Christopher L. Scott

Christopher L. Scott

Five Views on Genesis 1

by

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONSIM

Young earth creationism believes the earth was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days with the appearance of age. In other words, God created the universe and our world about 6,000-10,000 years ago. (Views vary depending on potential gaps in genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10-11.) Most young earth creationists believe God created a “mature” earth with the appearance of age. Because the earth was created “good” and “perfect” there was harmony and not “survival of the fittest” before the fall of Genesis 3.

Strengths

  • The Hebrew word yom is literal when used with cardinal and ordinal numbers.
  • The phrases “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless there are literal days being described.
  • Exodus 20:8-11 teaches Israel to work six days and rest on the seventh day following God’s example. This implies literal days.
  • There was no death before the Fall in Genesis 3, therefore time and creation operated very differently.
  • Noah’s Flood radically changed the earth, therefore time and aging of the earth was very different than now.
  • Statements of Jesus, the Apostles, and Isaiah indicated that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after (Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Job 12:7-10; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Luke 11:50-51; Rom 1:20)
  • Historical theology supports this interpretation with 1,800 years of Christian history and 1,400 years of Jewish history
  • If we believe in God performing miracles and acting supernaturally, then creating everything we see in seven days is certainly within His potential.
  • When the Bible describes the creation of the earth by God it is always as a past action not something that was in progress.
  • Hebrew syntax supports a plain-literal interpretation of six days of creation over twenty-four hour periods. Genesis 1-2 does not follow the pattern if Hebrew poetry or allegory.
  • If Moses wanted to indicate creation took place over millions or billions of years there are other Hebrew words he would have used.
  • God uses words of time to describe time in ways we can understand it (Pss 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).

Weaknesses

  • Young earth creationism does not match what most agnostic and atheistic scientists believe in physical science, life science, experimental science, or historical science teaches.

Other Names

  • Immediate Creation
  • Recent Creation
  • Gap Theory

Further Reading

  • Ken Ham, “Young Earth Creationism” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 19-31.
  • Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961)
  • Henry Morris, Biblical Creationism (Baker, 1993)
  • AC Custance, Without Form and Void (Doorway Papers, 1970)
  • Henry Morris and John D. Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth (Institute for Creation Research, 1989)
  • John C. Witcomb, Jr., The Early Earth (rev. ed., Baker, 1986)
  • John C. Witcomb, Jr., The World that Perished (Baker, 1988)
  • Ken Ham, The Answers Book (rev. ed., Master Books, 2000)

Popular Supporters

  • David Jeremiah
  • John MacArthur
  • J. Vernon McGee
  • John Calvin
  • Martin Luther

OLD EARTH CREATIONISM

According to Old Earth Creationism life appeared gradually over billions of years and that God miraculously intervened to create earth’s first life. In this view the six days of Genesis 1 are actually six long eras.  Adam and Eve were created 12,000-135,000 years ago during the last ice age. Old Earth Creationism views all humans as descendants of two historical persons, and distinct from Neanderthals and Homo erectus. A key part of Old Earth Creationism is the utilization of what they call “constructive integration” which sees Scripture and science as compliments to each other and not in conflict. They see nature as providing observable, measurable, and verifiable information about God’s supernatural handiwork as each successive act prepares for the next. When “mass speciation” events appear in science it is because of divine intervention. Specifically, God introduces diverse species appropriate for Earth’s changing conditions. Old Earth Creationism believes God’s message and meaning is conveyed by biblical authors through figurative language. According to this view, the universe began in a transcendent event, it unfolds for the benefit of humanity, and is sustained continuously according to nature’s laws. Thus the laws of physics have stayed the same (by that they mean the Fall and Flood did not change science as we see it). Old Earth Creationism does not believe in a literal worldwide Flood and diminishes the effects of the Fall on the environment that supports life.

Strengths

  • Believes there are twenty major passages and hundreds of additional verses that provide commentary on the natural realm, which they believe is a scientifically testable model.
  • The events that occur on the sixth-day appear to need to take longer than a day (Gen 2:9, 19, 21-22, 23; cf. Gen 29:34-35; 30:20; 46:30; Judg 15:3).
  • Place a strong emphasis on Genesis 1-11; Job 37-39; Psalm 104; Proverbs 8
  • Seventh-day continuation is not a “day” (Heb 4:4-11), therefore it appears to continue and not “end” like others.
  • Time according to God is different than time according to us (Pss 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).
  • God’s eternality compared ours is unmeasurable (Pss 90:2-6; Prov 8:22-31; Ecc 1:3-11; Micah 6:2).
  • Statements about the earth’s age seem to imply it is very old (Hab 3:6; 2 Peter 3:5).
  • There is an exception to the Hebrew word for day, yom, as “24hr” period of time when it is used with an ordinal number (Hosea 6:2).
  • The Sabbath gets implemented as “years” in the Law (Exod 20:10-11; Lev 25:4).
  • The “evening” and “morning” statements don’t make sense until the sun was created (Gen 1:5, 8, 13; cf. 14-19)

