A Gang of Pandas
(The following has been adapted from an email correspondence.)
I am a Christian, novice philosopher/logician, and scientist in molecular biology. I have been reading Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations. In the latter you state the following about the reliability of science:
If what is said about scientific experiments is difficult for some people to understand, the problem of "affirming the consequent" may be more easily grasped. Consider the following form of argument:
1. If X, then Y
2. Y
3. Therefore, XThis form of reasoning, called "affirming the consequent," is always a formal fallacy in logic; that is, the structure of the argument is invalid. Just because Y is true does not mean that X is true, since there can be an infinite number of things that may substitute for X so that we will still have Y. Correlation is not the same as causation – but can science even discover correlation? Thus if the hypothesis is, "If X, then Y," the fact that Y turns up does nothing to confirm the hypothesis.
If what you say about science is true, that does not anger me or deter me from doing what I do; however, I want to understand what you are saying. From my point of view, when I am in the lab the argument goes like this:
1. If this solution turns green (X), then chemical Y is present (Y).
2. The solution turned green (X).
3. Therefore, chemical Y is present (Y).Is this not valid? How am I misunderstanding what you have said?
Your example is valid, but it is something that occurs after the criticism against the scientific method. That is, the scientific method leads to false conclusions, and then these false conclusions are applied.
Consider the following:
Argument A
A1. If I punch Tom in the face (X), then Tom will be injured (Y).
A2. Tom is injured (Y)
A3. Therefore, I have punched Tom in the face (X).
Argument B
B1. If Tom is injured (P), then I have punched Tom in the face (Q).
B2. Tom is injured (P).
B3. Therefore, I have punched Tom in the face (Q).
Argument B is valid, but Premise B1 depends on Argument A, and Argument A is invalid, since it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Premise B1 depends on Argument A, because by itself, it does not eliminate an infinite number of alternatives. If Tom is injured, it does not necessarily mean that I have punched him in the face. Maybe he walked into a wall. Maybe he fell down some stairs. Or, maybe Harry, Mary, Jones, or an infinite number of other possible persons or objects, in an infinite number of possible combinations, beat him in the face (e.g. an alien with a hammer, a monkey with a wrench, or a gang of pandas).
So Argument B is valid, but unsound, because Argument A is invalid. Argument A represents scientific experimentation (the attempt to discover cause-and-effect relationships by positing hypotheses and testing them). Argument B represents an application of the conclusions of scientific experimentation (an application of a supposedly true cause-and-effect relationship).
Therefore, although Argument B is valid, it is also completely worthless.
To make this even more clear with an illustration:
If water is wet (X), then Vincent Cheung is president (Y).
Water is wet (X).
Therefore, Vincent Cheung is president (Y).
Valid, but untrue and worthless.
Returning to your example, your Premise 1 is like Premise B1 above. By itself it does not exclude an infinite number of alternatives. Thus:
If this solution turns green (X), then an alien spat in it (Y).
This solution turned green (X).
Therefore, an alien spat in it (Y).
This is what the entire scientific enterprise amounts to: first, it is a systematic repetition of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and second, it is a systematic application of the false conclusions so obtained.
This is not to insult scientists, but to remind them to remain humble before God, and acknowledge their ignorance, for God has made foolish the wisdom of this world. As long as man puts himself at the center of knowledge, thinking that by his own power he can discover all things, he shall discover nothing.
I completely agree with your last paragraph. I think the scientific community is rather arrogant, and thinks that it is the end-all-be-all of truth. Of course, it is probably because the community is run for the most part by secular humanists who hardly believe in objective truth.
Anyway, in all honesty I am still having trouble with something. You mention this in Presuppositional Confrontations, and that is the notion of controls. You address this by saying that there could be an infinite number of parameters needing to be "controlled" in an experiment (i.e., some undetected component in a solution). However, if the controls are constructed properly will we not end up compensating for those variables anyway?
The scientific method suggests that you must identify variables and perform controlled experiments. But the problem of infinite alternatives remain the same.
Suppose a scientist swings a pendulum, makes some objects bump into one another, or perform some kind of experiment like this. He identifies certain variables such as altitude, weight, temperature, and so on. However, he can never say that he has identified all variables, such as an alien messing with his experiment from space, or an unruly and invisible spirit tempering with his project for its own amusement.
These latter possibilities may seem absurd, but according to what standard are they absurd? Only according to the scientist's own assumptions. Also, even if we admit that these are absurd, there are still an infinite number of variables that may or may not be present. The scientist may be missing an entire category of variables. For example, what if the scientist has no concept of temperature? He cannot then possibly measure and control it in an experiment. Yet it might be a decisive factor. If he does not know about it, he cannot even say that he does not know about it. Neither can he say that he knows this category of variables does not exist. There is an infinite number of possible categories of variables that he is missing. Therefore, a scientist can never say that he has accounted for all relevant variables, and he can never claim to have "constructed properly" any experiment.
The scientist simply does not know — he assumes without argument, without evidence, and without proof. He can do what he wishes, but if he claims that this whole thing is rational, then he is just arbitrarily calling it so. In fact, from even a simple analysis of science, there is no way that a scientist can claim to have any rational contact with reality at all. And certainly, he would have no right to call the Christian irrational.
The idea is simple. To know that any experiment is "constructed properly" the scientist's knowledge must be "bigger" than the experiment. But if his knowledge is already "bigger" than the experiment, then he hardly needs to perform the experiment to gain knowledge that is limited by the experiment. The only way to be sure that one has identified and controlled all variables that may affect the experiment is to possess omniscience. The conclusion is that only God can tell us about the universe.
After thinking about what you wrote for a bit, the question that lingers is this: Can I, first as a Christian and second a scientist, be consistent in trusting my results in the lab as far as pursuing truth? Granted, I as a Christian have the mind of Christ and recognize His Lordship over all creation, but does merely admitting that I know nothing and that God knows everything and trusting Him in my work of exploring His creation therefore give me the ability to describe my findings as truth? Or is the real truth the realization that my findings are true only inside the box that is "scientific study" as described by fallible humans rather than truth in the sense that Christ is Truth? If it is only true in a box, is it true at all?
I guess, now that what you have said about science makes sense to me I am wondering about my work and how I can worship and give God glory in my work if the work itself does not purpose to find truth outside the box of science.
There is no rational justification for saying that there is any truth at all in science. The inherent irrationality and even epistemological impossibility are built into its assumptions and method. There is no way to justify empiricism, induction, and the scientific method.
There is a school of thought that claims that if we will use the Bible as the first principle of our thinking, then the Bible can justify or at least "account for" these things that are unjustifiable when considered in themselves (sensation, induction, science, etc.). However, this just makes it worse. It is one thing to say that these things could be somehow rational in themselves, and that the only problem is that there is no rational foundation to place them on, although this to say this is perhaps nonsense in the first place. But it is much worse to realize that these things are irrational in themselves, so that no epistemological foundation can ever justify them, and then to insist that God and the Bible could justify them. This position makes God an accomplice to irrationality and falsehood. It is blasphemy. Even if we begin with God, we still cannot justify things that are false in themselves like "1 + 1 = 83629473.9273" or "The devil is a golden retriever named Skip." A true first principle destroys falsehood; it does not justify or support it.
As for science, it can remain as long as it does not claim too much for itself. Please see "A Career in Science" in my Doctrine and Obedience.
What about the results that science has yielded? Technology, medicine, the computers that we are currently using to communicate, the microwave that I used this morning, the ultrasound machine used to see my unborn son? If we take any type of medication, then are we relinquishing our health to the irrationality of science? Whether or not we can accurately describe truth may be another issue, but it can hardly be denied that science has yielded results that are of use to us.
You said that science can remain as long as it does not claim too much for itself, and again I agree. Does it not have its place, its role to play in our existence?
I have answered this question in "In God We Trust," in my Blasphemy and Mystery. But I will make some remarks about it here as well.
Think about what you are saying. It is as if you say, "I know that it is not true, but…." Well, if we have the first part, do we need to hear the second part?
To appeal to the effect of science (medicine, microwave, etc.), is only an appeal to the fallacy of affirming the consequent again. Affirming the consequent is just another way of saying an appeal to the result or effect. The assumption is that if you seem to be getting the result that you want or predict, then there must be some truth behind the assumption that yields this result. Again, that is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not indicate causation. But my contention is that science cannot even detect or establish correlation.
Of course science has a role. It is an irrational feeling in the dark. It can never claim to have the truth, and not just when it comes to religion. In this conversation with you, I have suppressed the problems with sensation and induction, but have focused on the method of science (the process of reasoning after the reliability of sensation and induction have been assumed without proof, and even assumed despite proof to the contrary). Once we introduce them back into the conversation, we would not even be able to get so far as to discuss method. That is, it is not that the scientist is feeling in front of him in the dark. He does not even have arms.
You might wish we could say more for science, but how? There is no rational basis to say more for it. Science touts itself as a rational enterprise, but here I am, giving arguments that even elementary school children can grasp and apply to completely destroy it. Science is essentially, pervasively, undeniably, incurably, and often arrogantly, irrational. To believe that it can discover truth is nothing other than superstition.
Recommended:
Ultimate Questions
Presuppositional Confrontations
Captive to Reason
Blasphemy and Mystery
Some Questions for Empiricists
The following are some questions that I posed to an atheist several years ago in the course of a written exchange. These questions and others like them are unanswerable by any belief system that places any dependence on the reliability of sensations. The questions do not apply only to non-Christian systems, but almost all of them also apply to any system of so-called Christian theology, philosophy, or apologetics that affirms the reliability of sensations, induction, or science.
Download:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/questempiric.pdf
You are permitted to print and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for non-commercial purposes as long as the author is clearly identified and the text unaltered.
For the complete collection of our publications, please see the online library.
Recommended:
Ultimate Questions
Presuppositional Confrontations
Apologetics in Conversation
Captive to Reason
The Preacher Speaks Philosophy
A World of Metaphors
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.
When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)
Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."
"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"
Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."
Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?" They came out of the town and made their way toward him.
Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers.
They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world." (John 4:7-14, 19-26, 28-30, 39-42)
If every sinner would fall on his face and cry out for mercy at the mention of our Lord Jesus, surely no Christian would be afraid to speak about him. But we understand that this is not the case. Non-Christians are ignorant, confused, proud, dishonest, and wicked, so that the gospel is frequently met with resistance. This makes some believers nervous about even bringing up the subject.
However, by the Scripture and the Spirit, God has provided us all that is necessary to make us confident and skillful witnesses for the Lord. The right kind of confidence is more than raw attitude, but it is based on understanding, and understanding will lead to skillfulness. If you have a problem with speaking to people about Jesus Christ, then here is where you must begin. You must begin with understanding, that is, knowledge about Jesus Christ, your place in him, and what happens when a conversation turns to the topic of religion.
Jesus approached every situation with purpose, knowledge, and boldness. He knew who he was, that God had sent him, and what he had sent him to do. He was able to perceive everything in his life within the framework of performing the will of God. The Gospel of John portrays him as one who always knew what to do and what to say, and more than that, as one who knew the appropriate time for every word and action. Thus as the scriptural record shows, he handled every encounter with ease and assurance. This was the case whether he was speaking with eager inquirers, with hostile skeptics, or with someone like this woman at the well. He always had his mission in mind, or what he called the Father's will, and no matter how a situation began, he could take control of it to advance this cause.
He never approached any situation to see what he could learn from it, and he never talked to anyone to see what he could learn from him. This was not because he lacked humility – far from it. The fact that he would talk to anyone at all was an act of infinite condescension. Rather, there was no point to submit. He never had to back down, to compromise, or to be corrected. He spoke from a position of absolute and unquestionable superiority. He knew that he was superior to anyone that he faced, and superior to anything or anyone that the world trusted in. The sense of superiority and confidence was based on knowledge, knowledge of who he was.
