"Blogging from Chicagoland to the Nations about the Hope and Wholeness of Jesus Christ!"

Follow codytibm on Twitter

Everything listed under: Isaiah

  • The Christ-Follower & The Law (Part 2 of 5): Re-wired to Please God

     

    This is a continuation of my response to a friend of mine on the subject of the Christian and the Law of Moses.   I hope you find it helpful in your understanding of Scripture.  The words of my friend will be in italics to make it easier for you to follow along.   As always, I welcome your comments and questions.

     

    My Friend:  This is my understanding: The Law of Moses is summed up into two: love the Lord your God and love your neighbor. So basically the 10 commandments are kinda being summed up here. So we are to follow this as our guidelines in life.

    Cody:     And I think this is true.  Jesus Christ summed up the law in this way and Paul followed Him (Rom. 13:9, Gal. 5:14).  Of course, we must be clear about what is meant by “guidelines.”  It is not through the 10 commandments or even the “greatest commandments” that salvation (from beginning to end) can be obtained.  That is, we do not earn salvation as a repayment for our love of God.  On the contrary, we only can love God as a result of his initial love towards us.  As John writes, “We love because he first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19).  Our love, faith, and all subsequent God-pleasing virtue is produced in our lives due to the free and gracious work of God in our hearts to conform us to the image of Christ.  They are called the “fruit of the Spirit” as opposed to the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5.  An apple tree doesn’t have to work to produce apples, it just will, providing it is tended properly and is, in fact, an apple tree.  God has planted us.  We are his workmanship (Isa. 61:3, Eph. 2:10).  It is God who works in us to will and to work according to his good purpose (Phil. 2:13).

         To be sure, good works follow regeneration necessarily.  That is, there is no such thing as a Spirit-indwelt person who has not been re-wired to please God and seek His glory.  Such is the meaning of the sometimes confusing “faith without works” verses in James’ epistle.  Works are a wonderful thing in this regard as they bear witness to our hearts that we are truly in Christ—they testify to the genuineness of our faith.  However, we must never forget that these works are the product of the free grace of God, the result of His saving work in us.  They do not merit God’s favor in any way.  We are free from the Law in that our just condemnation (because we are law breakers) has been fully satisfied in the atoning death of Christ our Lord.

         Of course, the law is still written.  It remains the inspired word of God that has come down to us.  So what are we to do with it?  Are we simply New Testament people who consult the Old only for Bible trivia purposes and vacation Bible school stories?  I don’t think so.  The promise of the New Covenant is that God’s law would no longer be the written letter on paper or stone but it would be written on our hearts (Jer. 31:33).  As people born of the Spirit it is our nature to want to please God.  However, we cannot simply create a written code of regulations for everyone to follow.  This, of course, has been attempted by many Christians throughout the years.  But this is not the way of the Spirit.  If we want to please God, it is no longer a matter of turning to chapter and verse as much as it is about cultivating a genuine communion with our Father.  Paul said we must “try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph. 5:10).  In this, the word of God written will be our true friend.  We will soak ourselves in the Scripture from Genesis to Revelation – meditating, praying, exegeting, believing, joyfully obeying – trying to discern.  Then, the 10 commandments and the Beatitudes and even the regulations about mildew cleansing will become as manna from heaven for us.  “Man does not live by bread alone, but by this,” we will say.  We’ll read about the mildew, Sabbaths, feasts, and more and ask, “Father, what does this tell me about your character?  What does this say about what pleases your heart? ” And then, we probably will remember to go spray our shower with Tilex.

     

  • Active Theism and the Atheist's Crutch

         The second point of the doctrine of creation is as follows:

     

    2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

     

         And when it really comes down to it, I think this is the main reason why many people are so adamantly opposed to the idea of intelligent design or the possibility that there could be a supreme being ruling over the universe.  Really, there must be some explanation for the astoundingly virulent attitudes of many of atheism’s greatest proponents.  Just take atheistic figurehead Richard Dawkin’s comments for example:

     

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”   (Quoted on Dawkins sycophant Steve Wells’ blog from The God Delusion)

     

         So what’s the cause of all this outright hostility towards the idea of God and towards Christians in particular?  Natural selection? 