Weaknesses

  • Utilizes poetic passages—allegedly about creation—in Job 38-39, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 to reinterpret the historical narrative of Genesis 1-2.
  • If God can create supernaturally and miraculously, then it is possible He can create everything not just in six days but instantaneously.
  • The Bible does not describe creation as a process.
  • The Bible describes the Flood narrative of Genesis 6-8 as worldwide, not local.
  • Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 describe time according to our perspective and not God’s perspective.
  • Death did not begin until Adam’s sin and humankind’s fall (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12-21)
  • A forced reconciliation and realignment of what science teaches with what is in the Bible. This leads to criticism from both Young Earth Creationists and Theistic Creationists.
  • Requires a new reading and new interpretation of Genesis 1 (that did not exist until the 1800s) based on the claims of science.
  • Requires a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 as scientific beliefs change over time (Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, genetics, big bang, astronomy, etc.)
  • Sometimes it appears they are saying more than what the text is saying (Job 37-39; Psalm 104, Prov 8). Specifically, the passages they claim describe “mass speciation” events and “mass extinction” events do not appear to be describing those events (Psalm 104:29-30)
  • Most DNA and genetic theory do not believe that humanity descended from one man and one woman (but that “number” is declining).
  • Places too much emphasis on general revelation and diminishes the significance of special revelation.
  • According to science birds (created on day five of Genesis 1) appeared hundreds of millions of years after land animals (created on day six of Genesis 1)
  • According to science seed and fruit bearing plants (created on day three of Genesis 1) appeared hundreds of millions of years after sea creatures (created on day five of Genesis 1).
  • The Hebrew word yom is literal when used with cardinal and ordinal numbers.

Other Names

  • Progressive Creationism

Further Reading

  • Hugh Ross, “Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism” Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 71-100.
  • Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution (Bethany House, 1985)
  • Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (NavPress, 2004)
  • B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Eerdmans, 1964)
  • Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, 2nd ed. (RTB Press, 2014)

Popular Supporters

  • Ray Stedman

EVOLUTIONARY CREATION

Evolutionary creation holds two beliefs: evolution is real and the Bible is true. In the evolutionary process God chose at times to act supernaturally and evolution is the mechanism that God used to achieve His purposes over billions of years. In Evolutionary Creation all species arose through gradual change and are related by a tree of common ancestry. Our human ancestors were a group of several thousand humans that evolved from apes. In this view the first humans lived 150,000-200,000 years ago. The evolutionary process results in natural selection, microevolution, and macroevolution. Evolutionary Creationists state that the Gospel is the central message of Scripture and that Scripture is authoritative not inerrant. This view rejects a literal interpretation of all aspects of creation described in Scripture. Evolutionary Creationism does not see science as a tool for ascribing truth or reliability of Scripture. It states that the Bible does not make scientific predictions, believes geological evidence does not support a worldwide flood, and believes the basic laws of physics did not change with the Flood or Fall (since those were not literal events).

Strengths

  • Human “genome” is similar to chimpanzees and also has extra pointless “junk” in our genome as other animals have too.
  • States that the Bible does not intend to use scientific language.
  • Believes science and the natural laws that it discovers are a testimony to God’s care of all matter and mechanisms.
  • Has support from geological evidence. Annual layers of ice from glaciers have been counted back over 100,000 years in Greenland and over 700,000 years in Antarctica. Annual layers of sedimentary rock formed at the bottom of lakes and shallow seas show millions of years of deposits. Radiometric dating is possible for some atoms that are radioactive and decay over time.  For example, a rock formation in Greenland has been dated to 3.6 billion years old. Rocks returned from the moon have been dated to 4.5 billion years old.
  • Has support from astronomical evidence because light takes time to travel. The light we see from Andromeda galaxy (the closest galaxy) takes 2.5 million years to reach us.
  • States that Genesis focuses on who and why of creation; not on how and when.

Weaknesses

  • While the main focus of Genesis is who God is, there is still a strong focus of how and when it happened. Specifically, there are statements about the order of creation and time it took to make that creation.
  • Primary focus is on the Book of Nature and not Book of Scripture.
  • Refuses the possibility of supernatural interference.
  • Evolutionary Creation is contrary to the clear teaching of Genesis 3:20; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12-19; and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 that specifically state all humans descended from one man and one woman, and that our sin nature was inherited from Adam.
  • The Bible does not describe creation as in progress.
  • Rejects historical doctrine of Christianity that Adam and Eve were literal historical persons.
  • Utilizes less clear general revelation to reinterpret special revelation.
  • Many scientists—both secular and Christian—question the validity of evolution.
  • Adam and Eve were not sole progenitors, thus three possibilities are suggested by Evolutionary Creation. One, Adam and Eve were “ancient representatives” of humanity that God entered into relationship with 200,000 years ago in Africa. Two, Adam and Eve were “recent representatives” living 6,000 years ago in the Ancient Near East. Three, Adam and Eve are viewed not as historical persons but instead as symbolic stories in the genre of the Ancient Near East.
  • Evolutionary Creation diminishes the doctrine of humans being made in the image of God, original sin, falsely teaches death before the Fall of Genesis 3, allows for natural evil before the fall of Genesis 3, and allows for a “randomness” of creation.
  • Must reinterpret the significance of the Fall of Genesis 3, the Flood of Genesis 6-9, and significance of sin in Romans 5:12-21.
  • Animals (specifically fossils) appear long before humans in geological records. Why would there be billions of years of death (fossils) before the Fall of humans and entry of sin and death into the world in Genesis 3.

