Are We Bible Believers?

Posted on 09/27/2012 by Paul Pavao

U.S. Christians make a lot of claims about being "Bible believers," but mostly they are Bible praisers. They honor and say wonderful things about the Bible, but they really don’t pay much attention to what it says unless it agrees with what they’ve been told by whatever favorite denomination or teacher they have.

Example 1: Limited Atonement

I was explaining radical (5-point) Calvinism to my son earlier in the week. Calvinism is marked by five central beliefs, called "the five points of Calvinism," which spell out TULIP. The five points are:

  • Total Depravity
  • Unconditional Election
  • Limited Atonement
  • Irresistible Grace
  • Perseverance of the Saints

I cover Calvinism on my Christian history site, so I won’t address all those points here. I just want to use "Limited Atonement" as an example of "Bible believers" who, despite the wonderful things they say about the authority of the Bible and its divine inspiration, are unmoved by what the Bible actually says.

Five-point Calvinism is not a rare belief. It is the official belief of Reformed Churches (250,000 US members), some Presbyterian churches, some Baptist churches, and others scattered throughout Protestant denominations. John Piper, a very popular teacher endorsed by the Harrises (leaders of The Rebelution); John MacArthur, well-known author, radio host, and head of Grace to You ministries; Mark Driscoll, pastor of "emergent" Mars Hill Church; plus authors and historical figures like Arthur Pink, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, and R.C. Sproul are or were noted 5-point Calvinists.

This means that all of them have defended the doctrine of limited atonement, which teaches that Jesus only died for Christians (the elect), rather than for the whole world.

Here’s a couple things the Bible says about that idea:

If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 Jn. 2:1-2)

Is there actually anything else to talk about once we read a passage like that? Is it really possible even to suggest that John would have accepted the idea of limited atonement when he said that Jesus is the atonement for the sins of the whole world and not just ours?

We both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)

Do I even need to comment on what that says?

God is not slow as some men reckon slowness, but he is patient with us, not willing that anyone should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9)

Calvinists argue that "all" and "all men" and "the whole world" are references to believers only because they are the only people that God "knows." The rest God does not know, so they are not part of "all men" or "the whole world."

I can’t even argue with that except to say that I’d be embarrassed to make such an argument out loud.

I’m not sure what to say about great men like George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon, that they could be deceived by such nonsense. These were not men who ignored the Scripture when it came to obeying God, unlike most U.S. Christians, who make excuses why we should not obey the "extreme" things Jesus taught.

I am sure, however, that "limited atonement" is an excellent example of strict believers in the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scriptures simply ignoring what it says. Their tradition is far more important to them than what Scripture says.

Example 2 and 3: Works and One God

I’ll give a second and third example. Try quoting either one of these verses in a strict "Bible-believing" church and see if you can avoid being labeled a heretic:

For us there is but one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 8:6)

So we see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. (Jam. 2:24)

Are those isolated verses? Contradicted by "the historic Christian faith"?

No. Try these on to match those two verses:

We believe in one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed)

God … will repay everyone according to their deeds; to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality by patiently continuing to do good he will repay eternal life. (Rom. 2:5-7)

But be careful. Don’t quote those things publicly. Most "Bible believers" are not Bible believers but tradition believers, and you will be regarded a heretic.

You can see well-documented, primary source discussions of the early church’s universal position on the topics of works and the Trinity at my Christian history site. You can get to either from the doctrine page.

Posted in Bible, History, Modern Doctrines, Unity | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Five-fold Ministry

Posted on 09/18/2012 by Paul Pavao

I don’t really like the terminology: "Five-fold ministry." However, I can see why it’s used, since five particular gifts are mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-12 as being tasked with the job of perfecting the saints for the work of ministry and the building of the body of Christ.

Five-fold or Four-fold?

As a side note, it is possible that this should be "four-fold" ministry. Each of the gifts listed is preceded by "some to be" (KJV) or "some as" (NASB) except the last one, teachers. There we read " … and some as shepherds and teachers." Thus, some scholars believe that Paul meant to say that this "some" are meant to be both shepherds and teachers, not two different groups of people.

Literally, I would agree with those scholars, but practically, I think that interpretation makes a very big false assumption. It is common today to assume that the Bible has a list of gifts which God has categorized, each distinct from the other. I don’t believe that is true. God gives grace to people, and in Ephesians 4 he is giving people, gifted by grace, to the church. Neither God’s grace nor God’s people can always be separated into distinct categories. Such boxes break and spill over into others all the time in real life.

Thus, on a practical basis, there will be some who are shepherds and teachers, and there will be some who are great shepherds, but whose teaching is at best adequate, and vice versa.

Pastor or Shepherd?

Sorry, one more side note:

The KJV uses "pastors" in Ephesians 4:11, which is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament of the KJV. The word Paul wrote is just the Greek word for shepherds. "Pastor" is a nice religious word, but Paul wasn’t using a religious word. He just said "shepherd," so that’s what I say, too.

That’s important because the use of "pastor" disguises apostolic teaching on church leadership. Paul says it is the job of the elders to shepherd the church of God (Acts 17:28), and Peter agrees with him. Of course, it’s difficult to tell in the KJV that Peter agrees with him because the KJV has Peter telling the elders to "feed" the church of God rather than shepherd them. The Greek word Peter uses is poimanate, the verb form (2nd person plural, imperative mood, aorist tense, active voice) of shepherd, which as a noun is poimen.

Today, Protestant churches commonly have a pastor and a board of elders, if they have elders at all. Roman Catholic churches have simply changed the word elder to priest, but their "presbyters" are at least still functioning as the shepherds of their churches. (Well, they’re supposed to be, but you’re as unlikely to find that happening in the 21st century in Roman Catholic churches as you are to find shepherding happening in Protestant churches. But we’ll cover that more as we go on.)

The First Three Ministries

Enough said about shepherds and teachers. Those aren’t really mysteries to us today. We understand both concepts.

I think we’ll understand them better, however, once we learn to understand the first three ministries, which have NOT disappeared. I know the idea of modern apostles and prophets is controversial, but that’s only because so many churches are either ignorant of what those offices are or are so carnal that spiritual gifts among them are rare or unknown.

There is no ground whatsoever for arguing that apostles and prophets should not exist today.

Apostles

The original twelve apostles can never be duplicated. Consider these verses:

How will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation, which was spoken to by the Lord at first, then confirmed to us by those that heard them. God also testified to them with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and with gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will. (Heb. 2:3-4)

It was necessary for me to write to you and to exhort you that you should earnestly fight for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

As Clement of Rome put it just 30 years or so after those verses, "The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God." (1 Clement 42, c. A.D. 96). Tertullian adds, "From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed" (Prescription Against Heretics 21, c. A.D. 210).

The twelve apostles (and Paul) are the ones who "confirmed to us" the great salvation preached by Jesus Christ. The rest of us are the "us" of Hebrews 2:3 who should be earnestly battling for the faith which was delivered to us, and which did not come from us but from Jesus Christ and through the original apostles.

But Scripture describes many more apostles than the twelve. We can begin with Paul, as a thirteenth apostle, but it doesn’t end there. Acts 14:14 says that Barnabas was an apostle, too.

1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6 suggest not only that Silas and Timothy were apostles, too, but that anyone who traveled with Paul preaching the Gospel was an apostle.

There were those who were the "they," the original apostles who brought the Gospel to the earth, witnessing to the resurrection of our Lord, which proved him to be the Son of God, Lord, and Messiah. But there were also later apostles, who were not eyewitnesses of the resurrection, but who joined them in the work of raising up churches.

