Yale Center for Faith and Culture invited several of us to address the concept of expectation, in connection with Jürgen Moltmann. I was invited to write a paper on the messianic expectation of Jesus. The presentation in the video here is the highly condensed version I presented orally, reading a shorter version of my paper at the colloquium.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55igrtewmfw
Category Archives: Theology
Continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament
Craig’s 8-minute video on the continuity between the OT and the NT:
This study continues the hermeneutical questions raised in previous videos on OT laws in their ancient Near Eastern context:
And how to apply OT laws today:
Are we Pharisees?–Matthew 23
There is a reason that the denunciation of religious leaders at Jesus’s first coming appears so soon before Jesus’s warnings for religious leaders to be ready for him at his second coming. 1-minute video:
This is a clip excerpted from a free series on Matthew’s Gospel (face-to-face in class is best, but for people who can’t do that!) – watch it here
Why would God send judgment?—Genesis 6—9
(This post continues others about Genesis: God’s love shown in creation, God’s goodness messed up)
People write about the biblical account of the Flood from different angles (even the recent Noah movie, which, despite its departures from the biblical text, did helpfully emphasize the narrative’s theological balance of judgment and mercy). My interest here is in the text’s narrative theology.
A messed up world
It’s important to start a few chapters before the flood narrative, to catch the context of why God’s world had gotten so messed up. God intended for people to have direct access to him (cf. Gen 2:16-22; 3:8), but sin progressively alienated us from his presence (4:14, 16). Without his presence, we end up depending on either ourselves or our fellow humans to try to find the way, and that way can end up pretty messed up—kind of like the world we still often see around us.
Most other ancient Near Eastern cultures also had flood narratives, though the one in Genesis is shorter and simpler ways than most tales of their contemporaries. Some cultures attributed the flood to overpopulation; perhaps people were being too noisy, disturbing the gods’ rest. Genesis, however, uniquely attributes it to the one God’s dismay over the violence on the earth (6:12-13). Modern readers as opposed to ancient ones might be tempted to think God too harsh to send this flood, but God was only taking back what he had given to begin with. Only his mercy had held the destructive forces of nature at bay so long anyway.
Although God had warned that disobeying him would bring death (2:17), he initially showed much mercy to those who had done evil. When Cain killed Abel in Genesis 4, God punished Cain by alienating him from the soil, which had received his brother Abel’s blood (4:10-11). This judgment extended the curse on the soil already declared in 3:17-19. Humans were taken from soil and so were close to it (2:7; 3:19); they would return to soil in their death (3:19). Cain loved the soil (4:2), but his farming career was now terminated (4:12); driven from the land as his parents were driven from Eden, he would wander (4:12, 14). (The implicit warning to Genesis’s ancient Israelite hearers was that sin could expel them from the holy land in the same way; cf. e.g., Lev 18:28; Deut 28:64).
Cain pleaded that his punishment was too great, and that someone who found him would kill him (4:13-14). (The narrative does appear to assume that there were other people, and I have my guesses about them, but these are ultimately irrelevant. Where the killer would come from, or Cain’s later wife, or people for his city, are not important enough to the narrative’s point for the narrator to elaborate.) What is remarkable here is that God show mercy to Cain and provides him protection (4:15). Unfortunately, others exploited God’s mercy on Cain to expect that God would protect them when they killed others also (4:23-24).
More immediate causes
This sets the stage for the violence noted in Genesis 6. Because God has been so benevolent, people by this point are ignoring altogether his warnings of judgment. God ultimately makes matters stricter: those who kill others who are made in God’s image must die (9:6). That’s not because God really wants anyone to die (Ezek 18:23, 32), but because without this rule there would be more bloodshed. God’s ideal from the beginning was not so strict, as we see with Cain, but he wouldn’t let people continue to take his mercy for granted. God summons us to recognize each other human being as no less formed in God’s image than ourselves.
Another reason for the flood was the sexual immorality noted in Gen 6:1-4. Scholars explain the sons of God mating with human women in various ways. One view is that the godly line of Seth mated with Cain’s descendants; this view seems unlikely, though, since the “sons of God” here hardly sound godly. The most common ancient Jewish interpretation was that these were fallen angels mating with women, a view to which many scholars find allusions in 1 Pet 3:19-20; 2 Pet 2:4-5, Jude 6-7, and (much less likely) 1 Cor 11:10. “Sons of God” sometimes does refer to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), and both Greeks and most ancient Near Eastern peoples had stories about gods (whom Israelites would understand as demons) raping and seducing women. (Whatever the case, this account may also serve as a warning to Israel about their own conjugal practices, warning against intermarrying with worshipers of false gods, who would turn their hearts away; Deut 7:3-4.)
