JESUS CHRIST, "THE WAY" ­

Jesus is the Way that avoids the ditches of undue epistemology and experientialism.

by James A. Fowler.

In His departing words to His disciples, just prior to His arrest, imprisonment and death, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6). The early Christians, you may recall, were identified with "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).

When Jesus said, "I am the way," the intent was not to identify Himself as the pathway, walkway or roadway that would lead to heaven or to God. Jesus knew Himself to be God (John 10:30), and that to know Him was to know God (John 14:7). Neither did Jesus mean to imply that He was the method or procedural way to comprehend God. The Hebrews understood that the "way to God" referred to the saving activity of God. They knew well the plea of the Psalmist that "Thy way may be known on the earth; Thy salvation among all nations" (Psalm 67:2). Jesus identified Himself with the "saving way" of God, comprehensive of both way and means. When Aquila and Priscilla explained to Apollos "the way of God" (Acts 18:26), they did not explain the path, the road, the procedure, the plan of God. They explained to him Jesus, "the way of God," the saving way, the real way, the living way. Jesus is the way to be man as God intends man to be, the way to do what God wants to be and to do in us. Jesus is the way to glorify God, for God does not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).

What then did Jesus mean when He spoke of "the broad way that leads to destruction" and "the narrow way that leads to life, with few who find it"? (Matt. 7:13,14). He knew Himself to be "the life" (John 11:26; 14:6). He knew that many would choose the broad way where "anything goes" in the satisfaction of their own desires, rather than identification with His Life, restricted as it is by the parameters of the character of God. So the narrowness of the Christ-way is not determined by man-made definitions of belief and practice, but only by comparing how "God goes" (always in accord with His character) with "anything goes." Accepting these parameters of God's character expressed in us by His grace, the Christian then discovers Christ, the God-way, to be as broad as can be imagined. There is seemingly unlimited (infinite) latitude within the liberty of God's grace, within the expression of the Christ-Life.

The God-way is Jesus Christ. This ontic distinctive is so often jettisoned by those who would be Christian teachers because they fail to understand that Christianity is Christ, way and means. Christianity is the indwelling living presence of Jesus, the God-man -- the same Being of that One who was born, lived and died on earth historically. The dynamic Being and activity of the very Life of Jesus Christ functions in the Christian (II Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27). There can be no act of God apart from His Being. He always acts "in character" and does what He does because He is who He is. His doing is the dynamic expression of His Being. Christianity is always and only the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ in the Christian, individually and collectively.

It is most regrettable that the early polemic arguments, hammered out so meticulously by the likes of Athanasius and Hilary, were not applied also to salvation and sanctification. Establishing the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, they explained the essential oneness of being, the 'omoousion, of God the Father and God the Son. They did not proceed to point out with equal precision of terminology how the oneness of Being is retained as God functions within the Christian, always acting in the expression of the oneness of His Being. Were they to have done so we might have avoided the extremely deficient Trinitarian theology that is rampant in contemporary evangelicalism.

Jesus is the divine way of expressing Himself. The Christian has received Him (John 1:12), Jesus Christ the Way, into himself, and is "in Christ," identified in spiritual oneness (I Cor. 6:17) with the Way. Christian living, the behavioral expression of the Christ-life, is contingent on the dynamic expression of Divine Being expressed in behavioral action. Created as a derivative man, the Christian derives his/her spiritual condition and identity, as well as behavioral expression, from God in Christ.

If this then is the dynamic of the Christ-way, what then are the ditches into which religion inevitably slides in the broad way?

The left ditch is epistemologically established with religious rationalism. Epistemology "stands upon" propositional premises of sentential truth statements concerning the historicity and theological accuracy of Jesus Christ. Such an epistemological emphasis converts Christianity into an ideological belief-system intent on preserving doctrinal orthodoxy.

The right ditch is well entrenched with experientialism and the subjectivism of personal impact or effect. This is inclusive of philosophical existentialism and Bultmannian demythologizing alongside of simple mysticism and charismatic enthusiasm. Such religious experience centered in personal emotions and feelings is often seen as the antidote to the sterility and rigidity of rationalism.

A comparison of the epistemological and experiential approaches with the ontological reality of Jesus Christ will serve to expose the differences.

The epistemological religionists want to "figure it out" and "work it out." With their intellect, reason and mind they attempt to "figure it out" logically. They analyze, systematize, formulize, theologize and criticize. They "study to show themselves approved" (II Tim 2:15-KJV), engaging in doctrinal disputation and apologetics. Concluding that they have arrived at "the knowledge of the truth," they affirm the fundamentals of their belief-system with dogmatic absolutism Having thus "figured it out," they set about to "work it out," to keep the rules, to obey the law. They carefully figure out the techniques, the procedures, the formulas, the "how-tos" to guide other people in the working out of the Christian faith. The precepts and principles for every procedure are documented precisely. It is an intense system of legalism and moralism. Underlying their striving to "work it out" is the humanistic premise of self-generative man and his innate ability to create and perform what they perceive God expects of them.

The experiential religionists, on the other hand, want to "feel it," "experience what it does for you," and perhaps merge with the sensation. Instead of objective rationalism, they focus on internal subjective experience. Filled with enthusiasm, they seek the sensation of the religious "high," the ecstatic emotional feeling. They sense that there is a metaphysical "energy" that they want to plug into and merge with. The objective of the experience is "what it does for you;" the impact it has upon you; how it affects you. These existential effects are then often regarded as "the moving of the Holy Spirit" in one's life.