If you are going to raise up a church, you need to have two essential gifts. You have to have the gift of evangelism, and you have to be able to shepherd as well. You have to be an evangelist, or you will have no one to form into a church. You have to be able to shepherd, or you will fail at raising up the church. Instead, the sheep will scatter and become useless to God, mere fodder for the wolves of this world.

Sure enough, that is the picture that we see painted in Scripture concerning apostles like Paul and Timothy … and Titus.

Before I show you the Scriptures that describe the apostolic work of Paul, Timothy, and Titus, let me dispel another modern myth, very deep-rooted, but based on nothing at all.

Were Timothy and Titus Pastors?

The two letters to Timothy and the one to Titus are known as "the pastoral epistles" because of the assumption that Timothy and Titus were pastors.

This is a terrible assumption, based on exactly the error I described above when I used shepherds rather than pastors to describe one of the gifts in Ephesians 4:11. In the apostles’ writings, elders are the ones who do the shepherding (and they are exactly the same people who are called "bishops"). Timothy and Titus are told to appoint elders, not to be elders. And once they appoint the elders, Paul asks them to leave the churches they are temporarily watching over (2 Tim. 4:21; Tit. 3:12-13).

Apostles As Shepherds

Paul often got no chance to be a shepherd. Sometimes that was just because he was traveling, but other times it was because he was run out of town by the enemies of God.

This did not stop him from caring for the churches.

In Acts 14:21-23 we see him returning with Barnabas "confirming the souls of the disciples" and appointing elders in every church.

In Acts 20, we see Paul calling for elders from Ephesus whom he has already appointed, and he describes his activities when he was first with the church at Ephesus:

Therefore, watch, and remember that for the space of three years I did not stop warning you night and day with tears. And now, brothers, I commend you to God and to the Word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:31-32)

This is Paul being a shepherd, building up the church until he could turn it over to those elders God had raised up who would take over the job of shepherding.

With the Thessalonians, he shepherded them in this way:

We were gentle with you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her children. Longing for you affectionately, we were willing to impart to you not just the Gospel of God but even our own lives. … You know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you like a father does his children so that you would walk worthy of God, who has called you into his glory and kingdom. (1 Thess. 2:7-8, 11-12)

But Paul didn’t always have time to always stay with his churches. The letters to Timothy and Titus are among the latest of Paul’s life, and in them he refers to himself as "Paul the aged."

He had developed a team, an apostolic team, all of whom had the right to be called apostles, and rather than stick around to do the exhausting work of shepherding a new church, he left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to do it for him.

But it wasn’t a lifetime work for them, either. They were to raise up elders to take their place, then return to Paul. That is why 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are the only places in the apostolic writings that give the qualifications of an elder (or bishop, which is exactly the same thing to Paul).

Apostles As Evangelists

I mentioned that apostles needed to be evangelists as well.

The word "evangelist" is only used twice in Paul’s letters. One is in Ephesians 4:11, and the other is 2 Tim. 4:5, where Paul tells Timothy to do the work of an evangelist.

Notice that he does not tell Timothy that he is an evangelist; he tells him to do the work of an evangelist. Apostles need to do that. New growth helps fuel the church.

This are the only places that the word "evangelist" is used in Paul’s letters, but he uses another word, translated "preacher," which means exactly the same thing. (The proof of that from Scripture will have to wait for a different post.)

Paul refers to himself as a "preacher" (kerux) in both 1 Tim. 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:11. Evangelism and shepherding both must be done by apostles.

Evangelists Today

This post is so long already, and it covers what I really wanted to cover, so I’m only going to touch on this subject.

Evangelists are listed as separate from pastors and teachers or pastor/teachers (depending on which is the right translation of Paul’s Greek words).

Today, however, we’re very confused about the work of an evangelist. We have evangelists traveling around preaching in our churches. Evangelists need to preach outside the churches! Shepherds, who actually should be called elders and do the work of shepherding, should be doing the majority of the teaching inside the churches.

We’re all mixed up. Our pastors (shepherds) are standing up preaching evangelistic sermons to what we call the church. Then we bring in evangelists, which unlike Scripture does not mean someone who preaches the Gospel to the lost but instead means someone who travels rather than staying in one place, to whip the church into a zealous frenzy so that they start living like Christians.

Those roles should be reversed. (It may sound like I used "zealous frenzy" as a negative term, but I don’t mean it that way. I’m all for us being in a zealous frenzy. I’d much rather God be settling us down than having to light a fire under us or threaten us all the time.)

Prophets today

Just one note here. Read about what the prophet Agabus did for the church in the Book of Acts (11:28ff; 21:10ff) and think about whether the writings of the apostles have replaced the role he filled. We still need prophets like him today.

Posted in Bible, Church, Gospel, History, Leadership, missions, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Through the Bible: Genesis 1:1-2

Posted on 09/18/2012 by Paul Pavao

Well, this is way out of order, isn’t it! Genesis 1 was not next on the list!

I am going to get back to Isaiah. Today, however, I was reading Augustine’s The Literal Meaning of Genesis, a 1600-year old book, which fortunately has been translated to English much more recently than that. I don’t speak Latin.

There were two things that caught my attention in what I was reading, and so I’m passing them on to you.

1. The Trinity in Genesis 1:1-2

The thought that all three persons of the Trinity are found in the first two verses of Genesis is not new to me, and it will only be new to a few of you. Augustine threw in a little twist, though, that I’ve never heard before. Modern commentators disagree with him (for good reason), but the twist is so interesting that I have to share it with you.

Finding the Trinity in Genesis 1:1-2 can be difficult for us moderns, but it was glaringly obvious to early Christians. They were absolutely confident that Proverbs 8:22 was the Son of God speaking:

The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. (LXX, which is the translation early Christians would have used, most of them being Greek speakers.)

This verse especially gave them the idea that Jesus not only was begotten of God in the beginning, before even the beginning began, but that he was "The Beginning." Of course, it helps that this was so commonly taught in the early churches that it would just have been an accepted teaching. No early Christian would have had to dig that out of Proverbs 8:22 on his own.

So when Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God … " early Christians immediately saw two persons of the Trinity. There was The Beginning, the pre-incarnate Son of God, and there was God, the Father. (Remember, until A.D. 400 or so no one had forgotten that "For us there is but one God, the Father," which is found in both 1 Corinthians 8:6 and the creeds [Apostles and Nicene]).

The Spirit is mentioned directly in verse 2, so there are all three members of the Trinity before God ever says, "Let there be light."

Here’s the twist Augustine added. I couldn’t find anything like it in the pre-Nicene writings. (Augustine’s time as a church leader and writer was almost a century after Nicea, A.D. 391 – 430.) I forgot to bring the book with me, so I’ll just have to tell you about it rather than quote him.

Augustine quoted John 8:25 this way:

Then they said to him, "Who are you?" And Jesus said to them, "The Beginning, just as I said to you."

I looked up a lot of translations when I saw that, and none agreed with Augustine. They all rendered it something to the effect of, "I am what I have been saying from the beginning."

So then I looked up the Greek. I’m not a qualified Greek scholar, but I do know the difference between accusative and nominative, and "the beginning" is in the accusative. That means it is being used as something other than the subject of the sentence. It seemed to me that if Jesus meant to say, "I am the Beginning," then he would have had to say η αρχη, not την αρχην. So I looked up some commentators, and they all agreed, though if I remember correctly, none of them mentioned that Augustine had quoted it that way.