The need for judgment
Humanity’s practice of evil spread, so that all they ever thought about was evil (Gen 6:5). Humanity became so corrupt, with the spread of malignant evil so impossible to turn back, that God regretted having made people (6:6). The Hebrew text says that he grieved or felt pain in his heart. God had made people to be like his children (cf. the significance of being in one’s image in 5:1-3), but now things had turned out so badly that God was anguished and bitterly disappointed. His children had grown up to be murderers, apparently far beyond the level of Cain. (On the premise that God knows the future, some argue that God condescends to deal with people in their real time. Clearly God is able to know more than he sometimes lets on, as in 4:9-10. But again, such questions, valuable as they might be, digress from the point of the current story.)
The world does not belong to us. Even our very lives are a gift from God. When we abuse the gift of life to harm others or the world that God has made, instead of investing in serving others, we squander his gift and break his heart. We forget that we are mortal, and we must return the gift of life God has given us, and answer for how we have used it.
In this case, God took back the gift of order in creation. The refrain of Gen 1 is that God made everything “good” (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31); humanity, however, had made itself progressively more “bad” or “evil” (6:5). God had graciously taken a primeval chaos (Gen 1:2) and made it habitable. When he started making the world liveable, darkness was over the “deep,” and his Spirit hovered over the waters (1:2). But now, in judgment, the fountains of the “deep” erupted, inundating the earth with water (7:11). (The Hebrew term translated “deep” is significant here, since Genesis uses it only four times.) God was the one who had given the breath of life (2:7); now he took it back (6:17; 7:22).
The Israelites would understand such judgments, because they had seen something like this in their own experience as a people. They watched God unravel Egypt’s ecosystem with plagues, plagues that simply took back the blessings God had provided to begin with. They watched as God drowned their oppressors in the “deep” (Exod 15:5, the same Hebrew term). They celebrated how God’s “wind” (the same Hebrew word as above) raised up the waters and cast them down, sparing God’s people while punishing those seeking their deaths (Exod 15:8, 10). The Pentateuch uses a particular Hebrew term for “dry land” only for the flood (Gen 7:22) and Israel’s crossing of the sea (Exod 14:21).
New beginnings
But God planned a new start. One person served God and found favor in his sight, so God was going to restart humanity through him (6:8-9). Noah’s father had named him Noah, “rest,” in the hope that God would use him to reverse the curse against the soil (5:29). (The Hebrew letters for Noah—nch—are related to the Hebrew verb for rest. Noah’s father hoped he would bring “comfort”—nchm; but that term, which also means “relent,” appears again when God is sorry he made people in 6:6-7. Noah’s ark, however, also “rested” in a good way after the flood; 8:4.) Eventually God did receive Noah’s offering and promise not to curse the soil any further (8:21).
The new start came. Just as God’s Spirit hovered over the waters in the beginning, so in Gen 8:1 God sent a “wind” (the same Hebrew word as “Spirit”) over the earth to lower the waters of the flood. God closed the fountains of the “deep” (8:2). God had protected those with the breath of life who were with Noah (7:11).
Moreover, the narrative describes Noah as receiving a new commission, just like Adam; unfortunately, sin appears again soon afterward (9:21-25). God later chooses Abram for a new start, with a new commission, because he knows that Abram will raise his promised line rightly (18:19). God’s plan was always meant to lead back to Eden, to restore us to the purpose for which he made us. (I have taken the following chart from my Acts commentary, vol. 2, p. 1361.)
| Adam narratives | Noah narrative | Abraham narrative |
| Blessed (1:28a; 5:2) | Blessed (9:1) | Blessed (12:2-3) |
| After creation | Recreation after the flood | After Babel |
| “Be fruitful and multiply” (1:28) | “Be fruitful and multiply” (9:1, 7) | Promise of seed (12:2; 15:4-5) |
| Fill the earth (1:28) | Fill the earth (9:1) | Promise of the land (12:1) |
| Curse: serpent (and its seed; 3:14-15) | Curse: Canaan (9:25) | Curse: those who curse you (12:3) |
| Followed by a genealogy with about ten generations ending in three sons (5:3-32) | Preceded and followed by a genealogy with about ten generations ending in three sons (5:3-32) | Preceded by a genealogy with about ten generations ending in three sons (11:12-27) |
Making Abraham’s name great (12:2) contrasts with the people at Babel seeking to make their own name great (11:4); they were scattered after seeking not to be scattered (11:4, 8-9), whereas Abraham went in obedience to God (Gen 12:1, 4).
