One of the great benefits – among many – of studying church history is learning from the lives of others. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is a great resource for finding encouragement during just about any stage of the Christian life. He was a pastor, theologian and philosopher, but most of all he was a follower of Jesus Christ who depended upon the Lord for every grace, every day. Here are five key points from his life that I pray will be encouraging to you in your walk with the Lord:

1. Be grateful for the grace you have received from God.

In the spring of 1721, Jonathan Edwards was reflecting on 1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV): “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” He later wrote: “As I read the words there came into my soul, and as it were diffused through it, a sense of the glory of the divine being; a new sense, quite different from anything I ever experienced before. Never any words of Scripture seemed to me as these words did. I thought with myself, how excellent a Being that was; and how happy I should be, if I might enjoy that God, and be wrapt up to God in heaven, and be as it were swallowed up in him.” Nothing we experience can match the value of the grace that we have received in Christ. I encourage you to revisit your conversion and early days as a Christian with regularity.

2. Be intentional about living your whole life to the glory God.

As a young man, Edwards began compiling a list of personal resolutions which he committed to review each week in order to gauge his progress. The first of what would become 70 resolutions reads: “Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God’s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriad’s of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great.” To be clear – you are not Jonathan Edwards and neither am I. The point is that we should think about how to live our lives in a way that balances our personality with our ultimate aims. My intention is that when I die or when Jesus returns, I want to be found faithful living for Christ so that I can say: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7); and that I might hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21)

3. Be in prayer for the Lord to work mightily in the local church.

Jonathan Edwards is often associated with the Great Awakening, but he actually experienced a number of awakenings, or revivals, in his church at Northampton, Massachusetts. In a work entitled, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, Edwards described the visible changes that occurred when the Lord brought many to saving faith: “The work of God, as it was carried on, and the number of true saints multiplied, soon made a glorious alteration in the town; so that in the spring and summer following, anno 1735, the town seemed to be full of the presence of God; it was never so full of love, nor so full of joy; and yet so full of distress, as it was then. There were remarkable tokens of God’s presence in almost every house. It was a time of joy in families on account of salvation being brought unto them; parents rejoicing over their children as newborn, and husbands over their wives, and wives over their husbands.” He continued, “The goings on of God were seen in his sanctuary (Psalm 68:24), God’s day was a delight, and his tabernacles were amiable (Psalm 84:1). Our public assemblies were then beautiful; the congregation was alive in God’s service, everyone earnestly intent on the public worship, every hearer eager to drink in the words of the minister as they came from his mouth; the assembly in general were, from time to time in tears while the Word was preached; some weeping with sorrow and distress, others with joy and love, others with pity and concern for the souls of their neighbors.” One of the great joys of the Christian life is worshipping the Lord with his people in the local church, and one of our ongoing prayers should be that God might surprise us with His presence in a way that makes us more loving, joyful and reverent before Him.

4. Be a promoter of peace even when people are against you.

Although Jonathan Edwards is lauded by many as the greatest American theologian, he was not always treated with such respect by those who knew him. As a pastor committed to biblical fidelity, he found it necessary to challenge the practice of serving communion to people in his church who had not yet professed Christ as their savior. The idea of serving communion as a “converting ordinance” was introduced to the church by his grandfather and pastoral predecessor, Solomon Stoddard. The church not only rejected Edwards’s position – they fired him! Edwards preached his final sermon as pastor of the church in 1750, which contained the following warning to those who supported him throughout the entire affair: “And here I would particularly advise those that have adhered to me in the late controversy to watch over their spirits and avoid all bitterness towards others. Your temptations are, in some respects, the greatest, because what has been lately done is grievous to you. But however wrong you may think others have done, maintain, with great diligence and watchfulness, a Christian meekness and sedateness of spirit; and labor, in this respect, to excel others who are of the contrary part. And this will be the best victory, for “he that rules his spirit, is better than he that takes a city” (Pro 16:32). Therefore, let nothing be done through strife or vain-glory (Phi 2:3). Indulge no revengeful spirit in any wise, but watch and pray against it. And by all means in your power, seek the prosperity of this town. And never think you behave yourselves as becomes Christians, but when you sincerely, sensibly, and fervently love all men—of whatever party or opinion, and whether friendly or unkind, just or injurious, to you or your friends, or to the cause and kingdom of Christ.” Even in the midst of controversy, Edwards was careful not to develop a following around himself. We can practice the same humility by pointing others to Christ rather than ourselves.

5. Be mindful that you are a citizen of another world, a pilgrim looking for a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Edwards may be most famous for one sermon – “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” – but he preached more often on heaven. His thoughts about heaven are quite encouraging, as evidenced by the following excerpt from the beautifully tiled, “Heaven is a World of Love”: “There dwells God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, united as one in infinitely dear, and incomprehensible, mutual, and eternal love. There dwells God the Father, who is the father of mercies, and so the father of love, who so loved the world as to give his only-begotten Son to die for it. There dwells Christ, the Lamb of God, the prince of peace and of love, who so loved the world that he shed his blood and poured out his soul unto death for men. . . . And there dwells the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of divine love, in whom the very essence of God, as it were, flows out and is breathed forth in love, and by whose immediate influence all holy love is shed abroad in the hearts of all the saints on earth and in heaven. There, in heaven, this infinite fountain of love, this eternal Three in One, is set open without any obstacle to hinder access to it, as it flows forever. There this glorious God is manifested, and shines forth in full glory in beams of love. And there this glorious fountain forever flows forth in streams, yea, in rivers of love and delight, and these rivers swell, as it were, to an ocean of love in which the souls of the ransomed may bathe with the sweetest enjoyment, and their hearts, as it were, be deluged with love.” In times of discouragement, it is helpful to focus on the sure and certain future that Christ has secured for us.

