Recap of Amos 1-6

I am preaching through the book of Amos.  I have two sermons left that will cover chapters 7-9.  The following is a recap of what we have covered in those sermons.

Amos 1. The Lord roars from Zion, as a Lion coming in judgment, against the nations (1:2). He is speaking to His people through His prophet Amos. He is sovereign over all peoples and consequently has the right to demand obedience from all peoples. He also has every right to curse in response to covenantal disobedience. These countries surround Israel on all sides and as the list progresses their sins become more heinous. The Lord is patient (“for three transgressions and for four”), but patience, by nature, has an end (“I will not revoke the punishment”).

Amos 2. This is a rhetorical noose that Amos ties around Israel’s neck. Being from the Southern Kingdom (Judah), Amos would have had to build some clout. As he indicted the surrounding countries, Israel would have agreed wholeheartedly and would have praised God for His justice. The people of God would have loved Amos’s preaching until 2:6 when the indictments turned toward themselves. The people of God were abusing, neglecting and oppressing the poor and marginalized for their own personal gain. They, too, deserved God’s judgment (2:6-16).

Amos 3. Being the elect of God, those upon whom lies the special love of God (3:2), does not exempt them from judgment, but is rather cause for more judgment. They had forgotten and rejected the ways of the Lord (2:4). They had misrepresented Him terribly. Rather than blessing others, they were abusing others. And rather than being a spectacle of righteousness for the other nations to see, they were just the opposite (3:9-10). For Israel, the Lord was faithful to bless, but not to curse. They were wrong. The curse would come through destruction - by both natural disaster (1:1) and exile by a foreign army (3:11).

Amos 4. Israel’s cultish religion and material affluence had caused them to ignore God’s previous warnings. The disasters that Israel previously experienced were specific covenant curses that were laid out in the law (Deut 28). They should have interpreted natural occurrences covenantally and theologically. Because they had rejected the law of the Lord, they did not see the natural disasters as Personal warnings for their covenantal misconduct. Instead of being led to repentance by the disasters and “returning to the Lord” (4:6-11), Israel saw themselves as innocent victims of random acts of nature. Again, they were wrong. Therefore, they were to prepare to meet their God (4:12).

Amos 5. The Lord explains more precisely what His judgment will be (the judgmental “this” of 4:12). Israel would be completely destroyed (5:2-3). Escape, via human strength or human righteousness, was simply not a possibility (5:8-9). The Sovereign, All-Knowing Lord of the universe was coming with justice. Israel was guilty (5:12). The only safe response was to seek Him in order to live – to hate evil and love good (vv.5, 6, 14, 15).

Amos 6. God hates those who are religious (5:21-23), self-confident (6:1-3) and self-indulgent (6:4-7); as well as those who “turn justice into poison and the fruit of righteousness into wormwood” (6:12). Empty people who constantly consume at other people’s expense (like cows of Bashan – 4:1) are an abomination and a horrible distortion of God’s purpose for humanity. Israel, instead of blessing the nations with the justice and righteousness of God (Gen 12:3), and, instead of being an everflowing fountain of love, generosity and equity (5:24), they were a people who the helpless feared most. Israel would therefore become helpless. They would go into exile (6:14). Before, they desired the Day of the Lord (5:18), after, no one would want to mention His Name (6:10).

While the main message of Amos is seemingly grim, light can be seen throughout in the most majestic ways.  The Lord is not indifferent to oppression.  He hates injustice.  He knows about and will sovereignly judge all acts of injustice.  These are glorious truths.  However, in an age when people are more prone to despise a police officer for giving a speeding ticket, than to thank him for doing his job well, Amos may be a difficult message for us to hear.

But the message of salvation through judgment is clear.  The Lion is coming in judgment.  Only those who repent and believe will live.

We Can Know God

This is the first part of the section in Berkhof entitled The Being of God.  In our age, an age saturated with a rationalistic and relativistic worldview, it is not uncommon to hear many different definitions of God.   We often ask (at least ourselves) "Who is God?" "What is He like?" "How can I know Him?"  The answers to these questions are vitally important, and must not become diluted in the pool of subjective conjectures.

The Knowledge of God.  While we can never fully comprehend God, we can have a partial knowledge of Him that is both real and true.  This is possible only because God has chosen to reveal Himself.  If man were left to his own resources and abilities, he would never have been able to discover or to know God.  The fact that we can know God is a gracious gift.  As sinners, we do not deserve it.

Everyone Knows God.  Everyone has a knowledge of God that is very general in nature.   According to Romans 1, everyone knows of His invisible attributes - His eternal power and divine nature - having been clearly perceived by them in the things which have been made (vv.18-21).   While this "general" knowledge is enough to leave one without an excuse, it is not enough to save.  It destroys the myth of the "neutral ground" and actively places every person in a relational category.  We are either a covenant-keeper or a covenant-breaker.

For many, this is a hard pill to swallow.  We typically don't like to learn of our guilt; but would rather stay in a state of rational limbo saying, "What I don't know won't kill me."  Well...yes, it will.  That's why we must embrace the wealth of redemptive knowledge found in the Scriptures.

We Must Come To Know God in Christ, Through the Scriptures.  Only the sacramental cup of Christ enables us to swallow the jagged pill of our sin, shame and guilt.  The Scriptures tell us that God created everything, that man fell into sin, and that God is on a relentless mission to rescue man from his sinful plight.  The Scriptures are about Christ, the redemptive "He" found in Gen 3:15, the great prophet who is to come (Deut 18), the priest who is both the King of Righteousness and of Peace (Gen 14:17-24), the King who will forever occupy the Throne of God's kingdom (Num 24:17; Ps 89).  The Word is alive.  When it is read, Christ is speaking.

Christ Exegetes the Father.  In short, we cannot see God because He is Spirit.  And because we are so confessedly empirical, we conclude that God cannot be known at all.  The Scriptures, however, tell us otherwise.  We can know God.  While we cannot see Him, Christ has made Him known.  As we learn about Christ, we learn about God.  As we hear the words of Christ, we hear the very words of God.  Christ, the God-Man, the Son of God, is the mystery, which was hidden for ages, but has now been revealed to His saints (Col 1:26).

This simplifies things a bit doesn't it?  If we really want to know about God, we must come face to face with the Lord Christ Himself.  If we desire to remain ignorant, we need only to look the other way.  But even there, you see what He has made.  That's why looking the other way is not ignorance, but rebellion.

What is Revelation?

Continuing our study in Berkhof's Summary of Christian Doctrine, we now come to the topic of Revelation.  The topic is of greatest importance in that it provides the origin of religion altogether.  In other words, without revelation, there would be no religion.  Berkhof writes, "Man could not possibly have had any knowledge of God, if God had not made Himself known."

There are two types of revelation - general and special.

General Revelation.  General revelation comes before special revelation in point of time.  In it, God does not speak verbally to His creation "but in the facts, the forces, and the laws of nature, in the constitution and operation of the human mind, and in the facts of experience and history" (Ps. 19:1, 2; Rom 1:19, 20; 2:14, 15).

General revelation is insufficient to bring about salvation.  This is not God's fault but man's, it "being obscured by the blight of sin resting on God's beautiful creation." Berkhof continues, "While it conveys some knowledge of the goodness, the wisdom, and the power of God, it conveys no knowledge whatever of Christ as the only way of salvation."

