Admitting My Bias (Legalism, Part 2 of 14)

On By Tyler BoydIn Legalism1 Comment

In this series I will be in conversation with a book written by Kevin Pendergrass entitled “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace.” If you would like to purchase his book or read some of Kevin’s articles, you can do so here.

You can go back and read part 1 here:

The Fascinating Story of Kevin Pendergrass (Legalism, Part 1 of 14)

There is an excellent chapter in the book entitled “Confirmation Bias.” Confirmation bias is the tendency to process and analyze information in such a way that it reaffirms one’s preexisting ideas and convictions. Kevin observes:

The truth of the matter is we are all guilty of confirmation bias to an extent. Let me demonstrate this point.

When we study something that we already disagree with, we usually approach it from the perspective of why it is wrong. When we study something we already agree with, we usually approach it from the perspective of why it is right. (P. 76)

Kevin is exactly right on this point. To be fair, it needs to be recognized that I was reading Kevin’s book from the perspective of figuring out where he was wrong.

Kevin describes confirmation bias as a “subconscious disadvantage”. And while this might be true at times, I believe that more often than not confirmation bias is actually a subconscious advantage. I believe that God designed us to have confirmation bias. That’s just how we think. It’s how we identify falsehoods. We process information through a paradigm built upon other supposed truths. When we hear an idea that doesn’t seem to fit within our paradigm, our first response is to examine the new idea extra critically to find it’s error. In other words, confirmation bias encourages us to be critical thinkers and to examine ideas very closely.

In Scripture we are encouraged to examine scripture to “see if these things are so” (Acts 17.11), “be wise in what is good and innocent and in what is evil” (Rom 16.19), “pass judgment” when we listen to teachers (1 Cor. 14.29); “examine everything carefully” (1 Thess. 5.21); and “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 Jn. 4.1). Confirmation bias makes “red flags” go off in our minds when we come across an idea we suspect to be wrong. We are self-aware of our need to examine the new idea critically. In this sense, confirmation bias is a subconscious advantage.

This doesn’t mean we should automatically dismiss any new teaching that doesn’t fit neatly into our paradigm as being wrong. After “searching to scriptures to see if these things are so” we must have the humility to reexamine our preconceived understandings in light of our study and reflection. It is possible, after all, that we are the ones who were wrong. Kevin rightly observes,

Humility is the best friend of objectiveness. On the other hand, the more arrogant someone is, the more they tend to be subjective and closed-minded…

The road of pride leads to destruction and the road of humility leads to God (Prov. 16.18; Ja. 4.10). The arrogant are closed off to listening to others (Prov. 18.13; 15.22). Instead, they only wish to express their own hearts and beliefs (Prov. 18.22; 28.26). It doesn’t take any humility to admit when we are right, but it does take humility to admit when we are wrong. (p. 77)

It should be noted, however, that our natural tendency towards confirmation bias is not a subconscious disadvantage. The real subconscious disadvantage is pride, which refuses to admit when we are wrong.

With this in mind, there is a sense in which confirmation bias can be a disadvantage, but it’s not found when we critically examine the uninspired words of those we suspect to be wrong. The real disadvantage of confirmation bias is found when, we pridefully and uncritically accept the uninspired words of those we suspect to be right.

We are at a subconscious disadvantage when we are listening to preachers we trust and when we are reading books and articles (and book reviews) which argue a position we believe to be true. The very best preachers and authors among us are still uninspired people with the capacity to be wrong. We must not stop critically examining the teachings simply because we believe someone is probably right.

For this reason, I believe that those who are already frustrated with the church or already suspect the church is “too legalistic” are the ones with a subconscious disadvantage as they read Kevin’s book. It would be too easy for them to get entangled in the idea that neither they nor Kevin could be wrong, pull arguments out of Kevin’s book that they can use against “legalistic churches”, while failing to critically examine those arguments.

Whatever your bias might be towards Kevin as you approach his book, it is important to approach Kevin’s book with humility. We should strive to understand the real reasons why Kevin takes the position he does, and be careful not to misrepresent his arguments. For those who are bias against Kevin (like myself), I believe that if you approach Kevin’s book with humility, you will find that he raises some really important questions and makes some really important points; points which the church needs to carefully consider. For those who are bias in Kevin’s favor, I believe that if you will approach Kevin’s book critically, closely examining his arguments in light of scripture, you will find that his perspective has a few big flaws as well.

Continue reading part 3 here:
What I Appreciated the Most About Kevin Pendergrass’s Book on Legalism (Legalism, Part 3 of 14)

The Fascinating Story of Kevin Pendergrass (Legalism, Part 1 of 14)

On By Tyler BoydIn Legalism

I’ve only had a few interactions with Kevin Pendergrass over the years, but I’ve been intrigued by his story. Just a few short years ago, Kevin had a reputation among many as a “sound” gospel preacher, or, if you ask others, they might say he had a reputation as an “ultra-conservative”.  Yet over a relatively short time, Kevin changed drastically. According to some, he “left the faith” and joined the ranks of liberalism. According to others, “he came to understand his own shortcomings and his desperate need for God’s grace.” Regardless of your opinion of Kevin Pendergrass, the fact that someone could change so drastically in such a short period of time is intriguing. (If you want to get a feel for yourself, you can read some of Kevin’s recent articles here).

Kevin grew up running in many of the same circles I did. He graduated from the East Tennessee School of Preaching (now the Southeast Institute of Biblical Studies), and spent over six years living in Oklahoma working as preacher, debater, and co-host for “The Gospel of Christ”, a television show that has been supported by several congregations I’ve been associated with.

I first had interactions with Kevin back when he was at preaching school and I was in college. Although there were some points of doctrine where he and I disagreed, I’ve always respected Kevin. Even in our disagreements, I have been impressed by Kevin’s knowledge of scripture, his logic, and his ability to skillfully combine the two when he makes his arguments. More than anything, Kevin has always struck me as someone who loves the truth and is willing to follow the truth wherever it leads.

After college I lost contact with Kevin for several years. Then a few months ago I noticed an article on Facebook which he had written, and I was shocked. Kevin had changed his position, drastically, on several points of doctrine. Kevin had apparently swung from one extreme to another. Yes, I had several disagreements with him in the past, but now I found myself disagreeing with him on a number of issues – issues that I think are important.

Shortly thereafter I learned that Kevin was working on a book on legalism. This was a book I definitely wanted to read for multiple reasons.

For one, I have had it “up to here” with the accusation of “legalism” being thrown out against churches simply because they emphasize Scripture as an authoritative standard for right and wrong, teach against sin, emphasize obedience, or hold other Christians accountable to the whole counsel of God. And more than that, I’ve had it “up to here” with church bashing books, written by bitter souls who seem to look for every possible shortcoming of Christians to tear down the church which Jesus loves.  In part, I wanted to read this book so I could be better prepared to make counter arguments against such false accusations.

But secondly, I wanted to read this book because of the respect I have for Kevin. Whatever can be said about Kevin, nobody can accuse Kevin of being ignorant of scripture, insincere in his pursuit of truth, or illogical in his thinking. That’s why I was so curious. Why would Kevin, of all people, write a book to bash the church for being too legalistic? What had happened with Kevin? Why had he changed? I couldn’t wait to read this book.

The book is entitled “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace”. If you are interested, I encourage you to purchase the book here.

After I received Kevin’s book and started reading it, I’ve had several ask me to “share my thoughts” on his book. So I planned on writing a book review. But once I got started, I quickly realized that the depth and the importance of the topic of “legalism” demands much more than a quick book review. So what started as a book review has quickly developed into a multi-part series on legalism.

Even if you aren’t familiar with Kevin Pendergrass or his story, there is a good chance that you know of stories similar to his. Kevin is certainly not the only Christian to leave “conservative” churches behind. This story happens often. Why is this? Why do so many accuse the church of being too legalistic? Could they be right? Does the church need to make changes to avoid legalism?

Throughout this series I plan on conversing with several of the ideas discussed in Kevin’s book. From the start I want to say that I greatly enjoyed reading Kevin’s book, and I recommend that you read it. After a couple of introductory posts, I want to share some specific things that I really appreciated about this book. After that I plan on giving an overview of Kevin’s argument as it is presented in the book. Then I plan on spending several posts addressing what I see as the book’s major flaw and flushing out some of the implications of this flaw. Finally, once we have developed a biblical understanding of legalism, I want to discuss how our understanding of legalism can help the church to navigate some tricky issues.