Notice that the epistemological and experiential religionists are both dealing with a static object, an "it" which they seek to figure out and work out, or feel and experience in order to merge with. Jesus Christ is not an "it," an object. He is the personal dynamic of God. As the God-way, He is "the summing up of all things" (Eph. 1:10). All that we need to function as God intended man to function is made available in the dynamic of Christ's life. We are to derive all from Him, ek theos. "Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is of God" (II Cor. 3:5).

The epistemological religionist tends to view God as the purveyor of plans, precepts and decrees, Who has a sovereignly revealed "will" that must be discovered, discerned and adhered to. Thus he engages in "natural theology" that attempts to know God by deductive knowledge about God. In the other ditch, the experiential religionist tends to equate metaphysical and supernatural happenings with the activity of God, so that God is identified with the "energy" behind the ecstatic experience. Both have deviant ditch theologies because God is known only in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6). This might be called "relational theology" in that a personal relationship is formed as the very Life of God dwells in the Christian. God is known relationally as He dynamically reveals Himself in the expression of His own character in our lives, the life of Christ lived out through us.

Consider the different approaches to salvation: The epistemologist tends to view salvation either as a product which Jesus dispenses or as a procedure in which the precise points on the ordo salutis must be precisely plotted (ex. Lordship salvation debate). The experientialist wants to be saved from "erroneous zones" in order to arrive at enlightenment and ecstasy, so as to experience salvation in the deliverance from unhappiness. Both separate salvation from the dynamic function of the Savior, Jesus Christ. There is no salvation apart from the living Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as He makes us safe from human dysfunction and misuse apart from Him, and restores us to the divine intent of divinity functioning in man, the "saving life of Christ" (Rom. 5:10).

For the rationalist religionist the "gospel" is a repository of information, the tenets of his teaching. Jesus came to teach the gospel, the "gospel according to Jesus" (ex. John MacArthur). For the charismatic enthusiast, the "good news" is the experience, the "heavenly" feeling, the subjective "burning bosom." The gospel is not essentially information or experience. The gospel is Jesus Christ! He is the "good news." In the dynamic restoration of divine life to man in Jesus Christ, we find the only "good news" for mankind.

"Grace" is defined by the propositional epistemologist as "the undeserved favor of God," historically manifested most specifically in the death of Jesus Christ for man's redemption. "Grace" is experienced by the subjective experientialist in the suppression of adversity and the unlimitedness of opportunity. Rather, "grace is realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Grace is the dynamic activity of God by the risen Lord Jesus in the life of the Christian. We live in Christ by the grace of God.

The externally oriented epistemologist often considers the church in architectural, institutional and academic categories. Ecclesiasticism becomes absolutism of belief-system, authoritarianism of leadership and activism of ministry. The experientialist emphasizes the need to belong and "bond" within community, the need to accept ad to be tolerant of all diversity and pluralism. The Church is described by Scripture as the "Body of Christ" alive with the life of Jesus Christ. The interaction of individuals indwelt with the dynamic of Jesus will evidence the loving character of God as they "love one another."

Eschatological considerations become a preposterous confusion among epistemologists as they debate their presuppositions of historical division (dispensational, covenant), their millennial perspectives (pre, post, a), and their tribulation theories. The "last word" for the experientialist is "how you feel," "does it work for you?" Sometimes the present experience becomes the focus to the denial of any future. The "last things" of God are all "in Christ." Christians participate in the "last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45) in these "last days" (Acts 2:17) since Pentecost, as our King, Jesus, reigns in the kingdom of our hearts.

Long have the tribes in both ditches hollered and hurled accusations at one another, perceiving the other to be so far removed in error and to be their enemy. Long have they also fought hand to hand combat with those in their same trench over variations of belief or experience. They seem to be "blinded" (II Cor. 4:4) to the fact that there is any other way. The alternatives are not merely left or right ditch, rationalism or experientialism, objectivity or subjectivity, mind or emotion, fundamentalism or mysticism, but most often the other extreme position is all they can identify in opposition to their own, and they live in great fear of crossing the line into the evils and errors of the other. The polarization of consequences is not the either/or of either being in the left ditch or the right ditch, but the either/or of either being "in Christ" with the dynamic of God's Being operative in and through the Christian, or remaining in the ditches of doomed humanity. Satan is the extremist who controls both ditches.

Ditches are places where you can get stuck. When you are stuck you aren't moving; you're static. Ditches are places of death! A "rut" has been defined as "a grave with both ends extended." Many there are who never "see" to get out of the ruts and the ditches of human thinking. One can only do so by the revelation of God.

Jesus is the way! Not the methodological way to get everything figured out. Not the procedural way to live morally. Not the enlightening way to self-knowing. Jesus is God's Way, the saving way, the living way. Jesus Christ alone is the dynamic of God's Life whereby God's Life functions within and through man as derived receptively by faith. Jesus is the way to be man as God intended man to be.