Even this did not restore Eden, but it was a step forward. When Israel disobeyed God, he threatened to start over with Moses’s descendants (Exod 32:10). Although God again showed mercy (see http://www.craigkeener.org/gods-forgiveness-exodus-327-14/), it was a promised seed to come through whom God himself would make all things right. Ultimately, one descendant of Abraham would be a new Adam to lead us back to Eden. Conformed to his image, we become the sons and daughters of God he meant us to be.
Other posts in this series include: God’s love in creation, God’s goodness messed up, Peleg, Babel, God’s call, and God’s promise
Once-Saved-Always-Saved? Maybe not
There are different definitions of once-saved-always-saved, and in this post I am challenging only one version. The point is not to make Christians nervous about their salvation; biblical writers assure Christians who have been persevering that they will persevere (Phil 1:5-7; Heb 6:9-10). The point is to recognize that apostasy is possible and that it happens sometimes.
If you have been a Christian very long, you probably know some who started with you in the faith who have since fallen away. I have known many who were zealous colleagues who no longer even claim to be Christians; some, in fact, claim to be something else.
Calvinists and Arminians may disagree on whether a person was provisionally converted or not, but they both agree that only those who persevere to the end will be saved. A Calvinist would say that someone who falls away was not genuinely converted to begin with (cf. John 6:64; 1 John 2:19)—that is, from the standpoint of ultimate salvation, which God already knows. An Arminian would say that, from the standpoint of human experience, which is what we can know, the person was provisionally converted but fell away and thus was not ultimately saved. But both agree that a person who turns away from faith in Christ and never returns is not ultimately saved. Both of these perspectives have biblical support, one from the standpoint of God’s foreknowledge and the other from the standpoint of human experience.
But “once-saved-always-saved” as it is commonly taught in many churches is neither Calvinism nor Arminianism. Many teach a cheap version of “Once-saved-always-saved,” wherein anyone who professes conversion remains in Christ no matter what happens. Let us say they become an atheist theologically, an axe-murderer morally, or even simply a spiritual couch potato that hasn’t thought about God for years. Are they still counted as believers in Christ? (Because this contorted hope seems to flourish particularly in some Baptist churches, I should note, lest you think I am picking on Baptists, that I’m a Baptist minister myself, albeit a charismatic evangelical one.)
Various texts warn that a person will be saved only if they persevere. Christ has reconciled you to present you to God, Paul warns, “if you continue in the faith” (Col 1:23). God cut off unbelieving branches and grafted you in, but if you do not continue in his kindness, you too may be cut off (Rom 11:22). (Paul speaks here of individual Gentiles, not of Gentiles as a whole, since in the context he did not believe that every individual Jewish person had been cut off.) The letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2—3 repeatedly offer promises to those who overcome, conditioning the reward on perseverance. One must hold onto what one has, lest someone else take one’s crown (Rev 3:11), presumably the crown of life (2:10); those believers who overcome will not be blotted out of the book of life (3:5).
Jesus warned some who “believed” in him that they would become his disciples and know the truth if they continued in his teaching (John 8:30-32); they did not do so (8:59). In John’s Gospel, saving faith is faith that perseveres, not the faith of a fleeting moment. Jesus warns his own disciples to continue in him; if someone did not do so, they would be cast away and ultimately burned (15:5). (Fire was a familiar Jewish image for Gehenna, used also elsewhere in the Gospels.)
A wide array of texts warn that a person will be lost if they do not persevere. Because Galatian Christians were trying to be made right with God by keeping the law, Paul warned that they had been cut off from Christ and had fallen from grace (Gal 5:4); Paul was laboring again until Christ would be formed in them again (4:19). Paul even disciplined himself to ensure that he did not fail the test (1 Cor 9:27), but warned the Corinthians to check themselves to see whether they were failing it (2 Cor 13:5). Some of these references could be hyperbolic, dramatic ways of warning his hearers that they were on the verge of losing something they had not yet lost (cf. perhaps 2 Cor 5:20; 6:1, 17-18). Nevertheless, they hold out the terrifying possibility of apostasy.
