The Book of Ephesians: Overall Structure (Part 1)

I've been studying the book of Ephesians lately and I would love to share what the Lord has been showing me.

Structure:

The book of Ephesians is divided into two parts: Right Doctrine (chs 1-3) and Right Living (chs 4-6). Understanding this division is a key to the entire book. In the first three chapters, Paul wants the Ephesians to have right thinking when it comes to God, His plans and purposes. Once their thinking is on the right track, then Paul can discuss in the next three chapters how to live out the mindset he wrote about in the first three.

This is a common theme in Christianity. We do not begin with action. To be thorough, WE DO NOT BEGIN AT ALL! God begins... He acts first. And when He acts, it is first to act upon our mind. Think about your childhood for a moment. Was it ever frustrating to you when your mom or dad, desiring to get you to obey, gave short commands with seemingly no reason behind them? "Stay out of the street!" This command is perfectly understandable now, but if you were like me, you saw that the street presented a perfectly flat "playground" with which to play ball and tag and many other games. To the small child, the concept of staying out of the street seems cruel, because it seems that there would be great happiness in being in the street. Was mom or dad a tyrant for keeping you out of the street? Of course not. In fact, the rest of us would lock them away if they allowed it (unless you lived on a quiet cul de sac).

The problem is that you did not understand why the street was so dangerous. If I had rightly considered that a several thousand pound piece of metal was careening down it at 45 mph, I might have smiled to my parents and thanked them for their wise parenting. Is this a proper metaphor for how we deal with God? Partially... Do not get lost in this whole thing and miss a very basic truth. God does not owe you an explanation for life. He is God, you are not. He may act and be mysterious at times and you may never know why something occurred. By giving this illustration, I am not condoning unsubmissive questioning. Rather, I view God as the perfect father. Therefore, His commands very often have purposes behind them, which He declares to us ahead of time.

Jesus taught in a way that was very different than the Pharisees and other teachers of His time. One of the main differences was His explanations as to why we should obey a given rule. There are many examples, but I will give one for brevity:

In Mark 10, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus and asked him a question they thought was very difficult in the law. They said, "Is it lawful for a man to put away (divorce) his wife?" parenthesis mine. What did Jesus do? As an incredible teacher and God almighty, He gave them the reason for why they should not divorce. He takes them back to the story of Adam and Eve, declaring that God had joined them together and that His act of joining should never be separated by human hands. Then, when the disciples asked him for more specifics, He gave them. But notice something very simple from this passage: God did not say simply, "Because I say so." Would it have been right and just if He did? Yes. But He loves us enought to teach us why would should obey.

Paul picked up on this mode of teaching and became the primary proponent of it in the New Testament. For instance, in Romans he spends 11 chapters writing about proper theology. Ch 1-3 are concerned with our state prior to coming to Christ. Ch 4-5 is dealing with our initial justification. Ch 6-8 deals with our sanctification. Ch 9-11 is a parenthetical note dealing with Israel and God's predestination. Finally, in ch 12, we see Paul writing about how to live as a Christian. Paul made sure the Romans were thinking rightly about God before they were told how to act. The book of Ephesians follows this same format, but is divided almost perfectly down the middle into theological and practical. Do you see how God is communicating his love to us even through the structure He uses? What a wonderful God we serve!

Ephesians 1-3 --- Right Thinking

• Chapter 1 - What We Have Been Given "In Christ". Here is a wonderful way to start a book of the bible! Paul says in effect, "Look at what God has given you!" He specifically lists five things we have been given in verses 3-14: #1 - We have been adopted into God's family as His sons/daughters (v. 5); #2 - We have been redeemed through the blood of Christ (v. 7); #3 - God has made known to us His will (v. 9); #4 - God has given us an inheritance (v. 11); #4 - God has sealed us with the promise of the Holy Spirit (v. 13).

• Now there are skeptics who say, "The bible is just a bunch of rules meant to control people." That of course is absolute nonsense and usually spoken by people who have never read the bible. But look at the wonderful gifts that we are told about first thing in this book! The story of redemption always begins with what you first receive. This book is perfectly illustrating that concept in it's structure.

Chapter 2 - Our Previous State/ Our New Grace. Next, Paul explains where we were before God found us and then the transformation which was accomplished only by God and not according to our merit. Verses 1-3 list the way we used to live. We were "Dead in our tresspasses." He lists four sources for our sin in this subsection of verses: #1 - Cultural Influence (2:2); #2 - Satanic Influence (2:2); #3 - Our Fleshly Desires (2:3); #4 - Our Sinful Nature (2:3). Then in verses 4-10 Paul moves to the positive, clearly demonstrating that God accomplished this feat of our salvation. A common theme in this chapter is "By grace you have been saved." In verses 11-22 Paul addresses the "Circumcision" which were a group of legalists who said that the Ephesians needed to live by the Jewish law in order to be saved. He declares that they are attempting to accomplish their salvation "by human hands", which will never succeed. He closes those verses with a stunning declaration that God has accomplished all of this that we would all be brought together as one.

• Chapter 3 - The Mystery of the Gospel. Paul finishes his theological portion of the book with a discussion of what he calls a "mystery". It is important to see this word as the Greeks understood it and not our own twentieth century translation. If I hear the word "mystery" today, I think of dectective mystery novels or when someone does not understand something and they say, "That is a mystery to me." We use the word "mystery" typically to refer to something unknown. The word "mystery" in the Greek was more like a hidden knowledge that only a few had. For instance, mystery religions of that day were typically mystic communities where an initiated group were special worshippers of a certain god and worshipped him/her with greater fervor than others. As a result, they were given secret knowledge that the uninitiated did not have. It is this meaning that Paul knows the Ephesians understood. The "mystery", or secret knowledge he received was given to him through revelation (3:3). So what was this secret knowledge? It was the fact that God was bringing His elect from all nations and cultures into one people, His church. Now does this seem "secret" or "mysterious" to you? If it doesn't, that is probably because you have read it through a twentieth century mindset. But go back 2000 years and you will see a world that is factioned by religion, class, race, and gender. Tell a Jew that they need to now embrace and love Gentiles as brothers and sisters. Do you think you might get some backlash? I would think so. Tell a rich man that he should not only give to the poor, but welcome the poor at his table. At best he would look at you funny. These things just were not done. The beauty of the gospel is that the playing field has now been leveled. There is no means for boasting in anything other than the fact that you have been forgiven. And the poor and rich from every tribe and gender can all receive that forgiveness by coming to Jesus Christ.

Let's review what we have been given by God in the first three chapters of Ephesians: Adoption, redemption, revelation, inheritance, sealing by the Holy Spirit, power for living, salvation by grace from the death we once lived, seated in the heavenly places with Jesus, brought near by His blood, Jesus as our peace, citizenship with the saints in God's household. Notice that he has not mentioned a single rule or law by which we must live. That is not of primary importance. Comparatively, Christianity is first a receiving faith, second a thinking faith, third a doing faith. I must first receive of God before I can think rightly. I must think rightly about God before I can do anything for Him. As we continue in this overview of Ephesians, let us look at the fact that Paul's directives for living in chapters 4-6 in light of the first three chapters. Does God lay a heavy load upon us? Never. On the contrary, He will never be outdone in His giving! But in regards to the vast storehouse of blessing and power which He pours out upon us He asks of us one thing: Use that blessing! Use that power! Use the blessing to bless others. Use the power to live the life I have called you to live.

