The Son of God, Pt. 2

A Titular Study In Spiritual, Judaic And Hellenistic Context

Part Two

            In Part One of this series, we looked at how the title of the “Son of God” was understood within the spiritual realm. Now we will investigate how the title was perceived and understood within Judaism of Jesus’ time.

Judaic Perspective

Professor Craig Blomberg writes that, “In many ways Jesus was closer to the Pharisees than to any other Jewish sectarian; their quarrels were internecine or ‘family’ disputes.”[1] However, unlike typical family disputes, this one would eventual lead to Jesus’ execution. Although the Son of God title need not have meant more than a holy man from the Davidic line in the culture of Jesus’ day, it was clearly understood by the Jewish leadership as implying something much more significant—something that would warrant a death sentence. Nevertheless, certain modern day scholars contend that the title was a later church development.  Specifically, scholar Joachim Jeremias contends, “The title ‘the Son’ is never used in Jewish sources or in pre-Hellenistic Christian sources as a title for the Messiah.”[2] However, Howard Marshall makes an important observation with respect to Jeremias’ position as he writes;

“The first is whether the facts are as Jeremias states them. The evidence has been surveyed by R. H. Fuller who, along with other scholars, has drawn attention to the evidence of the Florilegium from Cave Four at Qumran. Here the important text, II Samuel 7:14:  ‘I will be his father and he shall be my son,’ is quoted and applied to the Branch of David. Admittedly this is not quite a titular use, but it would seem to be fair to agree with Fuller’s conclusion: ‘Son of God was just coming into use as a Messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism….It meant not a metaphysical relationship, but adoption as God’s vice-regent in his kingdom.’  There is, therefore, some reason to question the confidence of Jeremias’ assertion.”[3]

Fuller’s position finds support in Green’s Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels (“DJG”) where it is written; “Although there are relatively few OT references to the king as son of God, this usage stands closer to the meaning of the title in the NT than do references to angels or even to the people as a whole…In spite of the sparsity of references which relate the Messiah to divine sonship, the observations that (1) messianic hope in the period was almost always linked to an ideal Davidic king (who in the OT is described as Son of God) and (2) some NT statements seem to assume a connection between Messiah and Son of God (e.g., Mk 14:61; Mt 16:16) suggest that Messiah as Son of God was not totally foreign to Palestinian Judaism.”[4]

Other plausible theories have been advanced with respect to how the Jewish leadership perceived the Son of God title. George Zeller writes;

“The word ‘son’ is used in the Old Testament so frequently as to discourage the effort to count the occurrences. In the overwhelming majority of cases it is used in the literal sense of offspring or descendant. In a significant number of cases, however, the word ‘son’ is used in the non-literal sense, indicating a person’s profession, his status or circumstance, or his character…we are being consistent with the Old Testament idiom when we maintain that the expression ‘Son of God,’ when applied to Jesus Christ, means possessing the nature of, displaying the quality of, God…The New Testament uses the idiom in the same way as the Old Testament, especially when indicating nature or character...we can test ourselves for accuracy in the understanding of it as applied to Christ, by observing how the Jews responded or reacted when Jesus taught concerning his relation as the Son to the Father…They knew that when Jesus said he was the Son of God he was claiming to be of the nature of God and equal to God.”[5]

Furthermore, Robert Mowery contends that Matthew’s Greek word order of huios theou (literally; “son God”) versus theou huios (literally; “God son”) in the phrase; huios tou theou (literally, “son of God”) reveals that Matthew likely recognized these words as a Christological title when he identifies Jesus as “theou huios” (in grammatical construct; “God the Son”). Mowery writes; “The former word order [huios tou theou] was a widely-known early Christian word order, for it occurs in all four of the canonical gospels plus several other New Testament books.  In contrast, the words theou huios occur within the New Testament only in the First Gospel [Matthew].”[6] There certainly is no shortage of opinions on the Jewish understanding underlying the Son of God title. Consequently, it seems appropriate at this juncture to review some relevant verses in greater detail in an attempt at developing a unifying theme with respect to the Judaic understanding of the Son of God title.

