Questions

1. What is the correct understanding of "inspired" when that word is applied to the Bible?

2. What are some examples of incorrect uses of the term "inspired"?

3. How much of the Bible is inspired?

4. Are the words of the Bible themselves inspired?

5. Is any area of human life exempt from the Bible's authority?

Projects

1. Using the advertising section of your phone book, pick out five to ten churches from different denominations, and call their pastors on the phone. Ask the pastors the following questions:

a. Do you believe the Bible is verbally inspired, literally true, and without error?

b. Do you believe the historical accounts depicted in the Bible actually happened?

c. Do you believe the Bible is authoritative in all matters of faith and life?

2. Call five or more pastors from the same denomination as yours, and ask them the same questions as above.

Questions

1. According to the Bible and His own testimony, is Jesus The Eternal God? Name at least two Bible verses that support the Godhood of Jesus.

2. Name at least one verse that shows the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit manifesting at the same time.

3. Is the Holy Spirit a Person? Name at least two Bible verses that support that answer.

Projects

1. Call five pastors of churches different from your own, and ask them the following questions.

a. Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
b. Is Christ Jesus The Eternal God?
c. Is the Holy Spirit a Person?
d. If you believe in the Trinity, when is the last time you preached a sermon or taught a series on that topic?

2. Call five Christians you know and ask them the first three questions. Then ask them when was the last time their pastor or associate pastor preached or taught on the Trinity.

A Biblical and Theological
Answer to the False Doctrine of Kenosis

Introduction

An increasingly prevalent teaching in evangelical circles, particularly in charismatic circles, is the doctrine of Kenosis. This false teaching is drawn from impure wells, it is dangerous because of the other false doctrines it leads to, and it flies in the face of the heart of Christian teaching. What is it? The doctrine teaches that the Messiah, in order to assume the form of a servant and become incarnate (into human flesh), had to give up some, several, or even all the powers and attributes of God and "live as a mere man." The advocates of this heresy, in an effort to assume an orthodox posture, try to say that the Son somehow "remains God," though He has given up all parts of that being. This teaching, which denies so much of the heart of the orthodox faith, comes from the misinterpretation and misconstruction of one Greek word.

This word, and the doctrine it describes, refer to the deep, mysterious, but vitally important passage of Philippians 2:5-8, and especially in verse 7, where it says Christ "made himself of no reputation," or "emptied himself." The word in the original is ekenosen, from the root word kenoo, which can mean "to empty." The other references to the word are Romans 4:14, where the meaning is "made void," 1 Corinthians 1:17, where it means "of none effect," 1 Corinthians 9:15, where it means "make void," and 2 Corinthians 9:3, where it means "to be in vain." These references all refer to abstract principles, such as faith, preaching, or boasting--none of them refer to a person, or even to an object. Therefore, the use of the word as it is used in Philippians 2:7 is unique. The question, which shall be repeated later is "of what did Christ empty Himself?" The teachers of Kenosis say that what Christ did was to "empty Himself of all power."

The doctrinal area in which we are dealing is not academic, it involves the very heart and center of our faith. It is also not just a matter for scholars, but is for all of us. Kenotic teaching has become prominent in charismatic circles, and is the basis for much of what they promulgate. Indeed, much of the weird theology that surrounds the so-called "faith" movement is based on a Kenotic understanding of the incarnation, combined with a new-age-like leap of logic that says that since Jesus left His powers and attributes behind and lived as a mere man, we born-again believers are ". . . just as much an Incarnation of God as Jesus was" (Kenneth Copeland)

In another leap of logic, these teachers move then to the Mormon-like doctrine of apotheosis (we are little Gods). This trend so concerned Walter Martin that the last thing he wrote before going home to be with the Lord was a contribution to a book refuting these theological trends among TV evangelists.¹ This paper on Kenosis is not a detailed analysis, but is instead an expanded outline with footnotes, covering these major areas:

• The Doctrine of Kenosis This part of the paper includes reference material that traces this view to the 19th-century German liberal theologians that first promulgated the Kenotic teaching, and compares it with modern Kenotic teaching.
• The orthodox position on Christ's humiliation. Includes quotations from noted Evangelical Scholars on the subject.
• A Critical Refutation of the Kenosis doctrine.
• An alternative method of handling the "problem verses" without deviating from orthodox Christology.

I. The Doctrine of Kenosis

A. Classic Kenotic Teaching

1. "About the middle of the nineteenth century a new form of Christology made its appearance in the Kenotic theories."² This is how Berkhof introduces the subject. He then delineates three forms of Kenotic teaching--the first, and least offensive, seems to fit the general view: "Thomasius distinguishes between the absolute and essential attributes of God . . . and His relative attributes, which are not essential to the Godhead, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; and maintains that the Logos while retaining His divine self-consciousness, laid the latter aside, in order to take unto Himself veritable human nature."³

2. "The essence of the original kenotic view is stated clearly by J. M. Creed. 'The Divine Logos by His Incarnation divested Himself of His divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, so that in His incarnate life the divine Person is revealed and solely revealed through a human consciousness.'"⁴

3. Charles Hodge classes this view under Modern Forms of the Doctrine [Christology], and includes it under a class of doctrines called Theistical Christology taught by various German theological liberals of that era.⁵ One form of the view is as follows. "...that the Eternal Logos, by a process of self-limitation, divested Himself of all his divine attributes. He ceased to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. He reduced Himself, so to speak, to the dimensions of a man."⁶

B. Comparison with the view of Kenneth Copeland (as a representative of the "Faith Message" school of thought).

This seems to be the general view of the entire "faith message" school of thought, and it is becoming prominent in other charismatic circles as well.

