Defending the Trinity (Pt. 3 Conclusion)

Part Three

            In my last posting, I attempted to identify some tools that might be useful in the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. There are, of course, countless other arguments against the Trinity and equally sound defenses against those arguments. However, the most important defense for any orthodox Christian doctrine or belief is the revelation God gave us in the Scriptures. Therefore, we will now turn our attention to that very important revelation of God.

What The Bible Says

For the Christian, God’s revelation of himself in Scripture is a crucial element of faith. So it is essential to investigate the Scriptures to determine its teaching relative to the Trinity. It is often argued by those that would oppose the doctrine of the Trinity that it is merely a man-made invention since it is never identified formally or informally in Scripture. The word “Trinity” never appears in either the Old or New Testaments. However, Thomas Oden writes, “Many technical terms familiar to Christian teaching, like eschatology, anthropology, pneumatology, hamartiology, and cosmology, are not found expressly in Scripture but derive explicitly from scriptural teaching. So it is with trinity.”[1]

Old Testament Support

Like many things about God’s revelation, it becomes clearer with the passage of time and perhaps with expanded revelation. This is the case with Old Testament support for the Trinity. For example, Herbert Lockyer writes, “Elohim, the divine term used of God at the beginning of the Bible (Genesis1:1), is a plural noun used some 500 times by Moses…accompanied continually by a verb in the singular. This is a term revealing the oneness of Deity and the plurality of Persons in the Godhead.”[2] God uses the plural pronoun “us” and “our” during the creative process recorded in Genesis when he says, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...” (Genesis 1:26) Donald Bloesch writes, “This evidence attests that the God of revelation was conceived from the very beginning as a composite rather than a solitary unity.”[3] What shall we make of the physical appearances of God, also known as theophanies, in the Old Testament? (Gen. 18, Jos. 5 and Dan. 3) Since the Father is spirit and has no physical body per se, these theophanies are largely held to be the preincarnate Jesus Christ himself. Furthermore, there are occasions when God speaks of the actions of his Spirit among Israel in terms that beg the question: What Spirit is God referring to when God the Father is spirit? (Joel 2:28) It seems clear that there is a distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. However, it isn’t until the New Testament that we begin to see an expanded revelation of God and a much clearer view of the Trinity.

New Testament Support

Again Lockyer writes, “Any doctrine latent in the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament.”[4] The unfolding of the Trinity becomes increasingly clearer in the New Testament where there are countless examples that clearly identify both the unity and the plurality of God. One of the clearest examples of God’s plurality is demonstrated at Jesus’ baptism where Mark records the event beautifully saying, “As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.’” (Mk. 1:10-11) With similar clarity, the unity of God is demonstrated through the words of Jesus himself. John records an encounter between Jesus and one of his disciples, Philip, with respect to Jesus’ anticipated death, and return to the Father. Jesus is trying to give his disciples a glimpse of blessings that await them in the presence of the Father. “Philip said, ‘Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.’ Jesus answered: ‘Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.’” (Jn. 14:8-9) Certainly Jesus is not saying that he and the Father are the same person. We know this because Jesus is often shown praying to the Father (cf. Matt. 26:39-42). It seems beyond reason to insist that he was praying to himself. Instead, it is far more reasonable to see in Jesus’ words and actions throughout Scripture that he and the Father are the same in essence while at the same time distinct in their individual personhood.

Conclusion

It goes without saying that there is no perfect argument in defense of the Trinity that would convince all doubters. However, to say that there is clear evidence against belief in the Trinity is far from accurate as well. The historical development of the doctrine was methodical and intentional. Biblical support, although not explicitly identifying the “Trinity,” nonetheless contains the building blocks necessary for the sound development of the doctrine. While these all may be fine sounding arguments in defense of the Trinity, there are some essential elements that must be considered in closing. John records an event before Jesus is crucified where Jesus says, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.” (Jn. 16:12-13) Christians are at times criticized for being unscientific in their biblical theology and instead relying on their faith as opposed to reason in matters such as the Trinity. However, while we may be called to give a defense of our beliefs, it is unreasonable to insist that we must somehow present a compelling argument to someone lacking the illumination of truth provided by the Spirit. Murray writes, “One lesson to be learned from this is that there is no sledgehammer apologetics. There are no arguments for the truth of Christianity which force the atheist or non-Christian to their intellectual knees. The unbeliever can always backtrack and give up some other belief instead.”[5] Additionally, one of, if not the, operative words in Christianity is “faith.” Faith, by definition, is belief in something that is not entirely certain. There are so many things about Christianity that are built upon the foundation of faith in something uncertain. We don’t understand nor can we explain how God exists outside of creation yet we believe it by faith. We don’t understand how God created something out of nothing yet we believe it by faith. We don’t understand how God became a man in the person of Jesus yet we believe it by faith. We don’t understand how Jesus died on a cross and then rose from the dead three days later yet we believe it by faith. We can’t explain how the Spirit lives within us when we accept Christ yet we believe it by faith. We believe these things by faith yet skeptics decry that it is unreasonable to believe that God exists as one essence in three persons because we don’t fully understand it and can’t fully explain it. It would seem that this is unbelief for unbelief’s sake. Instead, although the doctrine of the Trinity is built on a strong foundation of biblical support and sound scholarship, its ultimate acceptance is still a matter of faith.

---

[1] Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, NY, 1987) p. 186.

[2] Herbert Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1964) p. 123.

[3] Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1995) p. 168.

[4] Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible, p. 124

[5] Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999) p. 13.

Defending the Trinity (Pt. 2)

Let me begin by apologizing for the length of this particular posting but I won't be posting next week and I didn't want to leave without ample reading material.

Part Two

            In Part One, we identified “The Problem” and established some very important historical context, Part Two will begin “The Defense.”

The Defense

Notwithstanding the countless treatises and tomes written in an attempt to unravel the difficulties associated with the doctrine of the Trinity, there is still considerable confusion and dissent about this very important Christian doctrine. But what are some of the more common arguments against Trinitarian belief and how can we, as orthodox Christians, defend our belief in the Trinity?

Argument #1

If the Trinity is such a critical teaching to orthodox Christianity, why is there no explicit mention of it anywhere in Scripture?

