SHAKE IT OFF, MOVE ON, AND DON'T LOOK BACK

It was rainy and cold as Paul gathered sticks to build a fire on an unfamiliar island in the Mediterranean. He had just suffered shipwreck while being carried as a prisoner to Rome to stand trial. As he gathered sticks and branches, a poisonous snake suddenly "fastened on his hand." Although the natives of the island expected him to fall over dead at any moment, Paul did not panic. Luke says, "But he shook the creature into the fire and suffered no harm "(Acts 28:5).

PAUL HAD TO SHAKE OFF MORE THAN JUST A SNAKE

This wasn't the first time Paul had found it necessary to shake off something unpleasant. He had been expelled from Antioch of Pisidia. He had been stoned and left for dead in Lystra. He had been beaten and imprisoned in Phillipi. His life had been threatened in Thessalonica. He had been attacked by a mob in Jerusalem. He had been arrested by the Romans and shipped to Rome to stand trial. On the way he is shipwrecked on an island and in the rain and cold the poisonous viper "fastens" on his hand. One could understand if at this point he had thrown his hands in the air, and cried, "I give up!" or "Why me Lord!" But instead he shook it off and went on about his business and afterwards saw a great move of God on that island with many experiencing God's healing power.

WE TOO MUST SHAKE OFF EVERY UNGODLY
THING THAT WOULD TRY TO "FASTEN" ITSELF ON US

We all encounter difficult and devastating situations of life that try to "fasten" on us and poison our souls and paralyze us and destroy us. We must not allow it to happen. Like Paul, we must shake it off and move on in obedience to God. Paul himself shares a secret for doing this in Philippians 3:13b-14 where he says, "But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the mark of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." Paul was not allowing anything--snakes, hard times, people's hatred, etc.--to "fasten" on him and keep him from his future in God. You and I must do the same. After all, where we are going is more important than where we have been. So, SHAKE IT OFF, MOVE ON, AND DON'T LOOK BACK!

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AT RISK

The Contemporary Distortion of the First Amendement
that is Jeopardizing Our Constituational Freedom

A few days ago the Veterans Administration in Houston issued an order that Christian groups participating in funerals at the VA cemetery cannot use the word "Jesus" or say "God bless you." The reason? Why, the use of such terminology would breech the "wall of separation" between church and state.

Indeed, throughout America, this twisted interpretation of the First Amendment is being used to force the removal of Christian symbols from the public square and to intimidate Christians from publicly sharing their faith. This distorted interpretation of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” has even been used to threaten students with arrest and incarceration who talk about “Jesus” in their valedictorian addresses at graduation or use His name in prayer. One Texas judge decreed that traditional prayers offered at Santa Fe High School events must not contain the word “Jesus” and warned that anyone who violated his order, “Is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this Court gets through with them.”

This sort of anti-Christian activism was unknown before the 20th century and is fueled by the on-going efforts of a small but radical minority. Emboldened by major victories in the 1960s with Supreme Court decisions outlawing prayer and Bible reading in public schools, these radical secularists now seek to remove any vestige of Christian influence from the public square. And their weapon of choice is the promotion of a “wall of separation” between church and state that they have concocted through their twisted reinterpretation of our nation’s history.

This is all somewhat ironic because the expression "wall of separation" is not found in the First Amendemdment, but modern seularists have linked the two together in a way that was never envisioned by the founders of this nation.

The Origin of the Phrase "Wall of Separation"

Thomas Jefferson, of course, is the one who used the phrase “wall of separation,” not in the Constitution, but in a letter to a group of Baptists assuring them that the First Amendment provided a “wall of separation” that would protect them from government intrusion. Modern secularists have turned Jefferson’s expression on its head by reinterpreting it to mean a “wall of separation” to keep expressions of faith out of the public square. Jefferson would turn over in his grave at such a distortion of his words.

It was in a letter, dated Jan. 1, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut that Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation” between the church and state. The Baptists were concerned about their status in the new nation and how they would be treated. They had reason for concern for throughout Europe the Baptists had been an outlawed religious sect, severely persecuted by the state and the state sanctioned churches, both Catholic and Protestant. They had also suffered persecution for their faith in colonial America, particulary in colonial Virgina where the Anglican Chruch hd been the established "official" church.

Jefferson quoted the First Amendment, enacted Dec. 15, 1792, that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and assured this Baptist association that this meant that in America there would be “a wall of separation” that would protect them and any other religious group from the intrusion of the state.
Jefferson’s words clearly indicate that he understood the First Amendment as providing a unidirectional “wall of separation” to prevent the state from meddling with the church and the free expression of faith.

This was the common understanding of the First Amendment for the first 150 years of the nation’s existence. In History of the United States published in 1816, David Ramsey declared that the founders of this nation, “Wisely judged learning and religion to be the firmest pillars of the church and commonwealth.” The modern idea that one’s faith is personal and private and not to be expressed in the public or political arena is obviously something new and novel, and unknown among the founders of this nation.

Jefferson's Actions Reveal His Intent

Jefferson's own actions as president reveal that his metaphorical expression "wall of separation" had nothing to do with excluding Christian expressions from the public and political arena. As president, Jefferson negotiated a federal treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that included a stipulation that federal funds be made available to pay for Christian missionaries to work with the Indians and for the building of a Christian church in which the Indians could worship. He also closed presidential documents with the appellation, “In the year of our Lord Christ.”

