I ran across an interesting blog last week called "The Junia Project." It is a blog that's main purpose seems to be promoting the egalitarian position when it comes the roles of men and women in the church. This is an interesting and important topic of discussion that is very prominent in our day and age. For what it's worth, there are primarily two stances when it comes to the roles of men and women in the churches, the egalitarian position and the complementarian position. The egalitarian position is summarized well on the About page of The Junia Project's website. I have reproduced it below:

The complementarian position (sometimes called the hierarchical position) essentially states that while men and women are both equal as to their essence and nature in the eyes of God, their roles and functions differ, especially in the area of church leadership. The primary difference usually lies in whether or not women are qualified to serve in pastoral positions in the church. Egalitarians say that it should be based upon the individual's giftings, while complementarians say that women are precluded from such positions from the outset.

This debate is extremely relevant to us today. I want to spend several posts looking into the stances and positions of each group, and examining the major biblical texts for each group. Today I want to focus on one simple verse.

As I was examining the articles and pages of "The Junia Project" I noticed that one of the tabs titled Who Was Junia? This caught my interest as I have never heard of Junia before.

This intrigued me, especially considering how much I enjoy the book of Romans. It seems to me that if there were indeed a woman apostle, that I would have remembered her, and that it would be a major point in favor of the egalitarian understanding of women's roles in the church. I quickly turned to Romans 16:7 and found the following:

Imagine my shock to find that the verse in question doesn't even call Junia an apostle. This must be a translational issue, I thought. Let's try the NIV instead:

You can see that the translation makes all of the difference. Are Junia and Andronicus to be included among the group labelled as "apostles?" or are they just well known to the  apostles? The answer is going to lie in a syntactical study of the underlying greek phrase. Again, the major issue is whether or not the pronoun referencing  Junia and Andronicus is to be included in the referent noun "apostles," that lies within the prepositional phrase.

At this point I will note one other argument that often comes up concerning this text. Some have argued that in the greek, the name Junia is masculine and should be rendered as a male's name. I don't find the underlying arguments at all compelling and agree that Junia here is female. As such, I will not deal with those issues here at this time.

On to the syntactical study of the greek phrase. Here is the phrase in greek:

Since I am assuming that the vast majority of my readership cannot read greek, I will explain real quickly what each of the words refers to. οἵτινές is the pronoun referring us back to Junia and Andronicus, translated as "they" in the ESV and NIV above. εἰσιν is the "to be" verb translated as "are" in both the ESV and NIV. ἐπίσημοι is the primary verb in question, translated as "well known to" and "outstanding among" in the translations above. Finally, ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις is the prepositional phrase "to the apostles" OR "among the apostles" above.

A simple word study cannot give us a definitive answer. Instead we must look at the relationship that the words and phrases have to one another. I began with a very open search looking for the same construction as used above anywhere I could find in the NT. I did not specify any verbs, but I did specify our preposition "ἐν." The results were dismal, not a good sign given the fact that my search was so open. I found only 2 other verses of interest, both written by John.

The results did indeed point to the fact that the pronoun in question is not always included in the referent prepositional phrase. In John 7, Jesus is the "Him" in question, while the crowds are distinguished from him. Jesus is not a member of the crowds in a grammatical sense here. Similarly in 1 John, Him (Christ) and "you" are distinguished from one another and not included.

However, these cases are not similar enough to our text in question. We need to expand our search to more literature so that we can narrow our criteria and get more similar results. There are primarily three things that our text has that we need to match:

1. The verb ἐπίσημος
2. The preposition ἐν
3. The noun being referred to in the prepositional phrase should be in the dative case

Fortunately I found a journal article that helped to broaden my search. They noted many important texts texts that share this construction. The pseudepigraphal writing "Psalms of Solomon" in chapter 2 and verse 6 for example reads as follows:

This text is pretty clear in its intended meaning: "they were a spectacle among the gentiles." The article notes:

The article goes on to note many more parallels in construction, several of which are in literature I am unfamiliar with, I just want to highlight a few more:

One more source of texts is cited by the article, which is extremely relevant to this discussion:

That said, please note the fairness of the authors as the note another text in this same group of hellenistic writings:

The evidence is extremely clear. When the three criteria that we noted above are taken into consideration, the group is nearly always excluded and distinguished from the noun in the preposition. Typically, when the author prefers to include the group within the noun, they use the genitive case rather than the dative case. While there are exceptions, they are indeed "rare."

Combining the force of the syntactical evidence with the support of other biblical data and New Testament passages (which we will deal with in time), I believe there is no reason to assume that Junia or Adronicus were apostles. The ESV translation at this point is best. Now I realize that what we have discussed is not really "fun." I realize that having to go into this kind of depth in a study may seem ridiculous to some. I also realize that our conclusions are not popular or even progressive. However, even if you disagree, please note that our method of argumentation has sought to understand and take the text as it presents itself. This is not "my scholars vs your scholars" type of appeals to authority. That is how secularists and humanists argue. Arguments that seek to cloud the air with dust and mist are typical of those who are large on rhetoric and small on reasoned logic. Such arguments are NOT becoming of Christians.