Matthew 26:63

At Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, Matthew records the words of Caiaphas as; “The high priest said to him, ‘I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’” Hagner writes; “There is no need to suppose by this language that the high priest meant exactly what the early church meant by this phrase in its Christology. That the Messiah would be the Son of God, even uniquely so, was quite probably the high priest’s own understanding.”[7] Joel Marcus makes an argument from the position of the grammatical construct of the parallel phrase in Mark’s Gospel; “The Christ, the Son of the Blessed (cf. ‘The Christ, the Son of God’ in Matthew).” Marcus writes;

“Is there another way of understanding the titles of [Mark] 14:61 that makes more sense of the charge of blasphemy? I would like to suggest there is; the two titles are in restrictive rather than non-restrictive apposition, so that the second qualifies the first…the first title, ‘Christ,’ is viewed as a member of a class which can be linguistically identified only through the modification supplied by the second, ‘the Son of God.’…The second title, “the Son of God,” far from being a synonym for ‘the Messiah,’ indicates what sort of messianic expectation is in view: not the Messiah-Son-of-David, nor the Messiah as the son of any other human being, but rather the Messiah-Son-of-God.”[8]

In contrast to the opinion of both Hagner and Marcus, Blomberg writes; “Caiaphas also uses the title ‘Son of God,’ but given the messianic interpretation of this expression, Christ and Son of God are synonymous in his mind.”[9] However, given the context of the events, Marcus writes;

“Why would Jesus’ claim to be ‘the Messiah, the Son of God’ be considered blasphemous if ‘Son of God’ is merely a synonym for ‘Messiah’? What is blasphemous about claiming to be the Messiah? One searches Jewish literature in vain for evidence that a simple claim to be the Messiah would incur such a charge.”[10]

An argument could be made that perhaps Caiaphas’ rending of his robe in Matthew 26:65 was a reaction to the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 26:64b. However, if an affirmative response to the high priests’ initial question were not going to be enough to condemn Jesus, then why ask the question in the first place? If Jesus had simply offered an affirmative response to the initial question, as recorded in Matthew 26:64a, and then said nothing else, the high priest would have had nothing with which to condemn Jesus. Unless, of course, Hagner and Marcus are correct in their assessment that Caiaphas understood that “Son of God” modified “Christ” as opposed to being synonymous with it. Additionally, Matthew records that after Caiaphas’ proclamation of Jesus’ guilt, those present abused him physically and taunted him saying; “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who hit you?” If the title of Christ were not previously modified by the Son of God title to show a unique relationship with God then the taunts are merely gratuitous brutality without warrant. Keener offers a mediating position in his commentary when he writes; “Most uses of blasphemy were non-technical and the high priest might admit whatever he needed as blasphemy.”[11] However, it is unnecessary to offer a mediating view of the events at Jesus’ trial. It was not the first time Jesus made claims that led some Jewish leaders to take up stones in an effort to kill him. Although witnesses perjured themselves at Jesus’ trial in order to secure his conviction, it is unlikely that the Sanhedrin needed more than Jesus’ public admission of essential equality with God as evidenced by Caiaphas’ use of the Son of God title.

Luke 22:70

            Luke’s parallel account of the events at Jesus’ trial supports the argument made above from the Matthean verses that the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus based on his claim to be the Son of God and what they understood that to mean. Luke records the events of the trial as;

“Jesus was led before them. ‘If you are the Christ,’ they said, ‘tell us.’ Jesus answered, ‘If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the might God. They all asked, ‘Are you then the Son of God?’ He replied, ‘You are right in saying I am.’ Then they said, ‘Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.’”

The progression of these six verses in Luke are far less ambiguous when trying to discern the Jewish leaderships understanding of who Jesus claimed to be. Jesus’ Son of Man proclamation and Son of God affirmation respectively in Luke are reversed from the parallel account in Matthew. In Luke 22:70, the first part of the sentence, “Are you then” supposes that the immediately preceding Son of Man proclamation by Jesus does not actually reach its blasphemous significance until the affirmation of the remaining sentence, “the Son of God?” However, the last sentence of this particular interchange between Jesus and the members of the Sanhedrin is of greatest significance. After Jesus’ affirmation to the question of whether he was the Son of God, the Sanhedrin asked; “Why do we need any more testimony?” It seems obvious that if Jesus’ Son of Man proclamation were the condemning testimony, as some contend, then why ask the follow-up question; “Are you then the Son of God (italics added)?” Probably because they understood that the Son of God title affirmed by Jesus was used by Jesus to demonstrate his equality with God.[12] Bock writes;

“The nature of Jesus’ blasphemy has always been a subject of debate. Was it a claim to be God? Was it a claim to be Messiah? Was it the claim to sit at God’s side in heaven? Just what did Jesus say that was so condemning in Jewish eyes? The key remark appears to be his claim to be Son of God (i.e. the Messiah), not merely in the regal sense, but as it is tied to the claim of being the Danielic Son of Man. Jesus in effect is claiming the right to go directly into God’s presence and be seated with him in heaven. To Jewish ears this is highly offensive.”[13]

Luke clarifies that until Jesus affirmed his unique position as the Son of God, the members of the council did not seem to think they had enough evidence to convict him.

