
The Milita Group Store
Edit: Shortly after making this post yesterday I was saddened to learned that Copeland has announced that they are breaking up. Details here.
Book Reviews. Music Reviews. Thoughts from Bible College Classes and Portions of Papers.
In Exodus 3 Moses marries Zipporah, a Midianite woman. In Exodus 18 we see Jethro, Moses' father-in-law and the priest of Midian, offering Moses some valuable advice. In Numbers 10:29-32 Moses asks his Midianite brother-in-law to come with the Israelites as a guide. As far as I am able to tell Moses had a very good relationship with his Midianite family. Imagine, then, how difficult is would have been for Moses to hear these words from God:
"Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."Moses heeds God's word and commands the Israelites to fight the Midianites and to kill every one of them. Imagine the pain that this must have brought Moses and his family. I wonder if this passage can shed any light on the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26:
(Numbers 31:2)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."
Obviously not everything is going to apply straight across to religion or to Christianity, but its food for thought.One of the key tenets of entrepreneurship is that you start your company with insufficient resources and knowledge.
Faith-based Entrepreneurship
At first, entrepreneurship is a Faith-based initiative. There is no certainty about a startup on day-one. You make several first order approximations about your business model, distribution channels, demand creation, and customer acceptance. You leave the comfort of your existing job, convince a few partners to join you and you jump off the bridge together.At each startup I couldn’t wait to do this. No building, no money, no customers, no market? Great, sign me up. We’ll build something from scratch.
You start a company on a vision; on a series of Faith-based hypotheses.
Fact-based Execution
However, successfully executing a startup requires the company to become Fact-based as soon as it can.Think about all the assumptions you’ve made to get your business off the ground. Who are the customers? What problems do they have? What are their most important problems? How much would they pay to solve them? What’s the best way to tell them about our product?…
Ad infinitum. These customer and market risks need to be translated into facts as soon as possible.
You can blindly continue to execute on faith that your hypothesis are correct. You’ll ship your product and you’ll find out if you were wrong when you run out of money
Or you can quickly get out of the building and test whether your hypothesis were correct and turn them into facts.
In hindsight, when I was young, this where I went wrong. It’s a lot more comfortable to hang on to your own beliefs than to get (or face) the facts. Because at times facts may create cognitive dissonance with the beliefs that got you started and funded.
Customer Development
This strategy of starting on faith, and quickly turning them into facts is the core of the Customer Development process.
Basil wrote his book On the Holy Spirit in 375 AD, part way between the first two ecumenical councils. Not only did people have questions about the divinity of the Spirit but there were many lingering questions about the nature of the Son as well. Two of his opponents, the Eunomians and pneumatomachians, were subordinationists, giving the Father the greatest honour and placing the Son and Spirit underneath him. Since denying the Spirit's divinity in this way is no small matter, Basil set out to show that the Father, Son and Spirit are all worthy of equal glory.
The book's first major argument concerns Basil's use of the doxology in the form of “Glory to the Father with the son together with the Holy Spirit.” His opponents argued that this was in opposition to the more customary form “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit” (see introduction page 11 for doxologies). The subordinationists claimed that the words “through” and “in” were evidence that the Son and Spirit were underneath the Father. Basil shows, however, that the basis for their claim was found only in pagan literature (3.5). The scriptures use these same words in relation to the Father as well as to the Son and Spirit (5.10). If “through” and “in” are used to imply that a person is underneath someone else, then who is the Father less than (5.8)? Basil continues his argument by demonstrating from the Psalms that “with” can be used in the place of “in” (25.28). What we discover is that the theology and meaning of both doxologies is actually the same. Although they each serve a different purpose and help us to understand different aspects of the Godhead, they both acknowledge the mystery of the Trinity and the divinity of all three persons. It was the subordinationists who had read false meaning into the words “through” and “in.”
Jesus' command to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matt 28:19) also plays an important role in Basil's argument. It shows the equality of all three persons and implies that each plays an important role in salvation. It is also important as a defense of Basil's doxology, since the word “and,” which has basically the same meaning as “with,”(25.59) is used to refer to all three persons of the Trinity. Some of Basil's opponents must have taken issue with the fact that Basil placed so much emphasis on this command and so he devotes a large section of his work to refuting their specific arguments.
Basil gives three main reasons, besides the fact that believers are baptized into the Spirit, why he believes that the Spirit is of divine nature. First, he shares many titles with the Father and Son. These titles include Spirit (John 4:24), good, upright (Ps 92:15), and Paraclete (John 14:16; 19.48). Secondly, he does similar works to the other persons of the Trinity. The Spirit works miracles (19.49) and also plays a key part in the remission of sins (1 Cor 6:11) and resurrection from the dead (Ps 104:30). He leads people and speaks with the authority of the Lord (Acts 13:2). Like Christ, he is our intercessor (Rom 8:26). These are all divine acts that only God can accomplish. Lastly, the Spirit, like the Father and Son, cannot be grasped by human thought (22.53; John 14:17). In fact, the only one who knows God's thoughts is the Spirit (16.40; 1 Cor 2:11).
