MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

The Authorship of Second Peter

Related Media

I. Introduction

There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: Ksemann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing” in the New Testament.1 Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.”2 And Brevard S. Childs, an excellent rhetorical critic, shows his assumption when he says, “even among scholars who recognize the non-Petrine authorship there remains the sharpest possible disagreement on a theological assessment.”3

The result of this debate is that 2 Peter is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature. But the evangelical world rejects the critics’ claims. Conservatives say this has serious ramifications for the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. The critics, on the other hand, claim this was standard procedure and therefore not dishonest.4

But was pseudepigraphy a normal convention? F.F. Bruce writes that Origen rejected many letters “not only because they falsely claimed apostolic authorship (as some of them did) but more especially because they taught false doctrine.”5 So we can see that early church fathers used this as one criterion. We also have Paul’s words in Galatians 6:11, Colossians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians 3:17 and Philemon 1:19 in which he states that he is writing that section with his own hand. Why would he do this? Perhaps someone was circulating letters in Paul’s name and to counter this he signed them himself.6

We also have the evidence of ancient literature itself. Although there is evidence that some pseudepigraphy was accepted, the only known examples are of apocalyptic literature.7 There are only two known examples of pseudepigraphical letters that fit the epistolary format (Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians), but neither one of these was accepted into the canon.8 Therefore, the critics should not claim that it was an accepted convention when dealing with New Testament epistles.

Guthrie concludes that if pseudepigraphy was accepted into the New Testament canon, it was done without awareness of the epistle’s true character.9 We can conclude, therefore, that the claim that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphy does matter. Pseudepigraphy of this nature would definitely be considered deceptive and not an accepted characteristic of an inerrant canon. Therefore, we need to examine the critics claims. On what basis do the critics derive their conclusions? Each criticism will be explained and then examined as to its validity in order to determine if it is based on provable fact or assumption.

II. External Evidence

There is no external evidence prior to Origen indicating that Peter wrote 2 Peter. Origen himself mentions that there were some doubts as to its authenticity, but he himself did not deal with the problem which seems to imply that he didn’t take the doubts seriously.10

The Muratorian Canon did not contain 2 Peter, but it also omits 1 Peter, so this is not a decisive factor. Eusebius rejected it but indicated that the majority accepted the epistle, including James and Jude. Jerome also accepted 2 Peter as authentic.11

It seems that the reason there were doubts about 2 Peter is because Gnostics were circulating letters with Peter’s name on them to try to gain acceptance for their doctrines. Consequently, the orthodox church was probably suspicious of any letter attributed to Peter. The fact that 2 Peter was accepted into the canon in spite of these suspicions argues favorably towards its authenticity.12

III. Internal Evidence

A. Personal References

The first criticism is of the personal references to Peter as the author. A quote from Edwin D. Freed reveals the typical attitude towards these references: “That the author wants to be identified with the apostle Peter and as the writer also of 1 Peter is clear from his allusion to 1 Peter in 3:1, his claiming to be present at the transfiguration (1:16-18), his reference to Paul as ‘our beloved brother’ (3:15), his pretending to be about ready to die (1:13-15) as Jesus predicted (John 21:18-19), and his professing to be an eyewitness to Jesus (1:16).”13

His rejection of the internal evidence is obvious by the choice of words (italicized), and most critics see these references as the author’s attempt to gain authority and acceptance by his readers. They base this claim on the fact that it is typical pseudepigraphal genre similar to that done in the pastoral epistles.14 But as we have seen, this is an assumption. It is also circular reasoning, because it has not been proven, nor is it unanimously accepted, that the pastoral epistles are pseudepigraphal.

The reference to Paul as “our beloved brother” in 3:15 is especially interesting because this is not the typical reference a second century church father would make of an apostle. Their tendency was to venerate them, not show familiarity with them. Therefore, this would seem to strengthen Petrine authorship.

Claims that personal references prove forgery are based purely on prejudice because unless the ink is still wet and the author long dead, it cannot be proved to be false. Charles Bigg says, “As regards what an author says about himself, we can ask only whether…it is possible or impossible. But no document was ever condemned as a forgery upon this ground.”15

B. Historical References

The second major area of criticism is based on interpretation of certain historical references. One critic states, “The pseudonymous author’s claims are not persuasive, however, because 2 Peter contains too many indications that it was written long after Peter’s martyrdom in about 64 or 65 CE.”16 What one must ask is whether or not their interpretations of these indications are valid.

    1. Reference to Paul’s Writings

Paul’s letters are referred to in 3:16 and critics see pavsai" ejpistolai'''" as indicative that Paul had completed all his epistles.17 The critics also feel that including Paul’s letters with taV" loipaV" grafaV" means these letters had already been accumulated and canonized.18 This process would have taken some time, and consequently, it means that 2 Peter could not have been written in the first century. Brevard Childs illustrates that he has adopted this idea when he says, “Moreover, the reference to Paul’s letters indicates that the effect of the canonical process was already at work.”19

One problem with this argument is that it is based on assumptions. First, it assumes that the author of 2 Peter was referring to all the letters ever written by Paul. However, he could easily mean all those written up to that time, or even those that the author currently knew about. The second assumption is that the author’s inclusion of Paul’s writings with the rest of scripture requires that Paul’s letters had been canonized by the church fathers. It certainly does not require that. What it shows is that the author, if in fact Peter and an apostle himself, under inspiration understood that what Paul wrote was also scripture.

The second problem with this argument is even if some critics insist that the author is referring to an unofficial, uncanonized collection of Paul’s writings, they are assuming this collection could not have been assembled until the second century. A recent article by Young Kyu Kim sheds new light and casts doubt on that argument also. One of the most important manuscripts, P46, which contains the writings of Paul, with the exception of the pastoral epistles, has traditionally been dated at AD 200. Kim conducted extensive analysis of P46 and came to the conclusion that a more accurate date for the manuscript is the last half of the first century.20 If this is true,21 it would indicate that the assumption that Paul’s writing could not be collected until the second century is false.

The reference to Paul as “our beloved brother” in 3:16 seems to support Petrine authorship. This was not the normal form 2nd century church fathers used when referring to an apostle. Their tendency was to place them on a pedestal, not call them “beloved brother.” Although critics would argue that this was simply an attempt by the author to give the letter credibility, it seems a little too bold.

    2. Reference to the Fathers

Another historical reference is seen in 3:4. The statement, “since the fathers fell asleep” is seen as a sign of the post-apostolic age.22 Who the “fathers” refers to is commonly understood by the critics to mean the apostles. Consequently, this verse is interpreted to mean that since the apostles had all died, and the rapture had not occurred, some were doubting the imminent return of Christ. For the passing of the fathers (apostles) to have occurred would necessitate a second century date.

However, the reference to the “fathers” does not necessarily refer to the apostles. According to Guthrie, nowhere does oiJ patevre" refer to the apostles.23 Therefore, this could in fact refer to the same thing all the other references to the “historical fathers” refer. These are the fathers such as Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That this is true is evident by the statement at the end of verse 4, “from the beginning of creation.” “Father Adam” certainly fits better in the setting of creation than “father Paul.” The critics need to look at the context to determine the meaning and not try to impose a unique interpretation on a passage to support their view.

Another criticism of this reference to Old Testament fathers is the OT fathers would not have anticipated Jesus’ second coming. Rather than becoming embroiled in a debate about progressive revelation and how much the Old Testament saints knew, perhaps we should again appeal to the context. The author of 2 Peter is not saying that the fathers were concerned about the second coming. His readers are the ones who are concerned. It is possible that the author is using hyperbolic language and is only commenting that although things have continued much the same way since father Adam was created and father Abraham lived, do not worry. Christ will return. Again, context is the key to determining the meaning.

There is one other possible interpretation oiJ patevre". Bauer says in reference to 2 Peter 3:4, “in some places the patevre" are to be understood as the generation(s) of deceased Christians.”24 If this be the case, it still would not require a 2nd century date because a date of AD 64 or 65 for 2 Peter would still leave ample time for the death of many Christians. Thus we have the concern of 2 Peter’s readers based on Jesus’ teaching that “…this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place.”25

We can conclude that since there are other valid explanations for the reference to the fathers, the reference does not necessarily mean “apostles.”

    3. Reference to False Teachers

A third major historical clue for the critic is the reference to false teachers. Guthrie says, “… a tendency exists for all references to false teachers in the New Testament in some ways to be connected up with second-century Gnosticism.”26 This is exactly what the modern critics claim for 2 Peter. They use the reference to false teachers in 2:1-22 and 3:16 to refer to full-fledged Gnosticism from the second century. This assumes that no heresy with similar teachings could have appeared during the apostles’ time. However, Cole concludes from Galatians that Paul was dealing with an incipient form of Gnosticism.27 And Guthrie says, “care must be taken to ensure that tendencies are not confused with fully developed systems.”28

C. Stylistic Differences

Another major basis of criticism is the stylistic differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The critics contend that the same author could not have written both because 2 Peter has a unique vocabulary and unique theological ideas.29 Childs says, “The differences in style, vocabulary, and conception between 1 and 2 Peter are too great to be understood as the result of different secretaries, changing situation, or diverse audiences, but reflect different authors.”30

Indeed, there are differences between the two letters. The vocabulary of 1 Peter has only 153 words in common with 2 Peter while 543 are unique to 1 Peter and 399 unique to 2 Peter.31 There are fewer particles in 2 Peter than in 1 Peter. And there are more repetitions in 2 Peter.32 One common example given by critics is the use of apokaluyi" in 1 Peter and parousiva in 2 Peter to refer to the Lord’s coming. However, this is not uncommon. Paul uses these terms on separate occasions when writing 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians.33

There are also differences between the two letters in doctrinal themes, but this is also insignificant. Differences should be expected if the author is dealing with different problems. The assumption that an author must deal with the same topics in both letters is unrealistic.

But not only are there differences, there are also many similarities between 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Although 2 Peter has more, they both are characterized by repetition of words. Bigg says, “The habit of verbal repetition is therefore quite as strongly marked in the First Epistle as the Second.”34 There are similarities of thought: the fruits of redemption and testing, the inspiration of scripture, the second coming of Christ.35 And Bigg adds, “…no document in the New Testament is so like 1 Peter as 2 Peter.”36

One plausible explanation for the differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that Peter used an amanuensis to do the actual writing of 1 Peter with Peter checking and approving the final product.37 That this was a common practice is evidenced by Longenecker who states, “The Greek papyri, therefore, indicate quite clearly that an amanuensis was frequently, if not commonly, employed in the writing of personal letters during the time approximating the composition of the NT epistles.”38 If Peter himself wrote 2 Peter, this would explain the differences between the two letters.

As one examines the arguments for both sides, it becomes evident that analysis of stylistic differences is subjective and can be used to prove any hypothesis. When dealing with such a small corpus as 2 Peter, it is difficult to make strong conclusions.

IV. Conclusion

We examined the criticisms to determine whether they were based on provable fact or assumption. The external evidence is not very strong for this epistle, but as we have seen, the fact that it was accepted into the canon in spite of the other pseudo-Petrine literature argues favorably for it. Concerning the internal evidence, it should be obvious that the critics’ interpretations of historical references are based on assumption. Valid explanations can be given for each historical reference fitting in the first century. The dependence on stylistic differences is too subjective to place much emphasis on, and it can be explained as caused by use of an amanuensis for 1 Peter. The denial of personal references seems to display an unwarranted prejudice and plain unbelief on the part of the critic. Until actual, objective proof is shown to the contrary, this author will continue to consider the author of 2 Peter to be the apostle Peter himself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauckham, Richard J., Jude, 2 Peter, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983.

Bauer, Walter and others, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Bigg, Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, Edinberg: T&T Clark, 1901.

Bruce, F. F., The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988.

Childs, Brevard S., The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Cole, R. Alan, Galatians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Conzelmann, Hanz and Andreas Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament, Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988.

Farkasfalvy, Denis, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy in Second Peter and its Role in the Formation of the Canon,” Second Century, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Spring 85/86)

Freed, Edwin D., The New Testament: A Critical Introduction, Belmont, Cal: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1986.

Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Introduction, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1990.

Harris, Stephen L., The New Testament: A Students Introduction, Mountainview, Cal: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1988.

Ksemann, Ernst, “An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology”, Essays on New Testament Themes, Studies in Biblical Theology, 42, Naperville, Ill: Alex. R. Allenson, 1964.

Kim, Young Kyu, “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Biblica, 69 (1988).

Longenecker, Richard N., “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” New Dimensions in New Testament Study, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

New American Standard Bible, La Habra, Ca: The Lockman Foundation, 1960.

Martin, Ralph P. , New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, Revised ed. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.


1 Ernst Ksemann, “An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology,” Essays on New Testament Themes, Studies in Biblical Theology, 42, 1964, p. 169

2 Stephan L. Harris, The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction (Mountainview, Cal: Mayfield Publishing Co.), p. 269.

3 Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 468.

4 Denis Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy,” p. 29.

5 F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 194.

6 Ibid., p. 255-56.

7 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1990), p. 1012.

8 Ibid., p. 1016.

9 Ibid., p. 1020.

10 Ibid., p. 806.

11 Ibid., p. 808.

12 Ibid., p. 809.

13 Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament: A Critical Introduction (Belmont, Cal: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1986), p. 389 (italics mine).

14 Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy,” p. 4.

15 Charles Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, International Critical Comentary (Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1901), p. 232.

16 Harris, The New Testament, p. 269.

17 Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy,” p. 8.

18 Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 384.

19 Childs, The New Testament as Canon, p. 472-3.

20 Young Kyu Kim, “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Biblica, 69, (1988), p. 248.

21 This author could find no evidence of a textual critic who has attempted to refute his argument.

22 Childs, The New Testament as Canon, p. 467. Also cf. Freed, The New Testament, p. 389.

23 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction ,p. 829.

24 Walter Bauer and others, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) . p. 635 2.d.

25 Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30.

26 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 828. For examples cf. Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations , p. 388.

27 R. Alan Cole, Galatians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 24.

28 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 848.

29 Freed, The New Testament, 386. Also cf. Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting,” p. 27.

30 Childs, The New Testament as Canon, p. 466.

31 Martin, New Testament Foundations, p. 387.

32 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 832.

33 Ibid., p. 836.

34 Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 227.

35 Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy,” p. 17-18.

36 Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 232.

37 1 Peter 5:12 says, “Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!” (NASB)

38 Richard N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p. 286.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

Is 2 Peter Peter’s?

Related Media

Introduction

Of all the epistles accepted into the New Testament canon, the book of 2 Peter remains the most difficult. Understanding with certainty the epistle’s complex issues feels like trying to untie a tightly woven knot—only to find more little knots to untie. However, if the issue of authorship can be reasonably determined, most of the knots considerably loosen themselves.

The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.1 The term pseudonymity refers to an author assuming the name of another, writing supposedly on his or her behalf—or in his or her name. The prefix pseudo means “false.” “Scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous, although it must be admitted of the few who do that they defend their case with an impressive combination of learning and ingenuity.”2 Bauckman’s view is characteristic of those who reject authenticity:

The evidence which really rules out composition during Peter’s lifetime is that of literary genre and that of date. Either of these might be fatal for any degree of Petrine authorship. Together they must be regarded as entirely conclusive against Petrine authorship.3

Guthrie comments on the essential problem of authorship:

The choice seems to lie between two fairly well defined alternatives. Either the epistle is genuinely Petrine (with or without the use of an amanuensis [secretary]), in which case the main problem is the delay in its reception. Or it is pseudepigraphic, in which case the main difficulties are lack of an adequate motive and the problem of the epistle’s ultimate acceptance.4

This article seeks to show the evidence for a credible position that the apostle Peter is the author of 2 Peter, as the epistle claims, considering the problems and plausible solutions to the problems on both sides.

