Monthly Archives: November 2014

Infallibility of Scripture: The Church Father Origen’s Thoughts

30 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by in Infallibility, inspiration, Origen, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: The Church Father Origen’s Thoughts

Tags

, , , ,

Continuing on with this discussion about infallibility, inerrancy, and inspiration, Origen has a bit to say about this. Although some of Origen’s theology and perhaps interpretive principles are less than applaudable, his work as a textual critic and biblical scholar is of highest praise. He worked from the late 2nd century A.D. to the mid 3rd century (roughly 185 – 250), and other immeasurably important Church Fathers admired Origen in respect to his great learning and copious understanding of biblical manuscripts and scribal practice of copying: Jerome, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen are known to laud Origen at one place or another in this way. Origen may be best known for his Hexapla, a six column (or seven some speculate) Old Testament, laying out the various versions of the OT in Hebrew and Greek. The first column had Hebrew, the second was a transliteration of the Hebrew in Greek, the third and fourth were of Greek translations of the OT by two prominent Jews (and maybe one was a Christian), the 5th was the LXX (the early Church’s most respected version of the OT), and the 6th was another translation from Hebrew into Greek that was similar to the LXX. Origen certainly knew if there were textual variations among these, and he had the learning to speak about these things with authority, having spent twenty-seven years of his life creating the Hexapla.

Origen speaks about textual variations in detail in a letter he writes to Africanus. He writes, “But why should I enumerate all the instances I collected with so much labour, to prove that the difference between our copies and those of the Jews did not escape me? In Jeremiah I noticed many instances, and indeed in that book I found much transposition and variation in the readings of the prophecies. . . . And, forsooth [truly], when we notice such things, we are forthwith [immediately] to reject as spurious [counterfeit] the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews . . . to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery [Origen is being sarcastic here]! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died. . .” (Letter to Africanus sec. 4, cf. 2 – 5; Origen, First Principles 4.1.15, 27).

This should strike us as an odd way to argue since Origen is not put off by the variations and admits their existence. He didn’t see the variations as an obstacle but as further evidence for Scripture’s inspiration, as seen in his phrase, “sacred Scripture.” He is calling the early church’s Scripture, which he admits has differences from the Scripture as kept by the Jews, “sacred” which means he understands the variations to be within the Spirit’s providential work of leading the Church. He took the slight differences in the manuscripts as part of God the Spirit’s inspiration because the slight changes allowed for more edification of the Church. To this Church Father, inerrancy would be a denial of this way of understanding inspiration — and he was writing in the 2nd century (around 240 AD) — since the variations, as he understood it, were part of God’s plan and God the Spirit’s preserving work. I do not recommend this way of understanding these matters, but I note Origen’s position because of his excellent scholarship and for the sake of laying out many options for us to consider. Origen effectively reverses the issue: the inclusion of variation among the manuscripts was evidence of God the Spirit’s activity, not His absence. We usually think the opposite, that the more variation, the less likely it is that God the Spirit is present in overseeing the copies of the manuscripts. This is a shocking change up for sure!

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: The Slippery Slope Fallacy

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: The Slippery Slope Fallacy

Tags

,

Many think that if inerrancy is abandoned, then it is a slippery slope leading to the abandonment of the Bible altogether. The painful lack of training in logic is evident in our culture because there is a logical fallacy named “the slippery slope fallacy.” The logical conclusion, if there are errors in the Bible, would be to doubt just those texts or verses that are in question, not all of the Bible. And we would doubt to the extent of the magnitude of questionableness of the errors. For instance, John’s name in Greek in the NT is ἰωαννην, but some manuscripts make the so-called error of spelling it this way: ἰωανην. So there is only one “n” rather than two (a “v” in Greek is an “n” in English); this of course changes the meaning in no way.