Other Names

  • Theistic Evolution

Further Reading

  • Deborah Haarsma, “Evolutionary Creation” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Zondervan, 2017), pp. 124-153.
  • Dennis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose (Monarch, 2008)
  • Francis Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006)
  • Howard Van Till, Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives of the World’s Formation (Eerdmans, 1990)
  • Howard Van Till, The Fourth Day, (Eerdmans, 1986)

Popular Supporters

  • Deitrich Bonhoeffer

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Intelligent design advocates that a scientific understanding of what we see requires an intelligent “being” as creator. In other words, there was a guiding influence over evolutionary force, not a process of random selection. This is a new faith-based alternative to evolution, however there is no specific designation to the intelligence except for a “creator” or “god.” This view is an “age-neutral theory” to the earth and universe. It does not take a position on how to interpret the book of Genesis or the age of the earth. Intelligent Design proponents believe there are tell-tale features in digital code in DNA, miniature circuits and machines in cells, as well as constants of physics which all point to an intelligent cause. In summary, the creative action of a conscious and intelligent being is an adequate cause for the origin of the things we see.

Strengths

  • DNA shows appearance of design because of the specific way that nucleotide bases are arranged in DNA. They are arranged in an exact way that allows them to properly function.
  • Genetic information shows a creator making important changes over time. In other words, there are necessary changes in genetic information that are too complex to be random. An example is “function proteins” being developed that are required for life, yet impossible to have been the result of random development.
  • Chemical evolutionary theory and the origin of information shows a creative influence. A living cell is too complex to just appear and it must have had a designer. RNA molecules are arranged in such a complex and complimentary way that they could not have found themselves in their current form without a designer.
  • Closely follows the discoveries and interpretations of science, but attributes what it sees to a designer, not randomness.
  • There are few evidence-based objections.
  • Arguments are consistent with what Scripture teaches in Romans 1:20, Acts 14:15-17, Psalm 19:2, Job 12:7-10.

Weaknesses

  • Proudly declares the theory is not based on the Bible, but is instead based on scientific discoveries related to intelligent causes. In other words, Intelligent Design is not derived from a religious text, but an inference from science.
  • Intelligent Design proponents might have a variety of interpretations of Genesis 1, or they may have none at all.
  • Must reinterpret the significance of the Fall of Genesis 3, the Flood of Genesis 6-9, and significance of sin in Romans 5:12-21.
  • Is not specific about the date of the earth or creation.
  • Some suggest it is “religion masquerading as science.”
  • Is too vague in its belief about a “creator” or “god”
  • The Bible is completely left out of all arguments.
  • Only focuses on origin of creation and does not address the process of creation.
  • No Intelligent Design leaders have given serious consideration or explanation of what God said about creation in Genesis 1-2, the Flood in Genesis 6-9, or the age of the earth.

Further Reading

  • Stephen Meyer, “Intelligent Design” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 177-208.
  • Michele Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, 1996)
  • Michele Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Free Press, 2008)
  • Charles Thaxton et al., The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (The Philosophical Library, 1984)
  • Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (InterVarsity, 1991)
  • Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2009)
  • Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2013)

Popular Supporters

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CREATION MYTH

While Genesis 1 is likely literal the structure of Genesis 1 is more theological and artistic than literal. In other words, Moses shaped the theology and history as recorded in Genesis 1 based on the genre of literature that was circulating at the time he wrote the Pentateuch. Some scholars say that the Genesis 1 creation account is a literary “polemic” which was meant to refute Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) creation mythologies of Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, and Canaan. However, debates within this view are about if Moses took ANE creation myths and attributed them to the God of Israel, or was Moses’ creation story in Genesis 1 the original creation story that other ANE cultures intentionally took and changed to their own culture.

Strengths

  • There are similarities in the source of creation. In both ANE creation myths and in Genesis land emerges from the waters. In Israel God made humans in His image and formed the man from the dust of the ground. In Babylon humans were made from the “clay,” but that clay was mixed with “the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsman gods).”    
  • There are some similarities in the sequence of creation. Many of the creation events in ANE myths follow the basic structure of the Israelite creation account. The Enuma Elish (Babylonian) begins with a divine spirit existing external to matter, the matter was full of darkness, and light came from the gods. Next was creation of firmament, dry land, luminaries, man, then the gods rest and celebrate. God’s rest on the seventh day of creation relates to Egypt’s Memphite Theology where Ptah rested when creating was done and all gods were settled.
  • There are some similarities in the substance of creation. The Egyptian creation myths describe “primordial waters”, which would eventually be formed into the earth. Darkness is common in the Enuma Elish and Egyptian creation myths. In the Egyptian “Hermopolis” light came from Atum (the sun-god) before formal creation of the sun. The Sumerians said that the heavens were separated from the earth by the air-god Enil. The Babylonian Enuma Elish made heaven from the upper part of the slain Tiamat. The Egyptian myth tells of Shu, the air god, pushing up Nut (sky goddess) from Geg (earth god) which eventually separated the earth from the sky.