Augustine didn’t learn Greek till later in life, and he was never exceptional at it (says the introduction to On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis). I don’t know how to check on the Latin version that Augustine was reading, so I don’t know what it says. I believe the end note in Literal Interpretation of Genesis suggested that is where he got it.

Anyway, Augustine’s rendering of that verse was really interesting, even a little exciting, to me despite the fact that the facts stop me from being able to agree that Jesus called himself The Beginning in John 8:25. (Many people, however, including me, believe he called himself the "I Am" in 8:24 and certainly in 8:58).

2. What Is a Literal Interpretation?

The book I am reading is volume 1 of eleven volumes that Augustine wrote on the "literal interpretation" of Genesis.

He begins the book with one of my favorite quotes because it shoots down our modern, highly literalistic approach to Scripture.

In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according too a figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense.

In other words, when it comes to the Hebrew Scriptures, the figurative interpretation is the primary one. Whether or not there is also a literal and historically accurate interpretation in addition to the figurative interpretation is for us to search and find out.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that Augustine begins his voluminous commentary with this statement, all eleven volumes are devoted to the "literal" interpretation of Genesis chapters one through three.

I have to pause here to say wow. Eleven volumes on three chapters of Scripture. Wow.

Okay, onward.

It becomes clear very, very quickly that Augustine’s idea of literal and historically faithful is not our idea of literal and historically faithful. As an easy example (a harder one’s coming), here’s what he says about the "days" of Genesis 1:

What kind of days these were it extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, for us to conceive, and how much more [difficult] for us to explain!

That’s actually from The City of God (11:6) which he began writing over the last two years that he was writing Literal Interpretation of Genesis.

So literal and historically faithful interpretation for him does not include turning the days of Genesis one into 24-hour days, which is the only interpretation most westerners are willing to call "literal."

Here’s some other literal interpretations he finds in the first two verses of Genesis. These he only proposes as possible, not certain, but he is proposing these as literal, not figurative.

  • The heavens and earth is an unformed mass of matter that would be used to form the sun, stars, moon, earth, and all living things through the almost impossible to interpret days of creation.
  • The heavens represent spiritual matter that will become spiritual beings, including spiritual men. The earth is the matter that will be formed into physical things (and animals).
  • The waters over which the Spirit brooded is unformed matter, which is like water in just being one big unsorted mass. Augustine specifies that the water should definitely not be understood as water by the student of the Word.

These are all "literal" interpretations taking the text as a "faithful record" of what happened.

All of that was too interesting for me to forego sharing those with you.

Have a great day!

Posted in Bible, Evolution and Creation, History, Modern Doctrines, Through the Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Evolution and Overcoming the Flesh

Posted on 08/24/2012 by Paul Pavao

I was telling my wife this morning that my belief in evolution may not jive with the traditional model of the fall, but it meshes perfectly with the Biblical teaching that we are to overcome the world and "the flesh."

What brought it up was a recent article I read suggesting that people are evolutionary wired to be persuasive rather than to love the truth. It is more beneficial in a social, speech-capable society to be able to persuade others to your point of view than to find out what is really so. It should be obvious to anyone who’s been alive for more than a decade that people would rather defend their position than find out what’s true; the scientists are just guessing (um, hypothesizing) why.

People don’t love the truth by nature. That is just one more aspect of our flesh that we have to overcome.

Evolution has trained our bodies (flesh) to be selfish. Evolution is all about survival, and survival has taught our bodies that these things are important:

  • Eating
  • Reproducing
  • Shelter
  • Comfort
  • Our own families
  • Defending what is ours
  • and, it appears, our point of view

The Gospel, however, calls us to forsake the flesh. The Gospel is all about dying, not survival. So, instead of the things evolution has taught our flesh, Jesus teaches us to:

  • Consider others before ourselves. (Matt. 20:25-28; Php. 2:3-4)
  • Feed our spirits before our flesh. (Jn. 4:31-32; 1 Cor. 6:13)
  • Deny our lusts and live in purity, both in thought and action. (Matt. 5:28; Gal. 5:24)
  • Count our comfort as unimportant. (Php. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:3-4)
  • Put God’s family and spiritual DNA above our biological family and natural DNA. (Matt. 10:37-38; Luke 14:26)
  • Share everything (Luke 14:33; Acts 4:32; 2 Cor. 8:13-15; 1 Tim. 6:17-19)
  • Deny our urge to be right (protect our tradition) and love the truth instead. (Matt. 15:1-9; Jn. 5:39-40; 2 Tim. 2:24)
Posted in Evolution and Creation, Holiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Through the Bible – Isaiah 11

Posted on 08/20/2012 by Paul Pavao

See Saturday night’s post if you have any questions about the new schedule. We’re going to finish Isaiah, then do some smaller books (1 & 2 Peter, Jonah, and Amos), and then go to Jeremiah. I am, however, no longer pushing to finish the whole Bible in a year.

See the July 12 post on Isaiah 6-10 if you need to get caught up after our unscheduled one month break.

Isaiah 11: Prophecy

I don’t think any Christian has ever questioned whether Isaiah 11 is a prophecy about Christ. In fact, parts of Isaiah are so clearly about Jesus that you would have thought that Isaiah was written after his lifetime, though it is obvious historically that it was not.

There are those—a very few—who believe that Jesus orchestrated his life after the Hebrew prophecies, purposely going around fulfilling them. The idea, though, that a man would put himself through a crucifixion for glory that came after death is somewhat absurd. The idea that he could have planned to rise from the dead without being the Son of God is impossible.

So I love to read Isaiah. Beyond the fact that prophecy is one of the greatest testimonies of the reality of Christianity, don’t you love the fact that prophecy exists in the earth at all?

I never dreamed a book like this could be so powerful. See my review of it on Amazon.

Comes in a Kindle edition, too!

I mean, I know that Christians, by tradition, are supposed to shudder and be appalled at the thought of ESP, magic, and other supernatural powers that aren’t expressly listed in the Bible; however, I think all of us like unearthly powers. That’s why the latest box office hits have been movies like the Avengers. We don’t even require actual superpowers. Simply being technologically awesome like Iron Man and Batman, or extraordinarily skilled in martial arts like Jason Bourne (and Batman) is enough to draw crowds.

Isaiah had power.

The story of Isaiah coming to King Hezekiah in answer to Hezekiah’s prayer about the Assyrians is an amazing story. Isaiah had no way of knowing Hezekiah was praying, nor what he was praying about, but he showed up with a prophecy that was a direct answer to the king’s prayer.

Of course, skeptics can dismiss such stories because no one can prove them. Too much time has passed. But the prophecies of Christ? They are all over Isaiah, and they add up to a picture that matches only one person who has ever lived.

Isaiah is an exciting book.

Okay, you can tell I’m excited about getting back into Isaiah. Let’s get to the text!

Isaiah 11:2: The Seven Spirits of God?

People love to make systems out of things. Long ago there was a TV show I used to really enjoy watching called Darryl’s Coffee Shop or something like that. A couple, Darryl and his wife, would sit down at a table with a cup of coffee, discuss the Scriptures, and answer letters they had received.

I liked the show, but the host was obsessed with Isaiah 11:2-3. To him, those verses listed the seven Spirits of God (a term used in The Revelation three times: 3:1, 4:5, and 5:6). They were:

  • The Spirit of Jehovah (or Yahweh)
  • The Spirit of Wisdom
  • The Spirit of Understanding
  • The Spirit of Counsel
  • The Spirit of Strength
  • The Spirit of Knowledge
  • The Spirit of the Fear of the Lord

In his answers to people, he always wanted them to pray for one of those Spirits (which he considered seven separate aspects of the one Holy Spirit; he was not a heretic).