The Order of Christianity (Part I)

As I have been studying the bible recently, a common theme has come up which I believe is extremely important to address. This may not be new to everyone who reads this, but I am writing this to place a new emphasis on an often forgotten order to this faith we hold.

THE ORDER OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT AND ACTION (Part I)

Is there a common order to how we come to God? As I have been studying the bible, it is clear that there is.

God always acts first.

God is the beginning of all things. He acted first in creation (Gen 1:1), revelation (Gen 1:3), salvation (Rom 5:8), and sanctification (Php 1:6):

1. Creation - God initiated toward us in that he created us. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) This is a tremendous verse because it sets the theme of our existence up against God's. When he made us, there became two entity types in the universe: That which was Creator (God), and that which was creation (everything else). When we relate to God, we relate first of all as creation, understanding our place as inferior to the one who made us. This is humbling for us, as is revealed in the story of Adam and Eve. Man's sin, like Satan's, was to attempt to become "like God." We still bear the sins of our father Adam. This sinful nature still revolts against the idea that God is our creator and that he is first.
   However, if we, by God's grace, are able to move past the "horror" of God being greater than us, we are able to see a beautiful picture before us. Namely, that God has initiated toward us in a wonderful way. His creation of mankind in general and you and I specifically is a demonstration of his unconditional love for you and me. David understood this, and memorialized it in Psalm 139:13-14 "For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; my soul knows it very well. (ESV)" David poetically describes the care with which we were made by the great Initiator. When you were born, did God already know the great sin you would commit against him? Yes he did. Did he have a right to destroy you for that sin on the spot? Yes, he had that right. But God persisted in patience, knowing he would love you despite that fact, and sending his son to die that you might be freed from the torments of an eternity apart from him. His creation of you and me was his first step in loving us.

2. Revelation - Did God have to reveal himself? Could he not have simply created the world and let it go? Deists believe that God is the "Cosmic Watchmaker". He created the ornately designed "watch" and then let it go, serving as an absentee ruler. But is this true? It most certainly is not. While it is not my intention here to go deeply into how we can know that, I offer one thought for those of you who have either had a skeptic tell you this, or perhaps are a skeptic yourself. The idea that God is not active in His creation is to say that God is not personal. By personal, I mean that God is not personally connected with the life of His creation. Think of someone you truly love. Are you interested in their life? You must be. You cannot have love without personal interaction of some sort. And deep love, like between husband and wife, parent and child, involves deep personal interaction. The absentee father has no relationship and therefore has no love. Did God create you with the ability to love? He did. Therefore does God have the ability to love? He must. By definition, God is all that you are and more. Otherwise he is not God. Do you have something God does not? Well then congratulations, YOU ARE GOD! But that is not true. He has everything you have, and He uses it better than you do. God is more personal than you will ever be. The bible declares that God loves perfectly by saying, "God is love." (1 John 4:16). Perhaps it could be said this way. God loves so perfectly that He embodies love itself.
   Now where did God reveal Himself in the bible? Everywhere. The bible itself is God revealing Himself to mankind. Without it we would know nothing about His character. We would only know about His creation. While there are certain things we can see from creation (Rom 1:26), this was not enough for a personal and loving God. He saw fit to inspire men to write truth concerning His character and purposes and then divinely placed it into your hands! Where in the bible does it say God revealed himself? Lets start in the very beginning. In Gen 1:3, God reveals himself to creation by speaking to it. In Gen 1:28, God reveals himself to man by speaking to him. It is important to understand that without this, mankind would have had no knowledge of who God was. But it was God who first revealed himself to man. It would have been impossible for man to first reveal himself to God, just as it would be impossible for man to first create himself. God has taken the first step.

3. God has acted first in salvation. Now what does this mean? It means you and I cannot save ourselves. Just like we cannot create ourselves and we cannot reveal ourselves to God; We cannot make ourselves right before Him. The bible puts it this way: Rom 5:8 "But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (ESV)" It is common to all biblical teaching that the gift of God's grace is given to those who do not deserve it and cannot repay it. That is why it is called grace. Grace means "undeserved favor". If this is still confusing to you, read Ephesians chapter 2 or the book of Galatians. So here you are, a sinner, going about your life... when all of a sudden God reaches down and saves you! You become acutely aware of His presence, and begin to desire His word. You understand that you are a sinner in comparison to Him. You learn that repentance is the door to a relationship with Him. You repent! The heavens open and you experience true love like you have never known. When did it all start? With God. He initiated it. The bible puts it this way: Eph 1:5 "In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will,.... (ESV)" What a wonderful relationship is based upon this understanding of God. You were not an afterthought. God did not love you because you were desirable. If you think he did, I have one question for you... What happens if one day in the future you are not desirable? You must now maintain a standard of living that the bible says you cannot keep up with. That is a terrible way to live! But luckily, that is not the case. God initiated His love upon you. You did not deserve it or even see it coming... but He saw it. He saw you and had pity on you and loved you, a poor wretch.
   Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.

4. Oh but it does not end there. God acts first in sanctification. This means that he begins a wonderful process of making you look more like Jesus. If I may say so, we have really messed this doctrine up! There are many who grasp that God first created us; only the atheists disagree. There are fewer who get that God first revealed himself to us; deists jump off at that point. Still fewer understand that salvation comes through God acting first upon us; Hyper-Arminians and Pharisees don't get it. But the fewest of all understand that once I am saved, It is God alone who sanctifies me. Paul's words to the Galatians seem to fall on deaf ears today: Gal 3:3 "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" What is he saying? The Galatians learned to trust Christ for their salvation as an act initiated by the Holy Spirit. They knew they did not have any part in Him saving them, but that they were a product of His grace. But after that, some men came in and started teaching them that they needed to continue in the very Jewish law that enslaved them before they were Christians! They combined the two into one and said that they were saved by grace, but the process of growing must now be their own. Do you believe that? Don't answer too quickly... think about it. Do you ever grow frustrated that you are not growing fast enough? Have you ever sinned and then thought to yourself, "That is not like me to do that." Oh really!? You have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you to be sure, but you have not lost your sinfull nature in the process. You are still a wretch! You are only now a saved wretch, praise be to God. Therefore, it is VERY MUCH like you to do something sinful. Do you look down on others because of their sin, thankful that you do not sin that way? Be honest... I do not tell you these things to bring condemnation upon you, but to declare to you a simple and biblical truth. God initiates our sanctification. Consider this verse: Php 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."
   Consider this: God will not allow your righteousness to enter heaven. He declares in vivid imagery in Isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (NIV)" The word "filthy rags" in that verse is translated more properly "menstrual rags." That is what God thinks of our own righteousness. Therefore, be content with God initiating in all things. He is the one who acts first. Your job is to live in praise of His goodness. Will you work and serve and give and love as a Christian? Of course! But never think for a second that any of this came from you. Recognize that you are using His power to accomplish His work.
   
   
   

Interpretations of the book of Revelation

Recently a friend asked this question:

"I'm walking through Revelation with some people in my bible study and from the commentaries I have read it seems part of Revalation already took place with the fall of Rome. What do you think?"

