Biblical Word Studies Class
Notes From All 11 Classes

Biblical Word Studies Class 1
Introduction

C. Michael Holloway
13 September 1998

1. Opening and Prayer.

2. The first thing that I'd like to do is give you all a brief quiz. If you have your bulletins handy, you can look at the write-up for this class for the questions.
1. The first question is, Does the Bible speak of a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge? Raise your hand if you think the answer is 'yes'. Now, raise your hand if you think the answer is 'no'.
2. The second question: Is there a difference between a person's spirit and soul? Raise your hand if you think the answer is 'yes'. Now, raise your hand if you think the answer is 'no'.
3. The final question: Does agape (or agapao) always refer to a special, God-honoring love? Raise your hand if you think the answer is 'yes'. Now, raise your hand if you think the answer is 'no'.
4. If we have time today, we'll provide an answer to the third question, the one about agape, but the answers to the other 2 will have to wait.
3. Now that the quiz is over, here's what we'll be doing the rest of the morning.
1. First, I'll tell you a little bit about my teaching philosophy, and how I plan to lead this class.
2. Second, I'll explain the basic goal of the class and the approach that we'll be taking each week.
3. Third, I'll give you the opportunity to help decide the topics we'll study in some future weeks.
4. Fourth, I'll give you your homework assignment for the week.
5. Finally, if there's time, we'll look briefly at the question about the meaning of agape.
4. My teaching philosophy can be summarized quite simply: Never tell someone something he can learn for himself.
1. This is not an idea that is new with me, by any means. It's a part of the Law of the Teaching Process, which is one of the 7 laws of teaching described by Gregory more than a century ago. And, of course, the idea wasn't new with Gregory, either. One can easily see this philosophy being worked out in the teaching of the Bible, too.
2. For example, in Hebrews 5 verse 12, the writer expresses frustration that his readers had not learned things that they ought to have learned: For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
3. Now, saying what the philosophy is is quite simple, and I doubt that many people would disagree with it. But, figuring out how to work that philosophy out in practice is not so simple, especially in a group such as this, which has people from many different backgrounds, and with widely varying levels of knowledge.
4. What I'm going to do is this. I'm going to spend much more time asking you all questions than I am giving you answers. In fact, I'm probably going to end up talking more in this first class, than I will in two or three future classes combined. This sort of approach has worked well for me in the past, and I hope that it will do so again.
5. One other thing: I'm not going to be giving out notes or outlines. It will be up to you to take your own notes. By taking your own notes, your mind should be occupied consistently throughout the class, and not just when it is time to fill in something on a pre-printed outline.
6. When the quarter is over, I'll be happy to make copies of my complete set of notes for anyone who asks for them, but I'm not going to do it on a week-to-week basis.
7. Before we go on to talk about the specifics of the approach we'll be taking in future classes, are there any questions about what I've talked about so far?
5. The basic goal of the class is simple: To increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible.
1. This is a worthy goal, because understanding the meaning of Biblical words is essential to living a God-honoring life.
2. For example, suppose that God said in the Bible: You shall gimbit wally daily. To know whether you're obeying this command, you have to know what gimbit wally (and you, and shall, and daily) mean. It's possible to obey this command without knowing the meaning of the words, but it's not possible to know that you're obeying without knowing the meaning of the words.
3. Jonathan Edwards certainly was thinking of the misuse of words by those who use words without clear definitions when he wrote in Miscellanies #4: 'O, how is the world darkened, clouded, distracted, and torn to pieces by those dreadful enemies of mankind called words.'
6. The basic approach that I will be taking to achieve this goal is to concentrate on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
1. There are at least two parts of this approach that need explanation. First, why English words, why not words from the original languages? Second, why the NASB?
1. Before I tell you why I decided to concentrate on English words, you tell me why you think I might have made this decision. ... I had 3 reasons.
1. English is the language we speak. If we want to communicate with our relatives, our neighbors, our friends, or our co-workers, we're most likely going to use English. Thus, it is critically important to know how to use the relevant English words in biblically correct ways.
2. I know very little Hebrew, and even less Greek, and even the words for which I know the meaning, I can't pronounce very well. If I spent a lot of time on Hebrew or Greek words, much of what I said would be grating on the ears.
3. Even if I knew and could speak both Hebrew and Greek, not many of you do, so I'd end up having to translate into English, anyway.
2. Now, choosing the NASB was a three-step process,
1. First, I quickly narrowed the possibilities to those based on formal equivalence, because I believe no other translations are legitimate candidates for English-based word studies. This eliminated translations like the NIV, which make little or no effort to translate the original words of the text into English, but attempt to translate the original thoughts instead.
2. Second, I eliminated from consideration any translation that wouldn't be familiar to most people. This eliminated the so-called literal translations such as Young's or Jay Green's, and left as candidates the King James, New King James, and New American Standard Bibles.
3. Picking between these was simple. Although I use the New King James personally, our pew Bibles are NASB. By choosing the NASB, along with making sure that this class met in here instead of in the modular building, I could be assured that everyone would have the same translation available.
2. So, let me repeat, what we want to do in this class is determine the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation
3. But what does it mean to determine the meaning of a word? Let's consider a concrete example. Suppose I say to you, 'Karch is a great passer.' Suppose you want to know meaning of the word 'passer' in that sentence? Is it enough for you to think, for example, 'whenever I use the word passer, I'm talking about football, so it must mean thrower of a football'? No, that's not enough. So, what do you need to do to determine the meaning of the word in the sentence? ...
1. First, you need to realize that what is important is determining what the speaker, that is me, means by the word, not what you think he means, or want him to mean.
2. Second, you have to use all of the clues available to you to help you decide what the speaker means. What are some of the clues available? ...
1. One clue is common usage. In our example, we know that the word 'passer' isn't used to refer to a baseball pitcher, or a writer of fiction, or a cook, so this sentence isn't suggesting that Karch is competition for Greg Maddux, John Grisham, or Monroe Duncan.
2. A second clue is context. This example doesn't have a lot of context, but there is some. Consider the likely difference in meaning between 'Karch is a great passer' and 'Dan is a great passer.' If we happened to add the last names Kiraly and Marino, then the context would be an even bigger clue.
3. A third clue is the speaker. If you know me well, then you know I'm probably not talking about football, in either the spherical or elliptical variants, or basketball, and that I'm probably talking about volleyball, so 'passer' in this sentence probably means 'someone who passes (or bumps) a volleyball'.
4. Are there any other clues? ...
4. Now, let's consider quickly how this applies to what we're doing in this class: determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the NASB.
1. First, we need to realize that what we want to do is to determine what the writer meant when he used a particular word. In this case, 'the writer' refers both to the human author, and to God Himself. It doesn't matter what we might want the words to mean; it only matters what God has them mean. For example, modern liberals and certain holders of high office in the country might conjure new definitions for adultery, but all that matters when it comes to whether one broke the 8^th commandment is God's definition.
2. Second, in determining what God means, we have to use the clues available: common usage, context, and knowledge of the writer (both the human author and God).
5. OK, so now you know what goal of the class is and the approach we'll be taking. Tell me what some of the assumptions underlying this approach are: that is, what are some of the things that need to be true in order for this approach to be valid? ....
1. The translators have to have done a good job.
2. Determining what a word means must be possible.
3. God must intend for us to be able to understand His Word in our own language.
7. Now, I want to give you all a chance to help decide what words we'll be studying in the coming weeks.
1. Before opening up that discussion, let me first tell you that there a few words that we're going to study, whether you like it or not, because I think they're important. These words are:
1. head & heart and their variants
2. (unless few missed the question at the beginning) soul & spirit
3. nature, and
4. all
2. Given that constraint, what are some words that you all want us to study? [class gave suggestions]
3. Since we only have 11 more weeks of classes, we almost certainly will not be able to cover all of these, but I'll do my best to cover as many as possible.
8. Next week, we'll start our study of the words head & heart, by looking at the word heart. Let me ask you all a question: How often does the word heart, as used in the NASB, refer to emotions?
1. If you think that heart always refers to emotions, raise your hand.
2. If you think that heart usually refers to emotions, raise your hand.
3. If you think that heart sometimes refers to emotions, raise your hand.
4. If you think that heart rarely refers to emotions, raise your hand.
5. Finally, if you think that heart never refers to emotions, raise your hand.
6. Well, your homework assignment for the week, if you choose to accept it, is to produce evidence to support your position.
9. I said earlier, that if time permitted, we'd look at the answer to the question about whether agape always refers to a special, God-honoring love.
1. As you probably know, there are plenty of people who say that it does. In fact, I've heard many sermons, not here but in other places, that emphasize the uniqueness of so-called agape love. More than one such sermon presents an exposition of John 21:15-17 that makes a big deal out of the difference between Jesus' use of agape and Peter's use of phileo.
2. Folks who give these sermons, and the folks who are impressed by them, seem to have overlooked a passage that shows fairly conclusively that agape does not always mean a special, God-honoring love. Turn please to 2 Timothy 4:9-10.
3. In this passage, Paul writes: Make every effort to come to me soon; for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.
4. The word translated loved here is agapao, the same one that supposedly refers only to a special, God-honoring love. Now, is Paul saying in this passage, that Demas had a special, God-honoring love for the world that was so much greater than Paul's that Demas found it necessary to leave Paul in order to minister properly? I rather doubt it.
5. Now, it may certainly be possible that in other passages agapao refers to some special kind of love, but need to make that determination based on the context, not on the simple appearance of the word. Just as the English word love has many different meanings and shades of meaning, so too do the Greek words for love.
10. Well, that's all for today. As I said earlier, next week we'll look at the word heart. I hope that each one of you will put his or her whole heart into completing your homework assignment. Until next time, you're dismissed.

Biblical Word Studies Class 2
Ya Gotta Have Heart

C. Michael Holloway
20 September 1998

1. Opening & prayer.
2. Before we get into the subject of this morning, which is the word heart, I'll review very briefly what we discussed last week.
1. I stated my basic teaching philosophy, which is Never tell someone something he can learn for himself. And I explained how I planned to work out that philosophy in this class.
2. After that, I explained the basic goal and approach of the class. Can someone tell me what those are?
1. The basic goal of the class is to increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible.
2. The basic approach is to concentrate on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
3. After that, I gave you the opportunity to help decide the topics we'll study in some future weeks. There were quite a few suggestions made, including several after class was over. My tentative plan is to cover the following words in the coming weeks, not necessarily in this order:
1. knowledge, understanding, & wisdom
2. soul, spirit, flesh, & nature
3. gossip, slander, & similar words
4. humility & submission
5. judge
6. grace & mercy
7. all & world
8. love & hate
4. We saw how a popular explanation of the meaning of Greek word agapao isn't supported by Scripture.
5. And I also took a poll of how often people thought that the Bible uses the word heart to refer to emotions, with the choices being always, usually, sometimes, rarely, and never. As I recall, each of these choices received at least one vote, except for always.
3. That leads us directly to your homework assignment. Someone tell me what the assignment was for this week.
4. Now, before we start looking at verses in detail, I'm going to give you a few facts about the word heart.
1. A modern English dictionary will give quite a few different possible meanings for heart. These include
1. The hollow, muscular organ that pumps the blood throughout the body ...
2. The seat of one's inmost thoughts and secret feelings; soul; mind. He told us everything that was in his heart.
3. Moral sense; conscience. He knew in his heart that he was wrong. This is really just a subset of the previous definition, I think.
4. The source of the emotions, especially of love or affection; devotion. He gave his heart to her.
5. Courage; enthusiasm; determination. Don't lose heart.
6. Kindness; sympathy. Have you no heart?
7. The innermost part; middle; center. in the heart of the forest
8. The main part; vital or important part; essence. Let's get to the heart of the matter.
2. And there are some others, too. As you can see, the semantic range of the English word heart is quite wide.
3. In the New American Standard Bible, the word heart and its variants such as hearts and heart's occur 855 times in 792 verses. 627 of these verses are in the Old Testament, 165 are in the New Testament. Just for information, the New King James translators chose to use the word a bit more often. It occurs 988 times in 913 verses (742 in the OT and 171 in the New).
4. In both translations, the first verse in which the word appears is Genesis 6:5: Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. So, it is a good thing that no one said last week that heart always refers to emotions, because this verse alone would refute him.
5. In both translations, the last verse in which the word appears is Revelation 18:7: "To the degree that she glorified herself and lived sensuously, to the same degree give her torment and mourning; for she says in her heart, 'I SIT as A QUEEN AND I AM NOT A WIDOW, and will never see mourning.'
6. In the Old Testament, in the vast majority of cases, heart is used as the translation of the same basic Hebrew word (leb [labe] or lebab [lay-bawb]). The situation in the New Testament is similar: the majority of times, heart translates the same basic Greek word (kardia).
7. Our approach of concentrating on the English word used in the NASB is well justified here, because the primary words in both the Hebrew and the Greek have wide semantic ranges very similar to that of our English word.
8. Are there any questions about these basic facts?
5. OK, now its time to look at all 792 verses. Just kidding, we don't have time to do that, but we will look at quite a few of them. We'll take care of the easy cases first.
1. The first two passages we'll look at are 2 Samuel 18:14 and 2 Kings 9:24. Will the folks who I've asked to read those, please do so now?
1. 2 Samuel 18:14 Then Joab said, "I will not waste time here with you." So he took three spears in his hand and thrust them through the heart of Absalom while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak.
2. 2 Kings 9:24 And Jehu drew his bow with his full strength and shot Joram between his arms; and the arrow went through his heart, and he sank in his chariot.
3. What does heart mean here? It is referring to the physical organ. There are a few other passages that use the word in this way, but not very many. Usually, this meaning is pretty easy to see.
2. Now, will the readers of Exodus 15:8 and Matthew 12:40, please read those passages for us?
1. Exodus 15:8 And at the blast of Thy nostrils the waters were piled up, The flowing waters stood up like a heap; The deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.
2. Matthew 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
3. What does heart mean in these passages? These passages are using the word in the sense of 'the innermost part, middle, or center'. Again, there are some other passages with a similar sense; these, too, are fairly easy to see.
3. Let's go on to another set of passages: 2 Samuel 17:10, Galatians 6:0, and Colossians 3:21. Readers, please read.
1. 2 Samuel 17:10 "And even the one who is valiant, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will completely lose heart; for all Israel knows that your father is a mighty man and those who are with him are valiant men.
2. Galatians 6:9 And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary.
3. Colossians 3:21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart.
4. What's the meaning in these verses? The sense here seems to be along the lines of 'courage, enthusiasm, and determination,' don't you think? This sense occurs more often than either of the other two we've looked at -- it occurs about 30 times -- but like the other two, it is fairly easy to recognize.
4. Let's look at one more use of heart that appears fairly infrequently in the Scripture. That use is with the sense of 'kindness or sympathy'. Consider these two passages.
1. Colossians 3:12-13 And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.
2. Ephesians 4:32 And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
5. Now, we've pretty much taken care of the easy part. Before we go on, are there any questions or comments?
6. Let's now consider the question of how often the Bible uses heart to refer to emotions.
1. I'm going to read to you 30 passages that use the word heart (or one of its variants). If I read one that you think uses the word to refer to emotions, raise your hand. I'll record the results.
1. Psa 4:4 Tremble, and do not sin; Meditate in your heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
2. *Psa 19:8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
3. Psa 19:14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.
4. Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
5. *Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.
6. Psa 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.
7. Psa 119:2 How blessed are those who observe His testimonies, Who seek Him with all their heart.
8. Psa 119:11 Thy word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against Thee.
9. Prov 2:2 Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding;
10. Prov 3:1 My son, do not forget my teaching, But let your heart keep my commandments;
11. Prov 4:23 Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.
12. Prov 11:20 The perverse in heart are an abomination to the LORD, But the blameless in their walk are His delight.
13. Prov 12:20 Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, But counselors of peace have joy.
14. Prov 15:28 The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things.
15. *Prov 17:22 A joyful heart is good medicine, But a broken spirit dries up the bones.
16. Prov 20:5 A plan in the heart of a man is like deep water, But a man of understanding draws it out.
17. Isa 51:7 "Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My law; Do not fear the reproach of man, Neither be dismayed at their revilings.
18. Jer 3:15 "Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding.
19. Mat 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
20. Luke 5:22 But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts?
21. *Luke 12:34 "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22. Luke 24:25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
23. *John 16:6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
24. Acts 8:22 Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.
25. Rom 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
26. 2 Cor 3:15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
27. 2 Cor 9:7 Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.
28. Eph 6:5-6 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.
29. 1 Th 3:13 so that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.
30. 1 Pet 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
2. If these passages are representative of the use of the word heart in the entire Bible, and if anything, the emotional use occurs here more frequently than it does in the Bible as a whole, then what can we conclude about the frequency of the word referring to emotions? ... It is rather rare.
7. What, then does, heart most often mean in the Bible? ... Most often the word heart expresses the totality of a person's nature and character and includes all 3 of the traditional personality functions of man: emotion (or affections), thought, and will.
1. In many places, the emphasis is on the intellect, and the word mind is almost a synonym. Many of the uses of heart in Proverbs are of this variety. An example passage where heart is used in this way is Proverbs 15:28The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. It's interesting to note that in the Old Testament, the word mind appears 88 times. In 44 of those times, the Hebrew word that mind is translating is either labe or lay-bawb, the same word that is most often the basis of heart. Some of the difference in the word counts between the NASB and the NKJV come from the NASB using mind where the NKJV uses heart.
2. In many places also, the emphasis is on the will, and the word will is a synonym. An example passage of this type is Acts 8:22 Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.
3. But, most often, I believe, the Bible uses heart in such a way that it seems to include the intellect, the emotions, and the will, without differentiating between them or emphasizing one over the other. In cases such as these, the word soul is nearly synonomous. The majority of the passages we just read are of this type.
4. As an example, consider Psa 119:11 Thy word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against Thee. Certainly, this must include the intellect, because that is what we use to learn and understand the word. But, the idea of treasuring certainly involves the emotions, and the will is involved, too, because not sinning necessarily requires making choices.
8. In closing, let me suggest three applications of what we've studied this morning.
1. First, given the prevailing attitude of our culture, which emphasizes emotions above all else, be very careful about using the word heart. If you're not careful, someone is likely to think you talking about having warm, fuzzy feelings. I am certain there are people who buy the book Training a Child's Heart expecting to find advice on how to make a child feel good.
2. Second, when you hear others using the word heart, make sure you know what they mean before you either agree or disagree with them. What one person means by, for example, knowing in his heart he's saved, may correspond to Biblical teaching, or it may correspond to nothing more than a nice feeling inside. Make people explain what they mean, don't just assume you know.
3. Third, and perhaps most importantly, cultivate a Biblical psychology, one that recognizes that the intellect, the affections, and the will form an integrated whole, not separate parts. Although occasions arise in which it may be helpful to talk about, the will by itself or the intellect by itself, always remember that neither the will, nor the intellect, nor the emotions exist by themselves. They are all essential parts of the same thing, namely the soul. In the real world, there are no Vulcans.
9. That's all for today. My current plan for next week is to look at knowledge, understanding, & wisdom. But I reserve the right to change my mind, or, to put it in terms more appropriate to what we've just discussed, I reserve the right to have a change of heart. Thanks for coming.