Systems like that never work. Life isn’t that simple.

Not only that, but the whole system doesn’t really make any sense. Good counsel is based on wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. It is very hard to have "the Spirit of Counsel" without having those others. Further, what category does the Spirit of Yahweh fit into? Isn’t Yahweh the God of Israel? Shouldn’t the term "the Spirit of Yahweh" encompass all of the attributes of God? We could just pray for that one Spirit, and we’d have all the others!

Isaiah is not outlining a process. He is describing the Spirit of Yahweh and giving examples of what the Spirit of God empowered Jesus with. He was trying to be comprehensive, not break the Spirit of God into sections.

(We’ll save any fuller discussion of the seven Spirits of God in Revelation until we get to that book. I’m pretty sure most scholars just consider those seven spirits to represent the fullness of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know of any better explanation, but we’ll take a deeper look when we get there.)

Isaiah 11:4-5

If this is a prophecy about Jesus, then when did Jesus ever "strike the earth with the rod of his mouth" (v. 4, NASB) or slay the wicked with the breath of his lips?

I have two different answers for that. Jesus struck the earth with the rod of his mouth during his life on earth and is still striking the earth with the rod of his mouth. His Word is the rod of his mouth.

Slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips is going to wait until the day of the Lord, when the Lord will "consume [the wicked one] with the breath of his mouth and shall destroy [him] with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thess. 2:8).

The wording is so similar between 2 Thessalonians 2:8 and Isaiah 11:4 that we are forced to consider that Isaiah is not prophesying the destruction of all wicked, though the Scriptures do teach that all the wicked will be destroyed (e.g. Rev. 21:8), but the destruction of the wicked one, as specified in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Before we move on, a short word on "the Word":

"The Word" can be understood several ways in Scripture. Three of them are used consistently:

  • Jesus is the Word.
  • The Word is anything that God is saying, has said, or will say.
  • The Word is the living Message of God. It is planted in us like a seed (Jam. 1:21), and it grows up in us, enabling us to speak God’s Word rather than just our own (Acts 6:7; Jn. 17:17,20).

"The Word," in Scripture, is never a synonym for "the Bible" or "the Scriptures." The one place that could possibly be understood that way is only understood that way because of a mistranslation. 2 Timothy 2:15 is often translated as "study" to show yourself approved, but the Greek word is spoudazo, meaning "Be diligent." Translators tend to read "study" into the start of that verse because they assume that "the Word" in the end of the verse is the Scriptures.

Not so. We use "the Word" as a synonym for "the Bible" all the time, but the Scriptures never do.

Isaiah 11:6-8

Today, we take these verses about the wolf lying down with the lamb as a prophecy of heaven or the millennial kingdom. The early churches quoted verses like this all the time as applying to the church in this age as well as to the future kingdom of God (which will be on earth, not far away in heaven somewhere).

In A.D. 185, Irenaeus said of these verses:

I am quite aware that some Christians try to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various customs, who come to believe. When they have believed, they act in harmony with the righteous. But although this is so now with regard to some men coming from various nations to the harmony of the faith, nevertheless in the resurrection of the just, [the words shall also apply to those animals mentioned. (Against Heresies V:33:4)

In his day, Christians applied these verses first and foremost to the changed nature of born again Christians, so that men with natures like leopards or wolves would live at peace with men who were docile like sheep or goats. Irenaeus took it upon himself to remind them that was also, at least in his opinion, a literal prophecy as well as a figurative one.

Today, however, Christians have often forgotten the figurative application, so I am taking it upon myself to remind us of that. The figurative interpretation of this passage is the only practical interpretation. We can’t make leopards and goats lie down together in the next age, but we certainly can play a role in turning away from our alpha-male, aggressive, and superior attitudes and living at peace with those more meek than us.

Isaiah 11:9

This is a bold prophecy! The earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh?

Was that really likely in Isaiah’s day, when the Assyrians were taking away all Israel’s land? Israel was perishing, and would soon become not much more than one city, Jerusalem, standing like an island in the ruins of Israel and Judah.

Nonetheless, the earth is full of the knowledge of Yahweh. His word has been proclaimed to the end of the earth.

Finally, note that the prophecy says that we will not hurt or destroy in his holy mountain.

We have come to the holy mountain of God. Let us be found true citizens who do not hurt or destroy. Let us be found those who would more gladly give our life than take another’s. On the holy mountain of God, we don’t learn war anymore (Is. 2:2-5).

Isaiah 11:11-14

What sort of passage is this? God is going to gather all the scattered remnant of his people, of Ephraim and of Judah, and they are going to make war? They’re going to gather together, destroy the Philistines, and conquer Moab and Ammon?

Does that really fit into the New Covenant plan of God that we have been learning?

When is this going to happen?

Many Christians believe that God is going to gather the Jews and that he began doing it when Israel was restored as a nation in 1947. They expect, though, that there will be an even bigger immigration of Jews in the near future, as they leave their homes and cities in nations like Russia and America to return to the promised land.

But is this really what God is talking about? All of a sudden Judaism, rejected by God in the first century (Matt. 21:43), is an acceptable way of following God again? Jesus is no longer the only way? It becomes no longer true that the only true Jew is the one circumcised in heart and spirit? (Rom. 2:28-29).

That’s not what the early Christians thought. They took the words of Scripture seriously, and they considered themselves to be true Israel. They believed that God had taken the kingdom and given it to them in accordance with the words of Jesus (Matt. 21:43). They believed that there is only one tree and that when the hardness was removed from the Jews they would be grafted into that one tree (Rom. 11), which is Christ, not separate from the Gentiles, but molded and made one with them (Eph. 2:11-16).

Thus, in the same chapter that I quote above, Irenaeus tells us:

The prophets announced two advents: the one in which he became a man subject to stripes … sat upon the foal of a donkey, was a stone rejected by the builders … by the stretching forth of his hands destroyed Amalek, while he gathered from the ends of the earth into his Father’s fold the children who were scattered abroad … but the second in which he will come on the clouds … smiting the earth with the word of his mouth and slaying the impious with the breath of his lips … gathering the wheat into his barn, but burning the chaff with unquenchable fire. (ibid., par. 1)

You may notice that in this paragraph, Irenaeus ascribes Isaiah 11:4 to Jesus’ second coming, while I ascribed at least part of it to his first coming. There’s some room for interpretation in passages like this. Clement of Alexandria, for example, younger but contemporaneous for some time with Irenaeus, agrees with me on Isaiah 11:4 (The Instructor I:7).

My point here, though, is that Irenaeus ascribes the gathering of the people of God of Isaiah 11:11-14 to the first coming, as something that has already happened and is always ongoing.

Isaiah 11:15-16

These verses sound a bit like judgment on people, too, but a closer look shows they are not. The river of Egypt is dried up, but this is so that the people that God is gathering can walk to the mountain of the Lord without special tools (in sandals, v. 15). He’ll also make a way through Assyria.

It is not too hard to find the figurative interpretation of Egypt. Egypt always represents the flesh and the strength of men (Is. 31:1-3). The death of Jesus did dry up "the rivers of Egypt," taking away the power of the flesh so that we might come to God (cf. Rom. 6:14; 8:2-4).