One thing that I love about submitting to God's Word in every area of life is that I don't have to fear seeking out the truth. So many people do, even if they are not explicit about it. They have a gut reaction or impulse to some sort of stance or perspective, and do not want to seek out the facts on the subject for fear that they would be forced to alter their stance. People that hold to things that are actually true do this as well, but it is such a shame because they are not able to furnish good reasons for what they believe. I do not have to come to the Bible with a particular agenda (as the liberal theologians do I might add). Rather, I can approach God's Word as a humble and obedient servant and ask God to point me in the direction that he says, whether that accords with what I want or not. Such is the picture of the true heart of Christian faith.

We should not take this text as some indication that even in the early church there were women apostles in the authoritative and pastoral sense. One may seek to argue that point, but arguing it from Rom 16:7 is wrong. That said, we do clearly see here that women are included and respected by Paul in the labors of ministry and the advancement of God's Kingdom on earth. Praise God that he has called men and women both to his Son, and given clear instructions and guidance in how we are to serve Him!

-tanner

1 The Junia Project. "About the Junia Project." juniaproject.com.http://juniaproject.com/about-2/ (accessed September 6, 2014).
2 Ibid, http://juniaproject.com/who-was-junia/.
3 Ken Penner and Michael S. Heiser, “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology” (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008), Ps Sol 2:6.
4 Burer, Michael H. and Wallace, Daniel B. "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Romans 16:7" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 7.
5 Ibid, 8.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.

The five solas of the protestant reformation form a unified basis for a consistently Christian worldview. They act as a sort of cohesive set of first principles that ground our faith on solid bedrock. However, there is one sola that throws radiant light upon all of the others: Soli Deo Gloria.

To bring anyone up to speed who may be rusty on their Protestant history, there are five solas that marked the Reformation. They are:

Sola Scripture - Scripture Alone
Solus Christus - Christ Alone
Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
Sola Fide - Faith Alone
Soli Deo Gloria - Glory of God Alone

Together they form a common confession: We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone according to the Scriptures alone, to the glory of God alone.

All 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation are intertwined. None of these doctrines stands alone as though it were in a vacuum. Each Sola both relies upon and informs the other 4 in order to establish a strong matrix of truth. Soli Deo Gloria in particular speaks to the big picture of all the other Solas, tying them together and answering the big “why?” questions of our lives.

Soli Deo Gloria and Sola Scriptura combined speak to why we believe what we do, or our epistemology. Soli Deo Gloria relies on Sola Scriptura for the authority of the doctrine itself. Indeed if it were not for Sola Scriptura, we would not know that all things were Soli Deo Gloria. It is from the Bible that this truth is explicitly revealed to us. Soli Deo Gloria informs Sola Scriptura by establishing the reason for which the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith and practice. If all things are for God’s glory, then we ought to honor and observe every Word that he speaks to us. In contrast, we ought not to ascribe that same honor and that same authority to those commands which do not proceed forth to us from God himself; thus establishing our principle of nothing more and nothing less than God’s Word.

Soli Deo Gloria and Solus Christus combined speak to why we are saved, or our soteriology. Soli Deo Gloria relies upon Solus Christus to establish the fact that Christ alone functions as our savior and that his sacrifice need not be supplemented. If there were another savior or the savior’s sacrifice needed supplements to be effectual, then those additions ought to be rendered some glory for their part in the process. This relationship also heavily implies the deity of Christ, as it can be deduced that the savior himself ought to be given glory for his sacrifice. Soli Deo Gloria informs Solus Christus by establishing the ultimate end for the atonement itself. God ordains and accomplishes the atonement primarily to manifest his glory. In the work of the cross God is glorified by maintaining his perfect justice while simultaneously being merciful to sinners. This is in addition to the glory God receives for formulating the plan of salvation and then realizing that plan by taking his wrath upon himself.

Soli Deo Gloria and Sola Gratia combined speak to the positive aspect of our salvation, or why salvation is all of God. Soli Deo Gloria relies upon Sola Gratia to establish the grounds upon which we are saved. Specifically, salvation is grounded entirely in God’s unrestricted favor. God receives all the glory in the act of salvation because it is his free gift. If salvation were in some sense necessitated God would not receive glory for being gracious, as the atonement would simply be what ought to have been done. Instead Sola Gratia calls for ascribing glory to God in a supreme way as He has gone above and beyond the “call of duty.” Soli Deo Gloria informs Sola Gratia by giving the reason that salvation is a free gift. God specifically structured salvation so that it was all of him to the end that he would receive all the glory for its accomplishment.