Second Peter and the New Testament Canon

The history of the acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon has all the grace of a college hazing event. This epistle was examined, prayed over, considered, and debated more than any other New Testament book—including Revelation:

2 Peter was recognized as canonical by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century, and this is the more significant because these Councils rejected the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement, because they were not of apostolic origin. . . . At the Reformation it was regarded as second-class Scripture by Luther, rejected by Erasmus, and regarded with hesitancy by Calvin.5

Bauckham speculates that the reason for the hesitancy of 2 Peter’s acceptance is that:

Quite probably the churches which originally received it, knowing it not to be Peter’s own work, would not have granted it the same status in their own use as they did, e.g., to the Pauline letters. . . . Whatever the reasons for its lack of wide use in the second century, this seems to have contributed to its very slow progress toward general acceptance into the canon.”6

The early church hesitated to accept 2 Peter possibly because Peter’s name was used in many Gnostic writings, and both Peter and Jude allude to Enoch, an apocryphal book.7 However, as White says:

The involved problem of the canonical position of 2 Peter is dependent first of all on the concept of canon espoused. If the principle of divine providence in the preservation and acceptance of the Biblical books is rejected, then the canonization of any specific text becomes a mere problem in historiography. If, on the other hand, a belief in the sovereign work of God through the Church’s responsible agency in producing the canon is maintained then the fact is established in history.8

The External Evidence

The external evidence regarding 2 Peter is not conclusive, but it is noteworthy. The common view by those who hold to pseudonymity is that 2 Peter was not written until the second century because of its late attestation in the writings of the early church fathers. However, Green notes significant manuscript evidence which would suggest an even earlier date for 2 Peter:

The recent discovery of the third-century Papyrus 72, including both Epistles of Peter and Jude, sheds light on the use of this Epistle in Egypt. The Coptic mother tongue of the scribes concerned, together with the variant text types embodied in the MS [manuscripts] indicate a considerable history of the use of these letters in Egypt before the third-century papyrus in which they are embodied.9

In addition, the 2nd century Sahidic and the 4th century Bohairic versions of the Bible included it, as did Clement of Alexandria’s Bible (ca. 200). The Apocalypse of Peter, which most scholars hold as later than 2 Peter, makes use of 2 Peter.10

The struggle over 2 Peter began early in church history. “II Peter was disputed up to the time of Eusebius. It was quoted less and discussed more by the Church Fathers than any other single book of the New Testament.”11

The earliest certain reference to ii Peter is in Origen, whom Eusebius (H.E. vi. 25) refers to as having said that Peter left one acknowledge epistle, and ‘perhaps also a second, for it is disputed… .’ Farther back than Origen it is not easy to trace.12

Robert Picirilli has shown that 2 Peter is clearly a possible source for several allusions by the early church fathers. If and when the similarities between 2 Peter and the Fathers are a possible twenty-two times, “the level of likelihood ranging from merely possible to highly probable”13 is high that 2 Peter is Peter’s. He summarizes the external evidence well, by saying that:

One cannot dogmatically affirm that there are certainly no allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers; the common material is too obviously there… . [The] authenticity of 2 Peter will have to be debated on grounds other than whether the Apostolic Fathers knew it and alluded to it.14

The Internal Evidence

The internal evidence for the authenticity of 2 Peter is plentiful and powerful, and yet, not without its problems. The book clearly intends its readers to believe Peter to be its author, for it includes personal references to Peter’s life.

The epistle opens with the name “Simon Peter” as the author (1:1), it mentions the immanency of his death foretold by the Lord (1:14), and the author claims to have been an eyewitness to the Transfiguration (1:16–18). However, some see these references as evidence against authenticity under the guise of pseudonymity. Barnett is an example of such opinions: “This zeal of the epistle for its own authenticity creates more doubt than confidence and other data fail to support its claim.”15 Strachan agrees: “They do not nearly amount to evidence that the writer is the Apostle himself.”16 Perhaps a more balanced approach is suggested by Tenney, who says: “While the external evidence for the genuineness of II Peter is not so clear and convincing as it is for other books of the New Testament, the internal evidence creates at least a presumption of authenticity.”17

The assertion seems unfounded that the use of the names Simon, along with Peter (in 2 Peter 1:1), is an attempt by a pseudepigrapher to verify his “authenticity.” Any attempt by a pseudepigrapher to emulate Peter’s writing would not have differed from 1 Peter’s salutation where the name “Simon” is absent.18 Neither would the writer have adopted a primitive Hebrew form of the word.19

Many assume that the statement in 2 Peter 1:14, of the immanency of Peter’s death, is dependent upon the narrative recorded in John 21, where Jesus tells Peter how he will die. If it can be shown that 2 Peter used John 21, it would require too late a date for the epistle to be genuine because the gospel was written after Peter’s death. However, this assumption is unnecessary. There is no basis to Bauckham’s remark that “Second Peter is fictionally represented as written shortly before Peter’s death” (emphasis added).20 Peter himself heard the remark made by the Lord (as did John) and was only commenting on it in 2 Peter, as John did in John 21.

When it is remarked in 2 Peter 1:15 that the author will make every effort after his departure to ensure their remembering, some critics see here an attempt by “pseudo-Peter” to make 2 Peter a part of the testamentary genre. If so, the readers would have allegedly expected that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal. Bauckham agrees and then ups the ante:

In Jewish usage the testament was a fictional literary genre… . Second Peter bears so many marks of the testament genre that readers familiar with the genre must have expected it to be fictional, like other examples they knew. If they knew that it came from the Petrine circle in Rome, then they might trust its author to have made a good job of reporting the essence of Peter’s teaching, but they would not expect Peter to have written it. At any rate the presumption would be that he did not… . [In 2 Peter] Petrine authorship was intended to be an entirely transparent fiction.21

The problem is that the statement can be explained without such hypotheses. Moreover, as Guthrie states, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to state what such readers would expect… . [If] such knowledge was widespread and the practice was acceptable, it still does not explain the long delay in attestation (emphasis added).”22 Some have thought Peter’s desire to preserve “these things” for their remembrance to be a reference to the gospel of Mark, to a lost letter, or to perhaps a letter never written,23 but this seems unlikely. It is not necessary to go outside 2 Peter for the letter in question. Kelly gives the best solution:

Almost certainly the reference is to the epistle itself. The [future] tense is admittedly difficult … [but] in employing the future the writer is either looking forward to the sections he is about to draft or (more probably) placing himself in the position of his readers when they receive and study his tract.24

One of the clearest personal allusions to Peter in 2 Peter is his reference to his presence on the Mount of Transfiguration (1:16–18) as validation of his eyewitness authority. To Peter the mount was “sacred,” for he was one of the few who got to witness the event. Green observes how:

It is interesting that the roots of both skenoma (tabernacle) and exodus (decease, verse 15) should occur in the Lucan account of the transfiguration, to which Peter goes on to refer. If 2 Peter is a pseudepigraph, its author must have been sophisticated in the extreme to produce so delicate a touch.25

It is remarkable to note Bauckham’s response to these personal allusions: “Apart from the Transfiguration tradition and other Gospel traditions, there is little material in 2 Peter which could plausibly be regarded as specifically Petrine tradition deriving from the historical Peter.”26 But this does not deal with the fact that this material is present in 2 Peter, giving evidence of the historical Peter! What else must the author do to validate himself? What could Peter have done that he did not do if he were to have written 2 Peter? There is nothing in these personal allusions that deny authenticity.

Second Peter’s reference to the death of the fathers (3:4) is asserted to be a reference to New Testament fathers—the apostles. Thus it is concluded that Peter could not have written it himself because all the apostles would not yet have died. The problem is that the phrase the fathers is consistently used in the New Testament to refer to Old Testament fathers alone,27 “and it is clear from the context (Genesis and the flood) that this is what is meant here.”28 The fact is that “Nowhere else in the New Testament nor the Apostolic Fathers is [the Greek word for fathers] used of Christian ‘patriarchs’ and the more natural interpretation would be to take it as denoting Jewish patriarchs,”29

When 2 Peter refers to all of Paul’s writings as being on par with “other Scriptures,” it is seen by some to clinch pseudonymity, because all of Paul’s letters were not written by the time of Peter’s death. However “all” need not be taken this way, for it could simply mean “all he has written so far.” Mayor disagrees: “A collection of later writings known to the writer as Scripture, of which St. Paul’s epistles formed a part … can hardly be conceived as possible before the middle of the second century.”30 Guthrie provides a more lucid view: “Is it not more reasonable to suggest that in the apostolic period Peter may have recognized the value of Paul’s epistles even more fully than the later sub-apostolic Fathers? These latter do not speak of Paul as ‘our beloved brother’, but in [even] more exalted ways.”31 Mayor, almost contradicting himself, states as a concession perhaps: “There are many difficulties in the way of accepting the genuineness of this Epistle, but the manner in which St. Paul is spoken of seems to me just what we should have expected from his brother apostle.”32

The “second letter,” to which 2 Peter refers in 3:1, is most naturally taken to be the letter following 1 Peter.333While 2 Peter could be the “second letter,” it does not seem to be a reminder of the first, as it claims. This leads Green to the conclusion that the epistle referred to was lost.34 Many scholars tend to agree with Bauckham on this issue of a lost letter: “It is obviously impossible to rule out this possibility… . But if there is a known document which meets the requirements of the reference we should not resort to the hypothesis of a lost document.”35 This “second letter” could indeed be 2 Peter, with 1 Peter being the intimated first letter. “2 Peter does not absolutely demand that both epistles should say the same thing and it may be possible to make 1 Peter fill the bill by appealing to the frequent allusions to prophetic words within that epistle.”36

When Peter quoted from Psalm 90:4 that “a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8 NIV), there is no mention of the doctrine of chiliasm (the thousand-year reign of Christ) which was a major doctrine in the second century, the very time it is alleged that 2 Peter was pseudepigraphically written. Green explains:

It would have been almost impossible for any second-century writer to use this verse, as 2 Peter does without commenting on it at all either in favor of or against the chiliast hope. This in itself suggests the antiquity of our Epistle.37

The style between 1 and 2 Peter is very different, and on this basis many have doubted that Peter wrote 2 Peter. For example, 1 Peter’s Greek is cultured and written well, while 2 Peter is “rather like baroque art, almost vulgar in its pretentiousness and effusiveness.”38 Bauckham states: “The relationship of 1 and 2 Peter is ambiguous in its relevance to the question of Petrine authorship, but certainly Peter cannot be the real author of both letters.”39 Wand agrees: “Thus the writer takes every pains to let us know that he is the Apostle Peter. But if he is S. Peter, it is certainly not the Peter that we know… . The two Epistles indeed show a contrast at nearly every point.”40

How does one account for this difference in style if they have the same author? In comparing the letters we find that Peter used a secretary, or an amanuensis, to compose 1 Peter,41 while no such mention of one is made in 2 Peter. This would explain why 1 Peter’s Greek is so polished, and why 2 Peter, written by the rugged fisherman himself, is more rough. It should be noted that Paul also used an amanuenses.42

Another objection arises in that Peter could not have written both letters because their content is so different. However, the nature of the circumstances determines the nature of the content, and different purposes in writing would be a simple solution to the epistles’ different themes. First Peter is an admonishment to stand strong in tribulation,43 and 2 Peter is a stirring up to remember the basics of the faith (a fitting theme for Peter to emphasize at the end of his life).44

While it is the popular opinion Peter could not have written both 1 and 2 Peter, it is universally agreed that the same author wrote 1 Timothy and Titus. However, when one compares the ratio of common words between the pairs of books, it suggests a consistency, not a contradiction, of authors (see figure 1).45

Figure 1

1 Timothy—537 words

Titus—399 words

161 common words

1 Peter—543 words

2 Peter—399 words

153 common words

After comparing the remarkable similarities in language between 1 and 2 Peter, Weiss concludes: “From a biblical and theological point of view therefore, the second epistle of Peter is allied to no New Testament writing more closely than to his first.”46

Because the major themes of 1 and 2 Peter are so different, it is often held as evidence against Petrine authorship. Yet “it should be noted that much of the evidence brought forward in support is due to subjective assessments which naturally appeal differently to different minds.”47 As previously stated, the difference in doctrinal emphasis between the two letters can clearly be attributed to purpose, as can other New Testament books by the same writer (such as Paul’s Romans and Philemon, and John’s gospel and Revelation). While there are marked similarities, there must also be some differences, or why write another letter? Even 2 Peter’s desire to “remind them” included some things he (and others) said verbally and yet did not include in 1 Peter.48

Even a casual reading in the English text shows a dependence of 2 Peter upon Jude or Jude upon 2 Peter (or less likely, both dependent on some lost document). It is the common assumption that 2 Peter borrowed from Jude. Along with that assumption, usually there comes a later date for the writing of Jude; therefore, Peter is again ruled out as the author of 2 Peter by virtue of a composition date past his death. Meade assumes that, “Literarily the work is dependent on the Epistle of Jude… . The problem is that, authentic or not, Jude is usually dated after the lifetime of Peter.”49

But there exists no compelling evidence to show a late date for Jude, or for that matter, Jude’s primacy over Peter. But even if Jude was Peter’s source, there is no reason Peter could not have used Jude’s material in his letter.50 “The ancients had no law of copyright. In short, the question of the relationship of 2 Peter to Jude has no bearing whatever on the authenticity of 2 Peter.”51

Second Peter and Pseudonymity

As stated at the outset, 2 Peter is commonly held to be pseudepigraphal in nature. Pseudonymity is the practice of writing under someone else’s name; this is not simply a “pen name,” as we have today, but it is the deliberate taking of a real person’s name for the purpose of influence in publication. The basis by which modern scholarship justifies the use of pseudonymity is that it was a “common usage” in the ancient world, and for a New Testament writer to adopt the style would have been perfectly legitimate and understood.52 This is the view of Moffat, who states that: “The literary device [of pseudonymity] was recognized in these days … and the author evidently felt no scruples about adopting this literary device in order to win a hearing.”53 However, it must be mentioned that the fact the writer felt “no scruples” about using the name of Simon Peter could also be attributed to the fact that it was his name. Like Moffat, Bauckham supports pseudonymity:

The pseudepigraphal device is therefore not a fraudulent means of claiming apostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a faithful mediator of the apostolic message. Recognizing the canonicity of 2 Peter means recognizing the validity of that claim, and it is not clear that this is so alien to the early church’s criteria of canonicity as is sometimes alleged.54

Quite the opposite is shown in an outstanding work by Roger Beckwith:

The only convention of pseudonymity that does seem to have been acknowledged in Hellenistic Jewish circles was one which involved no pretense, as when the author of wisdom wrote his book ‘in honor of Solomon’ (i.e. in imitation of Proverbs), the use of Solomon’s name being merely a literary device on his part, and no secret being made of the book’s pseudonymous character, which was still remembered in the second century AD (emphasis added).55

The only Jewish examples of pseudonymity, in an attempt at epistolary form, were the Epistle of Jeremy and the Letter of Aristeas.56 Pfeiffer describes the latter as an attempt to give “an account of the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. In reality, all the details of this narrative are fictitious… . This fanciful story of the origin of the Septuagint is merely a pretext for defending Judaism against its heathen denigrators.”57 Because there are no examples of epistolary pseudonymity during the time of the early church, we must be wary of “a too facile admittance of the practice in New Testament times.”58 Wand ignores such a position, and he states that:

[Second Peter] provides us with the one clear example of pseudepigraphic material that we have in the New Testament. This does not mean necessarily that it is a deliberate and unabashed forgery. If we judge by the literary standards of the time, we might say that it is as much and as little a forgery as the Pilgrim’s Progress or any historical novel that is written in the first person. It was the established custom.59

While a forgery is not required by this single, alleged attestation to pseudonymity, it is not necessarily precluded either. In fact, if it is indeed the one “clear example,” the burden of proof would lie with showing it not to be genuine, for the consistent manner in Scripture—regardless of “established,” non-scriptural “customs”—was for the author to be who he claimed. “In other words, pseudonymous hypotheses are at a discount when compared with authentic works and require for that reason the most convincing grounds for their substantiation.”60

Because of the difference in the style and the theological emphases between 1 and 2 Peter, Kelly asserts: “We must therefore conclude that 2 Peter belongs to the luxuriant crop of pseudo-Petrine literature which sprang up around the memory of the Prince of the apostles.”61 If this is true, why does 2 Peter not attempt to contribute anything new to our understanding of Peter as do all the other pseudepigraphs?62 In addition, Guthrie points out that lumping 2 Peter with the spurious Petrine books ignores the quality of the epistle:

For spiritual quality is not a matter of skill, but of inspiration. In spite of all the doubts regarding the epistle, the discernment of the Christian church decided in its favor because the quality of its message suggested its authenticity. It was the same discernment which confidently rejected the spurious Petrine literature… . The fact that it ultimately gained acceptance in spite of the pseudo-Petrine literature is an evidence more favorable to its authenticity than against it.”63

In comparing 2 Peter with other so-called Petrine material, Bauckham speaks of 2 Peter’s alleged pseudepigraphal author:

His disregard for 1 Peter, which is mentioned because the readers knew it but on which, by contrast with later pseudepigraphal practice, the author conspicuously fails to model 2 Peter, may indicate a confidence … to speak on behalf of the dead Peter without recourse to other Petrine writings.64