When the woman mentioned Jacob, it did not impress him. He was greater than Jacob. The woman had the means to draw water from the well, but he could provide a different kind of water, superior than that from Jacob's well. When the woman finally deferred to the Messiah, the ultimate authority figure, who would come and explain everything, and settle all disputes, even then he did not retreat, for as he told the woman, "I who speak to you am he."
We preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ, and his superiority is not lost when his disciples speak about him. He is the same Jesus. In fact, we would make him into a different person if we do not assume his utter superiority over everything and everyone. He is superior to each unbeliever that we speak to, and everything and everyone that this person trusts in. You strengthen your grasp of Christ's superiority over all things by praying for illumination by the Spirit, by meditating on the greatness of Jesus based on all that the Scripture says about him, and by thinking about how even the most approved and enviable things in this world are but poor imitations of his wisdom, power, and glory. Then, you will know that, before Christ, the unbeliever is a worm to be pitied, and not a man to be feared.
This is the confidence we have in Christ: It does not matter what the non-Christian believes or whom he worships, but Jesus is always right, always relevant, always superior. Just as our Lord was never surprised, embarrassed, or overwhelmed by anything, we never need to be surprised, embarrassed, or overwhelmed.
It is true that Jesus preached himself, so that the messenger was also the message, and there was no distance between the two. The confidence, then, was thoroughly natural, even unavoidable. But we are not him, so how can we speak with confidence and authority as he did?
The difference that this makes has been exaggerated. Again, we do not preach ourselves, but we preach Jesus Christ, the same superior person that he himself preached. On that point, there is no difference, and our confidence in him will be in proportion to our understanding about him, and the measure of faith in our knowledge of him. His hearers observed that he spoke as one with authority, unlike the scribes and the Pharisees. The religious leaders of that day did not have firsthand knowledge of God. Even though they had the Scripture, they did not believe it, or they would have known God for themselves. Christ, on the other hand, spoke as one who came from heaven, and as the Son of God.
Whether you can speak about him with confidence and authority reveals whether you are his disciple, or whether you are as one of the scribes, who read the truth but did not grasp and embrace it. The Christian is one who sees Jesus Christ for who he is, who truly knows him, and who has received the Holy Spirit, that is, power from heaven to be a witness for the Lord. So the fact that we are not Christ does not make the difference that is supposed by many.
There are those who defer all authority to Christ or to the Scripture. We need to be careful here. It is true that any authority that we possess is derived from Christ and the Scripture; however, that is not the conclusion of the matter. Do you know Christ or not? Do you believe the Scripture or not? Do you have the Spirit of God in you or not? Preachers, have you been sent to speak for the King or not? If all this makes no difference, so that you could speak only as the scribes and the Pharisees, or like the unbelievers, then you still speak as an outsider. It is as if you have no place in the kingdom of heaven, as if you have no part of it, and have no role in it. An understanding of the superiority of Christ must be followed by an appreciation of our place in him.
When you engage an unbeliever in conversation, you are to position Christ, and thus also yourself, in the right place. It is not a dialogue of equals, nor a dialogue about equals. You come at him with a sense of superiority, because you understand that Christ is superior to him, and superior to everything about him. You may protest that you are not superior in yourself, but this is irrelevant, since you do not preach about yourself. However, this way of thinking, that you are not superior in yourself, is itself based on a deficient theology. The Bible tells you that you are a co-heir of Jesus Christ, even now seated with him at the right hand of God. It says that you are a new creation, born from heaven into the kingdom of God. It declares that you are in this world, but you are not of it. How is that not superior?
To acknowledge this has nothing to do with arrogance or self-righteousness, since you do not credit yourself with this reality. You attribute your superior condition to God's sovereign kindness toward you. You have obtained your current station as a gift that you have received, not as something that you have earned or merited apart from God's charity. The reality remains that this is what you are, and it is something that the unbelievers are not. And this enables you to speak with confidence and authority even when you face the best of them. Thus even when Paul addressed the elite Athenians, he did not say, "I am overawed by your culture and wisdom, and it would be my honor to present my humble Jesus to you for your consideration. Perhaps we can learn something from each other." No, he said, "I have come to tell you something that you do not know, to address your ignorance about the matter."
Any conversation can be guided toward a spiritual direction. Some contexts are more appropriate than others, and are given to more natural transitions, but it is always possible to take control and compel the unbeliever to consider deeper things. One way to do this is to make the mundane, the physical, and the natural things of life into analogies and metaphors for spiritual things, and by doing so elevate the conversation to a higher plane, compelling the unbeliever to follow you from the earthly to the heavenly. This approach is able to take the things that the unbeliever is usually concerned about, and redirect his attention to his true condition, and to his greatest needs and obligations.
I am not saying that we should use analogies and metaphors to facilitate comprehension. There are those who insist that God and other spiritual concepts cannot be understood except by analogies and metaphors, by comparisons with natural things, since it is alleged that we can understand the concrete better than the abstract. This is a popular notion that has arisen from false humility. It is simply not true that we can understand spiritual things only through analogies and metaphors, or that we can understand the abstract and the non-physical only by comparisons with the concrete and the physical.
Some people apply the tiresome "Hebrew vs. Greek" contrast, and even claim that the Hebrews had no abstract ideas, and that God cannot be considered in the abstract – only the Greeks try that. This is an anti-intellectual invention that goes along with the way that some scholars wish to see things, but it has no basis in the Bible. Instead, as mentioned in an earlier chapter, John begins his Gospel with an entirely abstract consideration about God and the Word. Ideas such as time, creation, life, light, and so on are used without any connection with the concrete. Frankly, the assumption behind the unwarranted contrast seems to be that these people are stupid, or at least they think that the Jews were stupid, and who were incapable of abstract thoughts, even though they were made in the image of God.
Thus I do not refer to the alleged advantages in using analogies and metaphors to explain spiritual things. Rather, I am saying that natural things are reflections of spiritual things, so that they can be used as starting points in a conversation to draw attention to the things of God. This allows you to make a smooth transition from the natural to the spiritual in any conversation.
There are those who disagree that we should make a sharp distinction between the natural and the spiritual, and to say that natural things are reflections of spiritual things, to them, again sounds Greek. But to repeat, there is no such distinction between Hebrew and Greek thought – that is, the differences are not found in concrete vs. abstract or dualistic vs. holistic. This is a myth in biblical scholarship that cannot withstand the test of simply reading the words of the Bible, and noting its plain statements and assumptions.
The Bible is filled with both concrete and abstract thoughts, and it is dualistic whenever the distinction between the natural and the spiritual is needed, or whenever it refers to the true nature of things, but it is holistic whenever the distinction is not needed, so that in those instances it would refer to a part as if it were the whole for the sake of convenience. For example, although the Bible makes a sharp distinction between the spirit and the flesh, or the mind and the body, when someone speaks to me, I do not think, "His body is speaking to me the words that his mind has arranged," but rather, "He is speaking to me." Both statements are true, but metaphysical precision is unnecessary in this context. However, if I make the distinction even once, this means that I believe in it. The Bible often makes such distinctions.
It does not matter what is Hebrew, or Greek, or Chinese, or Russian, or Martian – the Bible reflects a culture of its own. At what time did the Israelites in general think like the prophets? Since when did the Jewish population agree with the Lord and the apostles? If the prophets spoke in the abstract, then I can also – it does not matter what culture they spoke out of. If the apostles spoke in dualistic terms, making distinctions between the natural and the spiritual, the secular and the sacred, as they certainly did, then I will also – it does not matter what the Greek thought. If this sounds all Greek to you, then this means that the Greeks agreed with the Bible – well, then good for the Greeks!
The scholars protest that it is necessary to understand the cultures of biblical times in order to understand the Bible. Evidently, they do not understand the cultures, since what they say about the Hebrews in this area plainly contradicts how the Bible speaks, and what the Bible teaches. Again, regardless of what is assumed about Hebrew thought, the Bible speaks in the abstract, and the Bible is dualistic, in that it distinguishes between the natural and the spiritual, the secular and the sacred, the body and the soul.
Jesus initiated the conversation by asking the Samaritan woman for a drink from the well. The woman was surprised, since Jews did not associate with Samaritans. The conversation remained on the natural level, although there was a religious background behind this. Then, Jesus elevated the conversation to a spiritual level by mention "living water." At this point, Jesus had already transitioned to the spiritual. The next mention of water was also a spiritual reference, since it was the water of "eternal life." He used physical thirst as a metaphor for a deeper thirst, a spiritual thirst. Jesus brought attention to this, and stated that "the gift of God" can provide "living water" that would perpetually and permanently satisfy it. The woman could not follow at first. Her thinking remained on the natural level, and thought that this strange water could relieve her from coming to the well to draw water. Thus Jesus probed deeper into her background.
He did something similar with his disciples, who came and found him speaking with the woman. They were baffled but did not demand an explanation. When they offered him something to eat, Jesus said that he had food that they did not know about. At first they did not understand, and their thinking remained on the natural level, so that they thought he had food from somewhere else. So he explained that he meant his food was to do the will of God. Again, by making something mundane, natural, and physical into a metaphor for something spiritual, he elevated the conversation and the disciples' thinking and priorities to a higher level.
Likewise, a Christian can elevate any conversation into a spiritual discussion. For example, a conversation on wealth can be transformed into one about true riches. A financial recession can become a metaphor for a famine of the word of God, that is, a shortage in knowledge about him. A conversation on various kinds of scandals can be transformed into one about spiritual deception, mental strongholds, or heretical theologians. They can also serve as illustrations for the destruction that results from sowing to the flesh rather than to the spirit. We indulge or invest in the things of the flesh, and we reap a whirlwind of troubles and punishments.
A conversation about friends and family can be transformed into one about the Christian's true friends and family in Christ. When the unbeliever talks about education, the Christian can elevate the discussion to one about true wisdom. Or, if the topic is marriage, the Christian can make the transition to talk about true love, and the union between Christ and the Christians. At the mention of food, the Christian can make the transition by musing on the significance of eating together, especially in some cultures, and then elevate the conversation by discussing how a person gets to sit at the table of the Lord. Art can be a starting point for the Christian to talk about true beauty, moral beauty, spiritual and intellectual beauty, and the beauty of the Lord. Sports is usually connected with heroics, but what is so great about people who are very persistent about hitting a ball really hard, or running really, really fast? All such feats are insignificant, and in fact quite pathetic, compared to the heroics of the Lord, who suffered great pain and humiliation to redeem his people.
One effect of this approach is that it generates a contrast. On the one side, there are the lower and almost beast-like life and desires of the unbeliever. On the other side, there are the lofty thoughts of God, and his many powers and blessings that correspond with the unbeliever's deeper needs. Jesus used the metaphor of water to press the point that the woman had a need greater than natural and physical drink. There was a spiritual thirst in her that had remained unquenched. And he also used the metaphor to describe what only he could provide, that is, a continuous supply of living water, spiritual water, that would satisfy and that would never dry up.
The Bible does for us what Jesus did for this woman. As we read it, it elevates our thoughts from the mundane to the spiritual. It informs us in our contemplation of God the doctrines that he has revealed and his saving acts throughout history. It redirects our attention from natural, physical, and earthly things, to supernatural, spiritual, and heavenly things. Non-Christians are from below, but as Christians, we have been born from above, and the Scripture provides us with the content for rich spiritual thoughts and conversations, while the Spirit of God enables us to remain on this level of thinking and speaking. Jesus told the woman that if she knew about the gift of God and who it was that spoke to her, she would have asked him for living water. By the Scripture and the Spirit, we do know the gift of God and who it is that speaks to us, and we ask, "Lord, give us this living water, so that we will never thirst!" As Christians, we do have this living water in us, so that even when the body suffers decay, the inner man is renewed day by day.
Then, Jesus exposed the fact that the woman had had five husbands, and that the man she was with, the sixth man, was not her husband. Commentators might argue whether this meant that she was an immoral woman, or that she was a victim of abusive and unfaithful men. This is unimportant to us at this point. What is important is that Jesus did not refrain from mentioning painful and embarrassing things in a person's life in order to pursue a legitimate spiritual agenda. We may say that he did it with a note of gentleness, but this does not change the fact that he did it.