A Christian parent's major fear is an unbelieving child. We take steps (often the wrong ones) to "assure" his/her spiritual safety -- often with heart-breaking results. Here is a 2005 InternetMonk blog in which Michael advises a family whose middle-school son declares that he no longer believes in God:

A Prayer for Alex: What to do when your child says he doesn’t
believe any more.
January 15th, 2005 by Michael Spencer

A friend stopped in to ask me some questions about her 6th grade son’s
sudden announcement that he no longer believed in God or Jesus. Our time was
simply too short for a substantial answer, so I thought it would be a good topic
for an essay. Probably others are facing similar struggles with your own
children. There are thousands of “Alexes” out there, and thousands of agonized,
surprised parents. I hope this is helpful. Feel free to write me with your
thoughts.

God answers EVERY prayer

After praying for years that his cancer would be healed, and then praying that his "homecoming" would be soon and peaceful, a dear brother, Mike Casey did go home last night while his Pepperdine family dealt with the fire. Although I couldn't call Mike a dear friend, he was a strong influence. His writings -- articles and books -- constantly caused me to rethink much about my beliefs and practices. I will miss him.

This morning's InternetMonk blog was about God answering prayer. Michael's words as well as those who posted comments would lead a reader (who didn't know Michael) to think that he suffered from the common malady of considering only "yes" as the only answer to prayer.

Of course, scripture tells us of at least four answers from God: YES (you know of some); LATER (Elizabeth/Zacharias seeking a child [Lk 1]; Paul seeking relief [2Cor 5]); MORE (what a surprise! [Eph 3:20,21]); and most often, NO (many -- Jesus in the garden seeking relief, Paul's thorn, David seeking life for his son).

Here are a couple of poems that thank God for saying, "NO":

THANK YOU FOR SAYING "NO"
Ruth Harms Calkin

Lord, day after day I've thanked You
For saying "yes."
But when have I genuinely thanked You
For saying "no"?

Yet I shudder to think
Of the possible smears
The cumulative blots on my life
Had You not been sufficiently wise
To say an unalterable "no."

So thank You for saying “no"
When my want-list for things
Far exceeded my longing for You.
When I asked for a stone
Foolishly certain I asked for bread.
Thank You for saying “no"
To my petulant "Just this time, Lord?"

Thank You for saying "no"
To senseless excuses
Selfish motives
Dangerous diversions.

Thank You for saying "no"
When the temptation that enticed me
Would have bound me beyond escape.

Thank You for saying "no"
When I asked You to leave me alone.

Above all
Thank You for saying "no"
When in anguish I asked
"If I give all else .
May I keep this? "

Lord, my awe increases
When I see the wisdom
Of Your divine "no."

*******

God said “NO”
Nimesh Bakshi

I asked God to take away my pain.
God said, No.
It is not for me to take away,
but for you to give it up.

I asked God to grant me patience.
God said, No.
Patience is a by-product of tribulations;
it isn't granted, it is learned.

I asked God to give me happiness.
God said. No.
I give you blessings.
Happiness is up to you.

I asked God to spare me pain.
God said, No.
Suffering draws you apart from worldly cares
and brings you closer to me.

I asked God to make my spirit grow.
God said, No.
You must grow on your own,
but I will prune you to make you fruitful.

I asked for all things that I might enjoy life.
God said, No.
I will give you life so that
you may enjoy all things.

I ask God to help me LOVE others,
as much as he loves me.
God said...Ahhhh,
finally you have the idea.

*****************

Giving to the Lord?

Most of us grew up listening to the exhortation to "return to the Lord a portion of that with which He as blessed us" spoken before the "collection" was taken, as if the dollars contributed were in some way different from the dollars we spent on food/housing/clothing/entertainment/etc. Of course, everything we "have" is, in fact, our stewardship of the Lord's possessions. This being so, how can we "return" it to Him, to whom it already belongs?




Here are my remarks of this subject made to my church family a few months ago. Your comments are welcomed.

THE BLESSING OF THORNS

Many of us are facing serious threats to our faith -- poor health, troubled marriages, rebellious children, to name just a few. Here is something I found at James Fowler's site that struck home for me -- and for you, hopefully.