         No, I really think it has to do with the implications of point 2 of the doctrine of creation.  I’d be willing to bet that most of these guys (and gals) wouldn’t have very much at all to say about belief in an intelligent creator if that’s all there was to it.  After all, it’s not unusual for them to posit that very thing in the form of some kind of extraterrestrial “seeding” theory (here’s Dawkins on this).  If the creator simply “seeded” biological life on earth and then zipped away to some far off galaxy in their flying saucer, then well and good.  The problem is that the Bible teaches (and science really does affirm*) that God not only created at the beginning, but stuck around afterwards.

         This is the idea that sinful people (myself included before I met Christ) have always shuddered at.  The idea that there is an omnipotent God ruling over the entire universe and prying into your personal affairs is just pretty scary when you think about it.  Moreover, when it turns out that this God actually cares about things like right and wrong, holiness and obedience, love and justice – well, YIKES!  There is a sense in which Dawkins is right in calling God unpleasant.  For those who live their lives in enmity towards God, nothing could be more unpleasant than to realize that it all matters.

         It seems to me that atheism is the ultimate crutch for those who don’t want to face the fact that God sees and cares.   Atheists like Dawkins are on a boat to Tarshish, and what they don’t seem to understand is that sleeping in the cabin won’t make the storm go away. 

         We need to be ready and willing to try to persuade such people to believe in God and the salvation that he offers through his son, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:11).  But we also must persistently pray for our atheistic friends and family that God will mercifully pursue them, granting them faith and repentance that leads to a life-giving knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25).

     

     

    [*There is a good scientific discussion of this in The Case for a Creator.]

     

  • The Uncreated Creator and the Atheist's Response

         In my previous post,  I presented four major principles taught by the Bible with respect to the doctrine of Creation.  I want now to reflect a bit further on these ideas. 

     

    1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

     

         I won’t spend much time on this idea because I feel like I’ve already addressed it to some extent.  The bottom line is that if you push them far enough, Darwinists find it impossible to get around the need for an intelligent designer.  As I said previously, they just can’t get the evolutionary engine running without someone turning the key.  Or, if you prefer, they can’t roll the Yahtzee. 

         Now, what ends up happening, is that the atheist will almost always respond to this dilemma by asking who created God.  The rationale is that if the complexity of a protein molecule requires an intelligent creator, surely the greatly more complex creator needs an even more intelligent source.  It seems that the attempt is to make the teleological argument for the existence of God seem unreasonable. 

         I have heard Christian apologists respond to this, but I haven’t found their responses all that compelling.  To me,  all this question does it require us to assume that the ultimate source of creation must be itself eternal and self-existent.   Maybe I’m missing something, but I do not get why that doesn’t make sense to the atheist.  It is completely reasonable to assume that there is an intelligence that is responsible for the origin of the universe and that this intelligence is eternal and has aseity.  And it just so happens, that the Bible describes God as having those attributes (e.g. Ps. 90:2).

     

         Have you encountered other arguments that you find difficult to respond to?  Post in the comment section and we’ll talk.

     

    Blessings!

  • Picking your Battles Wisely: What the Bible Really Teaches about Creation

         Before we leave the topic of creation, I want to spend some time talking about where the real battleground is for those who want to be faithful to the Scriptures.  That is, I want to talk about the Biblical doctrine of creation.  As we encounter Darwinists in our attempt to communicate spiritual truth, I think it is critical that we know where exactly we should be focusing our apologetics.  There are certain battles that we simply don’t need to be fighting. 

         It has often been the case in church history that Christians have picked the wrong fights, often claiming that the Bible teaches things that it does not.  For example, when Galileo Galilei supported the Copernican view of a heliocentric universe, he was charged with heresy and forced to recant his claims.  The Roman Inquisition incorrectly believed that the Bible taught that the earth was in the center of the universe.  This exegetical blunder has long been one of the great historical and unnecessary embarrassments of the Church.