First, let's define four different interpretations to the book of Revelation.

1. Allegorical View
2. Preterist View
3. Historical View
4. Futuristic View

After defining each viewpoint, I will give my humble opinion of which seems to make the most sense.

Allegorical View

This view became popular around 300 AD with the rise of a new theological school in Alexandria, Egypt. The ideas they were promoting were that the bible is largely allegorical, meaning symbolic. Take for example the OT, which conservative Christians would agree is filled with factual and historical events that were meaningful to the people going through them. However, conservative Christians also believe that the OT is useful for the believer in that it is symbolic of the Christian walk. The proponents of allegory would say all of those events were ONLY to be used for the Christian and some would question whether the events actually even existed.

It should be said that allegory is a wonderful thing that does exist in the bible. (ie: the book of Joshua) However, like many people who are off theologically, they take a good thing and run with it.

When Augustine came on the scene in the fourth century, he said allegory should not be used so widely, but should be limited to the end times. His views have been held by some Christians for thousands of years.

For instance, the Tribulation period of Rev 4-18 is allegorical (or symbolic) for all Christians who struggle. The coming of Christ in victory in Rev 19 is allegorical for the fact that Christ will reign victoriously in all believers.

The problem with applying allegory as the primary meaning to any portion of scripture is that scripture itself makes no claim to be primary allegorical. For instance, in Joshua, many see the crossing of the Jordan river by the Israelites as allegorical to a point in the Christian's life where they begin to walk in the Spirit. While this is fine, it is important to note that the bible claims that the Jordan crossing did actually occur. When we look at the book of Revelation, the bible also claims that these events did truly take place. NOT that they are primarily symbolic to the Christian.

Preterist View

The preterist view is similar to the allegorical in that it views the book of Revelation as a primarily symbolic book. The main difference is that the preterist view claims it is symbolic of certain historical events that took place in the early church. Also, this view typically only views Revelation as descriptive rather than prophetic. In a nutshell, the preterist is a more limited form of the allegorical which sees the events of Revelation happening right after John wrote them.

Historical View

The historical view is also similar to the preterist in that it attempts to find the events of the book of Revelation throughout history and maintains that the fulfillment of the book is yet future. If the preterist view saw the events of Revelation as all happening shortly after John's writing them, the historical view sees Revelation beginning after John writes it and continuing to the future.

Many have tried to take the historical view of Revelation and apply it to the timeframe they lived in. Because of this wide range of view points, there has never been a solid understanding from an authorized source on what exactly Revelation is depicting. For example, depending on when they were writing, some saw Nero as the anti-Christ, others various Popes, others various kings, others Hitler, and even some George Bush!

Futuristic View

A literal reading of the text of Revelation leads one to the futuristic view. Within this view, there is an understanding that some of the book is clearly symbolic, while other parts literal. When the bible makes a claim about an event taking place, it is taken as literal. If it uses symbolic language, it is taken to be symbolic. This is the same way other portions of Scripture are view, for instance, Jesus as Lord = literal... Jesus says "I am the door" = symbolic.

The futuristic view sees all events after Rev 4 as future events. Many futuristic scholars point to Rev 1:19 "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this" as a sort of table of contents to the book. Rev 1-3 incorporates the things which he has seen and are because it deals with the churches. Rev 4-22 reveals the "things which will take place after this."

Which View is Best? (In JD's opinion...)

First, let me say that no one is heretical for choosing one of these ways of interpreting Revelation. These are things to discuss in love and not to split a church over. If someone is a Christian and loves Jesus and believes differently from me on this, then praise God. However, some of the views involve seeing Revelation in a non-literal sense. My concern for the proponents of such views is, "How is Revelation to be interpreted differently than any other book of the bible?" Some might say, "All of the bible is to be interpreted symbolically." And to this I would have to voraciously disagree. Others might simply believe this about Revelation because of its apocalyptic language. I understand that, but would like to challenge that viewpoint.

With that said, I hold to the futuristic view because of its literal view of the book as well as how well it fits in with other scripture like Ezekiel and Daniel. If anyone wants to know specifics, I would be happy to spend the time to lay them out, but time constrains me for right now.

Can a pastor's wife disqualify him?

Recently a friend asked me this question:

Can a pastor be disqualified because of his wife's sinfulness?

The bible is relatively silent on this issue, so the best I can do is offer what I believe to be biblical principles in regard to this issue. First, let's lay down a background for the question:

Church Discipline

Church discipline is a planned recourse set by the church to remove a person from ministry or from the church because of sin or heresy. The purpose of church discipline is two-fold: 1) The bible describes sin as "yeast, which works through the whole batch of dough." (1 Cor 5:6). This means that sin, if not dealt with, will spread throughout the church, causing widespread destruction. 2) The person who committed the sin may return to the Lord and repent of their sin as a result of church discipline. The act of removal may actually be the most gracious and loving thing a church can do for the offender.

When a pastor is the offender

The pastor of a church obviously wields a great deal of power and influence, especially if it is the teaching/ senior pastor. If the pastor sins, church discipline works the same, but is carried out by the other elders in the church, or sometimes elders of other churches brought in for this special purpose.

Pastor's sin usually falls in 3 main categories:

1. Sexual sin
2. Monetary sin
3. Doctrinal sin

The first two require no explanation. The last is simply when a pastor changes his beliefs to the point where they no longer fall under orthodox doctrine. In all three situations, the pastor must be removed from their position, and almost always the church itself. Because of a pastor's ability to influence people, he must not be allowed to continue at that church.

Other reasons a pastor may be asked to leave

Sometimes a pastor may be asked to leave for reasons that do not fall under the category of sin. If it becomes clear that the pastor is overworked to the point of having health or family issues, those overseeing the pastor may recommend or require a temporary break. A pastor's first ministry is to his wife and children, and problems at home may require a pastor to step down as well.

The pastor's wife

As stated above, a pastor's first ministry is to his wife. Biblically, the relationship of marriage is considered sacred and ranks second only to the relationship between man and God. Paul says in 1 Tim 3 that an elder (synonymous with "pastor" in the bible) is only qualified to lead if he is the husband of one wife and that he leads his household well. The principle here is that a man first leads himself well (1 Thes 4:4), and only then should get married. If he is a responsible man in loving his wife (and children if he has them) biblically, only then can he be considered for leadership in the church. Therefore, if there is an unresolved issue between the pastor and his wife, that pastor should step down from ministry for a time to restore the relationship. The elders of the church may force the pastor to do so if the pastor himself does not do it.

The pastor's wife and sin

The bible teaches that the responsibility for sin is primarily individual. This does not mean that sin does not affect others, but simply that God holds each person accountable for the sin they commit. Therefore, I do not believe that a pastor is responsible if his wife decides to sin greivously, however, as leader of the home, he may be responsible to do what he can to promote the restoration of his wife.

What if the wife commits adultery?