Weaknesses

  • The myths often varied depending on which city they were told in and which god belonged there. For example, Egypt had four creation myths.
  • There are differences in the source of creation. Almost all ANE creation myths involve a myriad of gods while Israel had one God. In the Israelite creation account there is no combat, struggle, or force, while there was a constant struggle and combat in the ANE creation myths.
  • There are differences in the substance of creation. Unlike the ANE creation myths, the Israelite creation account did not deify nor worship the created matter. In this way, Genesis 1 rejects the Egyptian method of deifying the sky, ground, and air. For example, the sun was the god Re, the sky was Nut, the ground was Geb, dry air was Shu, moist humidity was Tefnut, the primordial sea was Nun. The ANE myths had humans being made to serve the gods while in the Israelite creation account God entrusted humans to reign and govern his creation.
  • Another difference is the fact that the Israelite creation account describes the beginning of the human race with a single couple, Adam and Eve. There are no ancient texts that describe human origins with a single couple as the beginning of the entire human race.

Other Names

  • Archetypal Creation View (of Adam)
  • Protohistory
  • Historico-Literary Genre
  • Genesis as Mythopoeic
  • Historico-artistic Creation
  • Genesis as Polemic

Further Reading

  • Walton, John Walton, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View” in Four Views on the Historical Adam (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 89-118.
  • Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015)73-97.
  • Miller, Johnny and John Soden. In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2012)
  • Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
  • John Walton, Ancient Israelites Literature in It’s Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989)

Popular Supporters

  • Bruce Waltke
  • Peter Enns
  • Gordon Johnston

Giving God’s Money to God’s Work

by

Let’s be honest: managing money is hard. Most of us were not taught by our parents how to manage money. Often we end up adults having to figure it out on our own.    

            When it comes to money our culture tells us you never have enough of it, when you get it to spend as much of it as you have, and if you want more stuff than you have money then borrow so you can get it (TVs, vacations, phones, fancy vehicles).

            But Scripture tells us (as Christians) how to manage money. Jesus mentioned money regularly and the apostle Paul devoted two entire chapters of 2 Corinthians about money.

            2 Corinthians was Paul’s fourth letter sent to the believers in the city of Corinth.[1] It also was Paul’s most personal and intimate letter.   TheCorinthian believers had made a pledge of giving in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to help the poor Christians in Jerusalem. Paul begins chapters eight and nine of 2 Corinthians with the example of another church’s giving.

THE MACEDONIAN EXAMPLE OF GIVING

            Their circumstances are described first, “Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality” (2 Corinthians 8:1–2).[2]

            Their contribution is described next, “For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints, and this, not as we had expected, but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God” (2 Corinthians 8:3–5). There are few important giving principles we should note from these verses.

            First, they gave more than necessary (v. 3a). These people were generous.  

            Second, they gave without anyone asking them (v. 3b). That word “accord” is the Greek Word is αὐθαίρετος and is used two times in the New Testament (here and in 8:14). This word “pertains to being self-chosen.”[3] It describes a voluntary free will decision to commit to an action. In other words, the Macedonians gave without prompting, without pressure, and without guilt trips.

            Third, they gave and wanted to continue giving (v. 4). Apparently, they asked to participate and wanted to give. In fact, they saw it as an honor to give. In spite of their poorness they saw giving as a privilege. Have you ever heard someone beg for an opportunity to give? That’s what the Macedonian churches did!

            Fourth, they gave more money than expected and more than just financial aid (vv. 4-5). According to verses four and five they gave both their possessions and their personal help.

            Reading about the Macedonians’ example of giving teaches us that giving is something we do even when we don’t have much. Paul is using an argument style that was common in Jewish and Greco-Roman life that we now call “from the lesser to the greater.”[4] The message was this: if the poor destitute churches of Macedonia can give so much from their so little, how much more should you give from your position of wealth!

            This encourages us to give no matter how much we have. And in light of the surprising generosity of the Macedonian churches, Paul now turns to the Corinthians.

THE APOSTLE’S EXHORTATION OF GIVING

Paul reveals the beginning of the giving, “So we urged Titus that as he had previously made a beginning, so he would also complete in you this gracious work as well” (2 Corinthians 8:6). The “so” tells us the results. It was the unexpected and enthusiastic involvement of the Macedonians that led Paul to ask Titus to visit Corinth and ask for their help too!

            Paul reveals the resumption of the giving, “But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you, see that you abound in this gracious work also” (2 Corinthians 8:7).

            Notice five things they have abundantly: “faith” “utterance” “knowledge” “earnestness” and “love”. Based on these five things Paul launches into the reason for giving. The Corinthians had experienced God’s grace (just like the Macedonians) and they should dispense God’s grace in the form of giving (just like the Macedonians). The Corinthians had made a pledge for giving (1 Cor 16:1-2), so Paul held them to that pledge.