Further, our understanding of “perfection” should be vetted in light of what we see in Jesus Himself. God made man, Jesus, took on the limitations of being a creature as Scripture teaches: “Therefore, He had to be made like His brothers in every respect . . .” (Hebrews 2:17; also cf. Phil 2:6 ff., Jn. 1:14). Being human means to be limited although in Jesus’ case it was only for a limited time and during those times that He was not led by the Spirit to use His divine capacities. To be human, however, means to be open to the travels of that limited capacity: Jesus got hungry, thirsty, and ultimately killed — God in heaven cannot die but God made man can. God is perfect, which means to be whole and self-sufficient, but God made man, Jesus, was dependent on food for a time: He “was made . . . a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). It would be blasphemy to say that Jesus was sinful or lacking His divinity in any way during His incarnation in this world, so I want to be clear that I do not mean this. His divinity is seen through His temporary limitation as a human, not in spite of Jesus’ humanity. The transfiguration (Mt. 17:2 ff.) is a case of the divinity shining through Jesus’ humanity while the rest of the time we have to see through His humanity to His divinity. Scripture itself teaches that “he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10). And again, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:8 – 9). We can be sure that it was the humanity of Jesus that was made perfect through His divinity working in and through it; the divinity has no need of perfection as it is the standard of all perfection itself. Some might be perplexed why I have spent this time on Jesus; I have done so because Jesus is a case of the divine and human united as is the case, more or less, with Scripture: God working through humanity to produce it. If Jesus, while human, had needs, being made lower than angels, and perfecting the humanity His divinity was united to, then what type of “perfection” should we attribute to Scripture that is the outcome of God using sinful men, unlike the sinless man, Christ? I am not prepared to offer a statement on this; indeed, this seems to be a lifelong goal in answering such a question, and better theologians them me have forged more than one path towards answering this complex issue. We nevertheless must consider how we should or should not understand the word “perfection.” This deserves arduous attention.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: The Conflict between the 21st Century and the 1st Century

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Anachronism, God Speaks, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: The Conflict between the 21st Century and the 1st Century

Tags

, , ,

It has been said many times that we cannot impose our scientific concerns and methods on ancient persons, those who penned Scripture. I second this. It is anachronistic, arrogant, and lacks thoughtful sensitivity. The concerns and ways of our time (Greek: chronos) cannot be teleported back in time and imposed on ancient persons, and then, triumphantly find them deficient by our standards: this is being anachronistic, which word comes from two Greek words, ana (up) and chronos (time), taking our concerns that arose well downstream in history and placing those upstream in history. At this point, at least one person wants to object, “But God is the author, so he should be accurate!” This does nothing to what I have said, however: instead, what we see is our imposing 21st century standards on God Himself, ” . . . so He should be accurate like we are in this scientific 21st century.” God was speaking to people living in the bronze, iron, and classical ages, not to Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment individuals. The concerns and methods of our age do not become the standards by which we judge what was important to all other ages: this is blatant hubris that has forgotten its own limited and temporal situation: the flower fades and the grass falls. The next generation full of pride will be along soon enough to speak about all of us as antiquated, infantile primates. The question is, do I want to be the current generation full of pride like this? Why do I say this lacks thoughtful sensitivity? I do so because we are after, if we are open inquirers, how God has spoken to humans at certain points in history. An important point to remember is that just because something is conceivable doesn’t mean that it is possible; many people confuse this. Therefore, just because it is conceivable that God could speak to iron age people with 21st century language, thought-modes, conceptualizations, concerns, and scientific frameworks, doesn’t mean it is possible. For God to communicate in such radically different language and developed knowledge (or undeveloped in some ways) demands us to ask the question of whether or not this would really communicate, or if it would just be God speaking at those iron age people without any real communication occurring. Communication, it must be remembered, always involves two persons: hence the “co-” on the front of “communication.” Someone might equally object: “God could teach them.” This is conceivable, but if it is possible is a real question. If God is interested in loving well, and have us freely love Him — as I believe — it may not be possible for God to “teach” man in this way since He would have to reveal Himself to such an extent that man’s freedom to choose love would no longer be an option. If God is too evident, the choice for God becomes one of survival, not love: of biological fitness, not moral desire. For instance, the laws of nature are evident, too evident certainly if I just off a 20 story building. It is not a moral desire in heart-felt devotion to choose to abide by the law of gravity; it is a choice aiming at my continuing biological fitness. Thus, I think having a thoughtful sensitivity to such matters as these requires openness, patience, humility, and endurance in pursuit of satisfactory answers, rather than that cliché dribble so frequently propagated, whether for or against wanting God to speak in 21st century language. We’ve all experience others trying to force their views on us, so let’s call this desire to impose our 21st century framework on all peoples at all times the “bigotry of temporalism.” If we impose our clearly passing frameworks of knowledge on all people at all times as though our way of thinking is absolute, we are the bigots who enforce our so-called superior views of the moment on all, as if God. This certainly is imperialistic: this forced submission of everyone to our present time’s way of seeing things. This point is yet another reason to know history; if we do not, we lock ourselves into slavery to the current moment’s way of framing things.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy in an Example