1. "Jesus hadn't come to earth as God; He'd come as a man. He'd laid aside His divine power and had taken on the form of a human being--with all its limitations."⁷

2. "They [orthodox Christians] mistakenly believe that Jesus was able to work wonders, to perform miracles, and to live above sin because He had divine power that we don't have...They don't realize that when Jesus came to earth, He voluntarily gave up that advantage [deity] living His life here not as God, but as a man. He had no innate supernatural powers. He had no ability to perform miracles until after He was anointed by the Holy Spirit... He ministered as a man anointed by the Holy Spirit."⁸

C. General Comment

The writer of this paper has encountered this teaching in other theological circles, and in at least one other prominent tele-evangelist who is not from the "faith message" camp.

II. A Positive Affirmation,
from Scripture, of the Orthodox Position
on Christ's Humiliation in Relation to Philippians 2:5-11.

Includes quotations from noted Evangelical Scholars on the subject.

A. The self-emptying of Christ was mainly an emptying of the external trappings and Glory of Deity.

The context of Phil. 2:5-11 is that Christ emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant. Indeed, the overall issue, from 2:1 through the end of verse 15, is on various forms of outward expression, Christ being the example for the life of the saints in Philippi.

1. Paul was stressing to the Philippians that they should be self-sacrificing, and should not have personal glory in mind as they live their life. Then, he used the Incarnation as an example. (2:1-5)

2. Christ, says Paul, was in the form (morphe, an outward expression of an inward reality) of God, and did not consider this Glory, this expression of equality with the Father something to be grasped, or held on to (see John 17:1-5, 24).

3. Most modern translations say in verse 7 "emptied Himself", but the King James and the New King James read, "made Himself of no reputation." About this difference, one evangelical scholar wrote "The A.V., while not an exact translation, goes far to express the act of the Lord."⁹ ( In this quote, A.V. stands for Authorized Version, or King James). Then it says, "taking the form of a servant." As we have been talking about outward expressions, vainglory, outward form, etc., and as that is the subject from here through verse 15, the plain sense of scripture here is that Christ's self-emptying was of the outward glory and majesty of Godhood, and that He accomplished that action by taking the form of a servant. This, of course, is what Paul is asking the Philippians to do. Context is vital here--Paul is not telling the Philippians to lay aside, discard, or disregard their natural abilities and talents, (attributes and powers), he is telling them to submit them to the will of God and the good of the whole church.

a. Possibly because of the negative theological background for it, B.B. Warfield went so far as to call the literal translation of kenoo as "emptied Himself" a "mistranslation."¹⁰

b. "Nothing in this passage teaches that the Eternal Word (John 1.1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead."¹¹

c. "He emptied, stripped Himself if the insignia of Majesty"¹² (Emphasis added)

d. "When occasion demanded, He exercised His divine attributes."¹³

4. Verses 8-11 continue the thought--Christ is "...found in appearance as a man...", and continued His voluntary humiliation through to the Cross, then is exalted by the Father (as He discussed with the Father in John 17).

5. Other Scriptural references that establish the same principal:

a. John 1:1-14. After laying out His perfections, [(1) "The Word was God"--Deity; (2) "He was in the beginning with God," Eternity; (3) "All things were made through Him..." Creator; (4) "In Him was life..." Self Existence;] John says "and the Word became flesh." It is not that God the Son gave up anything, but that He added something--He took humanity to Himself.

b. 2 Cor 8:9 "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich." He gave up the external glories of His riches, but did He really give up ownership? No--in His earthly ministry, He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, and exercised dominion over natural phenomena, disease and demonic forces, and even demonstrated His possession of the power of life and death. His poverty did not consist as much in what He gave up (for He still retained title to it) as in what He took on--our nature.

c. 2 Cor 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." In His act of atonement, did He give up His own essential Holiness? No, again, it was not that He gave up anything, it was that He added something--He took our sins upon Himself.

B. Do the Scriptures bear out that He possessed the attributes and powers of deity while on earth?

The first, and most obvious reference is His personal conversation with the Father in John 17--He asks (in a "man to man, equal to equal" way) for the return of His Glory. He never mentions the return of His power or attributes--because He still retained them!

1. Omniscience--John 11:11-14 ("...when Jesus was fifty miles away...")¹⁴ John 2:24-25, 6:64, 70-71. As for the instances when He seems to be claiming ignorance, they have to do with Him speaking from His humanity, and taking our place, and involve a complete understanding of the orthodox teaching concerning the relationship between the Divine and Human in Christ, which will be discussed in section IV.

2. Omnipotence: (demonstrated most vividly in the power over life and death) John 10:17-18, 5:21-23, Luke 7:14, John 11:43-44, Mat 28:18-20, John 18:5-6.

3. Omnipresence: Matt 18:20, John 1:48 (Ps 139, Gen 16:13), John 3:13 (MAJ . . . Text)

4. Providence: Heb 1:1-3--Note that "upholding all things" was predicated of Him in the context of His earthly ministry of declaring God's truth, and before His atonement, resurrection, and exaltation. Col. 1:17--"In Him all things consist [hold together]" The universe is upheld by His word of power--He holds it together--that is an essential part of who He is. There is no intimation anywhere in scripture that He gave up this function upon Incarnation.