Allow me to make this more practical. One of the ways this issue might become real in a church is if the pastor's wife commits adultery on him. The man is not responsiible for his wife's sin, but it may be the wisest thing to do for him to step out of ministry to work toward (perhaps) restoring the relationship. It has already been noted that the relationship between man and wife is the primary human relationship, and takes priority for him over church leadership. In many situations, the man may be guilty of neglect and share some of the sin with his wife. In others, he was faithful and there was simple rebellion on his wife's part. Because there are unlimited possibilities here, the elders overseeing the pastor should immediately look into the situation to determine:

1. Whether the situation can be resolved. Is the wife willing to reconcile? Can she even be found or did she leave already?
2. Whether the pastor had neglected his wife leading up to her sin. Did he invert his priorities and therefore bring reproach on his family and the church?

Though I offer some possibilities, I must say that the vast majority of the time the pastor will need to step down from ministry. This may sound unfair to some, but for reasons already stated, it would be most glorifying to God for the man to attempt to reconcile his family.

What if the wife's sin is not adultery?

Perhaps the wife stole money or is guilty of continuous malevolent gossip. If this is unknown by her husband, then he is not responsible for her sin. I do not believe he should be forced to step down, but should lovingly rebuke his wife, hoping to restore her in light of Gal 6:1.

Obviously this is a very difficult question, with millions of possible scenarios and no direct application from scripture. The idea is to take biblical principles and apply them to the given situation. When that is done, it becomes clear that the family must be maintained first, and only then can the church be properly pastored.

(For the two of you who actually read all the way through this post, I commend you!)

Women in the church (1 Cor 14:34-38)

This was a question asked by one of my former youth group students. I hope it helps...

Danielle to JD:

So I haven't talked to you in like forever, but me and a friend were talking about this one random verse, and I didn't know exactly what to say, and I though who else to ask about complicated theological issues than JD? so yeah. Anyways, we were talking about 1 Corinithians 14:33, which says that women shouldn't speak in church, and yeah. I just wanted to know what you thought about that.

JD to Danielle:

Good to hear from you! Sorry, I have been off of facebook for awhile so I just went on and saw your question. So I will do my best to give you a thorough answer and I apologize if it is long. This is one of those things that can't be answered in a simple way.

So the question is, "What does 1 Cor 14:34-38 mean in today's context?" I think that is the gist of what you are asking.

There are several contexts that have to be addressed if we are to understand the text correctly. They are:

1. The context of what the bible tells us as a whole.
2. The cultural context of the NT church at that time.
3. The context of the entire book of Corinthians.
4. The context of that specific group of verses, specifically referring to prophecy.

An honest try at answering this question must deal with ALL of these... hence, why this is a long answer.

1. The bible declares that there is an order of creation. (Gen 2) This order is not just a birth order but an order of responsibility. The man, created first, is to be responsible over his household. Notice in Gen 3 that God went looking for the man after both he and his wife had sinned. This does not relieve the guilt of Eve, but simply shows that Adam is responsible. The very weighty theological way of saying it is that husband has ontological equality (meaning they are equal in being) with his wife, but functional superiority. Paul picks up on this theme in the NT, writing about multiple types of submission: husband to wife, church member to church leader, citizen to government, etc.

2. This brings us to the NT, and the culture of that time. The gospel had been taken beyond the realm of Israel to the Greeks, who did not share the Jewish view of family. The women of that day had a reputation of being boisterous, haughty, and insubordinate. Peter would later write to the Asia minor churches (made up of many Greek women) "Do not let your adornment be merely outward... rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit." (1 Pet 3:3-4).
In Corinth, this was especially true. A "Corinthian" of that day was a person given completely to debauchery or lewdness. As I am sure you know, there was a large temple to the goddess of Aphrodite which employed 1000 temple prostitutes. When Paul started the church there, many people got saved, but many did not. They remained a part of the church services, but they were by no means orderly. To make matters worse, it was a cultural norm at that time for the men to sit on one side of the room and the women to sit on the other during the services. If a woman wished to speak to a man during the service, she would have to practically yell across the room. It seemed that this was at least part of the problem because Paul says, "if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home." (1 Cor 14:35a)

3. The book of Corinthians not a stand-alone letter that Paul decided to randomly write to the church of Corinth. It was a response to a previous letter written by the Corinthian elders to Paul. We know this because, throughout the book, Paul makes implicit reference to certain questions they had asked him. Paul's main premise is to answer these questions so that there will be order in the church. Inevitably, someone asked him about the problem with the loud, insubordinate women in the church. This was his answer to that situation, for that church. What we can glean from the passage is to apply the principle to our lives. The main principle is that the times when God's people gather together to learn about and worship Him must be ORDERED. Whether men or women... no one should be annoying and loud while people are trying to hear the word of God.

4. The previous few chapters to these verses deals with spiritual gifts, with the last few dealing specifically with prophecy. Some have said that this reference to women being silent was directed specifically toward prophecy, but I don't believe that to be the case. In other portions of scripture, women are given complete freedom to prophesy. In Acts 21:9 we are told that Phillip had four virgin daughters that prophesied. In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul, speaking about head coverings, says women prophesy.

In conclusion, there are two issues at stake here. #1 - The gatherings of the church need to be ordered. Paul did not want women or men speaking out in the church during the preaching of God's word. #2 - When married women speak out boisterously, questioning things they have just been taught, they miss an amazing opportunity for their husbands to study and teach them. If this were a perfect world (and I am well aware it is not) then every man would be a pastor of his own home. He would seek God for direction and strength to lead his family with wisdom. If a woman goes "around" her husband to get her question answered, she makes him feel less than adequate and/or allows him to take the lazy road and continue to sit on the couch. Paul makes it clear that a woman is to be consistently encouraging her husband by asking him biblical questions even if she knows more than he does! Her question may not provoke an immediate response, but that man will most likely secretly go to his bible and seek to answer that question.

This is not a verse put forth by a "man-centered" religion as some contest. It is a plea from a pastor (Paul) who loves his church and wants what is best for them. What is best for the family is what the Creator of family says is best.

I hope this helps!

Thanks for the question,

JD

Genesis 1:5

Genesis 1:5 "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

"God called the light Day" - God begins to name His creation. In Gen 2:19, Adam will continue in this work by naming the animals. In this way Adam is imitating God. This has been the plan of God from the beginning: That mankind would work the works of God, imitating Him perfectly. Now we, as redeemed man, have one goal: to understand what God is doing in the world and become imitators of God in those acts! A verse many of us know well is illustrative of this. Eph 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of what mankind was to be, and therefore thoroughly illustrated this concept. In John 9:4, Jesus says, "I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work." He also says in John 5:19 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son does in like manner."

Of course, for you and I this is impossible without the work of the Holy Spirit. All work and toil that we attempt before God will come up empty unless we surrender fully to the Spirit, allowing Him to work in our stead. This is the secret to the victorious Christian life! If you desire this Spirit-filled life, you have but to do one thing... surrender yourself fully to the Lord. Say, "I am nothing. Come and fill me. I am finished with "religious" attempts to serve You. I deny myself and my pride."

"...Evening and morning were the first day." - Now this phrase has sparked a great debate within the church throughout the last 100 years. Some Christians believe the creation days of Genesis to be 24 hour periods, while others hold that a day is a longer period of time. Let me say that I do not believe it is the purpose of the Lord for us to get into this debate a great deal here. I will explain why I am not very dogmatic about either position and then leave it to you to decide.