This does not mean, however, that general revelation has no value at all.  It is essential in forming the "background for God's special revelation."  Without the facts, laws and history of language, people, communication and the like, there would be no ground for special revelation to stand on.  Here we see the two are inseparable in nature, all-the-while carrying certain essential distinctions.

Special Revelation.  Special Revelation is now embodied in the Scriptures.  It is essential and necessary because of the entrance of sin into the world.  Berkhof comments, "God's handwriting in nature was obscured and corrupted, and man was stricken with spiritual blindness, became subject to error and unbelief...Therefore it became necessary that God should re-interpret the truths of nature...and should illumine the mind of man and redeem it from the power of error."

The principal aspect of the character of special revelation is that it is a revelation of redemption.  The Doctor writes, "It reveals the plan of God for the redemption of sinners and of the world, and the way in which this plan is realized.  It is instrumental in renewing man; it illumines his mind and inclines his will to that which is good; it fills him with holy affections, and prepares him for his heavenly home."

Our Scriptures are amazingly powerful in that they not only illumine the mind, but they enlighten the heart to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.  As they enter through the senses, they effect change through the soul.

I might add a note concerning this small book.  It is about 200 pages and is refreshingly simple and succinct.  It is not, however, exhaustive; but serves to be more of a primer to wet the appetite for a fuller meal!

Getting Back to Biblical Hebrew

After I bought my new MacBook, I was devastated to learn that the program mainly responsible for my acquisition of Hebrew vocabulary would not run on Snow Leopard.  Intelex would be leaving my life - and along with it, Hebrew vocabulary!

Ever since that day, I have been on a quest to find something that would work as well.  Though I am still on that search, I did find a pretty good resource.  Quisition is a website that provides its users with online flash cards.  OTProf has been so kind to add countless Hebrew flash card "decks" to this site.  All you have to do is register - with only a username and password (no strings attached - they don't even want an email address).

After you register, you can search for certain decks.  I typed in Biblical Hebrew and voila! countless resources (specific to my textbook! BBH) appeared.  I'm pretty stoked.  Though Quisition won't vocalize the words, it will quiz you and recycle missed words.

So, to all my hommies out there with slippery minds...let your Hebrew slip no more!

Question 9: How Has the Bible Been Interpreted Throughout Church History?

In this chapter, Plummer gives a brief survey of nearly 2,000 years of interpretive history.  Understanding how Christians throughout history have interpreted the Scriptures is quite important as there is much to learn from their methods as well as their missteps.  This survey describes the methodology of five interpretive eras.

The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament (A.D. 45-90).  The first place we see Christians interpreting the Scriptures is in the citations of Old Testament texts by New Testament authors.  The citations of such texts have a number of characteristics.

First, NT authors cite the OT Scriptures as reliable accounts of God's prior interventions and communications (e.g., Matt 12:40-41; Rom 4:1-25).  Second, the NT authors respected the contexts of the passages they cited - that is, they were not haphazard in their citations.  Third, the NT authors employed the OT in a typological and messianic way.  Plummer adds, "This means they saw God's prior revelation as anticipatory, reaching its climactic fulfillment in the coming of Messiah Jesus."  Finally, the NT authors did not use the OT in allegorical ways - that is, they did not assign meanings to details of the OT texts that the original authors would not have countenanced.

On typology, Plummer warns, "any typological use of the OT not explicitly sanctioned in the NT should be entertained with great caution."

The Rise of Allegorical Interpretation (A.D. 100-500).  Many of the early church fathers employed this method of interpretation by assigning symbolic significance to textual details.  I agree with Plummer when he says, "If allegory is not intended by the author...then a dangerous misrepresentation of the author's meaning can result [if allegory is used]."  Allegory is not a bad thing, Jesus and Paul used them. It is the illegitimate importation of it that is the problem.  This practice could very well have been adopted from the Greco-Roman world as it employed allegorical methodology in an effort to interpret difficult religious texts.

Allegory's tendency to distance the reader from the literal meaning of the text eventually gave rise to creeds and summaries, like the "rule of faith".  An objective, orthodox interpretation had to be put forward as protection against unorthodoxy and heresy.  Plummer states that it was this repetition of church tradition and the summarization of orthodox doctrine that functionally replaced the primacy of the Bible.

The Fourfold Meaning of Scripture (A.D. 500-1500).  During the medieval period we find the assertion that every biblical text has four levels of meaning: the literal, moral, spiritual (allegorical), and heavenly (eschatological or anagogical).  A good example of this can be found in the fourfold interpretation of Jerusalem: the literal plot of ground in Palestine; the moral nature the human soul; the spiritual Church; and the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem.

This practice became widespread and assumed.  Much of the biblical scholarship during this time was not really exegesis of the text; but the cataloging of church father's interpretations of various passages (for more on this era see my post Getting the Reformation Wrong (A Review)).  While the majority of the church's work was given to this sort of scholasticism, there were many who called for a return to the priority of the literal meaning of the text.

The Return to a More Faithful Interpretive Method (A.D. 1500-Present).  While I agree with the title of this section, I do think it tip-toes on the line of using euphemism (that this interpretive method is the "more faithful" one) to further a point that he does not explicitly address.  Anyway - back to the point.

The Reformation's cry was "back to the sources".  While the reformers sought to give primacy to the Scriptures, they also heavily scrutinized the fourfold method.  Calvin writes, "We ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning."  This interpretive method ultimately seeks to understand the Bible by gaining the sense of the author's actual words according to the norms of language and grammar.  Plummer continues, "For evangelicals, the conscious intent of the human author (whether the original author or a later biblical author in canonical reflection) is the touchstone of interpretation."

I would also add that the "analogy of faith" is the reformational interpretive standard - that Scripture interprets Scripture.

For more reading on this important subject Plummer (and I) recommend:
Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church
A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible
A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient World

Introduction to Biblical Interpretation

The Pain of Predestination

I remember when I hated the doctrine of predestination.  I would go around saying, "Predestination?  I don't believe in that."  I could not bring myself to accept the fact that God decided, before the world and its inhabitants existed, the final destiny of individual sinners (definition loosely taken from Packer's Concise Theology)?  My intense hatred for this doctrine caused me to ignore its obvious usage throughout the New Testament as well as its clear meaning in those contexts.

I won't lie, predestination still doesn't sit well with me sometimes.   I read passages like Romans 9:22-23, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory..." and I can't help but have mixed emotions - emotions of great sorrow mingled with those of sober joy.

Therefore, when people come and ask me about predestination, I have learned to approach the topic with great care and understanding.  I am approached often, and more times than not, the questions are negative in nature.  Like me, many have a hard time realizing that this doctrine is in their Bible.  They come asking how they are supposed to understand it and deal with it.  My answer is a simple one.  It takes all of about three minutes.

First, I explain to them what the doctrine actually means.  Then I ask them what their chief problem is with it.  Without fail, it is that God predestines people to hell - that He decided beforehand that wrath should be poured out on particular people.

I take this opportunity to read Acts 4:27-28, "...for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."  These verses, along with others like Acts 2:23, tell us that God predestined the death of His Son by the hands of lawless men.  In short, at the Cross, God predestined the innocent Son to die for the sins of others.