5. Sovereignty: Mk 2:28, Mat 11:27, John 17:2. John 3:35

C. Having looked at the issue piecemeal, we can now conclude it with the powerful testimony of the book of Colossians.

1. Paul says that in Christ ". . .are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," (2:3) and ". . . Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (2:8-9, emphasis added)

2. The argument might be (and has been) made that those verses apply to Christ in His exaltation, and not in His humiliation. First, that logic leans to the Gnostic idea of "progression," that the Logos after His exaltation was materially and essentially different (and improved) as a person from what He was during His humiliation. This is the very idea that Paul was fighting in the book of Colossians! The clincher, however, lies in the earlier verses in chapter 1: ". . . It pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself...through the blood of His cross." (1:19-20) All the fullness of God dwelt in Him bodily during His earthly ministry!

III. A Critical Refutation, from
Scripture and from Evangelical Scholars,
of the things implied and taught by the Kenosis Doctrine.

The theologians who crafted Kenotic doctrine were trying to deal with two problems. The first problem was in how to deal with those texts of scripture (as used by the cults) which seem to indicate that Christ was less than fully God, yet do justice to the obvious Biblical teaching that He was "Very God of Very God." The second problem was posed by their understanding that He lived His life in submission to the will of the Father, and largely as a man with a full indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They could not reconcile that in their minds with His full deity. The problem with these teachers was that they were theological liberals--they did not accept the verbal, plenary, inspiration of the Bible. Because of this, they crafted an erroneous philosophical theological answer, and ignored the fact that the problems were already solved by scripture, and had been fully worked out by the teachers and leaders of the early church during the period from A.D. 250-451. In their effort to improve on the Council of Chalcedon, they created many more problems than those they sought to solve--and did not really solve what they had originally perceived to be problems in the orthodox faith.

A. The philosophical and theological bases for the Doctrine of Kenosis are highly suspect.

The thought process began with an incorrect concept of God as the Absolute and Almighty God.

1. Thomasius of Erlangen, one of the first and leading proponents, ". . . distinguishes between the absolute and essential attributes of God," and taught that omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence ". . . are not essential to the Godhead..."¹⁵

This is patently ridiculous, and there is absolutely no Biblical basis for classing the three "omni" attributes as non-essential for Deity. Philosophical theologians may find a way to make this add up, but in the words of one of this century's great Bible teachers, ". . .There is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all."¹⁶ It is impossible to conceive of any being worthy of the title of I AM who does not possess the essential attributes continually posited to God by the Bible. The Bible never mentions God as anything but absolute. The three attributes in question, absolute Knowledge, Potency, and Presence, are foundational to who Jehovah is. The sarcastic charges made by Jehovah against false "gods" usually center in their ignorance, impotence, and immobility (Deut 4:28, Is 45:20, Jer. 10:5, 15). In comparison to idols, Jeremiah says "He who is the Portion of Jacob is not like these, for He is the Maker of all things...the LORD Almighty is His name." (10:16) Indeed, if one reads the awesome passages like Is 40, Job 38:1-42:6, Ps 90, Rom 11:33-36, etc., as well as the countless other verses and passages that extol and marvel at the greatness of the Almighty Jehovah, there can be no other conclusion but that God is Absolute. There is no Biblical way that the Son could give up his divine knowledge, potency, and presence, and remain "in essence" God. The distinction is strictly one of human philosophy. Concerning Kenosis, Charles Hodge, the leading American evangelical scholar of the last century, wrote:

"The theory in question is inconsistent with the clear doctrine both of revealed and natural religion concerning the nature of God. He is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and immutable. any theory, therefore, which assumes that God lays aside His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, and becomes as feeble, ignorant, and circumscribed as an infant, contradicts the first principle of all religion..."¹⁷

It must be pointed out here that Hodge fully accepted the doctrine of the incarnation, that God came in the flesh, as an infant and a man. However, he saw it in the light of historic Christology, as discussed in section IV, that while all of that was true, Christ was not confined to that form of a servant, and was not limited by it, except that He willingly gave up the exercise of His Glory, and sometimes chose not to use His other powers, though He retained them fully.

2. Berkhof shines more light on the philosophical antecedents of Kenosis when he writes: "The theory is based on the pantheistic conception that God and man are not so absolutely different but that the one can be transformed into the other. The Hegelian idea of becoming is applied to God, and the absolute line of demarcation is obliterated."¹⁸ The theologians who concocted this heresy were German scholars steeped in the insidious philosophy of Hegel, the forerunner of both communism and fascism.

B. The vital doctrine of Immutability is completely destroyed by Kenotic teaching.

(Cf. Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8)

1. Biblically, there was no essential change of the nature of the Second Person of the Trinity in His Incarnation, because He did not lose the essential attributes of deity, He took on human flesh and a human nature. In His own essence, He did not change (Heb 13:8).

2. Beyond its effect on the immutability of the Son, it would destroy the integrity of the Triune God if He ceased to be fully and totally the Absolute God during His Incarnation, . "It means a virtual destruction of the Trinity, and therefore takes away our very God. The humanized Son, self-emptied of His divine attributes, could no longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinitarian life."¹⁹

C. If the God-Man who died on the cross was not both fully God and fully Man, then the integrity of the atonement is destroyed.