Assyria is harder, but it appears that Assyria is generally tied to the devil or to the antichrist.

Justin Martyr, for example, suggests that all of Isaiah’s references to Assyria are prophecies of the devil’s demise, which God put in cryptic form so that the devil would not know his judgment until after he had put Jesus to death and sealed his doom:

Before the coming of the Lord, the devil did not know the measure of his own punishment so plainly. This is because the divine prophets had enigmatically announced it. For instance, Isaiah, who in the person of the Assyrian tragically revealed the course to be followed against the devil. But when the Lord appeared and the devil clearly understood that eternal fire was laid up and prepared for him and his messengers [angels], he began to continuously plot against the faithful because he wanted many companions in his apostasy. He did not want to endure the shame of condemnation by himself. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I; "Other Fragments from the Lost Writings of Justin". This quote was found cited in the writings of John of Antioch.)

Posted in Through the Bible | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Through the Bible, But No Longer in a Year

Posted on 08/18/2012 by Paul Pavao

It’s been a long time since I posted a Through the Bible in a Year post. I simply have not had time to fit it into my life.

I’ve been talking to friends, and I still believe this project is very important and is blessing people. We’re just not going to pull it off in a year. At least one friend of mine is relieved about losing the pressure to get through the whole Bible in a year, and I suspect he’s not the only one.

I know at least that I’m relieved!

So I’m continuing right where I left off. I’m still going to do the blog Monday through Friday, but I’m not promising how many chapters I will do. I will simply let you know the book we are starting on each week, and the book we will go to next.

Way back on July 12 (which is more recently than I thought, praise God), we did Isaiah chapters 6-10. So we’ll take right back up at chapter 11. The plan after that is to do 1 and 2 Peter followed by Amos and Jonah. We’ll do Jeremiah after that, and that will carry us far, far into the future because that’s 120 chapters plus Amos (9 chapters?)

The July 12 post, covering 5 chapters of Isaiah was 3 or 4 thousand words long. I’m not very good at leaving things out. So I’m going to limit the size of my posts by not doing so many chapters! I’m going back to shooting for 1000 words or so. Once I break a thousand words, I’m putting any further chapters on the next day’s blog.

Okay, with that introduction, I’m going to work on Isaiah 11 (again). You’ll see at least that chapter up on Monday.

Posted in Through the Bible | Tagged | Leave a comment

Better Catch You Up & Roman Catholicism

Posted on 07/26/2012 by Paul Pavao

You’ve probably noticed that I took another week to get back to the Through the Bible blogging. I’ll start back on Monday. It’s on my radar now. I completely overwhelmed myself with a ridiculous amount of activity over the last month. I’m starting a business, helping two sons get ready for college, laying around in pain several hours most days, helping one daughter get through Algebra and another learn Spanish, and getting involved in our church’s missions program and leadership meetings.

There’s something seriously wrong with me.

Oh, wait. I think I forgot to mention I’m writing one book, marketing another, and preparing a series of lessons on the apostolic faith that was handed down to the churches.

Anyway, in preparation for one of those lessons, I was reading a history book written by a Roman Catholic. Not just any Roman Catholic, either. The author is Richard P. McBrien, and this is what the blurb on the back says about him:

Richard P. McBrien is Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Educated at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he has also served as president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. A leading authority on Catholicism, he is the bestselling author of Catholicism, Lives of the Popes, and Lives of the Saints, as well as the general editor of The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Most recently a consultant for ABC News, McBrien offers regular commentary on all the major television networks. He is also a prizewinning syndicated columnist in the Catholic press.

I couldn’t manufacture Roman Catholic credentials of such quality. Quoting him is like quoting N.T. Wright among the Anglicans.

His book is supportive of Roman Catholicism (and he uses that terminology but does not appear to think it’s good terminology). He believes that to be fully catholic (small letters used on purpose), you must be in good standing and fellowship with the Pope, the bishop of the church at Rome.

That said, how much arguing have I done with Roman Catholics, doing immense amounts of research in the early writings of the church, when I could simply have referred them to Father McBrien.

Here’s some of the things said in his book:

  • On the other hand, Peter’s authority was neither absolute nor monarchial. It was James, not Peter, who presided over the Council of Jerusalem. (p. 41)
  • It should be clear, therefore, that the notion of the primacy evolved over time. It was not understood in the New Testament as it came eventually to be understood and clearly taught by the First Vatican Council in the nineteenth century. (p. 42)
  • There is no evidence, however, that any one individual in the mid-80’s [my note: first century and after Peter had died] functioned in the Petrine role for the universal Church either at Antioch or anywhere else. (p. 44)
  • Indeed, it was not until the middle of the second century that Rome changed from a collegial [i.e., a group of elders with no monarchial bishop] form of leadership to a monoepiscopal [one bishop] form. (p. 44)
  • As noted above, the term "presbyter" [=elder] was used interchangeably with that of "overseer" [=bishop], both of which indicated some kind of community leadership. Only at the end of the first century did the presbyter’s role become distinct from that of the overseer, or bishop. (p. 45)
  • The title of "pope," which means "father" (It. papa), was in earlier centuries of church history applied to every bishop in the West, while in the East it seems to have been used of priests [anachronism; this should read elders for any time before the third century] as well and was a special title of the patriarch of Alexandria. In 1073, however, Pope Gregory VII formally prohibited the use of the title for all except the Bishop of Rome. (p. 93)
  • Catholic tradition regards Peter (d. ca. 64) as the first pope, but the first succession lists identified Linus (ca. 66–ca. 78), not Peter, as the first pope. Peter was not regarded as the first bishop of Rome until the late second or early third century.

Note: The brackets in the above quotes are all mine. The parentheses are all his. I also added the bolding in the bolded quote.

I have been raked over the coals by Roman Catholics, referred to as a heretic and a few worse names, for saying exactly the same things that have been said by this Catholic historian. I’ve been told I’m a fake, pretending to be a historian, and full of bias. I’ve been told I only say these things because I’m full of anger and bitterness and all sorts of other things.

To say I’m really pleased by Richard McBrien’s honesty is an understatement. I admit, it feels very good.

At some point, I’ll get these things added to my Roman Catholic pages at Christian History for Everyman, which are written to promote the truth, not to vent anger or bitterness.

One other thing he said was that there was liturgy in the first century churches, and he referenced 1 Cor. 14:26 (p. 43). Wow! If I had known that is what Catholics meant by liturgy, I would never have argued that "liturgy" didn’t exist until the third century!

I have to give one more quote I really loved:

Tradition is not a fact factory. It cannot make something into a historical fact when it is not. (p. 96)

Posted in History, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Leave a comment

Taking a Break This Week

Posted on 07/18/2012 by Paul Pavao

I’m going to give in to circumstances and take a break until Monday. I will make a real effort to be ahead at that point so that I don’t have to do this again.

It was not just sickness, but being busy in the real world that caused me to miss Friday, Monday, and Tuesday. I can’t just write about the Scriptures; I have to obey them, too, and obedience to what I believe God has put in front of me consumed all my time and energy the last few days.

I’m really hoping that those of you who are following this blog are glad for the break smiley. I know that at least a few of you will have used these last few days as catch up time.

What’s ironic is that I’m really loving going through Isaiah. I can’t wait to get back to it on Monday.

Posted in Through the Bible | 2 Comments

Through the Bible in a Year: Isaiah 6-10

Posted on 07/12/2012 by Paul Pavao

This Week’s Readings

Monday, July 9: Sick day. Sorry!
Tuesday, July 10: Psalms 46-49; Proverbs 16
Wednesday, July 11: Isaiah 1-5
Thursday, July 12: Isaiah 6-10
Friday, July 13: Isaiah 11-15

The overall year’s plan is here.