Continue reading part 2 here: Admitting My Bias (Legalism, Part 2 of 14)

Breaking the Pagan Paradigm

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government

Do Christians Have a Responsibility to Influence Our Culture for Good?

In recent years, I have written several articles to discourage Christians from getting involved in the pursuit of political power. (For example, read here, here, or find a full list of articles here).

In response to these articles, one objection is continually raised: Christians have a responsibility to be salt and light to influence our world for good. Therefore, when it comes to social and/or moral issues, Christians have an obligation to be politically involved.

In response to this objection, let us first consider the question, “Do Christians have a moral obligation to be salt and light, influencing culture for good?” I believe scripture makes the answer clear.

  • Disciples of Jesus have a responsibility to be the “salt of the earth“, and to be the ‘light of the world” (Mt. 5.13-14)
  • The church has the responsibility to “expose” the “unfruitful deeds of darkness” (Eph. 5.11)
  • Christians should encourage the surrounding culture to glorify God (1 Pet. 2.12)
  • Peter instructs the church to “silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Pet. 2.15)

Other scriptures could be cited to this same end. I’ve never questioned whether or not Christians should strive to influence our culture for good. Although I have tried to discourage Christians being politically active, I’ve never believed that Christians should do nothing.

So why does the objection continue to come up? I don’t think anybody is intentionally trying to misrepresent my position. Why is the objection so common? Why do so many Christians feel they have a moral obligation to be involved politically?

The answer is found when we realize that many Christians continue to be trapped in a pagan paradigm. Once we recognize this pagan paradigm, these objections begin to make a lot of sense.

Trapped In a Pagan Paradigm

For a vast majority of people in our world “influencing culture for good” is basically equated with “using political power for good.” This shouldn’t surprise us. If someone doesn’t believe in the power of the gospel, they will naturally believe that power lies elsewhere. From a worldly perspective, nobody has more power, more influence, or more capacity to do more good than those who wield political power. Therefore, according to this paradigm, if we have an opportunity to influence political powers for good, and we refuse that opportunity, we have forsaken the opportunity to influence our society for good.

Unfortunately many Christians struggle to break free from this paradigm. For them, whenever they read someone suggesting that Christians should not be politically active, it is assumed that they are suggesting that Christians should not influence culture for good. For those trapped in this paradigm, to withdraw from political involvement is to withdraw from being “salt” and “light”.

The problem with this paradigm is that it does not recognize the conceptual possibility that Christians could be socially active, engage moral issues in society, and influence society for good while at the same time separating the gospel from political involvement. Yet this is precisely what I understand that Christians should do.

At this point I anticipate another objection to be raised. “You’ve over simplified the matter. I don’t ‘equate’ being salt and light with being politically active. I recognize that there are other non-political ways a person could positively impact culture. But still, political influence is one of several methods a person may use to confront social and/or moral issues.”

Perhaps this is true. But if we really believe this counter-objection is true, why continue to raise the initial objection to Christians who withdraw from political powers? If we recognize that Christians can be “salt” and “light” in non-political ways, then why suggest that someone is forsaking their Christian responsibility by not being politically active? Either we don’t actually believe that Christians have a responsibility to be politically active or we don’t actually believe that Christians can influence culture for good while not being politically active. We can’t consistently hold to both at the same time.

I suspect the reality is that these Christians recognize that we can influence culture for good without being politically active, but view non-political methods as less influential than political methods. In other words, they don’t believe in the effectiveness of non-political methods in comparison to political methods. Thus they continue to essentially equate the responsibility to “influence culture for good” with the responsibility to “be politically involved.” They continue to be trapped in a pagan paradigm.

Where Does This Pagan Paradigm Come From?

It is important to recognize that this way of viewing the world did not originate with Jesus. Jesus never so much as commented on the hot political issues of his day. Whenever Jesus was asked directly about sensitive political issues, he used these questions as opportunities to point people to the kingdom of God (Mt. 22.15-22; Lk 12.13-15). On multiple occasions, Jesus had the opportunity to gain political power (power He most certainly would have used for good) yet He continually refused that power (Jn. 6.15). This was precisely the kind of power Jesus rejected as a temptation from Satan (Lk. 4.5-7).

Would we suggest that Jesus was failing to be salt of the earth? Was Jesus forsaking an opportunity to be the light of the world? Does this mean that Jesus had forsaken the opportunity to be socially active? Does this mean Jesus didn’t care about the moral issues in His society? Did Jesus thereby fail to influence His culture for good? Of course not!

(For more on Jesus, read here.)

We should also recognize that this paradigm did not originate with the New Testament church. The only things the New Testament commands Christians to do in relation to political powers is to submit to them (Rom. 13.1-4; 1 Pet. 2.13-14), to strive to obey them (Tit. 3.1), to pay taxes (Rom. 13.7), to honor them (Rom. 13.7; 1 Pet. 2.17), and to pray for them (1 Tim. 2.1-2). More significantly, Christians are commanded not to act as judges over non-Christians (1 Cor. 5.12-13; 1 Pet. 4.17; Mt. 7.1-5). And yet, the early church was credited with “turning the world upside down” (NKJV), not because of the way they influenced Caesar for good, but rather because they claimed “there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17.6-7).

(For more on how the early church approached politics, read here, here, and here.)

So where does this paradigm come from? The answer can be seen in Matthew 20.25-28:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your salve; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

According to Jesus, the pagan world is characterized by their quest for power and ruling authority. The quest to influence the world for good by the means of political power is a pagan strategy resulting from a pagan paradigm. And it is precisely at this point that Jesus challenges His disciples to differentiate themselves from the world. The greatest in the kingdom of Christ do not rule; they serve. If Christians are to be “salt” and “light” in the world, we must be “salt” and “light” in the same way Jesus was salt and light; through self-sacrificial love. Christians should have absolutely no desire to take part in the pursuit of ruling power.

Jesus reinforced this point in John 18.36-37:

Jesus answer, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

The way Jesus’ disciples are differentiated from the world is in their refusal to fight for power the way that kingdoms of this world fight for power.

Christians aren’t distinguished from pagans simply in that we want to influence the world for good (Christians and non-Christians both want to influence the world for good, though they may disagree what “good” should look like). Christians are to be “salt” and “light” by being poor in spirit; by being gentle; by being peacemakers; by allowing themselves to be persecuted by their enemies (Mt. 5.1-12). We must not lose this key distinction.

But if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to the thrown out and trampled under foot by men. – Matthew 5.13

“But the Church Doesn’t Have Enough Resources”

“But the church doesn’t have enough resources. We can do far more good by influencing political powers than we could ever achieve by ourselves.”

I disagree.

If only a small fraction of Christians worked together and sacrificed to help the poor, to support adoption, to support struggling mothers who might otherwise consider abortion, or to lead the fight against racism, they could make an incredible difference.

Can the church do more? Absolutely. But the reason the church is not currently having a bigger influence in the world is because we’re too busy fighting over what Caesar should do about social and moral issues instead of actually doing what Jesus has called us to do. Too many Christians feel like they are doing their part by simply visiting the voting booth once every couple of years. “I voted against abortion, so I did my part” or “I voted to help the poor, so I did my part”. I’m not suggesting that Christians cannot vote, or that every voter fits this description, but we must never be deceived into thinking that political involvement excuses us from sacrificially serving.

The Power of the Gospel

Ultimately, hope for our society (and for our world) doesn’t depend on which party gets in power or which bills get passed into law. Hope for the world depends on Christians using the power God has given us. Hope for the world depends on Christians being distinctive from the world as salt and light.

The power to influence the world for good isn’t a power that gets released when we wrestle ruling authority away from our opponents. The power of the gospel is the power of the cross; the power we have even when our enemies are the ones sitting as rulers, as judges, and as executioners; the power we have when we are nailed into a completely “powerless” position.

The pagan paradigm was put to the ultimate test when Jesus was nailed to the cross. And the pagan paradigm was shattered when Jesus rose from the dead.

It’s time to break free from the pagan paradigm.

What’s the Big Deal about Inerrancy- Part 2

On By John JonesIn Uncategorized

This is a response to Shane Himes’s article: “Israel’s Journey to Know God: Progressive Revelation Part One”

This is the second article I’ve written in response to Shane. You can find his first article here, and my first response here. This response is following his second article in this series.

