Greek Word Study on "baptizo" (to baptize)

(This ship is "baptized")

It is important to understand the purpose of a word study. A word study is not meant to prove doctrine but it is meant to prove a particular word's true definition. That is what I have done in this word study. I did not deal with the theology of baptism but the definition of "baptize." The reason this is an issue is because some churches teach "baptism" by sprinkling or something like that. I hope this paper clarifies the definition of baptism for you.


Greek Word Study: βαπτιζω "baptizo" (to baptize)

The word “baptize” in English is an obscure word. This is due to the fact that the word “baptize” is almost an exact transliteration of the Greek word baptizo; other forms of the word are transliterations as well (e.g., “baptism,” “Baptist”). In Walter Bauer’s Lexicon it is rightly stated that, “The transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies the ceremonial character that NT narratives accord such cleansing, but … the term baptizo was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests” (Bauer 164). The goal of this paper is to reveal the correct meaning of the Greek word baptizo so that the word can actually be translated, not simply transliterated, into English.

The word baptizo comes from the word bapto which means “to dip, immerse” (Gilbrant 526). baptizo is the intensive form of bapto, thus baptizo means “to immerse, submerge, plunge.” In order to better grasp the intensive distinction it may be helpful to liken the difference between the words bapto and baptizo to the difference between the English words “jog” and “sprint.”

The way a word is used determines its meaning. Therefore the meaning of baptizo must be consistent with how it was used in its time. I will present the usage of baptizo in its Classical Greek contexts; in its Septuagint contexts; and in its New Testament contexts. Baptism is a topic of debate in the theological realm and often times the meaning of the word “baptize” has been misunderstood or skewed due to what different churches have taught and practiced for centuries. Examining the Classical Greek usage of baptizo is extremely helpful because the Classical authors did not have a theological agenda to promote which provides a more objective basis for determining the meaning of baptizo.

Baptizo was used widely in the ancient world and it was used in several ways. Soranus described a practice in which a scalpel or knife was “baptized” (immersed, plunged) into an embryo (see endnotes). The context is unclear as to whether or not this was to kill the embryo or to perform a type of surgery on the fetus but what is clear is that Soranus used the word “baptize” to describe the action of the scalpel (immersion) into the embryo (Liddell and Scott 305) . Plutarchus used baptizo in the context of commanding someone to “baptize” himself into the sea and he also described a man named Dionyson “immersing/plunging” himself into the sea. Plutarchus did not associate the word baptizo with any religious rite so it is clear that he was simply using the word to describe what the people did: they submerged themselves into a body of water. Epictetus used baptizo passively to describe the drowning of a person (i.e., “he was being immersed/drowned”). It seems that Epictetus was describing either a man being murdered by being plunged in water, or a man trying to escape the power of the ocean from pulling him under the water and thus drowning him. Even though it is unclear how the man was drowned the meaning of baptizo is certain: submersion. Polybius recorded the sinking of a ship as a “baptism” of a ship. It is obvious that this is not anything other than submersion. The nature of the word “immersion” requires that there is something to immerse into. Josephus used baptizo metaphorically to describe the massive amount of people who were flocking into the city of Jerusalem, “They baptized (immersed) the city.” Josephus was using hyperbole to portray a frantic scene of people that were seeking protection from the Roman army by entering the fortified city of Jerusalem. The picture is a city packed and crammed with people. Another author used baptizo to describe “a certain man being immersed in sleep.” This usage does not depict a person who is simply comfortably asleep. baptizo is an intensive form of the word “dip, immerse” and it is important to draw out that quality. It would be accurate to say that this man is “sleeping like a rock.” Liddell and Scott give the meaning that this is referring to “lethargic sleep.” Hippocrates wrote that certain individuals, “draw breath like out of the event that they had been immersed.” Hippocrates was describing a certain kind of breathing. The context given in Liddell and Scott is limited, but perhaps Hippocrates was describing the way a sprinter inhales after a long, hard sprint (i.e., he gasps for air the same way a person gasps for breath when he comes up out of water after he has been submerged for a long time (either willfully or unwillfully)). This expression could fit many contexts (e.g., sprinting; breathing hard when getting scared; a man gasping for breath when he is being tortured; etc.). Hippocrates’ usage of baptizo is extremely helpful because it defines the word to the idea of complete submersion. Gasping for breath after being submerged in water for a long time is a universal experience. The expression could not work if baptizo did not mean immersion/ submersion. baptizo is used metaphorically by Plato to describe people (?) who had been immersed (soaked) in wine. Plato is likely using figurative language to express just how terribly drunk some people were. They were not just a little tipsy; rather they were totally saturated with wine. Plato is drawing upon the intensive meaning of the word baptizo. Plutarchus used baptizo to describe a person who had been immersed in debt. For this quote Liddell and Scott translated the expression into English as a person who is “over head and ears in debt.” Plutarchus, like Plato and other writers who used baptizo metaphorically, used the word to describe just how great of an amount of debt this person was in. baptizo is a strong, emphatic word and that is precisely why ancient writers used it metaphorically. If I may paraphrase Plutarchus’ quote it would read, “This person is hopelessly buried under a mountain of debt.” Josephus used baptizo to describe a person who, “was being immersed with a lack of sense perception (lack of sensation) and sleep” (i.e., this person had totally lost all consciousness). Achilles Tatius described the dissolution of a man’s anger, “the one who had been immersed (overwhelmed) with wrath is being sunk (i.e., his wrath was going away).” Achilles Tatius was not talking about a person who was just a little bit upset he was talking about a man who was burning with passionate anger and he used baptizo to describe just how full of anger this person was. The last example of the classical usage of baptizo comes from Libanius who mentioned a person whose soul had been immersed (baptized) with grief. It is absolutely clear from classical usage that baptizo meant complete (even overwhelming) submersion under water when it was used literally and when it was used metaphorically it was drawing upon the power of the literal image.