Soli Deo Gloria and Sola Fide combined speak to the negative aspect of our salvation, or why salvation is none of man. Soli Deo Gloria relies upon Sola Fide to assert man’s utter lack of contribution to his own salvation. Salvation is all of faith and none of works. Further, Sola Fide offers the reason for which this can indeed be the case, in particular an alien righteousness. If righteousness is not our own, and acquiring salvation is done through the empty hand of faith, then man has nothing to offer. Soli Deo Gloria informs Sola Fide by again reasoning why God has made this to be the case. Man has been particularly excluded from contribution in order that God might receive all the glory. If man had some contribution then he would have some grounds to boast in, and therefore a reason to receive some glory. Sola Fide strips man of all grounds of boasting and consequently all basis to glory in himself.

While there is certainly some unique truth in each of the Solas, they enjoy substantial overlap. This overlap is what makes them a strong and unified system of truth. Instead of loose and fragmented doctrines, we have in the Solas a central idea and motive. Soli Deo Gloria gives the other Solas purpose and direction so that indeed all things may be to the glory of God.

-tanner

There are several texts in the Bible that speak out against homosexuality. It is a sad day that we live in when these texts are dismissed as irrelevant or not socially forward enough to be useful any longer. Additionally, many professing believers who have capitulated to the modern position on this subject have sought ways to reinterpret and rethink how we should go about viewing these texts. It is my assertion that these teachers have ulterior motives for their interpretation and do not handle the Word of God correctly. In light of that, I would like to spend several posts exegetically dealing with each relevant text so that we get a better understanding of how the texts should be understood.

A couple of caveats again, as I state always before we deal with this subject. The church has traditionally been woefully inadequate in their treatment of this topic in terms of providing meaningful help and guidance. It is my belief that many Christians who want to honor God with their lives have previously been made to feel weird or awkward about dealing with this issue and as such have received little to no help. We are quite late as the body of Christ addressing this topic as it should be addressed, with love and compassion. Secondly, if I interpret the Bible correctly, homosexuality is a sin; but not any more or any worse of a sin than many others. Heterosexual adultery and fornication are just as much major issues, and yet some have gone out of their ways to rail against homosexuality to the exclusion of all other sins. Again, this is irresponsible and as well as inconsistent with the biblical data. Additionally, it does damage to the lives of others. Thirdly, I don't particularly enjoy addressing this topic. I wish we didn't have to fight about these issues or spend so much time discussing them. I would prefer to speak of other things, "about our common salvation," however this is certainly the defining issue of our age, and we would be lax in our duties if we did not deal with it fairly and appropriately. Finally, as I hope to keep driving at with these posts, where you land on this topic is ultimately going to be determined by how highly you value Scripture, and if you are determined to interpret it correctly, as God has given it.

Scripture has been used in illegitimate ways all throughout history, and our day is no different. If you approach the Bible with a preconceived notion or idea about what it says or ought to say, you can mostly find support for your position. Additionally, if you deal with texts in isolation from one another and seek to reinterpret them according to your perspective, you can mostly make the text say whatever you want it to. The Scriptures ought to be taken as a collective whole and additionally ought to be taken on their own terms. One who genuinely comes to the Scriptures with a submissive heart that desires to know what God has to say on any given topic and conform their lives to that truth will find the Bible to be a treasure trove of divine wisdom. However, those who seek simply to reaffirm their preconceived stance will shape the Bible as a wax nose to support whatever position they see fit.

In light of these facts, faithful Bible interpretation is roughly a two step process. First, we attempt to discover what the author intended to communicate to his audience in their original context. Secondly, we seek to pull the principle out of that teaching and apply it in whatever way is most faithful to out current situation. This fact is important. It is the principle that we are after for our own lives. However, we can only get at that principle by going through the texts themselves. Sometimes the principle that is applied to our current situation is very near to the original audience's principle. Sometimes however, that principle is vastly different. It all depends upon the purpose and original context and its relationship to our context today. Please realize that this hermeneutic principle approaches the text on its own terms. It allows the text to say whatever it wants to say first, and then seeks to understand how that may apply to our lives. This is not some idea that we have cooked up in order to try and get around or pick and choose our way through Scripture. This is how any and every book should be read. We should always strive to discover the author's original intent and meaning.

Given all of this background, I want to deal with two of the most clear biblical texts on the topic of homosexuality, Lev 18:22 and 20:13:

These texts seems pretty straightforward at first blush, and they really are when we boil it down. However, we want to make sure we deal with them faithfully so I want to take the time to address them. Because the texts are so clear, do we ever see people objecting to these text directly? No. People typically deal with many of the New Testament texts in a direct manner. They claim that we aren't sure what a certain word means, or that it isn't clear that the homosexuality in the New Testament context is at all similar to the homosexuality in our day. We will deal with these issues in time. However, these texts in Leviticus are so clear that they hardly ever receive attacks like that. Instead the way that these texts are often attacked is by attacking the entire book of Leviticus. The response you will hear 9 times out of 10 is roughly as follows: "Oh yea, why are you wearing a shirt made out of two different fibers, or shaving your beard? You can't just pick and choose which Old Testament laws you want to keep, you have to be consistent!" You may have heard of a letter to Dr. Laura on this topic. It has been out for some time and it is very well written. I had to read it in one of my Core Humanities classes in college:

I believe that an episode of the West Wing also used nearly this exact form of argumentation. What is the heart of this argument? Again, it's to attack the entire book of Leviticus. This argument is really just an attempt to capitalize on the fact that most Christians don't understand well enough how their Old Testament Bible and laws fit into the New Testament gospel perspective. I hope to address that very issue.