Defense #1

This argument sets up the straw man that the only biblical teaching that is valid is a teaching that is explicit. However, this can be easily refuted using numerous arguments. For example, Thomas Oden in The Living God writes, “To require of the New Testament writers that they should have fully answered questions that would not be posed until over a century later is unreasonable.”[1] Although a very strong argument can be made about the implicit teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity from both the Old and New Testaments, one must keep in mind the first rule of biblical interpretation; The Bible was written a long time ago to people from a different culture who lived far away and spoke a different language. Equally important was the intent of the author. Although all Scripture is useful for teaching, the various authors certainly did not intend to teach all things explicitly. That doesn’t mean, however, that we cannot combine the various elements presented in the Bible to develop a better understanding of God’s revelation of himself. An analogy serves to illustrate this point. We know explicitly or intuitively that each individual science textbook is not intended to exhaustively teach everything about science. However, when we use the information we glean from each textbook, we are more likely to be able to develop complex scientific theories that are not necessarily explicit in any one textbook yet are nevertheless coherent and supportable theories.

Argument #2

Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God. If Jesus is not God then there is no Trinity.

Defense #2

Like the first argument, this is an argument from silence. Proponents of this argument mistakenly insist that because Jesus didn’t make a clear public pronouncement that he was God that therefore he wasn’t. However, a closer look at Scripture will reveal that Jesus made it very clear that he was God without making an overt public announcement to that effect. In fact, Jesus made it so clear that the religious leaders sought to stone him on numerous occasions and eventually found him guilty of such claims and had him nailed to a cross. In an encounter with religious leaders, Jesus is threatened with stoning as John writes, “Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me? We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’” (Jn. 10:31-33) Ultimately, however, at his trial before the religious leaders, Jesus was asked specifically, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” To which he replied, “I am.” (Mk. 14:61-62) As a result, they sentenced him to death. Clearly, even though Jesus didn’t make it a habit to announce that he was God, that is, in fact, what he and his followers believed him to be and those who conspired in his execution believed he was claiming to be. As a result, because Scripture teaches that Jesus is God, there is an obvious need to address the plurality of God created thereby.

Argument #2a

I have identified this as “Argument 2a” because of its close association with the question of Jesus’ divinity discussed in Argument 2 above. This argument introduces some complexities that this writing will not attempt to fully explain or defend. Again, although it is not the intention to herein defend the divinity of Jesus necessarily, it is precisely the issue of Jesus’ divinity that has forced Christians from the time of Nicea (A. D. 325) until now to defend the Trinity. Specifically at issue in this argument are the apparent incoherencies between Jesus as both fully man and fully God. This issue impacts the argument of the Trinity in this respect: If it can be demonstrated that Jesus as fully God and fully man is logically incoherent, then Jesus probably wasn’t both and based on some of the more troubling inconsistencies, it appears that he probably wasn’t God. The argument hinges on what is assumed as God’s “essential” qualities. For the purposes of this argument, we will consider three such qualities (although there are countless others); Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. These three qualities have been identified because it would seem that Jesus did not possess these qualities identified as essential to being God. The heart of the argument, therefore, would insist that if Jesus did not contain these essential qualities then he could not be God.

Defense #2a

First, it is useless to deny that Jesus did not appear to be omnipotent—he did not do everything, he did not appear to be omnipresent—he only appeared in one place at any given time and finally he did not appear to be omniscient—he did not know everything. Scripture leaves little doubt about these matters. However, what Scripture fails to disclose is why and to what extent Jesus lacked (if at all) any or all of these essential qualities. Jesus’ omnipotence and omnipresence, or lack thereof, can be explained relatively easily as a self-limitation. Specifically, just because Jesus could do anything doesn’t necessarily require him to do so. Furthermore, just because Jesus could be everywhere at once didn’t necessitate him to do so. Not doing everything or being everywhere at once doesn’t necessarily conclude an inability to do so only an unwillingness to do so at all times. In other words, the essential qualities of being omnipotent and omnipresent can be self-limited without being lost as essential qualities. Consequently, Although Jesus’ limitations in these particular areas are perhaps troubling at times, it does not necessarily disqualify him from divinity. Omniscience, however, is another matter altogether. It is one thing to voluntarily refrain from doing something you have the ability to do, it is quite another to voluntarily stop knowing something that you know. This is the problem we face when dealing with Jesus’ omniscience, or lack thereof. It is clear from Scripture that Jesus does not know everything. For example, Mark 13:32 records Jesus’ response to the disciples’ inquiry about the Second Coming when he says “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Another example would be Jesus’ prayer to the Father at Gethsemane when he says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” (Matt. 26:39) Certainly if Jesus were omniscient, he would know what other possibilities would be available for redemption. Interestingly, however, Jesus asked this question because he knew the gruesome task that lay before him. In any event, it would certainly appear that Jesus didn’t know everything as would be expected of God. Nevertheless, there are two plausible theories that have been advanced that may shed some light on the matter.

Kenoticism

This theory is from the Greek word kenosis meaning “emptying.” The kenotic tradition in large part derives its authority from Philippians 2:5-11 where it states;

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Thomas Senor writes in Reason for the Hope Within, “A kenotic theology would handle the tricky matters we are now considering by maintaining that the preexistent second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, gave up his position and certain features of divine existence in order to take on humanity. Among those things he emptied himself of was his omniscience.”[2] It is important to remember that Christ did not empty himself of his divinity. Instead, he set aside the independent use of his divine attributes when necessary to accomplish the Father’s will of redemption for humanity. Still, Christ foretold the future (Matt. 26:34), he healed those who were sick and lame (John 5:2-14), he gave sight to the blind (John 9:1-12), he raised the dead (John 11:41-44), and walked on water (Mark 6:45-52).

Two-Minds

A second theory advanced with respect to Jesus’ omniscience is the idea that Jesus possessed two minds—one divine and one human. Jesus’ divine mind was omniscient while his human mind was limited to what was common among humanity. Senor explains that Jesus’ omniscience like his omnipotence is masked by his humanity. He writes,

“Just as contemporary psychology suggests that much of what goes on in the human mind goes on below the conscious surface, one might suppose that taking on humanity required Christ’s consciousness to be similar to ours but that below the conscious surface there existed the omniscient mind of God. Of course, this wouldn’t mean that Jesus was limited to only the contents of his human mind. For God the Father could have chosen to allow the earthly mind to have more or less access to the contents of the divine mind, as might be necessary for completion of his ministry on earth.”[3]

That last sentence would seem to explain why Jesus knew some things but not others. For example, Matthew records an event at the beginning of Holy Week where he writes, “Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.’" (Matt. 21:1-3)

Certainly, both of these explanations come with their own difficulties. However, the goal has not been to resolve, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the issue of Jesus’ omniscience, it has been to advance plausible explanations to counter the arguments against Jesus’ divinity advanced by those who seek to discredit Christianity generally and the doctrine of the Trinity specifically on the basis of Jesus’ omniscience or lack thereof.

