Who's the Pharisee? Part II

Luke 18:9:

"And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:"

The New Religious Pharisaism: "Oh Gosh Lord, I just thank you that I am not like those who heap up rules. I thank you that I do not walk around like I have a corn cob stuck in my buttocks. Frankly, I am just thankful that I am not like those who live with conflicted consciences. Oh Lord, grant me opportunities to show them the silliness of their actions. Grant me opportunities to expose their self righteousness. I thank you that my worship is driven by my heart. I thank you that my worship is not tainted by evil desires to be seen as righteous."

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'

"I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:13-14).

Who is it that the Lord esteems? Those who keep all the rules? Those who heap up the rules? Those who don't heap up the rules? Those who wouldn't touch a Pharisee with a 20 foot poll? Those who can detect self-righteousness like a new GPS unit? None of the above.

"But to this one I will look: To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word" (Isaiah 66:2b).

Commentary Search Project: John 21

For my class on the book of John I had to write a paper on one of the 15 sections of the book of John that has underwent heavy criticism in recent scholarship (called aporias). I decided to write my paper on whether or not John 21 was originally part of John 1-20. This paper is quite thick. If you find yourself having difficulty understanding it, don't worry about it--go do something else. I think it is important for Christians to defend the historicity and reliability of the Scriptures, but not to get so side-tracked by it that the Gospel takes a small place in our preaching, teaching, and writing ministries. This is my little two cents on John 21. If it is helpful--Praise the Lord--if it is not--I'm not losing any sleep over it. Enjoy!

Introduction

The Gospel of John contains a significant number of controversial texts in which the “chronological, topical, or dramatic flow of the narrative appears disjointed.”[1] One such text is John 21. For certain reasons (which will be discussed below), many scholars question whether John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel. This article will consist of four parts: (1) a description of the controversy regarding John 21, (2) a survey of three different commentators (D. A. Carson, Herman N. Ridderbos, and W. Hall Harris III) and how they deal with the controversy, (3) an evaluation of the approach and conclusion of the three different commentators from the vantage point of the author, and (4) a conclusion.

Description of Controversy

Many Johannine scholars question whether or not John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel. Because of this, the authorship of John 21 has also been under scrutiny in recent scholarship. Even the most conservative Johannine scholars concede that there is definite cause to at least question whether John 21 was originally part of the Fourth Gospel. The reasons for questioning the authorship and placement of John 21 are many, but the skepticism centers on three main observations: (1) John 20:30-31 is written as if it were the conclusion to the book; (2) John 21 contains many words (twenty-eight to be exact) that are not found in the rest of the book; (3) John 21:24 contains the pronoun “we” which suggests that John 21 was written by more than one person.

Survey of 3 Commentaries

1. D. A. Carson

D. A. Carson, in The Gospel According to John, approaches the controversy surrounding John 21 with conservative presuppositions. Carson argues that “ch. 21 was composed with the rest of the Gospel and was designed to be a kind of Epilogue that balances the Prologue (1:1-18) by tying up some loose ends and pointing the way forward.”[2] Rather than offensively attacking the opposing view, Carson begins his discourse by first answering the questions raised by those skeptical of the view that John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel.

The first matter of controversy addressed by Carson is Bultmann’s striking observation that there are twenty-eight words within John that are unique to John 21. Although he concedes this to be a reality, he responds by calling attention to the fact that a great majority of the words unique to John 21 “are so tied to the subject matter that they cannot be viewed as particularly significant.”[3] Furthermore, Carson strongly suggests that although there are many words in John 21 unique to the rest of the book, there are also many similarities between John 1-20 and John 21. For example, he points to John’s use of “Truly, Truly,” and then states there to be twenty-five other words and constructions which point to literary unity between the two bodies of the Fourth Gospel. By way of conclusion, Carson, quoting and expounding upon C. K. Barrett, says “As a result, even those scholars who are most thoroughly convinced that John 21 came from a different hand usually admit that these ‘linguistic and stylistic considerations… are not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author.”[4]

Secondly, Carson attacks the argument which states that John 21 must have been added later because 20:30-31 most smoothly reads as the conclusion to the Gospel. Generally, scholars who hold to this position take things a step further by adding the observation that John 21 really does not do much to add to the content of John 1-20. They argue, “Jesus has risen, he has appeared, his ascension has been dealt with, the Spirit he promised has been bequeathed and his great commission solemnly uttered. What more is there to say?”[5] Carson does not argue that 20:31-33 is a conclusion of sorts, but he adds,

there remains certain authorial discretion: the book may end abruptly with the act of disclosure, the solution to the mystery, or it may wind down through a postscript that tells what happens to the characters, especially if what happens to them sheds a certain light backward into the principal plot of the work.[6]

Carson has much to say about what he thinks this information added by John, that “sheds a certain light backward into the principle plot of the work,” is. In fact, he provides nine different things that John 21 helpfully adds to the book as a whole.[7] Carson, quoting Hoskyns, sums up the most major contribution of ch. 21 by stating that “‘a Christian gospel ends properly... with a confident statement that this mission to the world, undertaken at His command and under His authority, will be the means by which many are saved.’”[8]

Carson ends by calling attention to the fact that “There is no textual evidence that the book was ever published without John 21.”[9] Even if Carson’s arguments in the previous two sections were weak (and it is the author’s contention that they were not), the argument in this section is highly effective to prove his thesis. The fact is that the manuscript evidence is in the favor of Carson so much so that he can say, “even if ch. 21 were added later, it was added by the same Evangelist who composed the rest.”[10] After stating this, he embraces ignorance in regard to the author’s use of “we” in 21:24. In essence he states that whoever the “we” refers to (an amanuensis or an informed group of John’s disciples), it “does not alter these basic realities.”[11]

2. Herman N. Ridderbos

Like Carson, Herman N. Ridderbos approaches the controversy regarding John 21 as a conservative. Ridderbos’ central thesis regarding John 21 is that “The primary facts are that it is no where lacking in the text tradition, and that, if it was added later, what existed before was only the Evangelist’s original unpublished position.”[12] Although his thesis sounds much like Carson’s, there are some differences in how the two go about defending it. While Carson argues that the stylistic unity between John 1-20 and John 21 is strong enough to be considered proof, Ridderbos suggests that “Besides typically Johannine characteristics, ch. 21 also contains a number of words and expressions that do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel, that one cannot simply ascribe to the special nature of the material.”[13]

Ridderbos then goes on to assert, “Though, then, style can probably not settle the issue, the case is stronger if one looks at content.”[14] The content which Ridderbos is primarily referring to is that which brings Peter and the beloved disciple into sharper focus. He further identifies the content as that which both vindicates Peter and reveals the role which Peter and the beloved disciple were to have in the church.[15] Thus, it is appropriate for him to say that ch. 21 was “added to describe the passage from Jesus’ work on earth to its continuation through the disciples.”[16] Ridderbos concludes this argument by saying, “If, with many contemporary authors, one concludes that all of ch. 21 was added by a later author, then one must also say that ch. 21 is made up of material that is closely connected with all that goes before and that completes the earlier material.”[17]

Ridderbos goes much further than Carson in suggesting that the “we” definitely refers to more than one author.[18] However, like Carson, Ridderbos does not let his conviction about who the “we” refers to affect his view of the unity between John 21 and the rest of the book.