At this time, I ask, as I have asked my self over a hundred times, "Have you ever struggled with the fact that God the Father predestined God the Son to take the wrath of hell for sinners?"  "Do you struggle more with the fact that guilty sinners were predestined to hell than you do with the truth that the innocent Son was predestined to take your hell?"

Finally, I propose that our primary struggle should be with the fact that God predestined the Cross.  And until we feel the weight of that truth, then we can hardly proceed to struggle rightly with the fact that God predestines the destinies of individual sinners.

Question 8: Why is Biblical Interpretation Important?

With Question 8, Plummer begins a new series of questions related to the discipline of interpretation.  If questions 1-7 (part 1) addressed the nature of the biblical text, questions 8-20 (part 2) address the interpretation of the biblical text.

Because different groups come to different conclusions, all appealing to the same Bible, proper interpretation is essential.  Not only does the discipline help us to understand how Christians differ from other cultic sects (i.e., Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses); it also helps us understand how passages of the Bible relate to one another, to the community of believers, and to the everyday life of the ordinary Christian.

Plummer begins with defining interpretation.  He writes, "To interpret a document is to express its meaning through speaking or writing.  To engage in interpretation assumes that there is, in fact, a proper and improper meaning of a text and that care must be taken to not misrepresent the meaning.  When dealing with the Scriptures, to properly interret a text is to faithfully convey the inspired human author's meaning of the text, while not neglecting divine intent (See Question 3).

The Scriptures Show the Need for Biblical Interpretation.  In this section Plummer lists and comments on numerous passages that clearly demonstrate that there is both a correct and incorrect way to understand the Scriptures.  I will cite one bellow, while others include Psalm 119:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Ephesians 4:11-13; and 2 Timothy 4:2-3.

Concerning 2 Timothy 2:15, He writes, "In this verse, Paul exhorts Timothy to "correctly handle," or "rightly interpret" (orthotomounta), the word of truth, that is, the Scriptures.  Such a warning implies that the Scriptures might be wrongly handled or wrongly interpreted."

Language and Culture Show the Need for Biblical Interpretation.  If all people had was the Biblical text in the original language (in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic), most would immediately recognize their need for a translation of the text.  Plummer adds that "translation is the most fundamental form of interpretation...Yet, the translation of a text is not like the repetition of mathematical rules simply with different symbols.  All languages have cultural elements and assumed historical backgrounds that cannot be expressed with the same number of words or exactly parallel grammatical constructions.  Thus there is the need for additional study, explanation, and interpretation of a text."

I like the example that he provides from Matthew 1:19.  In this text, Joseph ponders ending his engagement to Mary.  The text calls this "divorce," which is an awkward word to describe the action.  But when one understands the cultural context - that ancient Jewish customs necessitated a divorce to break a betrothal (or, engagement) - he/she finds the "Scripture knot" is untied quite easily.

Plummer continues, "If we are familiar with the different time periods, genres, and anticipations/fulfillments of Scripture, we are better able to confidently approach any individual part of the Bible.  Assuming the unified nature of the Bible, as well as the progressive unfolding of God's plans (Heb 1:1-3), it is clear that a person with an established understanding of God's overarching purposes will be better equipped to understand individual pieces of the story.  Of course, time and study are acquired to attain such greater familiarity with the text."

He ends this chapter by explaining, what is commonly called, the analogy of faith - that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture.  He says, "This means that the broader biblical context will help one properly understand any individual passage."

Certain verses in particular books of the Bible are difficult to understand unless the context of that book is first understood.  Plummer gives 1 Jn 5:6 as an example.  One can understand what is meant by "water" and "blood" when the broader context of the letter (and of the NT) is grasped.  This verse is affirming the divine-human nature of Christ, seen both in his baptism (water) and death/resurrection (blood).  This interpretation takes into consideration the unity and message of the New Testament, the purpose of the letter itself, and the cultural background of incipient Gnosticism.

Plummer's last point is also worthy of quotation: "Careful interpretation is important because assumed theological presuppositions often can drive interpretations...Through careful biblical interpretation, the student of Scripture can become aware of others' biases, as wel as coming to acknowledge and assess the student's own hermeneutical predilections."

This chapter (and consequently this post) was/is not intended to provide an exhaustive study on the history, discipline, or difficulties of interpretation.  Many questions that this chapter raises will be answered in later chapters.  For those that are left unanswered, I would recommend the following books on Biblical interpretation - or, hermeneutics.

Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Goldsworthy

The Hermeneutical Spiral by Osborne

The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text by Greidanus
He Gave Us Stories by Pratt

Question 7: Which is the Best English Bible Translation?

There are a few questions that come my way on a regular basis.  The most common (by far) is, "Wow!  How tall are you?" to which I answer, "One inch taller than the average doorway."  The second question that typically follows is, "Did you play basketball?" to which I answer, "Haven't you seen me play for the Mav's?"  After the answer, "REALLY!" I say, "No.  Not really!"  Okay...back to the point.

Given my vocation, the third most common question I get is, "Which translation of the Bible do you recommend?"  I was not surprised to read that Plummer is asked the same question as well.  He writes, "During the birth of my oldest daughter, the attending physician even asked me this question in the midst of my wife's labor!"

The Original Languages of the Bible.  Plummer begins with a brief history of Biblical translation.  The Bible was originally written in three different languages over a period of nearly 1500 years (1400 B.C. - A.D. 90).  As we have stated before, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a few portions written in Aramaic.  The New Testament was written in Greek.

While sections of the OT were translated into a few other languages (mainly Greek), as soon as the gospel began to spread into other cultures, the entire Bible was translated into many other languages - Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, etc.

History of the English Bible.  This section was perhaps my favorite of the chapter.  Plummer writes about the dawn of the reformation in the 14th century: "In 1382, the famous reforming church leader John Wycliffe (1330-1384) translated the entire Bible into the English of his day (Middle English; from Latin)...Followers of Wycliffe continued to call for reform of the church and the monarchy based on the biblical truth they were reading (for more on this era see my post Getting the Reformation Wrong). Very quickly, church officials and the king judged the availability of the Bible in English as a threat to the status quo.  In 1414, reading the Bible in English became a capital offense (that is, punishable by death).  In 1428, Wycliffe's body was exhumed and symbolically burned at the stake."

Following in Wycliffe's footsteps was William Tyndale (1494-1536), who published the first printed English New Testament; translated from the Greek original.  The first complete printed English Bible appeared in 1535, called the Coverdale Bible (Coverdale was Tyndale's assistant).  In 1536, however, Tyndale was captured by followers of King Henry VIII, and was strangled and burned at the stake.

Plummer continues, "As he was dying, Tyndale reportedly prayed, 'Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.'  Only one year later, Tyndale's request was granted, as the king officially licensed the distribution of an English translation of the Bible...During the next hundred years, a spate of English Bible translations were produced, most of them heavily dependent on Tyndale's seminal work."

Approaches to Translation.  Unlike those who have preceded us, we have the privilege of choosing between many different Modern English translations.  Rather than asking which translation is "best", Plummer says we should recognize that all translations have strengths and weaknesses (exceptions would include those translations produced by cultic/sectarian groups like Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT and others).