THE BLESSING OF THORNS
Sandra felt as low as the heels of her shoes as she pushed against a November gust and the florist shop door.
Her life had been easy, like a spring breeze. Then in the fourth month of her second pregnancy, a minor automobile accident stole that from her.
During this Thanksgiving week she would have delivered a son. She grieved over her loss. As if that weren't enough, her husband's company threatened a transfer. Then her sister, whose holiday visit she coveted, called saying she could not come for the holiday.
Then Sandra's friend infuriated her by suggesting her grief was a God-given path to maturity that would allow her to empathize with others who suffer. She has no idea what I'm feeling, thought Sandra with a shudder.
Thanksgiving? Thankful for what? She wondered. For a careless driver whose truck was hardly scratched when he rear-ended her? For an airbag that saved her life but took that of her child?
"Good afternoon, can I help you?" The shop clerk's approach startled her.
"I....I need an arrangement," stammered Sandra.
"For Thanksgiving? Do you want beautiful but ordinary, or would you like to challenge the day with a customer favorite I call the Thanksgiving "Special?" asked the shop clerk. "I'm convinced that flowers tell stories," she continued. "Are you looking for something that conveys 'gratitude' this thanksgiving?"
"Not exactly!" Sandra blurted out. "In the last five months, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong."
Sandra regretted her outburst, and was surprised when the shop clerk said, "I have the perfect arrangement for you."
Just then the shop door's small bell rang, and the shop clerk said, "Hi, Barbara...let me get your order." She politely excused herself and walked toward a small workroom, then quickly reappeared, carrying an arrangement of greenery, bows, and long-stemmed thorny roses. Except the ends of the rose stems were neatly snipped: there were no flowers.
"Want this in a box?" asked the clerk.
Sandra watched for the customer's response. Was this a joke? Who would want rose stems with no flowers! She waited for laughter, but neither woman laughed.
"Yes, please," Barbara, replied with an appreciative smile. "You'd think after three years of getting the 'special', I wouldn't be so moved by its significance, but I can feel it right here, all over again," she said as she gently tapped her chest. And she left with her order.
"Uh," stammered Sandra, "that lady just left with, uh....she just left with no flowers!"
"Right, said the clerk, "I cut off the flowers. That's the 'Special'. I call it the Thanksgiving Thorns Bouquet."
"Oh, come on, you can't tell me someone is willing to pay for that!" exclaimed Sandra.
"Barbara came into the shop three years ago feeling much like you feel today," explained the clerk. "She thought she had very little to be thankful for. She had lost her father to cancer, the family business was failing, her son was into drugs, and she was facing major surgery."
"That same year I had lost my husband," continued the clerk, "and for the first time in my life, had just spent the holidays alone. I had no children, no husband, no family nearby, and too great a debt to allow any travel."
"So what did you do?" asked Sandra.
"I learned to be thankful for thorns," answered the clerk quietly. "I've always thanked God for the good things in my life and never questioned the good things that happened to me, but when bad stuff hit, did I ever ask questions! It took time for me to learn that dark times are important. I have always enjoyed the 'flowers' of life, but it took thorns to show me the beauty of God's comfort. You know, the Bible says that God comforts us when we're afflicted, and from His consolation we learn to comfort others."
Sandra sucked in her breath as she thought about the very thing her friend had tried to tell her. "I guess the truth is I don't want comfort. I've lost a baby and I'm angry with God."
Just then someone else walked in the shop. "Hey, Phil!" shouted the clerk to the balding, rotund man.
"My wife sent me in to get our usual Thanksgiving Special....12 thorny, long-stemmed stems!" laughed Phil as the clerk handed him a tissue-wrapped arrangement from the refrigerator.
"Those are for your wife?" asked Sandra incredulously. "Do you mind me asking why she wants something that looks like that?"
"No...I'm glad you asked," Phil replied. "Four years ago my wife and I nearly divorced. After forty years, we were in a real mess, but with the Lord's grace and guidance, we slogged through problem after problem. He rescued our marriage. Jenny here (the clerk) told me she kept a vase of rose stems to remind her of what she learned from "thorny" times, and that was good enough for me. I took home some of those stems. My wife and I decided to label each one for a specific "problem" and give thanks for what that problem taught us."
As Phil paid the clerk, he said to Sandra, "I highly recommend the Special!"
"I don't know if I can be thankful for the thorns in my life." Sandra said. "It's all too...fresh."
"Well," the clerk replied carefully, "my experience has shown me that thorns make roses more precious. We treasure God's providential care more during trouble than at any other time. Remember, it was a crown of thorns that Jesus wore so we might know His love. Don't resent the thorns."
Tears rolled down Sandra's cheeks. For the first time since the accident, she loosened her grip on resentment. "I'll take those twelve long-stemmed thorns, please," she managed to choke out.
"I hoped you would," said the clerk gently. "I'll have them ready in a minute."
"Thank you. What do I owe you?"
"Nothing. Nothing but a promise to allow God to heal your heart. The first year's arrangement is always on me." The clerk smiled and handed a card to Sandra. "I'll attach this card to your arrangement, but maybe you would like to read it first."
It read:

"My God, I have never thanked You for my thorns. I have thanked You a thousand
times for my roses, but never once for my thorns. Teach me the glory of the
difficulties I bear; teach me the value of my thorns. Show me that I have drawn
closer to You along the path of pain. Show me that, through my tears, the colors
of Your rainbow look much more brilliant."

Praise Him for your roses; thank him for your thorns!
-- Author Unknown

Do Christians Have Peace with God?

Here's a good discussion (albeit fairly technical for us non-Greek readers) of a problem most of us didn't know existed. Pardon me for providing yet another reason for consternation at a possible textual problem. I believe that our view of scripture needs to be challenged frequently.

Do Christians Have Peace with God?A Brief Examination of the Textual Problem in Romans 5:1
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

“Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…” —NET Bible

Like virtually all verses, Romans 5:1 can be variously translated. But apart from some minor tweaking—for example, “Since we have been justified” vs. “Having been justified” and the like—there is one substantive variation in how this verse has been translation. The main verb “we have” involves a textual variant, “let us have.” At issue is not two different translations of the same word, but two different words—or, rather, two different forms of the same Greek word. The difference in spelling is one letter (either an omicron or an omega—that is, either a short ‘o’ [o] or a long ‘o’ [ w]), but the difference in pronunciation, as far as we can tell, was nil in the first century AD.1 This is not to say the difference in meaning was nil! Spelled with an omicron, the verb is in the indicative mood—“we have peace”; spelled with the omega, the verb is in the subjunctive mood—“let us have peace.”