Or it may be that it contrasts “with later pseudepigraphal practice” because it was not a pseudepigraphal work, and Peter felt no need to copy 1 Peter’s style because his purpose was entirely different for 2 Peter. Guthrie explains how “no author ever considers what impression a different style will have upon critical recipients, whereas in the nature of the case an imitator cannot fail to give some attention to this.”65

Was the literary use of pseudonymity questionable or accepted? While there does appear to be an initial acceptance of pseudonymity in the early church, it was extremely short-lived. The attitude toward pseudonymity had almost universally changed by the time 2 Peter was admitted into the canon, and its admittance suggests it was not taken to be pseudonymous. One example of the attitude of the early church toward pseudonymity is seen in the document entitled the Acts of Paul. But Bauckham disagrees:

The example of Tertullians’s defrocking of a presbyter for writing the Acts of Paul seems to be a much clearer expression of disapproval of a pseudonymity. Yet here too there are theological concerns… . Once again, then, it is doctrine, not authenticity, that is of paramount concern.66

But Tertullian does not mention an acceptance of the pseudonymity, while at the same time rejecting the heresy, and “such a distinction cannot reasonably be maintained.”67 Beckwith elucidates further the short acceptance of pseudonymity:

Even Clement of Alexandria, who uses it [pseudonymity] so freely, seems to admit that its use is confined to ‘initiates’, and Tertullian, in his treatise On Women’s Dress 1.3, has to defend at length his use of 1 Enoch against those who, he acknowledges, rejected it as uncanonical and spurious. By the mid third century, Origen is only using this literature with caution… . From this date, the decline of the apocalyptic and prophetic Pseudepigrapha could only be rapid. By the fifth or sixth century, works like pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae … were listing them in a separate category as not just uncanonical but harmful.68

Green reduces the problem of pseudonymity to a basic issue when he says:

The only a priori [deductive] argument against such an apparently reasonable hypothesis [of pseudonymity] is the moral one. How is it that writers who urge the highest moral standards in their letters should stoop to deceit of this type? In this case, the author not only claims to be Peter; he constantly implies it… . It seems rather that pseudepigraphy was not so leniently viewed in Christian circles. Thus Paul inveighed against the practice in the Thessalonian correspondence (2 Thes. ii. 2, iii. 17).69

The crux of the matter is—based on the attitude of the early church toward pseudonymity—that if pseudepigraphal writings entered into the canon of the New Testament, they crept in without the councils’ awareness of its pseudonymity. Even James, who holds to pseudonymity, says: “If there were an element of conscious deceit connected with the writing, it must have laid principally in the manner in which the Epistle was introduced into the Church.”70 Summarizing the problem well, Guthrie states:

If this is a valid conclusion the charge of deliberate deception can scarcely be avoided… . Pseudepigraphic hypotheses must assume that the author’s notion of the truth contained nothing inconsistent with a literary method which he must have known would deceive many if not [eventually] all his readers… . Yet such deception is difficult to reconcile with the high spiritual quality of the New Testament writings concerned… . It is a fatal objection to all attempts to make pseudepigraphy respectable in early Christianity that the external evidence from our extant sources can supply no positive support for it.”71

Summary and Conclusion

It may be conclusively stated that there is no definitive evidence against the authenticity of 2 Peter in spite of the fact that the majority of scholarship today rejects apostolic authorship. The external evidence, while not proving authenticity, neither disproves it, for the evidence provides twenty-two possible usages of 2 Peter. The internal evidence, particularly the personal allusions to Peter’s life, clearly means to communicate that the author is Peter. The issues regarding history, doctrine, and style are, again, not conclusively against Petrine authorship, but on the contrary, may be used to support it. Each historical problem has a viable solution which harmonizes with Peter’s hand, and the issues of doctrine and style can be attributed naturally to purpose and Peter’s use of an amanuensis.

The more difficult position to defend is for the adherents of pseudonymity, not for the traditional authorship view. At the time of 2 Peter’s canonization, the practice of pseudonymity was scorned and had not one example of New Testament usage, while the canonical books were only admitted after careful scrutiny of genuineness. That 2 Peter was admitted validates both its authenticity and its non-pseudonymity.

In conclusion, it may be stated that a denial of Petrine authorship cuts to the very heart of the biblical doctrine of inerrancy. How can one accept the verbal, plenary inspiration—which would demand Petrine authorship at verse one—and still call 2 Peter canonical?72 Regardless of its late acceptance, it was accepted into the canon of Scripture. And if 2 Peter is Scripture, and if Scripture is inerrant, then the author must be the one whom the word of God says he is: “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.”73


1 Ferngren states accurately, that in spite of its own claims, “a majority of informed scholars regard 2 Peter as pseudonymous, and this view is taken by many as a proven fact… . A strong case can be made for Peter’s authorship of the second epistle attributed to him. Yet such arguments are for the most part ignored in modern discussions and one may be permitted to wonder how many minds are influenced less by the evidence against Petrine authorship than by the fact that the opinio communis of modern scholarship regards the evidence against it as decisive.” (Gary B. Ferngren, “Internal Criticism as a Criterion for Authorship in the New Testament,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 134 #536 [October–December 1977], 341.)

2 J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 245.

3 Richard Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary: Jude, 2 Peter (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 159. Used by permission of Thomas Nelson, Inc.

4 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Leicester, Eng.: Apollos; Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity, 1990), 840–841. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press. www.ivpbooks.com.

5 Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter, and the General Epistle of Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 15, 13. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press. www.ivpbooks.com.

6 Bauckham, 163.

7 See Green, 14–15.

8 W. White Jr., “Second Epistle of Peter,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 729.

9 Green, 13 (footnote).

10 Harold Hoehner, “New Testament Introduction 200” (unpublished notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Tex., Spring 1997), 72.

11 Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961), 412.

12 J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (London: Methuen, 1934), 140–141. Donald Guthrie remarks: “In many respects Origen shares the broad approach of Clement toward the New Testament. He knows and uses all the canonical books of the New Testament, although he does mention doubts about some of them… . [He did not] question 1 Peter as apostolic, and he acknowledged the possibility that 2 Peter was genuine” (Donald Guthrie, “Canon of the New Testament,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976], 737.)

13 Picirilli, 74. He asserts also: “The strongest possibilities have been found in 1 Clement, Pseudo-Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas.”

14 Picirilli, 74, 76.

15 Albert E. Barnett, introduction to “The Second Epistle of Peter,” in The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1957), 164.

16 R. H. Strachan, “The Second Epistle General of Peter,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. V (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), 97.

17 Tenney, 367.

18 1 Peter 1:1: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.”

19 See Guthrie, NTI, 820.

20 Bauckham, 159.

21 Bauckham, 134.

22 Guthrie, NTI, 822 (footnote), 842.

23 Guthrie, NTI, 822.

24 Kelly, 314.

25 Green, 79.

26 Bauckham, 160.

27 Cf. John 6:58; 7:22; Acts 13:32; Romans 9:5; 11:28; 15:8; Hebrews 1:1. Bauckham both admits this usage and still rejects it: “However, in spite of this consistent usage, there are difficulties in the way of supposing 2 Peter to refer to the OT fathers, and almost all commentators understand (‘the fathers’) to be the first Christian generation. This view is weak because of an eschatological presumption that the ‘coming’ of the Lord, as prophesied in the OT, was fulfilled in Christ’s first advent. The context of 2 Peter has clearly in mind the second advent” (Bauckham, 290).

28 Green, 26.

29 Guthrie, NTI, 829.

30 Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter: Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Comments (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 168.

31 Guthrie, NTI, 826.

32 Mayor, 166.

33 Lenski gives an interesting interpretation to this issue: “This epistle [2 Peter] was not written after but before the one we call First Peter, and the two were not sent to the same readers… . Those who suppose that Second Peter was written after First Peter and was sent to the same churches as a second encyclical create an insoluble problem for themselves: why, then, was Second Peter not received everywhere on the same basis as First Peter?” And yet Lenski comments on 1:14 that “this letter must be dated shortly before Peter’s end.” How could Peter have written 2 Peter at the end of his life if he still had 1 Peter to write? (Richard Charles Henry Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961], 237, 241, 282.)

34 Green, 123–124.

35 Bauckham, 285–286. Incidentally, we may use Bauckman’s own logic on this issue against his claim of pseudepigraphal authorship. Hence, “If there is a known” author who “meets the requirements of” authenticity “we should not resort to the hypothesis of” pseudonymity. Indeed, we should give 2 Peter the benefit of the doubt!

36 Guthrie, NTI, 828.

37 Green, 34 (footnote).

38 Green, 16.

39 Bauckham, 159. He also feels his view is substantiated by pointing out that: “2 Peter has the highest proportion of hapax legomena any New Testament book. Thirty-two of these are not found in the LXX either.” 135.

40 Wand, 143.

41 1 Peter 5:12: “Through [Dia;] Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly.”

42 Romans 16:22 (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Philemon 19).

43 1 Peter 4:12–13: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation.”

44 2 Peter 3:1–2: “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.”

45 The information on this chart is credited to Harold Hoehner’s unpublished notes: (Hoehner, 74).

46 Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, trans. A. J. K. Davidson, 2 vols. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 2:165. Observe also Weiss’ “long series of very striking resemblances” on p. 166, elucidating both the common usages of words and the grammatical congruity between the two epistles.

47 Guthrie, NTI, 819.

48 He reminded them to “remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2).

49 David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 179. Kelly agrees when he says: “Its exact date is not easy to determine. It is obviously later than Jude, but not necessarily much later … and while the writer evidently regards Jude with respect, he does not mention it by name in spite of its claim to be by ‘the brother of James’ or treat it as Scripture” (Kelly, 236).

50 Green concedes the possibility of Peter’s use of Jude: “If Paul was not averse to adapting to his own purposes the writings of the heathen poets, lists of Stoic virtues, fragments of hymns, for the dubious war cries of his opponents, is there any reason to suppose that Peter would have been unwilling to draw from the work of a brother of his Master? (Green, 23). Plumptre asserts that Peter employed Jude’s letter because, “It would not be enough merely to pass on the letter of St. Jude. His own name was better known, and would carry greater weight with it” (E. H. Plumptre, The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude [Cambridge: The University Press, 1899], 80). However, this may reduce one’s view of Jude considerably, as Johnson states: “Most scholars think that there is a direct literary dependence, with the direction going from Jude to 2 Peter 2. Once that is said, little is learned there [from] either writing. Each has its own voice, and Jude in particular is done a disservice by being reduced to the level of a source for 2 Peter.” (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 443.)

51 Green, 23.

52 Guthrie, NTI, 1011.

53 Moffat, 174.

54 Bauckham, 161–162.

55 Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1985), 350.

56 Guthrie, NTI, 1014.

57 Robert Henry Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper, 1949), 224, 225.

58 Guthrie, NTI, 1017.

59 Wand, 144.

60 Guthrie, NTI, 1018.

61 Kelly, 236.

62 Green makes a good point when he says that: “2 Peter has little in common with any of these undoubted forgeries. It has no heretical ax to grind… . As a pseudepigraph it has no satisfactory raison-d’etre” (Green, 31 [footnote]).

63 Guthrie, NTI, 838, 809.

64 Bauckham, 160.

65 Guthrie, NTI, 1022.

66 Meade, 205.

67 Guthrie, NTI, 1019, 1028.

68 Beckwith, 397–398.

69 Green, 31–32. (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 says: “Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him, that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.” And 3:17 says: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write.”)

70 James, xxxiv.

71 Guthrie, NTI, 1020–1021, 1028. With this conclusion, Green agrees: “I remain unconvinced by the arguments brought against it, because I have yet to see a convincing pseudepigraph from the early days of Christianity” (Green, 33).

72 Payne states that: “One’s choice between Petrine authenticity and pseudepigraphic fraud rests once again on the limits that are recognized as legitimate for criticism of the inerrant Word of God” (J. Barton Payne, “Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980], 106).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

“The Adequacy of Human Language” by J. I. Packer—An Outline Summary

Related Media

In October 1978 the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), a group totaling more than three hundred pastors, scholars, and laymen, from various denominational and religious backgrounds, met in Chicago to establish a consensus of Evangelical biblical scholarship on the issue of biblical inerrancy.1 Twelve papers were presented and discussed.2 One such paper, “The Adequacy of Human Language,” was presented by James I. Packer. The point of the present article is simply to outline and summarize Packer’s important work and present it to a much wider audience, worldwide, via the Internet. It is hoped that readers will acquire the article for themselves, if at all able, and read it thoughtfully.

The question that Packer seeks to address is whether human language can convey real and true information about God. Is it adequate to give us factual information about God Himself, thereby counting as His own verbal utterances as well as that of his instruments, i.e., men? Packer notes that while the common answer (inclination) today among those who profess to be believers is “no,” this has not been the historic position of the Christian church. One of the reasons I am summarizing this article, and presenting it on the Biblical Studies Foundation website, is that in twenty years since its publication, the situation seems to have gotten worse.

There is today, at least in the U.S. and Canada, a very low appreciation among God’s people for His Word. There is precious little serious understanding among church laity of the authority, reliability, necessity, and clarity of Scripture. This is due in part, as David F. Wells has pointed out, to the influx of modernity and worldliness into the church. People would rather live Christianity instinctively than according to revealed truth. Such is their confidence in their intuition. In a culture of disconnected MTV images, there has been “a complete triumph of the sensate over the cognitive,”3 and it is no wonder that so few people read, think, and pray their way through the Book.

But there are other reasons beyond the influx of pop culture. There has been a pervasive, long term, philosophical undercutting of the true nature of Scripture as God’s revealed Word. This, of course, has occurred (and continues to) in a number of ways. One way, in particular, concerns the criticisms of human language (and by extension the Bible as a book using human language)—as impotent and limited as it is—as an adequate vehicle for the communication of divine thoughts. Packer seeks to deal with this issue, but before we turn to the summary, let us make one idea clear. The point of penetrating into, clarifying, and promoting, a Biblical view of language, is not primarily academic, but religious and reverential in nature. We are concerned to identify and adhere to the proper view of God’s word so that we might live to honor, obey, and fellowship with the One to whom the Word points. Let us not lose sight of this, ever. Now let us turn to our summary.

1A. God’s Word Spoken, Written, and Understood

1B. God Has Spoken through Prophets and Christ, as NT Writers Affirm

    If the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, as the NT writers and the Nicene Creed affirm, and if Jesus was God incarnate and taught people verbally, then it indeed follows that God uses human language to communicate his mind to us (p. 197-98).

2B. The Concept of Biblical Inspiration the Same As Prophetic Inspiration

    The concept of biblical inspiration is essentially the same as that of prophetic inspiration. To acknowledge one implies acknowledgement of the other.

God causes His message to enter into a man’s mind, by psychological processes that are in part opaque to us, so that the man may then faithfully relay the message to others (p. 198).

    Though the psychological processes differ in the case of the dualistic inspiration of prophets and seers (i.e., they knew and recognized the distinction between their thoughts and the visions and messages revealed to them) and the didactic inspiration of biblical historians, wisdom teachers, and NT apostles, the theological inspiration is the same in each case. The psychological experience of inspiration in the production of poetry or lyric is different as well, but again the theology of inspiration is the same.

“Whether spoken viva voce or written, and whether dualistic or didactic or lyric in its psychological mode, inspiration—that divine combination of prompting and control that secures precise communication of God’s mind by God’s messenger—remains theologically the same thing” (p. 199)

    Packer then cites 2 Tim 3:16 to affirm that while the Scripture is the product of powerful religious experiences and has similar effects (i.e., it is “inspiring”), this is not the meaning of “inspired” in 2 Tim 3:16. The meaning, then, as Packer correctly notes, is that

“All Scripture [history, lyric, prophecy, didactic, etc.4]…is a product of his creative power, and so is an authentic disclosure of “His” mind and presentation of his message” (p. 199).

3B. Jesus and the Apostles: Their View of the OT and Their Own Teaching

    Both Jesus and the apostles saw the OT and their own teaching as authoritative for faith and life. They saw their teaching as complementary with, yet subordinate to and expository of the OT. They believed that both their OT and their teaching gave factual information about God. Thus they bequeathed to us a canon comprised of two testaments (199-201). The only question, then, is which books are to be regarded as canonical. The 27 books, identified by the early church as apostolic in the required sense, can hardly be doubted. Their external credentials are impressive, their doctrine homogeneous, and their transforming power testified to by Christians throughout history.

4B. Interpretation Must Result in Application

    Though the Scriptures were originally addressed to a culture far removed in time, practice and distance from our own, the enduring task of interpretation is to apply the Bible to all of us. As Packer rightly notes:

God is rational and unchanging, and all men in every generation, being made in God’s image, are capable of being addressed by Him. Within every culture in every age it is possible, through overhearing God’s words of instruction to men of long ago, to hear God speaking to ourselves, as the Holy Spirit causes these words of long ago to be reapplied in our own minds and consciences. The proof that this is possible is that it actually happens. No proof can be more compelling than that (p. 201).