Argument #3

Christian’s must fall on the sword of “mystery” in order to accept the Trinity.

Defense #3

            First of all, just because something is considered a mystery doesn’t automatically make it untrue or illogical. Furthermore, a mystery is something that is unknown not something unknowable. There are countless crimes and natural events whose consequences are readily observable but whose causes and/or forces remain a mystery. We may have extensive knowledge about individual aspects of such mysteries yet the ultimate cause is nonetheless a mystery. These mysteries are not untrue or illogical—just unknown. This is the case with the Trinity. We understand God’s unity and his plurality but we’re not quite sure how they fit together because nothing in nature is perfectly analogous. Nevertheless, that does not, in and of itself, make it untrue or illogical—just mysterious.

Argument #4

            The Trinity is a pagan belief system.

Defense #4

            Interestingly, if God existed as a Trinity from eternity past then the Trinity pre-dates any pagan practices. However, that argument may be somewhat circular because it assumes the existence of the Trinity. More importantly, however, any pagan practices resembling Trinitarian theology prior to and after Christianity were/are generally tri-theistic—having three distinct gods ruling separately with separate wills. This is not the Christian construct of Trinitarian thought. Instead, the Trinity consists of one God in essence and three persons within the one Godhead. There is no distinction in the essence or will of the persons of the Godhead. Consequently, Trinitarian theology is monotheistic as opposed to the tri-theism of pagan cultures.

Argument #5

            God as three and one contradicts the laws of nature and math.

Defense #5

With respect to the laws of nature, if natural events are our only relevant background knowledge then it is difficult accept God apart from the laws of nature. However, since God is the creator of all things, that necessarily exempts him from being bound by the laws of nature. Richard Swinburne in his book The Existence of God writes, “[S]ince, if there is a God, there exists a being with the power to set aside the laws of nature that he normally sustains.”[4] That’s not to say that God never works within the bounds of nature, but his miracles testify to the fact that he is not constrained to work within those laws.

With respect to contradicting the laws of math, the difficulty here is a bit more complex but is ultimately a matter of grammar and not a matter of math. It seems clear based on the principle of transitivity that if we say A=B and B=C then A=C. Critics of the Trinity apply this same principle to the Trinity to demonstrate its logical inconsistency. The argument goes something like this: If Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God then it follows that Jesus is the Father or the Father is the Holy Spirit or Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Of course this is a logical absurdity and it naturally follows that the three cannot be the same thing and yet different. However, it is at this point that the argument moves from math to grammar. Specifically at issue is the easily overlooked word “is.” The now infamous phrase “It depends on your definition of ‘is’” is precisely the key to overcoming this seemingly insurmountable obstacle to understanding the three-in-oneness of God. Grammatically, “is” can either be used as one of identity or as one of predication. With respect to a statement using the “is” of identity, what is to the left of the “is” is identical to what is to the right of the “is.” For example, N. W. Clerk is C. S. Lewis uses the “is” of identity because what is to the left and right of the “is” are different names for the identical person. When using the “is” of predication, what is to the right of the “is” describes something about what is to the left of the “is.” For example, Joe is human and Laura is human describe something about both Joe and Laura but it does not then follow that Joe is Laura. Thomas Senor writes, “So the first point of clarification that the Christian apologist will make is to note that the relevant sentences (i.e., The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Holy Spirit is God) do not, as one might have first thought, include the ‘is’ of identity but merely the ‘is’ of predication. Another way of stating our trinitarian triad is The Father is divine, The Son is divine, The Holy Spirit is divine.”[5] Although this understanding resolves the issue of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same, we must be careful to avoid the pitfall of tri-theism (three gods). As such, we must demonstrate the unification of the three. In other words, in what way are the three the same. Senor writes, “The relationship between the Father and the Son is said to be one of eternal generation. Eternal because there is no temporal priority; the Father did not exist before the Son. Each is coeternal. Generation…Historically, the use of this term was to insist that the Son is the same kind of being (i.e. divine) as the Father…The Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, once again to insist that the Spirit, like the Father and the Son, is eternal and divine.”[6] Senor continues, “[T]he Father, Son, and Spirit are ontologically united. The existence of any of these persons is logically sufficient for the existence of all three…it is simply not possible for one of the three to exist independently from the other two.”[7]

By combining the elements of the three distinctive persons of God—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—with the ontological unity of their divine essence, we begin to see a little more clearly the three-in-oneness of God.

In Part Three, we'll take a close look at some of the most important evidence in our defense of the Trinity-What does the Bible tell us?

---

[1] Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, NY, 1987), p. 209.

[2] Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999) pp. 250-251.

[3] Ibid., p. 252

[4] Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2004), p. 284.

[5] Murray, Reason for the Hope Within, p. 255.

[6] Ibid., p. 258

[7] Ibid.

Defending the Trinity (Pt. 1)

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of my favorite doctrines. However, for many years, I was afraid to fully embrace the doctrine because I didn't understand it. Perhaps you feel the same way. Of course, this is also one of the favorite doctrines that unbelievers love to attack because it is so difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain and defend. I'm hoping this series will equip you with a few tools to encourage you to embrace this beautiful revelation of God and be able to share that gift with others. Don't be deceived! There are many individuals who claim to be Christians along with various cults who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ yet reject the doctrine of the Trinity. This is unacceptable! Orthodox Christians must accept the doctrine of the Trinity even if they don't understand it and can't explain it. Ok, done preaching for a bit. There are many Christian doctrines that have multiple positions and eventually I'll post a myriad of those doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity is not one of those doctrines. Orthodox Christians accept it, non-Christians do not. Stand your ground and keep digging for the truth...I'll bring a shovel!

The Problem

           

I will grant you that this doctrine is one of, if not, the most perplexing theological concepts advanced by any major theological system of beliefs. Although adherence to the doctrine is essential to the orthodox Christian’s inclusion within the Church, adherence is never a requisite that precludes questioning or the quest for understanding. Developing and understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is no different. However, reaching a complete “understanding” of the Trinity is precisely the problem. Specifically at issue and the primary focus of this writing is the apparent contradiction between the clear teaching that God is one while at the same time experiencing God’s revelation of himself as three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, the apparent contradiction with God’s “three-in-oneness” is just that—an apparent contradiction. A true contradiction would state that God is one and not one at the same time or three and not three at the same time. This, however, is not the case. Instead, the difficulty with the Trinity, in addition to being mysterious, is largely rooted in the limitation of language and a misunderstanding of previously accepted terminology. Although we are still constrained by the limitations of language, a closer look at some of the terminology used to describe and define the Trinity might alleviate some of the confusion usually associated with this very crucial doctrine. First, however, it might be helpful to briefly review the events that necessitated the development of the doctrine and how the doctrine reached its current understanding.