Biblical Word Studies Class 3
What's Your KUW-Q?

C. Michael Holloway
27 September 1998

1. Prayer
2. Review of we've done in the two previous weeks.
1. In the first week, I told you the basic goal of the class, which is to increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible.
2. I also told you that our approach will be to concentrate on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
3. Last week, we looked at the word heart. We saw that the word and its variants occurs fairly often in the Bible (855 times in 792 verses in the NASB)
4. We also saw that the word has several different meanings, but that it primarily has one particular meaning. What is that? Most often the word heart expresses the totality of a person's nature and character and includes all 3 of the traditional personality functions of man: emotion (or affections), thought, and will. An example verse is Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding.
5. Finally, we discussed three applications that arise from understanding the Biblical use of the word heart.
1. Given the prevailing attitude of our culture, which emphasizes emotions above all else, be very careful about using the word heart.
2. When you hear others using the word heart, make sure you know what they mean before you either agree or disagree with them.
3. Most importantly, cultivate a Biblical psychology, one that recognizes that the intellect, the affections, and the will form an integrated whole, not separate parts.
3. That's what we've done the last two weeks. The topic for today is knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. We're going to try to cover this topic in just this one class, but we'll continue into next week if that's necessary.
1. For this week, the homework that I asked you to consider was this: do the words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom refer to the same thing in the Bible, or do they refer to something different?
2. Of those who did the homework, how many of you decided that they refer to basically the same thing?
3. How many think they refer to something different?
4. Before we start looking at the words, I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about a dangerous view that I've heard some people express.
1. That view is this: if a different word is used, a different meaning must be intended.
2. People who hold this view, would, for example, claim that heart can't mean something like mind or soul, because the Scripture says 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' (Mat 22:37 and other places). Because all three words are used, they must have different meanings.
3. People with such a view have developed very ingenious theories to distinguish between God's perfect will, and His good will, and His acceptable will, because Romans 12:2 says 'And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.'
4. Besides taking examples from common usage to show that this theory -- this notion that different words necessarily have different meanings -- is false, we can also find suitable refutation in the text of Scripture itself.
5. Revelation 22:13 is a good example. Jesus says: 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.' To the best of my knowledge, no one has asserted that there is an intended difference in meaning between 'the Alpha and the Omega', 'the first and the last', and 'the beginning and the end.' In this passage, everyone recognizes that the use of different words does not necessarily imply different meanings. It is simply a literary device used for what?
6. It is used for emphasis.
7. Different words may have different meanings, or they may not. You have to use the same clues you normally use to determine meaning: context, common usage, and knowledge of the speaker. You can't rely on some blanket rule, because such a rule is, to slightly mis-quote Winston Churchill's comment about another frequently misused blanket rule, 'the sort of nonsense up with which we should not put.'
8. So what does this little diversion mean for the subject at hand? It simply means that just because the words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom are used together in some passages, doesn't mean that we can necessarily conclude that they have different meanings.
5. As I did with the word heart last week, let me give you a few basic facts about our words this week.
1. The word knowledge occurs 156 times in 153 verses in the NASB. About two-thirds of those occurrences are in the Old Testament.
1. The most common Hebrew word translated as knowledge is daat [dah-aht] (1847), from the root yada [yah-da] (3045), which means to know.
2. The most common Greek word is gnwsis [gnos-tis] (1108), from the root ginwskw (1097) [ginos-ko], which is from a primitive root gn, meaning to know, recognize, perceive.
2. Understanding occurs 135 times in 133 verses, with nearly 90% of the occurrences in the Old Testament.
1. The most common Hebrew word is tebunah [t'boon-ah] (8394), and closely related variants, which come from bina [bee-nah] (995), which is a primitive root meaning to discern.
2. For the New Testament, the word only occurs 16 times, and it is used as a translation of 8 different Greek words, with basic meanings ranging from the mind, to knowledge, to a running or setting together.
3. The word wisdom occurs 216 times in 203 verses. Three-quarters of the occurrences are in the Old Testament.
1. The most common Hebrew word (143 of the 164 occurrences) is hokma [hauk-mah] (2451), from hakam [hah-kahm] (2449), a primitive root meaning to be wise.
2. The most common Greek word is sophia (4678), from sophos (4680), a primitive word meaning skilled or wise.
4. In almost 20% of the verses in which one of the words occurs, at least one of the other words also occurs. All 3 occur in the same verse 9 times, 8 times in the Old Testament, and once in the New Testament.
5. In book of Proverbs, knowledge occurs 40 times, understanding 47 times, and wisdom 48 times; all three occur together 3 times; two of the three occur together 32 times.
6. For simplicity, and because we can safely do so without losing much generality, We're going to concentrate on the use of our three words in Proverbs alone.
1. Let's begin by looking at five passages from the early chapters in Proverbs. I've asked some folks to read for us. As I call the passage, I'd like for the person who has it to read it.
1. Proverbs 1:1-7. The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel: {2} To know wisdom and instruction, To discern the sayings of understanding, {3} To receive instruction in wise behavior, Righteousness, justice and equity; {4} To give prudence to the naive, To the youth knowledge and discretion, {5} A wise man will hear and increase in learning, And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel, {6} To understand a proverb and a figure, The words of the wise and their riddles. {7} The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.
2. Proverbs 1:20-29.Wisdom shouts in the street, She lifts her voice in the square; {21} At the head of the noisy streets she cries out; At the entrance of the gates in the city, she utters her sayings: {22} "How long, O naive ones, will you love simplicity? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing, And fools hate knowledge? {23} Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you. {24} Because I called, and you refused; I stretched out my hand, and no one paid attention; {25} And you neglected all my counsel, And did not want my reproof; {26} I will even laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes, {27} When your dread comes like a storm, And your calamity comes on like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come on you. {28} Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me, {29} Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the LORD.
3. Proverbs 2:1-11.My son, if you will receive my sayings, And treasure my commandments within you, {2} Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; {3} For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; {4} If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; {5} Then you will discern the fear of the LORD, And discover the knowledge of God. {6} For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding. {7} He stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk in integrity, {8} Guarding the paths of justice, And He preserves the way of His godly ones. {9} Then you will discern righteousness and justice And equity and every good course. {10} For wisdom will enter your heart, And knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; {11} Discretion will guard you, Understanding will watch over you.
4. Proverbs 3:19-26. The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens. {20} By His knowledge the deeps were broken up, And the skies drip with dew. {21} My son, let them not depart from your sight; Keep sound wisdom and discretion, {22} So they will be life to your soul, And adornment to your neck. {23} Then you will walk in your way securely, And your foot will not stumble. {24} When you lie down, you will not be afraid; When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet. {25} Do not be afraid of sudden fear, Nor of the onslaught of the wicked when it comes; {26} For the LORD will be your confidence, And will keep your foot from being caught.
5. Proverbs 4:1-7. Hear, O sons, the instruction of a father, And give attention that you may gain understanding, {2} For I give you sound teaching; Do not abandon my instruction. {3} When I was a son to my father, Tender and the only son in the sight of my mother, {4} Then he taught me and said to me, "Let your heart hold fast my words; Keep my commandments and live; {5} Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth. {6} Do not forsake her, and she will guard you; Love her, and she will watch over you. {7} The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, get understanding.
2. What can we observe based on these passages about the meanings of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and about the relationship between them?
1. The three words are intimately related.
2. Although the words are intimately related, they do not appear to be exactly synonymous.
3. Since the words are not quite synonymous, what are the differences between them? These passages alone are probably not enough to be able to figure this out, but those who did the homework probably were able to figure it out.
1. Knowledge generally refers to basic information or facts.
1. This corresponds well to what is called grammar in the trivium model of education.
2. The process of gaining knowledge involves the acquisition of true propositions, things such as:
1. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
2. It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
3. Believers are commanded to witness to the lost.
2. Understanding generally refers to assembling this information into its proper relationships.
1. This corresponds well to what is called logic in the trivium.
2. Knowledge is a prerequisite for understanding; in order to assemble information into proper relationships, one must have information available.
3. Understanding is what enables a person to combine the facts I just mentioned (God loves the world, salvation depends on God alone, believers are to witness) into a coherent, non-contradictory theology.
3. Finally, wisdom generally refers to the ability to arrange, articulate, and apply knowledge and understanding to the circumstances that arise in one's life.
1. This corresponds to the rhetoric stage of the trivium.
2. Knowledge and understanding are prerequisites for wisdom. Unless a person knows the facts, and how those facts relate to one another, he cannot know what to do in specific circumstances.
3. Continuing with our example, someone who has knowledge and understanding of the doctrine of predestination, but who lacks wisdom might begin a conversation with an unbeliever by saying something like, 'I don't know whether God has ordained that you will go to heaven or hell, but just in case He has chosen you for heaven, let me tell you about Jesus.'
4. What we've just done constitutes knowledge and some understanding about knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. That is, we've determined the basic facts, and talked some about the relationships between those facts. Let's now develop our understanding a bit more.
1. We already said earlier that there is an intimate relationship between the three.
1. It is possible to have knowledge without also having understanding or wisdom. Young children are a good example of this. They may be full of facts, but few have understanding, and nearly none have wisdom.
2. It is not possible to have understanding without having knowledge, but it is possible to have understanding without also having wisdom. Historically, many reformed people have tended to exhibit this. Theological error prevails today partly, perhaps largely, as a result of the lack of wisdom in people who possessed a proper understanding of theology. The theology was right, but the application of that theology was flawed, leading to what has been called dead orthodoxy.
3. Wisdom is not possible without both understanding and knowledge.
4. Finally, the wise man is able to acquire even more knowledge and understanding, thus becoming wiser still.
2. If we had time to study more of the passages in Proverbs, and in other parts of Scripture, we'd see that the characteristics that distinguish a person with knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (or, as I like to refer to it, KUW) include such things as these:
1. Humility: 11:2. When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom.
2. Restrained speech: 17:27. He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.
3. Slowness to anger: 14:29. He who is slow to anger has great understanding, But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.
4. Love of discipline: 12:1. Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, But he who hates reproof is stupid.
5. Fervent desire to grow in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom: 10:23. Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool; And so is wisdom to a man of understanding. 16:16. How much better it is to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is to be chosen above silver.
7. Let's now seek to develop some wisdom about KUW. I'll help to guide you toward this by suggesting the following five applications:
1. First, from Proverbs 21:30, remember that There is no wisdom and no understanding And no counsel against the LORD. Those who refuse to acknowledge God, may have high IQ's, but their KUW-Q's are quite low.
2. Second, from Proverbs 23:23, Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding. Take advantage of every opportunity that God gives you to increase your knowledge, understanding, and wisdom about His word and His world.
3. Third, remember that God has not chosen to give everyone the same abilities, nor has He chosen to give everyone the same opportunities. You are charged only with making good use of your abilities and opportunities. Do not be discouraged because others know more than you, understand more than you, or are wiser than you.
4. Fourth, remember that no matter how much KUW God, by His grace, may enable you to obtain, you are woefully ignorant compared to God. You have no cause to boast.
5. Finally, rather than concentrating on the differences between knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, concentrate on the intimate relationship between them. The differences can be useful for teaching purposes, as the success of the trivium model of education attests, but always remember that the goal is attaining KUW (that is, all 3).
8. That's all for today. My plan for next week is for us to combine what we've learned this week and last to answer one of the questions that I asked in the bulletin announcement for this course, namely, Does the Bible speak of a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge? Your homework for the week is to consider this question. Lest someone be tempted to say 'no' simply because the Bible never uses either phrases head knowledge or heart knowledge, let me remind you that the Bible never uses the phrase the Trinity either. Let me remind you, also, that just because someone gives a fallacious argument doesn't mean that his conclusion is wrong. Thanks for your attention and participation. You're dismissed.