            Paul reveals the motivation for giving,“I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also” (2 Corinthians 8:8). Paul did not bark orders at them. He didn’t command. He didn’t shame. He offers opportunity not obligation.

            The Macedonians’ giving is a benchmark that the Corinthians can use as a way to show Paul, the believers in Jerusalem, and all believers everywhere how genuine their love is. This was not a contest among rivals; but an imitation among equals.

            Reading about the apostle’s exhortation of giving teaches us that generosity is required of all believers everywhere. The Corinthians were giving to people they had never met. When we give to church we give to people and help people that we have never met and will never meet such as online listeners, missionary ministry, or benevolence help to strangers of the church.

THE MESSIAH’S EXAMPLE OF GIVING

Paul concludes the beginning section this way, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). The word “For” at the beginning of this verse describes why the Corinthians should excel in the grace of giving. Because of what Jesus did we respond and worship. Paul’s theology starts with the one who gave up everything to help someone else. He died in our place so that we might have life (2 Cor 5:21).

            Notice that everything which comes after “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” defines the nature of Christ’s grace. What is Christ’s grace? “that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.” Here “rich” describes His glory in heavenly existence. “poor” describes His lowliness and destitution when He lived on earth. Jesus Christ decided to exchange His royal status as an eternal resident of heaven for a slave’s status as a temporary resident on earth.

            There’s a focus of what He’s doing. It’s “for your sake.” That phrase is in the emphatic position in Greek and could be translated as “all for your sake . . . you, yes you.”[5] The “rich” that He promises here is a spiritual richness; not economic wealth. It describes the Corinthians richness of salvation secured by Christ both now and in the future. The giving here is not supposed to be so great that they become poor while the Jerusalem believers become rich.[6]

            The Macedonians gave when they were extremely poor, the Messiah gave when He was incredibly rich. These Corinthians are somewhere in between and should give sacrificially.

            Paul wants the Corinthians to do the right thing, but he wants them to do it because they were taking initiative to do it. He wants them to give in love, not obligation. He wants them to give because of their caring not coercion. 

            Reading about the Messiah’s example of giving teaches us that God’s gift of salvation requires we give Him everything.And that requirement that we give Him everything is something we should do on our own initiative, not because we are coerced or forced to do so. Just as Paul wanted the Corinthians because of their own desire, God wants us to give because it’s what we want to do. Not coercion. Not competition.

CONCLUSION

So what do we know about the response of the Corinthians? Did they give? Did they ignore Paul’s warnings? Did they give somewhere or to someone else besides Paul?

            Five months after Paul wrote 2 Corinthians he wrote to the Christians in Rome while visiting the believers in Corinth. (Paul said his plan was to travel to Corinth in 2 Corinthians 12:14 and 13:1-2 which is verified in Acts 20:2-3 and Romans 16:23.) In Paul’s third and final visit to Corinth he wrote to the believers in Rome, “For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things” (Romans 15:26–27). The term “Achaia” describes the region in which Corinth was located! This means the Corinthian believers heeded Paul’s exhortation! They gave because of the grace they received.

            I pray and hope that we can exhort our people to give and that they will be faithful to give just as the Corinthians were.

[1] The first letter we don’t have (1 Cor 5:9). The second letter was 1 Corinthians and was written from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8). The third letter was a “sharp letter” Paul wrote and was carried by Titus (2 Cor 7:8-12). The fourth letter was 2 Corinthians and was written seven months after 1 Corinthians.

[2] Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

[3] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 150.

[4] In Hebrew it’s known asqal wahomer and in Latin it’s known as a minore ad maius.

[5] Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 578.

[6] Verses 13-15 clarify that this is not a call to give everything away so that they can’t provide for themselves.

Timing of Events Related to the Book of Ezra

by

  • 539 Cyrus of Persia takes Babylon (Dan 5:30-31)
  • 538 Cyrus of Persia issues decree for Jews to return to Judah (Ezra 1:1-4)
  • 537 Jews leave Babylon and arrive in Judah (Ezra 1:5-2:70)
  • 536 Sacrifices made on altar (Ezra 3:1-6)
  • 535 Temple foundation rebuilt (Ezra 3:7-13)
  • 535 Temple rebuilding stops due to enemies of Judah (Ezra 4:1-5)
  • 520 Temple rebuilding begins due to Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 4:24-5:2)
  • 515 Temple rebuilding complete (Ezra 6:14-15)
  • 485 Letter of accusation written at beginning of Xerxes reign (Ezra 4:6)
  • 485-465 Book of Esther takes place under Xerxes (between Ezra 6 and Ezra 7)
  • 464 Letter of accusation written under Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7-16)
  • 458 Ezra returns to Judah (Ezra 7-10)
  • 444 Nehemiah returns to Judah (Nehemiah)