This is especially emphasized in Hebrews. Punishment for turning from the way of salvation now is harsher than under the law (Heb 2:1-4). Those who turned from God in Moses’s time never entered God’s rest; how much more would that be true for those now who, hardened by sin, stopped believing Jesus Christ (3:7-15; 4:1, 11)!
Hebrews 6 warns particularly explicitly that those once converted could fall away. Being “enlightened” (6:4) refers to conversion (10:32); “tasting” the heavenly gift and future era (6:4-5) refers to experiencing it (the same Greek term applies to Jesus experiencing death in 2:9); being made “partakers of” or “sharing in” the Spirit (6:4) also refers to genuine believers (cf. the same Greek term in 3:1, 14). But if this person “falls away” (6:6; the language appears in the Greek version of the Old Testament for turning from God, e.g., Ezek 18:24; cf. different wording in Mark 4:17), they cannot be repent anew because they are crucifying Jesus again and publicly shaming him; they will be burned (Heb 6:8).
Because Christ is the only true sacrifice for sins (10:1-21), those who sin by continuing to resist him have nothing left but terrifying judgment (10:26-31). Those who turn back from faith face destruction (10:39). One should not be like Esau, who had no second chance (12:16-17). If those who rejected God’s message at Sinai were judged (12:18-21), how much greater is the judgment for rejecting the new covenant (12:22-29).
Some of the warnings in Hebrews sound as if those who fall away cannot be restored; yet many of us know some people who did fall away and yet were restored. This is explained in various possible ways (e.g., that their previous conversion experience was incomplete or that their apostasy was incomplete), but it is also possible that Hebrews is simply warning that there is no other way of salvation. If we leave Christ looking for something beyond him, we will not find it. James 5:19-20 sounds as if turning back to the way of Christ someone who strayed from it brings that person back to salvation and forgiveness.
Hebrews repeatedly exhorts its audience to hold fast our confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6, 14; 4:14; 10:23); we must not abandon our confidence (10:35), which has the reward of eternal life (10:34-39). We have become Christ’s house, heirs of the future world, the author declares, if we continue to be believers in him (3:6, 14; 6:11-12); if we fail to persevere, we face judgment (2:2-3; 4:1; 8:9; 10:26, 38; 12:25).
To persevere in faith, we should continue to trust in Christ (Heb 3:19; 4:2; 10:35—11:1; on the topic of faith in Hebrews, see http://www.craigkeener.org/faith-the-assurance-of-things-hoped-for-%E2%80%94-hebrews-111/); support one another in the faith (3:13; 10:23-26); and grow more mature in biblical understanding (5:11—6:12). Similarly, 2 Peter advises various virtues that will keep one growing and prevent falling away and so missing the Lord’s eternal kingdom (2 Pet 1:5-11).
Many beliefs today are popular because they appeal to our weakness rather than because they are biblical. Such beliefs include spiritual justifications for materialism, theological exemptions from suffering tribulation, and even justifications for not sharing our faith with others. The idea that someone who professes conversion will share eternal life even if they do not persevere as believers in Christ is another belief that is comforting—and dangerously false.
For some people with less self-confidence (sometimes including myself), such warnings are unnerving. But biblical warnings are qualified for those who have already been demonstrating perseverance and the seriousness of their faith (Phil 1:6-7; Heb 6:9-10). (Still, even this assurance could be accompanied by exhortation to persevere, Heb 6:11-12.) It is important to remember that the keeping does not depend on us having infinite strength; it is God’s own power that preserves us through our faith (1 Pet 1:5), and no one can snatch us from his hand (John 10:29).
If overconfidence in ourselves is an error, so is underconfidence in the one who drew us to himself to begin with. Our baptism is meant as a helpful reminder that we passed from one realm to another; we do not pass away from Christ because some bad thought comes to our mind or we fail one spiritual test. The latter misconception is probably a recipe for spiritual obsessive compulsive anxiety! Falling away refers to someone who is no longer following Christ, not someone who is simply imperfect in our maturity or discipleship.
The warnings are instead for those tempted to fancy that we are saved by a single act of prayer or physical washing rather than by Christ, who treat salvation only as a cheap fire escape instead of rescue from being alienated from God. It is God’s act in his Son’s death and resurrection that saves us, provided that we accept his gift, i.e., believe this good news. His gift is eternal life in his presence, an eternal life that begins when we truly believe—welcoming a new life in Christ.
Attacking a straw man (cartoon)
Which day is the Sabbath?
Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for people’s benefit (Mark 2:27). Years ago an Adventist layman wrote in to our Ohio town’s local newspaper, arguing that the Bible never speaks of the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. As I read the letter, I had to admit that the author was correct. Shortly afterward in the newspaper a local pastor countered, “We’re not under the law; therefore the Sabbath is on Sunday.” If you think that the pastor’s argument makes sense, you are a more clever person than I.
Some years after that I was doing my PhD work when I read an article from Christianity Today about “The Case for Quiet Saturdays.” It argued that the particular day was less essential than that we kept a special day for rest. That got my attention, because, whether the proper day is Saturday, Sunday, or just any day, at the time I was working every day of the week.
Sabbath is important
As I tried to study the biblical text honestly, I could see that this was not just a matter of keeping laws designated for Israel; God actually modeled the Sabbath rest in creation (Gen 2:2-3). Whether we take that narrative literally or not, the principle of the Sabbath is there, and it apparently is an example for all people, not just those who are ethnically descended from Abraham.
Moreover, it seemed clear that in Scripture, keeping the Sabbath was a serious matter. The law mandated a death penalty for violating it (Exod 31:14-15; 35:2; Num 15:32-36). Although most of us would not endorse execution for all other capital offenses in Moses’s law today, normally we at least view them as sins—offenses such as murder, sorcery, blasphemy, and sexual relations outside of marriage. Likewise, observing the Sabbath is one of Ten Commandments (Exod 20:8-11). We take all the other Ten Commandments as universal; why exclude this one? In the Prophets, God promises to welcome Gentiles into his covenant, provided that we observe his sabbaths (Isa 56:6-7).
Many festivals in Israel commemorated various events; for example, Passover commemorates redemption, tabernacles dwelling in the wilderness, and first fruits celebrates the beginning of harvest. Depending on how we read Exod 20:11, possibly the Sabbath celebrates God’s action of creating the universe in which we live; in any case, it recalls his model of rest afterward, as already noted.
A particular day?
Is the Sabbath necessarily a particular day of the week? This question arouses greater controversy among Christians, and answers often reflect different Christian groups’ interpretive considerations. Churches that accept early Christian traditions beyond the New Testament, traditions from the second century or later, have traditionally said that the Sabbath day must be Sunday. Even those who disagree with them can still appreciate the conviction and devotion of someone like the runner Eric Liddell (“Chariots of Fire”), who kept that day for the Lord.
This tradition affects especially those churches ultimately influenced by the church in the Roman empire, which is the majority of churches today. Nevertheless, the Ethiopian church through its long history often observed both Sunday as the Lord’s Day and Saturday as the Sabbath. Some other African and Chinese indigenous churches, as well as Messianic Jewish believers and Adventists today, observe the Sabbath on the same day as in Scripture.
Those who regard second- and third-century traditions as normative will observe Sunday, but this need not be normative for churches that start only from Scripture. The instructions for the first day of the week in 1 Corinthians 16:2 are for individual members, not about a specified meeting day; the meeting on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 is probably a Sunday evening gathering (see my Acts commentary for details), and is probably assembled simply because Paul is leaving town the next day.
Churches that insist on following New Testament practice may thus consider a Saturday Sabbath. In Acts, “Sabbath” continues to designate the seventh day (technically Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); although most instances refer to traditional Jewish practice there, there is certainly no indication that the day was changed. Personally, when I discovered the Sabbath principle, I began following it on Saturday, like my Jewish friends. I couldn’t observe the Sabbath on Sundays because, as an associate pastor in a Baptist church at the time, I had special responsibilities on that day. (I took the duties seriously enough that I skipped my doctoral graduation because it would have conflicted with our Sunday service. Although having one’s main worship service on one’s day of rest might be easier for most worshipers, it can be more difficult for some of us with significant ministry responsibilities!)
Others say that the principle applies to any day. Paul appears to approve of both those who honor one day above another and those who honor every day the same (Rom 14:5). Many Gentiles belonged to the Roman church (Rom 1:13; 11:13), and those who were employed by Gentiles, whether as slaves or free persons, could not choose when they would not work. At the same time, we should note what Paul says and what he does not say. Honoring “every day alike” would mean to keep all days sacred (cf. also the broader principle of Sabbath rest in Heb 4:9); those devoting our whole lives to God are not expected to limit worship to a single day. Paul does not, however, list the option of keeping no days sacred!