Baptizo was used in the Septuagint four times. In Judith 12:7 baptizo is translated as “bathing.” In the context of the passage Judith would go out and bathe in the spring and her bathing was for the purpose of ritual purification. In this passage there is not enough detail to infer whether or not Judith fully submerged or not. Sirach 34:25 says, “Wash (baptizo) after touching a corpse and then touch it again, and what have you gained by your washing?” This usage of baptizo, like Judith, has the idea of ritual purification and this quote is too vague to glean an understanding of the word. baptizo is used in Isaiah 21:4 when Isaiah described a coming invasion, “Lawlessness immerses me.” The Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew is not very accurate for this passage but the meaning of baptizo can be defined. In this passage the intensive force of baptizo is felt and it is clear that the phrase is communicating an overwhelming amount of lawlessness. The most important usage of baptizo in the Septuagint is in 2 Kings 5:14 (4 Kings in LXX). This is the only time in the LXX that baptizo actually corresponds to a Hebrew word (Gilbrant 526). The story in this passage is about a man named Naaman who was a commander of Aram’s army. He had leprosy and he was told by a captive Israelite woman to go to the prophet in Israel to be cured of his leprosy. Elisha told Naaman to wash in the Jordan seven times and that if he did this his flesh would be healed. After some reluctance Naaman “went down and dipped (baptized) himself in the Jordan seven times…” It is clear that baptizo means immersion/submersion in this context.

Of the many occurrences of baptizo in the New Testament I will only examine certain uses of the word. baptizo was used metaphorically when John the Baptist said, “I baptize you in water…He [Jesus] will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11). In this passage baptism is used in both the literal and metaphorical sense and both instances refer to complete immersion. In Matthew 3:16 the text gives enough detail to conclude that baptism is total submersion, “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water.” Jesus asked his disciples if they could be baptized with the baptism that he would be baptized with and Jesus affirmed them that they would (Mark 10:38-39). If Jesus and his disciples would be baptized in the same way the meaning of this immersion is defined as an immersion into suffering (i.e., they would be overwhelmed with suffering). The account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch further confirms the meaning of baptizo. Philip shared the Gospel with the Ethiopian eunuch and the eunuch responded by being baptized, “…both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water…” (Acts 8:38-39 italics mine). This passage actually defines baptism as complete immersion!