These lessons that emerge from the life of Jonathan Edwards remind us of many encouraging truths. So, as you serve the Lord remember that you are serving in response to so great a salvation. Your whole life belongs to Him and He has graciously called you be part of the body, the church. You will have high highs and low lows, and yet neither your success nor your failures should define you. The bottom line is that you are a child of God and you are headed to a place you have never seen before but are longing to call home. Enjoy the journey. Finish well.

The book of Romans has been described with the most praiseworthy of expressions. John Calvin said that when anyone understands this epistle, “he has a passage opened to him to the understanding of the whole Scripture.”[1] Martin Luther said that this letter “is really the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest gospel.”[2] Luther’s successor, Philip Melanchthon, referred to Romans as “the compendium of Christian doctrine.”[3] John Knox suggested that it was “unquestionably the most important letter ever written.”[4] It’s been called “the cathedral of the Christian faith,”[5] “the most pessimistic page of literature upon which your eyes ever rested” and at the same time “the most optimistic poem to which your ears ever listened.”[6]

These descriptions are supported by the experiential testimony of many throughout the history of the church all over the globe. The North African rhetorician Augustine was converted by reading Romans 13:13-14 in the year 386. The German monk Martin Luther was converted 1200 years later after grasping the significance of Romans 1:17. Two centuries later, a clergyman by the name of John Wesley recounted what he experienced on the evening of May 24, 1738 as he heard the preface of Luther’s commentary on Romans being read: “About a quarter before nine, while [the reader] was describing the change wherein God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given that he had taken my sins, even mine; and saved me from the law of sin and death.”[7]

Today, Romans is perhaps best known for clearly articulating key doctrines like man’s sinfulness, justification by faith, regeneration, union with Christ, adoption, and sanctification. Romans is known for its rich, deep, glorious, and at times unsettling theological assertions and implications.

What sometimes gets lost in these descriptions of Paul’s most beloved epistle is that Paul’s heart in writing Romans (as was the case for every letter he wrote) was primarily pastoral. He was writing to churches made up of real people with real problems, real worries, real struggles, and real questions. He was not interested in writing a theological treatise abstractly disjointed from the congregation’s situation. Rather, Romans was intended to be a deeply practical and applicable letter. And yet, it seems like we are less familiar (and dare I say, have neglected!) many of the practical features of this truly wonderful epistle. Thus, my goal here is to preview the landscape of this practical and pastoral epistle, not just the wonderful theological clouds we often focus on. 

1. Paul’s goal: The Obedience of faith (1:5; 16:26)

Paul opens the letter of Romans by introducing himself as a slave of Christ Jesus, an apostle set apart for the gospel (1:1). Just a few verses later, however, he states the goal of his apostleship, the mission he’s been given: “to bring about the obedience of faith” (1:5). Right at the outset, Paul makes it clear that his calling as an apostle is deeply practical; it is to bring about a particular kind of obedience. The phrase “obedience of faith” probably carries two ideas. First, Paul’s goal is to bring about the obedience that is faith among his hearers. The gospel he proclaims is something that is to be obeyed (10:16) by being believed such that not believing the gospel is an act of disobedience. Secondly, however, the “obedience of faith” probably also refers to the obedience, the proper conduct, that flows from faith. Whatever beliefs Paul wants to solidify in his readers, his goal is still the obedience that flows from those beliefs.

It’s important here to see that for Paul, believing and obeying belong together and should never be pitted against each other. Similarly, theology and conduct belong together. What I’m arguing, then, is not that Romans is about conduct and not theology but that it is about both.

2. Consider Yourself Dead… to Sin (6:11)

The first explicit commandment (though by no means Paul’s first “practical takeaway”) comes in Romans 6 after describing the believer’s union with Christ for 10 verses. Interestingly, this first imperative is an injunction pertaining to the Christian’s thinking: “so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Here we see that how a Christian thinks of himself is an important component of the “obedience of faith” that Paul desires for the Church. Christians are not to view themselves as doomed sinners, hopelessly entrapped in sin, but as dead to sin, freed from its power and dominion over their lives because of their union with the risen Christ. It is this fundamentally optimistic understanding of the Christian as a new creation that makes it possible to not let “sin reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions” (6:12).

3. Be Subject to the Governing Authorities (13:1)

This line comes not from the mouth of a dictator but from the pen of the Apostle Paul. In one of the letter’s most underrated and disregarded sections, Paul asserts that “whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (13:2). As with the rest of Paul’s exhortations, this command is not given in a theological vacuum. Rather, this is the inevitable result of believing that “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (13:1b). While we should not take this text as Paul’s comprehensive and absolute theology of governing authorities, neither should we read it to mean the opposite of what it says (i.e. feel free to disrespect the government and cheat on your taxes). We should honor the authority that God, in his sovereignty, has established, for as we do so, we honor Him.

4. Loving Your Mistaken Christian Brother > Winning the Argument (14:1-23)

Near the conclusion of this theologically rich letter, Paul has a whole chapter dedicated to how the Christian who understands some of the intricacies of the Christian faith should conduct himself with a fellow Christian who does not. Paul describes the ideal interaction between the “strong brother” (with whom he agrees theologically) and the “weak brother” (who, is mistaken regarding some practical issue of the faith). Christ loves and has saved the strong and the weak in the faith and the “strong” Christian should not have a reflex of despising the “weaker” Christian just as the “weaker” Christian is not to pass judgment on the “stronger” brother. In other words, if you are planning on having a young Christian friend over for dinner and later find out that she (incorrectly) thinks that Christians should not be killing God’s creation (animals) to eat them, it is more important that you love her by not rolling your eyes at her or pressuring her to do something she thinks is wrong than it is to start a debate and convince her she’s wrong.

The epistle to the Romans is rich with theological insights and doctrinal truths. But let’s remember that the purpose of Romans, as with all of the Bible, is not solely to fill our minds with knowledge, but that the knowledge we obtain might lead us to have lives of increasing Christ-likeness. May we be committed to increased obedience, to growing in respect for God and the authorities He has placed in our lives, and may our love for others grow deeper as a result of our time spent reading Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. 