Isaiah 6: Seraphim

Here is another of the more famous chapters in the Bible. Isaiah sees the Lord.

Let’s begin by discussing what Seraphim are. The Hebrew word for Seraphim is seraphim. Every Bible I’ve ever seen has not bothered to actually translate the word here in Isaiah 6, even though it’s used 5 other times in the Hebrew Scripture and translated every other time. It’s even used two other times in Isaiah (14:29; 30:6) and translated both times.

A seraph is a serpent; a snake. I guess that’s why no one wants to translate it. The serpent in the garden was evil, so I’m supposing translators don’t want serpents in heaven.

However, refusing to acknowledge what is true doesn’t make it not true. There are serpents in heaven whether we want to translate the word seraphim or not.

Don’t you love the idea of dragons flying around the throne of God?

I, on the other hand, think it’s awesome. What is a serpent with wings except a dragon? Don’t you love the idea of dragons flying around the throne of God crying out "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty"?

Well, whether we like it or not, and whether we let anyone know or not, that’s what Isaiah saw.

A seraph is a particular kind of serpent. Literally, it means a "fiery" snake, and translators aren’t sure whether that refers to their color (perhaps copper-colored) or to the fact that they’re poisonous. Seraphim were the kind of snakes that bit and killed the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 21:6). It was a seraph that was on the bronze pole that Moses made to heal the Israelites afterward, and Jesus compares himself on the cross to the seraph on the pole (Jn. 3:14).

Isaiah 6: Mercy and Grace

I’m skipping commenting on the vision of Yahweh on his throne. That is not because it is unimportant. That’s to be basked in, and our revelation of our great God enhanced because of it.

What I want to point out is the progression Isaiah goes through in one chapter. It is a progression that we must go through in our lives.

  1. Isaiah is brought into the presence of God. We are not told how. God has simply drawn him.
  2. Isaiah responds as all must who see the Lord. He is stricken by an awareness of his own sinfulness. My favorite picture of this is Peter (still Simon then) in Luke 5. Once he obeys the Word of the Lord, which is to go back out to sea and cast the nets again (vv. 4-5), he sees the result of obedience (fruitfulness), and he is stricken with conviction as the Word finds a home in his heart. "Depart from me! I am a sinful man!" he cries (v. 8).
  3. God responds with mercy and a call. Isaiah was a great prophet, and Peter was a great apostle. They stood tall and are famous. We don’t all have the same call, but we do all have a call. When we are stricken by the Word of the Lord, and we become aware of our own sinfulness, God will respond with mercy, and he will respond with a call. "Do not fear, Simon. You will catch men." Paul, too, received a call immediately upon his repentance (Acts 9:10-20), even though he had to wait for the fulfillment of that call years later (in Acts 13:2).

In addition, as we have seen before this in Isaiah, we see that God is not offering Israel and Judah a way out of their judgment. He has Isaiah preaching to render the people’s ears dull and their eyes dim until God’s judgment came to destroy their homes and take them away captive.

Understand, though, that even a pronouncement like this is not without hope. When Jonah was sent to Nineveh with a prophecy of destruction, no hope of mercy was offered to them (Jonah 3:4). They weren’t even God’s people! They were Assyrians!

The very reason we have a book of Jonah, however, and the reason he ended up swallowed by a great fish, is because Jonah knew that even a message of assured destruction was not always assured destruction. He knew that the Assyrians might repent, and if they did, God, being merciful, would relent of his destruction upon them, and this is not what Jonah wanted (4:2-3).

When a heart is hardened by God, or by the preaching of God’s Word, know that it has brought such a judgment upon itself. God raised up Pharaoh and hardened his heart, but he did so in foreknowledge. Pharaoh first hardened his heart, and as judgment, God made sure that his heart would stay hardened.

Never let us be those that throw away the mercy of God until it cannot be recovered (Heb. 6:4-8; 12:16-17).

Isaiah 7:1-16: The Virgin Birth

In this chapter is the prophecy of the virgin birth.

First, though, it’s time for a little honesty and a true history of this prophecy.

If we’re translating the Hebrew Scriptures, then Isaiah 7:14 should say that a "maiden" shall conceive and bear a son, not a "virgin."

Virgin doesn’t even make any sense in this passage unless there were two virgin births, Jesus’ birth and one in the time of Ahaz, king of Judah. Isaiah is telling Ahaz that God is giving him a sign, in his time, concerning two kings who were against him (the kings of Israel and Syria, Pekah and Rezin). He offers this child, named Immanuel, as proof that Ahaz would be delivered. It would happen by the time Immanuel knew to tell right from wrong.

So what am I saying about Jesus’ virgin birth.

I am saying that God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and inspiration is not our American, modern, western logical, confined-to-a-box-we-can-understand thing.

The word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 comes from the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text that all our modern Bibles are translated from (unless you from one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches). There’s two reasons this might have happened:

  • The translators of the LXX were working from an older, more accurate text. This seems unlikely since the prophecy was originally about a young lady in King Ahaz’ time. None of us believe there was a virgin birth during King Ahaz’ reign.
  • The translators of the LXX were inspired by God because God meant the prophecy to be a dual prophecy, so he had them change the original!

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus—keep in mind that both believed the LXX was inspired word for word by God because they believed a story about the method of translation that is certainly false—accuses the Jews of changing or twisting the Scriptures to avoid the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14:

If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, who venture to assert that the explanation which your seventy elders [i.e., the translators of the Septuagint] that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain respects? …
   But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God and man, as being crucified, and as dying.
   But since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive," and say it ought to be read, "Behold, the young woman shall conceive."
   And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof … [Proof given in chapters 77 and 78.]
(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 68 and 71, c. A.D. 155)

God, then, was made man, and the Lord saved us himself, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:21:1, c. A.D. 185)

That’s the prophecy of the virgin birth, which I believe was inspired by God to be one way in Hebrew and another in Greek. The early Christians (and, it appears, the Jews as well) simply took Isaiah 7:14 so figuratively and so prophetically that they didn’t bother applying it to Ahaz at all. Instead Ahaz was simply a figurative representation of the line of David, and thus it was okay for the prophecy only to be fulfilled in Christ.

That’s not very satisfying to me. I prefer the idea that God changed it on purpose. It was Jewish scholars who changed Isaiah 7:14 when it was translated into Greek, not Christian ones. Isaiah was probably translated two centuries before Jesus was born!

Isaiah 7:20-22

The statement that the Assyrians would shave with a razor is a statement that though they will strip Judah of its riches and remove its reputation (represented by the beard), he would not destroy the people of God. They would be shaved, but not put to death. They would rise again.

They would have to wait to rise and return until God delivered them from captivity, which would be centuries for the Israelites captured by the Assyrians but just 70 years for the kingdom of Judah captured by Bablyon.

In that time, their land would become covered with briars and thorns, and God would allow them a heifer and a pair of sheep. That would be enough to eat curds and honey, but no more. They would not be able to farm.

Isaiah 8

Isaiah, too, has a son, named "Swift is the booty, speedy the prey," that is a time marker for the downfall of Samaria (Israel) and Damascus (Syria).

In verses 7-8, we are again told that Assyria will not destroy Judah. Pictured as a river, he will rise to Judah’s neck. Pictured as a bird, his wings will spread throughout Judah’s land. He will, however, completely conquer Israel.