Again, in the desire for brotherly love and unity, and to keep myself from polemicizing a brother in Christ with whom I greatly disagree, I’ve written to Shane personally.

Hi again Shane, 

To be honest, I hesitated for a few moments before clicking on your most recent article. The thoughts running through my head sounded something like, “What if there is some argument he brings up that I’ve never heard of before and can’t answer?” This initial thought led me to ask a couple of questions: “Why do I feel the need to answer your denial of biblical inerrancy?” and “How much of this discussion deals with our presuppositions before ever even coming to the passages in the text that are a bit troublesome?”

To answer the first question, I feel the need to answer because I believe inerrancy to be foundationally important to the Christian faith, for the reasons I stated in the previous article. Secondly, despite the litany of alleged biblical contradictions, why do I still hold so stubbornly to my belief that the Bible is, in fact, a unified collection of documents and does not contradict itself? 

It seems to me that we are dealing with our presuppositions. You and I are looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusions. It’s not that the issue with Exodus 6:3 absolutely convinced you that the Bible was prone to contradiction. I know that because when I look at this discrepancy, I (and others like me) don’t have the “ah-ha” moment you mention.

It saddens me that you felt limited to two options when addressing this issue.

“I could declare the Christian faith a hoax due to contradictions in certain parts of the Bible, or I could nuance my understanding of biblical inspiration and my expectations of the Bible.”

Have you considered a third option? I could hold onto my trust in the reliability of the Scriptures, dig deeper, and find an explanation that reasonably reconciles this passage with the times God is known as YHWH to the patriarchs. 

Yes, I think the issue you initially brought up can be addressed reasonably and without stretching the text. The foundational issue here, however,  is whether or not, at its very core, the Scripture is accurate and trustworthy. Do we get to subjectively decide where we think God’s Word is right and where it must be wrong?

When God states that He was not known by His name to the patriarchs, how can we account for the 100+ times that He (or they) use that name in Genesis 12-50? Here’s my attempt to answer it, but like I said (and will continue writing about), the issue we are dealing with is so much deeper than just one (of hundreds) of apparent discrepancies.

We are dealing with the storyline of God’s name, which doesn’t climax until Exodus 34:5-7. The concept of God’s “name” is never biblically emphasized as the four letters that make up the tetragrammaton, but the very character and nature of God. He is consistent and faithful. He will always be who he always has been (YHWH). The reason we can trust Him is because we can have absolute surety in “who” He is. The writer of Exodus was very familiar with Genesis and wasn’t contradicting it, but pointing out that Moses’s connection with God was so much deeper than what the patriarchs might have experienced. The point wasn’t that they didn’t know the word “Yahweh” in connection with God. The point is that God’s might was revealed to Abraham, but the fullness of His character wasn’t revealed until Moses, and even then it had to be limited so that Moses wouldn’t be destroyed (Exodus 33:17-23).

Can you answer how as a young boy Samuel “ministered before Yahweh” (1 Sam. 2:18; 3:1) but he “did not yet know Yahweh” (1 Sam. 3:7)? Did he know who he was serving or not? Clearly to know in this passage means more than simple recognition of existence.

What about every other time in Exodus when yadah, the Hebrew word “to know,” is applied to human engagement with Yahweh (6:7; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:29; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 29:46)? Each of these passages indicates so much more than simple recognition of existence. Is it good exegesis to use a modern Western definition of know in Exodus 6:3, when it is clearly much more than that?

What about the fact that yadah  is applied to the intimate sexual experience between husband and wife? Did Abraham really not know Sarah before that happened?

What about Jeremiah 16:21 and Isaiah 52:6? Did the people of Israel really not know how to pronounce God’s name? I don’t think either of us would make that claim.

This isn’t stretching the text. This is exactly what you have been asking us to do, recognize the cultural, linguistic, narrative, and historical context of the Writings. We can’t apply the Hebrew word yadah to our cleanly defined 21st century Western understanding of what it means to know something, when it is clear from Scripture that it means so much more.

Moving to the bigger issue, however, where does my trust in the Scriptures come from? Is it a game of circular reasoning? I believe Jesus because I believe the Bible because I believe Jesus because I believe the Bible…and so on? I don’t think so.

I believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

I believe in the “gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1:1-2). 

Because He was declared to be the Son of God, I believe the things He said to be true.

I believe what Jesus taught about the Old Testament. When did He ever cast doubt on its origin? Did he teach that the Old Testament writings were just the author’s interpretation of what God wrote? Actually, He taught exactly the opposite. Jesus regularly referred to passages from the Old Testament as “the commandment of God” (Matt. 15:3) and “The word of God” (Matt. 15:6; John 10:35). In fact, Jesus, Himself, quoted the very passage that convinced you that the Old Testament must contain errors.

“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matt. 22:31-32; Jesus is quoting from Ex. 3:6)

Who did Jesus credit these words to? You have attributed this passage from Exodus to a mistaken human, when Jesus attributes it to God Himself. 

I believe in Jesus’s promise to the apostles that they would be given the “Spirit of truth” who would teach and remind them of Jesus’s words (John 14:17, 26). 

I believe what Jesus said to those same apostles when he promised,

“When the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak…He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-15).

For those reasons, I also believe what the apostles say about the Hebrew Scriptures. When do they ever cast doubt on its origin? Do they teach that the Old Testament writings were just the author’s interpretation of what God wrote? Actually, they teach exactly the opposite.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

When Paul writes this about the Hebrew Scriptures, he emphasizes God’s intimate involvement in the Word. Where exactly is the room, according to Paul, for the Hebrew prophets to misunderstand Him and write their own interpretation of their experience with God?

2 Peter 1:19-21

“And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Prior to this quote, Peter emphasizes his own role as an eyewitness and how God’s revealed words are even more concrete and trustworthy than what he had previously experienced walking daily with the incarnate Lord. Should this passage read, “No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as best as they could understand him, while of course being limited by their unscientific, morally unrefined, ancient worldview”?

I’m just not comfortable with the presuppositions that would allow for Jesus and the apostles to be mistaken on their teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I really do appreciate your attempts to show that the Bible must be seen in the cultural and historical context that its authors lived. I agree wholeheartedly, but to suggest that God was not able (or willing), in those ancient times, to communicate his words accurately is contrary to Jesus’s teachings. The term “inerrancy” might be a modern construct, but its definition has been the foundation of most Christians throughout history: the reliability that anyone with a copy of it has access to God’s own words.

As for the Akkadian texts you mention, I think they are amazing finds that really shed light on the Torah! If the global flood really did happen, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that other ancient cultures (even those who began writing their histories before the ancient descendants of Abraham) would recount these stories? Even the ancient Māori, in the land I’m currently living in, had a story of an overwhelming flood. Most ancient cultures do. That should increase our faith in the Hebrew Scriptures! 

Sidebar: Does the Bible claim that Moses was the first person to ever write anything down? Does the fact that these Akkadian texts are older mean that they are in some way better? The Sumerian Code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin is actually much older than Hammurabi.

It’s great that you’ve listed some of the laws from the Code of Hammurabi, written centuries prior to the Exodus. Aren’t they amazing? The similarities to the Torah are awesome! If God did give His Law to a theocratic society that had recently departed Egypt, wouldn’t we expect some of the civil laws found therein to be similar to other ancient law codes? Of course we would. But, I think you forgot to mention some of the important differences. Hammurabi’s law is completely inundated with polytheism, like all cultures of the day (except the Hebrew). The Torah continually declares the Israelites’ reasons for believing and obeying it: God’s faithfulness and rescue. Before giving any laws, God states: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Exodus 20:2) Throughout the Torah He emphasizes the mandate for obeying Him is tied to His love and his previous action (Lev. 25:38; 26:11-13, Dt. 4:7). Yahweh’s laws are tied to His real presence and righteousness among His people. Is this something that Hammurabi can claim?

As for Joshua 10:12-14, I hope you can maintain consistency and never again use the phrases “sunrise” and “sunset.” Otherwise, people might consider you ignorant and unscientific. It might be more reasonable to allow the Bible to speak the same language that ancient people spoke, and in this case, the way people still speak today, as things appear from our perspective. 