---

[1]  John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. John Owen, repr. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), xxiv.

[2] Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, trans. John Theodore Mueller, repr. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1992), xiii.

[3] Philipp Melanchthon, The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon, trans. Charles Leander Hill (Boston: Meador, 1944), 69.

[4] George A. Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter’s Bible: Acts, Romans, vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), 355.

[5] Frédéric Louis Godet and A. Cusin, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans., repr. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883), 1.

[6] G. Campbell Morgan, Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1912), 99.

[7] John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, ed. Nehemiah Curnock and John Telford, vol. I (London: Epworth Press (E.C. Barton), 1938), 475–76.

Holiness Blog: Holiness as Necessarily Non-Compartmentalized 

I was a part of a Sunday School class once where the teacher insisted that we all go off with our spouses and then come back and say what we liked about our spouse and what we loved about our spouse. The exercise was going as the teacher planned until one young, new(ish) married woman abruptly responded, “PASS!” This blunt inconsistency in the class created a serious awkwardness, but her husband seemed unphased.

In the face of his wife refusing even minimally to compliment him before the class, he launched into a litany of her excellencies. As his poetic rehearsal of his wife’s supremacy continued, she began to grow a vein that ran up the side of her neck and across her forehead. Finally, unable to handle her husband’s recitation of her glories any longer, she launched out of her chair and stormed out of the class.

We discovered later that the man had routinely cheated on her, even in the earliest days of their marriage. In the mundane and ordinary routine of life, she was, at best, just another female. In front of others at church, she was magnificent. That approach to a spouse is treasonous. Yet, there is little difference between this story and how people often think about “worship” and holiness. Israel throughout their history acted out similarly. However, that was not the original idea God presented them.  

The typical compartmentalization of worship and ethics today is nowhere apparent in Leviticus (or the rest of the Bible). Leviticus presents an inextricable relationship between worship and holiness. Worship requirements appear in the sacrificial system of chapters 1-16, while holiness represents the fundamental ethic of chapters 17-26. Together, these two ideas paint a beautiful picture of redemption from sin and perpetual dependence on God’s sustaining hand. Thus, holiness is the mundane testimony that consistently embraces and proclaims the reality of God, who Israel celebrates during worship. God’s holiness demands an appropriate God-directed reaction from His people, whether in family, war, worship, sex, economics, or the judicial system. In every ordinary facet of life, Israel was to image forth the holiness of their God. A few examples of the nature of holiness from Leviticus should make this point clear.

• In Leviticus 17, Israel should not position itself as sovereign over life and death by ingesting sacrificial blood (vv.10ff).
• Likewise, Israel must hold a distinct sexual ethic (Lev 18:6-23; 19:20-21; 20:10-21).
• They must revere parents and the elderly (Lev 19:3, 32).
• Israel must provide for the poor and sojourner from their abundance, and assure them of economic and judicial assistance (Lev 19:9-10; 25:25-28, 29-34, 35-55).
• They must keep the Sabbath (Lev 19:3; 26:2), avoid dishonesty and theft between covenant partners, care for the disabled (19:14), and demand a fair and just judiciary for one another (19:15).
• They must neither profane God’s name (19:11-12), nor slander one another in public or court (19:16).
• In contrast to hating their brother/ sister, they should speak to him/ her frankly, avoid vengeance, and love them as they love themselves (19:18).
• Uniformly prohibited are cult prostitution (Lev 19:29-30), child sacrifices (Lev 20:1-5), and sorcery (Lev 19:31; 20:6-9, 27) in the ethic of holiness.
• Equally and strictly forbidden are sexually violating a powerless individual (Lev 19:20-21) and bowing before a powerless idol (Lev 19:4; 26:1). 

In other words, holiness shapes individuals together into a system of thinking and acting toward one another. This system finds its roots in God’s own character, redemptive power, and ongoing kindness. Here holiness comprises personal and systemic ethics. There is no hierarchy of sexual and judicial improprieties. Moses equally condemns as unholy sacrificing one’s child, abusing the elderly or disabled, and neglecting the poor. They cannot worship this God, their God, and live inconsistently toward one another. Such an ethic denies the reality of the one whom Israel claims as their own.

Later Biblical writers have no categories for a worshipper whose actions don’t match God’s demands (Isa. 1:11–14; Isa. 40:16; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 6:20; Jer. 7:21–23; Jer. 14:12; Hos. 6:6; Hos. 8:13; Amos 5:21–24; Mic. 6:6–8). God, speaking through Isaiah, told Israel to quit worshipping and praying to him due to their committing injustice and oppression (Isa 1:10-18). Jeremiah condemned Israel for successfully recasting God into a common deity that had little to no concern about the inconsistency between life and worship. He rhetorically asks, “How dare you come before me while ignoring the manner in which I instructed you to live?” (see Jer 7:8-11).

Jonah later personified Israel’s complete capitulation to the ethnocentric culture around him as early as the 8th century. Jesus emphasized that the religious and social power of his day embraced the eye-straining minutiae of the law that benefited them while ignoring the actual spirit and meaning of the law that magnified God and helped the least of those within the covenant (Matt 23:23). Paul warned the Corinthian Christians of the dangers of taking the supper, a corporate proclamation of God the Son, in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:27-32). 

Holiness privately and publicly ties the individual and community directly to the person and work of the Triune God. We are both made holy and made to be holy in all we do by our redeeming, sheltering, sustaining Savior, who is worthy of all worship. Perhaps there is nothing more appealing than to compartmentalize life. Such behavior betrays self-worship, however. It indicates that God, whom one claims to know, is nothing more than a divine name attached to a self-projected image. Worship and holiness are daily-all-the-time expectations for God’s people. All approaches that seek to short-circuit such an approach to life are—like the cheating husband–traitors to the One they publicly claim to love.  