Baptizo is just one word in its Greek word family. The words in the Bapto (dip) word family are: baptizo (dip, immerse, plunge); baptismos (dipping, washing); baptisma (baptism); and baptistes (Baptist, baptizer) (Verbrugge 85). As already mention baptizo is the intensive of Bapto and the -izo suffix indicates the doing; causing; or being of the action of the verb (Robinson 138). baptistes is only used of John the Baptist in the New Testament and the -es suffix is normally the agent through whom an action is carried out, thus “the one who immerses” (138). The distinction between baptismos and baptisma is harder to define but “baptismos has not…arrived at the dignity of setting forth Christian baptism at all” (Trench 371). baptismos is distinguished by the -mos suffix which was used to describe both the contemplation and the doing of the act (the act of baptism) (370). baptisma is different because the –ma suffix expresses the result of the act and not so much the act itself (370). baptismos refers to “any ceremonial washing or lustration” which has been ordained by God or created by men but has no real significance while baptisma refers to the institution of Christian immersion and also specifically to the “washing of rebirth” (371-72). “baptismos denotes the act alone and baptisma the act with the result (Gilbrant 529).

There are other words in the New Testament that are similar to baptizo but none of them match the meaning of baptizo perfectly. The word louo means “wash, bathe” and it usually refers to the washing of the whole body (Bauer 603). Louo does not carry the sense of immersion like baptizo, though this does not mean that louo could never possibly mean immersion, but the main focus is on cleansing. Nipto is synonymous with louo but usually the focus of nipto is on washing a certain part of the body (e.g., hands; face; feet) (674). Pluno is very close to the meaning of nipto meaning simply “wash” but the main difference is that pluno emphasizes “washing something other than a part of the body” (832). Pluno was used of washing nets (Luke 5:2) and washing clothes (Rev. 7:14).

Based on the usage of the Greek word baptizo in classical Greek literature, in the Septuagint, and in the New Testament the true translation of the word baptizo is “immersion, dipping, submersion.” Baptizo is a unique word among similar Greek terms and it is the intensive form of the root word bapto in its word family.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes:

All the examples of the Classical usage of baptizo cited in this paper were given in their Greek contexts in the Lexicon, thus all English translations of the Classical Greek writers are my own.

All examples of classical Greek usage of baptizo that are cited in this paper were found in the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon pages 305-306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography:

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick William Danker, Eds. A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. “Baptizo.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology. Ed. Colin Brown. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.
1-822. 3 vols.

Earle, Ralph. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

Gilbrant, Thoralf. The Complete Biblical Library: The New Testament Greek-English
Dictionary: Alpha-Gamma. Vol. 1. Springfield: The Complete Biblical Library, 1986.
16 vols.

Liddell, H.G., and R. Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Oepke, Albrecht. “Bapto, Baptizo, Baptisma, Baptismos, Baptistes.” Theological Dictionary of
The New Testament. Ed. Gerhard Kittel. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: WM B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1964. 1-793. 10 vols.

Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. 4. Nashville: Broadman Press,
1931. 6 vols.

Robinson, Thomas A. Mastering Greek Vocabulary. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1977.

Trench, Richard C. Synonyms of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Company, 1973.

The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament. Wilmington: Associated
Publishers & Authors, 1972.

Verbrugge, Verlyn D. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged
Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

The Gospel of Thomas: Truth or Fiction?

Truth is under attack. There are many “scholars” who would love to convince an uniformed mind that the early church fathers withheld and destroyed genuine records of Jesus life and words and selected certain works (the books of the New Testament) that would best promote the church’s agenda. Did the early church intentionally pervert the true Jesus? Since the finding of the Gospel of Thomas and many other ancient texts modern scholars claim that the historical Jesus has been lost (Witherington III, 20). Are these claims substantiated though? Is the Gospel of Thomas a trustworthy source that should have been included in the canon? This can only be determined after the facts have been presented.