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Inerrancy, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy in an Example

Tags

, , ,

Continuing from the last blog post on the long question asked there for me to answer:

If we hold to infallibility, then the question of inerrancy is avoided without much trouble. This position, in some of the ways it has been formulated, allows for some wiggle room; some would configure infallibility to mean that there could be errors in places in the texts that are not intending to teach something truthful and accurate. For instance, did Jesus just flip the tables in the Temple (Matt 21:12 ff.) or did He make a whip to drive everyone out (John 2:14 ff.) and flip the tables? If we hold to inerrancy, this may be problematic; if we hold to infallibility, in the way some configure it, then we simply say that our biblical author is more interested in presenting Jesus as an imposing and indignant figure than in reporting his precise actions. We still have the question at this point, “Is this a mistake or merely allowing for literary creativity of the biblical author?” The truthful and accurate point of the the Temple-cleansing narrative is that Jesus was intimidating and upset about how God’s house was being used, not about how precisely this played out. We must remember that deciding what is true or truthful has not always been judged in the same way. This is the point of studying the Greek literature during the time of writing of the NT; NT scholars have discussed the literature called ancient Graeco-Roman bios, or bioi. Bios is a Greek word during the time of the NT, and it means a “person’s manner of life,” or “life-style.” It is easy enough to see the common meaning between this Greek word’s meaning and our English word “Biography.” Looking at how historians around the time of the NT  handled reporting historical facts is important for understanding how they saw the world and how they went about reporting it. We trumpet accuracy today because of the marvels such scientific accuracy has given our world. Accuracy has allowed us to stop bleeding people to try to heal them and instead give them accurate antibiotics for their specific ailment. Accuracy made it possible to do math in such precision that man has walked on the moon. Of course, what we can’t forget is that scientific accuracy thought about in these ways is about what is produced from such accuracy; we deem accuracy “good” because it produced such incredible things. Science, however, is about observing impersonal realities that follow general laws that are relative to other influencing factors or laws. Bios and modern biography concern themselves with reporting a human life, which is personal and therefore volitional, active, and intelligent. Ask yourself this question: Have I even been accused of something that I did wrong, but it seems inaccurate without many other points that played into my action?” You might protest, “You have to consider this fact, and then there are all these little actions that had a cumulative effect that led to my actions!” Any husband and wife know about what I am mentioning here. Yes, I may wrong my wife, but when she gives me the opportunity to explain what led to it, I feel much better even if I still admit I committed the wrong. We all know that being human means being complex, and reporting one action accurately of a person apart from all other actions and influences around it makes us feel like an injustice has occurred. Hence, scientific accuracy is not a great method for reporting how humans act because humans cannot be reduced to impersonal entities like scientific laws and laboratory experiments.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Inerrancy, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy

Tags

, ,

The Question I was asked: “I know that the accuracy of the Bible far outweighs any other ancient text and that most of the errors are irrelevant to the meaning of Scripture, but it still bothers me that there are significant errors or uncertain additions (like the adulterous woman section). How many mistakes are there that we don’t know about? What does it say about God that He would allow mistakes in His Word? How are we to practically approach Scripture and its truth knowing our understanding must be checked against our own cultural biases, the historical context of the texts, and translation or copying errors? Overall, how can we ever know the Bible is infallible when our own understanding must clearly be fallible at some level?”

Here is a whole bunch of questions packaged as one, but these concerns are real and are often grouped like this. Please forgive the complexity of my response over the next few posts, but the sophistication of the question demands such. I originally wrote my response as one long essay, but it was entirely too long so you will have to read this response in parts to get at the whole. I have given specific subtitles that clarify what I am aiming at in each post, each subtitle under the broader domain of the title “Infallibility of Scripture.”