One can easily see how such a textual problem could come into existence. A scribe is listening while someone else is reading the manuscript to him; since the two words would be pronounced virtually identically, he has to make a choice. The question is: Which one is the original reading? And how can we know?

Go to http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1159 for his answer. Then see his answer to a reader's question at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1156

Introducing the Athenians to God

I have a few commentaries on Acts and have read many more. Some are, of course, better than others. Each of them share a common deficiency -- how should we understand Paul's comments to the Aeropagus (Acts 17). I recently came across what I believe to be the very best commentary on this short speech. It is from Bruce Winter. Here are the opening paragraphs:

When an early twentieth-century Archbishop of Canterbury heard that Anglicans and Methodists had joined together in a service of Holy Communion in East Africa, he declared, ‘It was highly pleasing to Almighty God, but never to be done again.’ Luke’s succinct summary of Paul’s Areopagus address has sometimes been similarly judged. As such, it is seen as a one-off, valiant attempt at philosophical discussion concerned with Providence (de Providentia) and The Nature of the Gods (de natura Deorum) in the sophisticated field of apologetics in the late Roman Republican and early Empire.

It is acknowledged that Paul’s speech was sufficient for some of those who heard to believe and to identify with him and his gospel message. Among them was a distinguished Athenian, Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus Council, and a woman, Damaris. The former would have been a leading citizen of Athens because of his membership of its very ancient and distinguished ruling body. The woman had rank and status, and presumably was a patroness because the description of ‘others who were with them both’. In view of his rank as an Areopagite, Dionysius would also have had clients accompanying him.

However, the Areopagus address is regarded in some Christian circles as a well-meaning, innovative experiment, ‘highly pleasing to Almighty God’—after all it resulted in the conversion of the two distinguished Athenians and their entourage—but it was ‘never to be done again’. Therefore, it has to be concluded that today Acts 17 provides no paradigm for Christian apologetics which are an essential prerequisite to evangelism.

Those who believe that this address was, in effect, a failure, support their contention by arguing that Paul himself subsequently resolved never again to attempt this approach in his ministry. They argue that, of his evangelistic endeavours at his next port of call, Paul ‘determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2:2) in that culturally sophisticated city of Corinth.

It is concluded that even though there were converts on the day, Paul himself put the Areopagus style of evangelism behind him. He expected that others would never attempt to imitate his Athenian foray into the field of apologetics. This view of Acts 17 provides no paradigm for contemporary presentations of the Christian gospel. If that is the case it also has to be concluded that the address was recorded in Scripture simply as an interesting museum piece in the intellectual heartland of Athens and Greek culture.

You can read the rest here.

Through A Glass Darkly

Here's an unpopular commentary on 1Cor13 -- that's why I like it.

Through A Glass Darkly
by
Kurt Simmons

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (I Cor. 13:8-13)

I Corinthians 13 is among the most famous chapters in the Bible. Its use is so common in wedding announcements and bulletins that it is known even among those that never read the Bible or attend church. The lessons of the chapter concerning the qualities of charity, compassion and love are clear enough. But what about the rest of the chapter? What about those verses referring to the passing away of miraculous gifts and seeing through a "glass darkly" versus "face to face"? To what does this language refer? Some have taken Paul's language of seeing through a "glass darkly" as referring to our lives upon the face of this dark and sinful globe, and that his use of the phrase "face to face" refers to when, in Heaven, we shall see God. Does this interpretation bear scrutiny? Probably not. As we shall see, the better view is that Paul is referring to the Mosaic versus Christian age.

The Two Covenants
If we would understand I Cor. 13:8-13, we must first understand its companion text, II Cor. 3:12-18:

"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

Even a cursory glance at these verses will reveal their relationship with I Cor. 13:8-13. They were written by the same apostle, to the same church and use the same images. In both texts, Paul refers to a mirror or "glass." In I Cor. 13:12, he says they see through a glass "darkly." In II Cor. 3:18, he says they behold as in a glass with "open face." That Paul is referring to the same things in both texts is almost beyond dispute. Although his language seems furtive, the context shows that Paul is making allusion to the Old and New Testaments.

The Corinthian church was being troubled by false teachers from the Judaizers. The church at Corinth had given these Jews a forum to teach and they were subverting the gospel and seeking to turn the Corinthians away from Paul. (II Cor. 2:17; 10:10,11; 11:4,13-15) The Judaizers were preaching "another Jesus." (I Cor. 11:4) The Judaizers were gainsaying Paul's apostleship, twisting the fact Paul did not accept money to preach, saying it was an insult the Corinthians. They also called his credentials as an apostle into question, saying he was not an eloquent speaker. (II Cor. 11:5-12;12:12,13; cf. I Cor. 2:1-4) Thus, one of Paul's purposes in his second letter to the Corinthians was to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian system and its complete incompatibility with the Old Law. Paul wants the Corinthians to separate themselves from the Judaizers (II Cor. 6:14-18), his thorn in the flesh (II Cor. 12:7), and be reconciled to him and, through his ministry, be reconciled to Christ and God. (II Cor. 5:19,20;7:2)