The book of Leviticus is full of laws. This section of Scripture is often called the "Holiness Code," as it deals primarily with how Israel is supposed to remain pure before a holy God. Remember that the proper way to interpret any biblical text is by pulling out the meaning that was intended to the original audience, seeing the principle at work underneath all of it, and then applying that principle to modern times. To understand how to do that correctly requires a broader understanding of the biblical themes of who God's people are and how they are to live before him.

This topic has many more intricacies and complexities than we have time to deal with here. However I will give some general principles to set you on the right path of understanding. We ought not to be afraid of the book of Leviticus. It has much that is relevant for us today. However, we need to know how to deal with it correctly. In general realize this: the New Testament Church is the spiritual manifestation of Old Testament Israel. This isn't replacement theology, this is theology consistent with Paul's argumentation in Romans that says Israel is not primarily physical, but faith based, and that Gentiles are now grafted into the tree of Israel. What this means is that laws that are to be kept in a physical manner in the Old Testament often have a spiritual application in the New Testament. Every law that required someone to be stoned in the Old Testament, generally would require excommunication from the church in the New Testament for example. This understanding presupposes that said behavior is sinful in both testaments. So Old Testament laws all still apply, just many of them apply in new ways.

How do we distinguish how each of the laws apply to us? This is the heart of the Christian's faithful study of the book of Leviticus. However, a simple distinction makes the entire task much easier. Generally there are three types of laws in Leviticus.

First, there are general moral laws that Israel is supposed to keep. These laws have the most direct application to God's people because these are the standards God generally requires his people to conduct themselves by. The principle behind moral laws is generally the law itself. Interestingly enough, there is some biblical evidence that God also requires Gentile nations to keep these as well, and punishes them when they do not. They have consciences that reveal these standards to them. The Ten Commandments are pretty typical examples of laws that fall into this category.

Additionally, there are civil laws. Remember that Israel was a nation of people and they had a governmental system that God established for them. These laws are to be kept by Israel in their time as part of their civil society. It is important to recognize that these laws are given in the context of how people in a theocratic society are to conduct themselves. They are primarily meant to communicate how judges should view case laws. Sometimes these laws make sense for us today, but more often than not they simply give good principles and insight into what is just and fair. Various laws regarding property and ox goring fall into this category. While the principle applies, often the exact law is irrelevant to us. We don't eat and socialize on our rooftops any longer, so we aren't required to place handrails on it to prevent someone from falling off. However we do have pools at our homes, and it would be quite negligent if a family did not install fencing to keep young children from falling in. This is a perfectly consistent application of Deuteronomy 22:8, and it faithfully deals with the text's principle.

Finally, there are ceremonial laws. Many of these laws have to do with things that are made ceremonially clean or unclean based upon violating these laws. Quite a few if not all of these laws have been explicitly repealed, as Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the entire Old Testament ceremonial system. Laws in this category include just about everything relating to Levites, weird prohibitions involving blood, etc. It is not that the law is no longer helpful or applicable. It is simply that they were shadows of a greater fulfillment that was to come. That fulfillment has come in Jesus Christ. Every time we read one of these laws it points us to Jesus, and it was supposed to point the original audience to Jesus as well.

While these breakdowns are not explicitly spelled out in the Old Testament. They are honest attempts to deal faithfully with the biblical data. Further, it makes sense that all of these texts would still apply to us in some sense. It is all God's Word after all. This proper method of interpreting said laws allows us to be faithful to the biblical mandates while at the same time recognizing that we live in a different period of biblical redemption. Ceremonial laws no longer apply directly, but every time we read of a scapegoat, sacrifice, or atonement we think of Jesus, just as the law was originally intended. Civil laws no longer apply directly because we are not theocratic Israel, but the principles of equity and justice still apply and these requirements give us an idea of what that looks like. Moral laws still apply mostly directly because God's standards of living for his people are the same forever.

Please recognize that this method of interpretation is not some theological trickery to allow us to pick and choose what laws we would like to keep and which ones we wouldn't. Rather it seeks to interpret each law as it was originally intended and apply consistently those laws to a New Testament framework. This is standard hermeneutics, and if churches would start teaching people how to read their Bibles again then maybe we wouldn't have so many Christians shocked when they hear about these things. Maybe we wouldn't have so many professing believers abandon the faith when they get pressed because nobody ever taught them how to consistently understand all of God's Word.