First, the main arguments go like this: Those who believe the earth was created in six 24 hour days are called "young earth" theorists because they hold the actual age of the earth is from 4000- 10000 years old. Those who hold the earth was created over eons and that the "days" of Genesis are longer periods of time are called "old earth" theorists because they approximate the earth at around 4.3 billion years old. Young earth people criticize old earth people by saying they are not holding true to the literal understanding of the text. They say, "A day means a day. Don't try to argue away the natural reading of the text." Old earth people claim the young earth people are closing their eyes to the obvious evidence of science that the earth is very old. Geological features that have been calculated to take millions of years are visible on the earth. And light from distant stars that has taken millions of years of years to reach us is just now getting to our eyes. These are some of the general arguments that take place.

Now, if you know me, you know I hold to a literal understand of God's word. Of course there are figurative uses of language within the bible. When Jesus says "I am a door" for instance does not mean He is literally a door, but a figurative doorway for us to reach God. So when I tell you I don't really have a dogmatic opinion on the matter, don't brand me as a liberal. I will explain myself.

If you are new to the bible, you must know that the bible was written in Hebrew, an ancient Middle-Eastern language. The translation to English, a modern language from a totally different language root, is not always clear cut. Moreover, Hebrew is a very simple language compared to, say, Greek. There are only a few thousand words in the ancient Hebrew language, compared to millions in some other languages. Therefore, Hebrew words had to double up in their meanings. The reader of Hebrew would often know which meaning was intended by the context the word was written in. The problem is compounded by the amount of time that has gone by between then and now. Customs have been lost, and much vernacular (common words and phrases used at a certain time in a languages history. Ex: Think of the word "cool" today) has been lost. Now please understand that scholars have done a tremendous job translating the bible you have now in English. The general meaning of text and certainly the theology has been pristinely preserved for us thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit. But there are some words whose meaning we will just not be able to get perfect.

We know the word for "day" in the Hebrew certainly does mean a 24 hour period of time. (Young earthers rejoice) But it also can mean a longer period of time. (Old earthers smile) An example in English is your grandfather saying, "In my day we didn't have email!" Can the bible be taken literally with either meaning? Yes it can. If you want to argue with me, lets have a good discussion, but my conscience is not seared by allowing this as a viable option. The problem I have is when the church divides over the issue. Christ can be glorified if, in love, we use the issue as a vehicle to drive us to the word of God. But you run the name of Christ through the mud when in your pride you argue dogmatically over this issue. There are too many other important doctrines to stand for in this backwards world. The bible warns us there will be many false teachers that come in the last days. Trust me, these false teachers are not going to try to get Christians to believe in an old earth! They will try to steer them away from the deity of Jesus Christ or some other primary doctrine of the church. Debate?... sure. Be dogmatic?... No.

Genesis 1:4

Gen 1:4-5 "And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. So the evening and morning were the first day."

"And God saw the light, that it was good..." - More anthropomorphic language. Did a God who can see all things specifically need to turn His attention to the light? No. But it certainly helps us to understand these concepts.

The light is considered "good" by God. In what way was the light "good"? Was it simply beautiful to look upon or did it have other qualities that made it "good"?

Using scripture to understand scripture, we can determine that there are three ways light is "good". The light is "good" in that it is:

1. Pleasant to the eye
2. Of high moral quality
3. Innocent

Pleasant to the eye - The Hebrew word for "good" is tobe - meaning "Good, pleasant, agreeable." This word has many different uses in Hebraic literature, but is always generally associated with the English word "good." Heaven is described as a place where there is no night (Rev 22:5). In stark contrast, Jesus describes the conditions of hell as "outer darkness." (Mt 8:12, 22; 22:13; 25:30)

Of High Moral Quality - Some might ask, "But how can light have moral attributes? Is it not morally neutral?" When viewed in scripture, it seems light is special in that symbolically (and possibly metaphysically), it contains moral attributes. Consider these verse and decide for yourself:

• John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
• 1 Thes 5:4-5 "But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this day should overtake you as a thief. You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of the darkness."

I would argue that the word of God sees light as more than simply symbolic in its "goodness". There are attributes of light that seem to contain good on a metaphysical level. For instance, amongst humankind, there is a higher level of depression and suicide where there is less light. Most crime is commited at night. Does our human behavior reflect this metaphysical quality of light? I believe it does.

Innocent - The light was "good" in that it, like the rest of creation was innocent at its birth. However, this changed at the fall of man. Now, again, you may ask, "How can a created entity with no moral choice be regarded as in need of redemption?" I would be right with you in thinking this was simply preposterous, if it weren't for the book of Romans.

Let me first allow Paul, the human author of Romans, to explain the fall of man (which we will cover in Genesis chapter 3).

Rom 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned -" (Italics mine) (Note: If it seems like that verse ended too abruptly, it did. Paul is explaining some very deep theological concepts very quickly, jumping from thought to thought. This is very typical of the book of Romans. It is filled with incredible theology, but seems to jump from concept to concept very quickly.)

The concept Paul is speaking about here is that through Adam's sin (Genesis 3), sin spread to all humanity. But how does this apply to non-human creation? Keep following:

Rom 8:19 "For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subject to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs until now." (Italics mine)

Now, lets break down this interesting verse and see how it relates to us in Genesis. To do so, I am going to spoil the story... so if you have not read Genesis yet, read the next few chapters first, then come back to this blog. Here is what happened in a nutshell:

• Man (Adam) was given dominion over the whole world. It was not only his priviledge, it was his responsibility. (Gen 2:15, 18)
• Man (Adam and Eve) sinned. (Gen 3) This brought death into the world. (Gen 2:17; Rom 5:12)
• Creation, which was given over to man, suffered man's fate. (Gen 3:17, 18) Death came upon creation. This is why creation dies. (Note: All creation "dies" even though it all animate or "alive." Geological formations erode, planets and stars "die". But does light "die"? Yes it does! What "kills" it are called black holes!)
• Creation, like man, will be restored when God makes an end of sin and death at Christ's second coming.

Matthew Henry - "Light is the great beauty and blessing of the universe. Like the first-born, it does, of all visible beings, most resemble its great Parent in purity and power, brightness and beneficence; it is of great affinity with a spirit, and is next to it; though by it we see other things, and are sure that it is, yet we know not its nature, nor can describe what it is, or by what way the light is parted..."

"...And God divided the light from the darkness."

This verse sets some great precedents for the rest of scripture:

1. God is the great "Divider" of light (good) and darkness (evil).
2. As followers of God, we are to be in the light, and have no fellowship with darkness.
3. Light (good) and darkness (evil) will only co-exist until Christ returns.

1. God is the great "Divider" of light and darkness.

Jesus Christ is the dividing point between heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, and God's children and the children of darkness. There are two types of people in this world: Those who have received by faith the gift that Jesus has offered the world, and those who have not. Consider Jesus' teaching about how He comes to divide:

Mt 10:34-39 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father; a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

Let's break this passage down to understand Christ's role as "Divider."

He starts out with a puzzling statement: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth." Critics would say He is making a contradictory statement to several other biblical concepts and statements by Jesus. For instance, in Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is prophesied as being the "Prince of Peace." In Luke19:42, Jesus says, "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for peace!" Jesus is calling out to the Jews to receive Him as their king that they may have peace. Certainly there are many other verses where Jesus is described as giving peace.