Regardless of the reason for her many marriages, Jesus showed that she was a broken woman, and she had a need deeper and greater than any natural solution can remove or alleviate. This is what happens when you use something in the unbeliever's life as a metaphor for his spiritual need. You will show that he is a broken person. By broken, I do not mean that the non-Christian is a victim, but I mean that he is deficient and defective – every unbeliever is damaged goods. He is in a shameful condition that nothing natural or physical can repair or reverse. He needs Jesus Christ.
Behind all the strong talk, blasphemies, and sarcastic comments is a spiritual loser, a filthy and pathetic person, and an overused whore of the devil. He would be an object of scorn, something to be kicked around, laughed at, and spat on, if not for the fact that all the other non-Christians are just like him. And he is so ignorant and proud that he would not ask Christ for renewal, for restoration, for life and light. The unbeliever puts on a brave front, unwilling to show you his inadequacies. But if you will probe a little, it should not be difficult to find out what they are. He wants you to see him as a giant, but inside he is but a scared little worm. If you will talk to him and ask some questions, you will always find that this is so. Here you will find an opening to attack all the things that he trusts in, and to hold out Jesus Christ as his only hope.
Jesus crossed several well-defined boundaries. She was a woman, a Samaritan, and one who had married five times, and who now seemed to cohabit with a man who was not her husband. All of these were reasons for a Jewish Rabbi to have refrained from associating with her. But Jesus did it anyway, and in doing so, he stood against human traditions and authorities. As we can see from the woman's initial response and then the disciples' reaction, his behavior contradicted what was expected of him from all human perspectives.
This is a common observation, but incorrect implications are sometimes drawn from it. There are people who construe Jesus' association with sinners as a license to attend dinners, parties, and all kinds of social gatherings with unbelievers. The Lord's example has become for them an excuse to indulge their own fleshly desires for unholy fellowship and entertainment. Moreover, because the Gospel sometimes contrasts the sinners with the Pharisees, at times these Christians make the unbelievers into some sort of heroes, and they congratulate themselves for being so Christ-like that they would cross all boundaries, supposedly as Jesus did, in order to revel in worldly activities, if not debauchery, with the non-Christians. They are moved to tears by their own courage and open-mindedness.
However, this is an all-out perversion of what Jesus did. Although Jesus crossed boundaries, he never violated the word of God, but only broke with human traditions and expectations. Thus when a Christian claims to follow Jesus' example in crossing boundaries, these boundaries should consist of human norms and rules only. A Christian is never allowed to transgress the word of God. This makes a large number of activities enjoyed by the unbelievers forbidden to Christians, and it also removes the sinful excitement and sensual indulgence from those that Christians are permitted to attend. This is just the way it is. The Christian should be honest about these activities and his motive for wanting to engage in them with the unbelievers. He must either refrain, or he must admit that he is an unbeliever himself.
Of course Jesus associated with sinners. He talked with them and ate with them. But he did this to save sinners, to teach them, to change them, and not to entertain them or to be entertained. It was not because he was bored or lonely, and had to socialize with unbelievers, because religious people were so dull. He crossed boundaries to carry out his mission, and not to indulge the flesh and sinful lusts, to appease his enemies, or to extend approval to unbelievers. As he would tell Pilate, his mission was to testify to the truth. This included the truth about God, about himself as the Christ, and about man and his sin. His crossed over to associate with people who were not like him, not to tell them that they were already acceptable in God's sight, but to tell them that they were already condemned and that God's wrath was already upon them, and that the only way they could be saved was to follow him and trust in him, for no one could come to the Father except through him.
Therefore, for a Christian to follow his example is to continue his mission to declare God's condemnation against all sinners, and to hold forth Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. We may associate with sinners as we do this; in fact, if we have no contact with them at all, then we cannot tell them any of this. So we may tell them that they are wretched sinners on the street, on the beach, at work, at school, at a party, over a casual lunch or a candlelight dinner, in their mosques and synagogues as we challenge their religions, in midair while plummeting toward the earth on a parachute jump together, or any setting where it is not inherently sinful for the Christian to be present.
Let us not use Christ's example to mask our hypocrisy, if the truth is that we crave the unbelievers' worldly company, and in fact care very little about the mission that God has entrusted to us. If you are one of those people who are fond of befriending unbelievers so that you can be "salt and light" to the world, then see to it that you really are salt and light. Otherwise, you are just lying to yourself and to others, and hiding the fact that you enjoy the unholy fellowship of non-Christians more than the chaste conversation of God's people.
The woman was incredulous at first. Although she had access to the well that Jacob made and drank from, Jesus claimed that if she knew who he was, she would have asked him for a drink of living water. She asked, "Are you greater than Jacob?" Jesus not only claimed that he was superior, but he explained to her how he was superior. Jacob, who was only a man, could provide only natural water that temporarily relieved physical thirst. Jesus, on the other hand, could provide living water that would perpetually and permanently satisfy a person's spiritual needs and desires.
The same difference applies to all the characters in biblical history. Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and many others were indeed great men; in fact, the Spirit of God made them superior to their fellows in a number of ways. But still, they were but mere men, and nothing more than human. God regenerated them, and they were born from above, and transformed by the power of heaven, so that they became men of whom the world was not worthy. But Jesus Christ came from above. He needed no grace from heaven, for he came there as a bearer of grace in the first place. He was the mediator of the grace that transformed these chosen men.
Paul said that the Corinthians had a partisan spirit among them. They would align themselves to men that they favored, so that some would say, "I belong to Paul's group!" and others would boast, "I belong to Peter's group!" He rebuked them, and said that this type of thinking was carnal. It was not a reflection of superior knowledge or spirituality. This problem is still with us today. "Well, I am a Calvinist myself." "But what did Spurgeon say about that?" Or, "Are you greater than Jonathan Edwards?" And, "How dare you contradict this Confession of Faith?"
You can throw your whole denomination at me, but if this is all you have, why should I care? What authority do you have over me? You are but a crowd of weak and confused men who, lacking genuine spiritual power, have constructed a feeling of comfort and an illusion of authority by offering formal approval to one another. Then, you speak from this platform, quoting from your confessions and citing from your theologians, supposing that by this you can compel others to heed your opinions. This is not wisdom, not knowledge, not spirituality. It is carnal thinking. It is children's talk. It is idolatry. And its roots are far deeper and more widespread than many people realize, since many people share this way of thinking, and since it is often expressed in veiled forms.
For example, one of my critics dismissed my biblical commentaries because he could tell that they were substandard from "the footnotes." His point was that the footnotes indicated an inadequate reference to advanced scholarship. However, this tells us more about him than about me or my commentaries. He had a personal bias against me and most likely did not make the same criticism against authors that he admired, since some of them would not cite any works at all in their commentaries. In any other context, he probably would have acknowledged that there are several kinds of commentaries, and how many works the author cites and what kinds of works he cites depend on the purpose of these commentaries. There is no universal rule for this. His comment reflects that he had only one kind of commentaries in mind, and his standard of judgment came from academic custom rather than truth and reason.
He also assumed that if I had consulted the advanced works that he approved, then I would have cited them. I indeed interact with advanced materials in my study and research; however, I cite the works of others not because of their academic level, as if to impress readers with my learning, or as if I depend on the agreement of others. Rather, I cite works that are relevant, sometimes to agree and sometimes to refute, especially when they state certain things in a manner that make them helpful or appropriate in the context of my writings. That is, I cite others not mainly for support or to compel agreement, as if I have no confidence or authority on my own, but often to clarify and illustrate due to the particular expressions used, or the way that something is stated. But now I am rather suspicious of the critic's reasons for referring to the works of scholars in his own materials. Perhaps his eagerness to impress others made him assume that I would do the same.
This brings us to the most revealing point about his criticism. His thinking about scholarship, even when it came to the things of God, was bound to the level of human achievement, interaction, and approval. That is, good scholarship, even Christian scholarship, is constructed on human achievements, exhibited in interaction with other human works and approval by other human scholars.
His comment revealed that he had not learned to think like a true disciple of Jesus Christ. When people listened to Christ, they marveled that he spoke as one with authority, not like the scribes and the Pharisees. Later, the apostles made a similar impression on people, and they understood that they had been students of Jesus Christ. Spiritual confidence and authority is noticeably different from academic pretentiousness, so that the common people heard them with gladness. It is in the absence of spiritual power that a person must shroud himself under an air of academic sophistication – that is, academic sophistication as defined by non-Christian customs.
Should not a Christian who is filled with God's Spirit speak with some measure of authority, a kind of spiritual power that is independent of human tradition and approval? This critic complained that I did not speak like the scribes and the Pharisees! He remained out of touch with biblical truth and spiritual authority. He remained as a person who was "from below," and his understanding remained on this carnal level, so he thought like those who had no authority, or whose sense of intellectual cogency consists in the interaction and the approval of men. Thus he condemned himself by his criticism against me.
The biblical patriarchs and prophets were superior to their fellows only in the sense that God had chosen them, and at times moved them to speak by his Spirit. When they were carried along by the Spirit, their words were authoritative and infallible, for it was Christ who spoke through them. They were revered for the roles that they played in biblical history, but they were but mere men, and could produce no heavenly effects by themselves. And even as they spoke by the Spirit of God, they did not preach themselves, but pointed to the coming, the humiliation, and the exaltation of Christ. Thus although they were great men, Christ was infinitely superior to them. Although they were given birth from above, Christ was one who came from above.
This provides one way for us to understand the difference between the Christian faith and all non-Christian religions. Christ was greater than Jacob, but Jacob at least followed Christ and grasp some of the things of God by the Spirit. The founders of non-Christian religions had no such spiritual perception. If they had perceived and embraced any of the truth, they would have followed Christ. But they were men "from below," and so they spoke as men from below. All their teachings consist of human speculations and suggestions. Even at their best, they could only provide their followers natural water, which can never begin to satisfy spiritual thirst.
Many Christians would preface their opinion of these founders of non-Christian religions, saying, "They were great moral teachers, and had great insights, but…." Even famed and respected Christian apologists would say this. But even this is false and unacceptable, and it is a compromise and a betrayal. Those who speak this way sin against Christ and all those who believe in him. If those who call themselves Christians would throw off this sense of obligation to be sickeningly courteous and effeminate in religious discussions, doubtless imposed upon them by non-Christians and not by Scripture, they would see that these non-Christian religions do not in fact have good moral and human insights. Rather, they are all very pathetic and absurd, and their leaders are as blind men leading other blind men into the ditch of everlasting hellfire.
Seeing that Jesus was a prophet, the woman made reference to the religious dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans, and in particular their disagreement regarding the proper location of worship. Jesus sided against the Samaritans, and at one point said that "salvation is from the Jews." He went on to say something else, but we must pause here because there is so much misconception about the status of the Jewish people, that is, the natural descendants of Abraham through Isaac, that it would be worthwhile to consider the meaning and significance of this statement.
The Jews had been the focal point of salvation history up to the time of Christ. First, God's had manifested his acts of grace and power mainly through the Jewish people. They were the recipients and the carriers of historical revelation. Second, they were also the recipients and the carriers of propositional revelation. God had revealed the facts of creation and history, of his divine nature, and of his holy laws and precepts in words spoken through his prophets. Historical revelation, at least epistemologically, reduces to propositional revelation, because the history itself is recorded in propositional form, and is passed on only in propositional form. In sum, God manifested himself in special and concentrated ways to the Jewish people, and superintended their history to construct a great portion of the Holy Scripture, that is, what we call the Old Testament, which already functioned as an established collection of sacred documents by the time of Christ.
The promise of the Messiah was not first given to the Jews, but much earlier than that, to Adam and Eve. Thus, in this broad sense, it had never been a promise to or for the Jews, but to humanity, and in particular to the elect of all times, all races, and all nations. But God focused this promise by decreeing that this Messiah would come as a seed of Abraham.