First, infallibility and inerrancy are not the same thing. Infallibility of Scripture is a stance that Scripture is accurate and truthful in all it intends to teach. Inerrancy is the position that there are no errors, i.e., no mistakes or misstatements, in the original documents — the original writings of Scriptural Books are called autographs. What is sometimes suppressed in these conversations is that we don’t have any autographs of the NT (or OT for that matter). Thus, inerrancy, as a confession found in many Universities, Churches, ParaChurch organizations, and Seminaries’ core values, is a statement of faith that cannot be proven or disproved in the sense of 100% accuracy either way. This does not mean that there isn’t a probability of inerrancy being true, or false; it just means that no one can say the original autographs are 100% certainly inerrant or errant. If someone does, he is prideful and a deceiver, at least at the current state of knowledge. It could be the case that we discover an original autograph, but that is not the case now; the earliest manuscript is just a fragment of the Book of St. John from sometime in the 120s AD (125 is typically agreed upon), only a few verses visible (John 18:31 – 33, 37 – 38). This manuscript is called the Rylands Papyri, which is written in shorthand as P52, the “P” standing for “Papyri” and the “52” refers to it being the 52nd Papyri cataloged. There has been some rumors of a 1st century manuscript of Mark that has been discovered, but it is being treated with a “hush-hush” attitude. We know little about it to date, but this discovery will be announced publicly soon enough. If it is corroborated by rigorous testing to be from the 1st century, then we will finally be able to say that we have a 1st century fragment of the NT. As the Church, we shouldn’t rush to use this evidence to support our faith claims about the Bible; we will be able to do this in time, but we must first wait, vet, and remain open about what each new discovered fragment or manuscript portends. Why shouldn’t we rush to do this? I think we show ourselves to be ideologues when we do so; an ideologue is a person who advances an agenda despite evidence or simply because of the agenda itself without concerns for other matters that could disconfirm that agenda. The best example of ideologues are political pundits, who will twist, use, or adopt just about anything to advance their ideas (hence, ideologues). Evidence and reason for ideologues are tools to be used to confirm their ideas, but evidence and reason are abandoned if or when it disconfirms ideologues’ ideas. The Church of the living God, however, is to be devoted to the truth, sincerity, and honesty; we cannot advance the agenda of the Church by misleading people about the textual evidence to date. What do we call people who intentionally mislead? The answer is not flattering.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: the Current Status of the NT manuscript Data

25 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Difficult Questions, Inerrancy, Infallibility, Textual Criticism

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: the Current Status of the NT manuscript Data

Tags

, , ,

I got a really elaborate question about the infallibility of Scripture from an old friend of mine. I am breaking her complex questions into a number of smaller posts so that each isn’t excessively long. The first follows here.

How many mistakes are there that we don’t know about?

This question is a bit confusing because, if we know there is a mistake, then we know it rather than not knowing it as the question above implies. There is no way for me to say how many mistakes there are that are unknown. Let me read into her question a bit more. I think she means to ask about how many variations are there among the NT manuscripts, which evidence is withheld from the Church. I personally am ambivalent about whether this evidence is knowingly withheld or just ignorantly not known. If we look hard enough at scholarship, we can find an answer. Presently, as of 2013, there are roughly 400,000 variations among the NT manuscripts. Most of these variations do not effect the meaning of the text except in small ways: of course, it should concern us if a variation changes the meaning at all, at least in how we think of accuracy in this scientific age. We might need to rethink how we think of accuracy, however, in light of the fact that God is Trinity. I cannot go into this now, but it is worth the time to ponder on how truth in Christianity is linked to the intrapersonal relationships among the Father, Son, and Spirit, who all together constitute the “Truth.” I know that there are at least two texts (one in Hebrews and one in Mark) in the NT whose meaning is changed considerably by a variation. Whether the variations among the manuscripts affect the meaning in only small ways or in large ways doesn’t change the fact that we have to face this difficulty. A fellow colleague of mine once said that it does us no good as the Church to put our head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend as though this difficulty and potential danger to our faith doesn’t exist. The variations are literary and historical facts; nothing can change that. If we decide to obfuscate (hide) or suppress these historical and literary truths as leaders of the Church or as a leader in a parachurch organization like an adventure youth camp or in universities and seminaries, we have serious character issues. Suppression of the truth is the work of the kingdom of Darkness, not the work of the kingdom of Light (God) who uncovers all attempts to hide truth. I will not offer a solution for the variations here; I will give a number of suggestions in my other posts that deal with this topic. I only wanted to lay out the current state of the NT manuscript data, so we, as the Church, are not ignorant of our own Scripture around which so much of our Faith revolves.