The Blood that redeemed the Church was the "Blood of God." Acts 20:28 If He was any less than God, then His blood sacrifice was not infinitely powerful and able to redeem all who believe in every age.

IV. An alternative method of handling the "problem verses"
without deviating from orthodox Christology.

There are three Biblical concepts which are at the heart of this method: (A) Understanding the biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ. (B) Understanding His role as our Kinsman-Redeemer and substitute, and (C) Understanding and admitting the existence of the Biblical concept of "mystery"--the fact that there are some things which must be just believed, because there is no way to understand them.

A. Understanding the biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ.

The Trinitarian Controversy (A.D. 320-381) led directly into a great controversy over the Nature of Christ's Person. Understanding the doctrinal dimensions of this fight, and understanding the conclusions reached by the church are vital to understanding how to combat the cults in this area, since the cults of today are merely the heresies of yesterday refried. During this period of Church History, there were many evil things done in the name of one doctrine or another, yet miraculously, truth triumphed.

1. As the early church wrestled with understanding the Biblical teaching about Christ, there were three views that became most prominent. I will try to illustrate these views by assigning different ways of writing the term , "God-Man" to each view.

a. The Monophysites taught that Christ was the God-man, that is, He was not fully God and Fully man, but a third entity which was a fusion of the two natures (The Kenotic teaching is closest to this among the early heresies.) This heresy was basically a leftover of the Origenistic tendencies of Arianism, and grew strongest in the areas that had been strongest for the Arian view. The battle cry of this party was that Mary was the Theotokos, or Mother of God. The Monophysites carried this erroneous teaching (which survived, though without the Christological conclusions attached) to extremes, and made of Christ a new category of being, with one nature, will, and personality, each a fusion of God and Man.²⁰

b. The Nestorians taught that Christ was the God, Man with two natures so separate as to be a split personality. This teaching developed because of the objections of the church and theological school of Antioch to the growing cult of Mary among monophysite believers.²¹
c. The orthodox view, which was approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and which has been accepted and proven to be fully Biblical by evangelical Christians since the Reformation, was that Christ was the God-Man, fully God and fully Man, one person with two unmixed natures.²²

2. The important key concept in the orthodox doctrine is whatever Christ did, He did as a whole person. For instance, when His human body was beaten, tortured, and died, He suffered as a whole person, so that though God cannot be killed, it can be said that God Died for Our Sins.²³

3. Because of the Truth of the two natures, we can Biblically say:²⁴

a. Christ is infinite OR Christ is finite
b. He existed from all eternity OR He was born in Bethlehem
c. He was omniscient OR He was limited in knowledge
d. He is David's Lord YET David's son
e. He is the Ancient of Days YET He was born as an infant
f. He is God over all YET He is the son of Mary
g. He upholds all things YET He is weary with His journey
h. Without Him was nothing made that was made YET He can do nothing without the Father
i. His natural form is the form of God YET He takes on Him the form of a servant
j. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, YET He increases in stature
k. He Knows the Father perfectly YET He increases in wisdom
l. In His own name, he gives a new and more perfect law and proclaims Himself Lord of the Sabbath
and greater than the temple, YET He is born under the law and is subject to the law
m. He is the Prince of Peace YET His souls is troubled
n. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, YET He goes to death at the order of a Roman governor
o. He is with us always unto the end of the world, YET The disciples saw Him being received into heaven out of their sight.

B. Understanding His role as our Kinsman-Redeemer and substitute.

Why was is necessary for the Redeemer to be the God-Man? Why is the doctrine of the two natures of Christ so important? The answers lie in God's law of the goel, or Kinsman-Redeemer, (Lev 25) illustrated beautifully by the historical story of Ruth. Scofield summarizes the principle concisely in his note on Is 59:20.²⁵

1. The kinsman redemption was of persons, and an inheritance (Lev 25:48, 25:25; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:7, 11, 14.).

2. The Redeemer must be a kinsman (Lev 25:48-49; Ruth 3:12-13; Gal 4:4, Heb 2:14-15).

3. The Redeemer must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4-6; Jer. 50:34; John 10:11, 18).

4. Redemption is effected by the goel (Kinsman-Redeemer) paying the just demand in full (Lev 25:27; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Gal 3:13).

5. Therefore, what we see as Christ's humiliation was done as our goel, our redeemer, our substitute. When He was living, acting, speaking, suffering, denying full knowledge of events, claiming total dependence on the Spirit, etc. as a man, he was doing these things out of His human nature, and in our place. Yet, because He was also God, He could pay the whole price--he lived, acted, spoke, and suffered as no other man ever had or ever could.

C. Understanding and admitting the existence of the Biblical concept of "mystery."

There are some things which must be just believed, because there is no way to understand them.

1. God is unsearchable (Eccl. 3:11, Is 40:28, Rom 11:33-36, Job 5:9, Job 11:7)

2. There are many mysteries in the gospel (1 Tim 3:16, Eph 5:25, 1 Cor 15:51)

3. Christ Himself is a mystery (Rom 16:25, 1 Cor 2:7, Eph 1:9, 3:4, 3:9, Col. 1:27)

D. The three core concepts related above should help us understand how Christ lived His life on earth.

He lived in appearance as a man (Isaiah 53:3, Phil. 2:8), and submitted His will to the Father, and lived His life as a man anointed by the Spirit (Luke 4:16-21). Yet, He retained all His powers, and demonstrated His abilities often as a vindication of His messiahship and proof of His authority (Mk 2:1-12). In the mysterious verse John 5:17, ". . . My Father has been working until now, and I have been working," we are given a clue that He did many of His works "in His own right," though they were always in accordance with the will of the Father. On one occasion, He even lifted the veil of His flesh, took off His servant nature, so His three closest disciples could see Him as He really was (Mat 17:2). On another occasion, He "lifted the hem of His veil a bit"--when they came to arrest Him, He said "I AM," and they all fell down (John 18:4-6).