John 19:7

            John does not record a parallel account to the Synoptics of the events of Jesus’ trial. However, John does record the council’s words and actions from their discourse with Pontius Pilate after Pilate indicates that he finds no basis for a charge against Jesus. The members of the council insisted; “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” At least in John’s gospel, some of the Jewish leadership seemed to have a very good grasp of the magnitude of Jesus’ claims of divinity. Gary Burge in his commentary on John’s gospel harkens us back to an event recorded earlier by the writer of the fourth gospel where it is recorded in John 5:18; “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Burge comments that the language of John 19:7 veils another worry: by “son” Jesus is saying that he has the authority of God himself.[14] D. A. Carson very succinctly summarizes;

“The language of the Jewish officials, ‘he claimed to be the Son of God’, almost sounds as if the claim itself was sufficient to presume guilt of blasphemy. In many contexts that was demonstrably untrue. The anointed king of Israel was sometimes referred to as God’s Son in the Old Testament, and in some of the intertestamental sources ‘Son of God’ is parallel to ‘Messiah’. But Jesus’ opponents rightly recognize that as he uses the title there are overtones not only of messiahship but of sharing the rights and authority of God himself.”[15]

Most significant, however, to proper insight of how the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God are the comments made by George Beasley-Murray; “The messianic pretension was serious enough, but the claim to be Son of God, with its accompanying roles of Redeemer and Revealer, was intolerable”[16] To expand on Murray’s comments, it is not enough to try and understand the various uses of the title Son of God in a contemporary or historical context. In the case of Jesus’ claim to the Son of God title, it is vitally important to view Jesus’ claim to that title in the context of his overall ministry. The Jewish authorities regularly avoided taking action against Jesus because of the large crowds that followed him. And those large crowds were following him because the blind received sight, the lame walked, those who had leprosy were cured, the deaf had their ears opened, the dead were raised, and the good news was preached to the poor (Luke 7:22). In other words, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was not just words—it was action as well. Jesus’ actions were not simply everyday events that were easily ignored—especially when someone is raised from the dead as in the case of Lazarus (John 11) and Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:35-43). The Jewish authorities had two or three years to consider Jesus’ words and actions. Furthermore, Jesus’ divine claims were not isolated cases. Toward the end of his ministry, and certainly by the final week of his life, it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus’ reputation began to precede him wherever he went. Consequently, it is not probable that the members of the Sanhedrin were completely naïve to Jesus’ claim of having a unique relationship with the Father thereby placing him in a position of equality with God. It is also unlikely that Jesus’ trial was a forum to give Jesus the opportunity to vindicate himself of false accusations or to properly edify the Jewish authorities. It is far more likely that the Jewish authorities, by the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, were well aware of the gravity of Jesus’ claims about himself. The Jewish leadership was far better equipped, theologically, to understand Jesus’ claims about himself and yet they suffered from the same affliction as do many in our world today. They understood who Jesus was claiming to be, they simply refused to believe it!

John 19:8 records Pilate’s reaction to the words of the Jewish authorities as; “When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. ‘Where do you come from?’ he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.” Interestingly, the reaction of the Jewish authorities who best understood the complete meaning of ‘Son of God’ was violent rage while the reaction of the Roman authority who least understood the complete meaning of ‘Son of God’ was sudden fear. This would not be the only episode where Gentiles would react more appropriately to the claims of Jesus about himself then did his own countrymen. But what exactly did the Son of God title mean to Gentiles? Part 3 will lead us through a brief survey of the possible understanding of the Son of God title within Hellenistic culture.

---

[1] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville, TN:  Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), p. 48.

[2] I. Howard Marshall, “The Divine Sonship of Jesus”, Interpretation 21, (1967), p. 92. (cf. Seyoon Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God”, (Germany: Einband Heinrich Koch, Grosbuchbinderei, Tubingen, 1983), p. 22.) (cf. I. Howard Marshall, “The Origins of New Testament Christology”, (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 111.)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Joel B. Green. Et al. (eds.), Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels (“DJG”), (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 770.

[5] George W. Zeller, The Eternal Sonship Of Christ, (Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1993), pp. 99, 102-103 (Non-literal examples include:  (1) Sons of the prophets – 1 Kings 20:35, 2 Kings 2:3 – refer to men belonging to a prophetic band; (2) Sons of oil – Zech. 4:14 – are ones anointed with oil, in this case members of the priestly office; (3) Son of the perfumers – Neh. 3:8 – a member of the perfumers’ trade; (4) Son of Goldsmiths – Neh 3:31 – a goldsmith.)

[6] Robert L. Mowery, “Subtle Differences:  The Matthean ‘Son of God’ References”, Novum Testamentum XXXII, 3 (1990), p. 200.