2A. Present Day Doubts about Language

1B. Language Is Inadequate as a Vehicle for Personal Communication (p. 202).

    Packer captures the prevailing mood:

Moods do not always express either great insight or strong logic, but they are potent things while they last, and undoubtedly the modern mood is one of deep skepticism as to whether words can ever articulate the realities of personal existence and convey to others what is in the depths of one’s own heart. (p. 203)

2B. Language Cannot Convey Transcendental Realities at All.

    The work of Wittgenstein and Ayer has left an impression that language cannot connote, denote, or adequately/accurately transcend the world of the senses so as to provide meaningful and real information. Ferdinand de Saussure’s seminal work, A Course in General Linguistics, may also be regarded as in this camp.

3B. Many Christian Teachers Do Not Allow That God Is Giving Information about Himself through Scripture

    Liberalism, founded on a Kantian dualism and deism, supplants both the possibility and need for revelation. Schleiermacher is the real father of the movement, not Ritschl who not only denied verbal revelation and miracles, but was also against anything mystical. Neo-orthodoxy has its roots here. Barth was on the right, Brunner in the center, and Bultmann was on the left (204-205). So also the “new hermeneutic” which followed Bultmann.

“Were we all clearheadedly logical, we should see ourselves as called by this situation to choose between such modern theologians as those just mentioned and such older ones as Moses and the prophets, Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, and the author of Hebrews. Seeing the issue that way we might resolve that, on this point at least, we should ditch the moderns.” (p. 205)

4B. The Influence of Eastern Religious Ideas That God Is Inexpressible

John Macquarrie says:

“The thought seems to be…of a primal undifferentiated Being, which we cannot even name without giving it a determinate character, and so making it some particular thing” (205-6).

3A. Our Language Using God

Such skepticism and its sources have nothing to do with Biblical faith or the historic position of the church on the matter of Scripture’s inspiration and truthfulness. Both the Bible and the church point us in another direction.

1B. God Has Spoken Verbally and Used Language to Tell Us Things.

    1C. The Book of Hebrews

    The writer of Hebrews makes this plain (Heb 1:3). He regards previous revelations in the OT through visions, dreams, speaking, etc. as from God and indeed buttresses and applies multifarious OT texts in the development of what is now sectioned off as a thirteen chapter, God inspired, discourse on the supremacy of Christ. He even says that God has spoken definitively in Christ. Therefore, according to the writer of Hebrews, and by extension, through common worldview, tradition, and calling, the rest of the Scriptural writers as well, God uses human language to communicate his message.

    2C. Liberals and Erroneous Views of Language

    Liberals are therefore wrong in their insistence that God did not or could not use language to convey his mind and will to us. Such an idea is repeatedly refuted by Scriptural testimony.

2B. The Issue Is One of Authority: God’s Authority over Us

    1C. God Has the Authority to Speak and Direct Our Lives (p. 207).
    2C. There Are Three Strands to the Argument (p. 208).
      1D. God’s Word of Self-Disclosure

      God’s word of self-disclosure to individuals such as Noah, Paul, etc. was binding on them. They were to conform their belief and behavior accordingly.

      2D. Divine Authority and Prophetic Oral Communication

      Divine authority is attached to the oral communications of the prophets, apostles, and spokespeople for God. Such authority to relay God’s message did not arise simply from deep, religious insight, but from God himself as the giver of that verbal revelation.

      3D. Divine Authority Belongs to What These Men Wrote, i.e., the Bible.

3B. The Nature of Language and the Bible

    Thus the Scripture, composed of two testaments, forms one canon which may properly be regarded as law, in the sense, say, of the Hebrew torah—authoritative instruction such as a father might give a son. This does not mean that the Bible is a series of naked propositions, or that it reads like a telephone book. Packer is quick to point out the complexity and richness of the various uses of language in Scripture, lest their arise erroneous views of exactly what the Book is like. There are at least five main functions of ordinary language and all five can be found in scripture.

    1C. Five Uses of Language
      1D. Informative

      Every book in Scripture informs its readers of factual information about God, his will and ways, that either had forgotten or simply did not know. To deny this is to move away from Christ’s teaching as well as that of his apostles; it is to deny revelation.

      2D. Imperative

      The various literatures in the Bible, whether wisdom, legal, historical, or didactic contain commands given men by God and which he expects men to respond to.

      3D. Illuminative

      Through the use of analogy, allegory, imagery, and parable God’s spokesmen enabled His people to grasp old realities in a new light so that they might understand their circumstances, God’s work, and their relationship to him. They are designed to promote personal response to truth already known, but perhaps forgotten.

      4D. Performative

      The use of language in this way causes a state of affairs that did not previously exist, to begin to exist, as in the case of the covenant God made with Abraham: As soon as God said, “This is my covenant with you,” the covenant existed.

      5D. Celebratory

      The psalms and other songs recorded in Scripture record God’s work on behalf of his people and often do so in the form of celebration and praise.

    2C. Four Comments about Verbal-Plenary Inspiration
      1D. Misunderstanding Verbal-Plenary Inspiration and Translations

      This means that the words as given are God’s words through his human agents and translations of the originals are indeed God’s word to the degree that they accurately reflect the original.

      2D. God’s Word and the Locus of Meaning

      Because the Bible is God’s word does not mean that we can find meanings totally unrelated to what the human authors intended. Allegorizing and everything like it, is illegitimate.

      3D. The Necessity of Textual Criticism

      It has often been said that not one word in a thousand is in serious doubt in the NT and that there is no place in either testament where difficulties in ascertaining the original impinge on any major doctrine. Yet textual criticism is necessary in order to weed out any variants unworthy to be called God’s word.

      4D. The Need for Proper Interpretation

      Though each word of Scripture is inspired by God, this does not entail the idea that one ought to read every possible meaning a word can have into each one of its occurrences. The semantic units in the Bible, such as sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books, provide the context for uncovering meaning and normal rules for reading literature, therefore, apply.

4A. The Problem of Theological Language

1B. The Problem

    Can theological language have any definite meaning and can it be a means of revelation in the sense of communicating true information about God (212-16)?

2B. Response to the Skeptics

    1C. Most authors (e.g., Ian Ramsey, MacQuarrie, Austin Farrer, Mascall) have attacked the skeptics’ charges (i.e., that language cannot meaningfully refer to God) on grounds that both agree upon, i.e., that language is an evolutionary development wherein reference to objects of physical sense experience—if not exclusive—is at least primary. With this starting point they attempt to show wherein the critics are deficient. Packer applauds these ideas as far as they go. (213)
    2C. But these thinkers miss the truth that God is the one who invented language and is depicted as such in Genesis. “Human thought and speech have their counterparts and archetypes in Him.” (p. 214). Therefore, it is not stretching to use language in this way, in fact, it is the normal usage for language, its designed purpose.

What is unnatural is the “shrinking” of language reflected in the supposition that it can talk easily and naturally only of physical objects. (p. 214)

    3C. The final proof that God can speak in language is that he has actually done it. He is intelligible to us because he has given an anthropomorphistic account of himself. This does not mean that God has misrepresented himself, but that in this capacity (i.e., to understand and receive information from God verbally) we are less unlike God than we might think (214).

3B. The Philosophical Fountainhead—The Real Problem

    1C. God, if real, must so differ from ourselves that any of our concepts about him must be false and untrue to his nature. They simply don’t fit him.
    2C. God must be silent; he is unwilling to help us understand himself.
    3C. These two problems are really the baleful legacy of Kant. Kant taught us that God’s transcendence makes him remote and unintelligible. Barth has capitulated here as well. But Frame has argued correctly against Barth that “Scripture itself never deduces from God’s transcendence the inadequacy and fallibility of all verbal revelation. Quite the contrary: in Scripture, verbal revelation is to be obeyed without question, because of the divine transcendence.” This does not lead to an idolizing of human words because the scripture is no less the words of God than the words of men.

5A. The Condescension of God and His Great Love

God calls men everywhere to embrace and boast of the foolish-seeming, weak looking, disreputable event of the cross as the means to their salvation; the cross challenges sinful pride. God also calls men and women to bow to the authority of Holy Scripture, though its unliterary language is not impressive by some human judgments. Both the shame of the cross and the “unimpressiveness” of scripture, i.e., it limps along clumsily, as Calvin says, teach us about divine humility and God’s condescension. In short, these things teach us about the extent of God’s love—love to the uttermost.

There are those since Celsus who ridicule the incarnation and there are those, like Kant, who have led whole generations astray in their denial of the inspiration of Scripture. But scripturally informed Christians are content to answer that the incarnation and scriptural inspiration must be so, since God has done them. Further, the blending of the human and the divine in both the Son of God and the Word of God is representative of the deep and abiding love of God. Any slight on these truths, is a slight on his love and the grace by which he saves us. Thus, the doctrine of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, as taught by the Lord, is part of the doctrine of grace and Christians can be thankful that they have received a Bible from their Lord’s own hand, as it were, that clearly imparts to them knowledge of his mind and will.

6A. The Adequacy of Biblical Language

1B. It Is Adequate, but not Exhaustive

    The Bible does not reveal all knowledge of God and things in relationship to him, exhaustive knowledge so to speak, but it does reveal that which He sees as necessary and adequate for our life of faith and obedience. Thus the goal of articulating a biblical view of inspiration and inerrancy is to promote salvation and obedient living.

2B. Two passages

    1C. Deuteronomy 29:29

    The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children’s children that we may obey all the words of this Law.

    2C. Ps 119:105

    The word of God is a lamp to our feet and a light to my path.

7A. Appendix

1B. Five Principles for Preaching and Teaching the Bible

    1C. We Are in His Image

    We are created in God’s image and are capable of entering into a relationship with Him through Christ and expressing our praise and worship of him through the gift of language—a gift He bestowed on us!

    2C. Scripture Is God’s Witness to Himself
    3C. The Twofold Nature of Bible Study

    There are two aspects to proper Biblical study. First, the text must be read for what it meant to those to whom it was first addressed. Second, we must, by the Spirit and by overhearing in Scripture what God has said to biblical persons in time past, hear his voice speaking to us today.

Through the Spirit’s agency, Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), steps out of the gospel stories to confront us with the same issues of faith, obedience, repentance, righteousness, and discipleship with which he confronted men when he was on earth. This is Biblical interpretation: seeing first what the text meant and then what it means—that is, how what it says touches our lives. (p. 221).

    4C. Genuine Interpretation and Application

    Commentaries relay historical information, which is important, but only the Holy Spirit can enable our sin darkened minds to discern how biblical teaching applies to us. Prayerful dependence on the Spirit’s help is therefore necessary. “Historical exegesis becomes interpretation only when the application is truly made.” (p. 222).

    5C. The Bible To Be Received as Preaching

    In order for us to most fully understand the Bible we should hear it and read it as God’s preaching to us. It is essentially homiletical in nature. The hearing of God’s voice in and through Scripture has been the testimony of the church for centuries.

2B. Centuries of Church Testimony and Recent Denials of Meaning in Religious Language.

    1C. Specifiability

    It is argued that “God-talk” is meaningless because one has to talk about something that is real, identifiable, and differentiated from other beings; God is not specifiable, to use their words.

    There are really two questions being asked here: (1) how does one differentiate God and identify him? and (2) is he real? What sort of evidence counts?

    On the first question, we may say with confidence that he is the God of Scripture—the Creato-Redeemer. On the second, the character and the existence of the church, the Holy Scriptures, and lives changed to be like Christ certainly provide good evidence for the claim that God exists and that he is the God of the Bible.

    Two things may have contributed to God not being specifiable. First, the unwillingness of many Protestant scholars to treat the Bible as giving positive information and descriptive details about God. Second, the observed defects of the Thomist doctrine of analogy whereby, without the aid of the Bible and the Spirit, we were supposed to be able to specify God in fundamental ways according to natural theology. But this project has ended up suggesting that God is, indeed, not identifiable.

    There is, however, another use for the term analogy, such as we find in Biblical (and proper Christian) language, when it uses such terms as “father,” “loving,” “wise,” “just,” etc. These are used in reference to God, not univocally (the same sense as man), nor equivocally (a completely different sense than when used of man), but rather analogically (the same as when used of man, but only up to a point). For example, God’s “wisdom” is like ours, but it does not have to be learned since he is eternal and omniscient. He is our “father,” but as Spirit he is thereby not physical or corporeal, but rather the One who exercises fatherly tenderness and protection for his children.

    2C. Verifiability

    There are those who argue that religious or theological language is not verifiable or falsifiable, and is, therefore, vacuous. Packer makes a five point reply:

    1. When statements about God are made in isolation, such as “God loves me,” apart from their wider connections to Scripture as a coherent system of thought, then, of course, their meaning is difficult to pin down. Within the larger framework of Biblical testimony, however, their meaning is fixed, and we might add, consistent with claims to divine historical acts.

    2. The “logical positivist’s” assertion that every statement must be empirically verified, and therefore Scripture’s statements must be so verified, is itself self-referentially flawed since it cannot be empirically verified. Such a standard is philosophically absurd.

    3. Future oriented statements in the Bible will be verified in the future when they are fulfilled. This is, of course, is according to the strictest application of the verifiability principle.

    4. If the truthfulness of any statement, including the presuppositions upon which it rests, and the implications to which it gives rise, is a matter of evidence to support it, then Christianity can be shown to be in good stead. There is ample evidence to claim that Jesus lived and that he died and rose again.

    5. Verification should be allowed to take the form of trustworthy assurances. This would entail the idea of God’s truthful testimony in Holy Scripture. We end with Packer’s comments:

The burden of these all-too-brief notes is to show that the logical grounds sometimes alleged for discounting Christian and biblical language about God as not being fact-stating are not cogent. The details of the philosophical doctrines that underlie this skepticism have not been exposed at all. Suffice it to have shown, that so far as criticism of Christian discourse is concerned, the skeptics have not established their points. (p. 226).


1 The doctrine of inerrancy, as formulated by at ICBI, goes as follows:

“Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teachings, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives” (Inerrancy, 494).

2 They have been collected and published under: Norman Geisler, ed. Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980). The page numbers listed throughout the summary are referenced according to this work.

3 David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 220.

4 For further discussion on the literary genres in Scripture, their attributes, differences, and required sensitivities for interpretation, the reader is urged to consult William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 259-374.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word)

Prolegomena: A Word before We Begin

IA. A Prolegomena to Transformative Theology

1B. Introduction: “The State of the Union”

1C. Screwtape Learns A Lesson—C. S. Lewis, The ScrewTape Letters

    The Junior demon was not to teach people to think…about anything!

2C. Mark Noll—The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

    The “scandal” is that there is no mind.

3C. Os Guinness—Fit Bodies and Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What To Do about It

    Guinness gives eight influences affecting evangelicals—influences leading to an evangelical “ghost mind.”

2B. Doing Transformative Theology and Other Trades

3B. Definitions and Goals: Theological Vision

1C. Various Uses of the Term ‘Theology’
1D. Natural Theology
2D. Dogmatic Theology
3D. Historical Theology
4D. Biblical Theology
5D. Systematic Theology
6D. Apologetic Theology
2C. Definitions of Systematic Theology
1D. Stanley Grenz and Roger E. Olson

    “Christian theology is reflecting on and articulating the God-centered life and beliefs that Christians share as followers of Jesus Christ, and it is done in order that God may be glorified in all Christians are and do.”1

2D. Millard J. Erickson

    Theology is “that discipline which strives to give a coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily upon the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in a contemporary idiom, and related to the issues if life.”2

3D. John H. Leith

    Christian theology is critical reflection about God, about human existence, about the nature of the universe and about faith itself in the light of the revelation of God recorded in Scripture and particularly embodied in Jesus Christ, who is for the Christian community the final revelation, that is, the definitive revelation which is the criteria of all other revelations.”3

4D. Charles Hodge4

    (1) “Theology therefore, is the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation, with the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves which pervade and harmonize the whole; (2) theology…[is] the science of the facts of divine revelation so far as those facts concern the nature of God and our relation to him, as his creatures, as sinners and as subjects of redemption. All of these facts, as just remarked are in the Bible. But as some of them are revealed by the works of God, and by the nature of man, there is so far a distinction between natural theology, and theology considered distinctively as a Christian science.”5

3C. The Goal of Doing Transformative Theology

4B. Ideas Do Matter!