         It is absolutely essential that we understand what the Bible actually teaches regarding the doctrine of creation, so we don’t find ourselves fighting silly battles that are at best a waste of time.  In short, I find that the Scripture teaches four key truths regarding creation that we must understand, believe, and vigorously defend.  I have listed these principles below with several scriptural texts that  support them:

     

    1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

     

    2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

     

    3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

     

    4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

     

          To the extent that Darwinism challenges any of these principles, Christians who desire to be faithful to the Bible have a serious theological motivation for engaging in debate.  Indeed, we must be willing and ready to give a defense of these essential Biblical truths (1 Pet. 3:15).   The good news is that some really great resources like the Case for a Creator, Expelled, and the Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution are available to help us in this battle.

         Now, beyond these four points, I don’t believe there is a strong Biblical exegetical or theological reason for arguing with non-believers.  No one is being kept out of God’s Kingdom because they believe in an old earth or that dinosaurs weren’t contemporary to humans.  There are plenty of “in-house” debates that Christians can have on these kind of side issues, but it is the essentials that we must proclaim and defend in our various mission contexts. 

         To be sure, Darwinism as it is commonly delineated is clearly heretical, a worldview that is undeniably anti-Biblical.  It certainly fails on theological grounds from a Biblical perspective.  But it is worth remembering that on a completely different level, the scientific, Darwinism falls short of glory.  Darwinism tends to be just bad science that cannot withstand real scrutiny and so does not invite any.

         Over the next few blogs, I plan to reflect a bit more on the four principles of the doctrine of creation mentioned above.  For now, I invite you to let me know in the comment section if you think there are parts of the doctrine that I have overlooked and that you feel should be included among the other four.

     

  • The Confusing "El Gibbor" Debate: A Christmas Showdown

     

         I recently engaged in an online debate with two individuals on the correct interpretation of Isaiah 9:6.  The debate began as I was being challenged to defend the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity on a YouTube comment thread*.  Since “tis the season,” I thought it might be a nice little Christmas blog for me to share with you the content of that debate here.  Keep in mind that we were commenting back and forth in a format that only allowed a maximum of 500-characters per post.  I tried to keep the debate focused as a result, but it was difficult.  The screen names of individuals I’m debating are Samc023 and Manuaim. Both claim to be Christians but deny the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ—meaning, of course, that they aren’t Christians in any Biblical sense of the word.  I’m presenting the debate here without editing for grammatical errors, spelling, etc.  My own comments are in purple so that it is easier to follow what’s going on.  But first, the scripture in question:

     

    “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”  —Isaiah 9:6

     

    cclorance:   I'm still waiting for your Isa. 9:6 response where Jesus is called "mighty God" (El Gibbor - used only here and in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18)

     

    Samc023:  If you're going to be honest, should not the proper way to translate that is "mighty one " or "mighty power"?

     

    cclorance:  No, that isn't the proper translation. It is "El Gibbor" which is well translated as mighty God. "Gibbor" means mighty, powerful, or strong and modifies "El" which is a word Isaiah uses for God often. It is clearly a word for divinity in Isaiah as he uses it to contrast God and humans in 31:3. There is no serious question that "El Gibbor" is a divine title. The exact phrase is used by Isaiah only one other time and that's in 10:21. Again, no question there that the people return to God.

     

    Samc023:  I'm not questioning your use of Gibbor, I question the use of El. While it is used most often in regards to the true God of Israel its not strictly limited to only Him. Is not the same word used to describe strength in men and pure might? And regardless it would still only be a title.

     

    cclorance:  What is more, it is pretty clear from the context of chapter 10, that El Gibbor is YHWH (or as some incorrectly pronounce it Jehovah). 
         There is a reason that every major Bible translation (including Jewish versions) translates this phrase as "mighty God." Even the very poor NWT concedes this point. So, Sam (and Manuaim, who still hasn't responded to this verse), what say you?

     

    Manuaim:  Pt.1-Let me at him Samc023 lol I got him! Mighty=1368-gibbor=Champion/va liant...And God=410=el-mighty; especially Almighty (BUT used also of any deity): God(god), goodly, great, idol, might(-y, one) power, strong.
         I gave u "el" almost word 4 word 4 a reason Man is called el-410 in Job.41:25; Ps.82:1;Eze.31:11 & angels r called "el-410" in Ps.89:6...
         That was 2 break down the "Mighty God" part... cclorance, many believers miss this very important KEY parts to this verse: 2 bctnud 2 Pt.2 : )

     

    cclorance:  Manuaim, this is almost completely nonsensical to me. How does this address Isaiah's use of "El"? Isaiah didn't write Psalms, Job, or Ezekiel so I don't see the relevance of citing these other passages. Do you deny that "God" is the first and major meaning of "El" in the Bible?  Are you suggesting that "El Gibbor" should be translated "mighty mighty?" Would you do the same in Isa. 10:21? Why or why not?  My friend, cutting and pasting from a public domain lexicon is not the same as understanding Hebrew.