[7] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28-Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas, TX:  Word, Inc., 1995), p. 799.

[8] Joel Marcus, “Mark 14:61:  Are You The Messiah-Son-Of-God?”, Novum Testamentum XXXI, 2 (1989) p. 130.  Marcus provides definitional information:  In non-restrictive apposition, the second appositive provides additional, parenthetical information not essential for identifying the referent, which is already identified in the first appositive.  In other words, identifying Mark 14:61 as a non-restrictive apposition necessarily makes the two titles synonymous.  However, Marcus argues; “Why would Jesus’ claim to be ‘the Messiah, the Son of God’ be considered blasphemous if the ‘Son of God’ is merely a synonym for ‘Messiah’?  What is blasphemous about claiming to be the Messiah?

One searches Jewish literature in vain for evidence that a simple claim to be the Messiah would incur such a charge. Although the Mishnaic limitation of blasphemy to pronunciation of the divine name (San. 7:5) probably reflects a later restriction of the charge, it is likely that already in New Testament times blasphemy was defined as misuse of God’s name.  This criterion is not met by the staking of a messianic claim if, as normally the case in Jewish texts, the Messiah is simply a human figure from the line of David.”

[9] Blomberg, Matthew, Op. cit., p. 402.  Blomberg comments that Marcus’ position clouds the interpretation of v. 64b, but Marcus’s position is an argument for the grammatical construct of a restrictive apposition and v. 64b (a) does not contain an appositional phrase; and (b) Marcus’ position does not seem to affect the interpretation of v. 64b in any way.

[10] Ibid., p. 127

[11] Craig S. Keener, Matthew-The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, USA, 1997), p. 377.

[12] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1996), pp. 1,801-1,802.

[13] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing, 1996), p. 578.

[14] Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p. 504.

[15] D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary-The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 599.

[16] George R. Beasley-Murray, John-Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN:  Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 338.

The Son of God, Pt. 1

A Titular Study In Spiritual, Judaic And Hellenistic Context

This is part one of a four part series intended to look at the meaning of one of the tiles ascribed to Jesus; the “Son of God.” The title was not entirely unknown prior to the incarnation of Jesus. It was a title that was often given to the Roman supreme leadership while at the same time holding a special significance to the Jewish community. Furthermore, with reference to “God” in the title, it is not unreasonable to assume that the title is relevant in the spiritual realm as well. As such, some might say that the title holds little significance in reference to Jesus because of the multiplicity of usages during Jesus’ day. However, I contend that the title, when used in reference to Jesus, is the most appropriate and suitable use of the title.

This is a somewhat technical writing so it might help if you have your Bible close at hand so you can read the many Biblical references in their context. Also, I will add words as necessary to the “Significant Theological Terms,” (in the right hand column) that might not be part of everyone’s daily vocabulary. Nevertheless, I encourage you to ask any questions you may have and I will do my best to answer them.

Part One

Is it possible that the title, “Son of God,” could be understood as meaning something other than the title properly signifying Jesus Christ’s unique relationship with God the Father? Scholars seem divided as to whether the Son of God title was a later development of the New Testament Church who later ascribed the title to Jesus with its fully developed Christological significance[1] or whether the title is in fact consistent with Jesus’ words and actions. This survey strives to demonstrate that while the Son of God title may have had different meanings given its use in various contexts, the words and actions of certain Biblical characters betray the fact that in some cases there was a much deeper understanding of the underlying meaning of the Son of God title.

       Although there are thirty-eight references to the “Son of God” in the New Testament (NIV), this survey focuses on select verses that depict the various contexts within which the title is used. Therefore, the focus will be on the spiritual dimension represented by the parallel gospel verses of Matthew 8:29 and Luke 4:41, the Jewish perspective represented by the parallel gospel verses of Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70 and the non-parallel verse of John 19:7 and finally, the Greco-Roman perspective as found in the parallel verses of Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39.

 Spiritual Realm

Not surprisingly, one of the clearest uses of the Son of God title, complete with its divine meaning, is used by demons as more generally referenced by Luke 4:41 but more specifically by the demon of Matthew 8:29 where Matthew records the chilling account of Jesus’ encounter with the demon Luke identifies as Legion;

“When he arrived at the other side [of the Sea of Galilee] in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way.  ‘What do you want with us, Son of God?’ they shouted. ‘Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?’   Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding.  The demons begged Jesus, ‘if you drive us out, sends us into the herd of pigs.’  He said to them, ‘Go!’  So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.”