5B. Categories of Systematic Theology: A Helpful Grid

1C. An Important Note
2C. Bibliology: The Bible
3C. Theology Proper: God
4C. Christology: The Person and Work of Christ
5C. Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit
6C. Angelology: Holy and Fallen Angels
7C. Anthropology: Man
8C. Hamartiology: Sin
9C. Soteriology: Salvation
10C. Ecclesiology: The Church
11C. Eschatology: End Times

6B. Sources for Doing Transformative Theology

1C. Scripture: The Primary Authority
2C. Tradition: A Voice from the Past and Present
3C. Culture/Reason: The “Frog in the Kettle”

IIA. The Person Doing Transformative Theology

1B. Personal Character and Context

1C. Christlike Beliefs
2C. Christlike Virtues
3C. Christlike Habits
4C. Christlike Relationships: The Centrality of Biblical Community in the Theological Task

2B. Personal Skills and Knowledge

1C. Differing Conceptions of Truth
2C. Sources of Knowledge
3C. Biblical Language and the Nature of God
1D. Univocal Language
2D. Equivocal Language
3C. Analogical Language
4C. Developing Reasoning Skills
1D. Creative Thinking
1E. Misconceptions about Creative Thinking
2E. A Creative Idea
3E. Facts about Creative Thinking
2D. Critical Thinking
1E. Misconceptions about Critical Thinking
2E. The Need for Critical Thinking
3E. Facts about Critical Thinking
3D. A Holistic Model: Combining Creativity and Critical Awareness
1E. Exploration
2E. Expression
3E. Investigation
4E. Idea Production
5E. Evaluation and Refinement
4D. Understanding Argumentation
1E. Induction and Deduction
2E. The Structure of An Argument

1F. The Claim(s)

2F. The Ground(s)

3F. The Warrant(s)

4F. The Backing

5F. The Qualifiers

6F. The Rebuttals

3E. Informal Fallacies To Watch For

1F. Fallacies of Relevance

2F. Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy

3F. Fallacies of Ordinary Language

2C. Developing an Understanding of Philosophy
1D. The History of Philosophy
1E. Ancient Philosophy
2E. Medieval Philosophy
3E. Modern Philosophy
4E. Contemporary Philosophy
2D. The Main Ideas Studied in Philosophy
1E. Reality/Metaphysics
2E. God
3E. Experience
4E. Death
5E. Logic, Knowledge, and Truth
6E. Ethics and Value
7E. Meaning

IIIA. The Practice of Doing Transformative Theology

1B. Prayer and Alertness

2B. A Method

1C. Exploration
1D. Ask Questions (5 W’s)
2D. Search the Scriptures for Relevant Passages and Themes
3D. Read One or Two Dictionary Articles
2C. Expression
1D. The Central Questions in the Discussion
2D. The Major Answers Given to the Questions
3C. Investigation
1D. Read The Most Important Works (Cited in Dictionary Article or from Research)
2D. Outline Their Arguments: Weak Points/Good Points/Foundational Points
4C. Idea Production
1D. Review the Biblical Data
2D. Review the Major Questions and Answers
3D. Think through Creative Alternatives and New Solutions
4D. Think Laterally (Correlation Is Key!)
5D. State, Explain, and Defend Your Solution
5C. Evaluation and Refinement
1D. Think through the Practical Consequences of Your Idea.
2D. Does It Line Up with Scripture, Christian Theology (i.e., the gospel) and Is It Internally Consistent? Why Is It Better than Other Solutions?
3D. Why Will People Accept/Not Accept It? How Can You Help Them?

3B. Areas To Think About

1C. Biblical/Theological Issues
2C. Church Praxis Issues
3C. Ethical Issues
4C. Political Issues
5C. Wider Cultural Issues
6C. Apologetics

4B. Implementing Your Ideas

IVA. Select Bibliography

1B. Biblical

1C. Commentary Series

    The NIV Application Commentary Series, Zondervan

    Tyndale Commentary on the OT/NT, Eerdmans/IVP

    The New International Biblical Commentary Series (NIBC), Hendrickson

    The New American Commentary Series (NAC), Broadman and Holman

    The New International Commentary on the OT/NT (NICOT/NICNT), Eerdmans

    Baker Exegetical Commentary Series (BEC), Baker

    The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Zondervan

    Word Biblical Commentary (WBC), Word Publishers

    The New International Greek New Testament Commentary (NIGNT), Eerdmans

2C. Backgrounds, Introductions and Surveys

    Carson, D. A. et al. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

    Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

    Gower, Ralph. The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times. Chicago: Moody, 1987.

    Hill, Andrew E. and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

    Jeffers, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.

    Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

    Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. 4 Vols. Rev. by Geza Vermes et al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973.

3C. Hermeneutics and Bible Study Methods

    Alder, Mortimer J. and Charles Van Doren. How to Read a Book. Revised and Updated. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972.

    Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

    Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart. How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide To Understanding the Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

    Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991.

    Ryken, Leland. How To Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

    Silva, Moiss, ed. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: Six Volumes in One. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

    Stein, Robert H. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

4C. Biblical Theology

    Kaiser, Walter C. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

    Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. and ed. by Donald Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

    Zuck, Roy B. and Darrell L. Bock, eds. A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody, 1994.

2B. Theological Method and Historical Theology

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1937.

Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996.

Grenz, Stanley and John R. Franke. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Louisville, KY: Knox, 2001.

Guinness, Os. Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What To Do about It. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Hart, Trevor. Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995.

Lints, Richard. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomena to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Lewis, Donald and Alister McGrath. Doing Theology for the People of God: Studies in Honor of J. I. Packer. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

________, ed. The Christian Theology Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.

Noll, Mark. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

3B. Systematic Theologies

Bray, Gerald, ed. The Contours of Christian Theology. 9 vols. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993-?

    Gerald Bray. The Doctrine of God.

    Robert Letham. The Work of Christ

    Donald MacLeod. The Person of Christ

    Paul Helm. The Providence of God

    Charles Sherlock. The Doctrine of Human Nature

    Sinclair Ferguson. The Holy Spirit

    Edmund Clowney. The Church

    Klaus Runia. The Last Things

    Peter Jensen. The Revelation of God

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. and J. I Packer. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Lewis, Gordon R. and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Three Volumes in One. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

4B. Logic and Argumentation

Barry, Vincent E. and Douglas J. Soccio. Practical Logic. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1988.

Walton, Douglas N. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Fahnestock, Jeanne and Mary Secor. A Rhetoric of Argument. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.

Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

5B. Reason/Philosophy

Adler, Mortimer J. Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy. New York: Touchstone, 1978.

________. Six Great Ideas. New York: Touchstone, 1981.

________. Ten Philosophical Mistakes. New York: MacMillan, 1985.

Allen, Diogenes and Eric O. Springsted, eds. Primary Readings in Philosophy for Understanding Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Blamires, Harry. The Christian Mind: How Should A Christian Think. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant, 1963.

________. The Post Christian Mind: Exposing Its Destructive Agenda. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant, 1999.

Kolak, Daniel and Raymond Martin. The Experience of Philosophy. 3rd ed. Albany: Wadsworth, 1996.

Lavine, T. Z. From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest. New York: Bantam, 1984.

Moore, Brooke Noel and Kenneth Bruder. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. 2nd ed. Toronto: Mayfield, 1993.

Solomon, Robert C. and Kathleen M. Higgins. A Short Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Yandel, Keith E. Christianity and Philosophy. Studies in a Christian Worldview. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

6B. Ethics

Barnet, Sylvan and Hugo Bedau. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: Methods and Models of Argument. 2nd ed. Boston: St. Martin’s, 1990.

Curtler, Hugh Mercer. Ethical Argument: Critical Thinking in Ethics. New York: Paragon, 1993.

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. Ethics for A Brave New World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Grenz, Stanley J. The Moral Quest: Foundations for Christian Ethics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

Holmes, Arthur F. Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions. Contours of Christian Philosophy Series, ed. C. Stephen Evans. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. A Short History of Ethics. New York: Touchstone, 1966.

Olen, Jeffery and Vincent Barry. Applying Ethics. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1992.

Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues. Toronto: Mayfield, 1992.

Sterba, James P. ed. Morality in Practice. 3rd ed. Blemont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991.

7B. Politics

Beckwith, Francis J., and Michael E. Bauman. Are You Politcally Correct? Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993.

Eidsmore, John. Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Gaede, S. D. When Tolerance Is No Virtue. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.

Hatch, Nathan. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale, 1991.

Maclear, J. F., ed. Church and State in the Modern Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Stone, Ronald H. Reformed Faith and Politics. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1983.

8B. Cultural

Gaede, S. D. When Tolerance Is No Virtue: Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and the Future of Truth and Justice. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.

Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars. New York: Harper Collins, 1992

9B. Apologetics

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1984.

Evans, C. Stephen. The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

________. Why Believe: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Murray, Michael J., ed. Reason for the Hope Within. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Placher, William C. Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Culture. Louisville, KY: Westminster/Knox, 1989.

Wells, David F. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

________. No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

10B. Public Speaking and Teaching

Hendricks, Howard G. Teaching To Change Lives. Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1987.

LeFever, Marlene D. Creative Teaching Methods: Be An Effective Christian Teacher. Elgin, IL: David C. Cook, 1985.

Litfin, A. Duane. Public Speaking: A Handbook for Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Strunk, William, Jr., and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

Wilhoit, Jim and Leland Ryken. Effective Bible Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.

Williams, Keith and Scott M. Gibson, eds. The Big Idea of Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.


1 Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 49.

2 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 21.

3 John Leith, An Introduction to the Reformed Faith: A Way of Being the Christian Community, rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 91.

4 Charles Hodge (1797-1878) was one of the most influential American Presbyterian theologians of the nineteenth century. He taught at Princeton from 1822 until he died. He was a strong Calvinist who wrote commentaries on Romans, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Corinthians as well as various treatises including one against Darwinism. He defended the Bible against inroads from higher criticism and wrote a three volume systematic theology of 2000 pages! See Mark Noll, “Hodge, Charles,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 513-14.

5 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:19.

Related Topics: Introduction to Theology, Teaching the Bible

Introduction to Christian Belief

Systematic theology, though having once fallen on hard times in both the evangelical church and in the academy (for different reasons in each group), is now making a comeback. It should, for it is both possible and necessary.

Systematic theology, then, for our purposes, is the study of all facts about God and his work, from any and every source, but revealed primarily in the Bible, and brought together in a coherent and inter-related manner in order to instruct, encourage and guide the saints in godliness.1 There are several reasons for studying, organizing, and presenting the major teachings of Scripture. Here are two:

  • For the development of one’s own understanding of God, truth, and the Christian faith. Peter admonishes us to grow in the knowledge (not just cognitive, but at least including that) of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). In this way you will promote truth, avoid errors, and give yourself great opportunity to live an ethical and holy life. In short, the goal is that we live a life honoring to the Lord, worshiping him in truth (John 4:24), serving his church properly and in truth (Eph 4:15), and finding ourselves salt and light to our fellowman (Matt 5:16; Rom 13:8).
  • For explaining, defending, and applying Biblical truth in a non-Christian context. Again Peter tells us to always be ready to give an answer for the reason for the hope which is in you (1 Peter 3:15). How much better if the answer is thought through and really reflects a balanced summary of biblical teaching!

1 For the most part this introduction will refrain from all technical discussion and the historical development of these doctrines. It is purely intended for the beginner. After they have studied the introduction, however, it would be a good idea to advance to further discussion on each of these topics. Also, the reason the author has continued to use such words as “bibliology,” “eschatology,” etc. is so that the student can learn what they mean so that he/she will be better prepared to advance to more detailed discussions where these words appear frequently.

Related Topics: Introduction to Theology

Introduction to the Basics of the Faith

Understanding the Basics of the Faith is a question and answer Bible study series put together for the person who wants a better understanding of what the Bible teaches in the major areas of theology, such as God, Christ, the Spirit, man, the Devil, sin, salvation, the church, and end times. It can be used individually or in small groups. Each study is from four to six pages and attempts to include most of the important biblical passages on any one issue. Thus it is comprehensive in its approach to studying theology, yet not so detailed that it becomes cumbersome and tedious. This is not to say, however, that it is simplistic. On the contrary, it will require some reading, prayer, and thought. Both older believers as well as younger, newer believers will benefit greatly. The question and answer format encourages the reader to look up the passages on his own and to read them for him/herself in their context. In this way, the Bible can be learned firsthand!

1. The Bible: “A Lamp Unto My Feet…”

2. Our Great and Awesome God: “I Am the Lord, That Is My Name”

3. Jesus Christ: “Our Great God and Savior”

4. The Holy Spirit: “Sovereign Lord and Life-Giver”

5. Man: “Who Are We, Anyway?”

6. Our Adversary: “That Ancient Serpent Called the Devil”

7. So Great A Salvation: “Blind But Now I See”

8. The Church: “A Home Away From Home”

9. A Brilliant Future: “Where’s It All Leading?”

Related Topics: Introduction to Theology, Basics for Christians

Preface to the Life of Elijah

Preface

This series of lessons is a devotional study on the life of the prophet Elijah. The objective is to provide practical insight into the doctrinal and spiritual significance and meaning of his life. As a man of like passions with us, his life sheds light on the greatness of the God of the Bible, His purposes, and His love and care for His people in a world in desperate need of the saving message of Jesus Christ. The story of Elijah also reflects the need of God’s people to walk with Him by faith through the privilege of prayer and the knowledge of His Word.

The messages of these studies stem from the heart and from years of study and shepherding God’s people as a pastor. They were originally a series of studies presented at the Sunday morning services. I do not intend this study as a “scholarly” work, though I have sought to base it on a careful exposition according to the cultural and historical background, the context (both near and more remote), the meaning of Hebrew words and grammar, and the analogy of Scripture. I do not claim originality, for the hearts of many other students of God’s Word have guided and influenced my own.

These studies are not presented as a last word on the life of the prophet but it is my prayer that the Lord, by His matchless grace, will use them to His glory and honor and for the building up of the saints for a deeper walk by faith in our loving and sovereign God. So I commend this study to God and to the Word of His grace which is able to build us up.

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction,
that through perseverance and the encouragement
of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Romans 15:4

Related Topics: Character Study

Worship Today

Related Media

Introduction

A lot has been said lately about the forms of worship, (i.e. how to run a good ‘worship service’, how to have a professional ‘worship team’, etc.) while very little has been said about what worship is and why we worship. This study is a discussion of the substance of worship and its relationship to music, the gospel and the church.

‘Worship Today’ was originally written as the basis of the Discussion Group questions for SMURF (Song Music UnReal Fun) Camp ‘96, and hence most of it follows a question and answer format, while the remainder has been added for completeness.

These are issues that I have had to face and check regularly in my life. I hope that by sharing my journey of discovery that you may have a fuller experience of worship.

Definition

By definition, worship is:

  • Aligning ourselves with God’s will (Geoff Bullock).
  • ‘The English word ‘worship’ is derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘weorthscipe’ - ‘worth’ and ‘ship’ meaning one worthy of reverence and honour’ (derivation).
  • The act of revering or honouring God; obedient service (Heinemann Australian Dictionary).
  • To pay great honour and respect to (World Book Dictionary).
  • The celebration of God’s supreme worth in such a manner that God’s worthiness becomes the norm and inspiration of human living (Ralph Martin - The Worship of God).

Thus, in this document, it will be understood that the word ‘worship’ refers to the way we acknowledge God’s worth; the way our knowledge of God affects the way we live.

Colossians--Spirit produces fruit of worship

Although Paul never mentions the word worship in the book, the subject of Colossians is indeed our acceptable worship of our Creator.

‘Then you will live a life that honours the Lord, and you will always please Him by doing good deeds. You will come to know God even better. His glorious power will make you patient and strong enough to endure anything, and you will be truly happy. I pray that you will be grateful to God for letting you have a part in what He has promised His people in the kingdom of light. God rescued us from the dark power of Satan and brought us into the kingdom of His dear Son, who forgives our sins and sets us free.’ Colossians 1:10-14

‘You have accepted Christ Jesus as your Lord. Now keep following Him. Plant your roots in Christ and let Him be the foundation for your life. Be strong in your faith, just as you were taught. And be grateful.’ Colossians 2:2&7

‘Christ gives meaning to your life.... Don’t be controlled by your body.... Don’t be greedy, which is the same as worshipping idols.’ Colossians 3:4&5

‘God loves you and has chosen you as His own special people. So be gentle, kind, humble, meek, and patient. Put up with each other, and forgive anyone who does you wrong, just as Christ has forgiven you. Love is more important than anything else. It is what ties everything completely together.’ Colossians 3:12-14

‘With thankful hearts we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. Whatever you say or do should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, as you give thanks to God the Father because of Him.’ Colossians 3:16-18

It can be seen from the above texts that the basic reason for Christians to praise and worship God is what He has done through Jesus; He has set us free from the condemnation of sin. The life of a Christian is a celebration of what God has done for us by releasing us from our debt to Him. When this fact is the focus in our lives, everything we do will be a worshipful act.