     

    [Directed towards Samc023:]

     

         The issue is not whether the word "El" can occasionally be used in other contexts with other meanings, the question is how is Isaiah using the word here. Isaiah uses the word "El" 23 times in his book. 16 of those times the word refers to the one true God. 7 times it refers to idols. It never means "strength" or "power". Not once. So, your only real option is to accept that Jesus is the one true God or to suggest that Isa. 9:6 calls Jesus "wonderful, counselor, mighty idol, prince of peace."

     

    Samc023:  Which doesn't negate its broader meaning. You say otherwise because its convenient for your doctrine.

    EL

    1. god, god-like one, mighty one
    a. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
    b. angels
    c. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
    d. God, the one true God, Jehovah
    2. mighty things in nature
    3. strength, power

    So why would it say mighty idol? that would mean every El is God or an idol.

     

    cclorance:  I'm not sure if you understand how translation works. God is the proper translation of El in Isa. 9:6 whether or not it is convenient for my doctrine. I begin with what the Scripture says and build my doctrine upon that. It says "mighty God." You are suggesting that every major Bible translation in the world is wrong and that you are right. Isn't that a bit difficult to believe? It might help if you updated your 100-year-old BDB lexicon.

     

    Samc023:  That's because the word itself means God. When the El in question or context if referring to the Supreme being then naturally we would translate it as God. A literal translation of El if it refers to God would be mighty one, but the word clearly has a broader use.

         Oh come on, don't start sinking in to being childish or patronizing. At the end of the day its not like I'm expecting
    you to change your beliefs. I do expect you to act like the senior pastor you claim you are and be civil and respectful. Which includes refraining from your arrogant and condescending rebuttals as if you're bible knowledge is superior to everyone else. I'm just explaining why I don't share your views, thats all.

     

    Manuaim:  Pt.2-cclorance: I'll capitalize 4 emphasis! Isa.9:6-For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: AND THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER:
         Who's government is being put upon Christ shoulder? & N order 4 the government of THE FATHER 2B put upon the SON the son has 2b equipped with the FATHER's-8034-NAME which means character & or authority.  Focus on the fact that A GOVERNMENT WAS PUT UPON HIS SHOULDER so he had 2 be EQUIPPED 4 that government..Which means what?

         Pt.4:cclorance: AND HIS NAME-8034 shall be CALLED...Now when we DEFINE what NAME means...NOW u hv a clear BIBLICAL EXPLANATION behind Christ being called Gibbor-1368, El-410! 
         When u ingrain the CONTEXT of a government being given unto him "PUT UPON HIM" now u understand why he is being called a NAME that was given unto him! C Jn.5:43-I come in my FATHER's NAME-3686-NT same as Isa.9:6 NAME-8034! So those names Christ r being called speak of that which was GIVEN unto him!

     

    cclorance:  Did I miss part 3? I'm sorry Manuaim, I'm really trying but I simply can't follow your flow of thought here. Pretend I'm really stupid and just give me a couple complete sentences. I honestly don't know how to respond to you because I don't understand you.

     

    Manuaim:  Sorry about that I try 2 keep everyone following from the sidelines in quietness nformed bcuz they R listening! 
         Simply put...Christ came in his FATHER's NAME-3686:Jn.5:43 this is why Isa.9:6 PROPHESIED what his "NAME-8034" shall b called! 
         I always tell ppl Christ was GIVEN Power that he NEVER HAD...Power belongs 2 GOD Ps.62:11 but Christ was given POWER i.e. Government put upon his shoulders-Isa.9:6, also Mt.28:18 if he IS Co-EQUAL why was he GIVEN anything if he was already GOD ALMIGHTY?