Because of the above considerations, it is said that "salvation is from the Jews." These considerations are indeed significant, and made the Jews a privileged people. However, since they are often overestimated and misapplied, we must also make clear what the statement cannot mean, and the limitations of this privileged condition.
First, although "salvation is from the Jews," it does not mean that all Jews are saved. In fact, most of them are not saved. During the ministry of Christ, so few of them accepted him that John wrote that "no one" believed his testimony. The fact that the Messiah came from the Jews in terms of his human nature did not benefit them, since they rejected him. They hated him, and tried many times to kill him. They finally murdered him by the hands of the Gentiles, although they would have done it by their own hands if they were able (John 18:31). They did not benefit from their natural affiliation with the Messiah.
Then, they did not benefit from the fact that God made them the recipients and carriers of historical revelation, since the history recorded about them is one of constant unbelief, idolatry, and rebellion. The record of their history benefits only Christians: "Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did….These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Corinthians 10:6, 11).
Finally, they did not benefit from the fact that God made them the recipients and carriers of propositional revelation, since they did not believe in it. They claimed to believe the Scripture, but most of them never did. Rather, they constructed human traditions that allegedly enforced God's laws, but in reality enabled them to bypass and subvert these laws. Jesus said that if they had believed Moses, then they would have believed him, because Moses talked about him, and he fulfilled what Moses said. And he also said that they were not ones who believed and repented at the words of the prophets, but they murdered the prophets that God sent to them.
Nowadays, anyone who speaks this way might be called a racist and an anti-Semite. But this is only a smokescreen and a red herring. Their own Scripture testifies to what Jesus said. The Old Testament itself condemns them, but the Gentiles did not write the Old Testament. The truth is that the Jews already had their own culture and religion set up, in ways that were very contrary to Moses and the prophets, and they did not want anyone, not even God or the Messiah, to disturb their lifestyle.
By rejecting Jesus Christ, the Jews had repudiated every advantage they had over other peoples of the world. God manifested to them in history, but they rebelled against him. God revealed to them his words, but they did not believe it. God appeared to them in the flesh, but they murdered him. Yes, salvation came from the Jews, but they rejected it, and so as Jesus said, the kingdom was ripped from their hands and given to another people who would believe and bear fruit, namely, the Christians.
All the advantages that the Jews ever had now belong to Christians. They have disowned their history – that history now belongs to us. They have rejected their own Scripture, or they would be Christians. But we believe both the Scripture that the Jews had, and the fulfillment and extension of it, which we call the New Testament. We now have the complete Scripture. They do not even have what they hold in their hands, since they do not believe it. As Jesus said, "As for one who has nothing, even that what he seems to have will be taken away." The advantages that the Jews had over the Samaritans, the ones that they have lost since then, were the same advantages that Christians now have over the Jews.
This is so important but so little understood that I must repeat. The Jews indeed had spiritual advantages over others, but they have repudiated them by their unbelief, which persists to this day. All spiritual advantages now belong to Christians, and only Christians. The Jews are not even to be considered the children of Abraham, since Jesus said that if they were, they would have followed Abraham's example of faith and righteousness. Instead, they hated Jesus and plotted to kill him, and eventually did murder him. This, Jesus said, Abraham would have never done. Rather, Abraham saw Jesus' day and rejoiced. And now Christians, and only Christians, rejoice with him, sharing the faith of Abraham. Thus, as Paul wrote, Christians are the children of Abraham. True heritage is of the spirit, and not of the flesh. The flesh means nothing, but a follower of one's spirit is that person's true heir.
What does all of this mean? It means that any doctrine that even hints at Jewish superiority stands opposed to the spirit of the entire Scripture, and especially the New Testament. It is a most ridiculous notion that we should look to the Jews to learn how to become better Christians. Why, the Jews must look to the Christians to learn how to get saved at all! The appeal, popular in some circles, that we should "return to the Jewish roots" of the Christian faith is entirely without justification. The apostles never suggested this to the Gentiles, whether for the sake of spiritual attainment or for the sake of theological or hermeneutical advancement. There is not a hint that the Gentiles would benefit spiritually, that they would understand the Christian faith better, or that they would become more faithful interpreters of Scripture, by gaining knowledge and appreciation of Jewish culture, let alone by implementing some of it in their lives. In fact, the apostles vehemently fought against this. It was precisely what they wanted the Gentiles to refrain from doing.
The apostles were clear that the Gentiles could come as they were, as Gentiles, and become Christians, without having to become Jews, or to learn anything about the Jews, or to adopt anything from their thinking and culture. Of course they had to believe the Scripture, but as already indicated, this was not a Jewish thing to do, since the Jews rejected the Scripture. To believe God's word has always been a Christian thing to do, from the time of Adam, when the promise of Christ was first announced. And again, the apostles never indicated that the Gentiles must learn about Jewish culture to believe or to understand the Scripture.
Moreover, it was not that the Gentiles were already familiar with Jewish culture. As indicated by various parts of the New Testament (e.g. Acts 17), and even the very passage we are considering (John 4:9), the original Gentile audience was often unfamiliar with Jewish culture. Yet the apostles made no effort to remedy this as if it would make possible a more accurate understanding of the Christian religion. The truth is that it is unnecessary. The assumption that it is necessary when it comes to theology and hermeneutics is false, and it is against the very thing that the apostles worked so hard to establish.
Once you mixed in the ideas of the superiority of the Jews and the necessity of understanding Jewish culture in order to become better Christians or better interpreters of Scripture, you have contaminated the gospel of Jesus Christ, and you have nullified the liberty that it extends to the chosen people of God. You do not have in mind the interests of God, but the interests of men. You have returned to thinking like men "from below." You are heading in the wrong direction. You are regressing in your faith. And you are in danger of falling away from the grace of Christ.
The faith of the New Testament, even the faith of Abraham, is spiritual. It is centered on Christ alone, and not on any race, gender, culture, or class. There is no such thing as a Jewish or a "Messianic" Christianity, just like there should be no such thing as a "Black Christianity." If someone entices you to think in these terms, refuse to do it. Stand firm in your liberty, and fight back. We must rebel against these private versions of the Christian faith without fear of being called racists or bigots. The apostles fought for the purity of the gospel and the liberty of faith, so that it would be a message about simple devotion to Jesus Christ, and not a message that exalts a particular race or serves the agenda of a particular people.
Paul wrote that when it comes to sin, "there is no difference" – whether you are Jew or Gentile, male or female, free or bound, you are all under sin. And when it comes to salvation, again, "there is no difference" – whether you are Jew or Gentile, male or female, free or bound, there is salvation only through Jesus Christ, who makes a new creation out of his chosen people. You are a Jew? Give it up. You are either a Christian or you are not. If you are a Christian, God accepts you, and if you are not, you will burn in hell just like the rest. You are black? Get over it. You are either a believer in Jesus Christ or you are not. If you are a Christian, you are saved from God's wrath, and if you are not, you can call God a racist when you burn in hell, but your race will have nothing to do with it because you will find people from all races there to burn with you.
Jesus made the same point that I make here. After he sided with the Jews in their dispute against the Samaritans, he said, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23-24). The Jews were right, and the Samaritans were wrong. But both of them were going to be wrong if they would not follow God's program. The dispute about the proper location for worship no longer mattered, for all those who would worship the Father must worship in spirit and truth through Jesus Christ, and independent of buildings and rituals. All the prayers, rituals, festivals, and holy places of all non-Christians, whether they are Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, or Buddhists, are meaningless.
Sometimes Christians forget that our faith is not about bringing people to our human traditions, our denominations, and our favorite theologians and preachers. We are to practice and to lead people to true worship, which is only possible in spirit and truth, through faith in Jesus Christ. The true worshiper must be a person who has been born from above, whom God has made his own holy temple. Thus he does not have to worship at a particular place, or to face a particular direction to be heard. And he does not worship someone or something that he does not understand, but he worships according to truth, that is, the doctrines of Jesus Christ. He worships God not with rituals and ceremonies, but with his intelligence, in his spirit, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The woman had a greater appreciation of the Messiah than many Christians today. She said, "I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Jesus did not oppose this understanding of the Messiah, but he embraced it and told the woman, "I who speak to you am he." This strikes at the foundation of the way many professing believers understand the faith. First, contrary to them, the Christian religion does not consist of mysteries or incomprehensive teachings. Instead, the woman assumed that "everything" can be explained, and Jesus agreed with her. Second, following from this, the Christian religion holds the explanation to "everything" – we have all the answers.
This is not an arrogant claim about ourselves, but it is a fact about Jesus Christ, and what he has revealed by his own words, and by his Spirit through the words of his students, the apostles. The relevance of this fact continues through us, since we are the present students of Jesus Christ and the apostles. To the extent that we have learned their teachings, now we have all the answers. By logical necessity, all non-Christian beliefs that contradict what we say must be wrong. And since all non-Christian beliefs in fact disagree with us – even when they do not disagree explicitly, they disagree in their nuances, assumptions, and implications – all non-Christian beliefs are false. Since Jesus and the apostles explained "everything," it also follows that there can be no new religion to supercede or even to build upon their teachings. The Christian religion is the final, complete, and perfect revelation from God.
Many converts seem to have their lives in order, at least more so than others, but they are still unwilling to testify about Jesus Christ before people. Or, some converts wait for things in their lives to be in order before they would do it. The thinking is that it is hypocritical to lecture others about truth, religion, righteousness, and judgment before we have attained perfection ourselves.
This woman did not wait, but she left her water jar at the well and returned to her people, and said, "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?" She was still that broken woman who had married five times. There was no hypocrisy in this, because she was not preaching herself, but she was telling people about Jesus Christ. She did not wait until she could become more credible, because she did not claim that she was the one who could explain everything. But her message was, "Come, see."
This is what the Gospel of John invites its readers to do, to "come, see" this Jesus through the words spoken by him and written about him, and to perceive that he was the Christ. And this is our task before the world today, not to preach ourselves, or to tell people about our merits, our achievements, or our opinions, but to preach Jesus Christ, the one who has all the answers, and who has given these answers to us. We call people to "come, see" by inviting them to read about him in the Scripture, or by telling them about his words and works as recorded in it.
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.
Doctrines and Ethics
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:1-12
Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. And in fact, you do love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers, to do so more and more.
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
A Christian ministry that is faithful to perform its function installs a new system of doctrines in the minds of converts. On this foundation, the ministry then installs a new system of ethics. The revealed doctrinal principles necessarily produce the authoritative ethical principles. Strictly speaking, ethical principles may be categorized under doctrinal principles, since they are still doctrines, only that they are doctrines about thought and behavior. For example, the divine command, "You shall not murder," is a doctrine about the preserving and the taking of human life.
Ethical doctrines are logically preceded by and dependent on epistemological and metaphysical doctrines, that is, doctrines that closely relate to the first principles of the biblical worldview. These include the necessity of Scripture, the reality of God, the depravity of man, the divinity of Christ, and so on. Continuing with the above example, the authority of the command, "You shall not murder," is derived from the sovereignty of God, his identity as the Creator, the nature of man as his creation and subordinate, our innate knowledge of the moral law, the reality, authority, and perspicuity of written revelation, and other relevant metaphysical and epistemological doctrines.
Nevertheless, the distinction between doctrines and ethics is merely a practical one, made for the sake of convenience in discussion. In reality, we mean doctrines about the metaphysical aspects of the Christian worldview, or the epistemological aspects, or the ethical aspects, and so on. These doctrines are interrelated, and some are more foundational than others. This means that the doctrines can be logically prioritized, but they are equally authoritative. In other words, the existence of God is more foundational and logically prior to the divine command, "You shall not murder," but the doctrine of the existence of God and the divine command that forbids murder proceed from the same absolute authority, and are therefore equal in truth and power, compelling agreement and obedience.
It is a common occurrence in religious discussions to evaluate metaphysics on the foundation of ethics, or to use ethics to evaluate metaphysics. The logical priority of metaphysics alerts us as to the error of this approach. This fallacy has influenced the way some Christians present the gospel and challenge unbelievers, and as a result has obscured the rational superiority of the Christian faith.