Biblical Word Studies Class 4
Heart Knowledge v. Head Knowledge

C. Michael Holloway
4 October 1998

1. Opening & prayer.
2. As always, let's begin with a review of what we've done so far.
1. The basic goal of the class is to increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible. We're doing this by concentrating on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
2. In the second week, we saw that the word heart has several different meanings in the Bible, but that it most often expresses the totality of a person's nature and character and includes all 3 of the traditional personality functions of man: the affections, the intellect, and the volition.
3. We saw that we should
1. be very careful about using the word heart;
2. make sure we know what someone means when he uses the word; and
3. most importantly, cultivate a Biblical psychology, one that recognizes that the intellect, the affections, and the will form an integrated whole, not separate parts.
4. Last week, we studied the words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and saw that the three words are intimately related, but not quite synonymous, because
1. Knowledge generally refers to basic information or facts;
2. Understanding generally refers to assembling this information into its proper relationships; and
3. Wisdom generally refers to the ability to arrange, articulate, and apply knowledge and understanding to the circumstances that arise in one's life.
5. We saw also that
1. It is possible to have knowledge without also having understanding or wisdom.
2. It is possible to have understanding without also having wisdom, but it is not possible to have understanding without knowledge.
3. And wisdom is not possible without both understanding and knowledge.
6. As applications, we discussed the need to
1. Acknowledge that KUW comes from God alone.
2. Take advantage of every opportunity that God gives us to increase our knowledge, understanding, and wisdom about His word and His world.
3. Remember that we are charged only with making good use of the abilities and opportunities God has given us.
4. Remember that no matter how much KUW God, by His grace, may enable us to obtain, we have no cause to boast, because we are woefully ignorant compared to God.
5. Concentrate on the intimate relationship between knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, not on the differences between them.
3. This brings us to the subject of today's class, namely Does the Bible speak of a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge?
1. Without telling me what you believe the answer to the question is, tell me what you have to know to be able to answer the question.
2. Of course, you have to know lots of things, but one thing that is absolutely essential is knowing what the person asking the question meant by the phrases head knowledge and heart knowledge. Apparently, all of you thought you knew what I meant, because no one asked me what I meant. Now, before anyone thinks I was trying to trick you, I didn't have any special meanings in mind. I just meant what those phrases mean in common usage, whatever that may be.
3. So, again without telling us how you answered the basic question, someone tell us what you believe head knowledge means. Likely answers include:
1. Knowledge without understanding or wisdom
2. Saying that you believe some things are true, but showing no evidence that you believe them. Intellectual assent without volitional commitment.
4. OK, now someone tell us what you believe heart knowledge is. Likely answers include:
1. understanding and wisdom
2. Showing evidence by your actions that you believe what you say you believe. Assent with commitment. Saving faith.
5. Now a few of you tell us briefly how you answered the question: Does the Bible speak of a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge?
4. Now, I'll give you my answer: 'Yes, but we shouldn't.'
1. Before anyone seeks out the nearest elder to charge me with heresy for suggesting that we ought not do something that the Bible does, let me explain this little play on words.
2. The 'yes' part means that the Bible does make a distinction between something like what is often called head knowledge and something like what is often called heart knowledge. In that sense, it is appropriate to say that it speaks of a difference between head and heart knowledge.
3. The 'but we shouldn't part' means that the phrases head knowledge and heart knowledge are not very good ones to use to express the distinction that the Bible makes, so we ought not use those phrases.
4. Someone out there is almost certainly thinking at this point, 'but John Calvin used those phrases, why shouldn't we?'
1. First, although Calvin wrote in Latin and French, not English, he did write some things that, if not quite translating into the specific phrases we're discussing, are pretty close.
1. In Book III, Chapter II, Section 8 of the Institutes, he writes that faith 'is more of the heart than of the brain.'
2. In Book I, Chapter V, Section 9, he writes that 'we are called to a knowledge of God: not that knowledge which, content with empty speculation, merely flits in the brain, but that which will be sound and fruitful if we duly perceive it, and if takes root in the heart.' The translators footnote says, 'Calvin here distinguishes between cerebrum and cor, brain and heart, in relation to the knowledge of God, characteristically giving the importance to the latter.'
2. So, I agree that Calvin made a distinction between types of knowledge. I've already said that the Bible makes such a distinction, too. What I'm saying is that, today, in the culture in which we live, using the words head and heart to make that distinction is unwise. The example of what Calvin wrote over 400 years ago does nothing to disprove this. The words he chose to make the distinction may have been the right ones for 16^th century Europe; I do not think that these words are the right ones for 20^th (almost 21^st) century America.
5. Just as an aside, I found an interesting use this week of head & heart to distinguish things.
1. I was reading a two volume set called The Debate on the Constitution, which contains federalist and antifederalist speeches, articles, and letters during 1787-1788 when states were deciding whether to ratify the constitution.
2. During the North Carolina Convention, James Iredell gave a speech about the impeachment provisions in the Constitution. In this speech he said the following: "I beg leave to observe, that when any man is impeached, it must be for an error of the heart, not of the head."
3. He went on the explain, sort of, what he meant by this statement: "Whatever mistake [in judgement] a man may make, he ought not be punished for it, nor his posterity rendered infamous. But if a man be a villain, and willfully abuses his trust, he is to be held up as a public offender, and ignominiously punished."
4. What does this have to do with our lesson? Not a lot, but it does illustrate the ambiguity in the head/heart distinction. I suspect that both those who think our current President should be impeached, and those who think he should not be impeached, could quote Mr. Iredell to support their position.
6. Let's now look at the Scripture to see what the actual distinction that it makes is, and then let's consider what words can best express that distinction.
5. Let's look first at Deuteronomy 6:4-9, James 1:21-27, and Psalm 111:10.
1. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! {5} And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. {6} And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; {7} and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. {8} And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. {9} And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
2. James 1:21-27 Therefore putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. {22} But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. {23} For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; {24} for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. {25} But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does. {26} If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. {27} This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
3. Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.
4. First, are these passages talking about what is often called heart knowledge? ... Yes, they are. How do they characterize it?
1. It is associated with love for God, which in turn is associated with ...
2. ...doing what He commands. 'A good understanding have all those who do His commandments' says Psalm 111:10. 'prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves' says James.
5. Further, many other passages make clear that it doesn't much matter what someone says they know or believe, it matters what they do. Matthew 15:7-9 is one of many that could be chosen to illustrate this. Here Jesus says, "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, {8} 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. {9} 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"
6. So, the Scripture clearly speaks of a type of knowledge that leads to godly behavior, which corresponds to what is sometimes called today heart knowledge.
6. Let's turn now to what is sometimes called head knowledge.
1. Those of you on my left look up Hosea 4:1-6, and those on my right to look up 2 Timothy 2:24-26.
1. Those on my left, let's read Hosea 4:1-6 together: Listen to the word of the LORD, O sons of Israel, For the LORD has a case against the inhabitants of the land, Because there is no faithfulness or kindness Or knowledge of God in the land. {2} There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing, and adultery. They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed. {3} Therefore the land mourns, And everyone who lives in it languishes Along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky; And also the fish of the sea disappear. {4} Yet let no one find fault, and let none offer reproof; For your people are like those who contend with the priest. {5} So you will stumble by day, And the prophet also will stumble with you by night; And I will destroy your mother. {6} My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
2. Now, those on my right, let's read 2 Timothy 2:24-26: And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, {25} with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, {26} and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
3. When it comes to knowledge, what do both of these passages say about those who reject God? The passage in Hosea says it directly, the one in 2 Timothy by implication.
4. They say that people who reject God do not have knowledge about Him or the truth. 'My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.' Neither passage suggests that these people have the wrong kind of knowledge; they say these people have no knowledge of God's truth.
5. Does this mean that these people were not aware of any the facts of God's truth? Does the passage in Hosea mean that the people had lost the written Scripture and oral tradition and were ignorant of the sacrificial system, the Ten Commandments, and all the rest?
6. No, it doesn't mean that. It means that their behavior was no different from those who were not aware of the facts. That is, someone who is acquainted with true propositions but lives as if those propositions were not true, has, according to the Scripture, no more grounds for claiming to know those propositions than someone who has never even heard them.
2. Let's look at some more passages to see that this same idea is taught elsewhere, too.
1. In Luke 11:52, Jesus says: "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
2. Paul writes in Romans 10:1-4: Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. {2} For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. {3} For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. {4} For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
3. Paul also writes in 1 Timothy 6:20-21: O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"-- {21} which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.
4. These passages also characterize those who are not believers as not having knowledge. They don't have head knowledge, they have no knowledge.
3. Some possible objections to this.
1. Objection: unbelievers do know some things
1. It is certainly true that in our culture today, we use the word 'know' and 'knowledge' rather more loosely than the Bible usually does.
2. When it comes to matters related to salvation, I think we are on solid Biblical grounds to say that the only ones who have real knowledge are those who are regenerate.
3. When it comes to other matters, like how to remove an appendix, or how to rebuild a car engine, there's not a lot of harm done by saying that unbelievers have knowledge about such things. At a fundamental epistemological level, unbelievers have their feet firmly planted in mid-air, as Frances Schaeffer wrote, so they can't really know that they know anything. But, unless you're engaged in a discussion with someone who is philosophically sophisticated, making that distinction might show off your knowledge and understanding, but it would also probably show off your lack of wisdom.
2. Objection: demons know all about God based on James 2:19]
1. James 2:19 says "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder."
2. From this verse, we can legitimately conclude only that the demons are neither atheists nor polytheists. We can conclude nothing about how much more they know and believe.
3. Objection: demons know all about Jesus based on Luke 4:41]
1. Luke 4:41 says 'And demons also were coming out of many, crying out and saying, "You are the Son of God!" And rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.'
2. I've not asserted that the Bible never uses know or knowledge loosely, only that it doesn't do so often.
3. I believe we should stick to the predominate usage, lest we be misunderstood more often than we are understood.
7. So, where are we now?
1. The Bible does distinguish between types of knowledge, but, for the most part, it does so by referring to true knowledge and no or false knowledge.
2. The extent of a person's knowledge is not determined by what they say, or claim to know, but by what they do.
8. Based on these things, I suggest that it is rarely wise to use the phrases heart knowledge and head knowledge.
1. If people had a good understanding of the Biblical meaning of the word heart, then heart knowledge wouldn't be a bad phrase. But, because people today tend not to have a good understanding of what heart means, I suspect that the phrase heart knowledge is more often misleading than it is illuminating.
2. The phrase head knowledge is, Biblically-speaking, basically oxymoronic, because the Bible rarely attributes knowledge to those who are simply acquainted with true propositions. Knowledge is possessed by those who act not to those who simply assert.
3. To replace these terms, I make the following suggestions, which you may do with as you see fit:
1. Instead of head knowledge, I suggest that you use one of the following terms, depending on the context: unbelief, propositional acquaintance, or, perhaps in some situations, hypocrisy.
2. Instead of heart knowledge, I suggest, again depending on the context: knowledge, understanding, wisdom, or belief.
9. That concludes our study for today.
   1. Your regular homework for next week is come up with a biblically-supported procedure for determining whether something is gossip or not.
   2. Your special homework remains what I mentioned the second week: coming up with a good definition for the word nature. In particular, this definition must do justice to the traditional orthodox distinction between nature and person. That is, it must explain how Jesus is one person with two natures, while the God-head is one nature with three persons.
   3. I will leave you with a quote from J. Gresham Machen: 'We prefer, instead of seeing how little of Christian truth we can get along with, to see just how much of Christian truth we can obtain. We ought to search the Scriptures reverently and thoughtfully and pray God that He may lead us into an ever fuller understanding of the truth that can make us wise unto salvation. There is no virtue whatever in ignorance, but much virtue in a knowledge of what God has revealed.'