It is against this background of the Judaizers troubling the church that Paul wrote II Corinthians, chapter three, comparing the ministry of Old and New Covenants. In the course of the chapter, Paul moves back and forth from one covenant to the other, comparing the attributes of each: The Old Law Paul says was of the "letter" (i.e., "fleshly ink"); the New is written with the Spirit of God. (vv. 3,6) The Old was written and engraven in stone; the New upon the believer's heart. (v. 3) The Old, Paul called the "ministration of death" (v. 7); the New, the "ministration of righteousness." (v. 9) The one system gendered death, the other life. (v. 6) The glory attending the giving of the Old was fading (vv. 7,13; cf. Heb. 8:13); the glory of the New surpassing. Paul concludes, saying, Moses put a "veil upon his face" so the children of Israel could not see clearly the end or purpose of law (v. 13), but that he (Paul) used "great plainness of speech" in declaring the gospel of Christ. (v.12) In the gospel, believers behold the glory of the Lord with "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face (v. 18), but the mind of the Jews remained veiled and blinded in reading the Old Law. (vv. 14, 15)

The Old Testament Concealed
A familiar saying has it that the "Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." If this saying is attributable to any particular passage of scripture it is to II Cor. 3:13, above. In saying Moses put a "veil upon his face," Paul avers to the fact that there lay concealed with in the types and shadows of the Mosaic law prophetic images of the substitutionary death of Christ. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect...For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb.10:1,4) Because the mystery of the gospel was concealed and not openly declared, the Jews could not "steadfastly look to the end" of the law: They could not see that the law was merely transitional, to lead men to Christ, but mistook it as an end in itself. "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law to all that believe." (Rom. 10:1-4; cf. Gal. 3:24) The Jews mistook the law as an end in itself; a perfect and complete system of righteousness and not the shadow that it was. Hence, they did not submit to the righteousness of God in Christ.

From what has been said, it is plain that the apostle's reference to Moses putting a veil upon his face is merely a metaphor for the types and shadows of the law; the prophetic aspect of the temple service and other Old Testament laws pointing to Christ. But if Moses put a veil upon his face, Paul used "great plainness of speech" (vv. 12,18), depicting plainly the glory of God in the "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face of Christ. In other words, the apostles did not use types and shadows to convey the message of Christ's redeeming blood. Their job was not to conceal the mystery of the gospel, but to reveal it. Thus, when Paul says that they behold the glory of the Lord as in a mirror clearly, with open face, we understand that he is simply averring to the fact that the gospel is not veiled beneath types and shadows like the Mosaic law. With this explanation of II Cor. 3:12-18 in mind, we are prepared to look at I Cor. 13:8-13.

New Testament Revealed
The context of I Corinthians, chapters 12-14 revolves around the purpose and use of spiritual gifts. In Cor.13:8-13 Paul explains the purpose and duration of miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, likening them to the stuff of childhood, saying that upon attaining maturity they would be done away. The time of childhood reasoning and understanding Paul describes in terms of seeing through a "glass darkly;" but upon maturity, "face to face." (vv. 11,12) Based upon his comparison of the two covenants in II Cor. 3:12-18, it seems clear that Paul is referring to them again here.

God's people were in their infancy under the law, but would come to maturity in Christ. "Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children were in bondage under the elements of the world." (Gal. 3:24; 4:1-3) The period of infancy that obtained under the law corresponds to the childhood Paul mentions in I Cor. 13:11. The spiritual gifts associated with the early church were given for the very purpose of equipping God's people with the doctrine and ethical teaching necessary to bring them to majority; to an understanding of man’s need of a Savior and that that Savior is Christ. These gifts were distributed in the beginning of the Christian era during the final days of the Mosaic age. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17,18; cf. Joel 2:28-32) The "latter days" of the Mosaic age was the beginning of the Christian era. The two overlapped by approximately 40 years, or from Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. During this period, the infancy that attended bondage of the law was being brought to maturity in Christ:

"And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine...but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him that is the head, even Christ." (Eph. 4:11-15)

Note that the Christian era did not mark the beginning of spiritual gifts, but their end. The gift of prophecy and power of the Holy Ghost had existed under the Mosaic law, as evidenced by the powerful works of the prophets, but came to completion and ceased in Christ. This is an important fact often overlooked. The infancy Paul refers to in Ephesians is often assumed to belong solely to the church, and somehow different from the infancy under the Mosaic law. But this is incorrect. The infancy that characterized the early church was the same infancy that obtained under the law. It is the doctrine of the gospel that brings those who were children under the law to the "measure and stature" of Christ. Hence when Paul characterizes spiritual gifts as belonging to childhood in I Cor. 13:11, he is saying that they were associated with the era belonging to the Old Law which was about to "vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) If this is correct, then Paul's language in I Cor. 13:12 about seeing through a glass "darkly" may be clearly seen to refer to the indistinct image and shadows cast by divine revelation during the pendency of the Mosaic age.

Through a Glass Darkly Versus Face-to-Face
The term "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 in the Greek is enigma (i.e., "in a riddle"). Opposite of seeing through a glass darkly, is seeing "face to face." (v.12) These correspond to the "veiled" speech of Moses, and the "great plainness of speech" and "open face" characteristic of the gospel in II Cor. 3:12-18. The Hebrew writer says substantially the same thing: "God, who a sundry times and in divers manners spake in past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb 1:1) That is, God spoke to the father in types and metaphors, but now speaks to us openly and clearly (i.e.,"face to face") through Christ. That this is the correct meaning of the phrase "face to face" is easily demonstrated.