The Holy Spirit transforms submissive believers into people who will honour God by all their life’s actions. Worship begins when we give up control of our lives and give it over to God to produce the fruit in us that He desires. We can take no credit for this process. So then, if we are living in an obedient relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, God will delight in everything we do; from preaching, to singing, to tripping over the door step as we rush to work in the morning.

A loving parent delights in everything their growing toddler does. They delight in his first cry, his first step, first word... everything he does excites and pleases them as they participate in his growth. They don’t wait until the child is old enough to buy his parents birthday and Christmas presents to be thrilled by what their child does. In the same way, God participates and delights in everything we do, not just when we are participating in church.

What is Church?

But what is church? Before we can define the function of worship and music in relation to Christian meetings we need to look at why Christians should meet together (the original Greek word for church (ecclesia) simply means meeting or assembly).

‘And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another - and all the more as you see the Day approaching.’ Hebrews 10:25 (NIV)

‘When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.’ 1 Corinthians 14:26

‘Wherever two or three of you come together in my name, I am there with you.’ Matthew 18:20.

Churches may use buildings and organisational structure to achieve their purpose, but essentially, church occurs when Christians assemble with the intention of building each other up. This can happen whenever and wherever we interact with other Christians. Because of our mutual love for God, our interactions with other believers should bring us closer to God in some way.

‘They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.’ Acts 2:42-47 (NIV)

In the New Testament, groups of believers met whenever and wherever they could to teach and encourage each other so that they could go out and be the salt and light of the world (Matthew 5:13).

Church is about relationships with those who inspire you to come closer to God. We meet together so that we may be strengthened (through teaching, fellowship and prayer) so we can continue to worship God in our daily life. Every Christian, as part of the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5), must be both equipped and encouraged to exercise ministry to build up other believers.

‘You say, ‘Love is a temple, love the higher love...
You ask me to enter but then you make me crawl.
And I can’t be holding on to what you’ve got when all you’ve got is hurt.
One love, one blood, one life, you’ve got to do what you should.
One life with each other, sisters, brothers. One life but we’re not the same.
We’ve got to carry each other, carry each other.’ U2 ‘One’

Many people have been hurt by a church which has built itself up to be something that God never intended it to be. We must be careful not to follow this pattern of history. The church is about community and fellowship; people who will listen to each others’ stories, dreams and visions and then support and pray for each other so they can go out and reach the world. The world is not looking for ‘Hey Hey it’s Saturday’ twice a week, it’s looking for a church which displays the integrity of its love by meeting each others’ need every day of the week.

Study 1: Worship = ?

Share your personal experiences of ‘worship.’

Today’s church culture suggests that worship is predominantly something related to music. There are people who, as suggested by their church’s culture, think praise is the fast, boppy warm up songs which happen at the beginning of the service and that worship is the slower, more emotional, mellower songs that happen after the offering is taken and the announcements are done. This is not what is meant by praise and worship in the Bible, at least not in the New Testament. In a society that doesn’t do a lot of group singing, maybe we should reconsider the cultural appropriateness of the way we use music in our meetings.

‘It is far too easy, within the current upsurge of creative input in the realm of worship, to find ourselves chasing spiritual or aesthetic experiences, as if the highest achievements of our whole pilgrimage on earth was to enter some kind of praise-induced ecstasy. I wonder sometimes whether it is worship we worship, whether what we experience in music and song is actually our primary motivation, rather than honouring God.

Fundamentally, authentic worship is about pursuing that which pleases God, not us. It is about lives lived in service to God and neighbour, lives which are ‘living sacrifices’, which are engaged in God’s work in the world.’ Steve Bradbury, Target Magazine

Praise is basically advertising. As Christians, we are both the product and the advertisement of our faith. God is the object of and reason for our praise, while those around us are our target group. Praise serves to build up others in their faith, not God.

Also, the word ‘worship’ is never used in the context of Christians meeting together. Worship in the Bible refers to the way we live our whole live, not just what we do when we meet together.

Discuss the Old Testament models of worship
(the temple, the priests, the sacrifices).

‘Believe me, the time is coming when you won’t worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem. You Samaritans don’t really know the one you worship. But the Jews do know the God we worship, and by using us, God will save the world. But a time is coming, and it is already here! Even now the true worshippers are being led by the Spirit to worship the Father according to the truth. These are the ones the Father is seeking to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship Him according to the truth.’ John 4:21-24 (see also Hebrews 9)

Worship in the Old Testament was carried out by means of sacrifices at the temple through priests. The function of these sacrifices was to remind the Jews of their debt to God (see Appendix A. Humanity + God in History = ....).

What was the significance of the ripping of the temple curtain?

‘But Jesus, with a loud cry, gave His last breath. At that moment the temple curtain ripped right down the middle. When the Roman captain standing guard in front of Him saw that He had quit breathing, he said, ‘This has to be the Son of God!’’ Mark 15:37-39

The ripping of the temple curtain signified that we no longer need to come to God through a temple building or any form of priest. The old shadows have become real (Hebrews 10:1). We can now, through faith, dwell in the ‘the most holy place’ (i.e. God’s presence) at all times (Hebrews 4:16).

What does it mean to worship God in spirit?

‘Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.’ John 4:23&24 (NIV)

Worship is not purely an academic exercise. It is a loving relationship with our Creator, involving our whole being (body, mind and soul). Because we love Him we will do His will. The Holy Spirit inhabits us and empowers us to do His will as we release ourselves more and more to God’s control and live in constant communion with Him. If we live according to the direction of God’s Spirit then we will live a worshipful life.

What does it mean to worship God in truth?

‘God is Spirit and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship Him according to the truth.’ John 4:24 (CEV)

We know and acknowledge God for who He is according to the way He is portrayed in His Word. Jesus, especially in John’s gospel, is the truth. Hence, we come to the Father through the Son who is the truth.

‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ John 14:6 (NIV)

Is worship bound to a place, day or style in the New Covenant as it was in the Old Covenant? Why/why not?

We now have a restored relationship with God through the death of Christ. Hence, every moment of the day we can commune with God. The Spirit led life, according to the truth, is worship, whether we are conscious of it or not. Despite our sinful nature, Jesus’ gift of forgiveness allows us to enter spiritually into God’s presence all the time. Through faith in Jesus we can live in an intimate relationship with God all day every day.

The New Covenant consolidated the whole law. Today, if we live a life guided by love towards God and towards those around us we satisfy the law and hence our whole lives will be pleasing to God (Mark 12:30-31).

What was the purpose of sacrifices in the Old Covenant? What did they achieve? Why did they have to be repeated over and over again?

‘The priests do their work each day, and they keep on offering sacrifices that can never take away sins. But Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice that is good forever. Now He is sitting at God’s right side, and He will stay there until His enemies are put under His power. By His one sacrifice He has forever set free from sin the people He brings to God. The Holy Spirit also speaks of this by telling us that the Lord said, “When the time comes, I will make an agreement with them. I will write my laws on their minds and hearts. Then I will forget about their sins and no longer remember their evil deeds.” When sins are forgiven, there is no more need to offer sacrifices. My friends, the blood of Jesus gives us courage to enter the most holy place by a new way that leads to life! And this way takes us through the curtain that is Christ Himself.’ Hebrews 10:11-19

The sacrifices of the Old Covenant had to be repeated over and over again because they were only a symbols, or a shadow (Hebrews 10:1), of what was to come. They were repeated over and over again, to bring the focus of God’s chosen people back to Him, and their unceasing need for His forgiveness. Also, he fact that they needed to be repeated over and over again showed that these sacrifices did not fully atone; a more perfect sacrifice was needed.

Who is this new priest? What did this new priest do?

Jesus is the new High Priest. He paid the sin debt of all humanity with His own blood on the cross. Through this sacrifice He restored the pre-fall relationship between humanity and God. Every Christian now has priestly status (1 Peter 2:5) and can therefore come boldly into God’s presence (Hebrews 4:16).

In what ways can what we do when we come together become an unpleasing, non-Christian act of sacrifice?

‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?” Then I will say to them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”’ Matthew 7:22&23 (NIV)

‘All of you praise me with your words, but you never really think about me. It is useless to worship me, when you teach rules made up by humans.’ Matthew 15:8&9

‘I, the Lord, hate and despise your religious celebrations and your times of worship. I won’t accept your offerings or animal sacrifices - not even your very best. No more of your noisy songs! I won’t listen when you play your harps. But let justice and fairness flow like a river that never runs dry.... You sing foolish songs to the music of harps, and you make up new tunes, just as David used to do. You drink all the wine you want and wear expensive perfume, but you don’t care about the ruin of your nation. So you will be the first to be dragged off as captives; your good times will end.’ Amos 5:21-24, 6:5-7

‘Your sacrifices mean nothing to me. I am sick of your offerings of rams and choice cattle, I don’t like the blood of bulls or lambs or goats. Who asked you to bring all this when you come to worship me? Stay out of my temple! Your sacrifices are worthless, and incense is disgusting. I can’t stand the evil you do on your New Moon Festivals or on your Sabbaths and other times of worship. I hate your New Moon Festivals and all others as well. They are a heavy burden I am tired of carrying. No matter how much you pray, I won’t listen. You are too violent. Wash yourselves clean! I am disgusted with your filthy deeds. Stop doing wrong and learn to live right. See that justice is done. Defend widows and orphans and help those in need.’ Isaiah 1:11-17 (see also Jeremiah 6:20, Hoseah, 6:6, Malachi 1:7, 10&11 and Micah 6:6-8)

We can sometimes do church with a sacrificial mentality (i.e. thinking that we can do something to get right with God). Our natural minds think that we are doing something for God by making our church services better. Outward religious acts are not necessarily worship. In fact, if we think we can gain favour with God by religious acts, then we have failed to see the importance of obedience to the Spirit.

If the primary aim of our meetings is to put on an entertaining performance then we run the risk that our congregation will follow our example and think their primary duty as Christians is their external appearance. It doesn’t matter how grotty our exterior is, if we are really submitted to the Holy Spirit then in time God will change who we are into what He wants us to be. When we offer our lives submitted to God (i.e. our living sacrifice - Romans 12:1), He makes us holy and acceptable to Himself through the death of His Son Jesus.

What then is acceptable worship? When and where do we worship?

Our worship today is the way we live our lives every moment of the day. We please God by our obedience to His Spirit, as the He leads us deeper into the truth of Jesus as found in the Bible.

‘Believe me, the time is coming when you won’t worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem.’ John 4:21

‘Later, Jesus and His disciples were having dinner at Matthew’s house. Many tax collectors and other sinners were also there. Some Pharisees asked Jesus’ disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and other sinners?” Jesus heard them and answered, “Healthy people don’t need a doctor, but sick people do. Go and learn what the Scriptures mean when they say, ‘Instead of offering sacrifices to me, I want you to be merciful to others.’ I didn’t come to invite good people to be my followers. I came to invite sinners.”’ Matthew 9:10-13

Today, God wants us to live a life of love and mercy to those around us, and a life of love, respect and obedience towards Him. We honour God and show that we love Him by following the example that Jesus set. We need to take our worship to the streets by loving, socialising with, caring for and meeting the needs of those around us.

Study 2: Worship + Me = ?

When your non-Christian friends hear the word ‘Christian’ what do they think of?

Christians do a lot of good in society. Sometimes they have the image of nice, good, helpful, loving people. However, the image of Christianity has at the same time become tarnished by the actions of some Christians. Throughout history it can be seen that when Christians put anything above the basic gospel of Jesus Christ then it is inevitable that they will lose the plot in some way. For example:

  • The Jews forgot the importance of their heart attitude in their sacrificial worship (see Appendix A. Worship + Humanity in History = . . . ).
  • In the Reformation Martin Luther and John Calvin and many others rebelled against the way the church of the day had made itself into an organisation which was focused on building itself up through various means, including the selling of indulgences for salvation. They had turned church into a performance which the average person could not understand, but felt obligated to be a part of and to support.
  • Even today Christianity has lost respect through the likes of tele-evangelists who exploit their position for their own financial gain or don’t practice what they preach. We have a responsibility to live our Christianity louder than we preach and therefore honour God in all situations.

What are the pressures of being in the limelight?

People who are in the limelight, including Christian artists, can become objects of adoration. People will love a good artist without having any idea of who they are or what they stand for. This can create an alienation from normal everyday relationships which can frequently lead to some sort of identity crisis. Pride and self sufficiency can easily dominate the thoughts of a public figure.

What does it mean to be ‘poor in spirit’?

Jesus said ‘blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of God...’ (CEV) ‘You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and His rule.’ Matthew 5:3 (The Message)

‘The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.’ (NIV) ‘The way to please you is to feel sorrow deep in our hearts. This is the kind of sacrifice you won’t refuse.’ Psalm 51:17 (CEV)

You’re blessed when you acknowledge your spiritual poverty. God does not want us to be proud of ourselves or self sufficient. God created us to live in an intimately dependent relationship with Him. We should always remember that we are dependent on Him for everything, especially in ministry situations.

On what does God want us to base our self worth?

God does not want us to base our identity on our comparison with others. He wants us to base our self worth on the fact that we were created by a loving God for a purpose; a God that loved us so much that He didn’t hold back His own life when it was required to restore our relationship with Him. He went through the agony that we deserved. He loves us and wants an intimate relationship with us. What more do we need to feel good about ourselves? (see Appendix B - The Christian’s Identity)

What can we give to God that He needs?

‘Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgements, and His paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has ever given to God, that God should repay Him? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen. Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship.’ Romans 11:33-12:1 (see also Psalm 50).

We cannot give anything to God because He is the Creator of all.

If we cannot do anything for God, what then are we to do?

‘Then the ones who pleased the Lord will ask, ‘When did we welcome you as a stranger or give you clothes to wear or visit you while you were sick or in jail?’ The King will answer, ‘Whenever you did it for any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did it for me.’’ Matthew 25:37-40

We honour and serve God by honouring and serving His people (i.e. the church). We also have an obligation to love and serve all those created in God’s image (Luke 10:30-37).

What did Satan want Jesus to do in return for the world?

Satan said to Jesus: ‘I will give all this power and glory to you. It has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. Just worship me and you can have it all.’ Luke 4:6&7

I don’t remember reading anywhere that Jesus could sing or play an instrument!?! What Satan wanted was Jesus’ submission to himself.

How and why did Jesus’ disciples worship Him?

‘Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ He said. They came to Him, clasped His feet and worshipped Him.’ (Matthew 28:9)

‘When He had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, He lifted up His hands and blessed them. While He was blessing them, He left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshipped Him and returned to Jerusalem and stayed continually at the temple, praising God.’ (Luke 24:52)

‘And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshipped Him, saying ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’’ (Matthew 14:32&33)

Did they whip out their guitars from under the seat of the boat and sing a chorus at Jesus? No, worship in these examples actually consisted of some form of physical prostration. Whatever the form of worship though, the substance of their worship was their acknowledgment of Jesus as God. They knew that they weren’t even worthy of being in His presence and the outward expression in these cases happened to be physically bowing down. Whatever the form of worship, it is the heart attitude of the worshipper that matters to God.

What is our acceptable sacrifice as gentile Christians living under the New Covenant?

‘The best measure of a spiritual life is not its ecstasies, but its obedience.’ Oswald Chambers

‘Lawful worship consists in obedience alone.’ John Calvin

‘Community worship and lives lived as living sacrifices serving God and our neighbour are a seamless continuum of response to the being, character and deeds of God who desires that worship be manifested in caring for one’s neighbour in all aspects of life.’ Florinda Toledo-Juarez

‘Does the Lord really want sacrifices and offerings? No! He doesn’t want your sacrifices. He wants you to obey Him.’ 1 Samuel 15:22

‘Jesus told the people who had faith in Him, ‘If you keep on doing what I have said, you truly are my disciples. You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.’ John 8:31&32

‘“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.’ Mark 12:30&31

How do we offer our bodies as ‘living sacrifices’?

‘Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship.’ Romans 12:1 (NIV).

Like the woman with the single coin in the offering box (Luke 21:1-4), it is not the quality, or quantity of our worship, but the motive with which we offer it. What God wants from us today is not just our first fruits but everything we are (Colossians 3:16&17). When the Jews offered a sacrifice it is given totally to God, burnt up completely; never to be gotten back. We offer our whole lives not because we are obliged to or need to get right with God, but ‘in view of God’s mercy.’