Although Jefferson is often pointed to as one of the non-Christian founders, he was Christian in his thinking and held to a Christian worldview. In spite of questions about the deity of Christ and the mriacles of the Bible, He was convinced that human rights are derived from God and expressed his concern lest the American populace ever forget this truth. He said,

"God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

The Truth Makes Us Free

That Jefferson's "wall of separation" had nothing to do with the exclusion of Christianity from the public square is obvious by simply looking at certain traditions in our government that are still carried on today. Every president since George Washington, including Thomas Jefferson, has taken his oath of office with his hand placed on a Bible. Every new session of Congress is opened with prayer, a tradition that dates back to it origins. Our currency has the statement, "In God we trust." The Supreme Court Justices are overshadowed by the Ten Comandments and each session is opened with a prayer for God to "save the court." There are other examples to numerous too cite here.

A recent ten-year project to discover where the founders got their ideas for America’s founding documents, found that by far the single most cited authority in their writings was the Bible. As Patrick Henry declared, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

In 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court completed a 10-year investigation in which thousands of historical documents were investigated concerning the historical roots of the nation. After citing more than sixty historical precedents, the Court concluded, "There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation . . . this is a Christian nation."

THE TRUTH is that the contemporary interpretation and application of the "wall of separation" is something new and novel and unknown before the 20th century. It is time for every person who is concerned about the erosion of freedom in this nation to stand up and prayerfully challenge this distorted interpretation of the First Amendment. And pray for another Great Awakening that will change the course of this nation.

This article is derived from Eddie Hyatt's soon-to-be-published book, GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE: How a Spiritual Awakening Transformed Colonial America and Led to the Formation of the United States of America. Available on Amazon and at www.eddiehyatt.com/bookstore.html

MANY CONVINCING PROOFS

The Historical Reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

There is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any other event in ancient history. There were numerous eyewitnesses who saw Him, talked with Him and ate with Him both before and after His death and resurrection. Our information for any historical event comes from either eye-witnesses of the event who recorded what they saw and experienced, or from secondary sources who had the information passed along to them by others and then recorded it for posterity. The reliability of the sources must them be evaluated to determine if the historical event really happened as stated.

The resurrection of Jesus is well-documented by the multitude of eyewitnesses who saw Him, talked with Him, and even ate with Him after His resurrection. The first person to whom He appeared after His resurrection was Mary Magdalene. He appeared to the Twelve on numerous occasions and to the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus. He also appeared to over five-hundred at one time, most of whom, according to Paul, were still alive at the time of his writing his 1^st letter to the Corinthians (I Cor. 15:6). The testimonies of these primary, first-hand witnesses are recorded in the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Not a Myth

Some, of course, refuse to accept the historical facts and claim that these stories are myths fabricated by followers of Jesus who wanted to deify Him. If this were the case, then those who created these myths were literary geniuses beyond anything we can imagine, for they created a person and a narrative that changed the course of human history and continues to move millions to forsake everything to follow this mythological figure they supposedly created.

This reminds me of C.S. Lewis, the agnostic professor of Renaissance Literature at Oxford University, who exposed the shallow claims concerning the mythological character of the New Testament. Lewis was an expert in mythological literature and he tells of his astonishment the first time he read the Gospels. His surprised response was, “This is not myth!” Lewis, of course, became a believer and an astute apologist for Christianity. It was at this time that higher criticism was being popularized in German seminaries and certain theologians, such as Rudolph Bultman, were claiming that the New Testament accounts of Jesus, His miracles and His resurrection were myths created by His followers. Lewis replied, “I would like to know how many myths these people have read!” Lewis went on to explain that he had been a long-time professor and critic of mythological literature and knew how a myth sounded and felt, “And the gospel story is not myth!”

Ours is Not a Blind Faith

Yes, the evidence is there for those who are willing lay aside their prejudices and open themselves to Truth. This evidence includes, not only the eyewitness accounts, but also consideration of questions such as how the earliest disciples of Jesus were suddenly transformed from cowering individuals to bold witnesses willing to lay down their lives for their testimony of Christ and His resurrection? And why didn’t the Jewish and Roman leaders in Jerusalem, who tried to suppress the new Jesus movement, produce His body, display it publicly and, thereby, put an end to the preaching about the resurrection of Jesus? Many skeptics have been convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by being willingly to lay aside their prejudices and honestly examine this sort of evidence.

A Harvard Law Professor is Convinced

Dr. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School. He authored the famous three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which is still considered one of the greatest single authorities on judicial legal procedure. Greenleaf, an agnostic, originally set out to disprove the Biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ, believing that a careful examination of the testimony of the Gospel writers would reveal the myths at the heart of Christianity. Instead, this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. As a result he became a believer and wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. Greenleaf concluded that, according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the best-supported event in all of ancient history.

A British Lawyer is Convinced

A brilliant young British lawyer, Frank Morrison, decided that he would write a book showing that, based on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Jesus Christ could not have risen from the dead. Unfamiliar with the earlier work of Greenleaf, Morrison’s plan was to examine and compare the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the same way he would examine and cross-examine the testimonies of witnesses in a court of law. He felt confident that by doing so he would be able to show that their testimonies could not be corroborated. His book was never written for in the process of examining the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and the questions raised by such an examination, he too became convinced that Jesus did, indeed, rise from the dead. Instead of a book disproving the resurrection he wrote a book entitled, Who Moved the Stone?, demonstrating, from a lawyer’s perspective, convincing proof that Jesus did rise from the dead.