You mentioned in a Facebook post that “these articles are fun, but they aren’t going to be the best means of academic engagement.” You suggested that we read your thesis if anyone really wanted to “dive into the issue.” While I appreciate the hard work and study that goes into a thesis, I think that since you’ve introduced the topic in a nonacademic venue, its best for us to continue the conversation down here. I also enjoy spending some time in academia’s ivory tower, but if conclusions reached there can’t be effectively communicated to those without access to it, we’re doing a great disservice to the Lord’s people. 

I’m not sure if you plan to respond to my responses, but I think I’ve voiced some questions that many of us have when inerrancy gets the boot. Perhaps you didn’t intend your articles to be a large scale defense of your position of “errancy,” but when you finish your series I would really appreciate your time in helping me understand your point of view in some of the questions I’ve raised. 

Shane, I appreciate you and hope we can come to a better understanding of God’s truth together.

What’s the Big Deal About Inerrancy?

On By John JonesIn Uncategorized1 Comment

Today as I was scrolling through Aggos.com, a new social media site for members of the church of Christ (check it out!), I noticed a post by Shane Himes sharing his article “Israel’s Journey to Know God: Biblical Inspiration” (find it here). In short, I disagree with his conclusions about biblical inerrancy and want to share why.

In the past authors within churches of Christ who disagreed with each other often wrote to their opponents in journals, blogs, or brotherhood publications to encourage a written debate and sort out the issues at hand. Sometimes, their correspondence was published for the readership of those journals. Unfortunately, and more often than not, these authors resorted to the vilification of those who disagreed with them through twisting the words of an author who would respond and setting up “straw-man” arguments against those who didn’t. These things don’t make for the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). While we may disagree, I have a responsibility in my response to show “humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2). In order to do this, and remind myself that I am writing to a brother, not an enemy, I’ve decided to write directly to Shane.

Hi Shane,
I know we’ve never met, but if you’re ever in the Henderson, TN, area in the next year or so, let me know and let’s grab some lunch. I’ve read your article about inerrancy and appreciate some aspects of it. I agree that adages and oversimplified viewpoints of the Scripture can cause more harm than good. The Bible is sometimes confusing and often difficult to understand. Even Biblical authors have acknowledged that. Acknowledging that fact, the question then is, “Where do we go from here?”

As I read, I noticed that you are a young guy, like myself, who obviously loves Jesus and His people. The topic of your writing, however, was troubling and in my opinion, inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Though the Bible is difficult to understand in some places, I sincerely disagree that the best way to deal with these issues is to give up on inerrancy, deny the unity of the biblical writings, or overemphasize the human involvement in the word of the Bible to the point of neglecting the divine. This seems to be what your article is attempting to do.

For the sake of some readers of this, inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy that Shane mentions is probably taken from article XI:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

It is important to remember that this “statement” that Shane and I are referring to is not a denominational creed, but a definition of what many believe to be a summation of biblical principles on God’s authority and man’s involvement in the writing of the Christian Scriptures.

I think that your definition of inerrancy is a bit misleading. Article VI, that you’ve mentioned reads: “We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.” Without reading more of the statement, however, it might seem that they mean that God miraculously took control of the biblical author’s writing hand and mechanically dictated each stroke of the stylus. For clarification, Article VIII reads: “We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.” The Bible is full of the original authors’ personalities: John’s Greek is easier to read than Luke’s, Paul doesn’t necessarily remember who all he baptized in Corinth, and Matthew’s gospel seems inherently “more Jewish” than Mark’s. These marks of authenticity don’t negate God’s inspiration, they actually emphasize God’s power in providing a consistent message through numerous human authors over long periods of human history.

Many have suggested that the Bible is inspired as far as it speaks to spiritual truths, but not necessarily in regard to what you phrase, “science, sociology, theology, morality, or anything else.” CSOI Article XII reads: “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” In your upcoming articles, could you please inform us how we can trust the spiritual positions expounded in Scripture that come from a God unable (or unwilling) to correctly communicate the physical aspects of history or geography? Are the human authors involved in the process somehow limiting God’s accuracy of inspiration?

I appreciate your unique view of the growing understanding of the Hebrew people throughout the ages, but I believe you’ve created a false dichotomy between inerrancy and progressive revelation as the Israelites experienced it. In fact Article V of the CSOI states: “We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.” It is completely reasonable to assume that God’s purposes and personality were more clear to those who had more of His revelation available to them. Hebrews 1:1-2 make that evident. While those who only had access to the Torah may have been more aware of God’s judgment and less of his grace, it’s an unsubstantiated leap to assume that their writings would contradict what would later be revealed. Is it not possible that the people of Israel were emphasizing different aspects about God as more of His revelation became known through prophecy? Do the supposed discrepancies force us to leap to the conclusion that they often changed their thoughts about God, contradicting themselves previously?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that your viewpoint must concede that our ultimate authority as Christians is not Scripture, itself, but our subjective deliberations as to what within the Bible is correct by our own definition of proper morality, history, or science. You make some very concrete assertions about your faith, which is laudable. Let’s look at a few of them and apply your hermeneutic.

“I’m not always the follower of Jesus that I should be, but his grace is enough in the absence of my perfection. ”

Amen, brother. Me too. But if we can’t know with certainty which aspects of Scripture are truly God’s Word and which are just human reflections on God’s revelation (which are prone to error), how can you know that Paul’s description of Christ’s grace was what was intended by God?

“It is in Christ that we find the answer all of humanity, including ancient Israel, has searched for.”

I agree, but once again, I feel like my foundation of scriptural inerrancy upholds this. From your position how can you say this, without allowing for the possibility that the apostles misunderstood certain aspects of God’s revelation in Christ?

“Jesus is the perfect revelation from God and all previous revelation must bow to him.”

Amen again. But, if previous revelation and the human tendency to misrepresent God are any indication of how fallible men have represented Jesus in the books of the New Testament, how can I trust Jesus when I don’t actually know for certain who he is and what he is about? It sounds subjective at best.

If I can venture to guess what strategy you’ll take in regard to the concepts introduced in your upcoming article series, I would say that the “points of error” in the Bible (in your opinion) are actually “according to standards of truth and error that are alien to [the Bible’s] usage or purpose” (CSOI Article XIII). If you are planning to focus on “biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations,” (CSOI Article XIII) these can be explained without throwing out inerrancy in what you’ve termed as the “examining of Scripture on its own terms and in its own context.”

…We… deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

Chicago Statement of Inerrancy- Article XIX

This point is vital. Shane, if your view is correct, what are the rest of us missing out on by holding on to the doctrine of inerrancy? Acceptability in scholarly communities? Relevance in the modern world? An easy “out” when difficult questions (like the “violent depictions of God in the Torah”) arise? Is there actually something significant to our faith and knowledge of Christ that we can gain by letting go of inerrancy?

In my understanding, I don’t think those things are worth the price of cutting off the branch we are sitting on. The trustworthiness of God’s inspired word is a pillar that undergirds our faith. When we become the moral, scientific, historical, and theological authorities instead of trusting in God’s Word for all truth, our faith will eventually become a skeleton of what it once was, after we’ve picked it clean of what society deems as inappropriate or distasteful. We certainly won’t look like the church that Jesus built and our witness for Him will be limited to whatever is palatable to the majority.

Shane, as your series of articles appear, I will attempt to show that God’s Word as we have it, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, is without error in anything that it asserts. The New Testament and Old Testament are in complete agreement with one another and the difficult questions that arise in this discussion can be answered without denying the ability of God to produce an authoritative message to mankind that is free from mistakes.

Will We Have “Physical” Bodies In The Resurrection?

On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection1 Comment

The Body Will Be Incorruptible

Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on the immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up” in victory. -1 Corinthians 15.50-54

As I pointed out in my preceding article, when we speak of the resurrection, we must be careful to emphasize that we will not have the same old corruptible bodies we have now. This is a continual emphasis of Paul’s, especially in the context of 1 Corinthians 15.  This parallels what Paul said in Philippians 3:20-21.

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has given to subject all things to Himself.

But when it comes to “flesh and blood” not inheriting the kingdom of God, this cannot mean that we won’t have bodies. This verse is in a section where Paul is specifically answering the question of “what kind of bodies” we will have.

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come? – 1 Corinthians 15.35

Once again, we need to let Paul define his own terms. Paul has already described what he means by “fleshly” people.