The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945 along with twelve other books full of various Gnostic works. The gospel found at Nag Hammadi was written in Coptic and dates to 400 A.D. (Wilkins, 23). The Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Greek and fragments of the Greek papyri date to about 200 A.D. (Brill, 117) but can be dated no earlier than 150 A.D. (Wilkins, 23). There is a fair agreement among scholars that the Gospel of Thomas was written after the canonical gospels and that the author relied heavily upon them to compose the work as well (23).

The Gospel of Thomas bears a misleading title. First of all it is deceitful in claiming that it was the apostle Thomas who wrote the book, and secondly because the good news (the gospel) is not even remotely similar to the message of the four canonical gospels. Since the book can be dated to no earlier than 150 A.D. it is impossible that Thomas the apostle wrote it. Thus, even before one begins to read the Gospel of Thomas there is an untrue claim of authorship. The “gospel” presented in the Gospel of Thomas is nothing similar to the Christian Gospel.

Before digging into the contents of this gospel it is important to understand the foundation that influenced the entire thing. Even non-Christian scholars agree that Gnostic theology influenced the book (Brill, 117). At the core of Gnostic belief is that the created world and matter is evil and that everything spirit was good (Douglas, 566). An inferior being created matter and he kept humans from escaping it with the help of archons. Only those who possessed a “divine spark” and had been enlightened could escape from physical existence (566). Gnostic thinking depreciates the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (in fact opposes it) and the concept of salvation is not the idea of being delivered from sin but is self-realization (understanding that one is truly God) (566). Gnosticism had various sects and other beliefs such as elitism and a low view of women. Without understanding these beliefs the Gospel of Thomas comes across very bizarre.

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, which are similar to Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament Gospels (Boyd, 117). Even though half of the Gospel of Thomas is composed of sayings that are found in the canonical gospels not a single saying is exactly the same as the biblical parallel (Helmbold, 58). The parallels include the parable of the sower, the parable about the fisherman and the catch of fish, Jesus sending the disciples out among the country and instructing them to eat what is given to them, Jesus’ teaching his disciples that he did not come to bring peace to the world but a sword, the parable of the mustard seed, the parable about keeping watch lest a thief break in and steal, Jesus’ teaching about removing the plank from your own eye before helping remove the speck out of your brother’s eye, and various others. Some sayings are capable of either orthodox or Gnostic interpretation but many sayings are blatantly Gnostic (57). It is quite possible that the author of the Gospel of Thomas took canonical sayings and gave them a gnostic twist (59). This seems to best explain how the author created the work. For example, in the parable of the fisherman the fisherman pulled up a net full of small fish but discovered “a fine large fish” and threw back all the small fish and kept the large one (Brill,118). This parable is derived from Matthew 13:47-50 where the fishermen let down their net and pulled up all sorts of fish and separated the good from the bad. The elitist belief held by the Gnostics is taught in this parable instead of the original idea that at the end of the age the good will be separated from the wicked in Matthew. The elitist belief is also seen in the Gospel of Thomas when Jesus’ disciples asked him whom they should follow after he had left them. “Jesus told them, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (119).