Biblical Word Studies Class 5
Saying What You Ought Not

C. Michael Holloway
11 October 1998

1. Opening and prayer.
2. As always, let's begin with a review of what we've done so far.
1. The basic goal of the class is to increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible. We're doing this by concentrating on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
2. In the second week, we saw that the word heart has several different meanings in the Bible, but that it most often expresses the totality of a person's nature and character and includes all 3 of the traditional personality functions of man: the affections, the intellect, and the volition. We also looked at 3 applications of this, the most important one being to cultivate a Biblical psychology, one that recognizes that the intellect, the affections, and the will form an integrated whole, not separate parts.
3. In the third week, we studied the words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and saw that the three words are intimately related, but not quite synonymous, because
1. Knowledge generally refers to basic information or facts;
2. Understanding generally refers to assembling this information into its proper relationships; and
3. Wisdom generally refers to the ability to arrange, articulate, and apply knowledge and understanding to the circumstances that arise in one's life.
4. We also discussed 5 applications based on these words.
5. Last week, we answered the question: Does the Bible speak of a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge? We looked at the distinctions that the Bible makes between types of knowledge, and I suggested that head knowledge and heart knowledge are not the best terms to use for that distinction, and suggested as alternatives propositional acquaintance, unbelief, knowledge, and belief, among others.
3. Let us now turn to the topic of today: namely, gossip and slander. I'll begin by giving you some basic facts about these words and their appearance in the NASB
1. The word gossip or a variant of it appears 7 times; once in the Old Testament, and 6 times in the New Testament.
1. 3 of the New Testament occurrences are in the form 'malicious gossips', which translates the Greek word diabolos. This word occurs 34 other times; in all of those it is translated as devil. This perhaps provides some clue as to what God thinks of this activity.
2. The other 3 NT occurrences translate Greek words that mean either whispering or babbling.
3. The OT word means something like 'to be spacious, wide, or open.'
2. The word slander or its variants (including talebearer) occurs 29 times, 17 in the Old Testament, and 12 in the New Testament.
1. The 17 OT occurrences are translations of 8 different Hebrew words, with basic meanings including 'going about on foot', 'whispering','tearing apart', and 'evil report'.
2. The 12 NT occurrences include translations of a word that is also translated 'blasphemies', and other words with the basic meanings of 'speaking evil', and 'abusive speech'.
4. Let's now talk about the meaning of these words in English.
1. In normal English usage, what is slander?
1. Slander is saying something known to be false about a person. Probably in normal use it covers writing something known to be false also, although in legal language, that is called libel.
2. What is the prevailing attitude within the world about slander? Is it considered to be bad?
3. How about within the Christian community, is it considered to be bad?
4. Now, although today the meaning of slander is restricted in the law, and usually in common speech, to saying something known to be false, the sense of the word in the Bible seems to be slightly different.
1. It seems to be more along the lines of saying something not known to be true.
2. Whereas in a court, a legitimate defense against a charge of slander is 'but I thought it was true,' it seems that this is not a defense against a charge of the sin of slander. The only defense against that seems to be 'but it is true.'
3. This brings to mind G. K. Chesterton's statement: 'There is something to be said for every error; but, whatever may be said for it, the most important thing to be said about it is that it is erroneous.'
4. Here's an example. Suppose Theobald has interviewed Mordecai for a position in his company. Theobald tells the hiring committee that Mordecai came to the interview drunk, because he slurred his words, walked rather oddly, and seemed to 'space out' at times. Suppose further that Mordecai wasn't really drunk, but that he had mistakenly taken a strong antihistamine instead of an aspirin before the interview. Theobald might well have a successful legal defense against slander, because he could make the case that Mordecai's actions certainly were consistent with him being drunk. But, did Theobald slander Mordecai in the Biblical sense?
1. Yes, he did ...
2. ... because he did not sufficiently investigate the facts to know if his assumption that Mordecai was drunk was correct.
5. What are some examples of when slander is tolerated within the church?
1. When describing the theological views of someone who disagrees with you, how accurate do you have to be?
2. When talking about the views and actions of unbelievers.
2. In normal English usage, what is gossip?
1. Gossip is idle or unnecessary talk about a person.
2. What is the prevailing attitude within the world about gossip? Is it considered to be bad?
3. How about within the Christian community, is gossip considered to be bad?
5. Let's now look at the Bible to see what our thinking towards slander and gossip ought to be.
1. Consider slander first; three verses should be enough to show what God thinks of it
1. Leviticus 19:16 'You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD.
2. Psalm 101:5 Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy; No one who has a haughty look and an arrogant heart will I endure.
3. Mark 7:20-23 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. {21} For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, {22} deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. {23} All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
4. What do these verses show about what God thinks about slander? ... He hates it.
2. What does God think about gossip? We'll look at three verses that address this, too.
1. Proverbs 11:13 He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.
2. Romans 1:28-32 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, {29} being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, {30} slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, {31} without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; {32} and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
3. 2 Corinthians 12:20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there may be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;
4. What do these verses show about what God thinks about gossip? ... He hates it, too.
3. Let's now look at another passage that will allow us to tie slander and gossip together. Everyone turn to Psalm 15.
1. Psalm 15, which was written by David, says this: O LORD, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill? {2} He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, And speaks truth in his heart. {3} He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend; {4} In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the LORD; He swears to his own hurt, and does not change; {5} He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.
2. Look at verse 3 again, the NASB says 'does not slander with his tongue'. The NKJV says 'does not backbite with his tongue'. The Tanakh, a modern Jewish translation of the Old Testament, says 'whose tongue is not given to evil.' These 3 translations each have a slightly different sense, although they're in no way contradictory.
3. The differences in the translations comes, as you might expect, from the difficulty in translating into English the original Hebrew. The Hebrew that is being translated here is quite interesting. Anglicized, the Hebrew phrase is ra-gal lash-on, that's r-a-g-a-l l-a-s-h-o-n. This phrase means literally, 'going about on foot with tongue'.
4. The imagery here is wonderful, I think. Think of someone out for a stroll, just wandering about, without much thought about where they are, or where they end up. Now, think of someone doing the same thing with their speech. They say pretty much whatever comes to their mind, without much thought about whether it is true, or what effect it might have on others.
5. That is very much the sense in this passage, and it is the underlying error of both gossip and slander.
6. The root of both gossip and slander is the simply this: saying something about someone that ought not be said. In this, I'm using 'saying' and 'said' very loosely. You can 'say' something with your mouth, your pen, your computer, your typewriter, or your body language.
7. There are lots of reasons why something ought not be said about someone. What are some of them?
1. you don't know it is true
2. you are talking to someone who doesn't need to know it
3. it will hurt someone, and there are less painful ways to say it
4. others are around who don't need to hear it
5. there are other things that need to be done at the time
8. Are there any questions or comments?
6. So far, we've seen that God hates gossip and slander, and that both are really aspects of the same sin, namely, saying something about someone that ought not be said. Because God hates this, we ought not do it. Let's now talk about practical things we can do to avoid saying something that ought not be said.
1. The basic idea is, I think, to figure out how to decide whether something ought to be said. This is where your homework comes in. For your homework, I asked you come up with a biblically-supported procedure for determining whether something is gossip or not. Someone tell me briefly what you came up with.
2. One approach might be to try an application of the Golden Rule (Luke 6:31) '... just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way.'
1. The basic idea would go something like this. Suppose Theobald is deciding whether it would be OK to tell Gertrude something about Mordecai. Theobald would consider what he'd want Mordecai to do were the situation reversed. If he wouldn't want Mordecai to tell Gertrude the same thing about him, then he won't tell her it about Mordecai; however, if he wouldn't mind Mordecai talking to Gertrude, then he'll go ahead and do it.
2. There is at least one potential difficulty in this approach to applying the golden rule principle. What is that?
1. Suppose Theobald is a very public person, one of those people who is content to share intimate details about their lives to just about anyone. Suppose, however, that Mordecai is a private person, someone who shares details about his life to only a handful or less of close friends.
2. In this case, what Theobald would be content with Mordecai telling Gertrude is very unlikely to be the same as what Mordecai would want Theobald to tell Gertrude.
3. Does this mean that there's something wrong with the Golden Rule? Of course not, what it means is that we need to be careful how we apply it. In the naive application that Theobald made, he left out an important step. What was that step?
4. The step he left out was considering what Mordecai would want him to do. Someone may say, 'Wait a minute, that's not what the verse says, the verse says to treat others the way you want to be treated, not to treat them the way you think they want to be treated.' What's wrong with that answer?
5. What's wrong with it is that it creates a false dichotomy, because if fails to consider the implications of what it means to treat others the way you want to be treated. I suspect that every one of you wants other people to consider how you want to be treated when they're considering how to treat you. So treating others how you want to be treated necessarily includes treating them the way you think they want to be treated.
6. In case this is confusing, let me give a simple example. A couple of years ago I was in charge of getting end-of-school gifts for our school's teachers. Had I naively applied the golden rule, and gotten them a gift that I would've wanted to have, I might have gotten them a volleyball autographed by Karch Kiraly. Had I done that, at most one of the teachers would have been happy with the gift. A proper application of the golden rule required that I try to come up with gifts that the people to whom the gifts were given would like, not with something I would want as I gift were I in their position.
7. What all this means is this. We certainly should apply the golden rule to help us decide whether something is OK to say, but we should do so intelligently, not naively.
3. Another possible approach would be to apply the well-known Christian cliche, if you're not part of the problem or part of the solution, then don't say it. In the abstract, that's not a bad principle, but what is necessary for applying it properly?
1. You need to have a good idea of what it means to be 'part of the problem or part of the solution.' It is very easy to define the 'part of the solution' part very loosely. What's one way that this can be done?
2. Probably the most common way to define oneself as being 'part of the solution', and thus grant oneself the authority to talk, is to adopt a very pious attitude about the power of prayer. Sometimes, prayer meetings at a church can become little more than glorified gossip sessions.
4. Given the seriousness that God's Word assigns to the sins of gossip and slander, I believe we need a conservative approach. Here's an approach that I believe can prevent both gossip and slander.
1. You are considering whether to say something, let's call that something S, about someone, let's call that person Mordecai, to someone else, let's call that person Gertrude.
2. Don't say S about Mordecai to Gertrude unless all three of the following conditions apply:
1. You know that S is true.
2. You have Mordecai's permission to talk about S to Gertrude.
3. You can say S to Gertrude with the same words, tone, and body language as you would use if Mordecai were present.
3. Of course, there are some situations to which this procedure doesn't apply.
1. Like, for example, if S is 'he tried to kill me', and Gertrude is the police officer responding to a 911 call, you don't need Mordecai's permission, nor do you need to worry a whole lot about words, tone, and body language. You should still be concerned about truth, 'though.
2. However, for the vast majority of cases that we encounter every day, I believe this procedure will work quite well.
3. I intend to, by God's grace, to start trying to use it myself.
5. What do you do if someone starts talking to you about someone else, and you believe this person is engaging in either gossip or slander? Suppose you're Gertrude and Theobald starts talking to you about Mordecai, what do you do?
1. You can say, "Theobald, does Mordecai know you're talking to me about this? If not, I don't want to hear it."
2. If that doesn't stop him, you can walk away.
7. To summarize what we've talked about this morning ...
1. Gossip and slander are at the root different manifestations of the same sin, namely, saying something about someone that you ought not say.
2. God hates this.
3. We need to know how to determine whether something ought to be said.
8. Here's my plan for the next few weeks.
1. Next week, we're going to consider the words humble and humility. Your homework for the week is this: Compare and contrast the characteristics of Biblical humility and false humility.
2. The week after next (October 25) is the Reformation Conference, so we won't have a class that week.
3. Three weeks from now, on November 1, we'll look at the word judge. My judgement is that this may take 2 weeks.
4. When we finish with judge, we will look at all, world, and predestined. That, too, will likely take 2 weeks. At that point, we'll probably take a vote about what to cover the final 2 weeks.

Biblical Word Studies Class 6
Humble Humility

C. Michael Holloway
18 October 1998

1. Opening & prayer.
2. Review of what we've done so far.
1. What is the goal and approach of the class? The basic goal of the class is to increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible. We're doing this by concentrating on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
2. In the second week, we saw that the word heart has several different meanings in the Bible, but that it most often expresses the totality of a person's nature and character and includes all 3 of the traditional personality functions of man: the affections, the intellect, and the volition.
3. In the third week, we studied the words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and saw that the three words are intimately related, but not quite synonymous.
4. In the fourth week we answered the question: Does the Bible speak of a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge?
5. Last week, we looked at gossip and slander, and saw that
1. Gossip and slander are at the root different manifestations of the same sin, namely, saying something about someone that you ought not say.
2. God hates this.
3. We need to know how to determine whether something ought to be said.
6. I've put notes from each of these classes on my web page. If you want to know the URL, let me know, and I'll give it to you. The easiest thing to do might be to send me e-mail. My address is easy to remember: holloway@clearlight.com.
3. This week we want to look at the words humble and humility. Your homework was to compare and contrast the characteristics of Biblical humility and false humility. Before we discuss your answers, let me give you some of the basic facts about our words.
1. The word humility occurs 10 times in the NASB. 4 times in the Old Testament and 6 times in the New Testament.
1. The same Hebrew word is used all 4 times in the O.T. Its basic meaning is captured pretty well by the English word humility.
2. In the N.T., 2 Greek words are used, 1 once, the other the remaining 5 times. The basic meaning of the word that's used 5 times is 'lowliness of mind'; that of the word that's used once is 'meekness'; in fact, the NKJV uses meekness in that verse.
2. The word humble and its variants such as humbles and humbled occurs 89 times in 82 verses in the NASB. 69 times in 65 verses are from the Old Testament, while 20 times in 17 verses are from the New Testament.
1. In the Old Testament, 12 different Hebrew words are used.
1. But 3/4 of the occurrences come from one of two basic Hebrew words: kana or ana.
2. The verb kana 'denotes bringing a proud and recalcitrant people into subjection'. It implies submission to another's will.
3. The verb ana 's primary meaning is 'to force'; the idea is one of forcible humiliation. The adjective form of ana is anaw.
4. According to the Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, no thoroughgoing distinction is possible between these two words. The basic theme underlying both of them is that of affliction.
2. All 20 occurrences in the New Testament are derived from the same basic Greek root, although there are 4 different words used. The basic meaning of the root is 'to make low'. Thus, the adjective form literally means 'low-lying.'
4. One more thing before we discuss the homework directly. I'll read to you some definitions for humility. You tell me whether you think it is a Biblical definition, and why or why not. If you did the homework, you should be well prepared for this.
1. 'having a feeling that one is unimportant, weak, poor, etc.'
1. This comes from the World Book Dictionary.
2. It is definitely not a Biblical definition for at least two reasons:
1. Humility is not a feeling
2. Humility does not require thinking oneself to be unimportant, weak, poor, or etc.
2. 'recognizing that God and others are actually responsible for the achievements in my life'
1. This comes from Bill Gothard.
2. It is much better than the previous one, but seems to me to have two flaws:
1. Putting God and others on the same level understates God's role and overstates the role of others.
2. Even if we deleted 'and others', this is more of a description of one characteristic of humility than a full definition of it.
3. 'a grace of the soul that allows one to think of himself no more highly than he ought to think'
1. This is from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary.
2. It is better than the two previous ones. It is especially good in that it recognizes that
1. Humility comes by God's grace, and
2. Humility involves the soul, that is all of a person, not just the feelings.
3. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be more of a description of one thing occurs when one is humble, than a full definition of what constitutes humility.
4. 'an unfeigned submission of our heart, stricken down in earnest with an awareness of its own misery and want'
1. This is from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, book III, chapter XII, section 6.
2. This isn't bad, and in the context in which it was written, it is an adequate definition, but without that context, it isn't clear to whom the submission is given. Also, I don't particularly like the depersonalization of the 'heart' implicit in the pronoun 'it'.
5. 'esteeming oneself as altogether contemptible and odious in oneself; attended with a mortification of the disposition to exalt oneself, a free renunciation of one's own glory, and an exaltation of Christ above all'
1. This is based on a discussion by Jonathan Edwards in A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, which, by the way, is a book that you ought to read, if you haven't already.
2. I believe that this is a good, albeit a tad wordy, definition of Biblical humility
6. As we now turn to compare and contrast the characteristics of Biblical humility and false humility, we should keep in mind these words, also from Jonathan Edwards, in his Treatise on Grace: "'Tis common for us to speak of various graces of the Spirit of God as though they were so many different principles of holiness, and to call them by distinct names as such, -- repentance, humility, resignation, thankfulness, etc. But we err if we imagine that these in their first source and root in the heart are properly distinct principles. They all come from the same fountain, and are, indeed, the various exertions and conditions of the same thing; only different denominations according to the various occasions, objects and manners, attendants and circumstances of its exercise."
5. Let's now list some characteristics of Biblical humility. Someone give me one characteristic, and we'll discuss it for a bit, then go on to another characteristic.
1. Obedience to God
1. Zephaniah 2:3a Seek the LORD, All you humble of the earth Who have carried out His ordinances; Seek righteousness, seek humility.
2. James 1:21 Therefore putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
3. Jonathan Edwards wrote, again from his book Religious Affections: "Humility is that wherein a spirit of obedience does much consist. A proud spirit is a rebellious spirit, but a humble spirit is a yieldable, subject, obediential spirit."
4. Obedience to God and humility are so closely intertwined that Calvin wrote in his Institutes, Book II chapter II section 11: "A saying of Chrysostom's has always pleased me very much, that the foundation of our philosophy is humility. But that of Augustine pleases me even more: 'When a rhetorician was asked what was the chief rule in eloquence, he replied "Delivery"; what was the second rule, "Delivery"; what was the third rule, "Delivery"; so if you ask me concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, first, second, third, and always I would answer, "humility."'"
5. Ultimately, at the root level, every sin reduces to the sin of pride. If we did not think, perhaps not consciously, but certainly subconsciously, that we know better than God what we ought to do, we would not disobey Him.
2. Submission to authority
1. 1 Peter 5:5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.
2. Matthew 18:4 "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
3. Lack of pride in oneself
1. Proverbs 18:12 Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, But humility goes before honor.
2. Proverbs 11:2 When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom.
4. Acceptance of God's providence
1. Philippians 4:12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.
2. James 1:9 But let the brother of humble circumstances glory in his high position
5. Esteeming others as more important than oneself
1. Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
2. Philippians 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself
6. Others ...
6. How do these characteristics compare and contrast with what the world tends to call humility?
1. As best as I can tell, the world, and many Christians too for that matter, seem to think that there are basically only two characteristics of humility:
1. Never asserting that something is certainly true.
2. Never claiming that you are able to do anything better than someone else.
2. As a result, according to worldly standards, all Christians are necessarily arrogant, because we assert that God's Word is certainly true.
3. Yet, in fact, there is nothing more arrogant than failing to acknowledge God's Word as absolute truth.
4. Egalitarianism, which is at the root of the second characteristic of worldly humility, is also arrogant, because it denies a truth that God proclaims, namely that He has given different talents, gifts, abilities, or whatever you want to call it, to different people.
5. There is also another kind of humility, which isn't the worldly humility we've been talking about, but isn't godly humility either. Edwards calls this 'legal humility' (legal humiliation actually). He contrasts this with true humility, which he calls 'evangelical humiliation' like this: "In a legal humiliation, men are made sensible that they are little and nothing before the great and terrible God, and that they are undone, and wholly insufficient to help themselves; as wicked men will be at the day of judgment: but they have not an answerable frame of heart, consisting in a disposition to abase themselves, and exalt God alone; this disposition is given only in evangelical humiliation, by overcoming the heart, and changing its inclination, by a discovery of God's holy beauty: in a legal humiliation, the conscience is convinced; as the consciences of all will be most perfectly at the day of judgment; but because there is no spiritual understanding, the will is not bowed, nor the inclination altered: this is done only in evangelical humiliation. In legal humiliation, men are brought to despair of helping themselves; in evangelical, they are brought voluntarily to deny and renounce themselves: in the former, they are subdued and forced to the ground; in the latter, they are brought sweetly to yield, and freely and with delight to prostrate themselves at the feet of God."
7. Let's now look at two passages that deal with humility, one from the New Testament, and one from the Old.
1. Turn first to Luke chapter 18. We'll start at verse 9 and read through verse 14. Luke 18:9-14 -- And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: {10} "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. {11} The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, 'God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. {12} I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' {13} But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' {14} I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted."
1. In what way was the Pharisee not being humble? Didn't he thank God for his good condition?
2. Here's another quote from Jonathan Edwards: "The humble Christian is more apt to find fault with his own pride than with other men's. He is apt to put the best construction on others' words and behavior, and to think that none are so proud as himself. But the proud hypocrite is quick to discern the mote in his brother's eye, in this respect; while he sees nothing of the beam in his own. He is very often much in crying out of others' pride, finding fault with others' apparel, and way of living; and is affected ten times as much with his neighbor's ring or ribband, as with all the filthiness of his own heart."
2. Let's turn now to Daniel chapter 4. I'll read quite a bit of this chapter, fairly quickly, skipping a few parts. Daniel 4: Nebuchadnezzar the king to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language that live in all the earth: "May your peace abound! {2} It has seemed good to me to declare the signs and wonders which the Most High God has done for me. {3} How great are His signs, And how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And His dominion is from generation to generation. {4} I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and flourishing in my palace. {5} I saw a dream and it made me fearful; and these fantasies as I lay on my bed and the visions in my mind kept alarming me. ... {8} But finally Daniel came in before me, whose name is Belteshazzar according to the name of my god, and in whom is a spirit of the holy gods; and I related the dream to him, ... {19} Then Daniel, whose name is Belteshazzar, was appalled for a while as his thoughts alarmed him. The king responded and said, 'Belteshazzar, do not let the dream or its interpretation alarm you.' Belteshazzar answered and said, 'My lord, if only the dream applied to those who hate you, and its interpretation to your adversaries! ... {24} this is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: {25} that you be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place be with the beasts of the field, and you be given grass to eat like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven; and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He wishes. {26} And in that it was commanded to leave the stump with the roots of the tree, your kingdom will be assured to you after you recognize that it is Heaven that rules. {27} Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness, and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity.' {28} All this happened to Nebuchadnezzar the king. {29} Twelve months later he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon. {30} The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?' {31} While the word was in the king's mouth, a voice came from heaven, saying, 'King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, {32} and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He wishes.' {33} Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled; and he was driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven, until his hair had grown like eagles' feathers and his nails like birds' claws. {34} But at the end of that period I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. {35} And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What hast Thou done?' {36} At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me. {37} Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise, exalt, and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride."
1. Based on this passage what is God likely to do to those who are prideful? Whatever it takes to humble them.
2. What should be the response of someone who has been humbled by God? A recognition of God's absolute sovereignty over all things, and the giving of all praise and honor to Him.
8. I'll wrap up this morning's class by suggesting 3 applications of what we've discussed this morning about humility.
1. First, from Zephaniah 2:3, Seek righteousness, seek humility.
2. Second, recognize that humility is intimately intertwined with all the other attributes of holiness; it cannot be pursued in isolation. You cannot be humble, and not be righteous. You cannot be righteous, and not be humble.
3. Third, concern yourself first with the log in your own eye, not the speck in another's eye.
9. Remember that the Reformation Conference is next weekend, so we won't have class next week. If you haven't picked up a brochure about next week's conference be sure to do so before you leave this morning.
1. Two weeks from now, on November 1, we'll look at the word judge. We'll be concentrating on the use of the word as an verb, not as a noun. I am prepared to devote 2 classes to covering this, but we might be able to do it in 1. We'll just have to see.
1. Your homework for that class, which you have two weeks to complete, is the following: explain how to determine whether a particular action is a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.
2. Just kidding, your real homework is this: Explain what is prohibited by Jesus in His statement, 'Do not judge lest you be judged.'
2. When we finish with judge, we will look at all, world, and predestined. That, too, will likely take 2 weeks. At that point, we'll probably take a vote about what to cover in the final 2 weeks.