To illustrate, suppose a non-Christian affirms that it is morally acceptable or even commendable to murder all those who disagree with him. It is often suggested that such a principle is morally repugnant, and on this basis, any view of truth and reality that produced this principle must be false. But the principle is determined to be morally repugnant only by a different view of truth and reality in the first place. This unbeliever finds the principle acceptable or commendable because of his own view of truth and reality. In fact, in his view such killings would not be considered murder. It would not be the unjust killings of innocent people.
This approach assumes agreement on an ethical principle and argues for the metaphysical propositions that best account for the ethical principle. Suppose that the unbeliever opposes mass murder. The believer then demonstrates that the unbeliever's metaphysical assumptions cannot produce such an ethical principle, but that only the biblical worldview can account for it. The believer seems to think that the ethical principle is nonnegotiable, and assumes (hopes?) that the unbeliever thinks the same way. But if the unbeliever is more faithful to his metaphysics – his "god" – than the believer is to the Christian God (the believer should not place ethics before God in the first place), then the unbeliever would maintain his metaphysical assumptions and abandon the ethical principle on which the believer bases his argument.
The Christian, of course, is correct in both his metaphysics and his ethics. He is right in thinking that mass murder is wrong, and he is right in thinking that only biblical metaphysics can account for this judgment. But although he is correct in terms of his knowledge of truth and reality, his approach fails to demonstrate this because it does not maintain the logical priority of metaphysics over ethics. In other words, what is good depends on what is true and what is real. What kind of universe is this, in which mass murder is wrong? Is there a God who reigns supreme, and who has created all living and nonliving things, and thus carries absolute authority to define right and wrong, and has indeed defined right and wrong for us?
Appeal to agreed ethical principles is often legitimate, but it depends on the purpose for which such an appeal is made and the role given to it in one's system of thought. If it is to determine the correct view of reality, then it is a fallacy, since the ethical principle is not fixed unless the metaphysical assumption is first fixed, so that the unbeliever may abandon the former in order to save the latter. Now if the unbeliever abandons his metaphysics to save his ethics, then in terms of intellectual ability he is even more foolish then the believer first assumes. But the unbeliever might react this way because he somehow finds that in this case the ethical principle is nonnegotiable, whereas his view of metaphysics is not.
The biblical explanation is that this ethical principle is part of the innate knowledge of God's moral laws that he has written into the hearts of all men, so that they can find no excuse for their many sins. The unbeliever instinctively knows that the ethical principle is nonnegotiable, because he instinctively knows that it is a divine law, founded on the authority of the Christian God, a view of metaphysics that is also nonnegotiable. Yet he suppresses this instinctive knowledge, and is therefore unable to articulate it, and is seemingly unaware of it.
In any case, in speaking to the unbeliever, we must not base metaphysics on ethics, but sooner or later, we must make it clear that our ethics is based on our metaphysics. Sooner is better. Because ethics is not fixed without metaphysics, ethics must never be the point on which the whole discussion turns, especially if the debate is ultimate about metaphysics, as in the existence and character of God.
Nevertheless, although logical priority belongs to metaphysics, to begin an apologetic encounter with ethics is legitimate when the purpose is to draw attention to metaphysics, or to draw attention to fixed innate and revealed moral principles, which again draw attention to metaphysics. The point is not that we must never begin a discussion with ethics, but that we should never give the impression that metaphysical principles can be judged by seemingly shared ethical principles. The worst that can happen is for us to give non-Christian the impression that our God is merely a heuristic assumption.
The logical priority of metaphysics must also be maintained when teaching those already converted to the Christian faith. The doctrines of Scripture, God, Christ, and so on, must be given logical priority, if not always chronological priority in teaching, before the ethical principles that dictate the believer's thought and behavior. It is an error to give the impression that we believe what we do about God because we believe what we do about right and wrong. Instead, we believe what we do about right and wrong because we believe what we do about God, because we believe about God what he has revealed to us about himself.
Only when this logical priority is maintained – only when God precedes ethics – does it make sense to say that to reject this system of ethics, the biblical system of ethics, is not to reject mere man, but to reject God himself (v. 8). And only when there is a system of ethics the rejection of which is not to reject mere man but to reject God himself does that system of ethics carry authority to compel agreement and obedience. That is, a system of ethics carries authority only when the rejection of which amounts to the rejection of God, and not the rejection of mere man. It can be said on behalf of such an ethical system, "Agree, or else…" and "Obey, or else…" – only such a system can define merits, carry threats, and promise rewards.
To put all of the above in simple words, because God says so, this is right, and because God says so, that is wrong. God commands such and such, and therefore you must do it. God forbids such and such, and therefore you must not do it. You are to believe this because God says it is true. You must renounce that because God says it is false. You must think this way because God tells you to think this way. You must not think that way because God tells you not to think that way. This is the essence of biblical ethics.
Christian ethics is based on the divine command system. This stands in contrast to ethics that are based on naturalistic determinism, subjective intuition, cultural norm, relative judgment or preference, projected utility, projected effect, universal obligation and applicability, and other principles. All non-Christian ethical systems are failures in that they lack coherence and justification, and in many cases, it is impossible to carry them out in thought and practice.
For example, the idea that the right or good course of action to follow in a given situation is the one that yields the highest good for the greatest number of people is impossible in practice. First, the calculation requires omniscience to accomplish. Second, what is "good" for people requires either a definition that does not come from this principle, or another calculation that requires another calculation before that, thus generating an infinite regress for every moral decision. Third, it must be decided whether the calculation is done concerning the short-term or long-terms effects of the action, that is, if the calculation can be made in the first place. The only way to salvage this theory is to uproot the whole thing and place it on the foundation of the divine command system, since only God can define what is good and make the relevant calculations. But placing this theory on the divine command system destroys the theory itself. Moreover, only God has the right to say that this is the right principle in the first place, but he does not say this.
On the other hand, the divine command system supplies specific content for moral reasoning and decision-making. Another point of superiority is that it can be taught. There is no need to advance the proposition, "You shall not murder," as an intuitive ethical principle – many people might not share this intuition, even if they should. Rather, we can expect them to learn, "You shall not murder," because we tell them, "You shall not murder," as a command from God. It follows from this that it is possible under the divine command system to resolve disagreements and to expose rebellion by appealing to a common, public, and absolute authority.
Against some objections, the divine commands are always clear and they never contradict one another, and it is possible to show this. Objections are raised not because people can discover rational or practical difficulties with the system, but because people wish to disobey the divine commands, or since it requires obedience to God in all facets of life, to dispense with the system altogether. Thus the divine command system of ethics is the most – the only – rational, authoritative, and perfect system, but it is also the most hated one.
Sometimes even professing believers find fault with it, as if it is inadequate to provide guidance, but this only exposes their foolishness and rebellion. It is not that the system cannot guide, but that people do not want to follow its guidance. There is a God who speaks and commands, but people do not want to hear and obey. Those who profess the faith but protest this system do not lend credibility to the objections, but rather weaken the credibility of their profession.
In any case, the main reason that the divine command system of ethics is the only legitimate system is that it proceeds necessarily from the only true system of metaphysics and epistemology. There really is an all-sovereign God (metaphysics) who has really revealed his mind in verbal propositions recorded in the written text of Scripture (epistemology), and this text includes an entire system of ethical commands that is sufficient to provide morally binding guidance to all of life. The person who heeds and obeys these instructions is "equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17).
Paul is aware that he delivers instructions "by the authority of the Lord Jesus" (v. 2), and he reminds the Thessalonians of it. Since the instructions come from God, to reject these instructions is to reject not mere man, but to reject God himself (v. 8). No terrible consequence might come about for rejecting a mere man's opinion, but to reject God's command is to invite punishment, if not damnation (v. 6). The implication of a knowing and persistent defiance is that the person is not a child of God, and is doomed to suffer the everlasting torture of hellfire. This is the absolute authority and serious implication of the Christian system of ethics.
When we are reading or preaching from the Bible, we are reading or preaching a message recorded by the same Paul that delivered instructions to the people of his day "by the authority of the Lord Jesus." And we are reading or preaching from the inspired documents produced by the same prophets and apostles who spoke by the authority of God. Since God the Father and the Lord Jesus still possess the same authority today, the doctrines and precepts that we find in the Bible also carry the same authority today. Because the doctrines and precepts in the Bible are revealed and delivered by the authority of God, those who reject the Bible do not reject mere men or a mere book, but they reject God himself. God will punish them for this defiance. The positive aspect of this is that to follow God's precepts for living is to adopt a lifestyle that pleases him (v. 1). This is the ongoing authority and relevance of the Christian system of ethics.
Paul makes particular mention of sexual immorality (v. 3). It is possible that the Thessalonians still struggle to shake themselves from the perversions associated with pagan culture and worship, but the admonition is applicable in general. Christians ought to control their bodies, and to adopt a lifestyle that is "holy and honorable" (v. 4). This is said in contrast to "the heathen, who do not know God" (v. 5).
In Christian writing and exposition, it is appropriate to regularly draw attention to the depraved mindset and lifestyle of the non-Christians, and in contrast, the superior condition of the Christians. Paul makes the point: "The non-Christians do not know God, but now you are Christians, and you do know God. They are inferior, and you are superior, so act like it." Sometimes Christians hesitate to assert that they are better than the non-Christians, thinking that it is humble to avoid the claim of superiority or to practice self-deprecation even in contrast to the non-Christians.
However, when we refer to aspects of our intelligence, personality, and lifestyle that have been addressed in redemption, self-deprecation soon crosses the line from admissions of personal shortcomings to blasphemies against the work of Christ. It is one thing to claim superiority on the basis of something inherent in ourselves – that comes from a prideful and self-righteous attitude. But it is another thing to declare that we are superior in intelligence and in character because of what Christ has done for us and in us – that comes from true faith and humility. God makes Christians superior to non-Christians by his sovereign grace through Jesus Christ and by his Holy Spirit.
The alternative is to declare that Christ's work is futile, and that the Spirit's power is ineffective. This is not humility, but a self-serving pretense to humility that denigrates the grace of God and the work of Christ. If you were just like other non-Christians before your conversion, but Christ has made you better than before through conversion, this means that you are now better than the non-Christians. The logic is unavoidable; false humility is self-defeating. As Christians, if we are not already better in some aspects, and potentially better in many other aspects, then redemption has no meaning and no effect, and we believe and preach the gospel in vain.
I am a Christian, and therefore in intelligence, in character, and also in many other aspects I am superior to the non-Christians. This is not because I am inherently superior to them, or that I had always been superior to them. I was as foolish, immoral, and depraved in every way as they are before conversion, except for the divine decree for my conversion, still secret before it was carried out. I am superior because I am a Christian, but there is no room for boasting since I did not make myself a Christian, but I am what I am because of God's sovereign choice. He sent Christ to save me, and he gave me his Holy Spirit. Therefore, although I cannot boast about anything in myself, I will boast about what he has done, including what he has done in me (1 Corinthians 1:31; Galatians 6:14). True faith relies on something outside of and other than oneself – namely, Jesus Christ – so that its confidence becomes as great as the object on which it relies.
This application of redemption also renders Paul's ethical admonition reasonable, for it follows from the superior condition of the Christians, effected by the power of God at conversion. In light of the contrast between the believers and the unbelievers, how can we continue to indulge in sexual immorality, as if we are unintelligent beasts (Psalm 32:9), which are without understanding, and without the knowledge of God? The duty to excel has been placed upon us, and there is nothing to excuse us from it.
Sexual immorality is the norm for non-Christians. Paul calls us to think differently, to live differently, and to distinguish ourselves from the unbelievers, who do not know God. We must mention this over and over again because the devil is like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. It is vital to spiritual survival and progress for us to remain alert and vigilant. Failing this, many Christian families and congregations have been infiltrated by non-Christian beliefs and practices. And failing to remain aware of God's unchanging standard and the Spirit's conviction, some have lost sensitivity to the gross immorality among them and around them. Then, when one of them awakens to the divine command and voices dissent, he is ironically criticized and persecuted.