Tradition played a major role as a source of Basil's theology. In fact, he goes so far as to give the Bible and tradition “equal force” (27.66). His doxology had been disputed on the grounds that it had no basis in tradition of the church fathers. Basil reverses this argument by giving numerous examples of how his form of the doxology was used by many significant church leaders before him.
We have explored four of the main threads that run throughout Basil's book which demonstrate that the Spirit is divine. We will now look at the implications of this discovery for our own lives. For Basil it was important that we give praise and honour to the Spirit as a result of his works. Together with the Father and Son, the Spirit is worthy of glory (23.54). To deny him this glory is to fall into heresy. Basil reminds us of the scripture which tells us that “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven” (28.70; Luke 12:10). While we might not be tempted to deny the divinity of the Spirit as the pneumatomachians did, my own experience is that we often remember the Father and Son in our worship and prayers but forget to acknowledge the Spirit. If we are to take Basil's words to heart, we should honour the Spirit to the same extent that we do the Father and Son.
One of my favourite Bible verses is Hebrews 4:15, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”1 This verse makes an important contribution to our understanding of the nature of God. Although he is transcendent and omnipotent, having authority and power over everything, and although he is just and unable to be in the presence of sin, yet our God understands the challenges that we face as humans living in a fallen word. This is the great mystery of the incarnation. We see that God is able to sympathize with us. Yet, the extent of this sympathy has been called into question by some. James 1:13 clearly states that, “God cannot be tempted by evil...”. If we hold to the belief that Jesus is God, then doesn't this imply that Jesus cannot sin? And if Jesus cannot sin, was his temptation truly genuine?2 The answer to these questions will determine whether or not Jesus is truly able to sympathize with us. We will find that, although he cannot sin, Jesus did become fully human, which means that he took on the sinful nature and faced the full force of temptation.
Before we can understand how Jesus was tempted, we will have to look at two issues that will provide a framework for our discussion. We will first look at the issue of Christology. We must properly understand who Jesus was by looking at both his humanity and divinity. It would be easy to emphasize one of these aspects while ignoring the other, but the best answer to our question will hold up both of these. Next, we need to understand exactly what temptation is. This term 'temptation' is somewhat ambiguous and if we are not careful to define it, this paper will be in danger of falling into an argument of mere semantics.
The orthodox Christian view of Jesus has traditionally asserted that he is fully human.3 He experienced all of the limitations of humanity, he experienced the full range of human need, and he faced trials and temptations.4 John 11:35 portrays Jesus' humanity in a concise yet beautiful way: “Jesus wept.” Scripture has made it clear that Jesus was not immune from human experience.
Some critics have tried to discredit Jesus' claim of full humanity on the basis of the fact that he never sinned. Indeed, it is true that he never did. Paul writes that Jesus, “knew no sin...”.5 Our primary passage for this paper, Hebrews 4:15, also proclaims his sinlessness. We will explore shortly the divine nature of Christ which also requires his undeniable righteousness. Some have set these two natures in opposition, claiming that if Jesus did not share in the sinfulness of man, then he did not fully experience what it means to be human. We must remember, however, that man was created in God's image.6 When Adam was first made, he also shared the sinless condition of God. It was only because of the fall that our humanity became corrupted. Since Jesus lived a perfect life it could actually be said that he is more truly human than we are. Millard Erickson sums it up this way, “Our humanity is not a standard by which we are to measure [the humanity of Jesus]. His humanity, true and unadulterated, is the standard by which we are to be measured.”7
In the same way that the humanity of Jesus has been accepted by the church, the divinity of Christ has been equally upheld. Daniel Migliore asserts that, “The classical creeds declare the divinity of Jesus Christ without reservation.”8 The scriptures also declare that Jesus is, “in very nature God...”.9 It is clear, then, that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. The recognition of both of these natures will be important as we continue to explore the significance of his temptation.
Let us now move to a discussion of temptation itself. To begin, we will define temptation as: “The desire to have or do something sinful.”10 It is important that we define sin in this way, since some have taken 'temptation' in Hebrews 4:15 to simply mean a hardship or a trial. Using such a definition would be unhelpful in discovering the answers to the questions we are asking.
The next thing we must ask is whether or not temptation, in and of itself, is sinful. If we determine that it is, then we will be forced to accept the conclusion that Christ was not truly tempted, since God cannot sin. Thomas Oden suggests, however, that any such view is not backed up by real life evidence. If only sinners can be tempted, then sinners must have the best understanding of what temptation is. What we actually find is that a person feels the burden of temptation the most when they do not give in. Once they submit to the temptation, they are no longer struggling against it. The person who gives in has not yet felt the full force of temptation's power. The person who does not give in is required to confront it at its greatest magnitude. Based on this experience, we cannot conclude that temptation and sin are the same.11 Augustine held a similar view, theorizing that the three stages to temptation are suggestion, imagined pleasure, and consent. Of these three stages, only consent is sin.12
The early Christian writers compared temptation to the testing of metal. If, for example, you had a piece of pure gold, you could use various methods to test its authenticity. In the end, you would always discover that it was, in fact, gold. There would be no possibility of discovering otherwise, since it truly was gold. In a similar way, Jesus was put through various trials and temptations, but there was no possibility that he would sin. Despite the fact that the results would always be the same, it was important that a metal underwent testing to verify its authenticity. Jesus also proved his sinlessness by successfully facing temptation.13 As we begin to look at the arguments both for and against a temptation that was identical to ours, this metaphor will be important. It establishes the fact that, no matter what kind of temptation Jesus faced, we know that Jesus would not sin. What we are really asking, then, is whether or not Jesus participated in the part of human nature that responds to sin, which is the sinful nature.