On the spectrum of translations most fall within the spectrum of two extremes.  On one side is the functionally equivalent translation, which seeks to accurately convey the same meaning in a new language.  The New Living Translation (NLT) is a good example of this type of translation.

On the other side is the formally equivalent translation, which is concerned to preserve, as much as possible, the number of words and grammatical constructions from the original.  These translations are almost inevitably written in a stilted English style.  The New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the English Standard Version (ESV) are examples of formally equivalent translations.

Plummer adds, "For reading larger portions of Scripture (reading through the Bible in one year, for example), a person might choose a functionally equivalent translation.  For careful verse-by-verse study, one might prefer a more formally equivalent translation."  There is another class of Bible that Plummer talks about called the paraphrase, which is not really a translation but an "attempt to freely word the meaning of the Biblical text."

In my personal study and reading, I use the ESV (English Standard Version).  I tend to like the formally equivalent translations.  While the ESV preserves the number of words and grammatical constructions [as much as possible], it communicates in a style that resembles functionally equivalent translations.  In short, I find in the ESV the best of both worlds.

Question 6: Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?

We are continuing our overview of Plummer's 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible.  It is my intention to get through this book in 2011, with hopes of writing, at least, every week.  One of my resolutions is to finish what I begin - so here goes.

This week's question is "Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?"  Most people take the Bible for granted, giving little thought, study and reflection about the process of how the Book became our "only authoritative rule [canon] of faith and practice."

Plummer approaches the subject from a Protestant point of view.  It is a view that I too, presuppose and value greatly.  From the Protestant perspective, it is important to understand that the canon is not an authorized collection of writings (in that the church conferred its authority or approval upon a list of books).  Rather, the canon is a collection of authoritative writings.  Plummer adds, "The biblical writings have an inherent authority as works uniquely inspired by God.  Canonization is the process of recognizing that inherent authority, not bestowing it from an outside source."

It is often not until one is confronted with a differing view (like that of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox canon), that certain questions are asked.  Who determined that 39 books would be in the Old Testament, and that 27 would be in the New?  Why did they choose these books and not others?  What am I supposed to do about certain "gospels" that I hear about on the Discovery Channel? Is the canon closed?

Old Testament Canon.  To summarize the canonization of the OT, Plummer quotes Kaiser: [There was a] progressive recognition of certain books as being canonical right from their inception by readers and listeners who were contemporaries with the writers and who are thereby in the best position to determine the claims of the writers."  Plummer continues, "It seems clear that by the time of Jesus, most Jews were in agreement as to their own canon - a list that matches our current OT in content."

New Testament Canon.  About the New Testament, Plummer writes, "Compared to the OT canon, we know much more about the formal recognition of the books of the New Testament."  He then lists the criterion by which the early church recognized the New Testament books.  They had to be: 1) Apostolic.  That is, they had to be written by or tied closely to an apostle (an authorized eyewitness of Jesus); 2) Catholic, in that they were widely, if not universally (hence the term "catholic"), recognized by the churches; and 3) Orthodox, or, not in contradiction to any recognized apostolic book or doctrine.

The first 27-book list that matches what we have today, is the list by Athanasius in his Easter letter (letter 39) of A.D. 367.  Further, there were two early church councils (Hippo Regius, A.D. 393, and Carthage, A.D. 397) that confirmed the 27-book list.

Though much more can be said about the formation and recognition of the NT canon, I will cite two quotations that I found very helpful.  First, on the process of recognition.  T.C. Hammond describes the historical process in four points: 1) The NT books were written during the period A.D. 45-100; 2) They were collected and read in the churches A.D. 100-200; 3) They were carefully examined and compared with spurious writings A.D. 200-300; and 4) Complete agreement was obtained A.D. 300-400.

Second, on the agreement of recognition.  Barker, Lane and Michaels observe: "The fact that substantially the whole church came to recognize the same 27 books as canonical is remarkable when it is remembered that the result was not contrived.  All that thee several churches throughout the Empire could do was to witness to their own experience with the documents and share whatever knowledge they might have about their origin and character.  When consideration is given to the diversity in cultural backgrounds and in orientation to the essential of the Christian faith within the churches, their common agreement about which books belonged to the NT serves to suggest that this final decision did not originate solely at the human level."

To learn more about the Apocrypha, I would suggest reading getting a copy of the book and reading.  I would also recommend Carson's work on the subject titled, Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: An Evangelical View.

Is the Canon Closed?  Plummer ends the chapter by answering this very significant question.  He writes, "According to the early church's categories for canonicity (apostolic, catholic, orthodox), it would be impossible to have any additions to the canon.  For example, even if a genuine and orthodox letter of the apostle Paul were discovered, that letter would not have had widespread usage in the early church (that is, it could never claim catholicity).  The canon of Scripture is closed."

This chapter does a great job of informing us on a very large and significant subject.  This is a great introduction for any Christian who desires to know their Bible better.  And it serves as a good beginning to any student for further study.

What in the World Am I Supposed To Do With the Bible?

I begin this post with an example, so please bear with me.  Read and consider the following statement:

John went to meet Bill in Paris.

This sentence is simple enough.  Just like a verse from the Bible.  It is easy to understand, and upon reading it we have some information that we didn’t before.  But, there is still so much missing.  Let me give some history to contextualize it a bit.

John lived in the 1500’s and was a major player in the Protestant Reformation’s goal to reach the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ.  Not only was John a high-speed theologian, he also fought hand over fist for the rights of the poor, widowed, orphaned and oppressed.  Unfortunately, he did not go without an adversary - a well known heretic, who spoke often against his views.  We will call the adversary Bill.  John, though obviously frustrated by his adversary, pleaded  with Bill to recant his heresy and turn to Christ.  In an effort to work all of this out Bill called for John to meet him in Paris for a talk. 

Given this short paragraph, we have more information that helps us to understand better the first statement – John went to meet Bill in Paris.  Now we know that John and Bill aren’t best friends, but adversaries.  We know the goal of the meeting – to discuss theological views.  This is how contextualization works.  But why stop!  Let’s get more information.

Paris, at that time, was extremely hostile toward Protestant Reformers.  To go there as a Reformer was to risk one’s life.  This was no easy trip for John, especially since he was going to meet Bill.  But he went anyway.  Bill, however, was a no show. 

Wow! What a difference a few more sentences makes!  John sacrificed his life to talk to Bill (his enemy) about the Gospel, and Bill never showed up! 

Now we see even more clearly just how much contextualization enhances and excites our learning and understanding.  Without it we would have read the first sentence and moved on to other things.  The first sentence would have remained boring.  But when we add a bit of history and other facts about what was going on, the simple sentence turns into a gut-wrenching beginning to an amazing story. 

Many Christians in our world today struggle with their Bible’s for the very reason mentioned above.  We take a small verse, read it, and even memorize it, all without learning the context.  Therefore, we leave the verse behind in our lives as if it were as plain as “John went to meet Bill in Paris.”  Sure, the fact might be helpful someday – but still, it ignites nothing in the heart.  It leaves us unchanged as people.  But when we understand the context, we sit and think on the fact a bit more.  We begin to consider if we would do the same.  We begin to wonder what it was/is about John’s gospel that moved him to risk his life for his adversary.