Biblical Word Studies Class 7:
Here Come 'da Judge

C. Michael Holloway
1 November 1998

1. Opening and prayer.
2. Review of what we've done so far.
1. The basic goal of the class is to increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible. We're doing this by concentrating on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
2. The word heart has several different meanings in the Bible, but that it most often expresses the totality of a person's nature and character and includes all 3 of the traditional personality functions of man: the affections, the intellect, and the volition.
3. The words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom are intimately related, but not quite synonymous.
4. The Bible speaks of a difference in types of knowledge, but the commonly used phrases 'head knowledge' and 'heart knowledge' are not particularly good ones to describe the distinction that the Bible makes. Better phrases would be 'propositional acquaintance' and 'knowledge'.
5. Gossip and slander are at the root different manifestations of the same sin, namely, saying something about someone that you ought not say.
6. Humility is 'esteeming oneself as altogether contemptible and odious in oneself; attended with a mortification of the disposition to exalt oneself, a free renunciation of one's own glory, and an exaltation of Christ above all'. It is intimately intertwined with all the other attributes of holiness; it cannot be pursued in isolation. You cannot be humble, and not be righteous. You cannot be righteous, and not be humble.
3. The subject of today's class is the word judge. As I said the last time we met, we'll be concentrating on the use of the word as a verb, not as a noun (actually, what I said the last time we met was that we'd concentrate on its use as an adjective, but what I meant was as a verb). We'll need two weeks to cover this word.
4. Let me give you a few facts about our word.
1. The word judge and its variants (not including judgment) appear 292 times in 256 verses in the NASB.
1. 189 of those times and 170 of the verses are in the Old Testament.
2. 103 times and 86 verses are in the New Testament.
2. The most common Hebrew word translated as judge is shapat. This word refers primarily to the exercises of government. It's meaning is more expansive than what we tend to give to governmental judging today, because the functions of O.T. governments weren't divided as cleanly into executive, legislative, and judicial branches as our own governments usually are.
3. Although I didn't do a count, I believe that judge is used in the O.T. primarily as a noun.
4. In the New Testament, judge is used as a verb 81 times in 69 verses. The Greek word underlying nearly all of these occurrences is krino. Its basic meaning is to separate, choose, select, or determine. Like the English word judge, it has many different shades of meaning.
5. The following definition from the 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary captures many of these shades of meaning: "To compare facts or ideas, and perceive their relations and attributes, and thus distinguish truth from falsehood; to determine; to discern; to distinguish; to form an opinion about."
5. Your homework for this week was to explain what is prohibited by Jesus in His statement, "Do not judge lest you be judged." Let's turn to the passage in Matthew from which this statement was taken: Matthew 7:1-6
1. Matthew 7:1-6 -- "Do not judge lest you be judged. {2} For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. {3} And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? {4} Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? {5} You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. {6} Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
2. Arthur Pink writes the following about the first verse in this passage: "There are few verses quoted more frequently than the opening one of Matthew 7, and few less understood by those who are so ready to cite it and hurl it at the heads of those whom they ignorantly or maliciously suppose are contravening it. Let the servant of God denounce a man who is promulgating serious error, and there are those--boasting of their broadmindedness--who will say to him, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged.' Let the saint faithfully rebuke an offender for some sin, and he is likely to have the same text quoted against him."
3. As Pink notes, there are some who interpret Jesus' words as forbidding any assessment of the rightness of another's actions.
1. Such folks consider anyone who claims to have faith in Jesus to be a true Christian, no matter how that person might act.
2. They refuse to point on sins in others, and wouldn't think of exercising church discipline on someone.
3. They grant forgiveness to anyone who says, "I'm sorry," without expecting to see signs of repentance.
4. And they do these and similar things believing that they are following Jesus' admonition in Matthew 7.
4. On the other end of the spectrum, however, are people who interpret Jesus' words as being basically without meaning.
1. They are ready to label as unregenerate anyone who does not meet their expectations of how a Christian should behave.
2. They are quick to point out what they believe are sins in others, no matter how minor those sins may be.
3. They are reluctant to grant forgiveness, no matter how repentant someone may be.
5. Pink comments on the widely varying interpretations that have been given to this passage throughout the ages: "This should at once warn us against coming to any hasty conclusion as to the meaning of Matthew 7:1, and guard us against being misled by the mere sound of its words. Yea, it should drive us to our knees, begging God graciously to subdue the prejudices of our hearts and enlighten our minds, and then diligently search the Scriptures for other passages which throw light upon the one now before us. Not only is it very necessary for our own personal good that we spare no pains in endeavouring to arrive at a right understanding of these verses, for it is to our own loss that we misapprehend any portion of Holy Writ, as it will be to our own condemnation if we transgress this Divine commandment, but unless its meaning be opened unto us we shall be at a loss to repel those who would bring us into bondage by the corrupt use they make of it."
6. So, how do we go about figuring out what this passage means?
1. First, we have to examine the immediate context: what comes before and what comes after.
2. Second, we have to examine the intermediate context: earlier and later chapters, for example.
3. Third, we have to examine the full context: look through the rest of Scripture for all other passages that deal with the subject of judging others.
4. This third step is the one most often skipped, but one that is essential.
1. God has often chosen in the Scripture to present a command in one place in a very concise, and seemingly absolute sense, and then give the exceptions and modifications to the command in other places. Give me some examples of this.
1. Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage, which cites only adultery as legitimate grounds; expanded by Paul to include the departure of a non-believing spouse.
• Matthew 5:32 ... I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
• 1 Corinthians 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
2. The fourth commandment, which forbids any work on the Sabbath; other passages which allow acts of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath.
• Exodus 20:8-10 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. {9} Six days you shall labor and do all your work, {10} but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
• Luke 6:6-10 And it came about on another Sabbath, that He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. {7} And the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely, to see if He healed on the Sabbath, in order that they might find reason to accuse Him. {8} But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, "Rise and come forward!" And he rose and came forward. {9} And Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm, to save a life, or to destroy it?" {10} And after looking around at them all, He said to him, "Stretch out your hand!" And he did so; and his hand was restored.
2. Many of the errors that have plagued the church throughout the ages have originated in people taking particular commands out of context, and turning, for example, general principles into ironclad rules that have no exceptions.
3. This extends beyond commands to even Biblical statements. Perhaps, humanly speaking, the saddest example of this was Martin Luther's insistence that Jesus saying of the bread, "this is my body," meant that his physical presence is in the Lord's Supper elements.
4. We within the conservative reformed community can be especially prone to these sorts of errors. Because we recognize that God's Word is true--that absolutes do exist--sometimes we are a tad too hasty to assert absolutes. Rather than admitting that our particular interpretation of some passage is based on, at best, a fairly strong inductive argument, we act as if it were based on a deductive argument, against which no legitimate objections can be made. We assert good and necessary consequence, when the most we have is possible consequence. Eschatology is probably the best example of where this sort of thing goes on frequently, but there are plenty of others, too.
5. All of this means that we need to not jump to conclusions based on isolated passages of Scripture. Knowing what the Scripture means requires searching the Scriptures, not just glancing at them.
7. With all this in mind, let's now look at the immediate context of this passage.
1. What is this passage a part of? ...The Sermon on the Mount.
2. What else does Jesus talk about in earlier parts of this sermon?
1. Character traits of the righteous person
2. How to pray
3. God's care for His people
4. The continuing validity of God's law
5. False interpretations of Scripture
3. In labeling some traditionally taught interpretations of Scripture as wrong, what is Jesus doing? ... He is judging.
4. Now, the fact that Jesus engages in judging in an earlier part of the sermon, does not necessarily mean that He is not absolutely forbidding others to judge in Matthew 7:1. Why?
1. Because Jesus is God, and there are things that He can do that others cannot.
2. For example, Jesus can say, "I and the Father are one". For us to say that would be sinful.
3. This conceivably could be the case with judging, too.
5. However, what does Jesus require people to do in verse 6? ... "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine"
6. Now, unless He is talking about actual dogs and actual pigs, which as far as I know, no one has ever suggested is the case, what does obeying this command require? ... Deciding who the dogs and swine are.
7. What is a single word that describes what you're doing when you decide who the dogs and swine are? ... Judging.
8. So, unless we want to admit to a blatant contradiction that has Jesus saying "you'd better not judge anyone", and "you must judge others" in almost the same breath, we must conclude that Matthew 7:1 cannot be an absolute prohibition against judging others.
6. Of course, while determining what something can not mean is helpful, it is not sufficient. We want to know what the passage does mean. There's still more to learn from the immediate context.
1. Someone read verses 1 through 5 again: "Do not judge lest you be judged. {2} For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. {3} And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? {4} Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? {5} You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
2. What effect does the second part of verse 1 have on the meaning of "do not judge" ? ... It seems to me to provide a reason for not judging, namely that if you do it, you too will be judged.
3. In verse two, who is it that is doing the judging of the person who himself judges?
1. It seems to me that it is other people, not God directly.
2. God judges people using His perfect standards, not an individual's own standard.
3. Other people, however, tend to hold a person to the same standards that the person holds them to.
4. Let me give a personal example. At work, I have a reputation of being something of a stickler for correct spelling and grammar in writing. (Not in speaking, 'though, where I'm often quite sloppy in both pronunciation and grammar.) As a result, my own writing receives special scrutiny, even from people who do not give the same scrutiny to the writing of others.
4. Now, what do verses 3-5 say? I'll suggest five things, based primarily on Matthew Henry's commentary.
1. There are degrees in sin. Comparatively, some sins are specks, while others are logs. All sins are grievous, but not all sins are equally grievous. God's law for Israel punished some sins with death, others with minor fines.
2. "Our own sins ought to appear greater to us than the same sins in others: that which charity teaches us to call but a [speck] in our brother's eye, true repentance and godly sorrow will teach us to call a [log] in our own; for the sins of others must be extenuated, but our own aggravated."
3. "It is as strange that a man can be in a sinful, miserable condition, and not be aware of it, as that a man should have a [log] in his eye, and not consider it"
4. "It is common for those who are most sinful themselves, and least sensible of it, to be most forward and free in judging and censuring others: the Pharisees, who were most haughty in justifying themselves, were most scornful in condemning others." Two weeks ago we studied humility. I suspect that for many of us, the log that is in our own eye is often the log of pride. We think we see clearly the sins of others, but we can't see the log of pride sticking out of our own eye.
5. "Men's being so severe upon the faults of others, while they are indulgent of their own, is a mark of hypocrisy. ... Whatever such a one may pretend, it is certain that he is no enemy to sin (if he were, he would be an enemy to his own sin), and therefore he is not worthy of praise; nay, it appears that he is an enemy to his brother, and therefore worthy of blame."
7. So far, we've looked in general at the context preceding the verse we're interested in, and in some detail at the context immediately following the verse. Have we looked at enough immediate context? No, we have not. In fact, so far we've missed what I believe is the most important key to understanding what Matthew 7:1 means. We stopped at verse 6, let's continue further ....
1. Matthew 7:7-12 "Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. {8} For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened. {9} Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? {10} Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? {11} If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! {12} Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
1. Look especially at verse 12: "Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
2. It seems to me that this is the key to understanding what Jesus is forbidding in the first verse in the chapter.
1. Verse 12 sets forth the general abstract principle: treat others the way you want them to treat you.
2. Verse 1 seems to me to be a concrete application of the principle: judge others the way you want them to judge you.
3. What is Jesus forbidding in verse 1? He is forbidding judging others in ways that you do not judge yourself and do not want others to judge you.
2. That this is a correct understanding of the passage is reinforced by looking at some intermediate context, namely Luke's account of similar words by Jesus in Luke 6. Here, the statement of the Golden Rule comes first, and the discussion of judging follows shortly thereafter. See Luke 6:31-42.
3. Now, someone may raise the following objection. "Consider an ultraconservative fundamentalist who believes that even smelling an alcoholic beverage is sin. Such a person would not object to others judging him based on whether he drinks alcoholic beverages. The principle as you state it does not prohibit him from judging others on that basis. But, we know that people shouldn't be judged by that, because God doesn't say that simply drinking alcoholic beverages is sinful. Thus, the principle as you state it can't be correct."
1. On the surface, this seems like a pretty potent objection, but it is not.
2. Perhaps the easiest way to see that it isn't really a potent objection is by an analogy to an equivalent argument that could be raised against the Golden Rule itself. Consider a man who wishes that every woman he sees would attempt to seduce him. Since the Golden Rule says that he should treat others the way he wants to be treated, doesn't this mean that he should attempt to seduce every woman he sees? Of course it doesn't. Why not?
1. Because other parts of Scripture forbid such behavior. Implicit in the Golden Rule is the notion that the way in which you want to be treated must itself be Scriptural.
2. The same sort of notion is implicit in the application of the Golden Rule to judging. The way in which you want to be judged must itself be Scriptural.
4. Someone else may raise this objection. "I don't disagree with what you've said, but you've not really told me very much. You've just stated a fairly abstract principle. I want to know the details. When is it OK to judge another, and when isn't it OK?"
1. This isn't really an objection so much as it is a request for more information.
2. We'll answer this request by looking in more detail at the other Scripture passages that address judging. But that will have to wait until next week.
8. Your homework for next week is the following: List at least 3 forms of judging that the Scripture forbids, and at least 1 form of judging that the Scripture requires.