The statement of Luke concerning Jesus was again confirmed. Luke, who is widely recognized as a careful and astute historian, stated in Acts 1:3, After His suffering, He presented Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs (NRSV).

Our Faith is Confirmed by the Holy Spirit

Our faith is not a blind faith--no leap in the dark. Ours is a faith that is based on solid historical evidence. Nonetheless, once we open ourselves to the Truth, the Holy Spirit does a work in our heart so that we now have, not only the outward historical evidence for the resurrection, but we now have the evidence in our heart wrought there by the Holy Spirit. And the evidence wrought in our heart transcends the outward historical evidence so that we shout and sing with joy:

He lives, He lives
Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me
Along life's narrow way.
He lives, He lives
Salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives
He lives within my heart.

A MISGUIDED SPIRITUALITY

Exploring the Roots of Medieval Mysticism

A false spirituality is invading the Church. I first became aware of the seriousness of this when Sue and I attended a week-long seminar on “Spiritual Renewal” a number of years ago. There was no discussion of what Jesus taught about prayer or about the New Testament teaching on a baptism in the Holy Spirit for witness and service. Instead, each person was given a sea shell and asked to look at the shell and meditate on the struggles the little animal must have gone through in escaping the shell. Included in the activities was two days at a retreat center where we were asked to take a vow of silence. We were also required to read a book that included writings of the mystics of the medieval church, including Julian of Norwich, John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and others. Indeed, the medieval mystics were held up as shining lights and models that we should follow in our spiritual journey.

I came away from that seminar, not renewed, but with a profound sense that this was a substitute for the real thing—a replacement for the spirituality of Jesus and the New Testament. Through further research I have come to realize that, although many of the mystics can be admired for their passion and devotion, they cannot be followed in their experiences and doctrines. Theirs was a misguided spirituality rooted in pagan thinking, and those who look to them as models for their own spirituality will also be misguided.

The Origins of Medieval Mysticism

Medieval mysticism arose in reaction to the lifeless, outward forms of the institutionalized medieval church. During the same period evangelical revival groups also emerged for similar reasons. But whereas revival groups, such as the Waldenses and Albigneses, gave their ultimate allegiance directly to Jesus and the Scriptures, the mystics tended to give their allegiance to the pope and the institutional church. This meant that they were more susceptible to non-Biblical approaches to spirituality and this resulted in their adoption of many beliefs and practices that were rooted in pagan mystical religions, particularly Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism arose in Egypt during the 3rd century through the Greek philosopher, Plotinus, who emphasized and expanded the teachings of Plato and turned Plato’s philosophical system into a mystical religion. Plato had taught that there is a supreme being from which all other beings derive their existence, and he also believed in the immortality of the human soul. Expanding on Plato’s teaching, Plotinus taught that this Supreme Being, whom he called “The One,” was absolutely “other than” this physical world and, therefore, could not be grasped or understood by human knowledge, reason, or speech.

From “The One” had emanated a series of descending entities resulting in a hierarchy of divine beings between “The One” and humanity. Plotinus believed that it was one of these lesser emanations that had created the physical world. The ultimate goal of the Neoplatonist was, through contemplation of “The One,” to ascend through this hierarchy of beings and be united with “The One.” Since “The One” existed beyond all human knowledge and rationale, “The One” could only be encountered in an irrational state of ecstasy (trance) achieved through mystical contemplation.

The noted historian, Dr. Justo Gonzalez, says,

"Neoplatonists believed that if they performed a certain series of progressive steps of contemplation, they would be able to leave behind all the cares and all concerns for physical realities. They thought they could contemplate eternal realities and eventually achieve 'ecstasy.'" Neoplatonists believed that at this point they would be in unity with “The One.”

Neoplatonism became very popular throughout the Greco-Roman world and, as might be expected, many Christians attempted to follow the Neoplatonic route of contemplation. In the 6th century, one of these Neoplatonic Christians wrote a treatise on mystical contemplation and at the top penned the words, “Dyonisius the Elder to His Fellow-Elder Timothy.” By this stroke of the pen this unknown individual, now believed to have been a Syrian monk, claimed his writings to be the work of one of Paul’s earliest disciples, Dyonisius of Athens (Acts 17:34), written to another early disciple, Timothy.

The forgery worked and the works of this individual, now known as “False Dyonisius,” were accepted as the works of one of Paul’s earliest disciples and, thereby, gained much acceptance and authority in the medieval church. So popular became his works that bishops regularly quoted from them and several of the foremost medieval theologians wrote commentaries on them. Thomas Aquinas cited him over 1700 times. It was not until the 16th century that the authenticity of these writings began to be questioned by the Reformers. Today, both Protestants and Catholics recognize these as later documents written by a “False Dyonisius.”