An Outline of the Book of Ezra

by

I. THE TEMPLE REBUILT UNDER ZERUBBABEL (1-6)

A. The Goal Described (1)

1. The Decree of Cyrus (vv. 1-4)

2. The Decision of the Jews (vv. 5-11)

B. The Goal Pursued (2-3)

1. The Faithful Returners (2:1-70)

2. The Faithful Builders (3:1-13)

They Begin (vv. 1-6) > altar is built

They Continue (vv. 7-13) > temple foundation is built

C. The Goal Paused (4)

1. Opposition Begins (vv. 1-5) [vv. 1-5, 24]

2. Opposition Grows (vv. 6-24) [vv. 6-23]

The Group of Opposers (vv. 6-10)

The Content of the Opposers to the King (vv. 11-16)

The Response of the King to the Opposers (vv. 17-22)

The Result of the King’s Response (vv. 23-24)

D.  The Goal Restarted (5-6)

1. By Fresh People (5:1-5)

2. With Fresh Opposition (5:6-17)

Those Composing the Letter (vv. 6-7a)

The Content of the Letter (vv. 7b-17)

3. Yet with Fresh Encouragement (6:1-22)

The Search by the King (vv. 1-2a)

The Findings of the King (vv. 2b-5)

The Result from the King (vv. 6-12)

The Accomplishment of the People (vv. 13-22)

-Goal Is Complete (vv. 13-15)

-God Is Celebrated (vv. 16-22)

~Dedication of the Temple (vv. 16-18)

~Celebration of Passover (vv. 19-22)

II.  THE COMMUNITY REFORMED UNDER EZRA (7-10)[1]

A.  Ezra’s Testimony (7)

1. The Selection of Ezra (vv. 1-10)[2]

His Family (vv. 1-5)

His Focus (vv. 6-7)

His Fervency (vv. 8-10)

2. The Support for Ezra (vv. 11-26)

Introduction (vv. 11-12)

Permission (vv. 13-20)

Commission (vv. 21-24)

Deputation ( vv. 25-26)

3. The Statement of Ezra (vv. 27-28)

B.  Ezra’s Travels (8)

1. Those Traveling with Ezra (vv. 1-14)

2. Those Helping Ezra (vv. 15-20)

3. Those Reforming with Ezra (vv. 21-30)

4. More Travels and Arrival in Jerusalem (vv. 31-36)

C.  Ezra’s Troubles (9)

1. The Problem with Mixed Marriages (vv. 1-4)

2. The Profession of the Dilemma (vv. 5-15)

D.  Ezra’s Task (10)

1. A Proposal by the People (vv. 1-4)

2. A Plan by Ezra (vv. 5-8)

3. A Production Together (vv. 9-44)

The Setting (v. 9)

The Speech (vv. 10-11)

The Response of the People (vv. 12-14)

The Response of the Leaders (v. 15)

The Actions of the People (vv. 16-17)

The Findings (vv. 18-44)

[1] Commission of Ezra (7), Coming of Ezra (8), Confession of Ezra (9), Cleansing of People (10)

[2] His Pedigree > Back to Aaron (vv. 1-5), His Proficiency > Skill (v. 6a), His Pilgrimage > Timing (vv. 7-9), His Passion > Heart (v. 10)

Gospel First and Politics Second

by

While attending Seminary I lived in the Dallas area and worked at a golf course as a caddie. One day when talking with some of the caddies the name of a prominent pastor in Dallas was mentioned in our conversation (which usually revolved around sports and movies, not politics). One of the caddies spoke up and said, “I have zero interest in what that pastor has to say.” It was a presidential election year and political dissension was at a climax. That pastor had publicly announced in his sermons who should be the next president of the United States. And that pastor’s stance was polarizing. His sermons were broadcast via many radio stations and on TV and he was well known as the “voice of Christians” for the Dallas area.

            However, this pastor’s political stance had blocked the gospel from being received by my caddie friend. My caddie friend was an atheist and clarified that he was not going to listen to anything that pastor said. Because the pastor was a bad person? Because the pastor had misused money given to him and his church? Because the pastor had been unfaithful to his wife? No, because of the pastor’s political stance on who should be the next president, my caddie friend didn’t want to hear anything that pastor said.

            The gospel should be the primary message we share with others. Furthermore, the gospel should be what we build our church’s reputation on. The apostle Paul wrote, “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved” (Romans 10:10, NIV).[1] When doing that “anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame. . . everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:11, 13). That is the primary task of church leaders and every Christian. We are supposed to know God and make Him known. Paul raises these questions as he expands his thoughts on the Gospel, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14). The gospel is supposed to be primary so people can be saved and not go to hell. If another message becomes primary, then unbelievers cannot “call on” God, “believe in him,” or “hear.” If the gospel is not the primary message, then people won’t come to a saving faith in Jesus. This is why our church’s reputation should be based on the gospel.

            The book of Acts gives us a picture of how the gospel was the primary message proclaimed by each of the disciples in every city they went. Here are some examples.

            Philip “traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns” (Acts 8:40). After traveling, Peter and John “returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages” (Acts 8:25). Paul and Barnabas went to Lystra and Derbe and “continued to preach the gospel” (Acts 14:7, 21). At the Jerusalem Council, Peter told the people gathered there that “God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7). Then later, Luke—the author of Acts—wrote that “We got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them” (Acts 16:10).  