3. W. Hall Harris III

Although W. Hall Harris III, the third commentator in view, is conservative and asserts basically the same thesis as Carson and Ridderbos, he approaches the controversy in his own unique way. Harris’ thesis is as follows:

If chapter 21 was indeed a later addition to the Fourth Gospel by a different author, it must have been added very early, because no extant Greek manuscript lacks the last chapter, and there is no serious evidence in the manuscript tradition for later addition.[19]

In much the same way as Ridderbos, Harris does not consider stylistic similarities and differences between John 1-20 and John 21 to be telling either way (i.e., they neither prove nor disprove unified authorship from ch. 1 to ch. 21). However, Harris does point out that one of the prominent scholars, C. K. Barrett, who holds to disconnected authorship between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 says, “These linguistic and stylistic considerations, when weighed against the undoubted resemblances between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21, are not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author.”[20]

Like Ridderbos, Harris suggests that it is the content and thought-flow of ch. 21 that is most helpful in establishing unified authorship for the Fourth Gospel. He then summarizes the content of ch. 21 in a way that reveals its contribution to the book as a whole:

chapter 21 is not as much of an addendum as some believe, and… it does in fact provide a necessary conclusion to the Fourth Gospel, which does not merely end with Thomas’ confession, but has repeatedly emphasized that the disciples will continue Jesus’ witness to the world after he has departed (15:27) and will carry on his mission in the world.[21]

Commentary Evaluation

The three commentaries in view were all very helpful in dealing with the issue of John 21 and its relationship to the rest of the book. All three of the commentators were correct in emphasizing the lack of manuscript evidence against the view which sees John 21 as being a later addition to chs. 1-20. The amazing thing about this discovery is that there is no need to provide proof for this thesis because the proof lay in the absence of proof to the contrary. Ultimately, this is the primary argument against those who postulate that John 21 was a later addition to the Fourth Gospel. Although it does not necessarily leave room for doubt, it successfully puts those who disagree on the defensive—at best, it relegates their position to unproven theory.

The only thing which could have been added is information regarding the earliest manuscript which shows John 21 connected to the rest of the book. This information could either solidify their observation or cause it to hold less weight. For example, if the earliest manuscript dates to the later part of the first century or the early part of the second century their position holds much more weight; however if the earliest manuscript dates to the last part of the second century or later their position is much weaker. Either way, the lack of manuscript evidence is not easy to dismiss as a staggering argument.

One difference which is evident between the three commentators is how they deal with the stylistic similarities and differences between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. Carson puts much more weight in the stylistic similarities than does Ridderbos and Harris. Essentially, Ridderbos and Harris suggest that although there are stylistic similarities between the two bodies in the Fourth Gospel, they do not see them as being so striking as to be a solid argument for unified authorship. On the other hand, although Carson does not come out and specifically state that these stylistic similarities are enough to build a strong case for unified authorship, he does communicate that they add much weight to the overall argument. While Ridderbos and Harris are correct in suggesting that the stylistic similarities do not “slam home” an argument for unified authorship, Carson is correct in emphasizing these similarities as one proof among many. Surely, these similarities will not be sufficient in and of themselves, but, when considered alongside the rest of the evidence, they make more certain what is already convincing. Not only that, but they also provide a helpful framework for dealing with the differences in vocabulary and style between the two bodies of the Gospel.

Although Carson’s list of nine things that John 21 adds to the Gospel of John was enlightening, about three or four of the nine things were not helpful in establishing what Carson was trying to prove—i.e., that certain information in ch. 21 is so closely linked with the rest of the book that it proves that the two bodies of the Gospel are inseparably linked. For example, Carson mentions the fact that ch. 21 teaches that “Jesus is still ahead of the disciples, providing their needs and serving them.”[22] Although this observation is helpful, it does not prove anything regarding the unity of chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. Insightful teaching is not a proof of unity.

Nonetheless, about four or five of the things mentioned by Carson were helpful in understanding why John was so urgent to add ch. 21 to a document which seemed to come to a close in 20:31-33. Although these four or five insights were helpful, Ridderbos and Harris, by focusing on the overall teaching of John 21, seemed to be a bit more convincing. Surely, Carson did deal with the general teaching of John 21 (as seen previously in this article) and how it adds to the entire Gospel, however he put more emphasis on the specific details of John 21. The single most helpful statement regarding the addition that John 21 made to the Gospel was made by Ridderbos: “it was added to describe the passage from Jesus’ work on earth to its continuation through the disciples.”[23]

All three of the commentators were in agreement in regard to the use of “we” in 21:24. This verse is not evidence enough to establish a verifiable disunity between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. John 21:24, rather than establishing proof that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20, more like likely points to (as Carson suggests) a comment made by an amanuensis or an informed group of John’s disciples. Although it is possible to argue from this text that there was “minimal redactional activity” (emphasis mine) on the Fourth Gospel, there is no reason to suggest that the redactor added an entire chapter—namely, ch. 21.[24] There is simply too much evidence to suggest that, if there was a redactor, such an extensive addition would have been made to this Gospel.

Conclusion

Although there are many viable reasons to question whether John 21 was actually a part of the original book of John, there is simply not enough evidence to suggest that chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 were ever disjointed from one another. It is not as if there are some manuscripts which reveal that they were together and others which reveal that they were separate. Rather, there are only manuscripts which reveal that they are to be taken together. However, additional research on the earliest document which contains John 1-21 as a unified whole would be telling. On another note, there is no reason to suggest that the stylistic differences between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 are so great that the same author could not have possibly written both bodies as one unified whole. Rather, the differences are easily dealt with by first understanding that many of them are the result of unique content in ch. 21, and then also by calling attention to the many parallels between the two bodies within the Fourth Gospel. Furthermore, it is not as if John were merely adding information disconnected from the rest of his Gospel.