Nonetheless, during the Middle Ages Dyonisius became the primary source and guide for spirituality in the church. As a result, spiritual experiences and revelations through contemplation were exalted and valued while the Scriptures were often ignored and, at times, even banned by the institutional church. Exotic, non-Biblical miracles such as levitations, communion wafers bleeding, statues weeping, apparitions of the saints and the Virgin Mary, etc. were hailed as the great works of God.

Commenting on medieval mysticism and its neglect of Scripture, Hans Kung, the most widely read Catholic theologian in the world today, says,

"These new revelations not only overshadowed the Bible and the Gospel, but also Him whom the Gospel proclaims and to whom the Bible bears witness. It is striking how rarely Christ appeared in all these 'revelations,' 'apparitions,' and 'wonders.' Catholics who followed in the wake of every new 'revelation,' which often turned out to be fantasy or deceit, and indulged their desire for sensation by looking for the latest reports of miracles—and yet who had never once in their whole lives read the Scriptures from cover to cover."

During the Middle Ages Paul was read through the eyes of Dyonisius and turned into a mystic by the medieval church. Paul’s experience of being caught up to the third heaven, which he reluctantly shared in II Corinthians 12:1-6, was interpreted by the mystics as an experience initiated by Paul through mystic contemplation. In fact, as Gonzalez says, “Paul’s entire life was viewed as a process of mystical ascension, and his letters were considered to be guides in that process.”

Within this Neoplatonic, mystical mindset emerged the mystical movement of the medieval church of which the following traits were characteristic.

• A mystical union of the soul with God
• Special forms and techniques of prayer and meditation
• An ascetic withdrawal from the world
• An unhealthy preoccupation with suffering
• The rejection of rational thinking

Characteristic 1:
A Mystical Union of the Soul with God

Like the Neoplatonist, the goal of the Christian medieval mystic was a mystical union of the human soul with God in which the individual would “swim in the wild waves of the ocean of God’s being.” This mystical union could only be achieved in a state of quietness and contemplation, “the quiet dark in which all who love God lose themselves,” as one mystic put it.

Characteristic 2:
Special Forms of and Techniques of Prayer and Meditation

As aids in achieving the contemplative state and mystical union with God, various postures and techniques for prayer and meditation were employed. Some were quite remarkable. Gregory Palamas, a 13th Century monk, stressed quietness and stillness in the pursuit of this union with God. As an aid to concentration, he recommended that the chin rest on the chest, with the eyes fixed on the navel.

Characteristic 3:
A Withdrawal From the World

In its merger with Monasticism, mysticism took on an ascetic character in which withdrawal from the world was emphasized. The monastery and the convent thus became the ideal places where mysticism could be studied and applied. In the monastery, Luther diligently sought to find peace with God through ascetic and mystical practices but was frustrated in these attempts. After finding peace with God through the revelation of the gospel in the Scriptures, he wrote, “If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery, I would have gotten there.”

Characteristic 4:
An Unhealthy Preoccupation with Suffering

An unhealthy preoccupation with suffering characterized medieval mysticism. Some mystics, such as Julian of Norwich (1342-ca.1416), considered one of the greatest English mystics, prayed to be deathly sick, thinking that through such suffering she could better identify with Christ in His sufferings.

Not having an opportunity to suffer for Christ, as did the early Christian martyrs, many mystics pursued a self-inflicted martyrdom. For example, Henry Suso (d. 1366), a German Dominican mystic who gained fame for his sanctity and devotion, wore an undergarment studded with 150 sharp tacks that, he said, felt as if he were lying in a nest of wasps. He also made a wooden cross to which he affixed 30 spikes and on this he lay every night for eight years. To intensify his suffering, he affixed seven sharp needles to the cross, and for a long time, he daily inflicted himself with two penitential drills. In these exercises, he would tie the cross to his back and beat upon it with his fist until the spikes and needles penetrated the flesh and the blood flowed down to his feet.

This unhealthy preoccupation with suffering, and the belief that it produced a cleansing effect on the soul, gave rise to writings such as The Dark Night of the Soul by John of the Cross (1542–91), a Spanish mystic and close friend of Theresa of Ávila (1515-1584).

Characteristic 5:
The Rejection of Rational Thinking

Medieval mysticism also rejected reason and rational thinking, accessing these as hindrances to the soul achieving mystical unity with God. A work by “False Dyonisius” that gained much fame in the medieval church was a book called Mystic Theology in which he wrote,

"I counsel thee in the earnest exercise of mystic contemplation, that you leave the senses and activities of the intellect and all that the senses or intellect can perceive. Having laid your understanding to rest, strain as far as you can toward a union with Him whom neither being nor understanding can contain. So shall you be led upwards to the Ray of that divine Darkness which surpasses all existence."

The parallels with Neoplatonism, particularly in the rejection of reason and union with the Divine, are obvious. Gonzalez describes this work as, “An explanation of basically Neoplatonic mysticism in which the religious life consists in an ascending vision of God."

Mysticism Does Not Align with the Teachings
of Jesus or the New Testament.

Of course, neither Jesus nor Paul advocated the rejection of the intellect or rational thinking. In fact, Jesus said that we are to love God with all our . . . minds (Matthew 22:37). Paul’s mode of operation in fulfilling his call to the Gentiles involved the use of logical thinking as he reasoned daily in the synagogues and in the school of Tyrannus concerning the identity of Jesus (Acts 17:2-3; 19:9-10).