Biblical Word Studies Class 8:
You Be The Judge

C. Michael Holloway
8 November 1998

1. Opening and prayer.
2. Rather than me doing the review this time, I'll let you do it. What have we talked about in the previous 7 classes? ...
1. The basic goal of the class is to increase our understanding of the meaning of certain words used in the Bible. We're doing this by concentrating on determining the meaning of certain English words as they appear in the New American Standard translation.
2. The word heart has several different meanings in the Bible, but that it most often expresses the totality of a person's nature and character and includes all 3 of the traditional personality functions of man: the affections, the intellect, and the volition.
3. The words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom are intimately related, but not quite synonymous.
4. The Bible speaks of a difference in types of knowledge, but the commonly used phrases 'head knowledge' and 'heart knowledge' are not particularly good ones to describe the distinction that the Bible makes. Better phrases would be 'propositional acquaintance' and 'knowledge'.
5. Gossip and slander are at the root different manifestations of the same sin, namely, saying something about someone that you ought not say.
6. Humility is 'esteeming oneself as altogether contemptible and odious in oneself; attended with a mortification of the disposition to exalt oneself, a free renunciation of one's own glory, and an exaltation of Christ above all'. It is intimately intertwined with all the other attributes of holiness; it cannot be pursued in isolation. You cannot be humble, and not be righteous. You cannot be righteous, and not be humble.
7. In Matthew 7:1, Jesus does not forbid judging, he simply tells us that the Golden Rule applies to judging just like it does to other things.
3. We are continuing this morning with the word judge, in particular as it is used as a verb. For the benefit of any of you who weren't here last week, let me quickly review some basic facts about the word.
1. The word judge and its variants (not including judgment) appear 292 times in 256 verses in the NASB.
1. 189 of those times and 170 of the verses are in the Old Testament.
2. 103 times and 86 verses are in the New Testament.
2. The most common Hebrew word translated as judge is shapat. This word refers primarily to the exercises of government. Although I didn't do a count, I believe that judge is used in the O.T. primarily as a noun.
3. In the New Testament, judge is used as a verb 81 times in 69 verses. The Greek word underlying nearly all of these occurrences is krino. Its basic meaning is to separate, choose, select, or determine. Like the English word judge, it has many different shades of meaning.
4. The following definition from the 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary captures many of these shades of meaning: "To compare facts or ideas, and perceive their relations and attributes, and thus distinguish truth from falsehood; to determine; to discern; to distinguish; to form an opinion about."
4. Your homework for this week was the following: List at least 3 forms of judging that the Scripture forbids, and at least 1 form of judging that the Scripture requires.
5. Let's talk about the second part of the question first. What are some kinds of judging that the Scripture requires? ...
1. Judging yourself. We talked about this at the end of last week's class. 2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?
2. Judging correctness of doctrine.
1. There is ample Scriptural evidence for this form of judging. Here are four passages.
1. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn [or better, NKJV there is no light in them].
2. Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.
3. Ephesians 4:14-16 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; {15} but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, {16} from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
4. 1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.
2. In judging doctrinal correctness, we need to remember the distinction I mentioned last week between those things that are indisputably true and those things that are only possibly or probably true. That is, we need to remember the difference between good and necessary consequence and probable consequence.
1. The conclusion of some line of reasoning is true by good and necessary consequence if
1. It is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false, and
2. All of the premises are true.
2. The conclusion of some line of reasoning is only probably or possibly true if one or more of these two conditions do not hold, and no argument by good and necessary consequence exists to show that the conclusion must be false.
3. Very often people treat all plausible (and even many implausible) assertions as if they were reached by good and necessary consequence, when they were not.
4. Here are some examples from theology that illustrate the difference.
1. Consider this statement: Every man and woman who has ever lived, save one, is born and lives a sinner. This is indisputably true. It is not possible to deny this proposition without contradicting the Scripture.
2. Here's another statement: That God is one God in three persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- is also indisputably true. It, too, is indisputably true. Although no one Scripture passage states this proposition, it follows by good and necessary consequence from the Scripture, so it is not possible to deny this propositions without contradicting the Scripture.
3. Here's another one: The book of Revelation was written before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, and is referring primarily to the events leading up to and including that destruction. I believe this is true. This proposition is supported by some good internal and external evidence. However, this proposition is not stated explicitly in the Scripture, nor does it follow by good and necessary consequence. It is possible to believe something else without contradicting Scripture, as, in fact, have the majority of Christians during the last several hundred years.
4. As a final example, consider the various positions on eschatology: post-millennialism, a-millenialism, classical premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism.
• Not one of these can be shown to follow from the Scripture by good and necessary consequence (or to be precise, no one has yet shown that one of the these views follows from the Scripture by good and necessary consequence).
• The best a proponent of one of these views can do is try to show that his view explains more of the Scriptural evidence than any of the other views. And even this can't be done by good and necessary consequence.
• Plausible arguments can be given for any one of the first three views that I mentioned. Which one you find to be most compelling probably depends more on your personality and background than on anything else.
3. Judging sinful behavior.
1. There is ample Scriptural evidence for this kind of judging, too.
2. Let's look at two passages.
1. 1 Corinthians 5 {1} It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. {2} And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. {3} For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. .... {13} But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
2. Deuteronomy 25:1-2 "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, {2} then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt."
4. Others ...
6. Let's now talk about kinds of judging that are forbidden by Scripture. Name some. ...
1. Judging based on insufficient evidence, such as relying on rumors or suspicions.
1. Proverbs 18:13 He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.
2. John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
3. Deuteronomy 17:6 On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.
2. Judging the motives of others.
1. Can someone give me an example from the Bible of when someone judged another's motives? ... Job 1:8-11 NKJV Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?" {9} So Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing? {10} Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. {11} But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!"
2. There are several passages which suggest that God alone is able to accurately judge the motives of others.
1. 1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.
2. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
3. Psalms 44:21 Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.
3. Judging hypocritically.
1. The passage from Matthew 7 that we looked at last week discussed this form of judging.
2. Another passage that addresses it is Romans 2:1-3 Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. {2} And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. {3} And do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment upon those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
3. Charles Spurgeon wrote this concerning our tendency towards hypocrisy in judging others: "Our judgement may be compared to the scales and weights of the merchant. It should be correct, but it seldom is quite accurate. ... False weights and balances are an abomination to the Lord, yet many use them, and they use balances far too favorable to themselves. ... Tradesman who have one set of weights to buy with and others to sell with are evidently rogues. We may convict ourselves of injustice at once if we find ourselves severe to other men and lenient to ourselves. Fraudulent shopkeepers will use a movable piece of metal; by removing it they can lighten the weight of the scale. We too may have a convenient indignation which we may restrain or indulge according as the person whose fault we judge may be the object of our goodwill or our displeasure. ... There is a great weighing time coming, for which it will be well to be prepared, for woe to him whom the infallible balances shall find wanting."
4. When I think of judging hypocritically, the first thing that comes to mind is judgements involving sin. As a parent, I've caught myself more often than I care to admit expecting my children to meet higher standards than I expect myself to meet. This is especially true when it comes to complying with Philippians 2:14 (Do all things without grumbling or disputing).
5. But it is also possible to judge hypocritically in regards to theology. How? ...
1. By expecting others to be doctrinally perfect, when we ourselves are not.
2. Everyone has theological blind spots, areas in which they're way off base. Pick any great theologian throughout the ages, and you can probably point out at least one area in which he appeared to depart from a biblical position in one way or another.
1. Augustine had a truly looney view of creation.
2. Martin Luther's view on the Lord's Supper was only marginally better than the Roman Catholic view.
3. Jonathan Edwards view on the entrance of sin into the world was so out of the mainstream of reformed theology that John Gerstner wrote that his blood froze when he first read it.
3. The problem is that each one of us has those areas, too, and we can't see them. If we could see them, they wouldn't be blind spots, would they?
4. So, we need to be just as careful in judging the doctrinal correctness of others as we do in judging their behavior.
4. Judging based on standards other than those God gives in the Bible. There are at least three types of this.
1. One way to judge using non-Biblical standards is to give preference to one group or person over another, where God has forbidden it.
1. James 2:1-4 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. {2} For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, {3} and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool," {4} have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?
2. Leviticus 19:15 You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.
2. Another way to judge using non-Biblical standards to judge as sin something that God has not called sin.
1. In Romans 14, Paul discusses liberty issues -- that is actions about which the Bible does not give instructions about what to do -- and he writes in verses 10-13: But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. {11} For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." {12} So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. {13} Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
2. Colossians 2:16-23 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- {17} things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. {18} Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, {19} and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. {20} If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, {21} "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" {22} (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? {23} These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
3. Can you think of some examples of this form of judging? ... In all of these examples, it is certainly possible to sin, but it is also possible to have a fairly wide range of differences, without anything within that range being sinful.
1. drinking alcohol
2. how one dresses
3. preference in music styles
4. how one spends the Lord's day
5. educational choices for children
3. A third way to judge using non-Biblical standards is to administer punishment that is inconsistent with Biblical standards.
1. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, {7} so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest somehow such a one be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. {8} Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.
2. Luke 17:3-4 "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. {4} And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
3. Ephesians 6:4 "And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." We need to especially careful not to over-punish our children. If we give the same punishment for squirming at the dinner table as we do for lying, there's something wrong. The first isn't a sin, unless we make it into one by forbidding it; the second is high on God's list of things He hates.
5. Judging when you're not the proper judge.
1. God has established civil government to handle the judging and punishing of criminals. The Scripture does not condone vigilantes.
2. Similarly, God has established church government to handle the judging and punishing of gross sin and doctrinal error.
6. Others ...
7. I'll close by suggesting to you three applications of our study of judging these past two weeks. I'm sure you can think of more.
1. Be much more concerned about judging yourself than you are about judging others.
2. When you have to judge another, be sure you judge using Biblical standards.
3. Whenever you find yourself thinking about why someone else did what they did, stop it.
8. Our words for the next two weeks will be all, world, and predestined. Your homework for next week is to read the following passages: John 3:1-21, 2 Peter 3, and Romans 8-9.

Predestined or Foreknown: What's the Difference?