The message contained within ch. 21 successfully brings the Gospel to a close with an eye on Jesus’ continued work through his disciples. Thus, although 20:31-33 reads as the conclusion to the book, John saw it necessary to end the Gospel in such a way as to show that Jesus’ work was not over upon his resurrection, but that it was to continue through his disciples with just as much emphasis as it did before. Although some may suggest that the author’s use of the first person plural personal pronoun “we” in 21:24 provides proof that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20, because of all the information stated above, and because of the all-too-common use of an amanuensis, there is no reason to suspect that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20. In conclusion, John 21 is best considered to be the Epilogue to the Gospel of John in the same way that John 1:1-18 is considered to be the Prologue to the Gospel of John.

---

[1] Gary M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 62. Burge labels these passages as “aporias” and “seams.”

[2] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 665.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 666.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 666-67.

[8] Ibid., 666.

[9] Ibid., 667.

[10] Ibid., 668.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 655.

[13] Ibid., 655-56.

[14] Ibid., 656.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 658.

[17] Ibid., 656.

[18] Ibid.

[19] W. Hall Harris III, Commentary on the Gospel of John, (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 667.

[23] Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, 658.

[24] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997), 173. Blomberg actually does support the idea of a redactor, however he suggests that the redactor did very little. Here is the full quote: “The closing two verses of the Gospel (21:24-25) support at least some minimal redactional activity, as they distinguish the beloved disciple who wrote down the events of the Gospel from a group of people (‘we’) who ‘know that his testimony is true’ and an ‘I’ who supposes that the whole world couldn’t contain the books that could be written about Jesus.”

A Thorough Redemption: An Exposition of Isaiah 63:1-6

For my Isaiah class at Liberty I wrote an exposition paper on Isaiah 63:1-6. I was extremely blessed by the writing and study of this passage. I have pasted the paper below. The paper is primarily academic and so if it proves to be a bit too difficult just skip down to the bottom of the paper and read the sections titled "Theological Significance" and "Application." The paper is broken up into four sections: 1. A detailed outline of the passage is given. 2. An exposition of the passage. 3. Theological significance of the passage. 4. Application of the passage. The biggest portion of the paper is the exposition of the passage. The footnotes of the paper are put in brackets--[ ]. Anyway, enjoy!

A THOROUGH REDEMPTION: AN EXPOSITION OF ISAIAH 63:1-6

Synthesis and Outline of Isaiah 63:1-6

Summary: Yahweh returns from Edom with blood-stained garments having single-handedly slaughtered the nations for the sake of redeeming his people.

Outline:

I. The watchman sees a triumphant warrior arrayed for battle approaching the city and asks for his identity. Yahweh responds by identifying himself as the redeemer of his people (63:1)

A. The watchman’s question: The watchman suspiciously questions the identity of a valiant warrior approaching the city (63:1a)
B. Yahweh’s response: Yahweh Identifies himself as the victorious conqueror over the enemies of his people. He has come to announce a salvation accomplished (63:1b)

II. Yahweh answers the watchman’s question about his bloody garments by calling attention to the fact that he has just completely pulverized his enemies (the nations) by himself (63:2-3)

A. The watchman’s question: The watchman asks this valiant warrior why his garments are covered with blood to such an extent (63:2)
B. Yahweh’s response: Yahweh’s garments are covered with blood to such an extent because he took on the nations by himself (63:3)

III. Yahweh, demonstrating his sovereign power, elaborates on why his garments are stained with blood by stating that since he could find no one to help, he redeemed his people by thoroughly destroying Israel’s enemies by himself (63:4-6)

A. Yahweh’s appointed time for securing redemption by way of destroying his enemies had come (63:4)
B. Yahweh looked, but found no one who would help in the task of destroying his enemies, for the sake of securing redemption. So he, in his wrath, won redemption for his people by himself (63:5)

1. No one among the peoples of the earth were righteous to help Yahweh bring about redemption (63:5a)
2. Yahweh takes matters into his own hands and accomplishes redemption in his own power (63:5b)

C. The enemies of God (the nations) are utterly defeated by Yahweh (63:6)

1. Yahweh destroys the nations by trampling them in his anger (63:6a)
2. Yahweh destroys the nations by filling them with their own blood in his rage(63:6b)
3. Yahweh destroys the nations by covering the ground with their blood (63:6c)


Exposition of the Text

Introduction

Isaiah 63:1-6 finds itself couched in the middle of a subsection within the context of the entire book. In this section, Isaiah is speaking to the Israelites of a future generation: those living at the end of the exile in Babylon. Isaiah’s purpose in writing this section of the book was to both encourage them in the salvation that God was going to accomplish, and to remind them of the necessity of living up to the righteousness demanded by their covenant with Yahweh.[1] Some scholars have argued that Isaiah 56-66 is comprised of one large chiastic construction. At the very heart of this construction sits chapters 60-62 with its emphasis on the final salvation which Israel will enjoy. Isaiah 63:1-6 (the passage in view) and 59:15b-21 serve as book ends to 60-62.[2]

Many scholars have been struck with confusion at why 63:1-6—a section dealing with the bloody, gruesome destruction of the nations—is found at the tail end of two chapters fleshing out the glories of Yahweh’s salvation for His people. Brevard Child’s has correctly suggested that Isaiah has put it here in order to “emphasize in the strongest manner possible that the divine judgment against the evil and injustice of those in rebellion against God’s rule must precede the entrance of God’s promised kingship in the transformation of Zion.”[3] Thus, the destruction of the nations is a necessity if the promises of 60-62 are to be realized. Claire Matthews suggests that the destruction of the nations and the redemption of Israel should be seen as two sides of the same event.[4] With this in mind, this section is only encouraging to those who are faithful to Yahweh’s covenant.

Yahweh Makes Himself Known (63:1)

This section begins with what many have considered to be something of a watchman manning his post.[5] Furthering this idea, Paul Allen Smith suggests a strong tie between 62:1 and 63:1.[6] In 62:1-6 Yahweh declares his determination to vindicate Israel. He states that he will set up “watchmen” on their walls who will not rest until Israel realizes the redemption promised by Yahweh. “Thus,” Allen says, “63:1-6 could be understood as a fulfillment, in visionary terms, of 62:1-2.”[7]

As the watchman stands on his post looking out, he sees a valiant warrior approaching the city. He asks the warrior to identify himself. This is the first of two questions asked in 63:1-6. Jan Leunis Koole suggests that these questions are asked to “make the reader/listener alert and curios.”[8] The watchman notices that Yahweh is coming from Edom and Bozrah. Bozrah is the main city in Edom.[9]

The identity of Edom and Bozrah is hotly debated among scholars. There are basically four positions: 1. Those who hold to a literal interpretation hold that Yahweh literally destroyed Bozrah and Edom.[10] 2. Others see that Edom and Bozrah refer to the direction from which the Lord came—the south.[11] 3. Many scholars interpret Edom and Bozrah to be Israel’s foremost enemy. Thus, they see Edom and Bozrah symbolizing all the enemies of Yahweh.[12] 4. Some scholars hold that Edom and Bozrah are utilized here for carrying out winepress imagery.[13] All of these positions have strengths and weaknesses. Also, it is not impossible to hold more than one view simultaneously without contradicting the laws of logic.