Our first look will be at those who claim that Jesus did not share the inclination towards sin that other humans do. Stanley Grenz sums up this position well with his statement that, “Jesus' relationship to temptation differs from ours in one important way: He did not experience its enticement in the manner that we do.”14 The central argument here is that Jesus, being in very nature God, cannot sin. Our discussion on temptation, however, has indicated that just because one sins, that doesn't mean their temptation was any less genuine. In fact, the one who does not sin has felt the power of temptation to its fullest extent.15
The other argument against a genuine temptation is largely based on verses such as James 1:14, “each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.” It may seem initially as if temptation itself is the evil desire. Our look at temptation, however, has shown us that temptation not sinful. Only the actions that follow are sin. So what do we do about James 1:14? Can we simply ignore it? A proper look at this verse also requires us to look at is context. The next verse tells us that, “after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin...”. This would seem to imply that the desire itself is not sin. Similar to what we find in Augustine, we see that sin only occurs when the desire is allowed to take root and to be acted upon in some way.
It is important at this point to consider the implications of an incomplete temptation with regards to our key verse, Hebrew 4:15. If Jesus did not participate in our sinful nature, then has he really been tempted “just as we are”? The Bible gives Christ the role of mediator between God and man. Oden has suggested that, “There can be no mediation between God and humanity without positing a mediator capable of empathy with ordinary humanity and of equal dignity with God.”16 It would seem that, if he was not fully tempted, than Jesus cannot fill this important role.
On the other side of the issue, we have those who believe that Jesus fully participated in our sinful nature and was tempted in the same way that we are. Several authors have pointed out that in the temptation narratives, there seems to be an assumption that Jesus' temptation was very real. Jesus temptations “were real appeals to his real freedom.”17 Bonhoeffer argued that “If he was to help man, who is flesh, he had to take upon himself the whole temptation experience of the flesh.”18 Only by experiencing full humanity, even to the extent of taking on the sinful nature, can Jesus relate to us and mediate on our behalf.
It cannot be stressed enough that, even though he may have participated in the sinful nature, he did not sin nor was there even the possibility that he would sin. As pure gold will always be proven to be pure gold, so it was certain that he would withstand the test and that his righteousness would be demonstrated. By upholding the case for a participation in the sinful nature, we are suggesting that his sinlessness was not driven by an external necessity. He is not bound by some outside force that is greater than him. He could freely choose, but yet the outcome of that choice was always certain. Because he was God, he would never sin. His will, his free choice, would always will a righteous decision. This is a great paradox. Jesus had the free choice to sin or not to sin, yet his divine will would always choose the later.19
It is not my intention to make light of the view that Jesus could not have shared in our sinful nature. Certainly there are many significant theologians who promote this view and a complete look at their arguments would take many more words than this paper can cover. It is important that we keep their view in mind, since it emphasizes the divine and sinless nature of Christ. As a word of caution, we must never forget the importance of these aspects. Although we will accept that Jesus participated in the sinful nature, which emphasizes his human nature, we cannot forget that he was also fully divine and that he remained sinless.
Let us ask again the two questions that we began with. If hold to the belief that Jesus is God, then doesn't this imply that Jesus cannot sin? We have discovered that Jesus cannot sin, but this is not due to some external force that prevents him from doing so. It is due to his divine nature and perfect will. Secondly we ask, if Jesus cannot sin, was his temptation truly genuine? Although Jesus cannot sin, we have concluded that he did share our sinful nature, that he had free will, and that he felt the full power of temptation. Therefore, we can see that we do indeed have a high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. He is not asking us to face anything that he himself has not faced and he is able to fully represent us as the mediator between God and man.
Bibliography
Oden, Thomas C. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1989.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.
Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.
Footnotes:
1Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations in this paper will be taken from the New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978).
2Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 736.
3Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 2nd Ed, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 174.
4Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, (Grand Rapids: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 276.
52 Corinthians 5:21, New King James Version.
6Genesis 1:21.
7Erickson, 737
8Migliore, 177.
9Philippians 2:6.
10A paraphrase of the definition found in Word Tutor, (eSpindle Learning, 2004); quoted in "Temptation," Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/temptation, 2006, (accessed Dec 05, 2008).
11Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, vol. 2, (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1989), 247.
12Oden, 248.
13Oden, 246.
14Grenz, 276.
15Leon Morris, Lord from Heaven, 51-52; quoted in Erickson, 737.
16Oden, 193.
17This reflects the view of Barth, Origen, and J. Edwards, among others. See Oden, 244.
18Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Temptation, ed. Eberhard Bethge, translated by Kathleen Downham, (London: SCM Press, 1955), 16.
19Oden, 246.