of reason in him, albeit something that is but a faint shadow of intelligence. This is why non-Christians, although they are very stupid, usually do not roam the hills like wild beasts, or randomly urinate on the streets, or babble nonsense and foam at the mouth while blankly staring at the sky. God preserves their ability to function for his own purposes – for the glory of his name and the good of his elect.

Even Satan can appear as an angel of light, but his light is one that blinds the judgment of man, and not one that guides him to the truth. The non-Christians are like their father, the devil. Instead of using the feeble intellect that remains in them to cry out to God for illumination and forgiveness, they use it to construct alternate interpretations of the world and of reality, and to conspire against the Lord and his people. Empirical science is one of the more prominent examples in our day. Non-Christians think that by seeing, touching, and experimenting, they can infer true information about reality. But sensation is unreliable, induction is fallacious, and the scientific method is merely a systematic way to repeat the unreliable and the fallacious over and over again. Yet, men think that this is the pinnacle of intellectual development, the surest and fairest way to discover truth!

Jesus is the Lord of Reason. He is the light of the mind. Although by his own decree, sin has darkened the intellect of man, by his power and for his purpose, he preserves a spark of reason in the non-Christian. But he can snuff out even this tiny intelligence whenever he wishes, as he did for a time in Nebuchadnezzar, so that his sanity was taken away from him. He became like an animal, and was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle (Daniel 4:29-37). On the other hand, in those whom he has chosen for salvation and whom he causes to believe his word, he kindles this spark of intelligence into a mighty blaze, flooding their minds with light – with clarity of mind, depth of thought, and grasp of the truth.

Jesus is my Reason. He is my wisdom, my truth, my sanity. Without him I am lost – no, not just lost to hellfire, but to foolish beliefs and irrational assumptions. By his grace, he has filled my mind with light, with true information and clear perception. His thoughts were not my thoughts, and his ways were not my ways. His thoughts were so far above mine as the heavens were above the earth. But he has changed me – I have been born again, this time, born from above. Now his thoughts have become my thoughts, and his ways have become my ways. Now I can grasp the heavenly philosophy, the thoughts from above, in a clear, precise, univocal manner. There are some who count themselves unworthy of this blessing, who refuse to enter and who prevent others to enter. But this is the inheritance of all believers, and those who hunger and thirst after wisdom and truth will break away from human traditions, from religious threats and deceptions, and enter into that which God has prepared for us even before the foundation of the world.