“Strive . . . for the holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.”

Hebrews 12:14, ESV

There are not too many topics in Scripture that demand our attention like holiness. Growing up in the Bible-belt, I remember hearing the standard mantra for holiness: “don’t smoke, drink, or chew or go with girls who do.” Holiness as a limited series of expectations for individual morality was the standard perception then, and remains popular in many circles today. Aside from the obvious problems with the above cliché, this limited and individualistic emphasis misrepresents the earliest testimony of holiness in Leviticus. In Leviticus, God’s covenant people were to have a specific interpretation of reality—namely, that the one God of all creation is their God. By extension, they were to have a consistent vision of their society, where the community reflected the character of the redeeming creator God. Thus, holiness is a thick community category, deeply relational and holistically expressed. Here, I want to address what is in my mind the most important aspect of holiness: At its heart, holiness is relational. 

Holiness: The Relational Ethic

Relational attachment is a powerful and life-altering thing. The reason (by God’s grace) that I have never cheated on my wife has far less to do with the possibility that I might get caught and far more to do with my attachment to my wife, my children, and my congregation. In other words, these relationships powerfully shape my identity and ethics. I live my life as a man married to Angela. Her unique presence in my life directs my decisions with money, time, resources, as well as governs my relationships with other women. There isn’t a way I could live outside of that attachment without implicitly or explicitly denying her value. 

Likewise, holiness is the ethic that emerges out of the life-changing relationship with the God of Israel—relationship built on His redemption, provision, and guidance. Holiness is the community ethic of those God redeemed from “the house of slavery.” In Exodus 19:4-6, when God refers to Israel as a “holy nation,” He refers to the fact that He has chosen, redeemed, and led them to Himself at Sinai. Holiness is not something imposed upon a group of people who don’t know God as redeemer, sustainer, and guide. Any idea of holiness that skips over the passionate and life-changing notion of redemption is empty moralism that either leads from, or to, a self-righteous and self-preserving life. Rather, the vibrant reality of God as redeemer, sustainer, and friend, which continually engineers trust and “land conquering” ambition also creates holiness. 

The relational aspect of holiness appears clearly in Leviticus 18-20, which is at the heart of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26). Due to His self-initiated attachment to Israel, God’s holiness shapes his people’s ethical life (“I am holy” – Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26: 21:8). Leviticus 18:2-4 distinguishes between the life and ethics of Israel and the surrounding cultures, embodied in Egypt (the place from which God liberated them) and Canaan (the place to which God would deliver them).

The text further emphasizes the reason they are to avoid common cultural ethics; God is their God and that changes them. Israel must remain noticeably different from the nations at specific points or they display God to be a common ancient deity. Moses explicitly states this relational motivation in Lev 19:2, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (ESV) Israel’s ethical shape is the direct result of their attachment to God. God then sets forth a list of commandments punctuating each with the phrase, “I am the Lord,” or an approximate modification of the phrase. Thus, God commands his people to be holy in light of his unique identity and attachment to them (Lev 19:37). 

New Testament writers also followed this logic when discussing holiness. A few verses from the apostles should suffice to demonstrate this pattern:

“Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”

(2 Cor. 7:1, ESV)

Paul has just reiterated the promise of God’s presence among believers. These promises for Christians from their God engineer “bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.” Paul’s reference to the “fear of God” further emphasizes the relational nature of this attempt at holiness. Only Christians have this sense about them. It is the most normal human response to not fear God (Romans 3:18). 

 ^“For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.”

Heb. 12:10, ESV

The author of Hebrews just explained the beauty of fathers who discipline not random children but their own sons (and presumably daughters). God, our Father, the one who loves us more than any earthly parent, disciplines His children so they can share in His holiness. 

The writer continues,

“Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, ^and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”

(Heb. 12:12-14, ESV)

In other words – “therefore,” because of the love of the Father, strengthen yourselves, embrace wisdom and clarity as to how to live, strive for peace and for holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. It would be almost intuitive to see this as a command for a particular moral package that earns salvation. However, if holiness is the fruit of a relationship with the triune God, as both the Old Testament and New Testament teach, then this admonition calls for clear and thorough adjudication of one’s life for relational fruit rather than personal moral certainty. 

Holiness doesn’t ask, “What is the world doing and being?” and then conclude that we must do or be the opposite. Genuine holiness doesn’t operate off of a contrived list of behaviors that may only partially be representative of Biblical wisdom. These approaches to holiness are brutally thin and provide no impetus for God-glorifying, self-denying living. Furthermore, anybody can do that. Grace-created redemption, sustenance, and shelter, along with God’s continual presence in our midst births a natural sense of actual holiness in God’s redeemed people. To live in any other way would deny the value of the ever-present God who redeemed you. 

I teach philosophy. There’s an interesting difference between your first philosophy class and most of your other classes in college. When you walk into your first college math class, for instance, you do so with lots of background math. And when you walk into your first college biology class, you do so with some background science – unless, of course, you slept through high school biology and still managed to pass! I might have done that… But philosophy is rarely taught in high school, and so when you walk into your first philosophy class, you probably do so with zero background philosophy.

However, I’ve found that just about everyone finds the first day of philosophy class intriguing. This, I think, is because philosophy asks some of life’s most fundamental questions. Even though most of us haven’t had any formal background in philosophy before our first class, we have all thought about a lot of the questions that get raised in philosophy outside of the classroom. And so when we walk into a classroom and are invited to say what we think about some of these questions, we feel competent in coming up with our own answers. If you’ve never taken a calculus class, but were asked on your first day of class how to solve a calculus question, you’d likely keep your mouth shut! But on the first day of a new philosophy class, most people do not keep their mouths shut. Most people tend to have something to say.

But philosophy is not just about saying what we think. We can be wrong about what we think. What makes philosophy so interesting is that some of our everyday intuitions about the world, after thinking about them rigorously, turn out to be wrong (or at the very least, not as obviously true as we might have thought). In this post, I want to talk about one such intuition. It’s an intuition I’ve found that most people tend to have. The intuition has to do with the branch of philosophy called Ethics.