C. Michael Holloway
22 November 1998

1. Opening and Prayer
2. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to be here last week, but I didn't think you all wanted to try to listen to babble incoherently, cough, and sneeze for 45 minutes. I suspect that will still be some coughing this morning, but I hope to avoid the sneezing and the incoherent babbling.
3. This has nothing to do with our lesson today, but it does have something to do with word meanings and origins. Can anyone tell me where the term 'lobbyist' came from? When Ulysses Grant was President, he would often walk or ride the couple of blocks from the White House to the Willard Hotel, and sit in the lobby of the Willard smoking a cigar and drinking brandy. Once people learned of this habit, some people who wanted political favors, or to try to convince Grant to do something they wanted done, would come over to the hotel when he was there and talk to him in the lobby of the Willard Hotel. He started calling such people lobbyists.
4. Review of previous weeks
1. In the previous 8 classes we've talked about a lot of things.
1. The basic goal of the class.
2. The word heart.
3. The words knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. are intimately related, but not quite synonymous.
4. Whether the Bible speaks of head knowledge and heart knowledge.
5. Gossip and slander.
6. Humility.
7. Judging.
2. There's at least one common theme that runs through all of these studies so far. Can anyone tell me what that this?
1. The importance of integrated thinking.
2. That is, thinking about the similarities between things, instead of the differences; seeing the forest and not just the trees. Here are some examples of how we've done this.
1. In talking about the heart, we emphasized that the primary use in the Bible is to denote your whole person, not just a single aspect of it, such as the emotions, the intellect, or the will.
2. When we talked about gossip and slander, we emphasized that they're really just two aspects of the same sin: saying something you ought not say.
3. In talking about humility, we emphasized that it's just one aspect of holiness, and it can't really be separated from the others.
4. In the two weeks when we talked about judging, we emphasized that the Golden Rule applies to judging, just as it does to other aspects of our behavior towards others.
3. Why do you think that I've emphasized integrated thinking?
1. Such an emphasis is consistent with the Biblical emphasis.
2. Also our culture over-emphasizes differences and specialization, so emphasizing similarities and generalization is an important balance to this.
3. One example of the over-emphasis on specialization within the Christian culture is the proliferation of books dealing with specific, single aspects of Christian living.
1. You can get books on being a Christian parent, books on being a Christian spouse, books on being a Christian businessman, books on being a Christian educator, books on being a Christian athlete, books on being a Christian teenager. Someone will probably soon write a book on being a Christian left-handed, brunette, legal secretary whose parents divorced when she was 7, if they haven't already.
2. Now, not all of this is bad, but it does tend to obscure the fact that what we're supposed to be is a Christian Christian. If we do that, all the specific areas will take care of themselves.
4. If you forget all the specific things we've talked about in this class, but you remember the importance of integrated thinking, the importance of seeing the forest and not just the trees, then I'll be happy. Well, that's not quite true. I want you to remember some of the specifics, too, but I think you know what I mean.
4. As you'll see, we're going to continue this theme of integration today, too.
5. I said two weeks ago that our words for this class would be all, world, and predestined. And, we will, in one way or another, touch on these. But what I want to do specifically, to keep with the theme of integration, and also, because I think it will be more instructive and interesting, is to concentrate on two words: predestined and foreknow. It is around those words that the real controversy today lies. I also said that we were going to take 2 weeks on this subject. My plan is to just take 1 week.
1. In his book titled simply Predestination, Gordon Clark tells this story: "One evening I attended a large tent meeting in Indianapolis. In the middle of the sermon as the evangelist warmed up to his subject, he launched into an attack on predestination; or to make the situation clear, one might say that the evangelist attacked the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. After about ten minutes of this, he seemed to be satisfied that he had pretty well made his point. But he hesitated a moment. Perhaps a fleeting thought occurred to him that after all the Bible does indeed speak of predestination. So he added, 'Of course,' and I particularly noted the of course, 'I accept what the Bible teaches about predestination.' The only trouble was that he never gave his audience the least hint of what he thought the Bible teaches."
2. The vast majority of evangelical believers today are both like and not like this preacher Clark refers to.
1. They are like this preacher in that they vehemently attack the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. In the minds of many people, this doctrine belongs in the same bucket of heresy as polygamy and idol worship. Someone tell me in one sentence what the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is.
1. That God chose before the foundation of the world those who He would enable to believe in Jesus for salvation; His choice was based on nothing that those people would later do.
2. Labeling this view Calvinistic is somewhat misleading, because it suggests that Calvin is the one who came up with the view, which is certainly not the case. Nevertheless, the label is so firmly entrenched, that we can probably use it safely.
3. Along these lines, in the preface to his book known as The Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards wrote: 'I should not take it at all amiss to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake; though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them, and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught.' (The real title of this book, by the way, was An Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of the Will which is Supposed to be essential to Moral Agency, Virtue, and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame.)
2. The majority of evangelical believers today are not like Clark's tent preacher in that they can usually give at least a hint about what they think the Bible really teaches about predestination. What is that? What does the vast majority of the evangelical church think the Bible means by predestination?
1. That God, after looking down through time to see who will choose to believe in Jesus, ordains those people to salvation.
2. In other words, in the view of most, predestination is a response by God to the actions that He foresees will be taken by man.
3. So then, there are basically two views about the meaning of predestination. We want to know what the Biblical view is.
1. There are lots of different ways we could go about discussing this. In preparing for this lesson, I've considered and rejected at least half a dozen different approaches.
2. Before we're done, some of you may wish that I'd rejected this approach, too, but I hope not. At a few points, our discussion will necessarily become a bit more philosophical than may be comfortable for some of you, but try to stick with it, and I hope you'll find it helpful.
6. Let's begin by considering some facts about the words.
1. The verb predestined occurs 6 times in the NASB, all 6 in the New Testament. (If time permits) Let's look at 4 of those occurrences.
1. Acts 4:27-28 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, {28} to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.
2. 1 Corinthians 2:6-9 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; {7} but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory; {8} the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; {9} but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
3. Ephesians 1:3-5;11-12 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, {4} just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love {5} He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ... In Him {11} also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, {12} to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
2. The Greek word in all these cases, and in the two we haven't read, is proorizo [pru-ri-zo], which means simply 'to determine beforehand'.
3. The words foreknew, foreknown, and foreknowledge occur at total of 5 times in the NASB, all 5 in the N.T. Let's read all of these occurrences, and in doing so, we'll pick up the other 2 occurrences of predestined, too.
1. Acts 2:22-23 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- {23} this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
2. Romans 8:28-30 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. {29} For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; {30} and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
3. Romans 11:2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
4. 1 Peter 1:1-2;20-21 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen {2} according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. ... {20} For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you {21} who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
4. There are two Greek words involved here.
1. There is the Greek verb proginosko [prog-i-nos-ko], which means basically 'to know beforehand'.
2. There is also the Greek noun prognosis [prog-no-sis], which means 'knowledge beforehand'.
5. Those are the basic facts about the words. Are there any questions?
7. Let's now think about these words a bit.
1. Without giving any consideration to Biblical usage, or how these words might apply to God, what can we say about the necessary relationship between the words?
1. Determining beforehand (that is, predestination) necessarily implies knowing beforehand (that is, foreknowledge). Someone who is able to determine in advance that some event will inevitably take place, knows in advance that the event will take place.
2. In theory, at least, the converse is not necessarily true. Theoretically, it seems possible that someone might know in advance that some event will take place, without having determined the inevitability of that event himself.
2. Those who object to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination assert that this is basically the case with God.
1. With only a few relatively obscure exceptions, non-Calvinists admit that God has perfect foreknowledge, but they assert that foreknowledge does not imply control.
2. An example that is often cited to illustrate this assertion is this: An observer is standing on a high tower, below which two roads meet at right angles. He sees two cars approaching the intersection at high speed. The observer knows they will collide, but it is not he who causes the collision.
3. There are two fatal problems with this example, however.
1. First, the observer does not really know; he does not have perfect foreknowledge. "The collision might be probable; but just possibly one of the card hits a boulder that has dropped from the cliff in a spot the observer cannot see. The other car continues unharmed." This observer isn't omniscient; God is.
2. The non-Calvinist might reply, but the observer could really know what was going to happen and still not control the event. An observer might, but God cannot. Clark puts it this way. "But if God knows a future event, the event is inevitable. If it were not inevitable, then God might 'know' a future event that finally never takes place. But this is ignorance, not knowledge. If in 2000 B.C. God knew that Hitler would invade Russia, or that I should get a hair cut on October 3 at 2:20 P.M., the event would be inevitable. Now, if God did not determine it, who did? The event was certain back in 2000 B.C. If God did not make it certain, there must be, beside God, another power that fixes at least some future events. That these events will occur, God discovers empirically by looking into the future and seeing what events his rival decided to cause. Such a view is utterly anti-scriptural. 'Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor hath taught him? ... Who instructed him ... and taught him knowledge?'"
4. Let's go back over this carefully.
1. Pick some event. For variety, let's pick Stonewall Jackson being shot by his own men at Chancellorsville in May 1863.
2. If we admit that God has perfect foreknowledge, then we must conclude that at any time in the past, God knows everything that will happen thereafter. Let's pick 2000 B.C. So, in 2000 B.C. in human time, God knew that Jackson would be shot in the wilderness near Chancellorsville in May of 1863.
3. Because God knew in 2000 B.C. this event would occur, it must be the case that the event was already certain in 2000 B.C.
4. Who, or what, made it certain?
5. It couldn't be Stonewall Jackson, or any of the men who fired their weapons on that day in May in 1863, because none of them were around in 2000 B.C. to make anything certain.
6. Unless there's some other being or force that is able to control at least some of what happens, without God's involvement, only God could make it certain.
3. When it comes to an omnipotent, omniscience God, knowledge beforehand necessarily implies determination beforehand. That is, foreknowledge implies predestination.
4. Anyone who admits that God knows everything that will happen, must, if he wants to be logically consistent, admit that God determines everything that will happen. It's really as simple as that.
8. Of course, I know, as well as you do, that there are lots of people who admit that God knows everything that will happen, but vigorously deny that He pre-determines it. Why is this?
1. Some people may be confused by the few Scripture passages that seem to perhaps be saying something different.
1. To someone in this situation, I would remind them of the basic principle that we are to interpret the obscure passages in light of the clear ones.
2. Most of the confusion comes from assuming that "all" must always mean "each and every single person", or that "world" must always mean "every person in the world." I'll give one example of each to show that this isn't the case.
1. Titus 2:11 says "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men". Unless we are to become universalists, and say that everyone is saved, we must realize that "all" here doesn't mean "each and every single person".
2. John 12:19 says "The Pharisees therefore said to one another, 'You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.' Clearly, no one is going to assert that "world" here means "every single person in the world."
3. Finally, I would refer them to any one of a number of books that address the confusing passages directly.
2. For some people, the idea that God ultimately determines who is saved seems unfair, unjust, and unloving. I've had more than one person say to me something like this: "I wouldn't want to serve a God who decides for Himself who is saved."
1. There are several different things to say to someone in this situation. One is to explain how all of the non-Calvinistic 'solutions' that claim to get God off the hook for choosing the elect, fail to get him off the hook, anyway.
1. God's providence alone keeps him on the hook, so to speak.
2. R. L. Dabney put it this way: "A most convincing proof, of a very practical nature, may be derived from the observed course of God's providence. That providence determines sovereignly the bounds of each man's outward privileges, of his life and opportunities. It determines whether he shall be born and live in a Pagan, or a Christian country, how long he shall enjoy means of grace, and of what efficacy, and when and where he shall die. Now in deciding these things sovereignly, the salvation or loss of the man's soul is practically decided, for without time, means, and opportunity, he will not be saved. ... What chance has that man practically, for reaching Heaven, whom God caused to be born, to live, to die, in Tahiti in the sixteenth century? Did not the casting of his lot there virtually fix his lot for eternity?"
2. Another, assuming the person is a professing Christian, is to ask them a series of questions like this
1. Why are you saved?
2. Why do you have faith?
3. What did you decide to believe?
4. Does this mean you're smarter than others who don't make that decision?
5. Then why did you decide to believe when others don't?
9. Next week, we're going to look at the word submission. Your homework for the week is to consider the extent to which biblical submission requires you to keep silent when you disagree.

Biblical Word Studies Class 10:
Submit! Resistance is Futile

C. Michael Holloway
29 November 1998

1. Opening and introduction.
2. Very quick review of previous weeks.
1. In the previous 9 classes we've talked about heart, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, so called head knowledge, so called heart knowledge, gossip, slander, humility, judging, predestination, and foreknowledge.
2. Last week I also mentioned that the common theme running through all our discussions is the importance of integrated thinking. That is, thinking about the similarities between things, instead of the differences; seeing the forest and not just the trees.
3. The subject of today's class is the word submission. When we took a vote a couple of weeks ago about what you all wanted us to study the final 2 weeks of the class, this word received the highest number of votes, so that's why we're studying it.
1. If you had to guess, without actually looking up the answer, how many times the words submission, submit, and submissive appear in the NASB, what would you guess?
1. I would've guessed about 50-75. Annette guessed 3-4. She was closer than I was.
2. These words actually appear only 12 times in the NASB: 3 times in the Old Testament and 9 times in the New Testament. In the New King James, they appear 25 times; we'll see why this difference exists in a minute.
2. The 3 O.T. occurrences are each a translation of a different Hebrew word, none of which is particularly interesting.
3. For the 9 N.T. occurrences, 7 are translations of a particular Greek word or its variants. That Greek word is hupotasso [hoop-ot-as'-so], which comes from hupo [hoop-o] "under" and tasso [tas-so] "to arrange in an orderly manner".
1. The active form of the verb means "to place under", "to affix", "to subordinate"
2. The passive form means "to be subject"
3. The middle form means "to subject oneself", "to be subservient", "to submit voluntarily"
4. We will come back to this word later on in the lesson.
4. This Greek word appears in the New Testament about 35 more times besides these. In those places, the NASB translates it as "put in subjection", "subject", "subjected", "subjecting", or "subjection".
5. This explains the primary reason for the difference in the number of occurrences of submit and its variants in the NASB and the NKJV. The NKJV uses a form of submit in places were the NASB uses a form of subject.
6. In looking at verses, we will consider ones that use forms of subject, in addition to those that use forms of submit.
4. Before we discuss exactly what submission means, let's first look at the relationships that the Bible says involve submission.
1. Everyone is to submit to God.
1. James 4:7 -- Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
2. Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
2. Everyone is to submit to their leaders in the church.
1. Hebrews 13:17 -- Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
2. 1 Corinthians 16:15-16 -- Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints), {16} that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.
3. Within the church, the general command to submit to church leaders is a bit stronger for women, in that women are not to exercise certain types of authority.
1. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. {12} But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
2. I'm not going to spend much time on this particular area.
3. Everyone is to submit to their government leaders.
1. 1 Peter 2:13-15 -- Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, {14} or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. {15} For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
2. Romans 13:1 -- Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
4. Servants are to submit to their masters.
1. Titus 2:9-10 -- Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, {10} not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.
2. 1 Peter 2:18 -- Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.
5. A wife is to submit to her husband.
1. Ephesians 5:22-24 -- Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. {23} For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. {24} But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
2. 1 Peter 3:1-2 -- In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, {2} as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.
6. We are to be subject to one another.
   Ephesians 5:18-24 -- And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, {19} speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; {20} always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; {21} and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
5. We've seen six relationships that the Scripture says require submission; we could list some more, but let's now consider what is meant by submission.
1. Figuring out exactly what submission means is not easy. That it isn't easy is illustrated by the fact that there are at least three misconceptions about submission that are quite common within the church today.
1. One common misconception is that the Bible commands women to submit to men.
1. It does not.
2. The command that a woman submit to her husband does not mean that women in general are required to submit to men in general.
3. The commands are quite specific: a wife is to submit to her own husband.
4. She is not required to submit to anyone else's husband, or to single men, except, it seems to me, in two cases:
1. Those general cases that apply to men, too. For example, women (like men) are to submit to government leaders, employers, church leaders, and God.
2. The special case within the church we mentioned earlier.
2. Another misconception is that submission implies that the one doing the submitting is somehow inferior to the person or group he's submitting to.
1. It does not.
2. Last summer when the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions dealing with the marriage relationship, much of the criticism against those resolutions was that they claimed that men were superior to women. The resolutions did no such thing; they simply stated the Biblical principle of a wife submitting to her husband.
3. The Scripture makes clear that believers are not divided into superiors and inferiors, either by submission relationships, or by anything else. As John MacArthur puts it, "there are no differences in intrinsic worth or basic spiritual privilege and rights among God's people." Galatians 3:28 -- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
4. Submission comes from a difference in God-ordained roles, not a difference in worth.
5. Of course, there is one relationship in which there is a difference in worth, and that is that of believers to God. But it is not the fact that we are to submit to Him that tells us this, it is other parts of the Bible that tell us this.
3. Another misconception is that submission is the same thing as absolute obedience.
1. Traditional marriage vows tend to perpetuate this misconception.
2. So, too do those people who claim that Christians owe unquestioning obedience to the government and to their church leaders.
3. Certainly we are to obey God unconditionally, but it is not the commands to submit to Him that tell us this, it is the commands to obey Him unconditionally that tell us this!
4. We'll talk about this issue more in a few minutes.
2. OK, I've avoided the question long enough: what does submission mean?
1. Although I think you can end up with the same result by other means, I believe this is one case in which it is helpful to look more closely at the original language.
1. As you recall, earlier I said that Greek word used most frequently is hupotasso [hoop-ot-as'-so]
2. This word comes from hupo [hoop-o] "under" and tasso [tas-so] "to arrange in an orderly manner".
3. So, we might say, for example, that for Mordecai to submit to Theobald, means that Mordecai arranges himself in an orderly manner under Theobald.
4. There are three important parts of this, "arranges himself", "in an orderly manner", and "under".
1. "Arranges himself" has the connotation of doing something voluntarily. It is not Theobald who tells Mordecai that he must get arranged, it is Mordecai who voluntarily arranges himself.
2. "Under" has the connotation of giving something up. Whereas originally Mordecai was, if you will, at the same level as Theobald, once he submits to him, he gives something up so that he's at a lower level now, in his role, not his intrinsic worth, as we said earlier.
3. "In an orderly manner" provides not only the method in which something is given up voluntarily, but also the reason: to maintain order.
2. Let's tie this all together. I believe Biblical submission is the voluntary giving up of certain rights to another person (or group) so as to maintain necessary order.
1. The primary right that is given up seems to me most often to be the right of making a final decision.
2. This is the right that is most necessary to maintain order. The old cliche, "too many cooks spoil the broth", is true. Just as multiple cooks putting whatever each wants into a soup would result in a disaster, so, too, would multiple decision makers result in a disaster in each of the relationships in which the Bible calls for submission.
3. One of the subjects of an earlier class is necessary to enable someone to submit biblically. What is that? Humility. Without humility, submission is impossible.
6. Let's now see how well this definition fits with the six submission relationship we listed earlier.
1. It is quite simple to see how it fits with four of the six relationships. We'll consider those first.
1. Consider the relationship of church members to church leaders. According to the definition I gave, submission in this relationship means that church members voluntarily give up to the church leaders their rights to make final decisions about how the church operates. This seems right.
2. Consider the relationship of citizens to government leaders. According to the definition, submission in this relationship means that citizens voluntarily give up to government leaders their rights to make final decisions about how the government operates. This, too seems right.
3. How about the employee/employer relationship? Submission in this relationship means that employees voluntarily give up to their employers their rights to make final decisions about their job. This seems like an appropriate definition.
4. Finally, consider the husband and wife relationship. The definition I gave implies that submission in this relationship means that wives give up to their husbands their rights to make final decisions about matters affecting the family. This, too, seems to me to capture the salient aspects of the relevant Biblical texts.
2. This leaves two relationships: the believer to God, and each believer to other believers.
1. Concerning the believer to God, I believe the best application of the definition is to say that believers voluntarily give up to God their rights to make final decisions about anything.
1. Of course, in this case, one could argue that we're giving up something we don't really have, but speaking in that sort of way is common in Scripture.
2. For example, the Israelites were commanded to give up a tenth of their increase. In truth, that tenth and the other nine-tenths didn't really belong to them anyway.
3. So, I think the definition fits here, too.
2. Concerning one believer to other believers, the difficulty in applying the definition seems to me to be in deciding what rights are being given up.
1. In all the other cases, my assertion seems appropriate that the primary rights being given up are those involving making final decisions. In this case, that seems less appropriate.
2. One might argue that the rights that are being given up are the rights to make final decisions about others' lives. This idea is supported by the ample Biblical teaching on Christian liberty, but, it is a bit problematic in that its not clear that any such rights exist to be given up, and the analysis just given concerning giving up rights to God doesn't apply here.
3. Perhaps the primary rights being given up here are those dealing with how you will be treated by others.
4. I'll leave deciding what rights are being given up here as an exercise for you all.
3. To summarize this part of our discussion, I believe that the definition I've given fits well with the submission relationships given in Scripture.
7. We now need to discuss the circumstances in which it is permissible for someone in a submission relationship to take back some of the rights they relinquished.
1. With only a few exceptions, everyone agrees that one circumstance in which this is allowed is when you are required to do something that is sinful.
1. An example from Scripture that illustrates such a circumstance is Exodus 1:15-17
1. Text: Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah, and the other was named Puah; {16} and he said, "When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live." {17} But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live.
2. No one argues, as far as I know, that the Hebrew midwives sinned by failing to submit to their government leaders.
2. We can all think of modern examples, too.
1. A wife whose husband commanded her to abort their child should not do it.
2. If a church's elders decided that the church should have a yard sale on the Lord's Day, the members should refuse to do it.
3. If an employee's supervisor told him to lie to a Grand Jury to cover up the supervisor's wrong doing, he should not do it.
2. It seems to me, however, that the case of outright sin isn't the only one.
1. Let's turn to Colossians 2:20-23 -- If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, {21} "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" {22} (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? {23} These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
2. Although the text doesn't say so explicitly, it seems reasonable to assume that the decrees talked about here were coming from church leaders.
3. These leaders were not requiring the people to engage in sinful acts. There is nothing inherently sinful about not eating certain foods, for example.
4. The leaders were forbidding the people from engaging in certain lawful acts, and, apparently claiming that those lawful acts were actually sinful.
5. Yet, Paul chastises the people for submitting to these prohibitions.
6. It seems to me, then, that this passage suggests that another circumstance in which one may take back rights one has given up is one in which Scripturally permitted acts are deemed sinful, and you are forbidden to do them.
7. Please note that it is not valid to infer from either what I just said, or from the Colossians passage, that this escape clause applies to activities or decisions about which legality or sinfulness isn't in question.
1. For example, CRPC's elders have decided to have worship at 9:30 and Sunday School at 11:15.
2. Suppose that I would prefer to have Sunday School at 9:30 and Worship at 10:45.
3. I could not use this passage in Colossians to justify attempting to get a group of you to agree to meet over in the modular building for Sunday School at 9:30.
4. Although there is nothing inherently sinful about having Sunday School before Worship, the elders haven't claimed that it is. They've simply chosen times that seemed best to them, and selecting a common time is necessary for order.
5. What I could do, of course, is talk to the elders about changing the order. Perhaps they would agree, perhaps they would not. The final decision is theirs.
8. One last thing: Your homework for the week was to consider the extent to which biblical submission requires you to keep silent when you disagree.
1. I believe that it is clear that biblical submission does not require you to keep silent at any time before a decision is made. You are free to express your opinion, so long as you follow all the applicable biblical commands about how to communicate with others.
2. What about after a decision is made? Must you be quiet then?
1. The standard response is, I believe, "Yes, you must be quiet then."
2. Many go even further than that and say that in a situation in which a group makes a decision by vote, biblical submission requires that those who are defeated support the final decision in public as if they were in favor of it. I've even said things like that myself.
3. In preparing for this lesson, I searched far and wide for Biblical justification for this position, and I didn't find it. If someone knows the Biblical justification, please share it.
4. Submission requires you to acknowledge the right of those in authority to make decisions. It requires you to abide by those decisions. It requires you to "do all things without grumbling or complaining." But it does not, so far as I can tell, require you to be silent when asked what you think of a decision. Nor does it require you to pretend a decision was wise that you think was unwise.
5. Let me make this clear: I'm saying that submission requires you to abide by the decision, but it doesn't require you to lie about what you think about the decision.
6. In truth, I believe this is much more conducive to order, anyway. For others to see you abiding by a decision they know you don't like is more likely to encourage them to also abide by the decision, than if they think you're "abiding by" the decision because you agree with it.
9. Choosing what to do next week.