Professor Craig Blomberg writes; “…several scholars suggest that Matthew’s use of the term [Son of God] even more closely approaches the full-fledged divinity the later creeds and confessions make explicit.”[2] Even given Matthew’s exalted view of Jesus, it is Mark, in his Gospel (Mark 5:7), who records the demon addressing Jesus as “Son of the Most High God.” In any event, it should not come as a surprise that demons would recognize Jesus as the divine Son of God when Satan, the chief demon himself, confesses exactly that at Jesus’ temptation as recorded by Matthew earlier in his gospel (See Matthew 4:1-9). Not only do the demons recognize Jesus’ precise divine nature, they fully understand the eschatological significance of his presence. Craig Keener writes; “The demons here, believing they are free to torment people until the final day and expecting eternal torment in the day of judgment, recognize that their judge has just shown up, before the appointed time.”[3] Blomberg, writes; “Like Satan at Jesus’ temptation, they [the demons] acknowledge him as Son of God and recognize their eventual doom. The end times were breaking into human history with Jesus’ exorcisms, demonstrating the inauguration of God’s kingdom.”[4] Donald Hagner points out that only Satan and his demons have used the Son of God title to this point in Jesus’ ministry. In each encounter, Jesus’ divine identity, though veiled to the human eye, is clearly perceived in the spiritual realm.[5] Jesus immediately silences the public confession of the demon and as Darrell Bock writes; “That the rebuke is heeded shows his authority.”[6] Bock then continues; “The most likely reasons why the silence might have been commanded are that the demons represented an ‘undesirable’ endorsement and that the popular reaction to a Messiah might have included political expectations that Jesus wished to avoid…Judaism expected the Messiah to be proclaimed in limited ways and the title itself may produce expectations that Jesus will have to correct.”[7] Specifically, one of the expectations of Judaism for the foretold Messiah was a powerful leadership figure that would deliver Israel from the oppressive rule of the Roman Empire. This may have been one of the Messianic expectations Jesus want to avoid as his objective was to be far more magnificent than to simply establish political or military supremacy over Israel’s oppressors. The Son of God title would become increasingly important as a confession by the disciples later in Jesus’ ministry.  However, it will also be an emphatic point of contention before the Jewish religious leadership who fully recognized the divine implications of the title yet refused to ascribe the title to Jesus and instead used it to condemn him.

---

[1] Joel B. Green. Et al. (eds.), Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels (“DJG”), (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 771.

[2] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville, TN:  Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), p. 130.

[3] Craig S. Keener, Matthew-The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, USA, 1997), p. 183.

[4] Craig L. Blomberg; Matthew-The New American Commentary, (Nashville, TN:  Broadman Press, 1992), p. 151.

[5] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13-Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas, TX:  Word Books, Publisher, 1993), p. 227.

[6] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1994), p. 438.

[7] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing, 1996), p. 147.

The Rest of the Story

 “She was 17 years old. He stood glaring at her, his weapon before her face. ‘Do you believe in God?’ She paused. It was a life-or-death question. ‘Yes, I believe in God.’ ‘Why?’ asked her executioner. But he never gave her the chance to respond. The teenage girl lay dead at his feet.”[i]

17-year old Rachel Scott lay dead at the feet of evil and hatred. And here’s a bit of cruel irony. Not a month before she was murdered, this is what she wrote in her personal journal; “I dare to believe that I can start a chain reaction through acts of kindness and compassion.” Instead, the story that was to be her life was over and we want (often demand) to know why. We find ourselves asking, “What about the rest of the story?” We want the rest of the story! Where do we go when we don’t know the rest of the story –when the world is crashing in on us? To whom can we turn? There was a man, a king really, named David who answers some of our questions in one of the Psalms that he wrote. It’s Psalm 11 and I’d like to take a look at it together to see if it contains some answers to the questions we cry out when life begins to break down. Take a minute to read through Psalm 11:

¹ In the LORD I take refuge. How then can you say to me: "Flee like a bird to your mountain.

² For look, the wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to shoot from the shadows at the upright in heart.

³ When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

⁴ The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD is on his heavenly throne. He observes the sons of men; his eyes examine them.

⁵ The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.

⁶ On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot.

⁷ For the LORD is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face.

Can I just be honest with you for a minute? I really struggle with this. I don’t mean that I don’t believe it or know it to be true. What I mean is that sometimes that truth doesn’t make it the 18” or so from my head to my heart. I don’t know if your faith ebbs and flows like mine, but some days I believe that God is the answer to all my questions and other days I don’t think anyone has the answers to my questions. I wonder if this may have been the case for David as well because in Psalm 13 David starts out saying, “How long O Lord? Will you forget me forever?” I don’t know but certainly on the day he wrote Psalm 11, he believed God was the answer to all his questions.