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are still not able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealously and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? – 1 Corinthians 3.1-3

Here Paul uses the word “fleshly” to describe the same people he described as “natural” in 2.14-16 (referenced in the preceding article). The “natural” and “fleshly” people are those who walk as “mere men”, as opposed to the “spiritual” people who live in harmony with the Spirit. For Paul, the primary meaning of “flesh” is not “made out of matter” or “material” or “skin” or bodily”.  For Paul, “flesh” primarily referred to people who live in sinful rebellion (Rom. 7.5, 14, 18; 8.3-13; Gal. 5.16-19) and for our current bodies which are destined for decay, destruction and death (see also 1 Cor. 5.5; Rom. 7.5; 8.6, 13; 2 Cor. 4.11; Col. 1.22).

Therefore, when Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”, he is not claiming that material “bodies” cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Rather, as he explains himself in the 2nd half of verse 50, “nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” Unless the nature of our bodies are changed from “corruptible”, “merely human” bodies, into “incorruptible” “spiritual bodies”, we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Or as he says in verse 53, “this perishable must put on the imperishable”.

Is Jesus Still In A Body?

One further note should be made here. I have on multiple occasions heard preachers claim that when Jesus was raised, he had not yet received his transformed, spiritual body. Since “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and since Jesus was clearly raised with a material, tangible body, they conclude that he must have undergone yet another transformation upon his ascension into heaven.

First of all, there is nothing in Scripture that would indicate that Jesus underwent further transformation upon his ascension. Such a conclusion is drawn as an effort to reconcile what appears to be a contradiction between 1 Corinthians 15.50 with what we know about the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body. If, however, we simply accept Paul’s own definition of “flesh and blood” instead of assuming a different definition, the apparent contradiction resolves itself easily.

Secondly, it should be noted that Scripture is clear that Jesus is still in bodily form, even after his ascension. We get a glimpse of this in Acts 1.9-11

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Jesus went up in His resurrected body. And He will return “in just the same way” – in his resurrected body.

Also, notice in Philippians 3.20-21, where Paul writes,

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Jesus didn’t shed his human skin. He still has a body – a glorious body, a perfected body, a transformed body, a body like we haven’t experienced yet but will one day experience when He returns and transforms us.

Will We Be Raised with Physical Bodies?

Occasionally debates over the nature of the resurrection body revolve around whether or not we will be raised with “physical” bodies. Rarely do I contribute to such discussions without great hesitation. In fact, you may have noticed that I have described the resurrection body as “material” and “tangible” (since it will be made out of the same “stuff” that was once in our graves, and since Jesus was clearly visible and touchable, unlike bodiless spirits (Lk. 24.39)) , but I have avoided describing the resurrection body as “physical”.

This is not because I wish to be evasive, but rather because a simple “yes” or “no” would almost certainly leave the wrong impression. The difficulty revolves around the meaning of the word “physical”. The word “physical” seems to mean different things to different people, and unless we understand the word alike, we are almost certain to misunderstand one another.

For some, the word “physical” simply means “having material existence” or things which can be perceived through bodily senses. For them, “physical” is virtually synonymous with words like “bodily”, “tangible”, or “material”.

For others, the word “physical” refers to things which are defined by and subject to the physical laws of nature. This would include the tendency for matter and energy to deteriorate over time. Thus for them, the word “physical” includes the idea of “corruptibility”. To describe a body as “physical” is to say that the body is subject to the physical laws of the universe, and therefore is mortal. For them, the word “physical” is very similar to what Paul meant by the word “fleshly”.

So will we be raised with physical bodies? If by “physical”, we simply mean “bodily”, then yes, we will be raised with material, “physical” bodies. But if by “physical” we mean “corruptible” or “mortal”, no, our bodies will not be physical.

For most, I believe the word “physical” includes a little bit of both definitions. This makes sense. In our current world, we don’t have a category for a material “body” that is not subject to decay. The idea of an “incorruptible, physical body” stretches the bounds of our imaginations and language. For this reason, I generally avoid describing the resurrection body as “physical.” Our bodies will be transformed, and I don’t want anybody to miss that point due confusion about terminology.

We must not make the mistake of assuming that all types of material bodies are necessarily corruptible. And likewise, we must not make the mistake of assuming that if we are going to be incorruptible this necessitates a non-bodily “spiritual” existence. Paul wants us to recognize that there are different types of bodies (1 Cor. 15.39-42). When we are raised, we will be raised with bodies. We will be raised with spiritual, incorruptible, material, tangible bodies.

Both Continuity and Discontinuity

In one sense, our resurrection bodies will be the “same” bodies we have now. But in another very important sense, they will be transformed into something radically different. Earlier in the same chapter (1 Cor. 15.37-38) Paul uses the illustration of a seed compared with a full grown plant. There is “continuity” (both are the same organism), and there is “discontinuity” (the full grown plant is radically different from what was first planted in the ground.)

Yes, we will be raised with bodies, but we must not neglect the great transformation, lest we reduce the resurrection into little more than a “resuscitation” of the same old corruptible body.

Yes, our bodies will be radically different “spiritual”, “incorruptible” bodies, but we will not be bodiless spirits. The dead will actually be raised.

For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. – 1 Corinthians 15.16-17

You can read more on the resurrection here:

We Will Have “Spiritual Bodies”

On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body… Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. – 1 Corinthians 15.44, 50

Those who are in Christ will be raised with spiritual bodies. Read again slowly. Think about both words. “Spiritual”. “Bodies”. The Christian hope is not to be “bodiless spirits” floating around in a non-material existence. Neither is the Christian hope to have our same old corruptible “natural”, “fleshly” bodies. The Christian hope is to be resurrected with “spiritual” “ bodies”.

In recent years, I’ve occasionally witnessed Christians sharply disagree with one another about the nature of the resurrection body. One side will emphasize the continuity between our resurrection bodies and our current bodies (that is, we will be raised with the “same” bodies we have now). The other side will emphasize the discontinuity between our resurrection bodies and our current bodies (that is, our current bodies will be “transformed” into something very different).

We must be careful to avoid unbiblical extremes in either direction. Those who emphasize the sameness of our resurrection body must be careful never to deny the spiritual nature of our future bodies. Those who emphasize the spiritual nature our future selves must be careful never to deny the bodily nature of the resurrection. Instead we should strive for biblical balance by embracing both the continuity and the discontinuity of the resurrection.

We will not be bodiless spirits, and we will not have fleshly bodies. Scripture teaches that we will have spiritual bodies, bodies which in many ways have continuity with our current bodies, but in other very important ways will be very different from our current bodies.

This article is the first part of a two part series examining the nature of the resurrection body. This first article will primarily focus on 1 Corinthians 15.42-44, while the second article will primarily focus on 1 Corinthians 15:50-55. This series is in some ways a follow up to a two part series I wrote a few years ago. You can read those articles here:

The Body Will Be Spiritual

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. – 1 Cor. 15.42-44

Our resurrection bodies will be very different from our current bodies. In this passage, Paul makes an obvious contrast between our present bodies and our future bodies.

  • Our current bodies are perishable. Our future bodies will be imperishable.
  • Our current bodies are dishonorable. Our future bodies will be glorious.
  • Our current bodies are weak. Our future bodies will be raised in power.
  • Our current bodies are natural. Our future bodies will be spiritual.

Yes, there is a sense in which we can say that our future bodies are the “same” as our current bodies. For example, when Jesus rose from the dead, Thomas could reach out and touch Jesus’s wounds (Jn 20.27-29). Jesus was able to do things that real, material, bodily people are able to do, like cooking fish and eating breakfast (Jn. 21.9-14). When Jesus rose from the dead, He left behind an empty grave. His resurrected body used up the same material that was once in the grave. In this sense, Jesus was raised with the “same” material body that once hung on the cross.

For everything we don’t understand about the nature of the resurrection, we do know that His resurrection body is a model for our own resurrection bodies (Phil. 3.20-21; 1 Jn. 3.1-2). On the resurrection day, “all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth” (Jn. 5.27-29). Just as Jesus’ resurrection left behind an empty grave, so also our graves will be emptied. The same “stuff” that goes into the grave will come out. That’s what the word “resurrection” means.