Dr. Scalise

The Holy Spirit’s regenerative work includes the formation of the Church

12 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Difficult Texts, Holy Spirit, Illumination

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Illumination is the Holy Spirit’s work of regenerating us. First, He speaks to us in various ways and through any number of avenues to guide us towards the light of Christ. When faith arises in us, we believe, and this illuminative work by the Spirit climaxes at a definitive point where He regenerates us, refashioning our hearts and making Jesus Christ shine wondrously in our eyes. Illumination, for the purposes here, is the activity of the Spirit in transforming persons into a new character, lifestyle, and goal that centers on magnifying, glorifying, and mimicking Jesus the Christ. Although theologians often speak of illumination as the Spirit’s work of making Jesus Christ and Scripture understandable, it might be better to say that the Spirit’s work makes Jesus Christ and Scripture acceptable. The Spirit’s illuminative work is always about a change of mind and heart, which is expressed in good-works. Illumination is about lifestyle change, not only a change in understanding. Let’s look at 1 Cor. 2:12 – 14: “Now we did not receive the spirit from the world, but the Spirit who is from God so that we should know [experientially] the things which were freely given to us by God, which things we are even speaking, not in words produced from human wisdom but taught from the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to spiritual persons. But the natural man does not welcome (or “accept”) things from the Spirit of God: For it is stupid to him and he is not able to know because they are spiritually evaluated” (1 Cor. 2:12 – 14; trans. mine). In brackets, I’ve placed  “experientially” because the Greek verb, “oida,” can focus on “knowing” something through practice, and, I contend, the context more than suggests that here. These verses do not support some strange mysticism, as though what God gives freely is not understandable. The point, from what I can tell from the Greek, is about where the knowledge comes from, not the mysteriousness of it. Knowledge can be merely human or it can be given from “above,” i.e., from God. St. Paul points out that it is not some strange mysterious knowledge, but is plainly communicable: “which things we are even speaking . . . ” The natural man, or unspiritual man, cannot accept or welcome so as to practice what God gives because the knowledge required to know whether it should be accepted or not is not derived from merely human life. The natural man will just find spiritual things dumb. To further complicate things, no one has a full knowledge of something until they experience or practice that knowledge. We might know things we have not experienced in part, but never to the same richness a person who has experienced it possesses. The unspiritual man cannot experientially know what he already thinks is stupid; it is the practice or the experience of the “yes” to the Spirit of God that opens the doors to “accept” and practice the knowledge formerly thought to be stupid. There is a change in understanding, but it is always tied to the acceptance and experience of that understanding. To merely understand with my mind is not enough to claim knowledge on that matter; just ask any snowboarder, skier, surfer, soccer player, football player, or anyone who has experiential knowledge of a game. I played soccer for two decades; experiential knowledge is radically different from watching soccer from the sidelines. Now that we have handles this, what does the Spirit’s illumination do to one’s attitude about the Church?

Illumination, then, always leads to people coming together around the life and character of the Lord Jesus Christ. When I use the word “Church,” I am not envisioning the local church per se while not denying that this may be a legitimate expression of the Church. The Church is a lifestyle. Its lifeblood is the illumination the Spirit does and continues to do. Each individual contributes to the Church (1 Cor. 12:12), and the illumination the Spirit does initiates a believer’s love for Jesus Christ, but it does not stop there. The phrase, “in the Spirit,” used frequently across the pages of Scripture is used to describe the existence of the saints (Rom. 8:9, 1 Cor. 12:3, Phil. 2:1, Col. 1:8, 1 Pet. 3:18). Being in the Spirit minimally means being attuned to the concerns of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 25). We want to practice what we are now accepting in our thinking and so trying to actualize it in our lives. The Spirit in indwelling individuals and the community, not one or the other. Illumination is about loving Jesus Christ, but to love Him is to love those in Him. We cannot say we love God but hate other believers. To say such is to deny one’s inclusion in the body of Christ, as 1 John argues in a number of places (1 John 2:9, 4:20). Illumination is about, therefore, coming to know Jesus Christ, that regenerative moment we say “yes” to God, and about growing in greater intimacy with other believers. We are illuminated all along the way when we are with God, for God is light.