Ethics concerns questions about morality. There are many questions asked in this branch of philosophy, but today I want to focus on just one: are moral truths objective or are they subjective? In other words, are moral truths (like “don’t cheat” and “don’t steal”) objectively true and thus true independently of what our society says? Or are they subjective and thus relative to what our society says?

I always poll my students and take a vote before diving into the arguments. Out of around 160 current students from last Fall in my Intro to Philosophy classes, about 95% of students answered the same way: they are subjective. And this is not atypical. The results for just about every poll I have taken over the last decade or so about this question have been similar.

One might be tempted to think that this is a generational phenomenon: perhaps it’s a millennial thing! But I’ve found it to be much more widespread.  During the summers, I often teach college philosophy courses to intellectually advanced junior high and high school students (to qualify for this program, students must test into the top 3% in the nation…these students are incredibly bright). About 95% of them answer the same way: morality is subjective. And I am currently teaching an Ethics course at a prison here in Southern California. I always designate the first week of the prison class to discuss the question of whether morality is objective or subjective. Once again, about 95% of inmates agree: morality is subjective.

I think that the fact that the majority of people think this way might be a result of people having the right intentions. I’ve wondered whether the impulse to think that morality is subjective is rooted in some sort of intellectual humility. Perhaps people understand that there are those who disagree morally, and so the tendency to think that morality is subjective is based on the desire for individuals not to set their perspective on morality as being superior to those with whom they disagree. They want to exercise humility in positing that their perspective may not be the only right one.

However, this view is false! Morality is not subjective or relative-to-society. It’s pretty easy to see, once you see it. In what follows, I will spell out two well-known arguments in the Ethics literature that I offer to my students. The majority of my students have reported to me that these arguments have changed their minds (college students, younger students, and inmates alike). Here they go.

First, the argument from common sense. If morality is subjective (and thus relative to society), then there is really nothing wrong with slavery. But that’s nuts! Slavery is obviously wrong (and objectively so!). Therefore, it follows by logic alone that morality is not subjective. This argument is short, but powerful. It gets us to see quite quickly that the pervasive intuition that many have – that morality is not objective – is clearly false. This is usually enough to convince my students that they were wrong. But just in case, I usually give them another well-known argument.

Second, the argument from disagreement. Consider a paradigmatic example of subjectivity: taste. I think vanilla is greater than chocolate. Chocolate is alright, but clearly not as good as vanilla! My wife wholeheartedly disagrees. She’s convinced that I’m wrong. Ask yourself this, though: if we were to have an argument about which is better (chocolate or vanilla), would we really be disagreeing about an objective fact in the world? No. Clearly not. That’s because this whole dispute boils down to a matter of taste. And taste is subjective.

So here’s the argument. Analogously, if morality is subjective, then no two people could ever really disagree about a particular moral issue (in the same way that my wife and I don’t really disagree about an objective fact in the world when it comes to taste). But that’s ridiculous. Just turn on the news for a few seconds, and you’ll see people clearly disagreeing about moral issues! Therefore, it follows by logic alone that morality is not subjective.

Philosophy is interesting. We can take an intuition that most people tend to accept, think hard about what it implies (that slavery isn’t really wrong and that people can’t ever really disagree about moral issues) and show that it’s clearly just got to be false.

Of course, as Christians we know that Scripture has declared this for ages. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that God the Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Some 400 years later, St. Augustine (one of the earliest Christian philosophers), reflected on this truth and argued that morality itself is rooted in the very essence of God. To suppose that morality is subjective flies in the face of common sense and leads to the totally implausible conclusion that we can never really morally disagree with one another. Morality is objective. It is independent of us and independent of what society says.

The School of Christian Ministries is pleased to regularly share the stories of our alumni and how God is using them in His work around the world.

Name: Kevin Naylor

Degrees Earned: Bachelor of Applied Theology in 2013. Also earned a Master of Divinity from Beeson Divinity School in 2017.

Current Role: Church Planter and Pastor Vision and Teaching. Antioch Community Church is a collegiate church focused on reaching the University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

Years in Current Role: 1 year

Q&A with Pastor Naylor

1. What do you like most about your job?

I love that as a church planter I have the opportunity initiate a distinctively missional culture and watch people begin to live the Great Commission in their everyday life. 

2. What is the biggest challenge with your job?

Planting apostolically. Often church planting in America can be a form of “sheep shuffling.” The challenge, and opportunity, is doing things in such a way that we reach people that aren’t currently being reached. And that we find ways to do this “in the fields” as Luke 10 describes, not just through the Sunday gathering. 

3. How did the School of Christian Ministries prepare you for what God has called you to do (vocationally)?

In the BAT [Bachelor of Applied Theology] program I learned how to be both a pastor that cares about people and a theologian that cares about being theologically and biblically articulate. The secret sauce is the faculty. They modeled humble pastoral leadership to us personally as students. 

4. If you could go back in time and tell yourself one thing in college, what would it be and why?

Chill out.  I put way too much pressure on myself and was a pretty anxious student. In many ways I ended up sacrificing spiritual, physical, emotional, and relational health for school. I was always way more stressed than I needed to be and I ended up not enjoying my college years as much as I could have. 

5. What most excites you about the work that God is doing in your church/community/or around the world?

Seeing people “get it.” In other words: transformation. 

• 

• 

• 

New Testament Textual Criticism is a science that can make the eyes of even NT scholars go blurry. It’s technical, demanding, and tedious… and sounds like anything but fun or necessary. It involves painstakingly comparing ancient manuscripts to determine the wording of a text of which we have no original copy. But sometimes the results of such detailed analysis yields fascinating results. This is one of the many reasons that we teach our students to engage in this process.