When a child is young his relationship with his Father is essentially based on rules (or laws); ‘don’t touch the hot plate’, ‘don’t play on the road’ etc. But when the child grows up he has hopefully leant to love and respect his Father. He knows his Father and therefore knows what pleases and displeases him. The child wants to do everything he can do to please his Father, not because he has to for fear of punishment but because he wants to out of love for the one that has given life and provides for his needs.

It is the same for Christians living by the Spirit today (see Galatians 3). Now Christ has come God treats us as if we were mature. We know our heavenly Father through reading His Word and through His Spirit living in us. God has the right to demand everything we are in constant slavery to him. But he doesn’t. The greatest expression of God’s love is the fact that He makes serving Him our decision; we have the power to decide whether or not to fulfil the purpose for which we were created.

When you are in love with someone you naturally want to share everything you are and own with them. You want to share your whole life with them. The same is true of our relationship with God. In our restored relationship with Him we give everything we have and are to Him for His glory and, conversely, we know that He will love us and share everything He owns with us.

In view of God’s mercy; because we are grateful to God for what He did for us through the death of Jesus; because we have a restored relationship with God when we deserved death; our only appropriate response is to give everything we have to God for His glory.

Study 3:
Worship + Music + Holy Spirit = ?!?!

What did the prophets of Baal think they had to do to get their man-made god to show its power (1 Kings 18:24-40)?

At first the prophets of Baal called on the name of their god, then they shouted louder and louder and even slashed themselves with swords. Their natural minds thought they could bring their god down from heaven by their actions.

What did Elijah do to get God to show His power?

Elijah simply prayed, ‘God, please show your power, for your glory’ and instantly the sacrifice, the altar and the water in the trench around the altar were instantly consumed by fire.

Why did God honour Elijah’s prayer?

‘Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you can live together whole and healed. The prayer of a person living right with God is something powerful to be reckoned with. Elijah, for instance, human just like us, prayed hard that it wouldn’t rain, and it didn’t - not a drop for three and a half years. The he prayed that it would rain, and it did. The showers came and everything started growing again.’ James 5:13-18 (The Message)

God honoured Elijah’s prayer because he was an obedient servant who wanted to see his God glorified. He knew the one true God, and sought to honour Him by his actions throughout his whole life.

What does Elijah teach us about being worshippers?

Our natural minds think that we can do something to please God. We can’t. We are fully dependent on God’s power which comes through prayer. Nothing more, nothing less. If we really want to be used by God He requires us to be available, faithful, obedient and prayerful people.

Why do we sing?

‘After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. Upon receiving such orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks. About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose.’ Acts 16:23-26

‘Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Ephesians 5:18-20 (NIV)

‘Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.’ James 5:13

‘What should we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.’ 1 Corinthians 14:26 (NIV)

Our singing is an expression of our joy and excitement about God and what He has done for us. In a church situation music can be used as an expression of corporate adoration of God, but its main focus must be the strengthening of the members of the church.

What role does the Holy Spirit play?

If we give the Holy Spirit control of our lives through obedience, He makes everything we do acceptable to God. The Holy Spirit takes our natural gifts and makes them spiritually effective. Without the power of the Spirit nothing can be achieved spiritually.

Do we see the role ‘musician,’ ‘singer’, or ‘worship leader’ in this list of spiritual gifts that build up the church?

‘Christ chose some of us to be apostles, prophets, missionaries, pastors and teachers, so that His people would learn to serve and His body would grow strong.’ Ephesians 4:11&12

‘If you really want spiritual gifts, choose the ones that will be most helpful to the church..’ 1 Corinthians 14:12

No, we don’t see these roles in this list because musical talents do not necessarily build up others. Music is a very spiritual medium. Every effective cult knows the power of manipulation in hyped up, emotional music. The Spirit of God doesn’t work like that.

‘He wasn’t in the wind... He wasn’t in the fire... He wasn’t in the earthquake... but in the gentle whisper.’ 1 Kings 19:8-12

We must ask ourselves ‘would I have a ministry without music?’ If not, then we probably don’t have a ministry at all. We shouldn’t need music to minister to those around us. Our main ministry as Christians is the way we relate to and love those around us.

How then are we to use our natural gifts?

Artistic expression is not an end in itself; it is a tool to reach, preach, teach, challenge and to encourage those around us.

‘Artistic ability and creative gifts are only a medium; a tool God has given us to achieve a greater purpose. It is my desire to take people beyond their passion for their natural gifts (the medium) to a point of discovering and developing their spiritual giftings (the purpose).

‘A passion for artistic performance and professionalism is only fruitful when it supports a greater vision to serve and extend God’s Kingdom through the active expression of our spiritual gifts.’ Peter Shurley

Summary

  • Worship is the way we acknowledge God’s worth; the way our knowledge of God affects the way we live.
  • The word ‘worship’ is never used in the Bible in the context of Christians meeting together let.
  • Christians want to live lives that honour God because they love and adore Him because of what God has done for them. When Christians submit to God, the Holy Spirit comes in and produces God-pleasing fruit in their lives.
  • Praise is basically advertising. As Christians, we are both the product and the advertisement of our faith. God is the object of and reason for our praise, while those around us are our target group. Praise serves to build up others in their faith, not God.
  • Humanity has a natural tendency to go it alone without God. We naturally think we can do something for God when we can’t. Our lives are lived in celebration of what God has done for us.
  • Music is not an end in itself; it is a tool to preach, to teach, to challenge, to serve and to encourage those around us. Music is valuable, but not essential. If it is culturally appropriate for the people we are trying to reach, use it. If it isn’t, then don’t.
  • Through our submission God wants to live through us. He doesn’t ask us to make ourselves into something acceptable, He asks us to present ourselves to Him, as we are, so He can make us into what we were created to be.
  • Worship is not primarily what we do in church, it encompasses every moment of a believer’s life. If we are living in an obedient relationship with God through the Holy Spirit then He will delight in and be honoured by everything we do.
  • Worship today is the way we live our lives every moment of the day. We show that we acknowledge God’s sovereignty by our love and respect for Him. This is carried out by obedience to His Spirit, as the He leads us deeper into the truth of Jesus found in the Bible.
  • If we love God and those around us then we are truly worshiping God.

Thanks

Thanks and acknowledgment must go to the following people for their part in all this: Ian Thomson, Noel Crowther, David Fittell, Jim Rawson, Suzanne & Scott Oxford, Charles Green, Graeme Goldsworthy, Christine & Alison Fitzell, Criss Barr, Michael Bennett, Mum & Dad and the many others who have taken the time to read the drafts and participate in the development of these concepts.

Reference List

Anderson, Neil T, ‘The Bondage Breaker

Bradbury, Steve, ‘Target Magazine’, Tear Australia, 1996 No 1.

Bullock, Geoff, Worship seminar held at Liberty Fellowship March 1996.

Crowther, Noel, ‘Ordination Thesis - The Church, it’s Worship and Growth.’

Dobson, Dr James, ‘Love Must Be Tough’, Kingsway, 1983.

All Bible quotes taken from the Contemporary English Version unless stated.

Appendix A:
Worship + Humanity in History = . . .

‘If you want to last, learn from the past, but don’t remake it.’ D.I.G. ‘Futures’

The Garden of Eden

When God first created humans (Adam and Eve) He created them in intimate communion with Himself. They daily walked and talked in the Garden with God (Genesis 3:8). Everything they did was pleasing to God because it was without sin. They loved God, and because of this everything they did glorified Him. After the fall (when they turned from God and tried to do it their own way) they could not please Him in the same way because they had become sinful (sin is the decision of the creature to live independently of the Creator).

Abraham

Abraham (the father of the Jewish race) was credited as righteous by faith in God when he showed that he was willing to sacrifice his only son at God’s command (Genesis 22). He showed that he had faith in God; he put the will of God before his own will. He showed, by his actions, that he believed that God’s will is sovereign. Because of this, God promised Abraham that the whole world would be blessed through his descendants.

Exodus to Christ

‘At the time I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I didn’t command them to offer sacrifices to me. Instead, I told them, ‘If you listen to me and do what I tell you, I will be your God, you will be my people, and all will go well for you.’ But your ancestors refused to listen. They were stubborn, and whenever I wanted them to go one way, they always went the other.’ Jeremiah 7:22-24

When the children of Israel were released from the captivity of the Egyptians they were a simple people. They knew very little of their God. What they did know was the Egyptians’ culture and how they worshipped their gods. They did not seem to grasp what God really wanted from them. Because of this, God gave the Children of Israel a simple system of worship; a system that they could understand. The purpose of this system was to remind them again of God’s power and sovereignty and their debt to Him because of their sins.

The purpose of the sacrificial system, as part of God’s covenant with Abraham, was to make them look forward to when the promised Messiah was going to cleanse their sins and restore their relationship with God. They were continually reminded that they had sinned and that the shedding of blood was required for justice to be served.

God commanded the Children of Israel to erect a tabernacle (Exodus 25) and later a temple (1 Kings 6) in which they worshipped God. They did not understand that God could not be bound to one physical place (Acts 17:24). The priests acted as intercessors between the people and God. Once a year the one High Priest would go into the most holy place to offer a blood offering for the sins of all the people. They were given the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) so they would know how to interact with their God and the people around them. All these things were merely a shadow (Hebrews 10:1) of things to come.

After Christ

When Jesus came to earth and was crucified by the system that had waited for Him for so long, the shadows became reality. Jesus made the perfect sacrifice, once and for all, with His own blood for the sins of the world (John 3:16). The temple curtain was ripped from top to bottom and later the Jewish temple was destroyed (70AD) signifying that people no longer needed to come to a particular place to worship God (John 4:23-24). The temple of God was now in the hearts of all believers through the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:14, 10:19&20).

Jesus became the High Priest (Hebrews 5) for all and established the priesthood of all believers (Hebrews 7, 1 Peter 2:5). Now, through faith, we dwell in the most holy place at all times (Hebrews 10:19). We can also all minister to one another to build up the body of Christ without the need for a worship service or leader to intercede between us and God.

Jesus gave a new commandment that summed up all the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17, 7:12 & 22:40); ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.’ (Mark 12:30&31) This new commandment exploded the Old Covenant. Not only must we not murder but we must not hate or despise anyone. Not only must we not commit adultery but we must not lust etc... (Matthew 5). In the Old Testament, the Jews lived according to the guidelines of the Law (i.e. the Ten Commandments and the sacrificial system). Today Christians live according to the spirit of the Law; love. The New Testament is basically a how to be a better lover guide. If we love then we fulfil the law and hence please God.

The Reformation Period

We can see that the church has a tendency to degenerate until people start praying and God steps in and brings about revival; a return to the teachings of the Bible. The Reformation period is no exception.

In Martin Luther’s day, Mass was the primary focus of church services. It had become a performance with no participation from the everyday church-goer. The Bible wasn’t even read in the language of the people. It was considered heresy for the Bible to be in a language the ordinary people could understand.

The church was characterised by empty liturgy, which was distant from people’s needs. Communion was a spectacle. There was no such thing as the priesthood of all believers ministering to one another; it was a church heaped in status quo with a focus on building up the organisation.

There was financial exploitation of the people through the sale of indulgences (to buy your dead relatives out of purgatory) which was used to build larger buildings.

The reformers corrected many of the doctrinal faults (that is grace alone, faith alone, Bible alone) but inherited many of the forms of the past. Because of their cultural situation they never totally went back to the new testament apostolic model.

Present

We must not merely accept what is handed down to us. We must continually check our church practices by the guidelines given in the Bible.

Appendix B:
The Christian’s Identity

From ‘The Bondage Breaker’ by Neil T Anderson.

I am accepted

  • I am God's child (John 1:12).
  • I am Christ's friend (John 15:15).
  • I have been justified (Romans 5:1).
  • I am united with the Lord, and I am one in spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17).
  • I have been bought with a price. I belong to God (1 Cor 6:19&20).
  • I am a saint (Eph 1:1).
  • I have been adopted as God's child (Eph 1:5).
  • I have direct access to God through the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:18).
  • I have been redeemed and forgiven of all my sins (Col 1:14).
  • I am complete in Christ (Col 2:10).

I am secure

  • I am free forever from condemnation (Rom 8:1&2).
  • I am assured that all things work together for good (Rom 8:28).
  • I am free from any condemning charges against me (Rom 8:31).
  • I cannot be separated from the love of God (Rom 8:35).
  • I have been established, anointed and sealed by God. (2 Cor 1:21&22).
  • I am hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:3).
  • I am confident that the good work that God has begun in me will be perfected (Phil 3:6).
  • I am a citizen of heaven (Phil 3:20).
  • I have not been given a spirit of fear but of power, love, and a self control (2 Tim 1:7).
  • I can find grace and mercy in time of need (Heb 4:16).
  • I am born of God, and the evil one cannot touch me (1 John 5:18).

I am significant

  • I am the salt and light of the earth (Matt 5:13&14).
  • I am a branch of the true vine, a channel of His life (John 15:1,5).
  • I have been chosen and appointed to bear fruit (John 15:16).
  • I am a personal witness of Christ (Acts 1:8).
  • I am God's temple (1 Cor 3:16).
  • I am a minister of reconciliation for God (2 Cor 5:17f).
  • I am God's co-worker (2 Cor 6:1, 1 Cor 3:9).
  • I am seated with Christ in the heavenly realm (Eph 2:6).
  • I am God's workmanship (Eph 2:10).
  • I may approach God with freedom and confidence (Eph 3:12).
  • I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Phil 4:13).

Discussion Questions

Study 1. Worship = ?

    1. Share your personal experiences of worship.

    2. Read John 4:21-24. See also Hebrews 9. Discuss the Old Testament models of worship (the temple, the priests, the sacrifices).

    3. Read Mark 15:37-39. What was the significance of the ripping of the temple curtain?

    4. What do you think it means to worship God in spirit?

    5. What do you think it means to worship God in truth?

    6. Is worship bound to a particular place, day or style in the New Covenant as it was in the Old Covenant? Why/why not?

    7. Read Hebrews 10:11-22. What was the purpose of sacrifices in the Old Covenant? What did they achieve? Why did they need to be repeated over and over again?

    8. Who is this new priest? What did this new priest do?

    9. Read Matthew 7:22&23 & Isaiah 1:11-17. See also Matthew 15:8&9 Amos 5:21-25, 6:5-7. In what ways can what we do when we come together become an unpleasing, non-Christian act of sacrifice?

    10. What then is acceptable worship? When and where do we worship?

Study 2. Worship + me = ?

    1. When your non-Christian friends hear the word ‘Christian’ what do they think of?

    2. Kurt Cobain used to walk off stage and listen to the audience applauding, cheering, practically worshipping him and think ‘if these people only knew who I really was they would hate me’. What are the pressures of being in the limelight?

    3. Read Matthew 5:3, Psalm 51:17 & Galatians 6:3-5. What does it mean to be ‘poor in spirit’?

    4. On what does God want us to base our self worth (see Appendix B - The Christian’s Identity)?

    5. Read Romans 11:33-12:1. See also Psalm 50. What can we give to God that He needs?

    6. Read Matthew 25:37-40. If we cannot do anything for God, what then are we to do?

    7. Read Luke 4:6&7. What did Satan want Jesus to do in exchange for the world?

    8. Check out Matthew 14:32&33, Matthew 28:9 and Luke 24:52. How and why did Jesus’ disciples worship Him?

    9. Read 1 Samuel 15:22, John 8:31&32, John 13:34 & Mark 12:28-31. What is our acceptable sacrifice as gentile Christians living under the New Covenant?

    10. How do we offer our bodies as ‘living sacrifices’?

Study 3. Worship + music + Holy Spirit = ?!?!?!

    1. Share what you have learnt so far. What has impacted you?

    2. Read 1 Kings 18:24-40. What did the prophets of Baal think they had to do to get their man-made god to show its power?

    3. What did Elijah do to get God to show His power?

    4. Read James 5:13-17. Why did God honour Elijah’s prayer?

    5. What does this teach us about being worshippers?

    6. Read Acts 16:23-26, James 5:13 and 1 Corinthians 14:26. Why do we sing?

    7. What role does the Holy Spirit play?

    8. Read 1 Corinthians 14:12 and Ephesians 4:11-13. Do we see the role of ‘musician,’ ‘singer’, or ‘worship leader’ etc in this list of gifts that build up the church?

    9. How then are we to use our natural gifts?

Related Topics: Worship

Why Is There Suffering?