In Numbers chapter twelve the story is recorded how Miriam and Aaron reproached Moses for having married an Ethiopian woman. This displeased the Lord, who rebuked the two with the following words:

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. How then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Num. 12:6-8)

Notice that the phrase "mouth to mouth" and speech that is plain or "apparent" is set in opposition to "dark speeches." This language corresponds with I Cor. 13:12. The phrase "mouth to mouth" is equated with seeing "face to face," and "dark speeches" equates with "seeing through a glass darkly." Similar usage occurs in Exodus 33:11, where it is said that the Lord spoke unto Moses "face to face" as a man speaks to his friend. This does not mean that Moses saw the face of God, for "there shall no man see me, and live." (Ex. 33:20) Rather, use of the phrase "face to face" and "mouth to mouth" signify that the Lord communed openly with Moses, perhaps telling him plainly of the coming substitutionary death of Christ, whereas God communicated the plan of salvation to other prophets through more obscure, indirect means. Jesus himself made a similar remark to the apostles shortly before his crucifixion, saying that he had concealed nothing from them. (Jn. 15:15; 16:29)

Although God spoke "mouth to mouth" and "face to face" with Moses, Moses put a veil on his face when speaking to the sons of Israel. (Ex. 32,34; Deut. 9:7-21;10:1-5) But the veil woven from the law of Moses is taken away in the gospel, and we behold the glory of God’s salvation openly in the face of Christ. "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4:6) The "shining" in the hearts of the apostles was the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; the glory of God in the face of Jesus is the redemption he wrought in his death, burial and resurrection.

That Which is Perfect
Some will ask, Why does Paul say in I Cor. 13:12 that they saw "darkly," but in II Cor. 3:18 he says we see with "open face?" Doesn't Paul contradict himself? This can be explained in two ways. First, Paul's use of "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 versus "open face" in II Cor. 3:18 reflects the different emphasis of the two passages. In I Cor. 13:8-13, Paul is emphasizing the temporary nature of spiritual gifts and their identification with the age that was passing away. In II Cor. 3:8-18, the emphasis is upon the surpassing glory of the gospel of Christ. The age to which spiritual gifts belonged was a time of types and shadows wherein man saw only darkly the mystery of the gospel and the glory of the age to come. On the other hand, in the gospel, God causes the radiance of his glory to shine openly in the face of Christ. Jesus has brought his blood within the veil (Heb. 9:12,24); the glory of God's presence has illuminated his skin, which now shines openly in the face of Jesus, our High Priest, as he blesses the people. (Ex. 34:29-35)

Second, Paul's use of "darkly" versus "face to face" reflects the "already but not yet" character of the first century A.D. It must be borne in mind that the church was in a period of transition. The Mosaic age did not stop immediately at the cross, but lingered on for a time, the Hebrew writer describing it as a thing that "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) The Christian age, on the other hand, although begun at Pentecost 33 A.D., did not come in fullness until the old had passed away. Indeed, not even the atoning work of Christ was come in its fullness to the early church, which was given the gift of the Holy Ghost as the earnest of their inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. (Eph. 1:13,14; II Cor. 5:5) This is why the Hebrew writer describes Christ as a high priest of "good things to come." (Heb. 9:11) If the benefits of Christ's blood and the power of the age to come (Heb. 6:5) were fully realized by the early church, the Hebrew writer would not have had occasion to characterize them as things yet to come. But as it is, the receipt of these things was still in expectation. The seal given in evidence of God's ownership and assurance of the promised redemption was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, imparted by the laying on of the apostle's hands. (Acts 19:6; cf. 8:17) The earnest passed when the church has redeemed out of the "present evil age" (Gal. 1:4) in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome. This is the time Paul referred to in I Corinthians, chapter thirteen; the time when that which was "in part" was done away and replaced by that which is perfect and complete.

Conclusion
During the pendency of the Mosaic age, man saw through a glass darkly. The mystery of the gospel was veiled in Moses, but is done away in Christ. The gifts of the Spirit belonged to the latter days of the world-age identified with the types and shadows of the Mosaic law. Their existence testified to the fact that that which was complete had not yet fully come. "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." (Heb. 7:19; cf. 7:11; 8:7) Just as the types and shadows of the law found fulfillment in Jesus, so the gifts of the Spirit found completion in Christ also. Their utility ceased when the body of believers was come to majority; the age set by the Father for inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. (Gal. 4:1-4; Eph. 4:11-13) Childhood has yielded to maturity; and Christians now behold the glory of God "face to face" in the open, unveiled face of Jesus.

The Bible and US Foreign Policy

I have long maintained that American foreign policy, beginning with Wilson and especially the events surrounding the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, has been in some (large?) part influenced by a faulty eschatological view. Here is a book that discusses this in some detail, reviewed by Stephen Sizer, an Anglican vicar, who I met a few years ago at a conference in Colorado Springs. Stephen has written extensively on the problems in the Middle East, especially related to Israel and Zionism.

Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence
Captain America and the Crusade against Evil,
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, xv1 + 392pp

[available from Amazon for <$5]
A Review for Anvil

This book is scary. Its thesis could be summed up in a question: Is it conceivable that American foreign policy is in some way shaped by the comic book heroes its leaders read about when they were little boys? In February 2002, the cover of Der Spiegel depicted “the Bush Warriors” (die Bush Krieger). Dick Cheney was portrayed as the Terminator, Colin Powell as Batman, Donald Rumsfeld as Conan the Barbarian and Condoleezza Rice as Xena, the Warrior Princess. George W. Bush was depicted as Rambo with a bandoleer draped across his chest. When Daniel Coats, the U.S. ambassador to Germany saw the cover he asked Der Spiegel to supply poster-sized copies for the White House. Have America’s leaders become inoculated against the irony by the sheer success of their own pop culture?

In Captain America, Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence claim that we have indeed got a Rambo in the West Wing. But more disturbing, they trace the roots of this superhero myth and what they term ‘zealous nationalism’ which increasingly shapes America’s dealings with the rest of the world, back to the Bible. Well documented and illuminating chapters address issues such as the ‘world redemptive impulse’, the growing popularity of zeal and jihad, the danger of stereotyping enemies, the worship of national symbols like flags and the crusade against terrorism.

The author’s provide a compelling analysis of the religious roots of American culture, arguing that at various times, one of two competing and incompatible political traditions rooted in Scripture has dominated, namely, prophetic realism (epitomised by the emphasis on justice and tolerance in Hosea and Jeremiah) and zealous nationalism (illustrated in the redemptive violence of passages in Deuteronomy and Revelation).

They show how the tradition of Zealous nationalism, now dominant in American civil religion, perceives America to be a chosen nation raised up by God with a sacred calling or ‘Manifest Destiny’ to redeem the world. Political complexity and moral ambiguity are subservient to the simple biblical dualism of good verses evil, in which redemption is achieved by destroying those we identify as our enemies.

Intrinsic to this world view is a moral absolutism which divides the world into two peoples – true believers who will be rescued and the rest who will suffer. Jewett and Lawrence note, “This sustains the popular feeling that Americans are innocent while their adversaries are full of malice, that political opponents are evil and should be opposed on principle.”

The authors show how the apocalyptic religious zeal, now dominant in America, is also ironically a mirror image of both Islamic jihad as well as Israeli militancy witnessed in the settler movement. The parallels are both striking and worrying. They note the inherent contradiction of America progressively distancing itself from any accountability to the United Nations or international law, in order to fulfil its unilateral crusade to impose Pax Americana and, to use the words of George W. Bush, “rid the world of evil”.

Like Captain America, it seems, its leaders justify circumventing the law in order to protect the innocent, but in so doing, deny the human rights of those they want to save. As the events in Guantanamo Bay post 9/11 and more recently in Abu Ghraib reveal, despite the heroic exploits of Captain America, the purest of motives do not ensure immunity from corruption.

In Captain America, Jewett and Lawrence clearly major on the bad news and probably give insufficient space to the prophetic realism strand within American civil religion. It is also something of an oversimplification to suggest that the competing and contradictory dualism they observe in America is intrinsic to the biblical narrative itself. The Bible is not the cause of this conflict but rather, as in the case of Christian Zionism, a convenient source of authoritative proof texts to sacralise political colonialism and racism.

The authors insist, “It is not our adversaries alone who must change: it is ourselves. But we cannot accomplish this alone.... Its calls for a creative rechanneling of Captain America’s impulse to ‘fight for right’ toward a religious commitment that is shaped both by self critical questioning and a sense of hope about the possibilities of peace.”

The publication of Captain America and the Crusade against Evil could not be more timely or relevant, as much for the survival of American democracy as for the peace process in the Middle East. Through the literary tactics of shock and awe, the book will hopefully provoke internal debate within America and, God-willing, soul searching will lead to change. For, if we are to avoid the apocalyptic eschatology of fundamentalism, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, we must break the cycle of violence by peaceful means. Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”

“The worst vice of a fanatic,” Oscar Wilde once noted, “is his sincerity.” The sincerity of American religious zeal is clearly not in doubt. Nevertheless, the question Captain America leaves unanswered is this: “Who will save the world from those who want to save America?”

Stephen Sizer© August 2005

Leadership advice

I don't know about you, but I have always been interested in who among the churches of Christ attain some level of noteriaty. A few months ago, someone posted a list of our brothers/sisters who were well known in entertainment, sports, business and politics. Most were surprises to me. A couple of weeks ago, one of our brothers was feted in Boston by educators and theologians and others. Bob Randolph, who as served Mass Inst of Tech for many years, was installed as the institute's very first chaplain. You can watch the whole thing here.

While watching it, I was impressed by the remarks by Peter Gomes, a longtime teacher in the Harvard Divinity School. While his remarks are directed to Bob, they make a great fit to our little congregation here in Reno as we study NT teaching/example of elders. Dr Gomes, using the tried and true Baptist preaching method, provides his advice with four "P" words: Practice, Patience, Presence and Persistance. The video above is about 25 minutes. I hope you'll take the time to watch.

Actually, this advice should be heeded by all of us -- men and women alike -- as we strive to provide LIGHT and SALT to our homes and community.

I'll be reporting on my trip to Oregon later.

Love to all, Dan