But (and this is important), Paul’s major point in 1 Corinthians 15.42-44 is that our bodies will not be the “same”. This discontinuity also follows the model of Jesus. For example, in the passage mentioned above, where Thomas reached out and touched Jesus’ wounds, we also read that “Jesus came, the door having been shut, and stood in their midst” (Jn. 20.26). Jesus appeared in a room with locked doors! We can’t do that in our current bodies! He was the same Jesus with the same tangible, touchable, visible material body, but He was different!

In Revelation 1.12-16, the resurrected Jesus is described with white hair, with a face like the sun and eyes like a flame of fire. This was clearly not the same old body that went into the grave! It was the “same body”, but it was obviously not the same body.

When Christians write articles and blog posts that argue that we will be raised with the same physical bodies we have now without likewise emphasizing the radical transformation we will undergo, is it any surprise that they are so frequently met with resistance? If it was important for Paul to emphasize the discontinuity between our current and our future bodies, it should be important for us to emphasize the same. Yes, we will be raised with bodies. Spiritual bodies.

What is a “Spiritual Body” Anyway?

A very important point must be made about the words “natural” and “spiritual”. For some, when they read about the “spiritual” body, they assume Paul is referring to a new, resurrection body that is “spiritual” in in the sense of being “non-material”. In other words, they assume that Paul’s “spiritual body” is the same thing as a “bodiless spirit” – something you could not touch, could not see, and something which would not leave an empty grave behind it. This is especially true when we see the “spiritual” body held in contrast with the “natural” body. For many, it appears that Paul is very clearly drawing a distinction between our current “material” bodies with our future “non-material” existence.

We must stop here and remember that we must allow Paul to define his own terms. Earlier in the same letter, Paul has already told his readers what he means (and what he doesn’t mean) when he uses the terms “natural” and “spiritual”.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For ‘who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him?’ But we have the mind of Christ. – 1 Corinthians 2.14-16

Here Paul speaks of fully-embodied, tangible, material Christians as being “spiritual.” These Christians were not ghosts! Rather they were living in harmony with the Holy Spirit. This is the meaning of the word “spiritual” throughout the entire book of 1 Corinthians (3.1; 6.19; 14.37). For Paul, the word “spiritual” almost never means non-material (Rom. 1.11; 7.14; 15.27; Gal. 6.1; Eph. 1.3; 5.19; Col. 1.9; 3.16). Rather the word “spiritual” refers to men whose character is consistent with the character and inspired scriptures of the Holy Spirit.

Throughout the writings of Paul, the words “natural” and “spiritual” do not describe a contrast between material and non-material. Rather they draw a distinction between ordinary human life and life given by the Spirit.

This helps make sense of verses like Romans 8.11.

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

It should also be noted that in 1 Corinthians 15.36-54 Paul is answering the question raised in verse 35: “But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” Paul is describing the nature of our future bodies. Yes, we will be resurrected with bodies; spiritual bodies; bodies which are animated by and guided by the Spirit of God. These bodies will be quite different from our current, corruptible, fleshly, natural bodies. There will be no wheelchairs, no arthritis, no diabetes, and no cancer once we are transformed. But, we must never adopt the belief that we will be non-material, bodiless spirits. To deny that dead bodies will actually come to life is to deny the resurrection.

Alexander Campbell’s Eight Reasons for Opposing War

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Church History, Love for Enemies

Shortly after the close of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Alexander Campbell delivered his “Address on War” (you can read it in its entirety here). At the conclusion of his address, Campbell summarized eight reasons why he believed that Christians should be opposed to warfare.

  1. The Innocent Suffer

The right to take away the life of the murderer does not of itself warrant war, inasmuch as in that case none but the guilty suffer, whereas in war the innocent suffer not only with, but often without, the guilty. The guilty generally make the war and the innocent suffer from its consequences.

Campbell believed the Bible authorized taking away the life of murderers. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” (Gen. 9.6). He did not, however, believe that capital punishment authorized Christians to go to war. In fact, Campbell believed that the “most convincing argument against a Christian becoming a soldier may be drawn from the fact that he fights against an innocent person.”

“Politicians, merchants, knaves, and princes” are usually the ones who make war, but “the soldiers on either side have no enmity against the soldiers on the other side, because with them they have no quarrel.” Campbell observed that opposing soldiers were to meet each other “in any other field, in their citizen dress, other than in battle array, they would probably have not only inquired about the welfare of each other, but would have tendered to each other their assistance if called for.”

These reflections led Campbell to ask,

How could a Christian man thus volunteer his services, or hire himself out for so paltry a sum, or for any sum, to kill his brother man who never offended him in word or deed?

  1. Old Testament Wars Do Not Authorize Christians to Go To War

The right given to the Jews to wage war is not vouchsafed to any other nations, for they were under a theocracy, and were God’s sheriff to punish nations; consequently no Christian can argue from the wars of the Jews in justification or in extenuation of the wars of Christendom. The Jews had a Divine precept and authority; no existing nation can produce such a warrant.

Campbell recognized that the Old Testament “certainly commended and authorized war among the Jews”, yet he believed it was important to observe that “He gave authority, however, to one family or nation, whose God and King he assumed to be.” In other words, the Jews were “under His own special direction and authority.” Therefore,

What the God of Abraham did by Abraham, by Jacob, or by any of his sons, as the moral Governor of the world, before He gave up the scepter and the crown to His Son Jesus Christ, is of no binding authority now.

Christianity is based upon the observation that “Jesus Christ is now the Lord and King of both earth and heaven.” We are now under “the new administration of the universe.” Therefore, when it comes to the question of war, we must look to the teachings of Jesus for authority to go to war.

  1. The Messiah’s Kingdom Was Prophesied As Peaceful

The prophecies clearly indicate that the Messiah himself would be “the Prince of Peace” and that under his reign “wars should cease” and “nations study it no more.

Campbell wrote, “His kingdom neither came nor stands by the sword.” He believed the the “native influence and tendency of the Christian institution” could be seen by reading the words of the prophets when they first announced the coming of the kingdom. He reflected on passages such as Isaiah 2.4:

And He will judge between the nations,
And will render decisions for many peoples;
And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not lift up sword against nations,
And never again will they learn war.

The prophet Micah used almost the same words as Isaiah when he wrote:

For from Zion will go forth the law,
Every word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And He will judge between many peoples
And render decisions for the mighty, distant nations.
They will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hoocks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they train for war.
Each of them will sit under his vine
And under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid,
For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.
– Micah 4:2-4

Upon reading such prophecies, Campbell concluded that “the spirit of Christianity, then, is essentially pacific.”

  1. The Gospel Produces “Peace on Earth”

Reflecting on Luke 2.14, when the heavenly hosts sang in praise after the Savior’s birth, Campbell observed:

The gospel, as first announced by the angels, is a message which results in producing “peace on earth and good will among men.”

  1. The Precepts of Christianity Positively Inhibit War

The precepts of Christianity positively inhibit war – by showing that “wars and fightings come from men’s lusts” and evil passions, and by commanding Christians to “follow peace with all men.

Not only is the spirit of Christianity peaceful, but so is the actual letter of it. Campbell makes his point by raising an interesting question. Suppose that the chaplain of an army were to address the soldiers on the eve of a great battle, and suppose he were to address them from the following passages:

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous an the unrighteous. – Matthew 5.44-45

Never pay back evil for evil to anyone… If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. – Romans 12.17-21

Campbell then asks:

Would anyone suppose that he had selected a text suitable to the occasion? How would the commander in chief have listened to him? With what spirit would his audience have immediately entered upon an engagement?

Reflecting upon these questions, Campbell concludes, “A Christian man cannot conscientiously enter upon any business, nor lend his energies to any cause, which he does not approve.”

  1. The Beatitudes Pronounce Blessings on Peacemakers

The beatitudes of Christ are not pronounced on patriots, heroes, and conquerors, but on peacemakers, on whom is conferred the highest rank and title in the universe: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.

As much as Campbell disliked the horrors, death, and grief brought on by wars, he felt that the moral desolation brought on by war were far worse. “Behold its influence on mothers, sisters, and relatives; note its contagion, its corruption of public taste.” During times of war, people become “fascinated by the halo of false glory thrown around these worshiped heroes.”

He observed that as a result of war, even churches “are ornamented with the sculptured representations of more military heroes than of saints – generals, admirals, and captains who “gallantly fought” and “gloriously fell” in the service of their country.