Jesus and Jewish Monotheism

It is hard to argue that the Jewish faith is anything but fiercely monotheistic. This is imminently clear from the Old Testament biblical teaching known as the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deut. 6:4) Although we will take a closer look later at how the Old Testament intimated at the plurality of God, for the time being we will consider the crucial event that has created the tension between monotheism and the Trinity. The central figure that precipitated the need to develop this doctrine is Jesus. It is accepted within orthodox Christianity that Jesus is not only fully human but is simultaneously fully God. It is not the purpose of this writing to defend the deity of Christ specifically but to make that assumption generally in order to develop a clearer understanding and defense of the Trinity. It is with this assumption that the tension with monotheism begins. During the first four centuries of the Church, various attempts were made to try and explain how God is Father, Son and Spirit without falling into the polytheistic trap of claiming three gods. As a consequence, a number of hypotheses were advanced.

Modalistic Formulations

           

In order to maintain that God is only one person, the modalist makes the claim that God is one person that has revealed himself to us in three different forms. Wayne Grudem writes, “…in the Old Testament God appeared as ‘Father.’ Throughout the Gospels, this same divine person appeared as ‘the Son’ as seen in the human life and ministry of Jesus. After Pentecost, this same person then revealed himself as the ‘Spirit’ active in the church.”[1] Although at first glance this appears to be a nice, neat package that explains God’s revelation of himself to us in three different ways, it fails to take into consideration the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Spirit. Furthermore, the hypotheses falls flat at Jesus’ baptism when the Father speaks, the Son is baptized and the Spirit descends upon him. In short, this event in the life of Jesus necessarily demonstrates that God cannot be one person manifest in three different ways at the same time.

Arianism

           

Receiving its name from Arius, a bishop of Alexandria, Arians taught that there was some time when Jesus and the Spirit did not exist. Instead, Arius insisted that both were created by God. Although he was willing to concede to a certain level of deity for both the Son and the Spirit, neither was equal to the Father. Arius depended heavily on biblical texts identifying Jesus as “only begotten” and “first-born over all creation” while at the same time neglecting the biblical text demonstrating that there was never a time when Jesus did not exist. Instead, the church council convened in A.D. 325 at Nicea to address the issue of Jesus’ divinity once and for all and developed a formal church position that was used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.

Orthodox Formulation

           

Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, also known as “the Cappadocians,” may have been the most influential in the development of Trinitarian theology during the fourth century. They made the crucial distinction between “essence” (ousia) and “persons” (hypostaseis). Lewis and Demarest write, “By ousia they meant one invisible, divine nature, and by hypostaseis they meant mode of being or personal center with independent existence and unique characteristics.”[2] God’s essence or ousia is undivided. In other words, all three persons are equally God. The differences in the persons or hypostaseis are functional or relational as opposed to essential. Consequently, the Father is the source of creation through the Son as the agent of creation through the power of the Spirit who consummates creation.

           

Now that we’ve identified the “The Problem” and established some very important historical context, stay tuned for Part 2 and the beginning of “The Defense.”

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (InterVarsity Press, Leicester, England, 1994) p. 242.

[2] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996) p. 256.

God In The Box

When I started Seminary back in 2001, I knew exactly what I believed and why I believed it. After all, I had known God my entire life. In fact, I didn't have some dramatic conversion experience. I can't tell you of a time when I didn't believe in God even if it wasn't always evident by my words and actions. I believed that God called me to Seminary in preparation for a life in vocational ministry. I believed that all I really needed were the technical aspects of my faith. You know, big words like sanctification and formal doctrines like the doctrine of atonement. I soon realized that while God was certainly calling me to a life of ministry, what he really wanted was to be let out of the box I had placed Him in. Gradually, over my years at Seminary, God, with the faithful help of all my professors, tore down the walls of that box. It was an uncomfortable and scary experience. After all, I was very comfortable with my God In The Box. He didn't really ask much of me and I really didn't need Him for much-I had it covered. However, once He was out of the box, life would never be the same for me. I reached a point where I questioned everything I previously believed about my God In The Box. I was now ready for God to begin writing Truth on my heart. When I graduated from Seminary earlier this year, I wrote a card of thanks to the Seminary President for my transformational experience at the Seminary. I told him that when I entered Seminary I felt I knew pretty much everything about my God In The Box. However, after the many years of study, I came to understand that what I knew about God I could fit in a thimble compared to what there was still to know about Him. And that's exactly the way it should be!

Maybe you're a little like me at times. When my life feels like a hurricane, I long for something I can control-something like my old faithful God In The Box! Well if it's any comfort, we're not the only ones to revert to the comfortable God In The Box. All four of the Gospel writers record the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. With the whirlwind of events inaugurated by Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of the week that would end...well, I'm getting ahead of myself. It's safe to say that there is so much going on that we miss some of the smaller details. It's one of those small details that's recorded from a slightly different perspective in each of the Gospels that I'd like to look at specifically in Luke’s Gospel. The detail I'd like to focus on is the actions of the disciples at Jesus' resurrection.

Luke 24:1-39

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words.

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

If you read the parallel accounts of this in the other three Gospels, you will notice a recurring theme. The disciples doubted Jesus' resurrection in spite of the fact that Jesus told them he would rise from the dead and in spite of the eyewitness testimony! No! He was dead and buried! They thought he was the One. They thought they had it all figured out. The thought they had God In The Box! But their picture of God In The Box didn’t include a Cross! Instead, while they were hiding away afraid that the Jews would come looking for them next, Jesus appears to them behind locked doors (John 20:19)! After inspecting the wounds in his hands, feet and side, they ate a meal together. From that point forward, even though some still had doubts, nothing would ever be the same again! How? History tells us all but one of those frightened and doubting men hiding away after Jesus' death, died a martyrs death while proclaiming the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Certainly they were empowered by the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), but that didn't make torture and death any less painful. What was different? The answer: Their God was no longer in the box! With the Truth in their hearts, they knew everything else Jesus taught was true as well. Including the truth that all those who put their trust in Him would receive the gift of eternal life (John 3:16). With the God of eternal life by their side and living in their hearts, who needs a God In The Box?