It is the carnal mind that is against God, not the mind per se. The answer is not to reject the mind and rational thinking, but to renew the mind in God’s Word as Paul admonishes in Romans 12:2. God’s Word and Spirit will often transcend human reason, but they will never violate it or seek to eliminate it.

Medieval mysticism is out of touch with Jesus and the New Testament in terms of prayer, as well. Jesus, for example, does not advocate any form of mystical prayer. He does not teach any postures or techniques for prayer and meditation. Neither is there any mention of silence or contemplation. Instead, He emphasizes a relational approach to God in which prayer is simple conversation with a loving, benevolent Being whom He calls Abba, an endearing term used only by children for the father in the Jewish household.

For Jesus, oneness with God is not a mystical union of one’s being with God, but a practical oneness of will and purpose. Not My will but Thine be done, Jesus prayed, showing that, in His incarnate state, union with God consisted of a submission of His will to the will of the Father.

Another point of divergence with Jesus and New Testament Christianity is that Jesus does not call His disciples to withdraw from the world into solitude and contemplation. Instead, He promises a baptism in the Holy Spirit that will empower His followers to prophetically engage the world as His witnesses.

Neither does Jesus teach progressive stages of cleansing through darkness and suffering, as did the mystics. Instead, He emphasizes the Word of God as an agent of cleansing or sanctification. For example, He says to His disciples, You are already clean through the word I have spoken to you (John 15:3). And He prays to the Father, Sanctify them by Your truth, Your word is truth (John 17:17). The New Testament writers echo this thinking as in Acts 20:32 where Paul says to the elders at Ephesus, So, now brethren I commend you to God and to the word of His grace which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Parallels with Eastern Mysticism

Some have also pointed out the similarities of medieval mysticism with religions of the East that also seek a mystical union of the human soul with the Divine through meditation and contemplation. This should not surprise us for there was much travel and trade between India and Egypt at the time Neoplatonism (and Monasticism) had their beginnings in Egypt. This is why Kung says,

"And yet we must realize that mysticism is not a specifically Christian phenomenon. Not only is mysticism older than Christianity; it also comes from far away. Mystical religion had already come into being at a very early stage – in the late Vedan period – in India."

Although many of the mystics can be admired for their passion and devotion, their approaches to spirituality must be read with discerning caution and carefully compared with Scripture. The Reformers and Revivalists of the 16th century did not consider the medieval mystics to be their predecessors but, rather, sought to model their faith and spirituality after Jesus and the New Testament. We would be wise to follow their example.

OLD TESTAMENT NAMES OF THE MESSIAH REVEAL WHO JESUS REALLY IS

It is Christmas again and the world is again being confronted with Jesus. Yes, I understand that the real Jesus is too often obscured by all the tinsel and commercialism of the season, and I am aware of the overt attempts to completely remove Him from Christmas. Nonetheless, instead of cursing the darkness let’s light a candle and ask God for creative ways to make known to this generation who Jesus really is.

One of the most clear and compelling statements of His identity was spoken 600 years before His birth by the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah did this by applying four compound names to the coming Messiah. The names are “Wonderful Counselor,” “Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father,” and “Prince of Peace.”

The Significance of Names

In the ancient near East, the name of a person was bound up with that person’s very existence. Parents chose names for their children that embodied their hopes for those children. A change of circumstances or a change of character often called for a new name to express the change that had taken place. In Gen. 17:4-5, for example, God changes the name of Abram (exalted father) to Abraham (father of a multitude) to reflect the change that has occurred in his faith and circumstances. In Gen. 32:28 God changes the name of Jacob (supplanter) to Israel (Prince of God) to reflect the change that has taken place in his life and character.

Isaiah 9:6 is a Messianic prophecy and Isaiah’s use of these four compound names make a powerful statement concerning the identity the Messiah. Inherent in these Old Testament names of the Messiah is the revelation of His deity. Understanding the significance of names, those first readers of Isaiah’s prophecy must have shaken their heads in wonder at the name of their coming Messiah.

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end (Isaiah 9:6-7a).

Wonderful Counselor

Although “Wonderful” and “Counselor” are often spoken separately, most Biblical scholars agree that the two words actually belong together to form one of the compound names of the Messiah. The word “Wonderful” is translated from the Hebrew word pelẽ and refers to that which is marvelous and breathtaking and causes astonishment in those who encounter it. The word “Counselor” is from the Hebrew word yaas, which means to advise or counsel in regards to plan and purpose. What an incredible name! And what an incredible blessing to have this One whose name is “Wonderful Counselor” as our personal counselor and guide.

Mighty God

“Mighty” is from the Hebrew word gibbor and refers to greatness, power and strength. It was often used as an adjective to describe successful, victorious warriors. It was also used as an adjective for Deity. “God” is a translation of the Hebrew word “El” which was a common generic word for God and literally means “great one” or “mighty one.” It was often joined with other words to form a compound name for God, such as El-Shaddai, commonly translated as “The Almighty,” and El-Elyon, commonly translated as “The Most High.” Wonder of wonders! This “Child” that is to be born is actually gibbor El, the “Mighty God.”