It should be unnecessary to point out that just because a sin is common does not mean that it is not a sin. The more common it is the more alarmed we should be about the situation. When we consider what Scripture says on this issue, and how often it goes unheeded, it becomes obvious that we have not been diligent and fierce enough in proclaiming God's commandments. If the typical admonition is rare and weak, to outright condemn sexual immorality with threats of punishment is considered socially and even ecclesiastically unacceptable. No coward is qualified to proclaim the word of God, and alas, so few are qualified that the rest of us must take up the slack with a seemingly inhuman severity in our preaching. Such preaching is good and necessary, and Paul confers to us the authority we need.
It makes a difference if a person is an adulterer, a fornicator, a homosexual, or some other perverted person. Paul writes, "The Lord will punish men for all such sins" (v. 6b), and adds, "as we have already told you and warned you" (v. 6c). The topic assumes a prominent place in the apostle's ethical teachings, and he considers it worthy of repetition, accompanied with threats. Verse 6 is better rendered, "the Lord is an avenger in all these things" (ESV). This is said in the context of the previous statement, "in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him" (v. 6a). In other words, God will take it upon himself to avenge not only his own honor, that his command has been disregarded (v. 8), but he will also avenge the party that has been wronged.
Therefore, it is nothing short of a gross dereliction of duty when a Christian minister fails to declare God's command on this issue, and to do so accompanied by threats. Scripture compels us to preach, "If you commit adultery, God will punish you. If you are a homosexual, God will make you suffer." God is the avenger – he will destroy your life for cheating on your spouse, for defiling a person's husband or wife, and he will torture you in hell forever after he is done with you in this life. Anyone who thinks that this is false or at least too harsh for Christian preaching should start reading the Bible. Anything weaker than this is not the whole truth. This is Christianity – take it and obey it, or leave it and suffer.
It is fashionable to preach about compassion, understanding, reconciliation, second chances, and so on, toward adulterers and homosexuals. Scripture does not talk about sexual immorality in this manner. It defines and upholds God's strict standard on the issue and condemns all those who transgress. There is indeed forgiveness in Jesus Christ, but notice that Paul issues his warning of God's vengeance even to Christians. So no one should think that he can make a mockery of divine pardon.
If we are to reflect the scriptural emphasis on this issue, then it is necessary for us to multiply the accusations and condemnations in our preaching, instead of to avoid or reduce them. Preachers who refuse to hold out the inflexible standard of the word of God in this crooked and depraved generation (Philippians 2:15-16) should admit that they are unfit for the ministry and resign. If they wish to be positive in every way, they ought to become motivational speakers, and motivate their hearers straight to hell. They should stop pretending to be pastors and prophets to God's people.
Verse 9 illustrates that not every admonition corresponds to an existing shortcoming among Paul's readers. He says that there is no need to tell the Thessalonians to walk in love, since they already exemplify this godly characteristic. The admonition is that they should do so "more and more" (v. 10), but it is not as if they are not doing it at all. The reason that they have flourished in this area of their faith is attributed to God's guidance, that they have been "taught by God." We may be certain that, in his initial interactions with these converts, Paul had mentioned the virtue of love and how it flows from genuine faith in Christ. But as he says elsewhere, "So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Corinthians 3:7). He may say it, and indeed this is a necessary part, but only God can make them do it. This principle inspires both humility and confidence in ministers of the gospel. Humility, because the success cannot be credited to us. Confidence, because the effect is not limited by us.
No matter how talented and resourceful, a minister can never produce the result that he desires by his own power, bringing his hearers from conversion to perfection by his own words and efforts. We are dealing in matters of the spirit, and after some distance the power of man reaches an end, and only God can bridge the gap and cause the process to bear fruit. And even the things man seems to be able to do are caused and energized by God. There is a vast difference between one who is sent with nothing but human credentials, and one who is sent by God's sovereign ordination, and who goes forth with invincible confidence, accompanied by divine power.
The application of this truth extends beyond ministry to others. The more personal and immediate question is whether we ourselves have been taught by God. Many believers take a deistic approach to their Christian life, but the Scripture indicates that healthy disciples should be conscious of God's illumination and endowment. The Thessalonians have been "taught by God." Then, it is said that God works in the Philippians "to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13). And God would "make clear" to them some aspects of Paul's teachings (Philippians 3:15). Also, Paul writes to Timothy, "Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this" (2 Timothy 2:7).
Verse 11 might not seem severe, but its content would trouble some people. Against a culture that entices one to crave adventure and greatness, to achieve and to become the extraordinary, it is as if Paul writes, "Be ambitious to be unambitious," "Make it your ambition to have no ambition," or "Strive hard to be ordinary." It is not that there is a paradox within the verse, but when non-Christian standards are used to define worthy ambitions, then the verse shows that the Christian faith contradicts these non-Christian ideals. The verse stands against the non-Christian philosophy of life, and it is a corrective for the believers who have adopted an ungodly way of thinking. God indeed calls some people to lead unusual lives, but even then he defines greatness and excitement differently, and in a way that does not contradict verse 11.
The admonition is associated with a teaching against meddlesomeness and idleness, and indeed this modifies the sense of the "quiet life" advocated, although the above usage is not excluded. Sometimes it is assumed that a number of the Thessalonian Christians have misapplied that teaching of Christ's second coming, using it as an excuse to escape the normal routines and stations of life. Although the admonition is broad in application, and thus is certainly relevant to such an assumption about the Thessalonians, there is in fact no clear indication of a connection between the two, that is, between the doctrine of the second coming and the unproductive lifestyle. It might be that these converts avoid labor for some other reason.
That said, eschatological frenzy has produced precisely this problem among many professing Christians in our own day, so that the assumed imminence of Christ's return is used as an excuse to forsake normal routines and stations, and this often translates into meddlesomeness, idleness, and dependence on the charity of others, all the time casting themselves as eschatological heroes who have been called "for such a time as this." These individuals fail to "win the respect of outsiders" (v. 12), but giving reason for unbelievers to consider us bums and fools, they dishonor the name of Christ and bring shame upon us all. To them, Paul's instruction is most appropriate: "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you." This directive comes from a chosen apostle by divine authority, so anyone who disobeys it cannot at the same time present himself as a devout Christian, faithfully awaiting the Lord's return.
The Very Word of God
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
For our purpose, we may divide Paul's preaching ministry into the two aspects of revelation and publication. Revelation – that is, the reception of revelation – refers to the source of his ideas, and the way in which he received them, whereas publication refers to the expression of these ideas through spoken and written proclamation, argumentation, exposition, and so on. Regarding the source of his teachings, he writes, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12). As for the manner of publication, he says, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words" (1 Corinthians 2:13).
Thus Paul is consciously aware that his message originates from divine revelation and not human invention, and that it is the Spirit who chooses the words by which he conveys the message. He deliberately asserts this in several places. Whenever he does so, he does not describe it as a negotiable theological position or a mere scholar's opinion. And he does not describe those who agree with him on this as having achieved some special breakthrough in faith that other people, who are also believers, have yet to attain. He does not portray the belief that his message is the very word of God as belonging to a higher spiritual plane or level of development among Christians. Rather, he notes that when a person receives the message of the apostles as the very word of God, he is simply receiving the message for what it is – it is the word of God. In our verse, he is referring to Thessalonians' reception of his preaching at their conversion. He is not describing a superior reception among many acceptable options, but the only acceptable reception of the gospel is to receive the word of God as the word of God.
But this also means that when a person regards the message of the apostles as something less than or other than the word of God, he is not receiving the message for what it is, which necessarily means that he does not receive the message, since by definition, if something is received as something that it is not, then it is not truly received. If the gospel is the word of God, and a person regards it as the word of mere men and thus receives it as the word of mere men, then this person does not in fact receive the gospel. And since the gospel is the only message that saves a person through faith, it is biblically impossible to reach any other conclusion than that a person who does not perceive and receive the gospel – the gospel preached by the apostles and recorded in the Bible – as the very word of God is not a Christian at all.
There is no justification for welcoming him as a brother or thinking that he is a believer of Jesus Christ. Rather, by irresistible logic, Scripture compels us to regard him as an unbeliever, still in his sin, coming short of repentance and true belief in the gospel, doomed to endless torture in hellfire. To regard the word of God as the word of mere men is not faith, not even weak faith, but non-faith, unbelief, and blasphemy. The difference is not a matter of "more or less," but one of "either-or," not a matter of degree, but of truth and reality. Thus to regard the doctrine of the apostles as the word of men is to deny that it is the word of God – it is to reject the gospel, the only message that saves.
Whether we are dealing with the teachings of the apostles in their preaching, or with the same ideas in their writing, the divine inspiration that governs their thinking and propels their preaching is such that to receive their word as God's word is to receive it as what it really is, the word of God. Since the words that they speak and write are the words of God because of divine inspiration, the same principle by which the words spoken and written by men are identified as the words of God applies to the prophets as well, since they were also divinely inspired, and without question, also to the Lord Jesus, for he spoke as one who had the Spirit without measure and who was himself God incarnate, the express image of his person.
This is why in a number of places "God" and "Scripture" are interchangeable in the Bible. For example, Galatians 3:8 says, "the Scripture…foresaw…and announced," when in the Genesis record, it is God who did these things. Sometimes it is said that God or the Holy Spirit speaks "through" this man or another. That is, the divine person is the speaker, but he communicates "through" a human instrument, so that all the ideas and words that come forth from the human instrument in fact originate from the divine speaker (see Acts 1:16, 28:25; Hebrews 4:7).
God and Scripture are so identified, that for many purposes, it causes no confusion to regard them as the same. Between the two, there is no difference in thought, no difference in expression, and often no difference even in identity. It necessarily follows that between the two, there is no difference in authority. And since there is no difference in authority between God and Scripture, there can be no difference in the responsibility that each imposes on men. Because God has absolute authority to legislate everything about human thought and behavior, it follows that Scripture has this authority as well, since there is no difference. And to speak against Scripture, to blaspheme it, is to blaspheme God. There is no difference. Man is accountable to Scripture in the same way and to the same degree as he is accountable to God. Unless this is what we believe, we have no doctrine of actual revelation or inspiration, and in fact, no gospel at all.
Some objections against this principle of equivalence, that there is no difference between the word of Scripture and the word of God (and all the implications that this entails), hinge on the means or the agents by which the message is delivered. There are those who find it inconceivable that a message delivered by men could be the very word of God – the exact verbal expression of the mind of God – as if men err on a constant basis, as if men can never receive communication from God, as if even an Almighty God can never reveal the ideas and words that he wills to be proclaimed and recorded in writing, as if one person can never deliver a message for another with precision and accuracy, as if an Almighty God can never create some men whose background, disposition, character, and other qualities make them fitting instruments for the reception of revelation, and as if an Almighty God can never control these men that he has created to speak and to write the exact words that he wishes to be proclaimed and recorded.
To the extent that these objections focus solely on the means, they neglect to examine the content of the revelation itself, and ignore its inherent beauty and perfection, its undeniable coherence, its undefeatable rationality. Those who decide that the biblical documents were written by men, and therefore could be nothing more than the fallible and errant word of men, think that they know about men apart from these biblical documents. So they are imposing by pure assumption on the biblical writers flaws that they find in themselves, and not flaws that they are able to demonstrate from the biblical documents. The epistemological hurdle here is insurmountable – these criticisms against Scripture amount only to self-criticisms.
But if they are compelled to refute the infallibility of Scripture by examining the actual content of Scripture, then they must admit that they cannot refute the Scripture solely by imposing the assumption that men always err, that there is no such thing as divine inspiration, or if there is, that it cannot even momentarily overcome men's fallibility. Again, if men are so constantly errant that even divine inspiration cannot overcome it, then we have every reason to dismiss these men's objections, since they are necessarily errant. To repeat, at this time, we are considering only those objections that hinge on finding fault with the means or agents by which God conveys his ideas and words to humanity. And it is determined that these objections cannot succeed. The implication is that to argue against the infallibility of Scripture, one must deal with the actual content of Scripture.