This practice of letting God out of the box is a daily and intentional mindset. Over a period of time our spiritual lives become...I want to say “complacent,” but “safe” is probably more accurate. The days pass by and we never wonder what if. What if: We trusted God with our jobs, family, friends and finances; or We loved one another unconditionally; or God is calling me to something more; or God is back in the box? I recently asked myself that last "what if" question as it relates to this blog. Let me explain.

When I was planning this blog, I had in mind that it would be something I shared with my friends and family. I hoped that the link would get passed along but I suspect my readership would remain relatively small and localized. Even though Jesus' Great Commission to take the Gospel to all the nations heads my blog page, I didn't fully see my part in that commission. That's because I had God In The Box! Well God has broken through the walls of that box in a way that only God can do. While I don’t know exactly how many people are reading this blog, I would like to give you an update of the blog's current geographical readership:

United States

Mexico

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Russia

Germany

Ukraine

Israel

Praise God! Since I only announced the blog to my personal contacts, it is clear that it was forwarded (perhaps many times) from there. I am humbled and grateful that God would use this ministry in this way and I am grateful to those of you who have taken the initiative to forward the link to your family and friends. Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations was not only directed at me, it was directed at all those who claim Him as their Lord and Savior. I know it can be intimidating at times to share your faith with someone. But when you share this website with someone, then we're doing it together. Imagine the possibilities if, together, we let God out of the box! If you haven't already done so, please take a minute to share this blog with your family and friends and say "good-bye" to God In The Box!

Christ and Culture

Book Review

Niebuhr opens his book by introducing the reader to what he has titled; “The Enduring Problem.” In short, the “problem” lies specifically in the Christian’s effort to reconcile Christ and culture. Niebuhr categorizes a Christian’s response to the problem into five possible answers: “Christ against culture,” “Christ of culture,” “Christ above culture,” “Christ and culture in paradox” or “Christ the transformer of culture.” Niebuhr then takes one chapter each to expand his view on the respective answers. In his final chapter, Niebuhr concludes that there is no single answer and that all answers may apply depending on the situation at hand. Niebuhr’s assessment borders on something akin to situational ethics. Although there is biblical evidence to support each of Niebuhr’s answers, it is difficult to accept that there is no clear answer. This would imply that Christian’s are not able to know God’s will. God reveals and has revealed his will through Christ, Scripture and the Holy Spirit. The fact that we are not able discern exactly what that is at all times does not necessarily imply that there are multiple answers to “The Enduring Problem.”

Niebuhr first reviews the “Christ against culture” answer. A radical separatist answer, its view is that Christ is the absolute and sole authority in a Christian’s life. Consequently, its call to withdraw from society presents an ‘either-or’ choice for the Christian: Either we follow Christ and reject the culture or we are loyal to culture and reject Christ. In part, this view does seem to have biblical support. The Apostle John says; “Do not love the world or anything in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.” (1 John 2:15-16) However, there is nothing explicit in that text that is an imperative instruction for Christians to separate themselves from the world. The implication of the “Christ against culture” answer is that the farther a Christian separates himself from culture, the less likely he will be to sin. This is clearly a fallacy. One needs only to look at the various monastic orders of the Medieval Church with their many rules and disciplines as a testimony of the pervasiveness of man’s sinful nature within a formally separated community. Being completely separate from culture is a hypothesis that can only be accomplished in a vacuum. In reality, it is not possible to completely separate from culture. At best, even the most radical withdrawal from culture would only create a radical subculture it would not be acultural.

More importantly, the “Christ against culture” answer is not consistent with Christ’s Kingdom of God perspective. Jesus teaches that the commands to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself are a summation of the Law and the Prophets. This shows Jesus’ perspective on his Kingdom as being both vertical in its relation to God and horizontal in its relation the man.[1] Jesus’ vertical (God) perspective is clear in the verse from the First Letter of John referenced above. However, Jesus also demonstrates his horizontal (man) perspective in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus admonishes the priest and Levite in the parable for keeping themselves separate in order to preserve their holiness. The Samaritan in the parable, crosses cultural barriers lined with cultural barbed wire in order to care for a man beaten, robbed and left to die. The latter is commended by Jesus as an example of the appropriate model for [Christian] behavior. The “Christ against culture” fails to properly address the horizontal (man) aspect of Jesus’ teaching and is therefore not an appropriate answer in any culture where there is an opportunity to serve those in need.

Niebuhr’s second answer is “Christ of culture.” This answer claims the supreme fulfillment of culture’s aspirations interpreted through Christ.[2] If Niebuhr’s first answer was the extreme boundary in one direction, the “Christ of culture” is the extreme boundary in the opposite direction. This answer affirms both Christ and culture while denying any tension between them. Niebuhr restates Oman when he writes; “This Christ of religion does not call men to leave homes and kindred for his sake; he enters into their homes and all their associations as the gracious presence which adds an aura of infinite meaning to all temporal tasks.” (p. 93) Clearly, this view is an accommodation. It is saying; “Jesus, do not ask me to follow you, just bless me where I am.” Niebuhr makes a statement that Jesus was; “Relevant to his time.” (p. 105) However, in order to support his theory, he neglects to expand the context of some of the examples he uses. In one such case Niebuhr writes; “He [Jesus] affirmed the laws of his society.” (p. 105) Unfortunately, Niebuhr fails to support that statement specifically. It is possible that he is referring to Christ’s instruction affirming the payment of taxes in his statement to, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” (Matthew 22:21) Jesus, however, follows this statement with, “And to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) This is a perfect example of Christ’s horizontal (man) and vertical (God) perspective. Niebuhr also writes that Jesus; “Showed concern for the peace of his own city.” (p. 105) Yet Jesus himself said; “Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) I doubt the moneychangers thought Jesus was concerned with peace when he overturned their tables in the temple and then drove them out with a whip. (Mark 11:15-17) The “Christ of culture” answer, in its opposite extreme to the ‘Christ against culture’ answer, so elevates the horizontal (man) aspect of Jesus’ perspective that culture begins to direct the actions of the Christian to the virtual exclusion of a vertical (God) perspective—a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Every social action begs the Church to take some action either in support or in opposition.