If we were to make an illustration of Jesus as if He were a policeman going under cover in a bad neighborhood, the Kenosis doctrine has the policeman leaving his weapons at home, along with his badge and other symbols of authority. He can call on headquarters for help, but he himself is helpless and defenseless. The orthodox teaching has the policeman himself as a "lethal weapon", he is a martial arts expert who can kill with a blow--he is skilled on the level that he can reach within a man's chest and pull out his still-beating heart--he can defeat multiple opponents. He can leave His I.D. , badge, uniform, etc., behind just like cop number one, but he cannot cease to be the walking weapon that he is. He looks normal, he appears as helpless as the first policeman, but he has the ability within himself to defend himself. He might choose to call for help; he might even choose to allow himself to be shackled, hurt or killed for the good of the mission--but he has the ability within himself to defeat his enemies. Raise that illustration, and the powers of the second policeman to infinity, and the illustration shows the difference in the two doctrines.

One of the beauties and glorious mysteries of the cross is that He who hung there was at that moment sustaining the universe--the very breath of the Roman soldiers was in His grip. He could have destroyed the Roman empire with a wink, with a thought, but He voluntarily restrained His great power, submitted to the plan He and the Father had agreed to before the world was made, and laid down His life. The entire Trinity was involved here--The Father pouring out His wrath , the Son Propitiating the wrath (Rom 1:18, 3:25-2, 5:8-11), and the Spirit involved in a way the Bible does not specify (Heb 9:14). This is a great mystery, but it cannot be solved by reducing the Son to something not quite God.

E. It is from applying the core concepts above that we can construct meaningful and orthodox answers to the questions of those who refuse to believe in the God of the Bible.

The answer is not to deviate from Truth ourselves through less-than-precise theology--it is to present the whole Truth unvarnished and uncut.

J.I. Packer, the dean of living evangelical theologians, completely rejects the doctrine of Kenosis, as illustrated in his book Knowing God. He says plainly, "The Kenosis theory will not stand."²⁶ I encourage the reader, to see what this Christian leader says about the subject. I hope that my study will be of help, and if you have been infected with this false doctrine I pray you will seriously consider modifying your views in this vital area.

1 Walter Martin's last published writing was a refutation of apotheosis in the book The Agony of Deceit , (Moody Press, 1990). Included in that same book is an article by Dr. Rod Rosenbladt entitled Who Do TV Preachers Say That I Am?, which refutes, among other things, the teaching of Kenosis.

2 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1940) pg 327.

3 Ibid.

4 Ralph P. Martin, Kenosis, The New Bible Dictionary (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), pg 6.89

5 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. II/III, (Reprint by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) pp 428-440.

6 Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, Who Do TV Preachers Say That I Am? The Agony of Deceit, (Moody Press, 1990) pp 114-115.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 W. E. Vine, (Edited by F. F. Bruce) Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981) N. T. Vol. 2, pg 25.

10 Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.

11 C. I. Scofied, The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford University Press, 1917), pg 1258.

12 Lightfoot, cited by Scofield, ibid.

13 Moorehead, cited by Scofield, ibid.

14 Scofield, op. cit. pg 1145.

15 Berkhof, op. cit. 327.

16 A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Baker Book House, 1975) pg 29.

17 Hodge, op cit, pg 439.

18 Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.

19 Ibid. 329

20 Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) p705-783.

21 Ibid

22 Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp 195-203.

23 Hodge, op. cit.

24 Boettner, op. cit. 197.

25 Scofield, op. cit. pg 765.

26 J. I. Packer, Knowing God, (InterVarsity Press, 1973) pg. 52.

Some Thoughts on Psalm 1

Its Place as First in the Psalter

The various Psalms which now comprise the book of Psalms were written over a period of 1000 years by various authors. It has been generally recognized that the Psalms can be broken down into 5 general groupings or books on the basis of “seam” psalms: 1) 3-41; 2) 42-72; 3) 73-89; 4) 90-106; 5) 107-150. It is possible that the “seam” psalms (i.e., 41, 72, 89, 106) suggest that the purpose for the organization of the material (i.e., all 150 psalms) centers on David and the Davidic covenant, as well as how people respond to Israel’s national disasters in light of the covenant God made with David.¹

Psalms 1-2, which are obviously not in our list here as part of the five books proper, stand at the front of the Psalter as an introduction to Israel's worship songs. It seems that there is some evidence from both Jewish and Christian sources to indicate that Psalm 1 and 2, though distinct compositions in their own right, were at some time in the past joined together, and stood as the first psalm of the Psalter.² In any case, they make a fitting entrance to this material. Psalm 1, a wisdom psalm, demonstrates that the way to happiness is through a life well lived according to the guidelines set down by the Lord, and the way to destruction is to lead an evil, lawless life—a life in disregard of Torah. King David was the perfect example of the righteous person envisioned in Psalm 1. Psalm 2 speaks about God’s enthronement of his king and the futility of the nations to thwart it. Obedience is required. So Psalm 1 focuses on obedience no matter what is happening all around one (a wisdom approach to life), and Psalm 2 focuses on trusting God to fulfill his promises of justice on the earth some day by installing his king (a prophetic approach to life). David was the perfect example of God’s king. Christ is the ultimate example, par excellence, of what this psalm envisions (cf. Acts 13:33) and the final fulfillment as well.³