So then, what does Jesus mean by peace in this verse? Is there a "bad" peace, meaning one that Christians are not supposed to have, in the bible?

Let's tackle the second question first. The short answer is "Yes, there is a 'bad' peace." Very often in the old testament, false prophets would be proclaiming peace to the nation of Israel when God was about to punish them for their greivous sin. For example:

• Jer 6:14 "They have also healed the hurt of my people slightly, saying, 'Peace, Peace!' When there is no peace."

God's goal was repentance for His people. If they would not repent, God's judgement was coming. They needed to act, but these false prophets were "healing" the people by saying, "Don't worry about it! You are ok, I am ok." There are times when the Lord does not want us at peace because He wants us to feel the weight of our sin and run to our Savior. This is not a true peace at all, but the sin of complacency!

Now, for the first question asked. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is speaking about the false peace of complacency within a family containing believers and unbelievers. As a believer in such a family, there is a very strong urge to not look any different than the people around you. But Jesus rejects this as a viable Christian lifestyle. He says, in effect, "By your very nature you will divide your family when I enter your heart. You need to embrace it. You must love them, but you cannot deny you are inherently different from them." He goes on to say that if we love our family so much that we will not live for Jesus within the family, then we are not worthy of Him. This is a harsh statement. I must honestly say I don't know what it means exactly. But it is meant to take us out of complacency and to live completely sold out lives.

In the passage, Christ is clearly saying he is a "Divider" of families. The reason is that as the gospel message is shared, some will receive it with gladness, others will outright reject it. It is Jesus Christ Himself who is the dividing point. Peter puts it best:

• 1 Pet 2:7-8 "Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.' They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed."

How difficult and sad it is when a believer lives in a family that refuses to receive Jesus Christ. Some of the most fervent prayers come from the longing of the believer to see the family that he or she loves more than any other to come to Jesus. There is certainly going to be turmoil, but stand strong in the love of Christ and He will see you through!

2. As followers of God, we are to be in the light, and have no fellowship with darkness.

The fact that the Lord divided the light and the darkness is a foreshadowing of the world to come. Today, in the world around us, there is a light and darkness to the world. If you are a Christian, you have chosen the "light" of Jesus Christ and refused the darkness. The difficulty is that this is a life-long battle. I would like to look at some verses that speak to us about the light and darkness in the world and what we should do about it.

• John 8:12 "Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world." He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."
• 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
• 1 Thess 5:5-8 "You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of the darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation."
• 1 John 1:5-7 "This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowshipwith one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin."

3. Light (good) and darkness (evil) will only co-exist until Christ returns.

It was already stated earlier that God's division of light and dark is a foreshadowing of the world to come. God created a sinless world, but as we shall see in a few chapters, it does not stay that way. The wonderful news from the word of God is that though we currently live in a world beset by a conflict of good and evil, the Lord will overcome it in the end.

• Rev 22:5 "There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever."

Lord come quickly and bring this to reality!

Andrew Murray - "I know I am speaking in vain to anyone who is pretty well contented with himself. Anyone who says, "I am an earnest Christian; I am doing my best. I am not what I ought to be, but I do fairly well." If there is anyone who thinks that way I do not have much hope in them taking this critical step. But if there is one who says, "I do feel sinful, I do feel wretched; I cannot live this low kind of life any longer. I have denied my Lord Jesus too often already by many things I have done-- but now no longer. I have tried hard but have failed. I now see the root of it all. Self has been seeking to conquer its own evil works and has just been getting stronger all the time." Come, by beloved friend, and bring self and lay it at the feet of Jesus. Cast it into His very bosom and believe now that the Son of God is coming into you to be a new self, to be your very life, because He will live in you by His Holy Spirit."

Genesis 1:3

Gen 1:3 "Then God said, "Let there be light"' and there was light."

Creation is in perfect submission to its creator.


"Then God said..." - Did God need to speak to creation to create it? Why couldn't he have simply thought creation into existence? There are two reasons why this exact expression is used here:

1. Anthropomorphic - The phrase is figurative language used to describe something God is doing on a human level. The greatest scientists and thinkers in the world would not be able to comprehend the proceses involved with God creating the world out of nothing. Is 55:8-9 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways," says the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Nevertheless, God has given us some means to unserstand Him by describing His incomprehensible acts with language we can understand.



2. Theological - This means the expression "God said" is teaching us something about who God is. Think about it this way:

In this illustration, God, represented by the circle, is acting through his words to create. Now, consider this verse, speaking about Jesus Christ: Col 1:16 "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (Italics mine)


So Paul understood it this way:
Therefore, it could be said: "Jesus is God's Word." John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

So the bible specifically says God speaks creation into existence because His words are actually Christ creating the world.

Now here is Jesus in the third verse of the bible. To recap:

1. God (the Father) - Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God..."
2. Holy Spirit - Genesis 1:2 "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
3. Jesus - Genesis 1:3 "Then God said..."

There, in the first three verses of the bible, is the Triune God!

Andrew Murray - "If you do not deny self utterly you will find yourself denying Jesus every day. You will tell the world, "I have nothing to do with Jesus just now; I am pleasing myself."

Genesis 1:2

Gen 1:2 "The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

"Without Form and Void" - A Hebrew phrase used only one other time in the bible. Jer 4:23 "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void." God uses this phrase in an interesting way in Jeremiah. Certainly the context in Jeremiah is Israel's sin and the coming judgement of God upon the land. Jeremiah describes the destruction he prophetically sees in Israel's future. There are a few possibilites for describing this prophetic destruction with the phrase "Without form and void."

1. The destruction was so complete that the land would look like it did prior to the creation of the world.
2. The phrase has a moral connotation to it, describing not just a physical destruction, but a moral depravity of the land.

However complete the destruction of the land of Israel during the Babylonian invasion, this phrase seems unlikely to simply describe the extent of destruction. Rather, it is very possible there is a moral connection to this phrase. In Gen 1:2, we have a description of a dark "world" which has yet to experience the light of God. The figurative uses of "light" and "dark" do not need to be described, because they have the same connotation across culture and language. Could it be then that Israel was to experience a moral destruction and "darkness" consistent with the dark, formless earth prior to God's creative action bringing order to the chaos.

"...Darkness was over the face of the deep..." - Contrasted with the work God is about to perform... Gen 1:3 "Let there be light."

"deep" - Heb: tehom. Deep, deep ocean, etc. Liberal scholars have attempted to syncretize the bible with the Mesopotamian creation story Enuma Elish. They claim the word tehom has a connection with the Mesoptamian god "Tiamat". I bring it up here to illustrate some of the attempts scholars have made to descredit the word of God. I do not believe inspiration of scripture even needs to be defended from this ridiculous theory.

"...And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

"Spirit of God" - The third person in the Trinity is in view here. This is significant because we have seen God the Father, credited in the overall act of creation in Gen 1:1. Now, in the second verse of the bible, is the Spirit. Will the Son appear in our text? Keep reading... let's explore the next few verses together! Now this brings up a very good question posed by someone who commented on this blog:

Q: How was the Holy Spirit viewed by Israel in the Old Testament?

A: To answer this question is not an easy task. In fact, I must begin with the disappointment that there is no way to positively answer the question. When attempting to reconstruct the collective mind of a people who lived long ago, we can make a hardy attempt, but in the end, it will only be conjecture.