To mitigate these two extremes, Niebuhr suggests the “Christ above culture” answer. In this view, the Christian neither withdraws from culture nor fully embraces it. It is an attempt to synthesize Christ and culture. Although this answer appears to be appealing theoretically, it seems impossible to apply practically. Niebuhr is correct when he writes; “When we begin with the distinction between black and white, most of the shades we are asked to identify will be grays.  When we start our analysis of Christian communities with the church-sect division, most of them will seem to be hybrids. It is so with our present procedure. If Christ and culture are the two principles with which Christians are concerned, then most of them will seem to be compromising creatures who somehow manage to mix in irrational fashion an exclusive devotion to a Christ who rejects culture, with devotion to a culture that includes Christ.” (pp. 116-117) The late Medieval Church is a relatively good example of a failed synthesis between Christ and culture as represented by Church and State. The result of man’s sinful nature ultimately led to compromised teachings, abuses of power and widespread corruption. The sword instead of the Word was used to bring people into submission.[3] Consequently, the flaw in the “Christ above culture” answer is the failure to recognize the pervasive nature of man’s sin and its destructive power on even the healthiest synthesis.

Niebuhr’s next answer of “Christ and culture in paradox” also falls between the two extreme answers of “Christ against culture” and “Christ of culture.” It is, however, different from the “Christ above culture” answer in that it recognizes that no synthesis can adequately reconcile the tension between Christ and culture. The strength of this answer lies in its reliance on God’s grace as the bridge between Christ and culture. Man is both saint and sinner at the same time.[4] The Christian, as a sinner, lives in a world governed by the Law. Simultaneously, the Christian, as a saint, lives in a state of redemption governed by God with grace as the bridge. Although they exist together, they can never be fully synthesized in this life. As a result, since man is saved by and lives under the constant state of grace, he has been set free to interact with the world. Martin Luther was a proponent of this answer. Niebuhr writes; “Luther affirmed the life in culture as the sphere in which Christ could and ought to be followed.” (p. 174) Mengue writes; “Since one is saved by grace, not works, there are no grades of holiness, or any need to separate oneself from culture.  This means that any vocation (provided it is a true vocation, a station instituted by God) can be pursued for the glory of God. In that sense, Christians can participate fully in what is best in culture: we are ‘set free to serve.’”[5] The question however arises; how can we know what is “Best in culture?”  In this vain Niebuhr writes; “From Christ we receive the knowledge and the freedom to do faithfully and lovingly what culture teaches or requires us to do.” (p. 175) Additionally, Niebuhr restates Kerr that; “In a person ‘regenerate and enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the Word’ the natural wisdom of man ‘is a fair and glorious instrument and work of God.’” (p. 174) Since the strength of this answer is rooted in God’s grace, the anxious development of a perfect synthesis between Christ and culture is recognized as practically unattainable and any actions taken in the pursuit to be obedient to God are therefore subject to God’s grace. This view fully validates Christ’s vertical (God) perspective in its complete reliance on God’s grace while fully validating Christ’s horizontal (man) perspective by freeing Christians to act within their culture under that grace.

Niebuhr’s final proposed answer is; “Christ the transformer of culture.” Foundationally, the answer is rooted in the principle that all things have been created good and that due to the “Fall” they have become tarnished. Therefore, since all things are inherently good, they can be reformed.[6] This is a utopian view of the relationship between Christ and culture. It supposes that the reformation of culture is the purpose behind Christ’s redemption of man. Niebuhr writes; “To mankind with his perverted nature and corrupted culture Jesus Christ has come to heal and renew what sin has infected.” (p. 213) This view seems bent on conveying the idea that given enough time, Christians can transform the world into a community of believers cured of their sinful nature. The transformation of culture ultimately becomes the means and the end for the Christian. Mengue writes; “The ‘social gospel’ may quickly replace the true gospel of grace and promise with a works-righteous religion of Law, a danger which has been clearly realized in the strident, coercive activism of some of the main-line Protestant churches.”[7] Furthermore, “Such earthbound hopes tend to undermine the belief in an afterlife by seeking a heaven on earth.”[8] The “Christ the transformer of culture” answer is more appropriately an outcome to any one of the other four answers. Any Christian action in obedience to God will ultimately have a transforming effect on culture. Christ died for the redemption of man. Until Christ returns, the transformation of the world in terms of culture occurs through the actions of Christians engaged in the culture. This cultural transformation is seen as a by-product of Christ’s work on the Cross. While that is a positive result, it is nevertheless a by-product.

It is unfortunate that Niebuhr cannot seem to find a position to take with respect to his proposed answers to what he calls “The Enduring Problem.” However, given his relativistic views, it is understandable. Niebuhr weaves his way through his treatise on relativism then arbitrarily defines God as “Absolute”. (pp. 238-241) What Niebuhr fails to acknowledge is that the will of the “Absolute” as revealed through Christ, Scripture and the Holy Spirit is, as a consequence, equally absolute. Niebuhr’s relativism is simply an accommodation for the inability of sinful man to clearly discern the will of the “Absolute.”

As a literary piece, Christ and Culture is painfully confusing. Theologically, the book addresses an extremely important topic even while doing little to help sincere Christians solve “The Enduring Problem.” Such is the case with all relativistic thinking. Relativism either paralyzes a person to inaction for fear of making the wrong decision or liberates a person to any action because no decision is wrong. This state of confusion is uncharacteristic of the God of order. Jesus said that he would send a Helper that would teach us, remind us and lead us into all truth—Truth is not relative. (John 16:13) As an American theologian, Niebuhr’s inconclusive conclusion seems in itself to be an accommodation to the general American attitude of equality and individual rights. Niebuhr’s approach gives Americans obsessed with “freedom of choice” a potpourri of options to choose from. Obviously, Americans do not need more choices—they need direction. The foundation of the “Christ and culture in paradox” is built on the grace of God and recognizes that the tension between Christ as the ideal and a culture that has been distorted by sin can never be perfectly synthesized. Consequently, taking into consideration both the implicit and explicit Biblical evidence, it appears that the “Christ and culture in paradox” serves as a trustworthy guidepost for those seeking to integrate their faith into their everyday lives.