Which category then does Lev 18:22 and 20:13 fall under? It is quite clearly a moral law. It certainly isn't simply ceremonial, it applies to more than just the priesthood, and is broader for the nation of Israel than just when they are presenting sacrifices. Additionally, it is a capital offense, which is typically more consistent with moral offenses (they also mirror behavior that is unacceptable for NT believers as well under the judgment of NT church discipline up to and including excommunication). The law is likely not civil either. The primary argument for this lies in the fact that gentile Sodom and Gomorra was destroyed for this crime, a group of people clearly outside of the civil realm and authority of theocratic Israel (a community that didn't even exist yet). As such this is a moral command that is still binding upon God's people (and unbelievers as well) today. God clearly identifies homosexuality as a sin with the punishment that those who unrepentantly pursue such behavior will be cut off from their people.

Let us not fall victim to the tactics of the secular humanists. An honest and straightforward reading and understanding of the text reveals that God's moral command against homosexuality is binding for all people everywhere. Where does our ultimate authority lie? Will it be with God and his Word? Or will it be with secular man and what he deems is appropriate behavior? Ultimately, your stance will either be with God and his Word or with man and his opinions, regardless if you try to apply a religious veneer to it after the fact. I hope and pray that we will not feel that we must succumb to the pressure of the unbelieving majority. May God's people stand firmly upon his truth even though the whole world may assail them.

-tanner

The issue of evolution is one that is fraught with worldview controlling presuppositions and notions. Attempts have been made to meld an evolutionary scheme with the biblical account of creation, all with great degrees of difficulty. Concessions are made on either side in order to make the two systems of thought fit together. Ultimately the argument boils down to whether one's ultimate and controlling standard will be scientific academia, or the Bible.

First of all, the genre of Genesis must be noted. It is critical to realize that historical narrative is the dominant genre of the Old Testament. This is no different in the book of Genesis, nor in the creation account in particular. While symbolic language is not outside of the realm of historical narrative, it must be recognized that the author of Genesis intends to communicate historically factual information. With that in mind, consider what a straightforward reading of Genesis 1 and 2 would produce. Would the idea that Adam and Eve are simply a select couple of hominids out of many even be among the options that one might consider reading Genesis 1-3 on its own merits? Unless one brought with them to the text the preconceived idea that Adam and Eve were not the sole human beings at the time, one would never conclude this. Now this isn't to say that it is therefore invalid and false, but rather to point out clearly where one's presuppositions lie. Someone who asserts that Adam and Eve are two among many hominids at the time have smuggled their personal bias into the Genesis account of creation. They are determined that the scientific consensus is correct and that therefore the Bible cannot mean what it seems to indicate. Their ultimate and controlling standard is scientific academia.

In addition, consider the vast theological implications of such a perspective. The biblical doctrines of original guilt and justification by faith hinge on the concept of imputation. Specifically, Adam is our covenant head and from him we inherit real guilt. Likewise, Christ is the new Adam and covenant head of all in him and therefore everyone in Christ inherits real righteousness. Our very salvation is tied to Adam as the forerunner and head of all of mankind. If he is simply one of many hominids at the time, how can he legitimately be the representative of all of mankind? In addition, are other hominids made in the image of God, or only Adam's descendents? These questions must be answered if one seeks to maintain a Christian theology while adhering to evolution.

Also a concern theologically is death before the fall. The biblical account insists that death is a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. The fall fundamentally changed the course of history and creation forever. However from the evolutionary worldview death is important mechanism of the machinery that propels life forms forward. If Adam and Eve were only two among many hominids on earth, then natural selection operated using death as an integral aspect long before Adam sinned. Is death an enemy that is finally to be defeated? Was this prehistoric world "very good" in the eyes of God? Again these issues must be dealt with if one decides to maintain both a Christian worldview and evolution simultaneously.

The fundamental issue is the melding of two contrary perspectives on all of life. Evolution and Christianity can no more co-mingle than can oil and water. Make sure that if you want to hold to the Christian perspective, that the authority of Scripture comes before the passing whims and theories of man.

I think that by and large Christians fear looking "unintelligent" to the scientific community. They want to be taken seriously and their ideas to be legitimately considered by all people, academics included. Denying something that is so fundamentally established by the "intellectuals" is perceived as a "Sunday-school" sort of faith where one has to check there brain at the door, OR be simply uneducated to begin with.

I think often times the intentions and motives are good. Christians don't want to place unnecessary stumbling blocks to people coming to Christ. They feel that this issue is outside the realm of "salvation" and therefore a side debate that should not be a hindrance. However, when one comes to Christ unbelievers must surrender all of who they are, intellect included. This not to say Christianity is unintelligent, rather the point is that submitting to Christ as Lord gives him authority in every realm, even my intellect. What you win them with is what you win them to (James White uses this quote a lot). I feel that giving people a pass at this point is a concession too far.