Biblical Word Studies Class 11:
That's Just My Nature

C. Michael Holloway
6 December 1998

1. Good morning. Welcome to the eleventh and last meeting of the Biblical Word Studies class. Let's pray: Dear God, please let our time this morning glory you, and edify us. In Christ's name we ask, Amen.
1. The subject of today's class is the word nature. We took a vote at the end of last week's class about whether people wanted to study this word, or have an all-encompassing wrap-up class. Nature won in a close vote.
2. I said then that if the wrap-up class was chosen, I'd come up with a single sentence that used all of the words we'd studied. Although the wrap-up class didn't win, I'll go ahead and give you the sentence; I didn't use this week's word, for a reason that should become clear to you later.
3. "With all my heart, I hope God has foreknown and predestined each of you to be able to judge rightly what we've studied, and thus grow not only in propositional acquaintance, but also in true knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and that He will grant you humility, so you will be able to submit to His will, even if it means you must endure the gossip and slander of others."
2. Let's now begin our discussion about the word nature.
1. As I mentioned last week, the discussion this morning will necessarily be more philosophical and technical than those we've had in our previous ten classes. For the benefit of those of you who do not relish such discussions, I've tried to simplify some of the issues. In doing so, I hope that I've not lost essential content.
2. Now, your homework for the week was to complete the long-term homework I first mentioned in the second week of the class: to come up with a definition for the word nature that does justice to the traditional orthodox distinction between nature and person. In particular, I said that your definition must account for how Jesus is one person with two natures, while the God-head is three persons with one nature.
3. But, before we discuss the homework, or even the basic facts about the word, let me tell you a story. Many of you have probably heard something similar before.
1. There once was a fellow who came to Christ as an adult. As he began to mature in the Christian life, he often referred to the struggle he had between his "old nature" and his "new nature". He said it was like he had two dogs inside that fought each other constantly. If someone asked him, "who wins", he'd reply, "the one I feed the most."
2. This is a cute little story, but there's something a tad disturbing at it. If the man had an old nature and a new nature fighting like two dogs, who or what is it that's doing the feeding he talked about?
1. It can't be the old nature, because then the old nature would always win.
2. It can't be the new nature, because then the new nature would always win.
3. It can't be the old nature sometimes and the new natures sometimes, because then the man should've replied to the "who wins" question by saying, "whichever one does the feeding."
4. If it is the man, which it seems like is intended, since he refers to himself as the one doing the feeding, then what relationship does he have to these two natures he talks about? He can't really be part of either of them, if he's the arbitrator of who wins the struggle. So, it seems like there must be at least 3 natures involved, not just 2.
5. So, when you analyze the story closely, it makes no sense. Rather than clarifying the struggle of sanctification, as it is intended to do, it really only hopelessly muddles it.
3. I tell you this story to illustrate how sloppily we often use the word nature. Let's see if there's anything we can do to be less sloppy.
4. Here are some basic facts about the word nature.
1. Dictionary definitions of the English word include the following:
1. "the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: It is against nature for a mother to hurt her child. It is ... my nature, to believe the best of people (George W. Curtis)"
2. "what a thing really is; quality; character: It is the nature of robins to fly and build nests."
3. "the complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person's characteristic actions and reactions"
2. The word appears 13 times in 12 verses, all in the New Testament.
1. Once (John 8:44) it is inserted by the translators, but no equivalent appears in the Greek manuscripts.
2. Twice (Acts 17:29 and Rom 1:20) the word in the Greek is a derivative of theos, and the translation is divine nature.
3. Twice (Acts 14:15 and James 5:17) the Greek means "of like feelings or affections", and the English translation is not nature alone, but same nature or like nature.
4. Seven times (twice in Romans 11:24, and once each in 1 Corinthians 11:14, Galatians 2:15 & 4:8, Ephesians 2:3, and 2 Peter 1:4) the Greek word is physis. This word developed a fairly wide range of meanings, but we can grossly simplify things and say that in these passages, it basically means "the natural order of things", or "the way things usually are".
5. This leaves only one more occurrence, which is Hebrews 1:3. It is on this occurrence, and on the underlying Greek word that we will concentrate now.
3. Let's now consider the Greek word in Hebrews 1:3 in more detail.
1. First, let's look at the verse in the NASB: "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
2. So what is this nature of which Christ is an exact representation? From the English translation and context, it isn't clear. We know it's the nature of the Father, but what is that? Perhaps looking at the Greek will help.
3. The Greek word translated here as nature is hupostasis or hypostasis depending upon which transliteration scheme you use.
1. This word appears 4 more times in the New Testament, twice in Hebrews, and twice in 2 Corinthians. Perhaps looking at those verses will help us.
2. It doesn't. The two occurrences in 2 Corinthians (9:4 and 11:17) are each translated as confidence. The two occurrences in Hebrews (3:14 and 11:1) are each translated as assurance. Neither of these makes sense for Hebrews 3:1.
3. The fact of the matter is that this particular Greek word has a tremendously wide range of meaning. Gordon Clark writes in his book The Incarnation: "Liddell and Scott use fifty or sixty lines of fine print to explain the usage of the word in classical Greek. The meanings are: 'standing under, supporting, lying in ambush, sediment, abscess, jelly or thick soup, duration, origin, foundation, subject-matter, argument, purpose, confidence, courage, promise, substance, reality, wealth, title-deeds.'"
4. Perhaps looking at some other translations of this verse will help.
1. The New King James (and King James, too, on the issue that matters for us) reads like this for Hebrews 1:3 -- "who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..."
2. Jay Greene's Literal Translation says: "who being the shining spender of [His] glory, and the express image of His essence ..."
3. Young's Literal says: "who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence ..."
4. The Jewish New Testament, which was done by the Messianic Jew David Stern says: "This Son is the radiance of the Sh'khinah, the very expression of God's essence ..."
5. The NIV reads as follows: "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being..."
6. So, we have 1 nature, 2 persons, 2 essences, 1 subsistence, and 1 being.
7. This helps only if we're willing to say that each of these are at least roughly synonymous with one another. How many of you are willing to say that?
4. Well, any of you who are willing to say it are heretics, at least according to the Athanasian Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. All three of these make a strong distinction between person and nature (although they, and most others, have tended to equate substance, essence, and nature)
1. The Athanasian Creed says, in part:
1. "Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally. Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal."
2. Skipping a little, we read "But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. ..."
3. Skipping some more to the end, "This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation."
2. The Definition of Chalcedon says:
   • "Herefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; ... one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."
3. The Westminster Confession of Faith addresses the issue in several places. We'll look at two.
1. Paragraph 2 of Chapter VIII Of Christ the Mediator: "The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man."
2. Paragraph 7 of the same chapter: "Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."
4. So, all of these make a strong distinction between person and nature. Jesus is one person with two natures: one divine, one human. The Godhead consists of one nature, with three persons.
5. That's all well and good, but unless we know what nature means and what person means, these statements have no more meaning than Twas brilig by the slithy tove. And so far, we've not gotten very far in trying to figure out what nature means.
5. This brings us back to the homework. Before we talk about it 'though, I want to talk about the difference between a description and a definition.
1. Can someone explain the difference?
1. Informally, we might say that a description is a concrete listing of the characteristics of the thing being described, perhaps also including a listing of the non-characteristics. 1 Corinthians 13 provides a description of love.
2. Similarly, informally we might say that a definition is an abstract statement fully encompassing all of the thing's salient characteristics without explicitly enumerating them. 2 John 6 provides a definition of love: "... this is love, that we walk according to His commandments..."
2. In the creeds and confessions that use the word nature, there is probably enough text to enable some to say that a description of nature is given.
3. For many of you, that is enough. Various psychological studies have shown that somewhere between 75-85% of people are most comfortable thinking and speaking concretely. If you fall into that group, you're probably quite content to have only a description of what nature means. You may even now regret having voted to study this word, if you did.
4. But, if you fall into the 15-25% of people who prefer abstract thinking and speaking, you're probably not so content. You want a definition, because you believe that a word without a definition is a word without meaning. You would agree with Clark, who said that words that don't have definitions are nonsense words, and their use should be abolished.
6. Now, what does nature mean ??
1. My own answer is simple, but let me illustrate it, before I state it.
1. Recall one of the dictionary definitions that I gave you earlier: "what a thing really is; quality; character".
2. The example sentence given in that definition was: "It is the nature of robins to fly and build nests."
3. Does that sentence differ at all in meaning from this one: "Robins fly and build nests" ?
1. Some might sense a slight difference in emphasis. The first sentence might be said to emphasize that flying and building nests is essential to robin-hood, while the second doesn't quite have that emphasis.
2. But, other than this potential difference in emphasis, which isn't very great anyway, there isn't any real difference in meaning between the two sentences.
4. According to Carl Henry, in the fourth century, Athanasius suggested that the proper way to think of hypostasis was along similar lines. Translating what Athanasius said to the terms we're using, he said that the phrase nature of God is simply an emphatic way of saying God.
2. Generalizing Athanasius, I believe that the word nature, in the contexts in which we're interested this morning, has no meaning in itself; its meaning comes only from that to which it is attached.
1. Let me illustrate.
1. According to this approach, Hebrews 1:3 says simply "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of God".
2. The statement "The Godhead consists of one nature, with three persons," is the same as the statement "The Godhead consists of one God with three persons."
3. The statement "Jesus is one person with two natures: one divine, one human" is the same as the statement "Jesus is one person, who is both God and man."
2. In all of these cases, I believe that the meaning of the statement is made clearer by the elimination of the word nature. Often, as in the example with which I began the class, nature serves not to illuminate, but to obfuscate.
3. As a bit of an aside, I think it is worthwhile to note that respected English style guides such as Strunk & White's The Elements of Style, and Fowler's Modern English Usage, comment that the word nature should be used sparingly, because it is most often unnecessary.
4. Someone may say, "but what about 'sinful nature', isn't there meaning here?"
1. In this area, the WCF Chapter 6 (Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof) provides support for the approach that I've suggested.
2. In this chapter, the phrases corrupted nature, corruption, and corruption of nature, are all used, as best as I can tell, synonymously.
3. Rather than talking about our sinful natures, I think we'd all be better off to talk about our sin. Sinful nature depersonalizes the sin just a little bit. Some people fool themselves with thoughts like this, "It's not really me doing all this sinning, it's that dreadful old sinful nature."
5. To summarize, I believe the best thing to do with the word nature is to get rid of it. So, now you should know why I didn't use the word in my sentence at the beginning of the class: I followed my own advice.
6. (I'll note in passing that to make sense out of the revised statements about the Trinity and the Incarnation, we still need to provide a definition for person. I leave that as an exercise. It is not an easy exercise.)
7. In closing, I want to say three things.
1. First, we've talked a lot about balance in these 11 classes. For several of the words we've studied, I've explained how an incomplete understanding of the meaning of a word can lead to overemphasis on one extreme or the other.
1. This principle of balance applies even to the very pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
2. Many Christians today, whether broadly evangelical or reformed, whether dispensational or covenantal, whether Arminian or Calvinistic, stumble into theological error because they don't strive hard enough to understand what the Bible teaches. In this class, and in all the other teaching and writing I do, I constantly emphasize the importance of striving to know as much as you can.
3. But, there is a danger here, too. It is possible to rush headlong into theological error by trying to understand more than God has revealed.
1. Jonathan Edwards is generally considered the greatest theologian America has ever produced, and one of the greatest of all time.
2. Yet, even he erred on occasion. His biggest error involved the origin of sin. He erred here, not because he didn't know what the Bible teaches -- he certainly did -- but because, it appears, he tried to think beyond what the Bible teaches. As John Gerstner put it, "No one has failed more radically on this issue because no one has examined this problem more thoroughly than Edwards."
4. Whatever you do, don't stop trying to understand what God teaches in his Word. But, also, whatever you do, don't waste time trying to understand what God has hidden.
2. Second, all of my notes for the class are available on my web page at <www.clearlight.com/~holloway/bws>. If you don't have access to the web, and you want a set of the notes, let me know, and I'll make a copy for you.
3. Third, I've thoroughly enjoyed teaching this class. I thank you for your attentiveness and your participation. Perhaps we can do it again sometime. Maybe we'll start with the word person.