Consider Matthew 27:16-17. It’s Matthew’s version of the Barabbas episode—the famous story in which the Roman governor Pilate offers freedom to either Jesus or Barabbas.

If you read technical commentaries on this passage, you will find that textual scholars debate the wording of these verses. We have some manuscripts that add the name “Jesus” to Barabbas as if his full name was “Jesus Barabbas.” Essentially, the text in these copies reads:

“Now they had then a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. Therefore when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, ‘Which of the two do you wish that I should release to you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus the so-called Christ?’”

Even though the story of Barabbas is mentioned in all four Gospels, only here in Matthew do some manuscripts include the extra name “Jesus” for him. This is a textual issue unique to the Gospel of Matthew… not Mark, Luke, or John.

When there are differences in wording between manuscripts, usually textual scholars lean heavily on the earliest manuscripts, those closest to the time of the writing. Unfortunately, our earliest copies of these verses come from the fourth and fifth centuries, roughly 300 years after it was written. We have no early papyri here.

BUT, we do have an early Christian writer who discussed these very words in his commentary! Origen was the church’s most significant exegete in the third century… and the subject of an amazing dissertation written by a certain CBU professor (spoiler alert—it is the author of this post!)! Origen lived before our earliest tangible copies of these verses had been inked! And Origen describes manuscripts that include the name “Jesus Barabbas” (GCS 38, p. 255). So at one time, there certainly were earlier manuscripts—at least from the third century, or possibly before—that included this reading… which no longer exist for our consideration today. And that reading was significant enough that we find the compounded name “Jesus Barabbas” appearing occasionally in other early versions of Matthew… in Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic manuscripts.

Now just because that reading was early does not make it original. In the third century, Origen was aware of Greek manuscripts of Matthew that included such wording… and others that didn’t. And Origen himself actually did not like the compounded name. He thought it rather unthinkable that a name as sacred as “Jesus” should be associated with the name of a convicted criminal. Granted, in first-century Palestine, the Jewish name “Jesus” was a *very* common name. It’s essentially the Hebrew name “Joshua.” Many others at that time had the same name (Col 4:11; Acts 13:6; Josephus Ant. 11.298; War 6.300; inter alia). Or as one of my colleagues often quips: “Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was named Jesus….”

Whether or not the compounded name “Jesus Barabbas” was in the initial copy of Matthew is much debated… and currently there is no consensus. It’s possible that the name could’ve been added accidentally. But it’s also possible that a scribe intentionally shortened the name to “Barabbas” alone… with the same thinking as Origen’s… and to harmonize with the other Gospels since Mark, Luke, and John never mention Barabbas having such a compounded name. There are good solid scholars who think the compounded name was original to Matthew 27, and good solid scholars who don’t. Therefore, some English translations include the compounded name (NRSV, CEB, NIV), and others do not (RSV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NJB).

Either way, the manuscripts of Matthew that contain the reading “Jesus Barabbas” represent someone’s Bible—the living text of the Gospels—even if the compounded name was not original to the text. In other words, each manuscript belonged to someone—most likely a church, since most manuscripts were not privately owned for personal reading. So in that church, for those people, reading that manuscript, when they read what we now call Matthew chapter 27, that is how they understood the passage… “Jesus Barabbas” over and against “Jesus the so-called Christ.”

And what a fascinating comparison that is. When worded this way, the Judean crowds prompted by Pilate had to make a decisive decision… which “Jesus” did they want? Jesus Barabbas?… the violent, militant rebel who had committed murder revolting against Rome (see Mark 15:7)?… OR… “Jesus the so-called Christ”?… the Matthean Jesus who had said “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44)… “turn the other cheek” (Mt 5:39)… and “blessed are the peace-makers” (Mt 5:9)?

It’s an interesting contrast. We know nothing about Barabbas or any rebellion which Mark mentions (15:7). We don’t even know from outside sources that the Romans or Pilate had any kind of regular custom releasing a prisoner at Jewish festivals. Maybe this was just a one-time occasion as a nonviolent way for Pilate to squelch a growing disturbance so he wouldn’t lose control and thereby lose his job, as he eventually did.

Barabbas is presented as a violent rebel challenging Roman rule so Judea could be independent of pagan intrusion… to bring back the glory days of David and Solomon. With the zealot mentality, Barabbas would’ve been a kingdom builder—the kingdom of Israel—established with sword and dagger. He would’ve acted in what he thought was obedience to God, fighting for God and God’s people, defending God, God’s house, and God’s honor.

Jesus of Nazareth also was a kingdom builder. And he preached a lot about a kingdom… but a whole different kind of kingdom. (Occasionally some critical scholars have tried to claim that maybe the historical Jesus actually was a zealot and that’s why he got executed by the Romans; there seems to be no good evidence of that. If that were the case, we would expect to find much more anti-Roman sentiment by those associated with the historical Jesus.)

Instead, the kingdom of the Nazarene was a different kind of kingdom, a kingdom of peace, of justice and fairness, of mercy, of humility. It stood against power, materialism, and oppression. It stood for the marginalized, the oppressed, and the castaway. It was inclusive and not exclusive. It was radical and iconoclastic. A kingdom unlike any other. A kingdom without walls or turrets, moats or drawbridges. A kingdom that was almost unthinkable and unimaginable, except on the personal level, through the goodness and grace of its citizens, who were to live by the law of love in selfless submission to their God.

Unfortunately, forty years after this scene with the Roman governor and the Judean crowds, the same city faced a similar decision all over again. A Roman officer had been killed and events escalated quickly. Nero amassed his legions. Jerusalem chose the way of war, not peace. Rebellion, not diplomacy. Militancy, not mediation. Jewish militants—who considered themselves God’s patriots—recklessly thought this was their moment to seize the day and God would vindicate them and their cause. And they could not have been more wrong, or outnumbered.