         Pt.5cclorance: U R a trinitarian why is Christ called the EVERLASTING FATHER? Bcuz he came in the FATHER's name, & the FATHER was with us in Christ..etc. I could go deeper but I'll gv u a chance 2 respond! 
         & I did not go 2 some public domain & cut & pace anything I typed it right from my OVERSIZED CONCORDANCE lol! 

         I know el is used DOMINANTLY 2 the FATHER & him alone but I told u Christ came n the NAME of the FATHER!Not the spelling of YHVH but the CHARACTER & AUTHORITY of YHVH C.Rev.19:13-16

     

    cclorance:  "Everlasting Father" means "Father of eternity" -- that is, Jesus is the originator of and sovereign over time.  Isa. 9:6 does not teach that Jesus is the Father.
         I completely and rejoicingly believe that Jesus came in the name of the Father. It is a wonderful Trinitarian truth. 
    I'd love to settle Isa. 9:6 b4 going elsewhere. Manuaim, are you conceding that this passage calls Jesus "mighty God"?

     

    [To Samc023:]

     

         Do you deny that you just pulled a cut & paste from the Brown-Driver-Briggs without citation? Do you deny that the BDB is a 100-year-old lexicon? Do you deny the possibility that some rather significant advances in Hebraic studies may have been made in the past century?
         I don't see what's childish or arrogant about challenging your source material. I also don't mean to hurt your feelings, but it could be very important for you to know where your Biblical understanding is weak.

     

    Samc023:  What? What exactly did I cut and paste? are you referring to my El definitions? what?

         Oh trust me, you didn't hurt my feelings, you give yourself far to much credit. And my understanding is far from weak as you certainly appear to be on the defense. So rather than (assume) I'm cutting and pasting as well as give off the false pretense that you yourself are a scholar why don't you answer some of the questions we posed.

     

    cclorance:  Is there a question that I have avoided?  Please remind me of it and I'll gladly deal with it.

     

         At this point in the debate, Manuaim ran away from Isaiah 9:6 into a million other directions.  He never answered my question about whether or not he was willing to concede that “El Gibbor” in Isaiah is properly translated as “mighty God.”  Samc023, on the other hand, send me a personal message in which he called my charge that he “lifted” material from the BDB lexicon “a baseless accusation.”  He went on to chide me for thinking that I know more than everyone else about the Bible.

         First things first, I encourage you to compare Samc023’s definition of “El” above to the entry in the century-old Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon entry.  You will notice that the definition is a word-for-word copy.   Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly fine with a person using the BDB provided you not pretend you didn’t and that you are aware of the tool’s limitations.  Now, for the record, I don’t think that my Biblical knowledge is superior everyone else’s.  I’ve got good friends, like Sam Shamoun and Rob Gallagher that can run circles around me.  However, I do recognize that I understand the Bible better than Samc023.  I mean, I know I heretic when I see one.

         At the end of the day, rest assured that “El Gibbor” is properly translated at “Mighty God.” The phrase appears in only two other places in the Bible (Isaiah 10:21 and Jer. 32:18).  In both cases, mighty God is the very clear meaning.  There is no serious question that the child to be born in Isaiah 9:6 is the one true God.  Thus, every major English Bible translation translates the phrase as either “Mighty God” or “God the Mighty.”  Even those publishers who deny the divinity of Jesus (e.g. The Watchtower Society and the Jewish Publication Society) aren’t willing to butcher “El Gibbor” by translating it otherwise. 

         And, well, was there every any doubt?  Jesus Christ is “Emmanuel” – “God with us.” Christmas time is the time for us to celebrate with great vigor the time when God the Son entered into his own creation by taking on human flesh and dwelling with us.  Rejoice that the one who was born in Bethlehem’s manger was indeed the Creator of the universe, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings.

     

    Merry Christmas!

     

    [* I provide here a link to the thread on which this debate took place.  I don’t at all recommend watching the stupid video that all the comments are in response to.  But if you want to look at some of the debate, please do.  And if you have any questions about this issue, please post them in the comment section of this blog and I’ll gladly respond.]


Click here to see all TIBM recommended books, films, and music.


If you are South Asian young adult in Chicagoland, help us out by taking this quick survey.

The Ramblings Archive Month by Month

RSS Feed