Keeping the Sabbath principle
Whatever the day, the way God designed our bodies, we need a day of rest. Living things need rest to rejuvenate; the law mandates this principle also for livestock and, by sabbatical years, for fields (Exod 20:10; 23:11-12; Lev 25:4; Deut 5:14). Our activity (or perhaps, non-activity!) of resting further communicates theology by what we do (or don’t do): we recognize our limitations as mortal humans. Observing a day of rest also requires us to trust God to make up for this day set aside in devotion to him. For ancient Israelite farmers to observe the Sabbath even during harvest (Exod 34:21) would demand faith in God.
If we do keep a Sabbath, we need to be careful not to treat this as a matter of spiritual superiority, looking down on other believers (Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16). Paul repeatedly warns believers against division, rivalry, arrogance, and looking down on one another. Such attitudes defeat the purpose of depending on God, and are like doing our righteousness for other people’s approval instead of God’s (Matt 6:1). Jesus contested his contemporaries’ application of the Sabbath, so we recognize that today we should keep it in different ways than Jesus’s contemporaries (cf. Matt 11:28—12:8).
We have noted that Sabbath remains valuable for our health. For those who cannot devote every day directly to God’s work, it is also important to set aside at least a day to focus attention on him and renew our spiritual purpose for the rest of the week. Although pure legalism is counterproductive, I confess that I have to discipline myself somewhat rigidly to observe the Sabbath. That’s because I become so engrossed in my work that I wouldn’t take a break if I didn’t have to. That is, I wouldn’t stop until my body made me stop; by that point we in fact lose more productivity in the long run!
When I realized that the Sabbath principle really was biblical, I was initially unhappy about it. I was working on my PhD and thought I was too busy—even though I am far busier now than I was back then. At that time, the stress of nonstop work was building up, week after week. Recognizing the principle to be biblical, however, I realized that I needed to obey it and I began observing Sabbath.
What I immediately discovered was that it was like a circuit breaker. Granted, stopping my work Friday evening felt like breaking me in a different way—I felt like I was putting the brakes on suddenly. But before the Sabbath was over, I had been able to fully relax, and the stress of the past week dissipated. This way I never carried a week’s work-related stress for more than a week, and it couldn’t accumulate. Hopefully my seventeen books so far (one of them roughly four thousand pages long) illustrates that God enabled me to be productive nonetheless, whether you think that’s because, or in spite of, taking a Sabbath.
I do have to admit that I did eventually learn that we need more than just a day of rest. (Even though there’s no biblical requirement for how many hours a person should sleep a night, lack of sleep does catch up to one!) Also, in the early days I sometimes tested the limits to see what could be subsumed under the category of rest. (Writing this some weeks before April 15, I can tell you that doing some of one’s income tax on that day is not a restful activity.) For myself, I lay aside all my book and article writing on the Sabbath; while I am happy to talk about the Bible on any day, I don’t perform my official faculty responsibilities on that day. This discipline helps me not to fixate on my writing and teaching as if there is nothing else in life, like Jack the proverbially dull boy (presumably a less interesting Jack than the one who fell down and broke his crown).
Nevertheless, besides normal prayer and spending time with my family, I do try to catch up on some emails to friends during the Sabbath, as well as reading some of my mail, and so forth. An Orthodox Jewish scholar friend laughs that I keep Shabbat like a Reform Jew (though he graciously welcomed me to spend Shabbat the Orthodox way with his family; that was a particularly enjoyable Sabbath for me).
Not everyone will draw the boundaries in exactly the same places. What is helpful for all of us to realize, however, is that God built us with limits. Observing those created limits by celebrating Sabbath helps us function the way that God designed us. A restaurant chain used to say, “You deserve a break today.” Whether we deserve it or not, God made the Sabbath for people (Mark 2:27)—for our good. It’s a wonderful way to renew your joy and strength.
How can there be three persons in one Trinity?
How can we speak of more than one “person” within the Trinity? And what implications does this idea have for our lives?
Here I’m not summarizing biblical evidence for the Trinity; this is easily done but it is frequently provided elsewhere. Instead I’m trying to offer one window into what we may mean when we speak of more than one person in the Trinity.
Not always speaking precisely
Greek and Latin theologians developed precise terminology in their languages, but no language that I know of always communicates precisely without explanation. For this reason, it may be that many who do not use others’ precise language may mean something very much the same, whereas some others who do use the language do not understand what they are supposed to mean by it.