The destruction that followed was staggering. Roman legions descended from the north and slaughtered village after village as they marched towards Jerusalem. Troops surrounded the city at the worst possible time as pilgrims had congregated for Passover. The Romans besieged the city and crucified any who tried to escape. Inside, food supplies ran out, and people died from hunger, strife, and anarchy. Finally, in August, with Jerusalem crippled by hunger and exhaustion, the Romans tore down the walls, burned the Temple, and utterly conquered the city. The survivors inside were all either slaughtered if they resisted or enslaved if they didn’t.

This past summer, I stood in Rome and observed the Arch of Titus. Titus was the Roman general, and eventual emperor, who led the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. Inside his arch, you can still see the inscription of the plundered artifacts such as a menorah that were paraded through the streets of Rome. And just a few hundred yards from there stands the Colosseum. That world-famous, iconic structure was erected only nine years later in part by the loot and slaves from the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. As famous and impressive as those monuments stand today, they represent conquest, violence, and bloodshed, tens of thousands of lives cut short pursuing short-sighted goals and ill-fated gains.

The question as posed in some manuscripts of Matthew 27 still stands for us today. Which kind of Jesus do we really want? Which one do we really want to follow? Which kind of kingdom do we really seek? And like those from centuries before, the answers are evident in our choices, the way we live our lives. May God help us to seek the right kingdom.

• 

• 

[Read Matthew 1:18—2:23]

This post reflects Dr. Mobley’s personal interest in the dramatic nature of the Gospels (with a love for mystery!) and a persistent emphasis on seeing vital connections between the biblical story and contemporary life, an interplay that Dr.  Mobley strives to help his students see when they are in his classes.

Christmas can be crowded.  Perhaps rightly so, if appropriately centered, for there is much to celebrate—the Advent of a Saviour, Lamb of God, Prince of Peace.

But frequently overlooked in the busyness of the “holiday season” are the traditional ‘Twelve Days of Christmas’—an “inter-land” of time suspended between two mysteries: the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation and the mystery of a yet untraveled New Year.  Reflecting on the first of those mysteries can help prepare the way into the latter.

More particularly, those ‘Twelve Days’—from Dec. 26^th to Jan. 6^th—culminate in the visit of the magi, commemorated in the church calendar as the Feast of Epiphany (which means appearing; manifestation).  It is reasonable to infer that the “wise men” were late-comers to the occurrence of Jesus’ birth.  Consider the text: 1) the magi enter “the house”—better accommodations than an animal stable; 2) Jesus is referred to as “the child” (paidion) rather than “the infant” (brephos, as in Luke’s account); and 3) the murderous two-year calculation of King Herod, derived from information about the sighting of the star, provided by the magi who serve as unwitting accomplices to Herod’s treacherous scheming.     

Each of the Gospels presents high drama, and uniquely in Matthew’s Infancy Narrative there is intense suspense.¹ If presented theatrically:  Act I—the dream-warning to Joseph; Act II—the worshipful visit of the magi; Act III: downstage—the escape into Egypt, while upstage—the tragic Massacre of the Innocents; then an Epilogue—the return to Nazareth. 

From the storyline of ‘The Flight into Egypt’ what lessons—“take-aways” as we commonly call them—might be drawn from this intriguing gospel story? We will examine five aspects of their journey, and consider how they apply to our own lives today.

1. A pervasive atmosphere of threat

There is ample reason for the Christmas angels’ inevitable opener:  “Fear not!”  The Infancy Narrative, whether as given by Luke or supplemented by Matthew, is threaded with sufficient cause for anxiety: an unwed young maid facing disgrace, her perplexed fiancée seeking to deal with shame in an honorable manner, and the obligation of a strenuous journey which complicates an already precarious personal crisis.    

• Let us consider, do we begin 2020 with any less apprehension, whether on a personal scale (job insecurity, diagnosis of a terminal illness, fractured relationships) or in a wider margin (global terrorism, incessant random incidents of violence).

2. Political hostility

Jesus’ earthly life was bracketed by the maneuvering of two power-players—Herod, the paranoid king, and Pontius Pilate, the vacillating governor—both fearful of losing their grip on privileged positions of authority.

“Why do the nations rage … and the rulers conspire against the Lord and his Anointed One?” asks the Psalmist (2:1-2).  Well, they always have and always will.  It is their modus operandi … that is, until the return of the Lamb of God/Lion of Judah and his establishment of God’s justice and eternal reign of peace.

• Harsh political realities still stalk the face of the earth, opposed—often violently—to the followers of the Christ-child.  May we be diligent in sustaining prayer for the persecuted church worldwide.  Perhaps we might also mourn the counterparts of the slaughtered Bethlehem infants, in the death of innocent babies in our own country.

3. Trusting obedience

The primary mark of character shared by Joseph, Mary, and the magi is their response of faithful obedience to God’s revealed direction for their lives, no matter what the cost and in spite of yet unanswered questions.     

• In the New Year just entered, may we let the figures of faith in Matthew’s Infancy Narrative serve as our mentors, to meet the daily challenges and emergent crises of life with an implicit trust in God’s guidance and purpose.

4. An Immigrant Immanuel

There is plenty of traveling going on in the Infancy Narratives: the mandated trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem (4 to 7 days); the journey of the magi to Jerusalem (600-700 miles depending on point of departure); and the flight to Egypt (500-600 miles depending on point of destination).

Jesus entered his earthly life as the immigrant par excellence, in a family of refugees seeking asylum.  Matthew notes this, in his typical spotting of fulfilment-texts: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Hosea 11.1)  And the adult Jesus said, “the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

• Here is the gospel paradox: divine vulnerability, the Son of God descending from heaven’s majesty to be humbly clothed in fragile human existence, fully identifying with those he came to deliver. May we also be filled with humble compassion towards all those who are image-bearers of God.