This worshipful attitude towards soldiers stands in stark contrast to the teachings of Christ, which pronounce blessings on peacemakers rather than on war heroes.

  1. War is Ineffective in Resolving Conflict

The folly of war is manifest in the following particulars: First. It can never be the criterion of justice of a proof of right. Second. It can never be a satisfactory end of the controversy. Third. Peace is always the result of negotiation, and treaties are its guaranty and pledge.

In Matthew 26.52, Jesus warned, “All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” Campbell observed that this has continually been proved true. Throughout history, all nations that were created by the sword have eventually fallen by it. Therefore Campbell had “no doubt” that it would continue to be proved true in the future.

Wars don’t end wars. They produce greater controversy.

  1. War Constrains Soldiers to Kill Their Brethren For No Personal Cause

The wickedness of war is demonstrated in the following particulars:

First. Those who are engaged in killing their brethren, for the most part, have no personal cause of provocation whatever.

Second. They seldom, or never, comprehend the right or the wrong of the war. They, therefore, act without the approbation of conscience.

Third. In all wars the innocent are punished with the guilty.

Fourth. They constrain the soldier to do for the state that which, were he to do it for himself, would, by the law of the state, involved forfeiture of his life.

Fifth. They are the pioneers of all other evils to society, both moral and physical.

Campbell believed it would be morally wrong for an individual to do that in obedience to his government which he could not do in his own case. He asks the reader to consider a scenario where two neighbors were involved in a property line dispute. If one neighbor were to command his servant to burn the other neighbor’s fields and to kill several of his neighbor’s servants, would any judge or jury excuse the servant’s actions simply because the servant was following the orders of his master?

Campbell thus concluded,

We cannot of right as Christian men obey the powers that be in anything not in itself justifyable by written law… A Christian man can never be compelled to do that for the state, in defense of state rights, which he cannot of right do for himself in defense of his personal rights. No Christian man is commanded to love or serve his neighbor, his king, or sovereign more than he loves or serves himself. If this is conceded, unless a Christian man can go to war for himself, he cannot for the state.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Campbell believed “no Christian man who fears God and desires to be loyal to the Messiah, the Prince of Peace, shall be found in the ranks so unholy a warfare.”

Campbell’s views on war were grounded in both logic and scripture. Since Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world, the cause of Christ should not be defended militarily. If the cause of Christ is insufficient for taking up arms, surely no lesser cause would be sufficient for taking up arms.

Does God Expect Governments to Love Their Enemies?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life, Love for Enemies

Must governments love their enemies? Are militaries required “turn the other cheek”? Does “do not resist an evil person” apply to police forces? In light of all that the Bible teaches about how to treat enemies, should nations have militaries at all?

Was The New Testament Written to Reform Governments?

The New Testament was not written as a moral code to reform all the disorders and evils of the political powers. The New Testament was not written to fill the world with so-called “Christian nations.”

Matthew 4.17 identifies the theme of Jesus’ teaching as “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus’ hearers knew what the word “kingdom” meant. They were familiar with the Egypitians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and now the Romans. But the Kingdom preached by Jesus was to be distinguished from any of these earthly kingdoms. The kingdom preached by Jesus was the “kingdom of heaven.” That is, it was a kingdom from heaven. In other places it is described as the “kingdom of God.” In John 18.36, Jesus made the nature of his kingdom clear. “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this world.” Yes, Jesus came to establish His kingdom in the world, but his kingdom is not of this world.

There is an important distinction made between the kingdoms of this earth and the kingdoms of this world. Earthly kingdoms are under the authority of earthly rulers. The heavenly kingdom is under the authority of the heavenly Father. Earthly kingdoms fight. Those in Jesus’ kingdom do not fight.

The teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount (and throughout the whole New Testament) are the teachings of the kingdom of heaven, not the teachings of any earthly kingdom. Their purpose is not to reform the world by making earthly kingdoms moral, but rather to set apart the disciples of Jesus as “salt” and “light” to be distinguished from the rest of the world.

Paul understood that “loving your enemies” is an essential requirement for those who follow Jesus (Rom. 12.14-13.2). But Paul also understood that we cannot please God unless we have the Spirit of God (Rom. 8.5-16). We cannot love our enemies unless we first present our bodies as living sacrifices and are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12.1-2).

Paul recognized that those who are outside of Christ are in darkness (Eph. 2.1-3). Therefore Paul appealed to Christians not to judge those who are outside the church, but rather to leave their judgment to God (1 Cor. 5.11-12).

The New Testament Is Silent on How Earthly Rulers Should Govern

God’s divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1.2-3), but the New Testament is silent when it comes to how earthly rulers are to govern others. Christians are commanded to submit to earthly rulers (Rom. 13.1-4, 2 Pet. 2.13-18), pray for earthly rulers (1 Tim. 2.1-2), and pay taxes to them (Mt. 22.15-22; Rom 13.7), but nowhere are we given instructions to seek to reform or rule over the nations of this world.

In fact, Jesus taught nearly the opposite.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. – Matthew 28.25-28

When Jesus was approached with political questions, he used these as opportunities to advance the Kingdom of God (Mt. 22.15-22; Lk. 12.13-15). The point of His teaching was never to rule over others with more godly principles than other men. The point of his teaching was to establish a separate kingdom, founded on entirely different principles.

Paul encouraged Christians not to yoke themselves with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6.14-18), not to fight with earthly weapons (2 Cor. 10.3-4), and not to fight against flesh and blood (Eph. 6.12). He encouraged Christians to remember that earthly rulers and authorities have been disarmed (Col. 2.15). Therefore, Christians should not feel compelled to rule over earthly authorities, but rather they should submit to them (Rom 13.1-4).

The mission of the early church was not to solve the problems of the world by making Rome great, but rather to proclaim the Kingdom of God as the place where those problems will be solved. When disciples of Jesus display the peaceful principles of God’s kingdom, they will draw men out of the kingdoms of darkness into the kingdom of light.

Should Governments Turn the Other Cheek?

Sure, it would be great if every nation on earth followed the golden rule. It would be great if every military on earth acted with love towards their enemies. If every nation on earth were to turn the other cheek, there would probably be a lot less evil and war.

Yet for Christians, this is asking the wrong question. Governments don’t spread the kingdom of God. No military, no violence, and no sword can ever spread the gospel of the Prince of Peace. Neither do governments stop the spread of the kingdom of God. The New Testament is not concerned with reforming the Roman Empire into a Christian nation.

The New Testament never commands Rome, America, or any other nation to have a military. Neither does the New Testament command nations to get rid of their militaries.

The Bible does continually teach that nations will be held accountable for the wicked things they do. But when Paul wrote to the church in Rome, where wicked Nero reigned on the throne, Paul did not charge the church with disarming Nero and his forces. Rather Paul encouraged the church to remember that God can use even those who bear the sword for wicked Nero to accomplish good. Therefore, rather than seeking to disarm Nero, Christians should submit to him, recognizing that God uses earthly governments for the necessary work of executing wrath on evildoers (Rom. 13.1-4).

Rather than resisting the desires of evil earthly rulers, the duty of the Christian is to refuse to take vengeance against their enemies (Rom. 12.14-21). When Christians love their enemies and convert them from their evil, they reform society by removing the necessary reason for the existence of earthly governments and their militaries.

Does This Imply a Double Standard?

Some will object that this implies a double standard. That is, some will argue that if something is a sin for one person, it must be a sin for all people. And if something is right for one person, it must be right for all people. Interestingly, this same objection is raised by two different groups, each raising the objection with very different intentions.

On one hand, sometimes pacifists will argue since it would be wrong for Christians to violently resist evil, it would be wrong for anyone to resist evil. Therefore, Christians should actively call their governments to account whenever their government fails to love their enemies.

On the other hand, others will argue that since governments “do not bear the sword in vain”, and since God must be consistent, Christians must not be sinning when they bear the sword against their enemies. This objection argues that since God allows the world to use violence for a necessary purpose of executing wrath on evildoers, God must also be pleased when Christians when they use violence for the same purpose.

In response to this objection it should be noted that God has always held His people to a higher standard. For example, in the Old Testament, God always held priests to higher standards of holiness than other Israelites. When God commanded the Israelites to go to war, the priests were not to be numbered among those who would fight (Num. 1.47-54). This doesn’t make God inconsistent. Rather, because we know that God does not change (Mal. 3.6), we should come to the New Testament, expecting that God would hold the church, His holy priesthood (1 Pet. 2.5) to a higher standard.