It would be instructive to consider some possible alternatives in the means or agents by which the word of God was delivered. Some might think that the Bible would be infallible if it was delivered by angels, but the assumption is unjustified. What makes an angel infallible without God's infallible control? The word of an angel is still not the word of God, even if it contains no error. But if God creates and controls an angel to deliver his message, then why could he not do the same with a man, that is, to create and control a man to deliver a divine message?
There are some who scoff, and say that if God were to directly speak from heaven, or appear on earth and speak to them, then they would believe that the message comes from God. And they issue a challenge based on the assumption that if there is a God and he speaks to men, then this is the way he would do it. Of course, this assumption is without justification and requires no further response. The actual effect of this challenge is that it yields insight into the level of intelligence of those who think like this. Have they thought about what God would sound like? As the Gospel of John records, God had indeed spoken from heaven, but some thought it thundered. And what would God look like? What do they expect to see? If a bright light appears and speaks to them, does it follow that it is God speaking? How do they know?
In one way or another, objections that complain about the means by which divine revelation was delivered – namely, by human agents – ignore the content of the message, but target the credibility of the means of the message's delivery as judged by their sensations, apart from the ability of the source of the message to secure an infallible delivery. Thus objections that target the means apart from the content or the source are sensual rather than intellectual. Those who advance these objections not only do not think, but they do not want to think, and so they do not deal with the content of the message. This accords with what we understand about the disposition of the reprobates. They are sensual, empirical, non-intellectual, non-thinking people – they are as animals, who depend on seeing, hearing, touching, smelling…but not thinking.
Unbelievers cannot perceive the word of God for what it is because it is spiritually perceived. They lack the disposition and competence to perceive it for what it is with their minds. They think that men wrote the Bible, and therefore it must be the word of men. They make this judgment without regard to the heavenliness of the content. Yet some claim that they would believe if the same message were delivered to them in conjunction with some spectacular display of divine presence. But this just shows that they are sensual and irrational, and not intellectual.
This is part of the reason Jesus could say, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31). If they are irrational and non-intellectual, then what would a shock to the senses do? They would still lack the intellectual disposition and competence to recognize the true nature and source of an intellectual message. But if they possess the intellectual disposition and competence to recognize intellectual truth, then they would not need a shock to the senses. This intellectual enlightenment is what is granted to the elect in conversion. Reprobates remain in darkness and a mentally disabled condition.
A cat becomes excited if you wave a feather back and forth in front of it, but if you recite an intellectual discourse to the cat, it will probably turn its back on you and take a nap. It does not appreciate it. Why? Because compared to humans, cats are stupid. And compared to Christians, non-Christians are stupid. Oh, I admit that many Christians are stupid, and that is because they are either false believers, or because they have not continued to renew their minds by the word of God after conversion. But non-Christians are always worse.
Although we no longer have Paul among us in the flesh, we have in the Bible the same message that he preached to the Thessalonians, a message that both he and the Thessalonians recognized as "the word of God." As in his day, it is also the case today, that those who are unenlightened and inferior in intelligence, who therefore focus only on the means, would perceive this word of God as the mere word of men. But the message has not changed – it remains the word of God. In fact, even the means and the agents are the same, since it is still the same man, Paul, who delivers the same message, the faith of Jesus Christ, to the church and to the world. And just as he published his message through both speaking and writing, and the writing would record what he preached in his speaking, in the Bible we now possess the same message that he published to his generation.
Therefore, in the Bible we have the same "word of God" that he delivered in his day. The crucial issue for us is whether we will receive it as what it is, that is, the word of God, or as what it is not, that is, the mere word of men. Because it is the same word of God, it carries the same authenticity and authority as when Paul delivered it – it carries the same authenticity and authority as Almighty God himself, for there is no difference. And because the Bible carries the same authenticity and authority as God himself, it imposes the same accountability upon all men as when Paul preached it to his hearers. In other words, anyone who rejects the word of God, in the sense that he refuses to believe what it says, or that he refuses to perceive it as what it is, the word of God, defies Almighty God himself, and will suffer the appropriate punishment of everlasting hellfire. Those who received it as the word of men and disobeyed it will be punished as if they had disobeyed the word of God, because it is indeed the word of God.
If we are concerned that hearers should receive the word of God as the word of God, what should we think of preachers who regard the word of God as the mere word of men, and who propagate this falsehood? We must publicly expose and expel them from the ministry and the church. We must condemn them in much stronger terms than we do even murderers, adulterers, and kidnappers. If this seems harsh or offensive to you, it is only because your thinking has fallen far from the biblical standard. Your mind has been captured by the devil, and desensitized to wickedness and rebellion. We can place part of the blame on these preachers who regard the word of God as the mere word of men for the prevalence of all kinds of sins, and we can also blame you for tolerating and encouraging these false preachers. It is your fault, since you do not do your part to throw them out of positions of influence. You are responsible. You share in their guilt.
To receive the message of the apostles as the word of God, which is what it really is, is not a spiritual height to be attained or a theological conclusion to be reached after prolonged deliberation, but Paul assumes that it is the starting point of the Christian life, an event that occurs at conversion, and in fact, an indication of conversion. If you do not receive the message of the apostles as the word of God, then on what basis do you say that you are a Christian according to God? On what basis do you say that you have faith toward God or a positive relation to God, as defined by God? Should we not, by your own standard, regard you as a non-Christian? If any part of the gospel is an invention of men, then by what message are you saved? You are still in your sin. And those preachers who deny that the Bible is the word of God, on what basis do they instruct us, or exercise any authority over us? Rather, must we not regard them as deceivers, as anti-christs, as demons from hell? We have no authority to think or behave otherwise.
If you are under a church or seminary leader who does not believe that the Bible is the word of God, that it is the perfect verbal revelation and communication from God, then it is your Christian duty and your moral obligation to overthrow him. Take him down from the pulpit. Expel him from the church. Throw him out of the seminary. Do this, and do it today, lest you share in his guilt and also his punishment. There is no need to become overly suspicious or critical. In our day, thousands of preachers and professors condemn themselves on this issue by their explicit testimony.
Jesus says, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27). If the Bible is his message and thus his voice, and you do not recognize it, then what does that make you? How can you be his sheep? Ah, I hear his voice in the Scripture – it is the word of God. There is no difference between the voice of the Bible and the voice of the Almighty. When you read the Bible, what do you perceive? When you listen to the Scripture, what do you hear?
The Great Invasion
An excerpt from Power Apologetics.
Jesus turned the other cheek, but he also turned over tables. He did not do just one of the two all of the time, but he did both, depending on what was appropriate to the situation. Likewise, we are to do both, depending on the situation. The Christian who turns the other cheek even when he should turn over tables, probably turns the other cheek not because he is humble, but because he is a coward. And the one who turns over tables all the time, and who never turns the other cheek, probably turns over tables not because of spiritual boldness or zealousness, but only because he has an aggressive and impatient personality. Or, perhaps both have been misinformed as to how a believer should act. We are to be able to do both, and an understanding of biblical principles will guide us as to what we are to do in any situation. In apologetics, there are times when we need to turn over some tables.
Sometimes non-Christians use 1 Peter 3:15 to manipulate believers. They exploit the Christian's own false interpretation of the verse to make him answer for his faith, and to do it with gentleness and respect. This answer is usually taken in the defensive sense, so that the Christian is supposed to endlessly provide defensive responses to questions and objections. Given the false interpretation of the verse, there is never a point when the interrogation must conclude, and when the non-Christian must either answer for his own beliefs, or else surrender to the gospel.
The gentleness and respect are understood in a way that makes them resemble the passivity in Buddhism and Confucianism rather than the fruit of the Spirit. This is an abomination, and it allows unbelievers to pressure Christians to offer only defensive answers about their faith that pose no direct intellectual threat to the unbelievers, and that pose no direct emotional strain on their feelings. So they say, "Answer me, Christian! Defend your to faith me! Explain it to me! Prove it to me! Dance! Dance! Dance! And don't you dare raise your voice, or to insult and deride me. Be nice, like the Bible tells you! And when you are done, do it all over again!"
The implications of unbiblical apologetics encourage the unbelievers to keep the intellectual and emotional burden of the conflict on the Christians all the time. The unbelievers are able to get away with this as long as the Christians operate under a false interpretation of Scripture and unnecessarily permit the unbelievers to make them suffer, all the time thinking that they are enduring defeat and humiliation for the sake of Christ. The truth is that they suffer because of a silly hermeneutical blunder. Once the interpretation is set right, the Christians are set free.
In fact, for those who affirm this false interpretation, or who maintain a general misunderstanding of what Scripture requires in terms of the answer that we give and the manner in which we give it, they will make themselves suffer without much effort from the unbelievers. They will offer defensive answers, and refrain from attacking the unbelievers. And all the time they will be doing this with exemplary Buddhist humility and Confucian gentleness. I denounce this pagan rendition of biblical ethics.
But how the truth sets us free! First, Peter is talking about the way Christians ought to behave under official interrogation, so that the gentleness and respect are shown to authorities for the sake of God, who established all authorities. Second, an "answer" refers to anything that might explain why we affirm the gospel or why we are justified in affirming the gospel. This must include our belief that unbelievers are foolish and wicked, that they are mentally bankrupt and morally depraved, and that all their beliefs are false and irrational. Once we possess this understanding, then we will drop that obnoxious, effeminate, and anti-biblical "humble" apologetics. We will take up the sword of the Spirit and slaughter the non-Christians, totally subduing and humiliating them in argumentation. This shall be our answer.
When this becomes our answer, the unbelievers will realize that they are no longer safe. They can no longer manipulate us with our own Scriptures or use 1 Peter 3:15 as a shield for their unbelief and rebellion. If they attack the Christian faith, they are not going to walk away from the conflict unscathed. They will have their own ideas thoroughly examined, challenged, refuted, and destroyed – every time. Every question that they ask us will cost them. Every objection that they launch against us will backfire. And when they become weary of debate, they can no longer excuse themselves from the situation, as if they have no obligation to answer us, to answer our challenges against what they believe and how they behave. They will know that not only will we fight back when they attack, but we are going after them. We are the hunters, they are the prey.
You say, "This apologetic frightens me." You are a fool. Do you not see that this is the Great Commission? Do you not see that the Commission is a manifest for spiritual world invasion? Jesus Christ is Lord over all, and he sends us to every part of the earth, even to every person, to declare his lordship to them, and to teach them to obey everything that he has commanded. Therefore, we have the duty and the right to invade all areas of the earth, to intrude into all lives, and then to challenge and command them to repent, and to tell them what to believe and how to behave. This is the commission and the authority of the Christian.
You must accept and follow your Lord's command, and the power of his Spirit will be with you. When I answer the unbelievers, I do not answer by my own authority – I am not defending myself or asking them to worship me. But I answer in the name of the Lord Jesus, and so I answer according to his teachings, and according to what he has wrought in my life. In his name I order the unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel, and to obey everything he commands. I am a messenger of life and glory to those chosen for salvation, and a messenger of death and damnation to those who refuse to believe. We are called to world conquest, to confront the unbelievers, to attack their way of life, and to convert them to our way of thinking and living. Nothing less than this can count as Christian ministry. If we will think this way, we will advance, we will conquer, and nothing will be able to stand before us. And we will be always ready, ready to win.
The Spirit Sword
An excerpt from Power Apologetics.
The Bible tells us that we have the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. This metaphor is relevant because it applies to spiritual conflict, which is what happens when a battle of ideas rages between Christians and non-Christians. If our approach to apologetics invokes the word of God, then when unbelievers challenge us, our answer will involve plunging this weapon straight into their hearts. This is a war, and your duty is clear. When you face a non-Christian opponent, you must hurt him. You must attack his pride. You must damage his confidence. You must destroy that which he believes and trusts in. Then you must declare his defeat, and show the world that you have put him under your feet in the name of Christ.