In light of the context of this passage, there is no doubt that the author is marshalling all of the winepress imagery he possibly can. With this in mind, the fourth position holds weight, and especially considering the fact that there is relationship between “Edom” and “red,” and between “Bozrah” and “grape harvest.”[14] Blenkinsopp also points out that “Edom, like its northern neighbor Moab, was well known as a center of viniculture (cf Isa 16:8-10).”[15]

One of the strengths of the second view is that Yahweh is not said to have destroyed Edom, but to merely have come from Edom. The third view holds weight because of Israel’s long somewhat dysfunctional distant-relative relationship with Edom. Edom had become something of a Babylon to Yahweh and his people—a stereotypical archrival enemy.[16]

Although the possibility of this oracle referring to the destruction of Edom by the Nabataeans in the 6th Century BC is a possibility, it is not likely. The thrust of the context of this passage suggests that God’s vengeance is against the nations. In fact, both B. Dicou and the Net Study Bible suggest that the plural suffixes on the verbs “stomped” and “trample” in 63:3 suggest that the object of the action was upon the nations symbolized by the nation of Edom.[17] Also, in 63:6, Yahweh further explains his redemptive action against “Edom”: “I trampled the nations in my anger” (emphasis mine).

Yahweh answers the watchman by declaring Himself the redeemer/vindicator. J.W. Olley suggests that “speaking” (or “announcing”) is always closely associated with “doing.” Thus, he says, Yahweh, in 63:1, was "speaking (acting) with a saving, just purpose, with a concern to bring about what is right."[18] Yahweh’s response to the watchman is evidence that the thrust of 63:1-6 communicates that the primary function of God’s acts of judgement are ultimately for the redemption and vindication of His people. Thus, although 63:1-6 graphically depicts an angry God destroying His enemies, it is imperative that the purpose of their destruction is not missed. Smith states that “63:1-6 draws out the implications” of God’s redemptive actions on behalf of his people “for other nations.”[19]

Yahweh Explains His Blood-Stained Attire (63:2-3)

This section of 63:1-6 beings with another question from the watchman to Yahweh: “Why are your clothes red?” This question is only reasonable. After all, would not the watchman want to know why this valiant warrior dripping with blood was covered so! The watchman would have had a situation on his hands if the warrior replied, “I just got done slaughtering the innocent.”—he would have had to call the ranks to action. However, this was not the answer he received from the great warrior, Yahweh.

The language used by the watchman conveys the absolute slaughter accomplished by Yahweh. He states that Yahweh looked like a man who just got done stomping on grapes in a winepress. Without a doubt, Isaiah is utilizing winepress imagery to communicate the nature and extent of God’s redemptive actions against the enemies of His people. Victor H. Matthews has helpfully described the process of the (somewhat) ancient process of treading grapes in a winepress:

The extraction of the juice took on various forms, from treading the grapes under foot to crushing them in wicker baskets above a catchment basin. Egyptian tomb paintings, especially those from the tomb of Ptahhotep, provide graphic depictions of this process… In these scenes the harvested grapes were first placed in a "treading trough" made of mud brick and sealed with a plaster surface. A group of men, holding on to a pole hung horizontally over the trough, then worked the grapes into a mash with their feet… A further pressing process then occurs when the crushed grapes are placed into a sack or closed wicker basket that is stretched over wide-mouth jars and twisted by a team of three or more men. [20]

According to this imagery here in 63:1-6, Yahweh is the one symbolized by the winetreader, while the nations are symbolized by the crushed grapes. In the same way that a vintner’s clothing becomes stained by the juice within the grapes he is crushing, Yahweh’s clothing becomes stained by the blood within the people he is crushing.[21]

In response to the watchman, Yahweh appeals to the fact that he had to destroy the peoples alone. Koole correctly explains that the reason why Yahweh’s garments are so stained is because he took on the nations alone.[22] In other words, all the blood of all the nations fell upon him and no one else.

Many scholars have seen a connection between 63:3 and Revelation 19:13 and 15. In Revelation 19:13 Christ is said to be “clothed with a robe dipped in blood,” and in 19:15 Christ is pictured as treading the “winepress of the fierce wrath of God.” The imagery is strikingly similar to that of Isaiah here in 63:3. Carroll D. Qsburn says, “Revelation 19:11-16 has attributed to Christ what the Isaiah text attributed to God.”[23]

It is vital that one does not mistakenly equate the imagery of 63:3 with the crucifixion of Christ, for in both Isaiah 63 and Revelation 19 the blood which splattered on the garments of the warrior was not the blood of the warrior, but rather the blood of the warrior’s enemies.[24] It is not as if the only blood which stains the garments of Christ will be his own—Revelation 19:13, 15 make this abundantly clear.

Yahweh Elaborates on His Redemptive Acts of Judgment (63:4-6)

After having just answered the watchman’s questions regarding his identity and blood-stained apparel, here Yahweh attempts to explain the answer he gave in 63:3 in more detail.[25] Yahweh begins his explanation by making reference to the “day of vengeance,” and the “year of redemption.” The “day of vengeance” is clearly connected to 61:2. In the context of 61:2, Yahweh speaks of a day in which Israel will be rebuilt, safe from attack, and served by the nations. Thus, as said earlier, the destruction of the nations and redemption of Israel are two sides of the same coin. It is no wonder why v. 4 contains both ideas side by side.[26] Koole, in speaking of “the day of vengeance,” helpfully suggests that “there is no question here of a sudden fit of anger but of a plan which God had formed long ago.”[27] This day is the day in which He has planned to make his promises of redeeming his people a reality.