Now, let’s turn our attention to a more detailed look at Psalm 1. Mortimer J. Adler, in Ten Philosophical Mistakes, makes the astute observation that “people generally espouse the mistake made by most modern philosophers—that happiness is a psychological state rather than an ethical state, i.e., the quality of a morally good life.”⁴ Psalm 1, in its presentation of an ethically upright lifestyle, has much to say about the nature of true happiness.

Its Structure

The psalm can be broken down into three distinct yet related parts: 1) the way of the righteous (1-3); 2) the way of the wicked (4-5); 3) the final word on the two lifestyles (6). There is also the possibility that there may be a deeper chiastic structure (AB-B’A’): A = 1-2, B = 3/ B’= 4, A’ = 5. Further, the final verse seems to be structured chiastically as well: A = “the Lord watches over,” B = “the way of the righteous/ B’ = “the way of the wicked,” A’ = “will perish.” In this structure “to perish” means not to have “the Lord watching over.”

Comment on the Psalm

I. The Way of the Righteous (1-3)

1:1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, who does not stand in the place of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers.

The psalmist says that a person is blessed if he does not do one kind of thing, but instead does another. The person who wants to be blessed must not walk the road of those who rebel against God, have no fear of him, and constantly consider themselves above Him and his Law. No, instead a person who wants to be blessed must live wisely in his relationship with YHWH, delighting in and meditating on the Torah (i.e., obeying it). The person who follows the way of the wicked will experience God’s judgment, while God watches over and preserves the righteous man.

“Blessed” or “blessed is the man” is a formulaic statement/pronouncement found on numerous occasions in the psalms and three times in Proverbs (3:13; 8:34; 20:7; 28:14). It is always used in connection with people and not God. This is the kind of blessing one experiences as he/she lives a righteous life in the context of his/her relationship with God, not the priestly blessing. Four passages in the psalms use the term/phrase in ways similar to Psalm 1:

Psalm 89:15 says: “Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you, who walk in the light of your presence, O Lord. Psalm 94:12 speaks about blessing and obedience to the Law: “Blessed is the man you discipline, O Lord, the man you teach from your law.” The same idea is found in Psalm 112:1: “Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who finds great delight in his commands.” Finally, Psalm 128:1 also connects the idea of blessing with one’s “walk”: “Blessed are all who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways.” The bottom line, then, in each of these passages and in Psalm 1, is that blessing is for those who live a certain way. They are happy, not as the result of feeling a certain feeling (which may refer more to contentment), but because they have lived life well, that is, according to Biblical truth.

The reference to does not walk, does not stand, and does not sit is probably not a reference to increasing sinfulness, per se, since the lines are synonymously parallel, but is intended instead to cover some of the various possible scenarios in life wherein one can be tempted to follow sinful people in their attitudes and actions.⁵ These are the kind of people who take counsel with themselves in the abundance of their own wisdom and scoff at the word of God and have no place for those who live according to it.

1:2 But in the Torah of Yahweh is his delight and on his Torah he meditates day and night.

The psalmist now gets to the positive quality and action of one who is blessed. This person delights in the Torah and meditates on it day and night.

The reference to the Torah of YHWH could refer to just the Mosaic Law or to the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy). At a later time it came to refer to the entire Old Testament. It is probable here, though, in the context of the psalmist’s discussion of the ethics of the wicked and the righteous, that what he has in mind is any and all instruction given by God to benefit men by guiding him in the proper course of life. It is a law that has certain demands, i.e., one cannot live like sinners, but it is also very freeing for it arouses pleasure and delight in the one who meditates on it.

The term delight occurs some 126 times in the Old Testament with several slightly different nuances. It can indicate something as precious or valuable, as for example in the case of the stones for the walls of the future Zion predicted by Isaiah (54:12); they will be precious stones established by the Lord himself. The land of Israel is said to be a delightful land as a result of the rich and exorbitant blessing of God in Malachi 3:12. It can also refer to a person’s longings and desires: 2 Samuel 23:5 provides an interesting parallel to our passage in Psalm 1. David is giving his last words before his death and he contrasts himself with wicked men. He says that God has made an everlasting covenant with him which He will fulfill in every detail, but wicked men will be set aside. He says that God will bring to fruition his salvation and grant him his every desire. The term can also refer to YHWH’s delight, good pleasure, purpose, or will (Is 46:10). Further, it can also refer to a person’s business or work (cf. Prov 31:13). In the context of Psalm 1 the term has the obvious connotations of “delighting and enjoying” God’s law so much that the person meditates on it day and night. This is not so much something that the psalmist feels he has to do as much as it is something he loves to do. He has chosen not to go down the path of the wicked, but instead to go down the path of meditation on God’s truth.