I’m not really convinced of the exact circumstances surrounding this Psalm. Some scholars believe it was written during the time when David was being hunted by a crazed king Saul. Others believe it was written while David was hiding and on the run from his murdering son, Absalom who was bent on taking David’s throne by force. Regardless of the precise circumstances that precipitated the writing of this Psalm, these two events (and there were many others) demonstrate that David endured some very dark moments in his life. At times, these troubling times must have generated some serious life questions for David. Questions like, “Why me?” or “How long is this going to last?” or maybe even “God! Where are you?” Nevertheless, this Psalm shows us that David could still say, “In the midst of fear and trouble, God is still in control!” David is telling us that we can, “Trust God because He knows the rest of the story!”

Here’s how the verses break down in terms of their application. The first three verses introduce us to the difficulty in David’s life. Even though David experienced and endured some very difficult events, we don’t have to be hunted by a crazy king to be able to relate to him. For example, you might have a boss who is constantly riding you about your work. Or perhaps you have a teacher who unfairly criticizes your hard work. You might even be experiencing an illness either personally or through someone close to you that has dramatically impacted your life. Or maybe you are in the midst of a marriage that just isn’t what it used to be or what you hoped it would be. Regardless of your particular circumstances, you have the same response choices as David. Among other things, these verses teach us that we can respond to fear and trouble in one of two ways--we can either run from God or we can run to God. David is calling us to trust God because He knows the rest of the story! Verses 4&5 tell us that God is not caught off guard but instead He sees all things. Nothing is or can be hidden from God. Think about this for a minute. Do you really think God is in heaven looking down on the struggles in your life wringing His hands saying, “Wow! I didn’t see that coming. I’m gonna need some time to figure out what to do with that.” Do you think that when we cry out to God that He says, “Gosh Joe, thanks for letting me know about that. I’ve been kind of busy over here with Sarah’s problems and I kind of lost track of what was going on in your life.” Instead, we can agree with David when we say that God is never surprised by the fear and trouble in our lives—we can trust God because he knows the rest of the story! Finally, the last two verses close the loop by showing us that God will punish the unrighteous and reward the righteous. This is really the part that is most important to us, particularly because we don’t always experience immediate relief from our fear and trouble. In fact, relief often doesn’t come to us in this life but only in the life to come. In any event, we only have a perspective of the present and the past. So David shows us the big picture of how God works so that we can say, “Trust God because He knows the rest of the story!”

Let me show you how this has worked in my own life. When my oldest daughter was just 6 years old, she slipped on the wet bathroom floor and broke her leg. When we took her to the hospital for treatment, we were shocked when x-rays revealed a tumor in her leg that caused her femur to weaken and break. Our lives crashed when we heard two words; “Pediatric oncology.” During the days and weeks that followed, we pursued less invasive treatment options to start with and I prayed desperately for healing. The alternative treatment was surgery and a long recovery. At the end of the initial treatment period, it was immediately determined that the less invasive treatment was unsuccessful and that the more invasive procedure was required. Honestly, I was disappointed with God. I knew He could heal her through the work of the doctors, but I didn’t want my daughter to have to go through the trauma of surgery. Ultimately, although the surgery was successful, I struggled with the nagging question of why God didn’t answer my prayer. About a year after the surgery, I was putting her to bed on some particular night and we talked about the previous Sunday’s church message on being thankful. I asked her if there was anything she was particularly thankful for. She said she was thankful God was with her during her surgery because it brought them closer together. I saw no redeeming purpose in what she had to endure, yet God was using it to develop a deeper relationship with my daughter. I didn’t understand because of my limited perspective. So instead of questioning God, I should have trusted God because He knew the rest of the story. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, I was fortunate to find out the rest of the story but not everyone is that fortunate. We witness and endure many tragic events without every knowing God’s purpose behind those events. In other words, we seldom find out the rest of the story. For example, after 9/11, lots of people had lots of questions. Questions like, “Why would God allow something like this to happen?” and “What good could possibly come from this?” Honestly, I’m not sure we’ll ever know the rest of the story behind the tragic events of that day during this life. But, sometime after the events of 9/11, the folks at The King’s College in New York in partnership with Priority Associates produced a little booklet titled, remembrance-fallen but not forgotten, with heroic stories and other words of encouragement for the people of New York and elsewhere whose lives were forever changed by the events of 9/11. A man named Darrell was one of the contributors to this piece. He wrote.