The entire Sermon on the Mount is founded upon the idea that Christians are to be salt and light. Paul’s commands about loving enemies in Romans 12 are founded upon the idea that Christians are not to be conformed to this world (Rom. 12.1-2). Yes, God may use those in the world to bear the sword, but it is not be problematic to think that God holds Christians to a higher standard. It should be expected!

Hope for the world doesn’t rely on reforming the governments and militaries of this world with Christian ethics.  The command, “love your enemies”, is directly connected to the work and teaching of Jesus, who turned the other cheek when he was crucified by the Roman government.

If we were to succeed in infusing every earthly kingdom with godly principles, but we failed to spread the gospel of the kingdom of God, we will have failed. We cannot expect the world to conform to Jesus’s teachings without first being transformed by the work of Jesus. The answer to wars and violence does not lie in political reform of earthly kingdoms. The answer is found in following the Prince of Peace and inviting the world into His kingdom.

Overturning the Tables on Violence

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Love for Enemies

Jesus taught His disciples to love their enemies (Lk 6.27, 35; Mt. 5.44) do good to them (Lk. 6.27, 34-35), bless them instead of curse them (Lk. 6.37), give to them without expecting anything in return (Mt. 5.44; Lk. 6.30, 34), never resist them with force (Mt. 5.38-39), treat them the way we wish they would treat us (Lk. 6.31), turn the other cheek when struck (Mt. 5.39; Lk. 6.29), and pray for them rather than seeking to injure them (Mt. 26.51-53).

Many, however, will argue that since Jesus acted violently when He cleansed the temple, this proves that Jesus did not intend to his teachings about loving enemies to be taken as absolutes or intend to teach total non-violence. The much discussed passage can be found in Mark 11.15-18, with parallels in Matthew 21.12-17, Luke 19.45-48, and John 2.13-17.

Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers’ den.” The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.

In order to understand what Jesus was doing in the temple, we must begin by examining the context. Examined in context it becomes clear that the temple cleansing is not an example of random, uncontrolled wrath.  There are key observations that can be made from the texts which indicate that Jesus’s actions were premeditated, intentional, and loaded with meaning. Jesus was acting purposefully to make a point. Only after understanding the point Jesus was making will we be in a position to wrestle with the implications of this text upon our lives.

The Context: Jesus’ Warnings of Judgment Against the Temple

The temple cleaning scene is presented to us in close connection with (and perhaps as the climax of) the rest of Jesus’ work. Jesus often warned of judgment that would come upon those who refused His call to repentance. Even more specifically, Jesus frequently warned that the temple itself would be judged and destroyed for rejecting his message (Mt. 24; 26.61; 27.39-40; Mk. 13; 14.58; 15.29-30; Jn. 2.19; Acts 6.14).

These warnings create a context where the actions of Jesus in the temple would not have been viewed as those of a random Jew whose religious zeal led him to misbehave. These were the actions of the man who had continually warned that the temple would be destroyed as a result of rejecting His message.

Matthew (21.18-22) and Mark (11.12-14; 20-26) both present the temple cleansing in close connection with Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit. Mark actually splits Jesus’ judgment of the fig tree into two parts, with the temple cleansing sandwiched in the middle. The cleaning of the temple explains and is explained by the cursing of the fig tree for failing to bear fruit.

Luke (19.41-44) places the cleaning of the temple immediately after Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem because they had not accepted “the things which make for peace”, and as a result would suffer destruction.

John (2.18-22) connects the temple cleansing with Jesus’s prophetic warning that the temple would be destroyed. This makes it clear that Jesus was acting symbolically to demonstrate that God was displeased with the corrupt religious practices of the temple. In response to the temple cleansing, everyone who witnessed the event understood that the temple cleansing was anything but a spontaneous tantrum of the part of Jesus. The people understood the deep significance of Jesus’ actions.

In all four accounts the cleansing of the temple must be read in close connection with Jesus’ warnings of judgment and the destruction of the temple. Given this context, it is clear that when Jesus overturned the tables and drove out the animals with a whip, He was making a point, and everyone knew it.

What Point Was Jesus Making?

After Jesus cleansed the temple, He quoted form Jeremiah 7.11 to make his point immediately and explicitly clear (Mark 11.17 and parallels). Jeremiah 7 is part of an important sermon of Jeremiah in which he denounced the temple and offered warning for those who unthinkingly trusted in it. Although lengthy, it is worthwhile to read the entire context from which Jesus selected this quote.

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, “Amend your ways and your deeds, and I will let you dwell in this place. Do not trust deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’ For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.

Behold, you are trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal and walk after other gods that you have not known, then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’ – that you may do all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” declares the LORD….

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, My anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place.”

Jeremiah 7.3-11, 20

The main thrust of Jeremiah’s warning is abundantly clear. Jeremiah offers a serious critique of the Jews of his day, who had placed their confidence in the temple, while simultaneously using the temple as the rallying point for all kinds of wickedness and violence. As a result, the temple would be destroyed.

To refer to this scene as the “temple cleansing” is a bit of a misnomer. Jesus was not simply cleansing the temple of a little bit of corruption. He was warning that the temple would be destroyed because once again, as in Jeremiah’s day, the temple had become a den of robbers.

The word translated “robbers” is not the word used to describe swindlers and thieves. It is the word used to describe those who would use violence to take what they wanted. It is the word that was used for what we would describe as “bandits” or “thugs”. Josephus frequently used this word to refer to violent revolutionaries who were willing kill to bring about their political aspirations (Antiquities Book 13, 16.5; Book 15, 10.1; War Book 1, 16.2-4). The same word is used in John to describe Barabbas, who had “committed murder in the insurrection” (Mk. 15.7; Jn. 18.40).

Jesus was not simply critiquing greedy businessmen in the temple who had inflated their prices. Jesus was warning that the temple would be destroyed because it had become the dwelling place of violent political revolutionaries.

This gives understanding as to why the “cleansing” of the temple is so closely connected with Jesus’ lamentation over Jerusalem for rejecting his message of peace. What Jesus was doing in the temple is parallel with what Jesus had done to the fig tree. Because those in the temple had failed to bear fruits of repentance, because they had failed to embrace Jesus’ enemy-loving message of peace, they would be destroyed.

Violence Brings God’s Judgment

Rather than demonstrating that violence is sometimes acceptable for the followers of Jesus, when Jesus cleansed the temple he was dramatically demonstrating that violence brings God’s judgment. What we read is not a random outburst of wrath, but rather a premeditated and symbolic condemnation of violence.

But still, the question remains, did Jesus act violently in the temple? Did Jesus use the whip violently against his enemies to make his point? And if so, can the disciples of Jesus use violence for similar purposes?

Jesus most certainly acted aggressively, but the text is not entirely clear that Jesus acted violently. For example, Preston Sprinkle argues that John 2.15 should be translated “And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, that is, the sheep and the oxen”, thus indicating that the whip was only used against the animals, and not against people. Others, such as Greg Boyd, have observed that generally speaking, whips were not used to harm animals, but rather to drive them by making a loud cracking sound.

I do not consider myself qualified to comment on the strengths or weaknesses of these suggestions, but I do find it significant that Jesus was not immediately arrested on the spot, as would be expected if Jesus was actually whipping people.

But suppose for a moment that Jesus did use the whip violently against his enemies. If this is the case, we still must not ignore the main point of the scene. Yes, this might indicate that Jesus did not intend an absolute prohibition against all violence in all circumstances. And yes, this might indicate that there could be exceptions to Jesus’s other “love your enemy” commands, whereby we might be allowed us use violence in limited circumstances. But, even so, we must not look for the exception to the rule to replace the rule itself.

It is a common mistake to look to the temple cleansing to prove that violence is sometimes acceptable, and then starting with the exception, work backwards into Jesus’ commands about loving enemies. This approach reduces “love your enemy” into little more than “be nice to your grumpy neighbors.” Instead, we must start by grasping the main point of the temple scene and of the rest of Jesus’ teachings. If there are exceptions to this main point, they must be treated as exceptions, and not the rule itself.

The main point of the temple cleansing is not to show that it is acceptable to use violence against enemies. The point is nearly the opposite. The temple was to be judged because they had rejected Jesus’s enemy-loving message of peace.