Related Media

I. What are the causes of suffering?

    A. Sinful people cause some suffering directly (lying, anger, divorce, drugs, crime, etc.).

    B. Sin causes suffering indirectly (because of sin this earth is corrupted, deteriorating, painful and evil – Genesis 3:14-19; 4:1-15; Romans 8:20-22).

    C. Conclusion: God is not the cause of suffering; He is the author of good (James 1:13-17).

      Some people conclude that since God made everything, He made evil too.

      But St. Augustine’s reasoning seems to be correct:

      1. God is the author of everything in the created universe.

      2. Evil is not a thing or a substance; it is a privation or lack in things (blindness is lack of sight, pain is lack of health, hate or murder is lack of love).

      3. Therefore God did not create evil.

II. Why doesn’t God end all evil immediately?

    To end evil God would have to destroy the cause of evil – people. In His good plan for people (see below), it is therefore not good to end all evil immediately.

III. Why doesn’t God make people unable to cause suffering?

    To do that, God would have to take away our ability to choose. But choice – free will – is a good thing. In order to love, you must be able to choose to love. Forced love is not love. So to have a universe that included love, God had to make us with choice, which includes the choice not to love – and that makes sin, evil, pain and suffering possible.

IV. Why does God allow natural disaster and disease?

    It is a part of a sinful world. God lowered the perfection of creation (from the perfect garden of Eden) to match the spiritual state of those who live here (Romans 8:20-22). God graciously has sustained people on this earth (allowing them to reproduce, to develop governments and systems to deal with the effects of sin). He has graciously sustained the fallen creation (providing sun and rain for food to sustain life – Colossians 1:17). But the natural effect of a fallen creation is that even good things can have evil byproducts (water can drown someone; gravity can kill someone; lightening can burn and kill).

V. Why doesn’t God stop evil acts that cause innocent people to suffer?

    Why doesn’t God miraculously intervene to stop evil acts if He is all-loving and all-powerful? Why doesn’t He catch the drunk driver’s car that is going to crash into a bus? Why doesn’t He deflect the murderer’s bullets? The person asking doesn’t actually want God to stop all their evil acts. They don’t want to be invisibly gagged every time they’re about to say something hurtful; they don’t want to stub their toe when they try to kick the dog. They just think it would be good if God stopped certain evil acts or just the evil acts of others. But that would make life impossible. There would be no freedoms, no regularity and no personal responsibility.

VI. Why doesn’t God let us choose to get out of this suffering?

    The answer is that He does. That is the gracious, loving response of God to the evil condition of this sinful world.

    A. God has provided for personal salvation – the promise of eternal life in heaven where there is no suffering (Revelation 21:4). One must simply put his trust in the payment for sin God provided through Christ’s death on the cross (John 3:16-18; Acts 10:38-43: etc.).

    B. God has provided for the earth’s redemption (Romans 8:18-23; 2 Peter 3:10,13; Revelation 21:1).

VII. Why can’t we get out of this evil world of suffering immediately?

    We don’t know why God’s timetable is what it is. We can see why He couldn’t deliver Adam and Eve immediately – God first had to provide redemption through Christ. The world continues today in part because there are more people yet that will come to have eternal salvation.

    We do know that God is causing all things to work together for good to those who love God (Romans 8:28).

VIII. What are some good reasons for suffering?

    A. It enables us to cope in a sinful world.

      1. Pain can keep us from a greater physical evil. A burnt finger warns us to avoid worse danger.

      2. Pain can keep us from greater moral evil. A spanking does that.

    B. It teaches us to turn to God for solution.

      1. For eternal deliverance from evil – Heaven

      2. For temporal deliverance from evil – Safety or holiness

      3. For spiritual strength to endure suffering (2 Cor. 12:7-10)

    C. It produces character improvement (holiness, maturity, etc. James 1:24) which in turn produces eternal rewards (crown of life – James 1:12).

    D. It gives God the opportunity to show His grace, love and care for our sinful condition.

      1. Through Christ’s life and death for our sake (Romans 5:6-8).

      2. Through providing a place where there is no more suffering, sin or death (1 Corinthians 15:51-55; Revelation 21:4).

      *Credit for many of the ideas in this study belongs to Dr. Norm Geisler

Related Topics: Hamartiology (Sin), Suffering, Trials, Persecution

Why Christians Suffer

Related Media

Portuguese Translation

Introduction

Why me? Why now? What is God doing? Suffering is a tool God uses to get our attention and to accomplish His purposes in our lives. It is designed to build our trust in the Almighty, but suffering requires the right response if it is to be successful in accomplishing God’s purposes. Suffering forces us to turn from trust in our own resources to living by faith in God’s resources.

Suffering is not in itself virtuous, nor is it a sign of holiness. It is also not a means of gaining points with God, or of subduing the flesh (as in asceticism). When it is possible, suffering is to be avoided. Christ avoided suffering unless it meant acting in disobedience to the Father’s will.

“In the day of prosperity be happy, But in the day of adversity consider—God has made the one as well as the other so that man may not discover anything that will be after him” (Eccl. 7:14)

The following questions are designed to help us “consider” in the day of adversity:

(1) How am I responding to it?

(2) How should I respond to it?

(3) Am I learning from it?

(4) Does my response demonstrate faith, love for God and for others, Christ-like character, values, commitment, priorities, etc.?

(5) How can God use it in my life?

Suffering Defined

What are these bends in the road that God puts in the path of life that we are to carefully consider? Simply stated, suffering is anything which hurts or irritates. In the design of God, it is also something to make us think. It is a tool God uses to get our attention and to accomplish His purposes in our lives in a way that would never occur without the trial or irritation.

Illustrations of Suffering

“It may be cancer or a sore throat. It may be the illness or loss of someone close to you. It may be a personal failure or disappointment in your job or school work. It may be a rumor that is circulating in your office or your church, damaging your reputation, bringing you grief and anxiety.”1 It can be anything that ranges from something as small and irritating as the bite of a mosquito to facing a lion in the lions’ den as did Daniel (Dan. 6).

General Causes of Suffering

(1) We suffer because we live in a fallen world where sin reigns in the hearts of men.

(2) We suffer because of our own foolishness. We reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7-9).

(3) We sometimes suffer because it is God’s discipline. “For those whom the Lord loves he disciplines, and he scourges every son He receives” (Heb. 12:6).

(4) We may suffer persecution because of our faith—especially when we take a stand on biblical issues, i.e., suffering for righteousness sake (2 Tim. 3:12).

Of course, all of these do not apply at the same time. All suffering is not, for instance, a product of our own foolishness, self-induced misery, or sin. It is true, however, that rarely does suffering not reveal areas of need, areas of weakness, and wrong attitudes that need to be removed like dross in the gold-refining process (cf. 1 Pet. 1:6-7).

In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; (1 Peter 1:6-7)

The Nature of Suffering

(1) Suffering is Painful. Suffering is hard; it is never easy. Regardless of what we know and how hard we apply the principles, it is going to hurt (cf. 1 Pet. 1:6—“distressed” = lupeo, “to cause pain, sorrow, grief”).

(2) Suffering is Perplexing. Suffering is somewhat mysterious. We may know some of the theological reasons for suffering from Scripture, yet when it strikes, there is still a certain mystery. Why now? What is God doing? Suffering is designed to build our trust in the Almighty.

(3) Suffering is Purposeful. Suffering is not without meaning in spite of its mystery. It has as its chief purpose the formation of Christ-like character (Rom. 8:28-29).

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; (Romans 8:28-29)

(4) Suffering Proves (tests) Us. “Trials” in James 1:2 is the Greek peirasmos and refers to that which examines, tests, and proves the character or integrity of something. “Testing” in this same verse is dokimion which has a similar idea. It refers to a test designed to prove or approve. Suffering is that which proves one’s character and integrity along with both the object and quality of one’s faith. Compare 1 Peter 1:6-7 where the same Greek words are used along with the verb dokimazo which means, “put to the test,” “prove by testing as with gold.”

(5) Suffering is a Process. As a process, it takes time. The results God seeks to accomplish with the trials of life require time and thus also, endurance.

Romans 5:3-4 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;

James 1:3-4 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

(6) Suffering is a Purifier. No matter the reason, even if it is not God’s discipline for blatant carnality, it is a purifier for none of us will ever be perfect in this life.

Philippians 3:12-14 12 Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

(7) Suffering Provides Opportunity. Suffering provides opportunity for God’s glory, our transformation, testimony, and ministry, etc. (See reasons for suffering given below.)

(8) Suffering Requires Our Cooperation. Suffering requires the right response if it is to be successful in accomplishing God’s purposes. “We all want the product, character; but we don’t want the process, suffering.”2 Because of our make up as human beings, we can’t have one without the other.

(9) Suffering is Predetermined or Appointed.

1 Peter 1:6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you;

(10) Suffering is Inevitable. The question we must each face is not, ‘if’ we are going to have trials in life, but how will we respond to them?

1 Thessalonians 3:3 so that no man may be disturbed by these afflictions; for you yourselves know that we have been destined for this.

1 Peter 4:19 Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.

(11) Suffering is a Struggle. It’s going to be a battle all the way. That’s why they are called “trials” and “testings.” Even when we understand the purposes and principles of suffering, and we know the promises of God’s love and concern given in the Word of God for handling suffering, dealing with the trials of life is never easy because suffering hurts. Trials simply give us the capacity to cooperate with the process (Jam. 1:4). They allow the process to work and allow us to experience inner peace and joy in the midst of the trials.

In order to handle suffering with inner joy and tranquillity, we must be able to look ahead to God’s purposes and reasons for suffering. This requires faith in the eternal verities of God.

Compare the blessings of affliction as seen in the testimony of the Psalmist in Ps. 119:

Before affliction

Straying and ignoring (vs. 67a)

During and in affliction

Learning and turning (vs. 71, cf. vs. 59)

When under affliction we need to:

(1) Determine Causes if we can (Is it because of something I have done?)

(2) Determine Objectives (What is God wanting to do in my life or in others?)

(3) Determine Solutions (How does God want me to handle this?)

After affliction

(1) Knowing and changing (vss. 67b, 97-102)

(2) Resting and valuing (vss. 65, 72)

We must understand God’s chief purpose for our lives is to be conformed to the image of Christ and He has determined in His plan to use suffering for our spiritual development. If we are going to endure suffering and the trials of life, however, we must also understand and believe in the other purposes and reasons for suffering as they are related to the chief purpose.

Purposes and Reasons for Suffering

(1) We suffer as a testimony, as a witness (2 Tim 2:8-10; 2 Cor. 4:12-13; 1 Pet. 3:13-17). When believers handle suffering joyfully and with stability, it becomes a marvelous testimony to the power and life of Christ that we claim and name. Suffering provides key opportunities to manifest and magnify the power of God through His servants in order to verify and confirm the messenger and his message. It provides opportunities to reveal our credentials as ambassadors of Christ (1 Kings. 17:17-24; John 11:1-45). This includes the following areas:

    a. To glorify God before the angelic world (Job 1-2; 1 Pet. 4:16).

    b. To manifest the power of God to others (2 Cor. 12:9, 10; John 9:3).

    c. To manifest the character of Christ in the midst of suffering as a testimony to win others to Christ (2 Cor. 4:8-12; 1 Pet. 3:14-17).

(2) We suffer to develop our capacity and sympathy in comforting others (2 Cor. 1:3-5).

(3) We suffer to keep down pride (2 Cor. 12:7). The Apostle Paul saw his thorn in the flesh as an instrument allowed by God to help him maintain a spirit of humility and dependence on the Lord because of the special revelations he had seen as one who had been caught up to the third heaven.

(4) We suffer because it is a training tool. God lovingly and faithfully uses suffering to develop personal righteousness, maturity, and our walk with Him (Heb. 12:5f; 1 Pet. 1:6; Jam. 1:2-4). In this sense, suffering is designed:

    a. As discipline for sin to bring us back to fellowship through genuine confession (Ps. 32:3-5; 119:67).

    b. As a pruning tool to remove dead wood from our lives (weaknesses, sins of ignorance, immature attitudes and values, etc.) The desired goal is increased fruitfulness (John 15:1-7). Trials may become mirrors of reproof to reveal hidden areas of sin and weakness (Ps. 16:7; 119:67, 71).

    c. As a tool for growth designed to cause us to rely on the Lord and His Word. Trials test our faith and cause us to use the promises and principles of the Word (Ps. 119:71, 92; 1 Pet. 1:6; Jam. 1:2-4; Ps. 4:1 [The Hebrew of this passage can mean, “You have enlarged, made me grow wide by my distress”]). Suffering or trials teach us the truth of Psalm 62:1-8, the truth of learning to “wait on the Lord only.”

    d. As a means of learning what obedience really means. It becomes a test of our loyalty (Heb. 5:8). Illustration: If a father tells his son to do something he likes to do (i.e., eat a bowl of ice cream) and he does it, the child has obeyed, but he hasn’t really learned anything about obedience. If his dad, however, asks him to mow the lawn, that becomes a test and teaches something about the meaning of obedience. The point is, obedience often costs us something and is hard. It can require sacrifice, courage, discipline, and faith in the belief that God is good and has our best interests at heart regardless of how things might appear to us. Regardless of the reason God allows suffering into our lives, rarely does it not reveal areas of need, weaknesses, wrong attitudes, etc., as it did in Job.

    Suffering itself is not the thing that produces faith or maturity. It is only a tool that God uses to bring us to Himself so we will respond to Him and His Word. It forces us to turn from trust in our own resources to living by faith in God’s resources. It causes us to put first things first. Ultimately, it is the Word and the Spirit of God that produces faith and mature Christlike character (Ps. 119:67, 71).

    James 1:2-4; 1 Pet. 1:6-7: The key word is “the proof of our faith.” “Proof” is the word dokimion which looks at both the concept of testing which purifies, and the results, the proof that is left after the test. The Lord uses trials to test our faith in the sense of purifying it, to bring it to the surface, so we are forced to put our faith to work.

(5) We suffer to bring about continued dependence on the grace and power of God. Suffering is designed to cause us to walk by God’s ability, power, and provision rather than by our own (2 Cor. 11:24-32; 12:7-10; Eph. 6:10f; Ex. 17:8f). It causes us to turn from our resources to His resources.

(6) We suffer to manifest the life and character of Christ (The Fruit of the Spirit) (2 Cor. 4:8-11; Phil. 1:19f). This is similar to point (4) above with more emphasis on the process and defining the objective, the production of the character of Christ. This has both a negative and a positive aspect:

    a. Negative: Suffering helps to remove impurities from our lives such as indifference, self-trust, false motives, self-centeredness, wrong values and priorities, and human defense and escape mechanisms by which we seek to handle our problems (man-made solutions). Suffering in itself does not remove the impurities, but is a tool God uses to cause us to exercise faith in the provisions of God’s grace. It is God’s grace in Christ (our new identity in Christ, the Word and the Holy Spirit) that changes us. This negative aspect is accomplished in two ways: (1) When out of fellowship with the Lord: Suffering becomes discipline from our heavenly Father (Heb. 5:5-11; 1 Cor. 11:28-32; 5:1-5). This involves known sin, rebellion and indifference to God. (2) When in fellowship: Suffering becomes the loving and skillful handy work of the Vine Dresser to make us more productive. It involves unknown sin, areas we may not be aware of, but that are nevertheless hindering our growth and fruitfulness. In this case, suffering often constitutes mirrors of reproof (John 15:1-7).

    b. Positive: when believers live under suffering joyfully (i.e., they endure and keep on applying the promises and principles of the faith), Christ’s life or character will be more and more manifested as they grow through the suffering (2 Cor. 4:9-10; 3:18). This means trust, peace, joy, stability, biblical values, faithfulness, and obedience in contrast to sinful mental attitudes, blaming, running, complaining, and reactions against God and people.

(7) We suffer to manifest the evil nature of evil men and the righteousness of the justice of God when it falls in judgment (1 Thess. 2:14-16). Suffering at the hands of people (persecution, violent treatments) is used of God to “fill up the measure of their sins.” It shows the evil character of those who persecute others and the justice of God’s judgment when it falls.

(8) We suffer to broaden our ministries (cf. Philippians 1:12-14 with 4:5-9). In the process of producing Christian character and enhancing our testimony to others, suffering often opens up doors for ministry we could never have imagined. Paul’s imprisonment (chained daily to Roman soldiers in his own house) resulted in the spread of the gospel within the elite imperial praetorian guard. The Apostle was undoubtedly continuing to rejoice in the Lord, but if he had been complaining, sulking, and bitter, his witness would have been zero.


1 Ron Lee Davis, Gold in the Making, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1983p. 17-18.

2 Davis, p. 19. See also p. 32.

Related Topics: Suffering, Trials, Persecution

Pages