So, here is my plan.  In order to help both myself and others understand the history and context of Bible better, I am going to take four months and go through Robert L. Plummer’s book 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible.  I will use Plummer’s work as a skeleton, adding helpful insights from myself and others from time to time.  Each post will contain the following elements:

-       At least one question from Plummer with a summary of his points and with added commentary from myself and others. 

-       At least one question for reflection regarding the above

-       A summary/purpose statement for a book of the Bible that can be memorized in one sitting

-       A portion of Scripture for reading and reflection

-       Questions related to the portion of Scripture to help gain further insight into the passage and the context as a whole. 

It is not my goal to give an exhaustive work on interpretation or hermeneutics.  I am in no way qualified for such a task.

It is my goal to keep each post one page long.  It is also my goal to keep the study short and simple; but also meaningful and insightful.  And it is my ultimate goal, that at the end of the year we all would be able to approach our Bible with more confidence, excitement and understanding. 

May we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2Pet 3:18).  And may God bless us with His bountiful grace in this endeavor. 

So, get ready.  Lord willing, we begin tomorrow!

Colossians 2:7

Colossians 2:7

“firmly rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.”

If the first verse [v.6] answers the question, “What must we do now that we are Christians?”, this next verse answers the question, “How are we to accomplish such a life?” I suppose another question could follow on the heals of this one – “Why must we live this way?” The answer to the “how” is answered explicitly, while the answer to the “why” is answered implicitly. Paul answers the question with four adverbial participles (all of which correspond with the four participles in 1:10-12 – relating to horticulture and ending with thanksgiving and which serve to modify the main verb – Moo and Harris). This fact shows us at least two things: 1) that Paul understands God’s sovereign work in building his church; and 2) that these things, for which he asks and now exhorts, are the apostle’s central concern for the church at Colossae as they continue in the faith.

[Remaining] firmly rooted (perfect, middle, participle, nmp) How are we to “continually live in Christ?” First, the Christian is to remain firmly rooted. In agreement with Moo, I use the term “remain” to properly communicate the meaning of the perfect tense of the participle. If one has been firmly rooted (perfect – past event), then, in “continuing,” he must “remain” so rooted (perfect - with future implications). This verb may indicate a particular nature of faith. As we have seen, faith receives. But this verb may tell us “how” it receives. There is an intensity that comes with it. The faith that receives Christ so tightly clings to its object that it is likened to a tree whose roots are, not loose in the ground (like a weed), but “firm” in the ground (like an oak). Historically, the verb has not been used only in an horticultural way. Lucas points out that “the word ‘rooted’ was also used in his [Paul’s] day for sinking the foundations of buildings…” For me, this does not change the meaning of the verb, but rather serves to shed more light upon it. Whether it be a tree or a building, the importance of having both firm roots and a firm foundation cannot be overemphasized.

and [continuing] to be built up (present, middle, participle, nmp). This verb is naturally related to the previous one. If a tree has its roots firm in the ground, then we expect a decent amount of growth. A farmer hardly takes so much care in planting his seed in the best soil for the sake of having it die their. No. He wants to see it grow and bear fruit (1:6, 10). Similarly a builder hardly goes through the pains of laying a solid foundation only to have it sit there with nothing built upon it. Christians are to be firmly rooted in Christ in order that they might continue (present participle) to be build up in him. The verb expresses something being built (oikodomevw) upon (e∆p-) something else. It would therefore not be wrong to say that the Colossian church was to continue to live in Christ Jesus the Lord, by remaining firmly rooted [by faith] in Him, and by continuing to be built up upon Him [upon the foundation that was laid by the apostles and Epaphras’ teaching] – that is, upon Christ as he was presented in the gospel.

In Him. This prepositional phrase is governed by the previous two participles (Moo, 180). It also serves to show the relation of the two participles with the previous verb (to walk) which is also modified by the phrase. One walks out the Christian life “in Him” by remaining rooted and continuing to be built up “in Him.” All of the Christian life, from start to finish is in Him.

And Being established (present, middle, participle nmp). “And” is epexegetical – that is, it expands on the meaning of the previous words (O’Brien). The word “establish” is to be preferred over “strengthen” b/c it brings out the basic meaning of the word group: “firm” or “solidly grounded” (Moo, 181). This participle along with the prepositional phrase (th≥: pi√stei- “in the faith”) that follows, summarizes what Paul expects to happen as a result of the first two participles. By sticking to their roots and being built up, the readers will be established in faith (O’Brien). Because the main verb “to receive,” has the person of Christ as its object, we remember that there is a more technical sense in which the verb is here being used. It is receiving Christ as he comes in the tradition or “in the faith.” I prefer this rendering as it works well with the both the preceding context (as just shown) and also with what follows – “just as you were taught.” The Colossians received Christ in the “word of truth – the gospel” (1:5), which they learned from Epaphras (1:7); who had himself learned from Paul the apostle. This connotates a “tradition” that has been passed down.

In the faith. The people are to be established in the faith. It is of the greatest importance to understand what is being said here. The expression has an immediate cross-reference that gives us some insight. Some have made much of being established in the instrument itself and not its object. This verse serves to correct the common error. O’Brien comments (and I wholeheartedly agree), “it is better to understand “faith” as that which is the object of belief, the content of the teaching which Epaphras had faithfully passed on to them.” It would go against the meaning of this passage therefore to be established in faith/belief itself. Simply put, we are not to have faith in faith, but faith in Christ.

As you were taught (aorist, passive, indicative, 2pl). This is a parenthetical interruption, that serves to qualify the previous phrase th≥: pi√stei. It is the tradition that they had received [by learning] from Epaphras. We can draw a few conclusions here: 1) that Paul affirms that which Epaphras taught them; this being a further witness to his faithfulness as a minister of the gospel (1:7); 2) the passive verb sheds more light upon the nature of saving faith. We cannot reason ourselves to this mystery (1:27), we can only receive it as a revelatory gift from God; and 3) if the gospel had proved fruitful to the Colossian church; and if the apostle sees fit to spend so much of his life in caring for them, let us be faithful in our proclamation of the same gospel.

When faith is absent (that is, saving belief in Christ, which is beyond the ability of reason to prove) all things seem, to the eye and understanding, to be separate, dependant, and without purpose or meaning. All of life is blurry until the spectacles of the gospel are applied. Then, b/c of Christ and his work on the Cross, all things are seen with proper vision and in the proper context. All things begin to make sense. The diversity of life is now connected to some Unity. Suffering makes sense. Life makes sense and has an eternal purpose. As the Christian continues to walk about the earth with these spectacles on, resolved to never see and make decisions without them, then he is prone to a life of constant reason to “abound with thanksgiving.”

I do not think that “the faith” that they “were taught” was simply the gospel verbally communicated through tradition. If we were to leave it here, I think we would be missing the whole of the passage up to this point. Paul has gone through great lengths to call Epaphras “faithful” (1:7) and to tell them of his own faithful ministry in Christ, through struggling and striving. Paul himself, and Epaphras, have not only communicated the “teaching” of the gospel, but also the “living” of the gospel as well. This is exactly what Paul wants the Colossians to resemble.