Born in Wright City, MO in 1894, Helmut Richard Niebuhr is an American theologian. Niebuhr graduated from Elmhurst College in 1912 and Eden Theological Seminary in 1915. He received an M. A. from Washington University in 1917. He received and B. D. from Yale Divinity School in 1923. He received a Ph. D. from Yale in 1924. He was ordained a minister in the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1916. He is the younger brother of author Reinhold Niebuhr. H. Richard Niebuhr died in 1962.[9]

---

[1] Angus J. L. Mengue, Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture Reexamined, (Online: http://www.kfuo.org/bissar26.htm), p 2

[2] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 4

[3] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 7

[4] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 8

[5] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p 8

[6] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 9

[7] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 10

[8] Ibid., p. 10

[9] The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 (Online:  http://bartleby.com/65/ni/NiebuhrH.html)

To Fight or Submit

If you're in the mood for a fight in mixed company, bring up the subject of politics! Democrat, Republican, Independent, Occupy Wall Street, The Tea Party, National Debt, Taxes...need I continue? Pick a topic and you can start a fight. Add to these things the politics we function within at home, school and/or work and we shouldn't be surprised that our lives are marked with conflict and strife. At its core, I submit that these conflicts are a struggle against authority. For example, the political party in the minority struggles against the political party in the majority because of the relative shift in the majority holder's authority to make policy. At home, husbands and wives struggle to find a balance in who is the final authority on matters affecting their home and family. At school, students resist the authority of teachers and administrators because they feel rules are often arbitrary and infringe on their personal rights to do as they please. At work, labor resists the authority of management because labor believes management is lining their pockets using the sweat and blood of labor. If you're still not convinced, let's go back a few years when God told Adam and Eve that they could eat from any tree in the garden but from the tree in the middle of the garden they were not allowed to eat. The first rebellion against the ultimate Authority served to lay the foundation for all subsequent rebellions to our present struggles with authority. So what is the proper response to authority? More specifically, what does the Bible teach about our response to governing authority? And is there a principal of submission that governs other areas of our lives and relationships?

To begin with, let me give you a hypothetical situation: You’re the founding pastor of a number of church plants along the front-range. About 25 years ago, the founder of your denomination was brutally murdered by some government officials over some trumped up charges. Now, you find yourself under arrest and in jail for being too public with your preaching. While in jail, you’re given the opportunity to communicate with your congregations. Here’s your chance. What would you write? Maybe something like this:

“Dear brothers and sisters, as you know, I am writing to you from jail where I stand convicted for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Haven’t I warned you that the end times will soon be upon us? Can there be any clearer indication that the end times have in fact arrived when our once great government would imprison its own citizens for preaching the gospel? Brothers and sisters, the time has come to lay aside your Bibles, take up arms and oppose this evil government! Certainly you can no longer be justified in paying taxes to support a government that oppresses its own citizens. It is time to revolt in the name of our great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who, as you know, also fell victim to a similar evil government!”

Is that the kind of letter you would write, or is it a bit zealous for your liking? Then how about something like this:

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another.”

PS: “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

Is this more like the letter you would write, or does it seem naïve or idealistic? As you might recognize, the first part of the letter was from the 13^th chapter of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. Keep in mind, in addition to being Jewish, Paul was a Roman citizen! Paul wrote this particular letter while in Corinth preparing for his trip to Jerusalem. Does it seem like Paul is being a bit naïve or idealistic in his instructions? I mean, he’s not even in Rome at this point so how would he know what the people there are experiencing from the local government! That’s why I included the postscript. You see, the postscript is part of a letter written to Timothy just a few years later. It wasn’t written during one of Paul’s famous world tours. No, it was written while Paul was in a Roman prison awaiting his execution. See, Paul wasn’t naïve or idealistic. I’m sure it didn’t escape his attention that this was the same government that crucified Jesus. Instead, he was reinforcing a Biblical truth about submission and respect for authority. That begs this question: Why should Christians submit to authority in general and civil governments more specifically? Let’s let Paul answer the question.

            Beginning with Romans 13:1 Paul says; “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” Paul’s not making this stuff up! There’s ample Biblical evidence to support his statement. For example, Daniel 2:21 says “He [God] sets up kings and deposes them.” Clearer still is the interchange between Pontius Pilate and Jesus in John 19:10-11; “’Do you refuse to speak to me?’ Pilate said. ‘Don’t you realize that I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?’ Jesus answered, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.’” But even with ample Biblical support, this verse is still a stumbling block for many when they consider governing authorities such as Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. They insist that there has to be some exception to rule. But Paul makes no exceptions. Brutal regimes existed long before these evil men and yet God’s sovereignty and glory were always ultimately displayed for all to see. Pharaoh’s bitter enslavement of Israel and subsequent refusal to release them from their bondage inevitably led God to demonstrate his overwhelming saving power by emancipating Israel and destroying the Egyptian army. King Herod’s order to kill all the boys two years old or younger in Bethlehem and its surrounding regions in an attempt to kill Jesus only served to further fulfill the prophecies about Jesus as the coming Messiah. At times, Emperor Nero lined the streets of Rome with crucified Christians set on fire as street lights. Yet despite Nero’s best efforts to wipe out Christianity in the 1^st century, he simply managed to drive the roots of the early church’s faith even deeper. The logical mistake is to assume Paul’s statement means that all governments are intrinsically good. Instead, while government may be a servant of God, it often fills that role unwittingly and unwillingly. Ultimately though, God doesn’t ask you to consider whether or not governing authorities are worthy of submission but simply that we submit to them as his established servants.

            Paul goes on to say in verse 2: “Consequently, he who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so bring judgment on themselves.” Clearly, rebellion has some extremely serious consequences. Satan rebelled against God’s ruling authority and we all know what’s ultimately in store for him. Adam rebelled against God in the garden and death entered the world. Continued rebellion is evidenced in our society by our burgeoning prisons. But is all rebellion condemned by God? The answer is no. Since governing authorities are established servants of God, it is logical to insist that God is the highest authority. Consequently, opposing orders that conflict with God’s requirements is not condemned by God. For example, in Acts 4:19, Peter and John are brought before the Sanhedrin where they are ordered to stop preaching the gospel. Here’s what Peter says: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” Now Peter’s not talking about disobeying them in all things, but simply in the things that contradict God’s requirements. A better question to ask would be; is it possible to submit and to rebel at the same time? In a sense it is. Let me tell you a story about Private Ivan Moiseyev.

Ivan Moiseyev was an 18 year old Private in the Soviet Red Army. The Communists were endlessly calling him to headquarters for talks, trying to “re-educate” him, to talk him out of his faith in God.  On this day, however, one of Ivan’s commanding officers was determined to succeed. Major Gidenko was the head of the Political Directive Committee and he was certain he could break Ivan. When Ivan entered his office and was seated, the Major said to him;

“Moiseyev, you don’t look like a poor pupil to me. Why are you not learning the correct answers?”

“Sometimes there is a difference between correct answers and true ones,” Ivan answered. “Sometimes God will not allow me to give the correct answers.”