“Shortly after hearing the news of our nation’s multiple tragedies, I wrote this simple poem:

The pain, it seems will never end

The hurt is here to stay

The agony within my soul

Will never go away

It seems that it’s impossible

For me to ‘make it through’

(I know that feeling, precious friend, for I have been there too)

I won’t attempt to offer cures

That will not ease your pain

But I will say, the life you lost—

It was not lived in vain

It’s been dispersed in memories

That now reside in you

And in the months and years to come

They’ll help you make it through

Today you feel the dark despair

Today you mourn and cry

But from the seeds of memory

That life will multiply

The torment seems too much to bear

The whole world seems insane

But if their life reflects through you

They did not die in vain!

I’m so grateful that I chose to turn to my Heavenly Father for strength and comfort in my own personal loss. There I found the courage to forgive, the strength to ‘let go’ and the ability to see beyond the tragedy to a divine purpose that has slowly emerged with time.”[ii]

            That beautiful piece was part of a chain reaction that has brought comfort and encouragement to thousands. You see, Darrell was uniquely qualified to write this piece because of the tremendous loss he experienced in his own life. Darrell lost someone very close to him. I’m sure you know her. Her life and especially her death inspired thousands and it inspired him to reach out to a hurting world with a message of hope and encouragement. We wondered at the beginning of this writing about the rest of Rachel Scott’s story. Would you say that her death was really the end of the story of her life? Not if you knew that the author of the 9/11 poem was Darrell Scott—the father of Rachel Scott…Trust God because He knows the rest of the story!

            Laura Story wrote a beautiful song titled Blessings and there is a line in the song that is particularly important to me in light of the above narrative. The lyrics read: “What if my greatest disappointments or the aching of this life is a revealing of a greater thirst this world can’t satisfy…” Our disappointments, pain and brokenness say something very important—they say “I don’t understand, it’s not supposed to be this way, it can’t end this way!” And we’d be right. It’s because we weren’t made for a broken life or a broken world. But this is precisely where humanity’s sin, our sin, has placed us. However, for all those who recognize and accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, this life isn’t the whole story. Revelation tells us that one day “He will wipe away every tear from their [believers] eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4) I’ve included a video link below where you can listen to Laura Story’s beautiful song. While we are in the storm, it is difficult to consider the storm a “blessing.” Yet God has written a grand story and this life is not the end of the story. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection has made it possible to live forever in right relationship with God. Knowing this leads me to say, “Trust God not only because He knows the rest of the story but because He is the rest of the story!”

---

[i] dc Talk and The Voice of the Martyrs, Jesus Freaks, (Tulsa, OK: Albury Publishing, 1999), p. 17.

[ii] Kings College and Priority Associates, remembrance-fallen but not forgotten, (New York, NY: King’s College and Priority Associtates, 2001), p. 7.

[“The Rest of the Story” is an adaptation from radio broadcaster Paul Harvey’s story segment of his radio program}

When Jesus Became God

Book Review

            Many Christians mistakenly believe that the essential doctrines of the Christian faith they profess today have existed since the beginning of the Christian Church. Richard Rubenstein’s book, When Jesus Became God, portrays the dramatic maturation of the Christian faith and the establishment of some essential Christian doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Rubenstein writes, “In little more than one decade, Christianity had been transformed from a persecuted sect into the religion of the imperial family.” (p. 46) Rubenstein vividly colors historical events and the development of Christological doctrine in dramatic shades of political and religious intrigue. He describes everything from pompous public orations by self-appointed religious leaders to back alley, mafia-style assassinations to gain control of the Empire’s throne by power hungry elitists. Rubenstein does a masterful job (perhaps with a bit of literary license) describing how events probably unfolded and how the characters were most likely to have reacted. In the end, Rubenstein touches on the essential element that determines the outcome of all historical events: “Somehow, God would have to make His own will known through history.” (p. 210)

            At the heart of Rubenstein’s, “Struggle to define Christianity during the last days of Rome” (the book’s subtitle), is what Rubenstein identifies as “The Arian Controversy.” Arianism derives its name from its doctrinal founder, Arius, who perpetuated the doctrine that Christ was God’s first created being, a divine being greater than humans yet less than God.  In opposition stood those who subscribed to the doctrinal creed establish at the council of Nicea in A. D. 325.  This creed, referred to as the Nicene Creed, in its earliest form recognizes Jesus as God and of the same “essence” as the Father.

This difference in doctrine split the Empire between the Arian Bishops in the East and the Nicene Bishops in the West. Rubenstein describes the posturing, pandering, lobbying and “mobster”-like actions involved in filling vacated bishop territories in order to gain control by either the East over the West or vice-versa. The depiction of the religious conglomeration of the Roman Empire with its countless Bishops, Presbyters, Clergy, administrators, security and militia detachments makes one wonder who wasn’t part of the formal religious organization! Perhaps the old adage that there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians had something to do with their problems. It was alarming to read the extent to which Christians would go to promote their position. Contemporary historian Ammianus captured my feelings well when he said; “No wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.” (p. 194) While they certainly must have, Rubenstein never records an incident were any one of the great religious leaders of either the East or West consulted the Scriptures to determine how they should resolve their dispute. On countless occasions Scripture records events when people disagreed with what Jesus taught. Paul writes, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3) However, there is never a time when the New Testament advises or approves of violent or unscrupulous behavior in order to uphold the Christian faith or advance God’s kingdom.