I was surprised, for example, to discover that even some who speak of “modes” (using technically Sabellian language) mean something similar to what most Trinitarians mean by “persons.” Neither term (whether in English or Greek) is precisely biblical, but certainly the New Testament regularly distinguishes the Son from the Father. Granted, Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), but Jesus also prays that believers may be one even as Jesus and the Father are one (17:22). Jesus is divine, yet he is “with” the Father, in intimate relationship with him (1:1-2, 18). Jesus models intimacy with God for us, doing only what he sees the Father do (5:19), reciprocally knowing (10:15; 15:15; 17:25) and loving (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 14:31; 15:9; 17:24) the Father. Yet, distinctively, the Father sent the Son (5:23, 36-37; 6:44, 57; 8:16, 18, 42; 10:36; 12:49; 14:24; 17:21, 25; 20:21) and the Son expressed his perfect unity with the Father at least partly in perfect submission to him (10:18; 12:49-50; 14:28).
My agenda in this post is not to challenge Sabellian language, despite my disagreement with it; my point is simply to observe that not everyone uses their language precisely. In fact, most of us cannot match the precision of those theologians who, devoting their lives to the study of the Trinity, have developed very precise ways to articulate relations within the Trinity.
The supremely personal God
But coming back to the question: how can there be distinct persons, or distinguishable entities or actors, within one God? Although we as humanity are made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27), analogies made from finite persons to an infinite Person, however valuable because of our desire to understand on some level, remain limited. Even the creation of male and female together as God’s image, which might be thought to reflect a sort of complementarity within unity and thus may provide an analogy, may not fully demonstrate or communicate the point. (If pressed far enough, the analogy of water, ice and steam that is sometimes used comes closer to illustrating modalism.)
The problem here, however, is more a problem of language and analogy than of God’s being. God’s personhood is on a higher dimension than ours; he is infinitely more personal than we are. Even with what we know from the world around us, we should be able to recognize that at higher levels of understanding apparent problems at lower levels can be resolved. This happens in theoretical mathematics, physics, and biochemistry. We perceive it ourselves when we distinguish different levels of causation (à la Aristotle): writing can be caused on one level by ink on paper, at another level by human muscles and nerves, on another by a human mind, and on yet another by the social and linguistic conventions that person uses to communicate, or by which that person is shaped. (Christian thinkers often apply this sort of analogy to levels of causation in creation.)
If God is infinite, God can be more personal than we are, and can be revealed in three persons, each of whom could also be no less personal than we are, while remaining one God. (As Richard Bauckham has argued, God’s oneness distinguishes him from all other reality, which is created. It does not prevent us from acknowledging distinctions within God where God has revealed those to us.)
{This one paragraph is a 2018 addition to the original Jan. 2015 post: One human analogy might be identical triplets, who share exactly the same DNA yet are distinct persons. This is a far better analogy than water, ice and steam! But ultimately the unity of the persons within the Trinity goes further than even this. To see the Son is to see the Father (John 14:7); he is the Father’s image (Col 1:15). By itself, “image” could be used even in Arian terms, but in Trinitarian terms it reinforces Jesus’s deity. If from our vantage point we see a line directly from the front, we see only a point. From a three-dimensional standpoint, however, we would see a line. If God is not limited to our dimensions, to see or experience any member of the Trinity is to see or experience God; our finite experience, however, does not limit God’s identity beyond our finite experience. We can trust God’s self-revelation that transcends our limited dimensions of experience.}
Some trinitarian theologians have emphasized other-centeredness as a necessary attribute of God as love. They have thus contended for the necessity of more than one person within God. I am not sure that we would have thought of that connection had we not already believed in the Trinity, but the point nevertheless is well-taken. The deep love shared between the Father and Son, so emphasized in John’s Gospel, seems inseparable from their divine unity.
Implications for us
Because the Son, eternal in being, is worth more than all the cosmos, the love that God demonstrated in sacrificing Him for our sins is more vast than the non-human universe. One time in prayer I felt that God was saying, “The sea is vast; but it is not vast enough to begin to contain my boundless love for my children, nor to contain all the wisdom of my purposes. My giving love to you is greater than all the sands of the seashore, more vast than the seas, higher than the mountains, more awesome than the skies.”
How can one be confident that God’s love is so deep? The Father surely loved the Son, who shared his glory before the world began, more deeply than all creation. If he gave Jesus’s blood to restore us to himself, then surely he loves humans more than the rest of the universe. (So far as we currently know, in terms of information content we are the pinnacle of complexity within God’s creation.)
God’s love for us in Christ is beyond measurement, other than the precious blood of Christ. To be loved by an infinitely personal God is an incomparable and unending blessing, merited not by us but by Jesus, and initiated in the heart of God’s love.