Barry G. Webb suggests that 63:4b should be translated “year of his ‘redeemed’ (his people).”[28] However, such a rendering of this passage misses the point of the passage. The context puts the emphasis on Yahweh as both the avenger and redeemer of his people, Israel. The word translated “redemption” (go’el) refers to the idea of a kinsman redeemer. The NET Study Bible says this about the usage of the function of a go’el: “He was also responsible for avenging the shed blood of a family member (see Num 35:19–27; Deut 19:6–12).[29]

The time for Yahweh to redeem his people (by destroying their enemies) had come, but he could find no one to come along side as a helper. Similar language is used in Isaiah 59:16b. This passage communicates a great difference between God’s actions in exilic and post exilic times. During the exile God worked through Cryus, the king of Persia, to cut his people free from the bondage of the Babylonians in 538 BC. With great contrast, both in 59:16 and 63:5 Isaiah states that Yahweh took matters into His own hands. Blenkinsopp says, “The statement therefore marks a turning away from the historical arena and international affairs in the search for intimations of a change in fortune for Israel and therefore comes a step closer to embracing an apocalyptic world view.”[30]

Some scholars have tried to speculate as to why Yahweh destroyed the nations. Goldingay says, “Yahweh’s explicit dissatisfaction is with having to act alone rather than with the necessity of bloodshed.”[31] There simply is not enough textual, historical, or grammatical support for this position. Webb, on the other hand, states that God destroyed the nations because of their ill treatment of his people.[32] Although this postulation is easier to defend than Goldingay’s, Walter Bruggemann correctly suggests that the text does not specifically state Yahweh’s specific motivation for taking such action—it must be “inferred.”[33]

Isaiah, in 63:6, further describes the extent of destruction inflicted upon the enemies of Yahweh and his people. Koole states that Isaiah stopped using winepress imagery in v. 3. He suggests that “trodden down” refers to Yahweh treading his enemies into the mud;[34] He suggests that “drunk” refers to the way in which the people were “trodden down”—in humiliation;[35] He suggests that “poured out their lifeblood” refers to God humbling the arrogant—he makes them “sit on the ground” (Isa 47:1; Eze 26:16).[36]

Although Koole’s suggestions are not completely lacking, it is always best to follow the suit of the context unless there is overwhelming evidence to not do so. Surely, these terms (“trodden down,” “drunk,” and “poured out their lifeblood”) may mean many different things in other contexts. However, since these terms can convey winepress imagery, and since Isaiah has heavily leaned upon winepress imagery in the immediate context to convey meaning, there is no reason why these terms should not be interpreted on the basis of their relationship to winepress imagery.[37]

John Oswalt says, “The theme of judgment is brought to a powerful climax in this verse, both through the development of the “wine vat” theme and also through the introduction of the related image of the wine cup full of God’s wrath.”[38] The reference to Yahweh making the nations drunk could very well mean that they will be drunk on their own blood. The idea here is that the wine vat of God’s wrath will be so full of blood that the nations therein will drown in it.[39]

Isaiah 63:6c literally reads, “and I brought down to the ground their juice.”[40] “Juice” is a clear usage of winepress imagery and carries the symbolic meaning of blood. The meaning conveyed is that of death—their lifeblood will has been spilled on the ground.

Theological Significance

The Wrath and Love of God

Isaiah 63:1-6 is one of the most gruesome passages in the entire Bible. This passage portrays the radical character of God in a way that causes a weak stomach to churn. Here God is seen as the one who crushes real people under his weight in the same way that a vintner crushes grapes under his weight. Yahweh is a God covered with blood--the blood of his enemies. This in no way calls into question the love of God. In fact, God’s purpose for dealing with his enemies in such a drastic way is for the sake of redeeming his own people. Although this passage is more of a precursor of the “day of judgment” than it is of the cross, it is important to know that God sent his only Son to die in the place of his enemies. Thus, Christ was thrown in the wine vat and trampled on by the Father in order to propitiate the sins of the world. Make no mistake about it: because of the love with which God loved us, his garments were dripping with the blood of his own Son at Golgotha. Surely, he crushed his one and only Son, but it was for the redemption of the world.

The Independence and Sovereignty of God:

Yahweh is not the sort of God who is in need of those who follow Him. Yahweh is completely independent and “does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3). When he found no one to help defeat the nations of the world, he took it upon himself and successfully brought about salvation by his own strong right arm. God is not in need of human brilliance, strength, ingenuity, or discipline.

Application

Celebrating Deliverance

Often times Christians have such a difficult time with passages like 63:1-6 that they end up neglecting them altogether. The problem with this is that they are missing out on one of the most uplifting and encouraging passages in all the Bible. John Oswalt brilliantly illustrates this passage by likening Yahweh to a World War II “blood-spattered, smoke-begrimed GI” who breaks into a concentration camp to set the prisoners free. He asks, “Does he look distasteful to those prisoners?”[41] The obvious answer is, “Absolutely not!” Although we, like God, ought not delight in the destruction of the wicked, we ought to rejoice in the deliverance accomplished by Yahweh. What would heaven be like if God did not demand payment for sin? What would heaven be like if murders, rapists, child molesters, and robbers were allowed through her gates? Celebrate your deliverance--it secures your safety and ultimate hope for bliss.

Seriousness of Rejecting Yahweh

Too often in our culture today God is communicated as if he were a hippy in the sky flipping the world a peace sign, calling the whole world to gather around for a big group hug. Because of this popular approach, very few people today have a true fear of the Lord. Isaiah 63:1-6 is a beckon call to those who fearlessly and carelessly live in unrepentant sin. As seen in the pages above, this is not just a picture of Yahweh: Isaiah 63:1-6 finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ destroying his enemies in the eschaton. How much more seriously would we take sin if we understood God’s relation to it? God is not some sort of a heartless, blood-thirsty villain. It appears this way only to those who do not understand the glory of God and the vileness of sin.

Footnotes:

[1] Frederic Wm. Bush, David Allen Hubbard, and William Sanford Lasor, Old Testament Survey 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 299.
[2] Claire R. Matthews, Defending Zion, (New York: Walter De Gruyter Inc, 1995), 83. Matthews has arranged this construction in a visually helpful way.
[3] Brevard Childs, Isaiah, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 519.
[4] Matthews, Defending Zion, 81.
[5] Joseph Blankinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 247.
[6] Paul Allen Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito Isaiah, (Brill Academic Pub, 1984), 43.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Jan Leunis Koole, Isaiah III, (Belgium: Peters Publishers, 2002), 331.
[9] Ibid.
[10] See Julian Morgenstern, “Further light from the book of Isaiah upon the catastrophe of 485 B.C.,” in Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966), 15-17. Morgenstern identifies the destruction mentioned in 63:1 as referring to the destruction of Edom by the Nabataeans in the 6th Century.
[11]See John F. A. Sawyer, Isaiah: Chapters 33 to 66, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 196. Sawyer points to Deut 33:2; Judges 5:4-5; and Hab 3:3 as examples of Yahweh coming from the south (Edom).
[12] See John MacArthur, The Macarthur Bible Commentary, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), 838. Macarthur says, “Edom represents a God-hating world.”
[13] See John Goldingay, Isaiah, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 353. Goldingay suggests that “Edom and Bozrah’s names suggest pools of grape juice that turn out to be pools of blood.”
[14]Ibid. In order to prove these connections Goldingay offers an abundance of Scripture.
[15]Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, 250.
[16] Koole, Isaiah III, 327-331.
[17] Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito Isaiah, 40. And NET Bible, (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Isaiah 63:3.
[18] J.W. Olley, “Notes on Isaiah 32:1, 45:19,23 and 63:1,” in Vetus testamentum 33 (1983), 452.
[19] Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito Isaiah, 42. Thus, Koole is most likely mistaken in making the assertion that the main emphasis in 63:1-6 is theocentric rather than soteriological. Koole, Isaiah III, 342.
[20] Victor H. Matthews, “Treading the Winepress” in Semeia 86 (1999), 20.
[21] There is a great deal of debate concerning the word “stain” (63:3). The word in the original conveys the idea of defilement. Although this is the case, very few today have issues with translating it as “stain,” because “guilty” simply does not fit into the context of this passage. See Koole, Isaiah III, 217-18.
[22]Ibid., 338. Koole suggests that Isaiah uses “garments” (plural) to indicate the extent of blood that covered him.
[23]Carroll D. Qsburn, “Alexander Campbell and the text of Revelation 19:13,” in Resoration Quarterly 25 (1982), 134.
[24] John Calvin acutely attacked this common misuse of 63:1-6: “This chapter has been violently distorted by Christians, as if what is said here related to Christ, whereas the Prophet speaks simply of God himself; and they have imagined that here Christ is red, because he was wet with his own blood which he shed on the cross. But the Prophet meant nothing of that sort.” John Calvin, Isaiah, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000). Calvin is correct in rejecting the idea that this passage refers to the death of Christ, but goes to far by not qualifying that it does refer to Christ when he tramples upon his enemies in the eschaton.

[25] Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, 250.

[26] In regard to Isaiah speaking of the “day of vengeance” and the “year of redemption:” It is a possibility that Isaiah, wanting to communicate the long lasting effects of his redemption, distinguishes vengeance and redemption with the words “day” and “year.” This is not to say that he wanted to downplay God’s justice, but rather that he wanted to build up the redemptive work of Yahweh.
[27]Koole, Isaiah III, 341.
[28] Barry G. Webb, The Message of Isaiah, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 240.
[29] The NET Bible, Isaiah 63:4.
[30] Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, 250.
[31] Goldingay, Isaiah, 354.
[32] Webb, The Message of Isaiah, 240.
[33] Walter Bruggemann, Isaiah, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 227.
[34] Koole, Isaiah 56-66, 342. He identifies this as potter language.
[35] Ibid., 342-43. Here Koole states that drunkenness “denotes the stupid conceit and impudence and at the same time the defenselessness in which the drunkard displays paltriness and merely makes himself an object of ridicule.”
[36] Ibid., 343. He suggests that it has nothing to do with the literal destruction of the nations, but rather with the humiliation of the arrogant.
[37] The term “trodden down” is rare, but the intended meaning is clear considering the context of the passage.
[38] John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 603.
[39] Ibid. This same imagery can be found in 49:26; Rev 14:10; 16:19.
[40] The NET Bible, Isaiah 63:6.
[41] John Oswalt, Isaiah, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), pg 661-62

Church Growth: Sign Me Up

While studying at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I sat under one of the most gifted scholars of the New Testament, Dr. Alan Tomlinson.

The Lord used Dr. Tomlinson to produce in me a passion for reading the New Testament in its 1st Century context. He would always say, "Where do we need to be, everybody? Not in the 16th Century or the 21st Century, but in the 1st Century." I am forever indebted to his teaching and influence.

One of the most helpful things I learned from Dr. Tomlinson was from an introductory lecture on the book of Acts. In this lecture he laid forth three principles of church growth that can be gleaned from the book of Acts. You will find these principles to be quite a bit different from the principles widely accepted in todays present Christian context.

3 P's of Church Growth in the Book of Acts

1. Prayer
2. Proclamation (of the Gospel)
3. Persecution

As D.A. Carson would say, "Put that in your theological pipe and smoke it."

Radical Prophecy

For my class on Isaiah, I am reading a book by D. Brent Sandy entitled Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. I am only on chapter 2, but have found it to be an excellent read thus far. Sandy gives a general overview of prophecy in the first chapter.

One of the things I love about prophecy is the cutting edge, extreme language of the prophets. When the Old Testament prophets speak of the holiness and wrath of God, it makes you want to run and hide in a cave. But when they speak of the love of God your heart revolts. "NO WAY! There is no way God could be that kind! How could He possibly still love and redeem such an obstinate, sinful people?" I love the prophets because the character of God is so clearly portrayed.

In talking on this same subject, Sandy said,

"As a billboard for God's hatred of sin, prophecy speaks boldly to the point. Anyone who fails to see the message is terribly near-sighted. And as a sign of God's everlasting love, prophecy speaks tenderly to the heart. Unfortunately, those who fail to read the billboards advertising God's anger probably miss the signs announcing his love as well. One cannot be understood without the other."

I give a hearty "Amen" to Sandy here. I am afraid that in an attempt to protect the warm fuzziness of the love of God from the heat of the wrath and anger of God, many have ended up losing the love of God. It is simply impossible to understand the love of God apart from an understanding of how much God hates sin. One simply cannot understand the love of God apart from an understanding of what sinners deserve as a result of their rebellion. The love of God losses its meaning when divorced from His hatred of and wrath toward sin.

This is what makes the prophets so attractive--the love of God shines infinitely brighter than the sun because it is seen in light of the sinfulness of man. The wrath of God forces us to our knees in humble petition because it is seen in the context of his love. Folks, God is extreme--extremely infinite in all of His ways.

While you are at it, check out my brother's (Luke) post on the book of Hosea. In this post he explains the overarching message of Hosea. You will see the infinite love and holiness of God portrayed in all of it's splendor. After reading Luke's post, read the actual book of Hosea!

High on Isaiah

Right now I am in the middle of Christmas break. The Lord has graciously given me one full month of break from schooling. I am trying to graduate by this fall and so am packing my school schedule as tight as possible to make it happen. Guess what this means! I get to study over Christmas break! For some crazy reason, this makes me happy (I need a shot of... um... something, anything).

This coming semester I am taking a class on the book of Isaiah. I have been pumped about taking it from the first time I first saw it on the list of course offerings. I started reading "The NIV Application Commentary" on the book of Isaiah by John N. Oswalt for my Isaiah class yesterday. I am officially "high" on Isaiah.

Right now I am only half way through the 60 page Introduction to the book. The introduction is devoted to shelling out the background information of the book--the historical setting, author, recipients, date--things like this.