I think verse 12 is said to us about very right-wing Christianity today. I have heard all the stories about Illuminati conspiracies, Jesuit conspiracies, and rich bank conspiracies. It is not some small group of people who are in charge, it is the Lord God Almighty who is in charge. We do not need to join in fear-mongering over conspiracies. Our fear is to be directed towards God, as he makes very clear in Isaiah 51:12-13. (Hopefully, I now have my blog set where you can point to the verse and get a small window giving you its words. For those that want to mimic this on your blog, see reftagger.com.)

In verse 16 I see the rule of faith of the early churches. The apostles built churches, and then they passed the faith to the leaders of those churches to be preserved unchanged, just as they had given it (Jude 3). "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples" Isaiah says.

Verse 18 may refer, in part, to Isaiah and his own children, who were signs to Israel. However, this is primarily a prophecy referring to Jesus. We are on display as trophies of the grace of God (Eph. 2:7), now and into eternity.

Verse 20, at least the first half of it, has always been on my memory verse list from the first time I saw it. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Clear, clear, clear wording. I like it this plain.

Isaiah 9

Such a rich set of chapters today. Isaiah is a very rich book (or maybe I’m just not spiritual enough to see the richness of some of the other books).

Verses 1-2 are clearly a reference to the fact that Jesus would make his home in Galilee, in the tribal lands of Zebulun and Naphtali. He is the great light that shines in that dark land.

Verses 3-5 build up to verses 6 and 7. Something happens that multiplies the nation, increases their gladness, and breaks their yoke of slavery. Verse 6 starts with "for," which is basically another word for because. The reason for this multiplication, joy, and freedom is that a Son is born to us. The government rests on his shoulders, and he is known as the Mighty God and the eternal Father.

There are people who claim to be Bible believers who argue that the Bible does not teach the divinity of Christ. Such a stand is unthinkable to me in light of verses like Isaiah 9:6. What a clear prophecy of what we find in Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

I have wondered before why Jesus is called the eternal Father in that verse. I’ve looked it up in the early Christian writings, and I never found a discussion, even though calling Jesus the eternal Father would be very strange among the early churches. The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. How did they deal with this verse?

What I found out today—not sure why I never looked it up before—is that "eternal Father" is not in the LXX version of Isaiah 9:6, and the LXX was the Bible of the early churches (and, most likely, the apostles when they were not in Israel or Syria). In fact, "mighty God" is not there, either. Instead, the Septuagint reads:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185), who would have used the LXX as well, quoted Isaiah 9:6 this way:

He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God. (Against Heresies III:19:2)

The rest of the chapter is a prophecy of destruction that gets progressively worse and runs on into …

Isaiah 10

In verses 10 and 11, notice that "images" and "graven images" seem to be used as synonyms for idols (NASB). Somehow, way back in the 700’s, at the second Council of Nicea, the leaders of the catholic churches came together to declare that bowing to images was acceptable to God. Worse, they not only said that bowing to them was acceptable, but that "veneration" was acceptable. We could give a proskuneo kind of worship to them, but not a latreuo worship.

Proskuneo and latreuo are two Greek words in the New Testament, both having to do with worship. Both are used by Jesus (well, by Matthew or his translator; Jesus would have spoken Aramaic) in refuting the devil and quoting Deuteronomy 6:13.

He says, "Get away from me, satan, for it is written, ‘You shall proskuneo the Lord your God, and him only shall you latreuo.’"

In Acts 10:25, Peter came into Cornelius’ house, and Cornelius fell at his feet and offered him proskuneo. Peter refused it because he was a man (v. 26).

Is it really possible that it was wrong to fall before Peter in proskuneo "veneration" (the word the Eastern Orthodox Churches use to justify bowing to icons—images of saints—which they say are windows to heaven), but now that Peter has died, it is okay to bow before his picture (or statue, Roman Catholic) in proskuneo veneration?

I realize that Deuteronomy 6:13 only puts the word "only" in front of the latreuo worship, but is it really possible that when Jesus refused the devil’s request for proskuneo by quoting Deuteronomy 6:13, that he meant that only latreuo was reserved for God, while proskuneo, which is all the devil asked for, was acceptable if offered to the right human beings, or worse, to the right human beings’ pictures?

Okay, back to the prophecies.

After God finishes describing the judgment being brought by the Assyrians, and especially by the King Sennacherib, he begins to describe Sennacherib’s downfall. The fulfillment of the prophecies in verses 12-19 is described in chapters 37 and 38 of Isaiah (and again in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles).

All three stories tell us that an angel of the Lord killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night. It is only the prophecy of Isaiah 10 that tells us how this happened. Yahweh of armies (or hosts, Isaiah’s preferred term for God) sent a "wasting disease" (NASB) against the "stout warriors" of the Assyrians.

In verses 20-23 Isaiah looks even further forward, to the captivity in Babylon and the return to Jerusalem. Only a remnant would return, and before they returned the entire land will be destroyed. All that happened.

Verses 28-32 are literal history. Assyria conquered these towns. He came to Nob, a fortified city in view of Jerusalem, and from there he shook his fist at the people of God. Hezekiah, however, was a righteous king, and he cried to God for help. As a result, shaking his fist was the only thing Sennacherib was able to accomplish against Jerusalem. His army was destroyed by the wasting disease, and then he returned home to be killed in the temple of God by his own sons.

Posted in Through the Bible | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Through the Bible in a Year: Isaiah 1-5

Posted on 07/11/2012 by Paul Pavao

This Week’s Readings

Monday, July 9: Sick day. Sorry!
Tuesday, July 10: Psalms 46-49; Proverbs 16
Wednesday, July 11: Isaiah 1-5
Thursday, July 12: Isaiah 6-10
Friday, July 13: Isaiah 11-15

I couldn’t stay caught up Friday or Monday, so I’m doing the commentary on Psalms 46-49 and Proverbs 16 today. Sorry about that. We’re making good time for the year, anyway.

The overall year’s plan is here.

Isaiah 1

We see that God is angry with Israel. In fact, the charges are not minor, but major. The head is sick, the heart is sick, and there is nothing sound in the entire body from head to foot.

It’s so bad that the Lord refers to the Israelites as Sodom and Gomorrah in verse 10.

In verses 11-15 we see what sacrifices, worship services, and festivals run by wicked people do for God. They sicken him and make him angry. "I am weary of bearing them," he says.

These sorts of verses are one more statement that it is not the sacrifice that purifies the offerer, but the repentant heart of one who offers purifies the sacrifice.

Verses 16-20 were used to apply to baptism by early Christians (Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, c. A.D. 155).

The reason is obvious. The passage begins with "Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean" and then moves on to repentance and being purified from sin (cf. Acts 22:16 and Tit. 3:5).

Isaiah’s description of doing good in verse 17 is interesting. God tells us through Isaiah that we should …

  • seek justice;
  • reprove the ruthless;
  • defend the orphan
  • plead for the widow. (NASB and so with other bullet points)

His complaint about rulers in verse 23 is similar. They are rebels and companions of thieves, but God also emphasizes that they do not defend the orphans nor listen to the pleas of the widows.

In verses 24-26 we see that God intends to judge them to purify them, not to cast them away. That will come later, under the ministry of Jeremiah. Even now, though, it is only the repentant who will be redeemed.