“… so the world may know that you sent me, and have loved them, in the same way that you have loved me”—John 17:23b
“For this is the way that God loved the world: he gave his only Son”—John 3:16a
Rewards and grace, part III: What the reward is
The first installment of this blog post (at http://www.craigkeener.org/how-can-we-be-saved-by-grace-yet-rewarded-for-works/) asked whether rewards are compatible with grace (an issue revisited at points also in the later installments). The second and longest installment (at Rewards part 2) examined what we’re rewarded for. This third installment extrapolates from some biblical teaching to try to understand what the reward is.
The third part is my own theological exploration. Like any theological exploration about the future, it may be open to debate, since “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard”—though God has given us a foretaste by his Spirit (1 Cor 2:9-10). I simply offer my best attempt to synthesize the biblical hope, recognizing that others may contribute better insights and, when faith becomes sight and we know as we are known, we will finally understand fully.
We know we will be rewarded, and that encourages us, but it’s not a competition with anybody else. One passage that most elaborates on reward specifically assigns rivalry and jealousy to the immature worldly mindedness of this age (1 Cor 3:3-4). (That’s not to say that Paul never employed competition when it served as a useful motivation; cf. 2 Cor 9:2.) To imagine what kind of reward will please us most, we should consider what our fully renewed perspectives will be like at the time of our future reward.
What will our perspective be like in eternity? In light of eternity, we should live not for others to praise us but for God to praise us (Rom 2:7, 29). God will openly declare that he is pleased with what we have offered him, declaring, “Well done!” (Matt 25:21, 23). (Based on Matt 25:21, 23, some suggest that this also includes the privilege of continuing to serve, by reigning. We will reign with him, but over whom exactly and in exactly what way may exceed our present knowledge. In any case, I’m sure it will be much nicer than the kind of administration we have to do in the present. Some of us professors, at least, do not enjoy committee work!)
Yet again in light of eternity, the point will not be boasting in ourselves but glorifying God. Perhaps the principle is the same when the elders in Revelation 4 cast their crowns before God’s throne to magnify their creator (Rev 4:10-11). In any case, the New Testament sometimes follows Jewish tradition in envisioning our reward as a crown. This reward sometimes refers to salvation itself—a crown of life (Rev 2:10), given to all who persevere (cf. 1 Cor 9:25).
But sometimes Paul speaks of other rewards. As noted above, Paul says that his reward (or payment, as it could be translated) is to be able to offer the gospel freely—that is, to sacrifice even more than God demands (1 Cor 9:17-18). Paul sometimes speaks of the churches he founded as his crown, and therefore exhorts them to persevere (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19). That is, his reward is that his labor for the Lord bears permanent fruit, and thus is not in vain. Again, the reward is measured not by how large our role in that fruitbearing is, but how faithful we are to our assigned role (1 Cor 3:6-8).
The results sought by the mature person of the Spirit, a person like Paul, are not our own status, which is already settled in Christ, but to contribute to Christ’s mission, to make a difference for a lost and suffering world (cf. Col 1:24). Similarly, John says that his greatest joy is that his children walk in the truth (3 John 4). He also apparently warns believers not to risk losing their reward, for which John and his colleagues have labored (2 John 8; I say “apparently” because of the textual variant here).
Is it possible that our reward and honor involves the fruit of our labors, and the reality of our service? Is it possible that a person’s reward for forgiving and not holding bitterness, or for sacrificing economically by not cheating, or, for the sake of serving the needy, going without what others possess, is that God will be glorified when all the secrets of our hearts are exposed?
Although the image is inadequate, we might envision the opening of the “books” for judgment (Rev 20:12) as something like revealing the uncensored videos of our lives. What is most important is that we are in the lamb’s book of life (Rev 20:12, 15), but everyone’s works will nevertheless be revealed. If much of our life is marked “forgiven,” we’ll give God glory for his grace; but how much more can we glorify his grace for what is marked “transformed” and “empowered” by his grace? Those works will express the fruit of his grace within us, and out of all creation’s actions these will bring God the greatest glory.
What goal can be greater than that we bring our maker and redeemer glory? Isn’t that the goal that will matter to us in our perfected state, in light of eternity? If that’s not what we value most highly right now, should it be? Like a bride eager to show her nuptial beauty to her groom (Rev 19:7-8; 21:2), like a child delighting to please loving parents, like devoted followers whose honor is found in the honor of their king, may everything we say and do and think be pleasing to our Lord.