The only thing that brings life to my soul more than reading the Scriptures themselves is reading biblical background. Most people find it boring, dull, lifeless. For some strange reason, I would much rather read the background information to the different books of the Bible than I would read any book written by Piper or Sproul (Notice that I didn't say Carson. This is because Carson has written books on biblical background). This is not to say that I don't like Piper or Sproul, but that I find studying the Scriptures and their background more life-giving than studying contemporary men on theological and practical subjects. This doesn't mean I am more spiritual than you if you prefer Piper and Sproul over biblical background. Nor does this mean that you are more spiritual than I.

I generally love commentaries until I get to the actual verse by verse commentary. After I leave the background information and delve into the verse by verse stuff, things usually get overly systematic and wooden (for me).

Anyway, I highly recommend John Oswalt's commentary on Isaiah. He has the ability to tell history like a story. He has the ability to pull the reader in.

I also highly recommend anyone and everyone reading this to begin a life of study in biblical background. It sounds intimidating and hard, but once you get hooked on background the Bible comes to life. Background makes reading the Bible more like watching a movie or reading a picture book than reading philosophy or doing math. It helps put flesh on theology.

The Bible as God's Very Word

When I was a youngster my mom would never leave the house without making a list of chores for me and my two brothers. I am sure many of you were afflicted in this same way. When my mom came home the chores were usually done. However, sometimes my brothers would get side tracked and mom would come home to a pig sty (notice that I said "my brothers." Usually they would try and con me into doing their chores). About 10 min before mom was supposed to get home we would scurry around the house trying to finish what we could. When mom would walk through the door we would hear her yell, "Luke! Clint! Jimmy! Get down here!" We would walk with our heads down knowing we were in trouble. Mom would then say, "Boys, why are your chores not done?" Usually we would come up with all sorts of excuses. Many of which were down right lame. What do you think mom's response would have been if we would have said, "Duh Mom, you never told us to clean the kitchen, mop and vacuum the floors, mow the lawn, and make our beds you wrote it. We would have done these things if you would have told us to do them, but you didn't. All you did was write us a list." First of all, this would have royally ticked my mother off. My Mother usually never loses her head when she is angry. I am sure that her response would have been something like this, "What? You know full well that when I write something it is no less from my mouth than when I speak it. You are merely looking for a way to not do your chores. GET THESE CHORES DONE NOW!" We all know that both speaking and writing are forms of communication. When my mom wrote us a chore list it was just as much from her mouth as if she had spoken it. Writing, in a sense, is speaking in written/codified form. This is why you would go to jail if you recieved a letter from President Bush commanding you to go to court house and sign up for the draft and did not do it. Just because President Bush did not tell you to go to the court house with his mouth does not mean that he did not tell you to go. He told you in written form.


The Bible is God's Word. God has spoken. The Bible is no less the very words of God because it is in written form. Imagine if right now God were to come down to you in the form of an angel and command you (in His God voice) to go to Wal-Mart and buy as many tubes of toothpaste as you could fit in your shopping cart. Would you not immediately drop whatever you are doing to go to Wal-Mart to do what He told you to do? Of course you would. I mean come on, God actually told you to go to Wal-Mart. Only a fool would not take it seriously. Why then do we not take seriously what God has said in His Word. That is right, what God has said in His word is no less from His mouth than if He were to appear to you in the form of an angel and specifically tell you something. Why do we seem to have this disconnect today? Why is it that we do not equate the authority and truth of the written Word with the spoken Word? Do you take God's word as seriously as you would if He were to come to you in the form of an angel and tell you something? Would you take the command to "not store up treasures on earth but in heaven" more seriously if God were to manifest Himself to you and speak to you audibly? Probably, because God is invisible, we do not take His written Word as seriously as we do His spoken Word.

Once we realize that the Bible is the very Word of God there is no going back. Once this is realized, why would we want to look anywhere but to the Bible for answers. If I want to know how to shoot a basketball I am not going to call Bill Gates. No, I am going to call Michael Jordan. If I want to know how to shoot a basketball I am going to call the basketball expert. If I want to know how my wife is feeling I am not going to call her brides maids. No, I am going to go to the source and ask my wife how she is feeling. If I want to know who God is, how He works, what He thinks, and what He expects of me I am going to ask God. So many people today develop their idea of who God is without taking into consideration what God has already said about who He is. Did you catch that? They have not taken into consideration what God has already said about HIMSELF.

Who is God? What does He expect of you and Me? Well, I could really care less what you or I think. What I want to know is what God thinks. This may come as a blow to your self esteem, but your thoughts on God are worthless to me and should be worthless to you. I do not say this because I think I am smarter than you. No, I say this because God is smarter than you AND He has spoken. What counts is God's thoughts on Himself, because He is the expert on who He is, how He works, and what He expects of us. Your thoughts on God are only good in so far as they are shaped by what God (the expert) has said. Sorry to be so up front, but if your ideas conflict with God's then you are wrong. This is why innovative theology is worthless. As a theologian, it is my goal not to come up with new ideas, but to conform my ideas to those of God's. It is my goal, as a theologian, to think God's thoughts after God. To do anything else is down right silly.

More on this later...

What to Look For in a Church

My wife and I just moved from Kansas City, Missouri to New Hampshire. One of the things involved in every long distance move is church shopping. Kristal and I have been scoping out Church websites on the internet since we decided to move. I have been faced with the challenge of finding the right church 4 times in the last 6 years or so. This is my fifth. This series will most likely have many parts to it (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 etc.). There are so many very important things to consider when looking for a church.

The most important thing to consider when looking for a church is Sola Scriptura! What does Scripture lay forth as the most important and fundamental elements of a healthy church? There is a time to get picky when looking for a church, but this has very little to do with that. I am asking, "What is most important? What should I be most concerned about?" When most people look for a church they are looking for all of the wrong things. Why? Because they are not basing their idea of what is most important on the Scriptures. Their main concerns are not the main concerns of the Scriptures.

I will give two illustrations. Have you ever heard someone say something similar to this, "What can this church offer to my kids? Do they have a good children's program, youth group, young adult ministry?" This may be important to some folk, but one must remember that children's ministries and youth groups are not even mentioned in Scripture. I am not saying that youth and children are not important, but I am saying that Scripture never puts an emphasis on classes for each and every age group.

Here is another aspect of church that many are most concerned about. "Well, we really like Church X, but I just don't get much out of their worship. I want a church where the worship is alive!" Once again, this can be a very important aspect in church life, but should this be of utmost importance when it comes to looking for a church? Of course not! How much emphasis does the Bible put on the style of music? Does the Bible even lay out the specifics of worship? Not really! You will find in the Psalms some talk about praising God with all sorts of instruments. Jesus tells us that His true worshippers will worship in Spirit and in truth. But this verse has very little to do with corporate worship. Frankly, the style of worship is never laid out as a test of the health of a church. Why then are people so concerned about it? Because something other than the Bible is shaping their idea of what is most important to look for in a church. This really is sad. Because nearly the entire New Testament is geared toward informing us of what is most important in church life.