5. Divine provision

Strange and seemingly inappropriate were those presents that the magi offered.  (If Jesus actually was born in December, a Hanukkah toy might have been more welcome for a young Jewish child!)  Yes, those extravagant gifts have often been seen as symbolic of the various facets of Jesus’ person and mission (King, Priest, Prophet).  But God who is lavish in his giving is also mindful of the practicalities of life.  How was this immigrant family going to survive, until Joseph found carpentry openings in the job market?  Would he be able to link up with Jews of the Diaspora, perhaps in Alexandria? 

•  May we be open to the surprising ways that God will provide for our needs in 2020.  As Jesus reminded us:  “Your Father knows what you need even before you ask him.”

---

The story of the ‘Flight to Egypt’ is an interplay of divine revelation of purpose, and human trust in God’s faithfulness to provide.  The characters in each of the “acts” in this gospel drama intertwine with one another, as they each respond in individual ways to the God of Israel, the Lord of history.

Drama, paradox, mystery, divine providence and exemplars of trusting obedience … they are all there in Matthew’s account of the “Flight into Egypt”.  Before the “Bethlehem starlight” recedes too far from us and becomes dimmed by the “tyranny of the urgent,” may we allow enough sacred space to reflect upon and rejoice in the coming of the One who is, in deepest truth, Immanuel, “God with us!”  This is the Word of the Lord … thanks be to God!   

The Impressionist depiction by Tanner, featured at the beginning of this post, evokes an air of suspense surrounding the arrival of the Holy Family in Egypt.  See a discussion of the life and work of Henry Ossawa Tannner (an African-American artist of the early twentieth century) in: Podles, Mary Elizabeth.  “The Flight into Egypt.”  Touchstone: a Journal of Mere Christianity  (November/December 2019): 54-55.    

The School of Christian Ministries is blessed to have dedicated and passionate faculty members who love Jesus and desire to help others love Him more. This regular feature will help you get to know our faculty members more.

Q&A with Dr. Wilson

Q. What do you enjoy most about teaching at CBU? 

I love the opportunity to interact with a wide diversity of students.  In a given semester, I have the opportunity to interact with students taking courses for general education, for a particular major, and/or just for interest sake.  I really enjoy teaching students who are getting a first introduction to the Bible and Christian faith in a Bible survey class and sometimes help to change their biases against the Bible and Christianity and Christians.  Sometimes it is helping return a student to his/her Christian roots and find a new relevance for faith.  I enjoy helping students find tools that will help them read and study the Bible for themselves and learn how to use those tools to interpret the Bible.  I love helping students who are focused toward ministry preparation create patterns and habits of study that will shape how they do the work of ministry.  I love when students stop in the office and I get the opportunity to know them beyond a classroom interaction and to speak into their lives, that is, to do the work of discipleship. 

Q. Why did you choose to focus your academic study on the New Testament?

 First, I love the Bible.  I guess I focused on the New Testament because I had the opportunity to study Biblical Greek for several years before I even had the opportunity to learn Biblical Hebrew.  I remember, when I was in college studying Greek thinking – being nurtured in by my professors, I would love to be able to help nurture like this a passion for the study of the Scriptures in young students.  My focus in my preparation was primarily in New Testament Studies, but I continued to study Old Testament and still Old Testament Survey consistently.  I really enjoy seeing how intertwined the two Testaments are.

Q. What is your favorite thing to do in your free time? 

I love just hanging out with my wife. We often sit on the patio with books in hand, reading and being.  I enjoy walking, especially with the wife and the dog-child.

Q. Your bio states that you are an amateur artist. What is your favorite artistic style and why? 

It has been a long time since I’ve been able to focus in this direction.  I have always been a doodler; I listen better with a pen/pencil in hand.  When I was a full-time youth pastor, my wife recognized my interest and gave me art lessons for Christmas one year.  During the next year or so, I spent a couple of hours on Tuesday evenings at the art study and found it to be a healthy way to allow the stresses of ministry to melt away.  I began with charcoal, but spent most of that class-time trying to learn pastels.  I love watercolor as a medium, but have had little success at learning how to use watercolor; that’s my next step, I guess.

• 

• 

The School of Christian Ministries is pleased to regularly share the stories of our alumni and how God is using them in His work around the world.

Q& A with Pastor De La Rosa

Q. What do you like most about your job?

I love seeing unchurched people come to know Jesus and become fully devoted followers of Him.  It’s been a real joy to see so many people experience life change as they learn to sort and then yield to God’s perspective and values found in the Bible.

Q. What is the biggest challenge with your job?

As our church has grown, it’s always a constant challenge to keep pointing our people back to evangelism as the centerpiece of our ministry.  Naturally the tendency for a church is to turn inward and become self-serving, so it’s always a challenge to keep ourselves focused on God’s rescue mission in personal and practical ways.

Q.  How did the School of Christian Ministries prepare you for what God has called you to do?

I got serious about walking with God when I was 18 while a freshmen at CBU and the SCM began to build a foundation that I’m extremely grateful for.  I loved the access I had to profs who really took the time to get to know me, invest in and pray for me.  During my college years, I had a few ministry staff roles and my profs helped me process experiences in real ministry and work hard to integrate what I was learning in the classroom.

Q. If you could go back in time and tell yourself one thing in college, what would it be and why?

Find a pastor with a track record of proven character, faithfulness and fruitfulness and learn from them in your 20’s.  Our 20’s are such an important season for training, and once a heavy load of ministry is thrust upon you, it’s tough to slow down and still remain teachable.  Pick your running pack and mentors carefully…in other words “pick your friends, pick your future” (Proverbs 13:20).  I’ve seen this play out so many times now, sadly the dismal fall out rate for those in ministry continues to remind me of the importance of this issue.

Q. What most excites you about the work that God is doing in your church/community/or around the world?

We’re uniquely positioned to train men and women who sense a call to vocational ministry.  We’re about to plant our first church and it seems like there are a few others coming on the horizon.  Lord willing we hope to train up and send out solid leaders who will turn the world upside down for Jesus (Acts 17:6).