            The gospel was the message of these men traveling to new places. It wasn’t about tax reform, who to vote for, or how to maintain the politics in their region or country. (They didn’t even address slavery as many people today thought they should have.) The focus was on presenting the gospel so people could hear about God and believe in Him.

            If things inhibit people from hearing the gospel, then those inhibitors must be removed. The gospel must be primary, and anything that prevents it from having its rightful place must be removed.

            I am afraid my caddie friend might not hear the gospel. The political focus of one pastor pushed him further away from a potentially inquiring faith in Jesus Christ. Hopefully in the future, a strong Christian can befriend him and help him draw close to God. But for now, the gospel is not something he’s interested in hearing, at least from that Dallas pastor. I learned that day—and I hope you have learned too—that our church’s reputation should be based on the gospel and nothing else.

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all translations are from the New International Version, 2011 revision.

A Fresh Start for an Old Friend

by

The words “I’m sorry” are always hard to say, but perhaps words harder to say are “I forgive you.” Whether we are five years old or fifty years old, it’s always hard to say “I forgive you” especially when that same person has hurt us, cost us money, or wasted our time.

In this article we’re looking at a forgiveness story. A slave has ran away from his master, he became a Christian, then was sent back to his master, saying “I’m sorry” and hoping the slave owner says “I forgive you.”

The letter we know as “Philemon” was written to a man named Philemon who was a wealthy member of the Colossian church which met in his house (Philemon 2). Paul calls Philemon a “beloved brother” and “fellow worker” (Philemon 1).Philemon was likely a prominent member of the church of Colossae (Philemon 1, 2; cf. Col 4:2) and likely had been saved under Paul’s ministry several years earlier in Ephesus (Philemon 19).

APPLAUSE

Paul begins his letter commending Philemon this way, “because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints” (Philemon 5).

            The effects of Philemon’s faith in Jesus and love for all the saints is explained in the following verses, “and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake. For I have come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother.” (Philemon 6–7) The “fellowship” (v. 6) here means much more than just enjoying someone else’s company. It refers to the mutual sharing of all of life because of the mutual bond and faith they have in Christ. The word “effective” (v. 6) here describes Paul’s desire for Philemon’s actions to send a powerful message to others about forgiveness.

You might have noticed that Paul gives Philemon a reputation to live up too. I don’t think he’s buttering him up or trying to manipulate him. But I do believe he’s reminding Philemon of the godly character that Philemon has.

APPEAL

In the middle of this letter Paul makes his request based on two situations.

The Earthly Problem

Paul’s request involves a person named “Onesimus.” Paul writes, “I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment” (Philemon 10). Onesimus was a common name for slaves that meant, “useful.”

            Onesimus was not a believer when he ran away from Philemon, but Onesimus apparently had met Paul while Paul was in house arrest in Rome and Onesimus became a Christian. The trip from Colossae to Rome would have been a 1,000 mile trip by land and water. Many slaves would flee to Rome when they ran away from their masters because the city of Rome had 1,000,000 people living there and was an easy place to get lost among all the people.[1] The problem was that Onesimus had broken the Roman law (running away) and Onesimus had probably also defrauded his master (stealing).

            Paul knew this had to be dealt with so he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. Onesimus was traveling to Colossae with Tychicus, who was returning to Colossae with the letter to the Colossians (Colossians 4:7-9). But, there had been a change in Onesimus, “who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me.” (Philemon 11). Onesimus is described by Paul as a “child”[2] in the faith to Paul (v. 10) and a “brother” (v. 16).

            Paul does a play on words here in Greek that comes through in English as well. Onesimus in Greek means “useful.” In the past Onesimus “was useless.” In other words, Useful was useless. It’s like calling a woman Grace who always holds grudges or a man Earnest that never tells truth. In the past Onesimus had forsaken his name, but Paul says Onesimus “now is useful.”Useful was formerly useless, but now Useful is useful.   Onesimus had been worthless until God got a hold of him and radically transformed him by God’s grace.

            This is what Paul wants Philemon to consider. “I have sent him [Onesimus] back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will” (Philemon 12–14).Paul wants Onesimus for ministry, but only wants to do it if Philemon allows.

            From Paul we learn that we value relationships more than requests. In this context Paul values his relationship with Philemon more than his request of Philemon. Effectually, “This is a request that I have, but I don’t want my request to effect our friendship.” As Christians we need to value our relationships more than requests.

The Heavenly Provision

Paul writes, “For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Philemon 15–16).

            Here we see God’s plan. The word “Perhaps” indicates Paul believes God has had a part in all of this. Paul knows wrong occurred as Onesimus was a runaway slave, now God is using it for good. As one commentator stated on this passage, “God’s sovereign grace works in all human affairs.”[3] Paul suggests there has been a deeper significance and purpose of Onesimus’s running away.