The term meditates in our culture often conjures up the idea, associated with eastern mysticism, of some kind of dreamy revelry or incantation. This is not the point at all, but rather meditation means to think about the instruction God has given for life with a view to understanding it and allowing it to shape one’s thoughts and actions. It is hard thinking about God and his ways and what he desires of us. It may well involve the process of reciting the portion being meditated upon until one knows it by heart so as not to forget it. A good illustration of the principle of meditation can be seen in Joshua 1:8. God says to Joshua to meditate (same Hebrew word as used in Psalm 1) on the book of the Law so that he might be careful to do everything written in it (cf. James 1:22). And this, of course, is the same point that the psalmist is making; think on God’s words, understand them, remember them, and live by them. Meditation, the writer says, is to be done day and night. That is, it is never to cease. The sect of the Jews living at Qumran felt that incessant meditation on Torah was very important, as the following words make plain:

(6) And in the place where the ten are, let there not lack a man who studies the Law night and day, (7) continually, concerning the duties of each towards the other. And let the Many watch in common for a third of the all the nights of the year, to read the Book and study the law (8) and bless in common⁶ (1QS 6:6-8a).

How are we doing in our meditation on God’s word? It is difficult, but here are a few suggestions: 1) start with a psalm or a paragraph of scripture; 2) read through the passage repeatedly until you can basically work your way through it from memory, i.e., without looking at the passage in the Bible; 3) summarize the main point of the psalm and try to fit each verse into that main point; 4) summarize principles from the psalm; 5) think through how the various truths in the psalm might apply to you; 6) ask God to help you apply a particular truth to your life; 7) apply the truth to your life and watch the difference God can make!!!

1:3 But he shall be like a tree transplanted near streams of water—a tree which gives its fruit in its season and whose leaves do not wither. All that he does prospers.

For the one who takes delight in the Torah of YHWH, who meditates day and night on it and shapes his/her life by what is found, there is prosperity, here envisioned as a tree which yields its fruit in season. Jeremiah used a similar expression in his discussion of the blessed man (see Jeremiah 17:7-8). The reference to the idea of a tree which is transplanted, rather than just “planted” may indicate divine favor in the bringing of the person from a place of barrenness to a place of blessing. The streams of water probably refers to artificial irrigation channels which secured a continuous source of water for vegetation. A tree deliberately placed near this water source would as a matter of course produce fruit. It is inevitable that it should prosper. As Craigie correctly points out, the simile of the tree and the righteous man makes clear that the blessing on the righteous is not a reward, but is part and parcel of living a life within the revealed will of God.⁷ The person who is blessed will bring forth fruit in season—not necessarily immediately upon being planted—and when circumstances get difficult (as many of the psalms indicate that they do) they will not perish and wither away. The blessing in their experience is evidenced not necessarily monetarily or externally, but by the strong character of their lives and the presence of God.

The point of the simile, then, is to give a picture of the blessedness of the person who turns away from ungodly counsel and lifestyles and turns instead to a life with God based on the Torah. All that he does prospers in the sense that God blesses his life as a life directed by Torah.

II. The Way of the Wicked (4-5)

1:4 Not so the wicked who are like chaff that the wind blows away.

In contrast to the blessed state and strong character of the righteous stands the character and plight of the wicked. The Hebrew term for wicked here, myuvr probably refers to those who live their lives outside of covenant relationship with YHWH and evidence this in their animosity toward God and his people (e.g., Num 16:26; Ps 12:8). It involves the distinction between those who serve God and those who think that such a lot in life is futile: God, speaking through Malachi, says: “And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.” Finally, the term can refer to gross acts of sin and wickedness or simply to a life characterized by wanton disregard for God and his law.

The wicked are like chaff that the wind blows away. The psalmist has in mind the practice of winnowing grain which is tossed into the air; the chaff is blown away in the evening wind and the grain is left to fall to the threshing floor and gathered. Chaff pictures the light and useless character of the wicked and the fact that God will deal with them easily.⁸ This is clearly brought out in the following verse. We must be careful to think seriously about the nature of wickedness and wicked people and what their outcome will be. This will be a theme developed at length in the rest of the Psalter and one that deserves serious consideration.

1:5 Therefore the wicked will not rise up in judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

One of the biggest interpretive problems in this verse concerns the meaning of judgment. Craigie suggests that the term refers to the “important areas of human society. . . the pursuit of justice and government.” In these areas, he says, the wicked will not be recognized.⁹ This would mean, of course, that there is no future aspect to the term in Psalm 1 and that the judgment is purely human, involving societal affairs. Others, such as A. A. Anderson understand the term to refer to God’s judgment, including both present manifestations of it, as well as its future consummation when the wicked will be fully and completely dealt with.¹⁰ Because the writer says (i.e., in verse 6) that the way of the wicked will perish, not just the wicked themselves, and because wicked people do corrupt government and society, we understand the latter interpretation to be much more likely with an emphasis on the eschatological aspect of God’s judgment. The statement, then, that the wicked will not rise up or stand means that they will not endure God’s judgment in the end. But it is a judgment that YHWH has already begun, for the psalmist can already see God separating the wicked from the righteous like chaff from wheat (v. 4).

The reference to nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous indicates that just as sinners will not endure God’s judgment so they will not ultimately be found in community with the righteous. God is in the process of separating between the righteous and the wicked now and will some day completely judge all the wicked and remove them from among the righteous. In the context of the Psalter as a whole the final righteous community will be Messiah’s community where all unrighteousness will be quickly and permanently done away with (cf. Ps 2).