-tanner

The law has several uses and functions throughout the entirety of Scripture. Many of the misunderstandings regarding the law by various groups have come about due to focusing too much on one use of the law to the exclusion of other uses. Traditionally, three primary uses of the law have been identified. The law has: a civil use, is a mirror, and is a guide.  It is far more helpful to see various uses of the law from a perspectival approach, emphasizing different aspects rather than competing with one another. In analyzing the sixth commandment for example, we can expand our understanding of the regulation by approaching it from the traditional three perspectives.

The first use to discuss is the civil use. The civil use of the law is primarily focused upon how the law restrains evil in sinners within society. It is this use of the law that the apostle Paul discusses in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 when he says that the law is laid down for the "lawless and disobedient." This function of the law is to establish order and regulation in society so that people will not act simply as they see fit, but actually have consequences for their actions. In regards to the sixth commandment, this use of the law establishes a paradigm for structure in society. Murdering is unacceptable and should not be tolerated among any societies. Furthermore, this is the case not because of some general consensus or majority vote, but due to divine fiat. The creator of all things has declared that man shall not murder one another. This command establishes a basis for government's to "bear the sword" or punish those who would violate their creator's command. While capital punishment for such a crime is not proven per se, punishment of some type is hinted at and expected if such a law is to be enforced consistently.

The second use of the law is as a mirror. In particular this use of the law focuses on convincing us individually of our sin. Paul hints at this use when he describes the law as our "schoolmaster" in the book of Galatians. Here the law is read by an individual and they begin to realize that something they have done is wrong by the standards of God. This use is associated closely with the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. Using the law as a mirror, God makes us to see ourselves in our true light: as sinners. In regards to the sixth commandment, this use convicts people who have murdered of their sin, ideally with the end of bringing them to Christ as their only hope before their God. In the sermon on the mount Jesus makes this use even more powerful, as he proclaims that everyone who hates is brother is a murderer as well. Jesus gets to the heart of the matter showing that even committing the act is unnecessary, it is the thoughts and intentions of our hearts that make us filthy sinners before a Holy God.

The third use of the law is as a guide. This use of the law is especially relevant to believers. The law as a guide establishes the parameters of how God would like his people to live. In a sense this is God's revealed will to us, and we are expected to conduct ourselves in such a way that he would be pleased. For the sixth commandment, this makes it clear that God does not want his people to be characterized by murder. Far from having the prerogative to live however they like because they are "under grace;" God's people are expected to know his desires for their conduct and live accordingly. Murder itself can be a sticky subject in terms of how it is to be defined. It seems that manslaughter, killing in war, and murder are differentiated in the OT itself. However after careful study of God's Word, whatever murder is defined as, God's people should not be engaged is such practices.

The commandments and laws of the OT are just as relevant for God's people today as they were during the time of Moses. The question is not whether they are relevant, but rather how they are relevant. A careful consideration of the three uses of the law can keep us on track and stop us from heading too far into the directions of legalism or licentiousness.

We are more affected by our society and culture than we know. In many ways, we have been bombarded with false ideas and incorrect assumptions that color how we view the world around us. When those assumptions and ideas are not checked against the Word of God, they can be adopted into our worldview web even though they run counter to scriptural affirmation. One such false idea is that of self-esteem.

A quick google search of the term self-esteem yielded no less than 4-5 websites dedicated to recognizing the importance of self-esteem, on the first page. They tell you what self-esteem is, what it means for you, and how to improve it. They have tests and quizzes you can take so that you can identify if you need help. In short, this topic is very important to a lot of people, and they feel it needs to be addressed.

A word about how NOT to address this topic. I am going to say little in this post that is original (that could really be said for all of my posts). I'm sure you have heard people discuss the topic of self-esteem before. Likely you have even heard those that explained the fact that they were against self-esteem as well. Perhaps you even know people that rant and rave against this idea. I would like to suggest that those who do so are going about addressing this topic the wrong way. All ranting and raving gets you is a bunch of people in your corner who already believed the same way you do, and everyone who doesn't agree with you writes you off and they won't hear another word you say. I am likely going to arrive at the same conclusion as these people, but I hope to use means that will resonate with people, even those that may disagree.

Self-esteem is essentially tied to how we perceive ourselves. As such, it is linked fundamentally with the idea of identity. Who are you?

The goal of self-esteem is admirable, let me describe what I believe is happening from a spiritual perspective. Self-esteem comes primarily from the movement and perspective of secular humanists. Their answer to the fundamental question of identity is grim indeed. Secular science asserts that there is no creator and we arrived here through entirely natural causes over long periods of time. Consequently, everything you are can be reduced to physical processes acting on physical matter. Immaterial things such as souls, beauty, and love do not exist, or can be explained by entirely naturalistic phenomena. Now all of these concepts and ideas may not be fully formulated or discussed by the secularist. They may not even affirm all of these either. However, this is the consistent worldview web that is produced from their affirmed ultimate authority, and anywhere they do not affirm these things they are (praise God) being inconsistent.