Isaiah 2:2-5: The Mountain of the Lord and the New Covenant

Verses 2-5 of this chapter are occasionally referenced in modern literature, but they are regularly referenced in early Christian literature. Verses 2 and 3 were understood to refer to the bringing of the Gospel to the world, and verse 4 was taken quite literally to mean that Christians would not partake in war.

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”1849 And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. (Justin, First Apology 39, c. A.D. 155)

Raising their eyes, and looking above, let them abandon Helicon and Cithæron, and take up their abode in Sion. "For out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem"—the celestial Word, the true athlete crowned in the theatre of the whole universe. (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 1, c. A.D. 190)

In another place he says, "’Behold, days shall come,’ saith the Lord, ‘and I will draw up, for the house of Judah and for the house of Jacob, a covenant; not like the one I gave their fathers in the day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt’" [Jer. 31:31-32]. From this we understand that the coming cessation of the former circumcision then given, and the coming procession of a new law (the one not like he had given to the fathers), are announced: just as Isaiah foretold, saying that in the last days the mount of the Lord and the house of God were to be manifest above the tops of the mountains: "And it shall be exalted," he says, "above the hills; and there shall come over it all nations; and many shall walk, and say, Come, let us ascend the mount of the Lord, and come to the house of the God of Jacob,"—not of Esau, the former son, but of Jacob, the second; that is, of our "people," whose "mount" is Christ.
    The coming procession of a new law out of this "house of the God of Jacob" Isaiah announces in the ensuing words, saying, "For from Zion shall go out a law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and shall judge among the nations,"—that is, among us, who have been called out of the nations: "And they shall join to beat their glaives [swords] into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no longer learn to fight." Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices … For the wont [habit or bent] of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury [e.g., Ex. 21:24-25; Lev. 24:17-22; Deut. 19:11-21; Matt. 5:38]. But the new law’s wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of war upon the rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful actions of ploughing and tilling the land. (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews 3, c. A.D. 210; parentheses original, brackets mine)

A Note on Tertullian

My apologies for Tertullian’s big words and unusual wording. He was a lawyer as well as a prolific writer. Almost all of his writings are arguments directed towards Christians, Jews, Gentiles, and even the emperor. At some point in his Christian life, he joined the heresy (division) called Montanism, which forbad remarriage even for widows and widowers. (As a note to those modern Christians who take Jesus’ words concerning divorce and remarriage to a bizarre extreme, it was while he was a Montanist that he said that the laws of divorce and remarriage apply only after a person becomes a Christian—On Monogamy 11)

Each one of us, then, is come "in the last days" … to the "visible mountain of the Lord," the Word that is above every word, and to the "house of God," which is "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" [1 Tim. 3:15]. And we notice how it is built upon "the tops of the mountains," i.e., the predictions of all the prophets, which are its foundations. And this house is exalted above the hills, i.e., those individuals among men who make a profession of superior attainments in wisdom and truth; and all the nations come to it, and the "many nations" go forth … turning to the religion which in the last days has shone forth through Jesus Christ. (Origen, Against Celsus V:33, c. A.D. 225)

These verses were so often used, that a skeptic wrote to Origen saying, "For who of all believers does not know the words of Isaiah: "And in the last days … etc." (A Letter from Origen to Africanus 15).

Isaiah 2:6-22

These verses do not offer repentance to Judah. Though Isaiah calls the house of Jacob to walk in the light of the Lord in verse 5, but in verse 9, the prophet asks God not to forgive even after the common man bows down and the great man humbles himself.

When the prophet announces, beginning in verse 12, that there will be a day of reckoning for the proud and lofty, he then says the judgment will be against …

  • the cedars of Lebanon
  • the oaks of Bashan
  • lofty mountains
  • hills that are lifted up
  • fortified walls
  • ships of Tarshish
  • beautiful crafts

God’s judgment is not going to fall on trees, hills, and things. Everything in that list is the best of the best. The cedars of Lebanon and the oaks of Bashan were the best wood. The ships of Tarshish were the best and most glamorous, coming from afar.

These things are all pictures of lofty, exalted people, and the judgment is upon all those who exalt themselves, counting themselves to be the best of the best, to be like the cedars of Lebanon and the oaks of Bashan.

One additional point. We would surely take verse 21, which refers to the day when the Lord would make the earth tremble, as a reference to the very end. By the early Christian understanding, we’ve been in the last days since Jesus died and rose again. Verse 21 would not be far in the future, but something that is true already. I didn’t hunt down a quote on Isaiah 2:21, but here’s what Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185) said about Isaiah 2:17 and "The Lord alone will be exalted in that day":

"All flesh shall be humbled, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in the highest." It is thus indicated that, after his passion and ascension, God shall cast down under his feet all who were opposed to him, and he shall be exalted above all, and there shall be no one who can be justified or compared to him. (Against Heresies IV:33:13)

Isaiah 3

This chapter speaks for itself, so I’ll take this spot to point out that Isaiah prophesied until and into the reign of Hezekiah. His ministry included the time that the northern kingdom, Israel, was taken into captivity by the Assyrians. The Assyrians also captured much of the southern kingdom, Judah, although God judged Sennacherib for his pride when he tried to take Jerusalem.

The frightening judgments of chapter 3, then, may refer to the Assyrians, but more likely to the Babylonian deportation, though it was still a century away. Certainly chapter 4, which we are about to look at, addresses the Chaldean capture of Jerusalem. (The Chaldeans is another name for the Babylonians, and the King James Version uses it quite often.)

Isaiah 4

In verse 2, the branch of Yahweh has always been understood to be the Messiah. This is because Jeremiah 23:5 & 33:15 and Zechariah 3:8 & 6:12 all are Messianic verses and refer to him as a branch.

Even modern commentators take verses 5 and 6 in a figurative sense, applying it to the church universal ("the whole area of Mount Zion") and individual churches ("her assemblies"—NASB). The pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day obviously are drawn from the exodus through the wilderness. It represents God’s protection and presence with the church. The use of the cloud and the pillar of fire in the prophecy is to let us know that the presence of the Lord can be known. It is a terrible thing when a church does not know that the Lord is no longer with them and settles into repetition and tradition. Spiritually, we should be as aware of the Lord’s presence as the Israelites were in the wilderness when the had the cloud and the pillar of fire.

Isaiah 5

There are a lot of important statements about God in the first 19 verses of this chapter, but I don’t think you need me to explain them. I will only point out that if you have received the grace of God, do not fail to produce fruit with it! Do not let a lack of self-confidence, fear, or the love of the world influence you not to walk in that grace. You see in this chapter what happens to a vineyard that does not produce fruit.

It is the same reason that Jesus cursed the fig tree that had leaves but no fruit. It is not enough for us to profess without our mouths. We must be fruit producers (cf. Jn. 15:1-10).

Verse 20 doesn’t need explanation, either, but the 21st century USA is like this. We have substituted evil for good, and good for evil. It is only by drawing together into unity and shining the light of our love and good works everywhere we live that we will be able to change that. Voting and political activism will not be enough because they are not God’s way of dealing with things. We must be those who live the Gospel so that God can send us to preach the Gospel.

In verses 24 through 30 we see why political activism is not enough. It is God who judges. In verse 24, we can think that those who have rejected the Law of the Lord and despised the Word are the lost in our country, but we see in verse 25 that the anger of Yahweh burned against his people, not against those who are not his people. It is we who have not salted the earth, who have not shined the light of our good works (Matt. 5:13-16), and who have not walked in love and unity, but in division (Jn. 17:20-23).

Let us cry out for mercy and for power.

Posted in Through the Bible | Tagged , | Leave a comment