Dr. Scalise

On Humility and Learning

09 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by in Biblical Application, Humlity, Learning, Spiritual Formation, Virtues

≈ Comments Off on On Humility and Learning

Tags

, , , ,

Humility may be the king of virtues because it opens the door for so many others. To me, humility makes me teachable. He who is unteachable is likewise he who strengthens his own opinions without bringing others’ insights into the conversation. His lack of humility lays the path to his isolation: a frightful journey.  Humility engenders a listening attitude, makes me slow to speak, and forces me to be diligent in my scholarship and delightful in others’ scholarship. To listen is to make the opportunity to learn; to speak slowly is to consider carefully, with great regard for what is thought about. To carefully craft an argument requires a realistic opinion of one’s self and one’s ability so that the argument is created humbly in accord to one’s real capacities.  Humility enables me to consider others who differ from me, even when they differ strongly. It makes me review and attend to others’ view with an eye to accurately understanding. It keeps me from misrepresenting other positions and scholars, as though I sit on high. Humility holds the key to inquiry (questioning). Without humility, inquiry flounders, those refusing humility happily maintaining inconsistent and un-vetted views. Our openness to others directly depends on humility; if we fail to love humility, there is little hope for a deep and steady love for others.

Dr. Scalise

Fear, Beauty, and God

04 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Beauty, Fear, God

≈ Comments Off on Fear, Beauty, and God

Tags

, ,

There is something to beauty that makes us tremble. I’m reminded of the tornado I stood staring at when I was five from my second story bedroom window. I wasn’t alone, as my mother and father rushed in to get me, we all were paralyzed. We just gazed at it in utter awe and fascination. It was beautiful. Why do I recall and feel, to this day, compelled to call it beautiful? I have no other explanation but that there is an element of fear in many moments of beauty; aestheticians (people who study beauty) have observed this more than once. There is something about the unknown that when it is combined with something untamable evokes awe in us. When this untamable unknown comes too near, however, our awe quickly turns to dread, then horror. If God is the foundation for beauty, as I believe, then God’s most repeated command to fear Him takes on new significance in light of this connection between fear and beauty. God is called the fulness of beauty at any rate (Ps. 50:2), so Scripture has already disclosed such a combination (Ps. 96:6). If ever the term “untamable” was properly applied, it would be to God. The vastness of His freedom is unimaginable, and we are warned, through poor but righteous Job, that all creation is only the slightest glimpse of God’s might (Job 26:14). Drawing too near to God would be insane danger, but, in His love, God has provided a Mediator, the Lord Jesus, so that we can draw near to God without impending doom. God — it must be ever remembered — dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16). Certainly, Jesus is untamable Himself — flipping tables and such — but He brings in Himself the unknown God who stands at a distance we could never reach, and tames the incendiary danger of God, who is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29). The commands to fear God imply an enjoyment of God, a delight in His beauty, but always with an eye to the endangerment that comes by such nearness. God is commanding us to fear Him, and, through that fear, to enjoy His majesty, sublimity, beauty. God’s commands to fear Him are not about our utmost for His highest, but, instead, about His utmost for lifting us higher. God is truly awe-inspiring in His utmost heights, and we are lifted higher when we set our eyes on Him.

Dr. Scalise

Joy in John 15:11

02 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Discipleship, Jesus, Joy

≈ Comments Off on Joy in John 15:11

Tags

, ,

A running trend in certain Christian circles is understanding joy to be some supernatural gift that comes despite our circumstances. I would not deny such a meaning for joy in Scripture, using Psalm 16:11 and James 1:2 as examples. We would be quite amiss to limit our understanding of joy to merely this. Jesus discusses what it means to be His disciple in John 15:4 – 15. Jesus links joy in v. 11 to what He just discussed in the foregoing verses: (9) “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. (10) If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. (11) These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” Jesus shows Himself to be the Model after whom we mimic (v. 10). What is abiding in the Lord Jesus’ love? To follow His commands is to experience practically Jesus’ love even as Jesus “kept my Father’s commandments and abides in His love.” Whether the Father’s commands or Jesus’ commands to Their follows, these commands are designed to demonstrate and express love. They tell us what is right and good for us, and, if we do them, we concretely weave that love into our very action and being. In such weaving comes joy: “These things [about producing fruit, following commands, and abiding in My love] I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” To the extent that we do these commands based on our intimacy and love for Jesus, so likewise will our joy increase. Joy in John 15:11, therefore, can be occasioned by our affection and acting on that affection by keeping commands. Joy is not afar off or “too hard” or “unclear,” but it is near us in our hearts (love) and in our actions (command keeping). We can increase our joy beyond the joy at the moment by having ever greater love expressed in command keeping. Thus, greater joy than that now awaits you, and me, and all of us. Jesus has made it clear how to actualize it, by loving Him enacted in our keeping His commands, and all of this, in the light and in the Spirit.

Dr. Scalise