Abounding in thanksgiving (present, active, participle, nmp). Thanksgiving is referred to no fewer than six times in the letter (O’Brien). Clearly then Paul is desirous to see the life of faith which abounds with thanksgiving. In 1:12 practice is given in the context of patient endurance, and as the letter as a whole will indicate, it proves a significant offensive measure against the attack of false teaching. As noted in the above paragraph, the life of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ sees all things in relation to him and under his final authoritative control. This alone provides humanity with certainty (firmness in faith); a certainty needed to live this life without wavering and one that is beneficial to the world at large. Imagine living a life with no authority – no standard to ultimately trust but your own. Might soon makes right. If you are not mighty, you life may soon end. Imagine a life where everything is independently random and without purpose or order. This is called chaos – and leads to a life with no hope. And imagine a life where you are responsible for changing yourself. You dedicate yourself to one thing only to find that you do not change. So you devote to another – and another. No change. Same desperation. Now imagine a Life outside of you that has ultimate authority. All things must ultimately submit to and obey him. Imagine this Life has ultimate control, power and a single purpose for all things (even you). And Imagine that this Life has the power and desire to change you and make you his, in love. He can change you from within, by giving you a new heart. And he has the ability to keep you captivated forever. Receive the gospel! He is the Christ Jesus the Lord, who died to pay the penalty for sins committed against God; who now lives and is seated at the seat of ultimate authority; and who now LIVES to make intercession for you and live with you by His Spirit! By faith receive Him and abound with thanksgiving! Embrace this mystery and find yourself no longer subject to uncertainty and doubt – and find common and ample opportunity to overflow with gratitude to God for doing this work in you!

Only those who remain and continue in their work make any difference in the world whatsoever. But those who simply begin and soon forfeit, only to move onto the next “thing” make no difference. How often are we frustrated by starting and not finishing! How often is the Christian church ridiculed for claiming Christ but not living accordingly. This is that with which Paul is concerned. Only those who remain, continue and finish will be saved (1:22-23).

Colossians 2:6 Insights

Colossians 2:6

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him…

O’Brien’s Introduction: As he [Paul] begins his interaction with the “philosophy” of the false teachers, the apostle admonishes the addressees to continue in the teaching they had received and to remain immovable in their faith. These two verses summarize much of what has preceded and lay the foundation for the attack on the Colossian heresy that follows.

· Therefore…The “therefore” though pointing immediately to the previous verse, does, in a very significant way, point to and summarize the entire letter up to this point. Paul has previously prayed, with thanksgiving (vv.3-8) and supplications (vv.9-12). He gives thanks for the work of gospel among them (producing fruit and growing). He then asks for God to grant that they would walk in a way that is indicative of the gospel’s work – that is that they would “walk” (2:6) in a way that shows they have faith in Christ. Up to this point the general outline is – Paul’s prayer (1:3-9), Paul’s Christology (1:13-23), and Paul’s ministry/example (1:24-2:5).

· The Colossians received Christ by faith, as he was presented to them in the gospel (1:3-8); this corresponds with 2:6a – “just as you received Christ Jesus the Lord.” Paul prayed that they would walk in a certain way (1:9-12); this corresponds with 2:6b – “continue to live in Him.” Paul’s Christology (1:13-24, 26-27, 2:2-3) is nicely summarized in the expression “Christ Jesus the Lord.” Paul points to his own example of standing firm, struggling and striving – all in subjection to Christ and for the proclamation of his Gospel. By doing so, he is showing that even he is “rooted” and being built up in Christ; and that he is established in the faith (that Christ taught him) and abounding in thanksgiving (2:7). Now with this in view, we can see how and why many commentators see this passage as the hinge of the book as a whole. It summarizes what has previously been communicated and gives the proper foundation for what follows.

· As you have received (aorist, active, indicative, 2pl). Paul is giving instruction for the practical lives of the believers in Colossae. In order to face the enmity of the seed of the serpent (Gen 3:15), an enmity with which Paul was all too familiar (Acts 9), the Christian must continually walk in the Christ he receives. It is important to note, however, that the focus of the instruction lies in the past. The believers must understand what happened in history to understand how they ought to live in the present. The conjunction draws the eye to the past tense (aorist) verb. “As, you received…”

a. Harris notes that the verb “to receive” is not simply the passive receipt of Christian tradition, but active acceptance of the person who was the essence of that tradition.

b. O’Brien comments in the same line with Harris: Receiving Christ Jesus as their Lord is not simply a personal commitment to Christ (though this is no doubt included), but the use of the semi technical term specifically employed denotes the receiving of something delivered by tradition (p.105). Paul’s teaching does not come from the tradition passed down from man to man, but from the Lord himself (1Cor 11:23).

c. Moo. To “receive Christ” – in this verse at least- is not only a matter of believing “in” his person; it also involve a commitment to the apostolic teaching about Christ and his significance. This tradition, which the Colossians have heard from the faithful Epaphras, stands in contrast to the “human tradition” of the false teachers (v.8).

· The receiving instrument in the individual is none other than faith. It is an instrument that, before the work of the Holy Spirit in a person, is non-existent. It is a gift (Eph 2:8-9). And salvation comes not by the greatness of the gift, but by the greatness of the object that the instrumental gift receives. Knox Chamblin has often said, “that it is not faith’s size that is of greatest importance, but its object.” The size of faith can be as small as a mustard seed. But the object of faith must be able to move mountains (Matt 17:20). Faith, as Machen has put it, does not consist in doing something, but in receiving something. It is not merely possessed by someone, but places its confidence in someone. This is important for us to know.

· Christ Jesus the Lord. Cf. 2Cor 4:5. The accusative case identifies Christ Jesus as the direct object who receives the action of the verb. He is the object of faith; or, the one that, by faith, believers “receive.” Placed in the context of the whole of the letter up to this point, we must understand that Christ is not empty of meaning and substance. Machen, speaks of the “profound fact about faith, a fact without which everything else…would be valueless…that it is not as a quality of the soul that faith saves a man, but only as the establishment of contact with a real object of the faith…[In our day] faith is being considered merely as a beneficent quality of the soul without respect to the reality or unreality of its object; and the moment faith comes to be considered in that way, in that moment it is destroyed.”

· Much work has been done on the part of the apostle to inform the people of the particulars concerning Jesus. He is the redeemer (1:14), the divine God incarnate (v.15), the head of all creation (vv.16-17), the head of the church (vv.18-19). He alone is where the fullness of salvation (v.19), wisdom and knowledge (2:3) is to be found. He is the one, in whom reconciliation takes place (1:20-22). He is the mystery of God revealed (1:27), who is both in us and who is our eschatological hope (1:27). He is the sole subject of the church’s proclamation (1:28) and the object of her faith (1:4). He is the spring from which the church receives power and energy while struggling, striving and toiling through this life (1:29). He is the one who will finally present us before God (1:22). He alone is the King (1:13). He alone is the Lord (2:6) – Yahweh incarnate.

a. O’Brien notes. This is an early creedal confession, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” The one whom the Colossians received as their tradition is the center of God’s mystery (1:27; 2:2), and the Lord of both creation and reconciliation (1:15-20). He is Lord absolutely (1 Cor 8:5, 6), not just one among many.

b. Moo. Nowhere else in Paul do we find the exact same sequence of names and articles that we find here; indeed, this combination is found nowhere else in the NT. The article before the word “kurios” or “Lord” sets it apart and that it is this title that receives the emphasis in the verse. Furthermore, coming after a transitive verb such as “receive” the title may function predicatively; hence TNIV’s “Christ Jesus as Lord.” Paul is probably intentionally echoing, then, what was arguably the early Christian confession: that “Jesus is Lord.” And Christ is added to the formula in two texts that may (despite different syntax) be cited as close parallels of what Paul probably intends here: “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord” (2Cor 4:5, cf. Phil 2:11).