The Major interrupted; “Yes, yes, I know all about the Christian teaching. But what has that got to do with being a soldier? Do you disagree with the teaching of the glorious Red Army?”

No sir,” answered Ivan.

“But you do not accept the principles of scientific atheism upon which is based our entire Soviet state and the military power of the army?” Said the Major.

Resolutely, Ivan said; “I cannot accept what I know to be untrue. Everything else I can gladly accept.”

For his continued refusal to recant, the Major order him to stand overnight outside the barracks. Since it was expected to be 13 degrees below zero, before private Moiseyev was dismissed, Major Gidenko stopped him and said;

“You will obey my instructions in summer uniform.”

Private Moiseyev was then dismissed. He would stand outside every night for 12 nights. During the day, he would still preach to the comrades in his barracks. Many came to faith after seeing his courage. His continued rebellion, however, would cost him his life. At age 20, his dead body was pulled from the river. He had been beaten, stabbed and was finally drowned. Soviet Colonel, Malsin, said;

“Moiseyev died with difficulty. He fought with death, but he died a Christian.”[1]

Private Moiseyev is a great example of someone who found a balance between rebellion and submission. Note that he was always respectful and honoring in his speech and followed every order except the one that contradicted God’s order to share the gospel. In short, not all rebellion is condemned by God. Nevertheless, all rebellion has its consequences and sometimes those consequences can be dire--as in the case of Private Moiseyev. But that’s the exception not the rule. In general, those who submit to the governing authorities live in relative peace. Here’s why I can say that. Paul says in verses 3 and 4: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Submission is necessary to avoid punishment. Here’s a quick test: What would be your immediate reaction if you were served with an IRS audit notice? Panic or ambivalence? What about this: What’s the first thing you do when you see flashing lights in your rear view mirror? After that initial wave of panic passes, you look at your speedometer don’t you? Were you speeding or not? What was the speed limit anyway? Wait a minute were you driving faster than anyone else? Let me ask you this, would you have the same reaction if you always obeyed the speed limit? (I’ve heard it said that the right foot is the last part of the body to be saved!) Here’s the principle that Paul’s trying to convey: Honest, law-abiding citizens generally don’t have anything to fear from governing authorities. Simply put, government is God’s way of protecting us from chaos and anarchy. Fundamentally, that means government is charged with establishing proper social boundaries and appropriate consequences for those who cross those boundaries. Paul’s reference to “bear the sword” conveys the idea that government has the God ordained authority to dispense earthly justice. I assume many if not all of you have heard the term “legislate morality.” That’s what many people think the government is doing during its legislative process and its subsequent enforcement of social boundaries. However, people often miss the point when they insist that “Government can’t legislate morality!” It is true that there is no law that can make a person moral. Nevertheless, laws are introduced to battle immorality. It’s true that there is no law to make people love each other. Therefore, laws are introduced to keep people from killing each other. It’s true that no law can make people honest. Therefore laws are introduced to keep people from stealing. In essence, government isn’t there to make people good but to keep people from evil. To a limited degree, government’s authority to dispense earthly justice does that. But is the threat of punishment enough?

Paul continues in verse 5: “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.” Not only has God ordained government as an external protection, he has likewise given us a conscience as an internal protection. That can be a bit confusing but here’s what Paul is saying: Fear of punishment can’t be the only motivation for doing good. Submission merely out of fear is as incomplete as the desire for sexual purity simply out of fear of contracting AIDS. Considering the proliferation of AIDS in our world, that motivation isn’t working very well. Submission based on fear is an external force and is a minimum standard for all people—including unbelievers. Paul is insisting on something more here—the desire to maintain a pure and undefiled conscience. The standard set by the conscience is personal and hopefully higher than the standard set by government. But, you might be asking, how does the failure to submit to authorities affect our conscience? On one level our conscience is disturbed when we rebel against authorities, because we know they are appointed servants of God and we are in fact rebelling against God. More specifically, however, our conscience is the God-given mechanism to alert us to transgressions. Did you know that the government has established the Government Conscience Fund? It’s for people to send in money anonymously to clear their conscience if they have cheated the government in some way. At one point they received an anonymous letter accompanied by a check. The letter read; “The enclosed check is for money that I owe you for taxes I didn’t pay. I have been losing sleep over the matter. If I continue to lose sleep, I’ll send the rest.”

Lest you think that the issue of paying taxes is an all-American past time, you might be surprised at what Paul says next. In verses 6 and 7 Paul says: “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full-time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Paul may be including this material because of the growing resistance in the middle 50’s to paying taxes, which would eventually lead to a tax revolt in A.D. 58. More importantly, however, Paul is trying to demonstrate that the payment of taxes is not unbiblical. Interestingly, in earlier verses, Paul uses the more common Greek word, διάκονος, meaning, “servant” when he is speaking of government authorities. But in verse 6 he changes to, λειτουργοὶ, which is used in the Old Testament in its Hebrew form for those who served in the temple of God. Servants of the temple were paid out a fund from the contributions of the rest of the population—a simple form of taxation. Through this change in terminology, Paul is making the analogy that taxation to pay government authorities is similar to the principle of paying servants of God’s temple. Both are full-time servants of God and have no other means of financial support. Whatever Paul’s precise motivation may have been with respect to paying taxes, he follows that with a more general principle of paying everyone what is due them. Paul is subtly implying that the service rendered by government authorities ultimately obligates those who are served to some form of repayment.

The same principle of submission to authority is consistent throughout Scripture with respect to all areas of life and relationships. Jesus submitted to the will of the Father to the point of death on the cross (Phil. 2). Believers are to submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church (Eph. 5:23). Wives are to submit to their husbands as they do to Jesus (Eph. 5:22). (For all you wives and feminists out there who are reaching for your lanterns and pitch-forks, read all of Ephesians to understand the full context of Paul’s instructions.) Children are to submit [obey] their parents (Eph. 6:1). And slaves [employees] are to submit their master [employer] (Tit. 2:9).

To summarize, if we accept the premise that God is sovereign and the final Authority of our lives, then we have a duty to humble ourselves in submission to those God has placed in authority over our lives (except in the case where that authority contravenes the authority and instruction of God). In view of the Biblical evidence, are there areas in your life where you are resisting, or perhaps rebelling, against ligitimate authority in your life, instead insisting on your personal rights or having your own way? What will you do? Return to my original hypothetical situation—be honest, which letter would you have written? To fight or submit?

---

[1] dc Talk and The Voice of the Martyrs, Jesus Freaks, (Tulsa, OK: Albury Publishing, 1999), pp. 30-35.