Everlasting Father

“Everlasting” is from the Hebrew word ad, which refers to time without end or eternity. In Isaiah 45:17 it is translated as “forever and ever.” “Father” is translated from the Hebrew word ab, which, in the Old Testament, referred to a father or protector. From ab came abba, the word Jesus commonly used in addressing God. Abba was a term of endearment, such as Papa or Daddy, and was only used by children in the Jewish household. What a clear picture of the Incarnation. This “Child” that is to be born will be none other than the eternal God, the “Everlasting Father.”

Prince of Peace

“Prince” is a translation of the Hebrew word sar, which refers to a person of authority such as a chief, captain, governor, or ruler. “Peace” is a translation of the Hebrew word shalom, which is usually translated as peace, but has connotations far beyond an inner sense of tranquility. It means completeness, fulfillment, wholeness, and indicates the complete mental, emotional, physical, spiritual and financial well being of a person. Jesus did not come to just take us to heaven some day. He came to bring us shalom, wholeness, blessing, and fulfillment. He has become the captain or master of our shalom. Hallelujah!

Conclusion

This messianic prophecy begins with the phrase, For unto us . . .. Isaiah is saying, “The Messiah is coming for us. God will do all this for us.” Isaiah’s prophecy has been fulfilled. God has come to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Thomas recognized this when he saw Him in His resurrected form and exclaimed, My Lord and My God (John 20:28). Jesus told Peter that He would build His church on the revelation of who He is (Matt. 16:15-18). Are you on that foundation? Do you know who Jesus really is? Wonder of wonders! The Babe of Christmas is the Almighty God and Everlasting Father.

WOMEN, AUTHORITY & PAUL

5 Reasons Those Who Would Limit the Participation of Women
in the Church Can No Longer Claim Paul as Their Authority

1 Timothy 2:11-12 is considered by many to be the Bible’s clearest statement against women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership in the Church. It reads, Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (NKJV). For many, this passage has become a canon within the canon and is used as the standard by which every other passage about women is measured. Passages that clearly recognize women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership are not given equal consideration but are subordinated to this passage and forced to fit within the narrow parameters of the interpreter’s take on this verse.

Typical of this approach is that of the popular Spirit Filled Life Bible (which otherwise has much that is commendable). In commenting on Rom. 16:7 where Paul recognizes a female apostle named Junia, the commentator argues that this could be a man named “Junias.” This very weak argument is made in spite of the overwhelming manuscript and historical evidence that this was a female apostle named Junia.

Why would this commentator argue for the possibility of this apostle being a man named “Junias” when every ancient Greek manuscript has the feminine form of Junia? The answer is found, perhaps, in the commentary section on 1 Tim. 2:11-12 where the commentator’s bias against a woman functioning as an apostle is obvious. He says, “The prohibition of vs. 12 refers to the authoritative office of apostolic teacher in the church.” No explanation is given for this conclusion, which is not surprising since there is nothing in the text to suggest that this is what Paul had in mind.

What does become clear is that, in the mind of this commentator, Junia, of Rom. 16:7 is probably not a woman because it would violate the standard of judgment he has chosen on this matter, which is his own interpretation of I Tim. 2:11-12. He thus subordinates the clear statement of Paul in Rom. 16:7 to his own unclear interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12. His interpretation of I Tim. 2:11-12, which does not allow women to function as apostles, thus serves as his canon within the canon and he subordinates all other passages on women to this. This is poor hermeneutics, but happens when we impose our own traditional prejudices and presuppositions on the text rather than allowing the text to speak to us and challenge our traditions.

On the surface and out of context, 1 Tim. 2:11-12 can appear to be a very clear statement against women functioning in leadership in the Church. But a different picture emerges when, instead of reading into the text our own prejudices, traditions and assumptions, we take into account five obvious facts about the letter and the passage in question. Taken together, these five exegetical considerations clearly demonstrate that Paul is not restricting women from any function of leadership in the Church. The five exegetical facts presented in this article are:

(1) 1 Timothy is a personal letter, written to an individual, not to a church, indicating that Paul is addressing personal issues related to Timothy and his unique situation rather than universal issues applicable to all churches everywhere.

(2) Chapter 1 and verse 3 indicates that Paul is addressing a particular problem that is plaguing the church in Ephesus and what he writes must be considered in the light of this real-life, local situation.

(3) The word translated “authority” in vs. 12 is not the normal word for authority and is found only here in the New Testament, indicating that Paul is not addressing the normal exercise of authority in all churches, but is addressing the unique problem plaguing the church in Ephesus at the time.

(4) When Paul comes to the passages in question he suddenly switches from addressing “women” (plural) in vss. 9-10 to addressing “a woman” (singular) in vss. 11-15, leading some commentators to conclude that he is addressing a particular problematic woman in Ephesus.

(5) Paul, in his other letters, recognizes women who functioned in various authoritative roles of leadership and these must be given equal weight when considering if the New Testament imposes limitations on the role of women in the Church.

Reason #1
I Timothy Is a Personal Letter

Paul wrote three personal letters as he was nearing the end of his life, two to Timothy who was in Ephesus, and one to Titus who was on the island of Crete. These letters contain instructions and requests, some of which are obviously related to the recipient of the letter and cannot be applied to all Christians. For example, in 2 Timothy 4:9-15, Paul exhorts Timothy to come quickly to him and bring a coat he left in Troas along with the books he left there.