There is only one way to be a part of the righteous community of Messiah and that is by attaching oneself to Messiah. The New Testament writers unequivocally referred to Jesus as the promised Messiah and that there is salvation in him and no one else (see John 14:6; Acts 4:11) and that it comes through faith in him (John 5:24; 1 John 5:11-13). Have you trusted Christ as your Savior?

III. The Contrast Completed (6)

1:6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of sinners will perish.

How is it that God can ensure the presence of a community of righteous people who know the “Torah” and keep it, and who separate themselves from those who have refused to obey YHWH? The answer is because he knows the way of the righteous, but the way of sinners will perish.

How is it that the psalmist can say that God knows the way of the righteous and seem to imply, at the same time, that he does not know the way of the wicked? Obviously, for the psalmist, God knows everything, so that what he means by knowing entails more than just mental assent to a fact. In that case he knows both the way of the righteous and the wicked. What the psalmist means, however, is that God is involved in caring for the righteous and enabling them to obey him and bear fruit. We saw that in the case of the tree in verse 3 which was deliberately transplanted and placed near a fresh water source. In a similar way, Jesus said God was a gardener who helped his children bear fruit (15:1-11; see also Phil 2:12-13). So God knows the way of the righteous in that he promotes their lives in accordance with his revealed will. This he does not do for the wicked.

Concerning the wicked, Anderson says:

Since the godless have no regard for the Law of God, God cannot have a real regard for their way, because the Law is the God-given guide to his people, and consequently those who reject that guidance also repudiate God’s concern for them, and thereby they cut the very ground from under their own feet.¹¹

Conclusion

Several principles for life can be garnered from this portion of God’s word. First, the psalmist says that there is a place where one can live where there is blessing. We do not all have to live without the sense of spiritual well being in our lives. Unfortunately, most of us do not really believe this to be true. Either we demand more from God than he has promised us in the present life (we want heaven now, immediately) or we ask him for nothing, believing all the time that our lot in life is to endure this present existence. But, if we sought to obey him we would find a sense of his presence hitherto unknown in our experience (cf. John 14:21).

Second, there is a place of blessing and spiritual vitality, but it does not come without a cost. If Jesus had to pay a cost to walk with God in this world, then so will we (cf. e.g., Heb 5:7-8). He said, “take up your cross daily and follow me (Luke 9:23). The cross was an instrument of suffering and death. The cost in this psalm involves turning from sin and those who lure us into it. This may lead to our being ridiculed at some level, whether it be only mild on the one hand, or sometimes even intense on the other. Persecution may result, but it is the price of blessing and walking with God according to his revealed will. Paul said that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).

There is also the cost of not doing what we want, but when there is a conflict, doing what He commands instead. While there is a sense in which his commands are not burdensome for those with the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:3), they are nonetheless demands, that we struggle with at times—commands which involve our dying to ourselves so that others may live (cf. John 12:24). We do this in emulation of our savior who did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; 2 Cor 4:5). The more our society is committed to the preservation of self, the more difficult it is to convince ourselves that God’s will, not our own, is the way to blessing. God help us.

Third, as Christians we need to be meditating on the truth of God as often as we can, day and night if you will (cf. Col. 3:16). Again, scripture memory is exceedingly helpful in this regard. The more we meditate on God’s truth the more we delight in it. The less we do so, the less we enjoy it. We are not just referring here to knowing a lot about the Bible. Such a goal is rather easy to accomplish. We are, instead, talking about thinking hard about the truth of God and how it applies to my life. The goal of meditation is to know God better and to apply his word to our lives. This reaches well beyond just knowing facts about the Bible. It calls us to trust the God of the Bible.

Fourth, growth in character and righteousness takes time. The psalmist says that the tree will bear fruit in its season, perhaps not right away. We have to be patient and continue to maintain an honest and pure heart as well as commit ourselves to doing what is right. Paul said it this way: “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” The harvest Paul is referring to is a harvest of righteousness.

Fifth, there is a cost at the present time for those who engage in wickedness and there will be a cost to pay in the future as well. At the present time men and women do experience the wrath of God as Paul discussed in Romans 1:18-32. In the future men and women who have not trusted Christ as savior will be permanently separated from God. The good news in the book of Romans and indeed the entire NT is that God’s wrath has been completely satiated by the sacrifice of Christ and anyone who trusts in Christ can be forgiven for his/her sin and moved out from under the judgment of God into the sphere of his blessing.

Finally, for those who love the Lord and want to live a life pleasing to him, they need to know that God is the one who will keep them to the end and present them in his presence blameless and free from accusation (Jude 24-25). Jesus said, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28). We know that “the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.”

1 For more information on the structure, background, purpose, etc. of the Psalms, see Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 274-285.

2 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 19 (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1983), 59.

3 For further comment on the nature and placement of the first two psalms, see Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning (New York: Alba House, 1974), 371-72.

4 Mortimer J. Adler, Ten Philosophical Mistakes (New York: Collier Books, 1985), 131.

5 This is not to say that there is no difference in the degree of sin outlined in the three descriptions, but only that the point has more to do with the various circumstances in which one is tempted to sin. For a different view see Sabourin, Psalms, 372.

6 A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, trans. G. Vermes (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973), 85.

7 Craigie, Psalms, 61.

8 See Allen P. Ross, “Psalms,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1:791.

9 Craigie, Psalms, 61.

10 A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms: 1-72, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 62.

11 Anderson, Psalms 63.