So what is your identity if these beliefs are affirmed? Your identity is essentially worthless. Not only are you a mere animal, the fact that you are derived from non-living matter at your core makes you less than an animal. Human beings have no value or transcendent meaning, and survival of the fittest reigns supreme. What is the difference between a ball bouncing off of a wall and a bullet colliding with somebody's brain? Nothing. They are simply atoms banging into each other. The bullet does not take a life, because life itself is simply natural processes in the body and brain, the fact that they are ended is irrelevant.

The movement of self-esteem is a radical reaction against the conclusions outlined in the paragraph above. Because we are made in the image of God, all human beings react violently against the idea that we are simply natural processes. We KNOW we are more than that and as such refuse to accept the conclusions of the naturalistic worldview. However, secular humanism refuses to abandon the presuppositions that lead to the conclusions they hate. Instead, they seek to (inconsistently) establish a different foundation for humanity's worth. Unfortunately since they have already abandoned God, everything they propose is ultimately insufficient.

Self-esteem manifests itself in and abundance of ways. Positive thinking and appealing to the universe abound. Motivational speakers and media seek to appeal to your inner nature, but lack the truth content for a sustainable perspective. The emotion and feelings wane and there is no truth to keep you driven. Ultimately self-esteem is vapid and empty. This is because it advocates a pull yourself up by your own bootstraps type of mentality. If YOU think positively, if YOU say to yourself, if YOU take charge. This boils down to the basic works-righteousness mentality that nearly all false religions fall into, and it is profoundly unbiblical.

What is the alternative? The alternative drives at the root of what self-esteem is and is trying to cure. As I asked earlier, who are you?

You are a human being created in the image of God. The image of God in every single human being is what gives us our value and worth. Ironically, promoting your true identity is then done in the very opposite manner than the world pursues it.

Rather than trying to build and lift you up with positive words and affirmations, the Bible does everything in its power to tear you down. This is because your value and worth has nothing to do with you and everything to do with who made you.

Read the first 3 chapters of Romans sometime and tell me that your worth is found in yourself. It's not there, it's not anywhere in the Bible. Using various means and methods in our life, God often brings us to rock bottom. Why would a loving God do that?

The more you are trusting in yourself and your own strength and your own worth to give yourself meaning, the further you are from your true identity. God brings us down so that he can build us up on a proper foundation. From the depths of the pit look at yourself and your life and see how much you are worth. All you bring is your sin. Nothing but iniquity and transgression. Any yet. AND YET. Look now to that cross.

God sends his only Son, the one in eternal fellowship and communion with himself, the one who created all things, the one who is eternal God and sustains all things by the power of his word, to die for . . . you. Why? You certainly weren't worth it. It isn't because of you, it's because of HIM. God values you because God values you; and if God values you, then nothing else really matters. It's the very fact that I am so LOW that I am so HIGH. The fact that I am a wretch and "worm and not a man" when I stand before my God is the very reason that I am an heir to the throne and a brother of the King. The way up is down.

He must increase, but I must decrease. - John 3:30

-tanner

The doctrine of General Revelation is one of the most important to understand correctly in our day. A particularly insightful passage regarding this topic is Romans 1:18-32. Paul makes many things about general revelation explicitly clear which deserve our attention; particularly the fact that God exists, that we are accountable to him, and that he will judge us for disobeying him – both in this life and the next.

                The first thing that general revelation teaches us is that God exists. Although this fact is something that the atheistic camp may not want to hear, Paul makes this very clear in our text. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God . . .” Note first of all the strength of Paul’s language. All people know God. It is not simply that they know of him in some sort of hearsay fashion. They haven’t simply heard about God from others. No, every human being, even unbelievers, know God himself. This is not to say they all know him in an intimate or salvific fashion. Rather, this sort of knowing is exactly what Calvin speaks of when he discusses the fact that knowledge of God and knowledge of self are inextricably intertwined. Paul makes it clear that this knowledge of God is grounded in general revelation; that is when we are confronted with ourselves and the created world around us we are immediately struck by knowledge of God. Note also, that this knowledge is not a general idea or vague understanding of a god. Paul states that God’s particular attributes are known through this general revelation. The god who is revealed in this fashion is particularly THE biblical God, not just a general deity out there somewhere in the universe.