            Although the concept of Christian “unity” does appear five times in the New Testament,[1] it is the Empire’s political leaders that seem to recognize its value-even if the motivation for unity lies in maintaining the strength of the Empire. The importance of unity must have been obvious to everyone but the religious leaders when Rubenstein writes, “It seemed absurd that the unity of Christendom should be fractured by squabbling theologians”. (p. 49) I would add further that it is embarrassing for Christianity.  Even in the hands of the most capable Christian emperor Constantine, the solution to the conflict between Arians and Nicenes seemed doomed to be political in nature. It was almost laughable to read about the debate over the use of one Greek word (“homoousios” – “homo”; same “ousios”; essence) as part of a church-wide acceptable creed. Not unlike America’s own historical events when President Clinton brought into question the definition of the word “is”. Or, when the first Bush administration drafted a letter to the Chinese government expressing their regret over a military “accident” that killed a Chinese pilot. The administration very cleverly used words that had multiple meanings. This gave everyone the excuse they needed to resolve what had been a standoff to that point. The Chinese could claim victory by interpreting the words of the statement one way and the Americans could deny the Chinese position by interpreting the statement’s words in a different way. Political brilliance?  Perhaps. However, the solution did not remove the obvious disdain the parties had for each other and continue to have for each other. Likewise, the ambiguity produced by the original language of the Nicene Creed may have served to establish religious unity on paper but it did nothing to stop the bloodshed between Arian and Nicene advocates.

Many Christians are intent to test the lessons of history by insisting that politicians and legislators take a more active role in upholding and advancing the Christian faith in order to combat the “forces of evil”. However, I’m convinced the results would be equally as bloody today as they were in the fourth century. Unfortunately, Constantine and his successors learned a very costly lesson: Political force only serves to entrench previously established religious positions.

            Rubenstein is quite correct when he writes, “Arianism as a discrete religious philosophy disappeared in the East as well as in the West.  But the great questions that had generated the controversy over Jesus’ divinity remained—and remains yet—to haunt the imagination and provoke the conscience of humankind.” (p. 231) The theology that so troubled the Arian following, “The idea of the Eternal becoming a man…” (p. 63), is a stumbling block for many today as well. The identity of Jesus is in fact the line in the sand between Christianity and all other major world religions. I suspect Jesus knew that when he asked his disciples; “Who do you say I am?” (Mark 8:29) Like the resolution between the Arians and Nicenes, today’s controversies as well must, in the end, be entrusted that; “Somehow, God would have to make His own will known through history.” (p. 210)

            I’ve include a modernized version of the Nicene Creed. Growing up in the Catholic church, we used to recite the Apostle’s Creed which is virtually identical. However, if you look up the Apostle’s Creed, it is written in the 1^st person and catholic is sometimes spelled “Catholic.” There is a very important distinction to note: “catholic” denotes the universal Church while “Catholic” denotes the Roman Catholic church. Also, “Church” denotes everyone which is part of the universal body of believers while “church” denotes a localized body of believers. In any event, I have included a copy of the Nicene Creed because I think it is a beautiful recitation of the essentials of what Christians believe. Of course, many evangelicals distance themselves from all creeds. After the various early church councils established this and other creeds, some church leaders mistakenly elevated creeds to the level of Scripture. As a result, some evangelicals distance themselves entirely from any and all creeds in order to reinforce their position that creeds are established by humans and Scripture is God-breathed. Fair enough but I submit that the Nicene Creed is nothing more than a formalized “Statement of Faith.” If you grew up in or are part of a Christian tradition that steers clear of any type of creed, I want to challenge you to read through the Nicene Creed and then read through your own church’s Statement of Faith and see if there is any contradiction in the statements. I have come to realize that so many Christians I meet, both young and old, are unable to verbalize exactly what they believe. Perhaps this creed will give some of you a few basic tools to share your faith until you get to the point where you are more confident to use your own words. If you disagree with anything contained in the creed, please let me know and we’ll talk about it.

---

[1] Kohlenberger III, J. R., Goodrick, E. W. & Swanson, J. A., The Greek-English Concordance To The New Testament, (Zondervan Publishing House 1997), p. 1,002.