It may seem that I am leaving the discussion here for a moment, but hold on, I will come back. At this point it must be asked, "Ok Jimmy, when I am looking for a church I must look to the Bible. But how do I know what is most important in the Bible? You tell me to look for those things that the Bible emphasizes, but how do I know what the Bible emphasizes? I mean, common, it is a big book." This is an excellent question. How does one know what the Bible emphasizes? The answer to this question is very easy, but it is hard to put it to practice.

The simple answer to this question is, "Well, what does the Bible talk most about?" The greatest way of discovering what is emphasized most in the Bible is by doing a study on the themes of the Bible. What was it that Paul saw as so important that he wrote a whole letter about it? Remember that the majority of the books of the New Testament are letters. Yes, when you read the New Testament you are reading someone else's mail. For instance, the Book of Galatians is a letter that Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia. Why did he write this letter? Because there were certain problems and situations going on in Galatia that Paul deemed important enough to address before his next visit. Isn't that interesting. We go to the Bible looking for what we think is most important. We read and read and read until we find something that appeals to us. This is completely wrong. We are to go to the Bible to be told what is most important. What did Paul deem most important? What did Jesus deem most important? We must adopt their view of what is most important if we want to be Biblical.

What we American Christian's usually do when we read the Bible is we sit down and read a chapter here and a chapter there. Many do not even do this. Rather they do topical studies (they study different topics that are in the Bible. You know, things like marriage, relationships, giving etc.). The nature of a topical study is to look at a whole bunch of verses that refer to the same topic. The majority of the time these verses are pulled straight out of context for the sake of bolstering the author's point.

Do you want to know the themes of the Bible? It isn't going to happen through topical studies (as helpful as they may be). You see, when the author of one of the books of the Bible sees something as so important that he writes a whole letter about it, we should lean in close. We should have our eyes and ears glued to him hanging on his every word. Why? Because the Apostle of the Lord is speaking. He is informing us on what we should deem as most important.

We often forget that the letters of the New Testament were written by real people, to real people, about real life situations. When Paul sat down to write the book of Galatians he did not say, "I want the Galatians to know where I stand on theological issues." When Paul wrote Galatians he said, "Oh poop! The church I planted in Galatia is being attacked by false teachers that are promoting disunity in the church. I need to warn them. I need to give them a heads up." The letters of the New Testament are not theology journals. The letters of the New Testament are dealing with real cutting-edge church life.

Let me illustrate what the Apostles were doing when they wrote their letters. I just moved from Kansas City. I sat under two of the most able Bible teachers I know of. I moved half-way across the country to New Hampshire to start a church. I stay in contact with the elders of my previous church. They see me as one of their brethren. They see me as one of their students (because I did an internship under them). I end up starting a church in New Hampshire. Well, the two elders I was under at Kansas City hear that there are some very influential men who have come into the church and start causing discord. They start teaching all sorts of strange things. How would (or should) the two elders in Kansas City respond? Lets pretend that we are in 1st Century Palestine before they have phones and email. The two elders in Kansas City are concerned about the well being of the church. They are concerned about their former student. So they get out a piece of paper and pencil and begin to write me a letter instructing me what to do. The letter may look similar to this.

"Dear Jimmy and the Church in New Hampshire,
Greetings from Kansas City. Christ Fellowship Greets you.
We have heard that many terrible things are happening in your church. We know how wonderfully you started out and are terribly grieved to see what is happening. There are a few things that we suggest you do... (so they give us some ideas on how to stop the false teaching), and here are some scriptures that might help you.
Please! Oh please do not let this discord continue in your church. You must love one another from the heart. Do not look down on one another. Kick that false teacher out of your assembly. Kick him out of the service before he does anything worse.
We are praying for you. Oh and greet the saints there. Last time we visited we had such a good time. Tell Sara that we are praying for her lost family still.

Love,
Christ Fellowship"

Does this at all look familiar? Does this not have the same form and feeling of the letters of the New Testament? Of course this would look a bit different today. We would probably just call each other up on the phone to save on postage. But this essentially is what the New Testament is. The letters of the New Testament are written to churches about church life. They are not written to individuals about their personal relationship with God. Even those letters written to individuals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) are still about corporate life. It could even be argued that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus contain the most foundational church life material in the Bible. This is what the Bible is. The Bible is not a theology book. Surely the Bible lays forth theological truth, but it is always for the sake of church life in some way or another.

What should we look for in a church? Well, what did the Apostles so vehemently push for? What were those things that the Apostles could not keep silent about in their letters addressed to, get ready, Churches!

Also, it is not enough to just hold to things that Bible holds to do. We must know why the authors of the Bible see these things as so important. This is why context driven interpretation is so important. For example, the book of Hebrews speaks more about the cross than almost any other New Testament book. WONDERFUL! But why? It is just as important that we know why Hebrews talks about the cross so much as it is that we just simply know that Hebrews talks about the cross. This is how we get to the themes of the books of the Bible. It is an asking, "Why would this specific author talk about this specific doctrine to this specific church that has this specific problem?"

We have a hard time in American Christianity seeing this corporate emphasis because we live in a culture that prizes individuality. But we must see that even those scriptures which are directed to individuals have as their main thrust some sort of corporate application.

I hope to, in a later post, do a study on the themes of the New Testament letters. In short however, what are the major themes of the New Testament letters? I believe there to be three main themes. Notice that some books have more than one theme. FYI: I am not putting these in the order of importance--They are all equally important.

1. Unity (love). This really is the major or minor theme in the books of Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, James, and 1 John. It is a sub theme in Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, Jude.

2. Enduring Persecution, and usually in the context of evangelism. This is the major or minor theme of the book of 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, Revelation. One of the main sub themes in these books are a hope for heaven based on the finished and effective work of Jesus Christ.

3. Doctrinal Purity- This is the major or minor theme of 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude. The emphasis in these books is being able to discern false teaching.

These are the three things that the author's of the New Testament were most concerned about. If you are considering a chuch that cannot be characterized by all three of these things then you need to look elsewhere. I am not saying that you should be looking for a perfect church. I am saying that you should be looking for a church that emphasizes what the Bible emphasizes. These are the three main criteria I use when I am searching for a church. Why do I use this as my criteria? Because these are the things that the New Testament authors pushed for with utmost importance in their letters to churches about church issues.

In the next few posts I will be discussing each of these three areas (Unity, evangelism, and Doctrinal Purity) in greater detail.