                Secondly, general revelation tells people that they are accountable to the biblical God. Paul makes several allusions to this concept in our text, but he cannot be more clear than verse 32: “Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” Paul’s indication is not only that all people know God through general revelation, but that we are aware that we are accountable to him and know his commands. How can we know what God requires of us? While Paul will expand on this concept later, it is primarily through the conscience that God communicates his righteous requirements to us.  Paul will later state that our conscience either accuses or excuses us based upon what we do. This internal “moral monitor” is placed in us by God and indicates to us his righteous demands upon our lives. Although people often try to suppress this knowledge and argue their way out of these truths, they are never successful in fooling themselves. Everyone knows that they are accountable to God and one day stand before him, whether they want to admit it or not.

                Finally, as indicated in verse 32 we are aware that God will judge us for disobeying him. Paul states: “that those who practice such things deserve to die.” The knowledge of God’s judgment over our actions is placed in the center of all human beings. The fact that man’s inherent religiousness so often manifests itself in works-based worldviews abundantly demonstrates this fact. How many religions have been created that emphasize so strongly living a moral life before God so as to earn his favor? It seems that all men everywhere, even those who have not had the light of God’s special revelation, know that God has “appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness.” However, this knowledge of God’s judgment always meets with works righteousness or suppression in man’s natural state. While the creation and conscience bear witness to these things, man’s continuing efforts are exhausted in trying to either appease these standards that are too high, or suppress any knowledge of God from memory. Ultimately the sinful soul does not want to be accountable to anyone but themselves. It has been the same sin of human autonomy that has plagued man since the garden. We may have gotten more complex in “hiding our nakedness,” but ultimately all men know deep down that they will be judged by the God of Scripture.

                While general revelation can tell us much about God, man fights against it until the bitter end. Unless the Spirit of God moves sovereignly on a sinner’s life, they will in no wise submit to their Creator. Thankfully God has given us even more than general revelation, in the special revelation of his Word, that ultimately “takes on flesh and dwells among us.”

-tanner

God’s attribute of blessedness is one of his least discussed attributes in churches today. Many in the vaguely nondenominational evangelical camp have too deficient a theology to account for any of God’s attributes other than his love and even that attribute is reduced and stripped of much of its meaning. Many in the conservative and traditional camps are so busy reacting against what they see as an overemphasis on and misrepresentation of the love of God that they spend all of their time stressing his holiness and justice. Consequently attributes such as God’s blessedness receive little to no explication. This is unfortunate, as God’s blessedness provides us with an important lens through which to view God’s motivations towards man; both is his creation, and his redemption.

In 1 Timothy 1:11 God is referred to by Paul as “the blessed God.” The term used here is also applied to Christ later in the book (6:15), and its primary connotation is one of being privileged or happy. Quite simply, our God is a happy God. Is that thought or attribute one that often crosses our minds? Often times we think of God as being the very opposite. He is always angry and upset with the world, ready to pour out his judgment at any moment. Or perhaps our image of God is a bit more charitable, looking out for opportunities to bless his people and show his love to them. While both of these perspectives are true in some sense and emphasize others of God’s attributes rightfully, they both fail to account for God’s blessedness. In a very real sense, God takes real and emotional delight in himself and in his creation. God truly is a happy God.

We must first note that God’s blessedness is fully sufficient within himself. As the Triune God, He has always been perfectly blessed and happy to take delight in the other persons within the Trinity. God shows love because God is love, and God is love precisely because he is Triune. It is within the context of this inter-Trinitarian love that God’s blessedness is fully realized and sufficiently satisfied. This means that God does not “need” anything or anyone else in order to be happy or satisfied. With that said however, we can now explore how God’s happiness is extended to us.

Have you ever wondered why God created everything? Some have tried to explain God’s creation of the world and humans by saying he was “lonely.” Not only is this perspective terribly shallow, but it is also theologically incorrect. As we have seen, God has always been perfectly happy and satisfied in the communion he has within the persons of His Triune nature. Instead, it is better to view God’s creation out of the superabundance of His love and glory. Though He did not need to, God created us so that we could enjoy his blessedness and ascribe glory to Him for it. Jesus brings this out in his high priestly prayer in John 17:20-24: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world."

Our perception of God’s blessedness does not end with creation, however. It pursues us into the realm of our redemption as well. God was not content to allow His creatures that rejected him to persist in their lost and tragic state. Instead, he devised a way to bring them back into communion with him so that they might enjoy and partake in his inter-Trinitarian blessedness as he originally intended. So the Scriptures tell us that Jesus went to the cross “for the joy that was set before him” and that “it was the will of the Lord to crush him.” It was God’s good pleasure to chase after sinful mankind and bring them back to himself.

God takes great delight in himself and his perfection. He is right to do so, as he is the very definition of goodness, love, and perfection. However, God’s self-delight is not some narcissistic ego trip. There is so much blessedness within the Godhead that he saw fit to share himself with his creatures. The Bible is a book of redemption, and it is important to view that redemption in light of all of who God is. God takes great joy in us! He is a happy God who delights in his people and desires to share loving relationship with them. It will do much for our relationship with him if we keep in mind his blessedness as we continue to look forward to the day when we will see him face to face.

-tanner