· Saying that Jesus Christ is the Lord is a succinct way of saying that he is: The image of the invisible God; The firstborn of all creation (1:15); the head of the body, the church (1:18); The Mystery of God (2:2; 1:27); and the repository of all wisdom and knowledge (2:3). Moo summarizes the implications for the expression, “it is this central confession, with all it’s varied and far-reaching implications, to which the Colossians need to return in order to ward off the threat of the false teaching.”

· Question. How did they receive Christ?

a. Not wages – Receiving Christ is not like receiving a paycheck. We did not work to earn him.

b. Not a Christmas present - Receiving Christ is not even like receiving a Christmas gift. Be careful!

c. But a gift freely offered in the gospel and received by faith [and repentance]. This makes him the Lord whereas the others identify the receiver as Lord – the one who has the final say.

· In Him, walk [or, “continue to live”] (present, active, imperative, 2pl). As is common in Paul, the indicative comes before the imperative. The history is the basis for the present [and the present lived for the future]. The same way the church in Colossae received Christ, that is the way they ought to walk. This verb characterizes the Christian’s life and behavior. He has already prayed for them to “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord” (1:10). Now he exhorts them to that end. The exhortations in Paul (or, the imperatives) are not calls to independent living. On the contrary, Paul trusts that God will work in them what he exhorts them to do (1:10 à 2:6). We walk understanding that our walking is dependent walking.

a. Harris notes that the formula “in Him” is less likely to be that of instrumentation (“by Him”), but more likely to be that of location; either “in union with Him” or “as incorporated in Him.” This indicates that Christ is the sphere circumscribing the entire life of the believer.

b. O’Brien, to walk is to “continue to live”.

c. Moo states that this expression in the present tense is an exhortation for the Colossians to “stay where they are!” Let Christ [and not the world] establish your values, guide your thinking, and direct your conduct.

· It is not uncommon for people to have misconceptions about the Christian life. Receiving Jesus Christ as Lord is not merely a check on a list before one dies; but a call to lose one’s life for His sake. It is a full and final submission. There is, for the Christian, no other authority to which he can now submit after receiving Christ without being is cognitive rebellion.

· One thing could be mentioned here. Christ is not the Lord because people receive him as such. If all were to rebel against him, this would not lessen his lordship. All men will one day bow (Rom 14:11). We must not play his patience and longsuffering against him. His waiting to impose himself on all finally does not diminish his strength, but rather heightens it! We have all sinned and denied His lordship. That is why the flip-side of the coin of faith is repentance. Once embracing His lordship we are never again to reject it! We do not go back to our former lives – having received him we are to “continue to live in Him.” We all formerly submitted to other authorities. We obeyed them; and found ourselves in quite a predicament in doing so! We all, at one time, trusted in some other controlling “power” or “authority” in the universe. For some of us, we were that providential governor – and others look(ed) to fate, the stars, mother nature, or other random powers. Trusting in them often caused much stress and anxiety and thus called for abandonment in preference to another. And we all, at one time, were motivated by individualistic, near-sighted, self-love. We desired no help, lived for no one, and loved no other. Talk about disaster! The Lordship of Christ brings redemption to all of these casualties! Because he is authoritative and in control of all things, we can now “trust and obey” for there is no better way. This should be comforting. And because he is Immanuel (God with us – by His Holy Spirit), we have the renewing power and presence to bring forth peace, love, patience, joy and the like (Gal 5).

· Christ is not needed as a one-time remedy; but as a life long from which we must continually draw. He alone is sufficient for this. He alone is the living water – a source that is never dried up. It is contrary to the nature of all living things to be once made alive and then be completely self-sustaining. All life is ultimately dependent on THE life-giver. When we take a moment to reflect on our utter dependence on others, and ultimately on God, we stand confounded and amazed that all of the resources needed to sustain our lives are readily available to us.

· “IN HIM” is a loaded phrase and very much related to what has been said before. Though he is over all (1:15-20), we are in Him. Our new union with Christ, which is our life in Him, demands that we see all of life through the lens of his Lordship. There is now, for the believer, no random particle, action, or thought in the entire universe that is independent Jesus Christ. As Lord over all creation – and over the entire Church – Christ, sits (at the right hand of God) in control, with ultimate authority; all the while, by His Spirit, he is intimately “with us.”

On 1 John 1:9

This is a brief paper to address particular difficulties that arise when considering the “if…then” clause of verse 9. Tension arises because confession seems to be the condition which must be met in order for one to be forgiven. It is a conditional clause – “if confession…then forgiveness.” In this paper I will address the historical context; mainly focusing on the identity the recipients. Does the author (John) write to believers or unbelievers? This question is important with regards to the text at hand. If they are unbelievers it would seem very appropriate for the apostle to call them to confession and repentance in order to receive forgiveness. However, if they are believers, it seems odd that the apostle would lead them to believe that they may not be forgiven until they confess their sins. The text may imply that continual forgiveness is needed – or, that forgiveness is withheld until they perform the “work” of confession (this sparking the question of legalism).

Historical Context: Purpose and Recipients. It is commonly held by most conservative scholars that the apostle John penned both the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John. We know that the Gospel was written mainly to unbelievers in order that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing they may have life in his name (Jn 20:30-31). The first epistle on the other hand was written to believers. It is a pastoral letter that was written to congregations across Asia Minor, who had been around long enough to now be threatened by positive heresy.

The main heresies that were being introduced were Gnosticism (or pseudo-Gnosticism) and Docetism. These gnostic “false prophets” claimed to have a special illumination by the Spirit (2:20, 27), that was imparted to them the true gnosis theou (knowledge of God). Through this spiritual illumination, the schismatics claimed to have attained a state beyond ordinary Christian morality in which they had no more sin and attained moral perfection (1:8-10). This led to spiritual pride and haughtiness that caused them to despise ordinary Christians who did not claim to have attained the same level of spiritual illumination as had the Gnostics (See Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 657-658).

If Gnosticism is mainly moral, Docetism is christological. Docetists denied the incarnation (2:22; 4:1). They held to the typical Greek contrast between spirit and matter, and thought that since matter was evil, God could not possibly have come into direct contact with the phenomenal world in Christ. They either denied the incarnation in general terms, or else taught that the body of Christ was only an appearance and not real (See Ladd).

In order to confront these heresies and protect these churches, John writes very pastorally and practically. Many verses throughout the letter would give clear indication that the letter was written to believers that were under John’s authoritative care. They would have known him and felt secure under his teaching. Perhaps the most convincing verse for identifying the recipients is 5:13, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” Verses like 2:1 and 2:7, when John calls them “My little children” and “Beloved,” along with many others would make an address to unbelievers unlikely. It may be argued that the pericope of 1:5-10 is isolated and specifically written with unbelievers in mind. However, 2:1 could easily rule this out: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.” The “these things” being referred to is not only what comes after, but also what comes before.