With that said, let's break down the issue and discuss how we will attempt to bring light to it.

We will want to concern ourselves with three main groups and attempt to understand their frame of mind:

1. The Old Testament writers.
2. The subsequent, Jewish commentators on the Old Testament.
3. The people living during the Old Testament, (Ancient Israelites).

#3 Let us begin by saying that #3 is silent. They would have been hopefully swayed by the writers of the Old Testament, who in turn wrote with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But that is like saying "Christians today believe and follow what the bible says about the Holy Spirit." Certainly, there is a percentage today of those who understand some deep things about the Spirit, but for the most part, the church today is ignorant of the word of God regarding the Holy Spirit. How could we say, then, that the common Israelite understood what the word of God was saying about the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament? Therefore, #3 is silent and we have no other sources from them.

#2 What did the Rabbis say about the Holy Spirit after the Old Testament was written? (Now, you may ask, "Was there anyone commenting on the Old Testament during the time it was written?" The answer is, if there was, we don't have it today.) The works of the rabbis come in several sources; the most notable being the Talmud. Let us take a look at what the rabbis had to say about the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Get ready to dig in to some linguistics for this one!

We will divide #2 into two separate sections. One (a) will discuss the word "Spirit" in Hebrew and how the rabbis viewed it. The other (b) will be concerned with the "Spirit of God" or "Spirit of the Lord". The rabbis viewed these as distinct and separate.

(a) As a general principal, most rabbi's believed, and still do, that the Hebrew word for "Spirit" - Ru-ach - simply meant "breath." This breath is what is required for living beings to be created. So, in Gen 1:2, the "breath" of was present for the work of creating life that was about to take place. Therefore, the Spirit of God is not a personal Being and member of the Trinity. Rather, it is a created force used in giving life to God's creation. According to the rabbis, each person has ru-ach in them. When the ru-ach leaves, they die.

The rabbis also had to come to grips with the fact that sometimes the word ru-ach was used as more than simply a life-giving force. For instance, the ru-ach came upon Samson and gave him incredible strength (Jdg 14:6). In my studies so far, I have come across no explanation for this by the rabbis. They simply say it is sometimes life-giving, and sometimes power-giving.

In conslusion, one rabbi wrote in the Talmud, (Hag. 12a, b) "The Spirit was among the ten things that were created on the first day." The overall view is of this ru-ach being a created force rather than uncreated and eternal God.

(b) The terms "Spirit of God" or "Spirit of the Lord" (Ru-ach Elohim or Ru-ach Yahweh) were believed to be separate than simply ru-ach on most instances. In the Talmud, they changed these terms to Shekinah, which can be translated "presence." They believed Ru-ach Elohim or Ru-ach Yahweh were phrases which referred to the physical manifestation of God on earth. For instance, the Shekinah is the presence of God which dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple.

(Section #2 is from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ Search: "Holy Spirit")

#1 The Old Testament writers, whether they knew it or not, portrayed a completely different understanding of the Holy Spirit. I would like to study the Shema, a famous text that was used frequently during Israelite worship:

Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" (Italics mine)

As a quick note, the Shema is so called because it is the first word in the phrase, translated "Hear." But what I would like us to see is the final clause, "The Lord is one.!" The Hebrew for the word "one" is Echad. This word surely means "one", but it is a bit more complicated than that. The word describes compound unity, in other words, when two things become one. For instance, in Gen2:24 it says, "And they shall be one [achad] flesh." This verse is describing that the man and woman are to be united into one in God's eyes. Though they are distinctly two, they are one before the Lord. Therefore, the word achad describes compound unity. There is a different Hebrew word that describes singular unity. It is the word yachad. It is fascinating that yachad is not the word used in Deut 6:4.

The plurality of God is further emphasized by the fact that one of the names for God here is Elohim. See The post for Gen 1:1 for further on that word.

(Section #1 is partially from "Living Water" by Chuck Smith, pages 25 and 26)

Andrew Murray - Self-will rules in the life of every natural man. He says, "I do what I like and I have a right to do what I like." But I find that among Christians there are hundreds who, if you should ask, "Did you ever understand that when you became a Christian it was on the condition that you promise never to seek your own will?" would tell you they never understood that. But that is just what Christ demands. You are to do nothing but what God wills. You are to give up your will; self is to have no say in your life. That is the whole secret of salvation.

Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1-5 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

Structure

Ancient literature was often organized with the first sentence describing what will be further detailed in the supporting sentences. If you have ever written an academic paper, you are aware of the need for a thesis which describes the overall argument. Each supporting sentence must point back to the initial thesis. Usually there will also be a concluding paragraph, within which will be a repitiion of the thesis. Therefore, the paper may be described as a sandwich, with each piece of bread being the thesis and the insides being the supporting arguments, pointing back to the thesis. A brief look at Genesis 1:1-2:1 includes an introductory "thesis" (1:1) and then repeats it (2:1).

Notice this similar organization:

• Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
• Genesis 1:2-31
• Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished."

Why might structure be so important in the book of Genesis? Because for the last 100 years, an attack against the bible has been attempted by liberals seeking to discredit the claim that the bible is inspired and inerrant in its original manuscript. That argument began as what was called the "Documentary Hypothesis". In short, this theory questioned the validity of the pentateuch (first 5 books of the bible) as being authored by Moses. Instead, the Documentary Hypothesis said four different "redactors" (a fancy word for editors) have altered the pentateuch for their own political or personal gain. These editors were called "J", "E", "D", "P". Each letter was a person or group of people that had their part in changing the document over the millenia. Nowadays, the arguments have changed and so have the letters, so be aware of anything involving letters like those as a similar theory to the Documentary Hyposthesis.

The primary "evidence" that proponents of this theory or similar ones point to is the seeming repetition of phrases in the pentateuch. I do not feel it beneficial to go into their specific arguments here and challenge them point by point. I simply ask you keep in mind two things:

1. Jesus attributes the first five books to Moses 17 times in the gospels. (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 1:44; 7:10; 10:3; 12:26; Lk 5:14; 16:29, 31; 20:37; 24:27, 44; Jn 3:14; 5:45, 46; 7:19, 22, 23)
2. The structure of many ancient works are repetitive. This is not evidence that they went through editing by later sources. It means the structure of ancient texts is slightly different than modern ones.

So the structure of Genesis is certainly worth looking at if we may defend the word of God from those who would discredit it.

-----------------------------------------------

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

God created the world out of nothing. In Latin, the phrase is "ex nihilo". This is a theological doctrine of the church and contradicts many Eastern religions that claim the universe simply has always existed. Heb 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen is not made out of things that are visible."

"In the beginning..." -- [See Genesis Chapter 1 Overview]

"...God..." - Heb: "Elohim" - A name for God, translated "God" into English. This word is also used in the bible for other "gods" and also used to refer to judges. The word only occurs in the plural form. Why might the plural form refer to God? Two possible reasons:

1. Expressing the doctrine of the trinity in the first verse of the bible!
2. A term in the Hebrew language called the "Plural of Majesty." It means when the ancient Hebrews used this term, they were not thinking of God is being plural, but esteemed him so great, his "name" could not simply be in the singular.