            The great reformer John Calvin wrote, “If we are angry on account of offences committed by men, our minds ought to be soothed, when we perceive that those things which were done through malice have been turned to a different end by the purpose of God.”[4] I think that’s what Paul’s telling Philemon, Your experience was bad, but maybe God is using it for good.

            From Paul we learn that we value heavenly providence more than luck. Someone asked one of the members of our church if she believed in luck as a Christian woman. What a great question! As Christians we don’t necessarily believe in earthly luck, but we do believe in divine providence.

            With God there are no accidents and I think we can say there is no luck. Imagine the conversation occurring between Paul and Onesimus the first time they met in Rome:

Onesimus: “I’m from Colossae.”

Paul: “Wow, I’ve never been there, but when I was in Ephesus I met a guy from Colossae. Perhaps you know him.”

Onesimus: “Maybe I do. What’s the guy’s name?”

Paul: “His name is Philemon. Do you know him?”

Onesimus: “Yes, I do, in fact.”

Paul: “How do you know him?”

Onesimus: “I used to be his slave.”

Paul: “Wow, you must have earned your freedom or he let you go?”

Onesimus: “No, I am here because I ran away from him and I am here hiding from him.”

Paul: “Well, let me ask if you know someone else I’ve met. He’s not from Colossae. He’s from Judea, and his name is Jesus. . .”

            In one of my favorite books pastor Warren Wiersbe writes, “If you are yielded to Christ, your life is not a series of accidents; it is a series of appointments.”[5] God is in everything we do. When we run, He allows us to run because He knows where He wants us to end up. I believe that’s Paul’s message to Philemon here: Philemon, what are the odds that your runaway slave ends up in the house that I’m in, and that I got to share the Gospel w/him and that I am able to send him back to you. Philemon, God is in this. Because of this we need to allow the unique way that God orchestrates things to influence what He might want us to do.

ACCOUNT

But what about the cost of this? Philemon might be wondering: I have been hurt, shamed, and been stolen from. Paul addresses that next.

Here we read about Paul’s offer. “But if he [Onesimus] has wronged you [Philemon] in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account;” (Philemon 18).When Onesimus left, he likely stole money or goods (or both) in order to travel 1,000 miles to Rome. Philemon had a right to be upset his slave left, especially if Onesimus stole from Philemon.

            Paul proposes a solution, “charge that to my account”(v. 18).He essentially says, “charge that to me” or “I will stand in his place” or “Put what he owes on my account.”

            Paul then signs his pledge, “I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well)” (Philemon 19). It takes more than love to solve a problem and here Paul says he’ll help pay it with money.

            It was common in the first century to have an “amanuensis” who would write a letter while someone dictated it to someone else. Yet here Paul wants to emphasize his promise so he grabs the pen and writes himself.

            Paul then describes his hope “Yes, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, since I know that you will do even more than what I say” (Philemon 20–21). Paul wants to have Onesimus welcomed back gracefully, to have Onesimus minister to others in a significant way, and to have Onesimus be forgiven.

            From this we learn from Paul that we value reconciliation more than money. Money almost always complicates situations. Money creates conflict in families, churches, business, schools, and many other areas of life. Yet Paul values reconciliation between these two people more than money. And that’s an important lesson for us to apply as well. We need to value reconciliation with others more than the money that might have caused problems.

So what happened as a result of this letter sent in AD 63? In AD 110 we possibly learn about what happened.

CONCLUSION[6]

In AD 110 Ignatius of Antioch—previous Christian bishop of Antioch and personal associate of the apostle John—was a prisoner being taken to Rome. He was transported by ten Roman soldiers to be fed to the lions because he refused to renounce his faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and God and King. Ignatius and the Roman soldiers stopped in Smyrna for a short period of rest which gave Ignatius an opportunity to have visitors. Three prominent Christian leaders came to visit Ignatius from three different cities. These three men were Polybius who was the bishop of Tralles, Damas who was the bishop of Magnesia, and a guy named Onesimus who was the bishop of Ephesus.  

We don’t know from Scripture what the result was from this letter that Paul sent to Philemon, but a period of time later, just 100 miles away from Philemon’s home in Colossae a man named Onesimus shows up as bishop in the nearby church in Ephesus.  Many scholars believe this Onesimus is the same man Paul wrote about in his letter to Philemon. Apparently Onesimus was forgiven by his slave owner, became a prominent spiritual leader in Ephesus, and with this we conclude that an old friend gave Onesimus a fresh start.

[1] M. Reasoner, “Rome and Roman Christianity” (pp. 850-855) in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1993),p. 851.

[2] περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου / “for my child” is a term of endearment which Paul has used elsewhere to refer to Timothy (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2) and to refer to Titus (Tit 1:4). AT Robertson says this is a “tender and affectionate” reference to Onesimus (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933]).

[3] Larson, Knute Larson, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, vol. 9, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000) p. 407.

[4] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010) p. 356.

[5] Warren Wiersbe, The Bumps Are What You Climb On (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016),48.

[6] This conclusion is adapted from Charles Swindoll, Swindoll’s Living Insights: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 9 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2017), pp. 199, 202.