In 1 Timothy 5:9-14 Paul exhorts Timothy that widows under sixty years of age should not receive support from the church and that younger women should marry. It is interesting to note that those who are so intent on literally applying 1 Timothy 2:11-12 do not have the same concern for 1 Timothy 5:9-14.

1Timothy was written to encourage and instruct Timothy in his very specific task of confronting false teaching in the church at Ephesus that was being spread by both men and women. Good hermeneutics demands that the historical context of this letter and its personal nature be taken into consideration when interpreting the passage at hand.

Reason #2
Paul is Addressing A Unique Local Situation in Ephesus

Verse 3 of chapter 1 reveals that 1 Timothy was written as a follow-up to encourage and instruct Timothy in his very specific assignment of confronting heretical teaching in the church in Ephesus. Paul had given this assignment to Timothy when they were together in that city and he found it necessary to move on. Paul now writes from Macedonia to encourage and instruct Timothy in the carrying out of this particular and difficult assignment.

Paul was not writing a manual of church order that he wanted implemented in all churches. He is addressing the unique issues related to Timothy and the church in Ephesus at the time. Timothy’s situation and the specific nature of Paul’s instructions must be brought to the task of interpretation.

Reason #3
A Strange Greek Word

That Paul is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus is further borne out by the fact that the word “authority” in 2:12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein, which is found only here in the entire New Testament. If Paul is here giving a universal edict for church order, why doesn’t he use the normal word for authority, exousia, which he and all other New Testament writers use?

Paul’s use of authentein, which meant “to dominate” or “gain the upper hand,” may indicate a feminist movement of sorts in the church in Ephesus, probably with roots in Artemis the mother goddess who claimed priority and originality in creation (remember the chant “great is Artemis of the Ephesians” in Acts 19:28!). Paul’s use of a word that is not found any place else in the New Testament confirms that he is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus for which authentein is the appropriate word. If he had been giving a universal rule for church order in this passage, he would have used exousia, the normal New Testament word for authority.

Reason #4
The Structure of Chapter 2 Indicates That Paul
May Have Been Referring to A Particular Woman in 2:11-12

In 2: 9-10, Paul refers to “women” in the plural; but when he comes to the restrictive admonition of vss. 11-12, he changes to the singular and refers to “a woman.” Afterwards, in vs. 15, he returns again to the plural. This may indicate that, in writing this passage, Paul had a particular woman in mind, one primarily responsible for spreading the false teaching in Ephesus.
In vs. 12, the ongoing present tense of the verb (permit) also indicates that Paul’s restriction is temporary and that he may have a particular woman in mind. It literally reads, I am not permitting a woman to teach . . ..

In 1:18-20, Paul reveals that he has turned two of the false teachers who are men, Hymenaeus and Alexander, over to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. In regards to this unnamed woman he wants her to be allowed to learn in silence (quietness, without turmoil) but not allowed to teach or to authentiein, i.e., dominate or gain the upper hand. This is a temporary solution to a very real problem in Ephesus.

Reason #5
Women Pastors/Leaders in the NT

There are numerous women leaders in the New Testament, some who obviously functioned in pastoral roles of oversight. Paul mentions 2 of these female pastors in Rom. 16 as well as a female apostle.

Phoebe, A Woman Minister & Pastor
In Romans 16:1 Paul commends to the church at Rome our sister Phoebe who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, and he exhorts the Roman believers to receive her with respect and to assist her in whatever business she has come to carry out in Rome. Paul refers to Phoebe as a “servant,” which is the Greek word diakonos. Diakonos, or its verb form, is translated “minister” in 23 other places in the New Testament. For example, in Eph. 3:7, Paul says that he became a minister (diakonos) according to the gift of the grace of God.

Phoebe, therefore, was a minister, probably a pastor, from the church in Cenchrea. This is borne out by vs. 2 where Paul refers to her as a helper of many and of myself also. The Greek word translated “helper” in this verse is prostatis and, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, means “one who presides” or “a woman who is set over others.” When this passage is examined apart from our traditions and prejudicial assumptions, the evidence is overwhelming that Phoebe functioned in a leadership role similar to what we would call pastoral ministry.

Priscilla, A Woman Pastor
In verses 3-5 of the same chapter, Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquila and the church that is in their house. Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned together in Scripture, which indicates that they worked and ministered together as a husband and wife team. This is confirmed by Acts 18:26 where both Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and both explained to him the way of God more accurately.

In presenting this couple, Paul always uses plural pronouns (they or them), but goes even further and reverses the culturally accepted manner of mentioning the husband first and, instead, mentions Priscilla first. He obviously wanted to make a point about her role and function in the relationship. Many commentators conclude that Priscilla is mentioned first because she was the spiritually gifted one and the leader of the church that met in their home. Again, the evidence is overwhelming that Priscilla functioned in a leadership role and was probably the pastor of the church that met in their house.

Junia, A Woman Apostle
In verse 7 of the same chapter, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a feminine name and so we have here a woman who is recognized by Paul as an apostle. The early church father, John Chrysostom, commenting on this verse, said, "Oh how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle."

Although some have tried to argue that the name should be “Junias,” which is male, every ancient Greek manuscript, without exception, has the feminine form of Junia. In addition, the name “Junias” is unknown in ancient history whereas the name Junia was quite common. In other words, “Junias” is a hypothetical name that has been created by translators who cannot accept the fact that Paul recognized a female apostle in the early Church.