If we will adopt this biblical approach to apologetics when confronting unbelievers or when confronted by them, then they will never be the same. The gospel spells their defeat, their death, their eternal doom. If they refuse to repent, then their darkness will get darker, their hearts will grow harder. They will lose that much more of their sanity and their humanity. They will become even more stupid, and even more evil. They will die in their deaths. As for those whom God has chosen and enabled to believe, he will raise them from the dead and awaken them to righteousness. Either way, once the word of God penetrates, they will never be the same.
A sword implies blood, violence, offense, and conquest. We condemn ourselves if we confess that the word of God is the sword of the Spirit, but at the same time fail to give proper place to the offensive nature of our work. We say that we believe the Great Commission, but insofar as the preaching of the gospel propagates ideas that contradict what the non-Christians believe, the offensive aspect of our work in fact precedes any defensive measure. If we are silent about what we believe, or if we hold our sword in its sheath, though its lively nature protests all suppression, then there would be nothing for the unbelievers to challenge. The fact that they demand an answer or defense from us presupposes that we, or more faithful soldiers than we, have already taken the offensive.
The sword of the Spirit is sheathed in truth, which the Bible likens to a belt that holds other items in place. This weapon of attack is drawn from the truth, out of the truth. In more concrete terms, it is derived or deduced from the Bible. Since this relation obtains, if the sword signifies particular and agile applications, then the belt could refer to the whole biblical system of doctrine. The constant pursuit and growth in the disciplines of systematic theology, of biblical theology, of general biblical knowledge, and of particular biblical passages, strengthen our belt and sharpen our sword.
How grateful I am to the Lord when I look over at my opponents, and also a little amused. They are unkempt, undressed, and unarmed. Some tremble, as they ought. But some are confident – those are the delusional ones, for they have no sense to perceive that a greater one stands before them in the name of Christ. He has not left me unprepared, but has ensured that I am well-trained and well-equipped. He has given me the assurance that I shall win every time, if I will only fight, and slay his enemies with decisive strokes of the sword.
It is agreed among Christians that truth is our foundation, our center, and the source of our thinking. It is doubtful that anyone who does not agree with this is a Christian at all. Thus we draw our presuppositions, doctrines, and arguments from the truth, that is, from the Scripture. However, it is not agreed as to how truth is to be applied and defended. The approach to apologetics that I denounce here has resulted from a false understanding of what it means to provide an answer or defense to those who inquire, and what it means and in what context to do this with "gentleness and respect."
This false understanding is in turn a result of a disinterest in what Peter really has to say, and a pursuit of a private agenda, namely, to assert an approach to social discourse and interaction that pleases the sentimentalities and cultural standards of non-Christians. Of course, the distortion of Peter's words is not the only factor contributing to this pagan approach, but the verse is a good and prominent example among others that have been similarly abused. This has resulted in an unbiblical restraint in two main areas of apologetics.
First, the unbiblical approach to apologetics places a restraint on reason. Christians sometimes exhibit an aversion to "reason," in part because they are confused and disobedient, but in part because the word is often loaded with assumptions that believers should not accept. Whether consciously or instinctively, sometimes Christians detect these assumptions, and rather than challenge them, they become hostile to reason itself. And thus the unbelievers call the Christians unreasonable or irrational. However, it is not reason itself that we need to be wary of, but these assumptions.
For example, rationalism is the way of thinking that claims to utilize reason to discover and to deduce an entire system of truth, with a conscious rejection of revelation from the start. Of course Christians cannot accept this, and no thinking person should. Or, empiricism is often identified with reason. Since the scientific method involves a deliberate application of empirical methods and assumptions, science is often identified with reason as well. But again, it is not necessary to identify empiricism and science with reason.
Instead, reason can refer to the bare laws of logic, the principles that describe the necessary rules of thought. For example, two propositions must not contradict each other. Or, when one item is equal to another, and the second is equal to the third, then the first is also equal to the third. Basic principles like these also form the basis for delineating the forms that valid arguments must take. These are necessary rules of thought that one must follow whether or not we spell them out. And men instinctively and necessarily use them as they speak and debate with one another.
From the Christian perspective, reason is a description of the way God thinks. It is the way he structures creation, and the way he structures his revelation. Thus a rock cannot be a rock and not a rock at the same time and in the same sense. And the Bible assumes the necessity of logic in its teachings and arguments. For example, Jesus assumes that the Bible cannot contradict itself when he contested with Satan, and there is no record that the devil himself argued with him about it. Then, he also used the same principle to confound the Pharisees, as when he noted that the Messiah was to be both the son and the lord of David. The writings of the prophets and the apostles are also full of arguments that assume the laws of logic.
There is nothing wrong with reason itself, if we will remove the unnecessary assumptions from it. And when we do so, we find that reason is an unstoppable weapon in the hands of a Christian. For example, we find that all of science crumbles within several seconds when tested by reason. Of course, if we identify science with reason, then we might not say this, since science would be reason. But if we take reason to mean logic without the baggage of unnecessary assumptions, then the claim that science is rational is annihilated. This is because of its reliance on induction, sensation, and the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent in its thinking and procedures. Any one of these three items would destroy the claim that science is even a little bit rational. Science is only a sophisticated and systematized version of irrationalism.
If we will press this point in apologetics, then all scientific objections against the Christian faith would be destroyed even before they are examined. The method of science destroys itself, and prevents it from discovering anything about reality. The usual approach in apologetics is to flatter science, and to say that it can indeed discover truth if it is properly conducted. Then the defense of the gospel turns into a debate about science, and thus the unbeliever neutralizes the Christian's purpose regardless of the outcome of the debate. The kingdom of heaven makes no progress.
Even the popular version of presuppositional apologetics endorses science, although it teaches that we cannot account for it without biblical presuppositions. But this is even more ridiculous. Science is irrational in itself, which means that no set of presuppositions can justify it or account for it, except to account for its falsehood. Therefore, this form of presuppositional apologetics makes the Bible an accomplice to a lie. Rather than to defend the faith, it commits blasphemy. Reason belongs to the Christians. We must not let non-Christians hijack it by loading it with their private assumptions. They claim reason for themselves. I am taking it back.
Some Christians have used the informal fallacies to illustrate Scripture's disagreement with reason. But the informal fallacies are themselves applications of reason, and do not strictly belong the reason itself. These applications might be right, or they might be wrong. For example, the informal fallacy of name-calling points to a genuine logical problem only when it is reduced to a fallacy of irrelevance. That is, if one person insults another with a name or label that is irrelevant to the debate, and if he utters the insult as if it is relevant, then it is a logical fallacy. But there is no logical problem in the act of name-calling itself.
In fact, if the name-calling proceeds from the person's worldview, then it is a necessary part of what needs to be discussed. For example, Scripture uses the words "sinners," "fools," "dogs," "snakes," and the like to describe unbelievers. If the Christian avoids using them, then he is no longer speaking for the Christian faith. So in these cases, the insults are not informal fallacies, but part of the Christian worldview. This is what we believe – we believe that the non-Christians are sinners, fools, dogs, and so on. And if the non-Christian disagrees with these characterizations, then that is part of his worldview. The conflict now becomes more clear, and the debate can become more relevant and productive as a result.
Second, the unbiblical approach to apologetics places a restraint on rhetoric. This is another loaded word. It is often associated with sophistry, or a skillful use of language for the purpose of deception or manipulation. This is not what I mean. When emptied of these assumptions, the word can simply refer to an effective use of language, or skill in speaking or writing. The purpose is to bring clarity into our communication, and to bring out the force inherent in our beliefs.
Words are symbols that convey ideas. The symbols are not associated with the ideas by necessity, since one symbol can represent an idea just as well as another. So it does not matter which symbols we use to represent our ideas. But once the symbols are associated with the ideas, then it matters which symbols we use when we communicate our ideas, since the different symbols now represent different ideas. Then, the tone, style, and structure of our communication also affect the precise nuances of the ideas communicated. Thus rhetoric is not for mere effect.
In apologetics, the Christian is to use all the rhetorical devices, forms, styles, and expressions exhibited in Scripture. Many of these are not opposed by believers and teachers in apologetics, but others are denounced as harsh and unloving, even though they come from Scripture. As mentioned, rhetoric cannot be entirely divorced from content, so that to oppose the rhetoric of Scripture is to oppose its content. Scripture denounces sin, but it does this in certain tones, using certain words, and with certain attitudes. If we retain what we think are the ideas expressed, but use only the tones and the words that unbelievers do not find offensive, then we are still not telling the world what the Scripture really says, or what the Christian worldview really is. In addition, the language of Scripture also evokes a certain response. If you change the language, you change the response. Therefore, to present or defend the gospel in this manner is unbiblical and unsatisfactory.
The rejection of biblical rhetoric is a liability in debate, and it is a sin before God, since it implies shame or contempt regarding his word. May God liberate his people from the human traditions that forbid them to follow the Bible in both its content and its language, in both its reason and its rhetoric. It does not matter how many of you are on the other side of this issue. You are wrong. And you cannot fight God and win. My Father is greater than all. As for those who have ears to hear, you are free to speak and write the way that the prophets did it, the way the apostles did it, and the way the Lord Jesus did it. Do not let religious traditions or cultural standards hinder you from following the word of God. Unless you shake yourself from these, you will not find freedom in wielding the sword of the Spirit.
We are to throw off all restraints that limit our use of reason and rhetoric to attack the non-Christians, to criticize their way of life, and to destroy everything that they believe in.
The sword of the Spirit is a spiritual weapon. The Christian wields it in preaching and in argument. But this weapon is the sword of the Spirit in another sense also. That is, it is the Holy Spirit who determines the effect that the word of God has on people. The Christian wields it in speech and in writing, but the Spirit causes it to penetrate into the hearts of men. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convict the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Holy Spirit is the Christian's secret weapon. He should not be a secret to us, but he is a mystery to the unbelievers. He is the ghost, so to speak, that haunts them. He is the X-factor that they can never plan for, escape from, ensnare, or subjugate.
The Holy Spirit is a tower to the Christians. His influence is not limited to the moment of conflict, but he is the spirit of love, of power, and of a sound mind. He is the spirit of boldness, so that the early disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit when they prayed that God would grant them the boldness to preach his word. He is the spirit of knowledge and understanding, of insight and revelation, of assurance and exuberance in the defense of the faith. So he does not only teach me apologetics, as in words to say and techniques to use, but he makes me an apologist, an able vindicator of the faith. As it is written, he "trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1). "For by thee I have run through a troop; and by my God have I leaped over a wall" (Psalm 18:29, KJV).
But the Holy Spirit is a terror to the non-Christians. They are helpless and defenseless before his power. They cannot kill him, and they cannot argue against him, and they cannot escape him. Their minds are under his sovereign control. The Spirit can confound them in debate, and convict them of their sins. And even as they leave the scene, he goes with them, introducing doubts into their minds about their beliefs and conviction into their consciences about their sins. He can convert them to the Christian faith at any time he chooses. If the Spirit wills, I can break through the most hardened mind with the gospel just by asserting it. The unbelievers have no defense against me. They cannot prevent the conversion of anyone whom the Spirit has chosen to convert. The chosen ones are ours for the taking. No willpower, argument, education, or experience can resist the Holy Spirit's direct action in the mind. If God has chosen you for salvation, no power can stop me from claiming your very soul for the Lord Jesus.
Many Christians might find this aspect of apologetics difficult to fathom. This is probably because the Holy Spirit is not subject to our control. Rather, he does what he pleases, and we are under his command. Nevertheless, there are principles about his activities whose nature is such that we may learn to deliberately and intelligently interact with him. For example, he is the spirit of truth who could enable believers to understand the things of God. And Jesus taught that the Father would grant the Spirit to those who ask. So we may petition God for the Holy Spirit to fill us, to make us strong and to make us wise, and to confound the enemies of the kingdom of heaven.