Again, The Gospel of John was written so that people might believe and receive eternal life (Jn 20:30-31); whereas the letter 1John was written to those who already believe so that they may have assurance of their eternal life (1Jn 5:13). Carson and Moo comment, “The Johannine epistles make an important contribution to the doctrine of assurance. If other NT writings make it clear that the objective grounds of our confidence before God are in Christ and his death and resurrection on our behalf, such that Christian assurance is not much more than a concomitant of genuine faith, these epistles insist that a distinction must be made between genuine and spurious faith. Spurious faith does not have the right to assurance before God; genuine faith can be authenticated not only by the validity of its object (in this case, the belief that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh) but also by the transformation it effects in the individual: genuine Christians learn to love one another and obey the truth. Christian assurance is not, for John, an abstract good; it is intimately tied to a continuing and transforming relationship with the covenant God, who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Carson and Moo, 685).”

Literary Context: Verses 1:5-10 confront gnostic heresy of perfection. There is a clear dualistic structure to this passage. We see the distinction between light and darkness. God is light and there is no darkness in him at all. Everything about the Christian life stands in relationship to this truth. If one says that he has fellowship with God while walking in darkness, is lying and is not practicing the truth (1:6). Similarly, if one says that he has no sin, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him (1:8). Clearly here the apostle is identifying lives (particularly confessions or statements) that are either in line with the truth or not in line with the truth. In short, one can know by what they confess whether or not they are in light or in darkness.

We must keep the author’s purpose in mind to help us here. He is writing to give believers assurance. Assurance is not to be given to those who do not live in accordance with the truth. This is very practical and pastoral. It is very difficult for a person to know whether they have fellowship with God or not. God is spiritual and unseen. Our love for him is unseen. We therefore know of our love for him, by looking and reflecting upon our lives and actions. This is the thread that runs through the entire epistle. John wants his hearers to KNOW that they are in the faith. Consider the following passage:

“Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning…By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, or is the one who does not love his brother (3:7-10).”

There are many other passages like this in the epistle. The purpose and the message is clear – we can know if we are in Christ by paying attention to what we say and do. Similarly, we can make a reasonable assessment of others are as well by what they say and do. Now, with this in mind, lets consider the passage at hand:

“If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

Reflections on 1:9: What is the verse saying and what is it not saying. With the historical and literary context in mind, here are some reflections on the passage. I feel it is important to understand that the apostle is not specifically educating his audience on the doctrine of salvation. The question is not how one has come to be in Christ, but how one knows whether or not he (or another; namely those who are professing heresy) is in Christ.

Reflection 1: Grace and humility are implied in the phrase “confess your sins.” In regards to the text, we must understand what it actually means, not what some (who remain in their sins) make it out to mean. The same action is performed by both the legalist and the true Christian – they confess sins. However, one desires a much different end. The Christian desires a restored relationship with His Lord. The one who remains in sins confesses to relieve himself of penalty only. The verse can be taken legalistically, albeit unjustly. A person who is truly confessing sin is not focusing on their works but depending on the grace and mercy of God. That person would be quite aware of the insufficiency of their merit to cover their offence, and would therefore understand the required payment to come another way. A person who was once impenitent but now finds themselves in confession would see and give praise for the work of Another who changed their heart to do such.

Reflection 2: The Scripture nowhere implies that confession of sin is meritorious of grace. It does however, repeatedly affirm the simple and profound truth that our God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is one who gives pardon to those who are contrite and confess their sins. Though we are justified and forgiven, the conscience not being yet glorified, is still weak and fragile. It stands in constant need of repair and relief. It is true that sin no longer has dominion in the Christian, but it does still dwell. The believer therefore, having fallen into sin needs constant reminders of assurance and pardon. The promise of forgiveness in this passage is not necessarily an objective one; but one that is very subjective. When a person sins, it is comforting to know that they have a Father who is ready to forgive and cleanse that sin. Sin and darkness would desire us to keep sins hidden – their existence wholly unseen. This was the gnostic heresy. The believed they had been completely rid of sin.

Reflection 3: This passage encourages confession by emphasizing God’s gracious character – purchased by Christ. It is a fearful thing to bring one’s offence to the one they have offended. Fear alone keeps many from confessing sins. Why? B/c they are afraid that they will not be accepted. Many are afraid that their sins keep them from having a relationship they so desire. Here, John, gives wonderful assurance of the character and nature of our Lord. It is safe to confess. He will pardon. He will cleanse.

Reflection 4: Notice that the passage implies that forgiveness is founded on the Cross, not confession. The Lord will forgive “on account of” the Cross (1:7), and according to the confession. The distinction between the prepositions “according to” and “on account of” are significant, especially in reference to verses like Romans 2:6, “He will render to each one according to his works.” One implies merit, while the other implies a simple truth, not based on merit. God does respond to the works and lives of Christians. He does bless “walking in the Spirit.” He does so according to such walking – but on account of the work of Christ.

Reflection 5: On a similar note. Notice the passage says “if you confess,” not “because you confess.”

Reflection 6: Understanding the Accomplishment of Christ and the Application of His work. The Work of Christ (especially his passive obedience – or passion on the Cross) is the basis for our forgiveness (Acts 2:38, 5:31; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). Though the forgiveness of sins was accomplished at the Cross with the shedding of His blood (Matt 26:28; Eph 1:7), a moment in history; there is another moment in history when the forgiveness is applied. The distinction is important. This verse follows 1:7, which clearly gives the foundation for forgiveness and cleansing (1:9)

Reflection 7: One of warnings. The Scripture, even Christ Himself, gives repeated warnings to those (who call God, “father”) who do not confess (Jn 20:23; Matt 6:14-15). It would do God a great injustice among the unbelievers (Gentiles) if he were to justify and not sanctify. The pardoned life is always a life of piety. Faith alone saves, but faith which saves is never alone (Calvin).

Summary. The apostle is saying that children of God walk in light. He is encouraging such a life. Walking in light does not mean walking in perfection; but rather walking in confession. A life lived concealing sin is a life lived in the darkness. A life lived confessing sin is a life lived in the light. But now that the man, the sinner, is encouraged to confess his sin, it is only right to assure that sinner that he will be accepted and pardoned; and that his sin will be cleansed by God. Nowhere in the passage does the apostle give the indication that the sin is pardoned based on the merit of the sinner or the act of confession. Rather, he explicitly gives such a foundation in 1:7. What follows in 1:9 must be read and understood through the lens of 1:7.

John’s point is pastoral and practical. A person who is being encouraged to come forward with his/her sins must be assured that they will be pardoned and cleansed. The true believer, when doing so, sees no merit in the act all-the-while seeing great benefit in the act. He asks, “How can such a holy God forgive and pardon me?” The answer is clear. The blood of His Son, Jesus Christ was shed. “How can this be?” Grace.

This paper is in no way exhausts the truths that could be mined in this passage. It is simply my thoughts over the past few days. I have referenced Bruce, Calvin, Ladd, Marshall, Kistemaker, and Carson/Moo. I am more than willing to be challenged on any point in order to know my Lord better and achieve the unity that Christians have in Christ. I would gladly welcome any comments/criticisms.

May the Lord bless this work.