When considering why some translations, such as the NIV, have used “Junias” in this passage, Dr. Dr. N. Clayton Croy, professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio, says, “It is hard to see any other reason other than the translators’ bias against the possibility that a woman could be an apostle.” Well-known New Testament scholar, James G. D. Dunn, says, “The assumption that the name must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity.”

Conclusion

In addition to the women above, there are numerous women mentioned by Paul who functioned in leadership roles and are referred to by him as “co-laborers.” These would include at least 3 women in Romans 16 and the 2 women of Phil. 4:3 whom Paul says “labored with” him in the gospel. The expression “labored with” is a translation of a rare Greek word sunethlesan, which describes athletes working as a team side-by-side and indicates that these women had worked closely with Paul in the ministry.

When all the evidence is examined it is obvious that Paul, in I Tim. 2:11-12, is not excluding women from teaching and leadership roles in the Church, nor is he limiting their roles and function in the Church. Those who would marginalize or limit the participation of women in the Church can no longer claim Paul as their authority.

A LITTLE LESS OF ME

Let me be a little kinder
Let me be a little blinder
To the faults of those around me
Let me praise a little more
Let me be when I am weary
Just a little bit more cherry
Think a little more of others
And a little less of me
(Recorded by Glen Campbell in 1965)

During the first year of our marriage Sue and I had a disagreement and neither of us was willing to yield any ground. Being young and naïve and having a traditional view of marriage, I went to prayer asking God to help her understand that she must submit to my God-ordained leadership. As I prayed in this manner, Paul’s exhortation for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church suddenly stood before me with the words and gave Himself for her highlighted in bold letters (Eph. 5:25). I then heard the Holy Spirit say, “The problem is that you are not willing to let go of yourself.”

Finding Life by Losing Our Life

When I heard this message from the Lord I knew that my “I” or ego was standing in the way of resolution and peace. There had to be a little less (probably a whole lot less) of me in that situation and in the relationship in general. As I obeyed the Lord and “let go of myself” in that situation, it proved to be a life-changing experience. I began to learn the truth of what Jesus said in Mk. 8:35, Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it (Mk. 8:35).

I was learning that “a little less of me” was to be, not a one-time thing, but a way of life. This did not mean that I was to be a doormat for other people, but that I could no longer live my life—my Christian life--from self-serving motives. I was learning what true Christianity is all about.

The Character of True Christianity

True Christianity is not about you or me, but about Christ, as Paul so succinctly delineates in Galatians 2:20 where he says, I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (NKJV).

Interestingly, the Greek word for “I” is ego. What Paul is saying here is that his “I” or ego has been crucified with Christ and the “I” or ego is no longer the center of his life. Christ is now at the center of his life. Christ has replaced the “I” or ego as his reason and purpose for living, and it is no longer about Paul; it is now all about Jesus. Even the phrase, I live by faith in the Son of God, expresses this reality for Paul. It is in the genitive case and literally reads, I live by the faith of the Son of God. For Paul, even faith is no longer centered in himself but in Christ, and he lives by the faith of the Son of God.

It seems obvious that the North American church has not learned to live and walk in Galatians 2:20. It is still about us—our faith, our testimony, our ministry, our miracle, our revival, our church, etc., etc. I am convinced that it is this “I” or ego centered approach to Christianity that is holding back genuine Spiritual awakening in our nation. The Spirit of God is grieved when it is about us, and only superficially about Him. This was made very real to me by an experience I had a number of years ago.

We Grieve the Holy Spirit When It’s About Us

I had just preached in the Sunday evening service of a NE Texas church and was on my way home to the DFW area. As I drove along the dark two-lane highway, I noticed that I felt troubled in my spirit. My mind questioned, “Why?” “I should be happy and joyful,” I thought. “It was a good meeting.” Indeed, people seemed to be stirred by the message and a number responded to the invitation and some were weeping. “So why is my spirit so unsettled,” I asked as I drove along in the night.

Suddenly I heard the Holy Spirit speak on the inside of me, “You talked too much about yourself tonight.” I knew immediately what He meant. My message that night had been made up of personal stories of God’s blessing in my life and of miracle answers to prayer I had seen. I had not preached the word. Although it had sounded spiritual and had stirred some people’s emotions, it was too much about me. I had grieved the Holy Spirit by talking too much about myself and not enough about Jesus and His word.

Less of Me • More of Jesus

This experience sensitized me to the importance of keeping the focus on Jesus and His word. It made me realize that we can talk about miracles and answers to prayer and yet grieve the Holy Spirit if the message or testimony is really centered in “me” and not in Him. I realized in a new and fresh way that there must be “less of me” and more of Jesus in every area of my life, as John the Baptist so aptly stated in John 3:30.

Sometime after baptizing Jesus in the Jordan, someone came to John and informed him that the crowds were now giving their attention to Jesus rather than to him. John replied, He must increase, but I must decrease. We too must decrease so that He can increase in all areas of our lives. It is not easy, but it is only as we let go of our “self” for His sake that we will find our true self in Him.

In the 13th century, Francis of Assisi must have been struggling with “a little less of me” when he wrote:
O Divine Master,
Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
(Prayer of Francis of Assisi)