It is possible the Holy Spirit's intent was for this plural form of God to cause the ancient Israelites' minds to be thinking about a triune God. Though we do not know how the ancients took this word, by the time Hebrew Rabbis began to write "commentary" on their scripture, the thought of a triune God had become offensive to them. Therefore, they strongly argue [2] to this day.

"...created..." - Heb: "bara" - Verb: "To create (from nothing)" This verb is only used when God is the subject. In contrast, the word "asa" refers to the type of creation man can acoomplish. (Ex: Molding a pot out of clay.) It also occurs in the singular form though "God" is plural in the Hebrew.

The two words put together are meant to surprise us. If I made a statement such as "The dogs runs to their food." You might either suspect I do not have a very high education or that I made a mistake. Yet Genesis 1:1 is planned an perfect. It is meant to draw our attention to the "error", causing us to think deeper. Can you see God's heart for the ancient Israelites as he speaks loudly through this text, "I am not simply one God, but Three in One." Yet, perhaps understanding will not be theirs until the Holy Spirit comes into their hearts and shows them the truth.

"...the heavens and the earth..." - A Hebrew idiom (figure of speech) referring to all creation.

Genesis Chapter 1 Overview

Questions to be Answered:

1. What does a thoughtful, spiritual look at Genesis 1 reveal?
2. What do we learn about God from Genesis 1?
3. How ought we to live our lives in view of Genesis 1?

---------------------------------

1. God is "introduced" as being completely outside of time. The phrase in 1:1 "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of creation. Since God is acting on creation as its Creator at the moment of its beginning, he is set apart from that which is created. It is not, therefore, the beginning for Him. From this we form the doctrine of God's eternal being. God simply always was.

2. From this "introduction" to God in the bible, we are to understand that each and every time God is spoken of in His word, it must be with the perspective that he is the eternal God. He is outside of time and beyond the realm of man.

3. It is from this perspective that we gain our "Theology of Worship." It is simply this... We worship Him because He is greater than us. If I may preach for a moment, in our churches we are lacking a Genesis 1:1 perspective of God. The people are not grasping the concept that worship of God comes from who he is, not from what he has done (or can do) for us. Creation does not ask the creator "why?" Creation simply worships because it knows it was created. Job learned to put his hand over his mouth after God made this idea very clear in Job 38-42. After Job complains about the state of life he is in... Job 38:2-4 "Who is this that darkens my counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding." Let this put to rest our "fair-weather" following. Genesis 1 cries out for us to worship God as the eternal one, who is, was, and will always be greater than ourselves.

What to Expect From This Blog

I believe very strongly that God has put on my heart a desire to teach His word. I feel sometimes like Jeremiah must have felt when he proclaims in Jer 20:9 "His word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back." Of course, Jeremiah was put in the stocks for preaching the word in his day... so I suppose the comparison ends there. Nevertheless, I believe God has called me to always be "toiling" in his word. This blog is a chance to give out what His Spirit has given me in my studies. May you be blessed by it. My prayer for you is that the God of the universe shatters your life for His glory!

A quick note about the title of the blog, "The Berean Call." In Acts 17:10-15, the Bereans (people from the city of Berea) were praised for their desire to study the word of God. Acts 17:11 states, "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with readiness, and searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Imagine how their lives were changed as the Holy Spirit began to open their eyes to Jesus in the word of God! Are you ready to be changed in that same way? Then let us be Bereans and study the word of God with open and soft hearts.

The goal of this blog is to begin a verse by verse study of God's Word, beginning at the beginning. There will be thematic studies of each chapter, followed by a verse by verse commentary. The hope is that it will supplement your studies of the word of God. The goal is that you will interact with the posts as well, providing questions, comments, personal stories, etc. If you disagree, please say so. If you do it in an edifying way, then we are both challenged as we "spar" using the Word of God in its proper context to come to proper theological conclusions. If you are not edifying, unfortunately you have not learned much from the book you are arguing out of... and your post will be deleted. So lets challenge each other in love!

My desire is for the Lord to speak to us and not to simply regurgitate what some commentary says about each verse. There is a positive and negative to this. I will start with the negative. For thousands of years, brilliant and Godly men and women have been studying the bible and coming up with brilliant things to say about it. When they publish their findings, their work passes through the fire of public and academic opinion. The idea is that bad theories are refuted and "burned" up, while good theories with strong biblical backing stand. Therefore, a good commentary has a way of "legitimizing" thoughts about the word. And because there is "Nothing new under the sun", what we all come up with in our studies has most likely been covered before. So, if I come up with something that NO ONE has ever come up with before, most likely it is some hair-brained idea that will never stand in the "fire." So, that being said, commentaries have a way of forming the rubric for our theological thoughts. I have used many and I understand their value. But now for the positives for not using them in this blog. Many students of the word, including myself, have used commentaries as a substitute for their own time spent in communion with the Holy Spirit. I have said in the past, "I am going to spend time with Jesus", when I only spent time with Calvin, Edersheim, Keller, etc. Those are great men, but no substitute for our Lord. Therefore, what comes out of this study will be out of the intimacy of a man desiring to listen to the voice of the Spirit. I will use commentaries... sparingly. But you might ask, "How will ideas presented in this blog pass through any "fire" of collective thought?" This is where you come in. Be a Berean! If I am off, tell me. Perhaps I will debate with you... or perhaps I will agree. If I cannot defend it, then it should not be here for people to read.

Below I will list some theological platforms I stand on. If you disagree with these, see the above paragraphs and stay with me. I am not looking for people just like me. But you must understand there are primary doctrines and secondary doctrines when it comes to Christianity. The word of God has given me every right to be dogmatic about primary doctrines. If you do not believe one of these primary doctrines, such as, for instance, the deity of Christ, I will say to you right now there is a major flaw in your theology which will affect everything about your life and in many cases your salvation. Secondary doctrines are different. Though you or I may have strong biblical backing for a certain doctrine, such as the pre-tribulational rapture of the church, you and I can disagree and still live Spirit-Filled lives. I welcome debate over differences in both primary and secondary doctrines.

Theological Platforms: (These are some of the basic ones. Certainly there are many more)

The triune God - Personal, Uncreated, Omniscient, Omnipresent, all loving, all providing
God the Father - 1st person of the trinity, see line above.
Jesus - The son of God, 2nd person of the trinity, came to earth to live as a man, lived a perfect life, died a sacrificial death for the world through which the world may receive salvation through faith.
Holy Spirit - 3rd person of the trinity, a "helper" to the Christian, convicts of sin and righteousness both to the Christian and the non-Christian.
Man - Created to walk in fellowship with God, fallen, sinful by nature, needs Jesus.
The bible - Holy Spirit inspired, inerrant in the original manuscripts, literal except where poetic expression is used, historical. The entirety of God's written word and the basis for all theological thought.
Salvation - Offered to all by God through faith in Christ alone.
Resurrection of Christ - Real, historical, bodily.
2nd Coming of Christ - Real, future, bodily.
The Church - The body of believers who have been united together through faith in Christ. Christ is the head.
The Rapture - Pre-tribulational, Imminent



Andrew Murray - "A great many Christians delight to read about the Spirit-led life, but that is not enough. It now becomes a matter of the will. I must "buy" it. At what price? Give up all!