In light of the Gnostic slant in the Gospel of Thomas it should not come as a surprise that the author recorded neither any narratives nor the entire Passion Week, which is so strongly emphasized in the four Gospels (Helmbold, 57). Jesus is the revealer, not the redeemer. Jesus did not come to give his life as a ransom but to teach “secret” truths to his followers in the Gospel of Thomas. Jesus teaches to bring forth that which is within us in order to save us but if we do not have it we will die. Jesus teaches that only the solitary will enter the bridal chamber (Brill, 126). In Thomas, Jesus teaches that his light yoke will allow his followers to find “repose” and he also teaches that when the shepherd found the one lost sheep out of the 100 that he told the one lost sheep that he cared for it more than the 99 (129). Jesus teaches that he will make women male so that they too can become a living spirit and enter the kingdom of Heaven (130). The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas resembles nothing of the Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The reliability of the Gospel of Thomas as a genuine source of true historical information is weak. It is absurd to think as the Jesus Seminar does that the canonical gospel writers used both the Gospel of Thomas, a text that dates a century after the New Testament gospels, and the gospel of Q, a “hypothetical gospel” (which really amounts to just a figment of some “scholar’s” imagination), as sources to draw from when they wrote their own accounts of Jesus’ life. On the contrary, if there is anything genuine at all in the Gospel of Thomas it is because the author used the reliable New Testament accounts to compile the text. One cannot say that the Jesus of the four gospels depends on any saying that is found in the Gospel of Thomas (Boyd, 118). Further, the earliest date of the Gospel of Thomas is 150 A.D., but the Gnostic ideas communicated in the Gospel of Thomas are Gnostic ideas that were circulating in the second and third centuries but not in the first (118). To add to the problems of the Gospel of Thomas’ reliability is that the manuscript evidence for the text is weak. There are only a few Greek fragments and the Coptic manuscript found at Nag Hammadi. Compare that to the New Testaments’ 5000 Greek Manuscripts.

The Gospel of Thomas was never under consideration as a text to be included in the canon because it was clearly Gnostic and Gnostic gospels and other Gnostic documents were never under consideration for inclusion in the canon. The early church recognized that they were perversions of the true records of Jesus. On the other hand there were non-gnostic books that were greatly debated over as to whether or not they should be included in the canon. No document written after 120 A.D. was under consideration to be included in the canon because the authors weren’t in direct contact of the apostles (Witherington III, 22). The most likely place that the Gospel of Thomas would have been included in a Christian canon would have been in Alexandria, Egypt because it was the home region of the Nag Hammadi texts, but even there the Gnostic texts were not included in the canon. On top of that there was a clear distinction between the Christian canon and Gnostic works because when the Nag Hammadi documents were found they did not have a single book contained in the New Testament canon mixed in with them (23).

The Gospel of Thomas is evidence of the perversion of early Christianity (Wilkins, 25). The early church fathers did not exclude the Gospel of Thomas from the canon because they were trying to suppress the truth about Jesus, rather they were concerned about preserving the true accounts of Jesus. Origen said, “The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many” (219). Irenaeus said that the Gnostics were like a man who took a mosaic portrait of a king, broke it apart and rearranged the pieces to make a picture of a dog…then called it the kings portrait (Helmbold, 59). Aside from awkward and twisted parallels, the Gospel of Thomas is just that.

Bibliography:
Boyd, Gregory A. Jesus Under Siege. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995.

Brill, E. J., et. al. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1977.

Douglas, J.D., et. al. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Wheaton: Tyndale House
Publishers, 1980.

Geisler, Norm L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1999.

Guillaumont, A. The Gospel According to Thomas. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959.

Helmbold, Andrew K. The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1967.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
1999.

Wilkins, Michael J. and J.P. Moreland. Jesus Under Fire. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1995.

Witherington III, Ben. “Why the “Lost Gospels” Lost Out.” Areopagus Journal (2005): 6:5.

BBC Winter Banquet

Sarah and I at the Winter Banquet! She is gorgeous!!

God's Design For Marriage

Marriages in America are decaying. You hear similar phrases like this from people of all walks of life. These statements do not lack truth, but more importantly we must realize that statements such as these imply that there is an ideal by which we judge a marriage healthy or unhealthy. That logically leads us to the question, “What is an ideal marriage?” Even though it is obvious when one marriage is healthier than another, we must still seek to understand what the ideal marriage is so that we can strive to personally maintain a healthy marriage and also be able to offer unchanging principles that can transform the ugly marriage into one of beauty.

God is the One who designed marriage. “We might say that marriage was God’s idea for the human race” (Ryken, 538). God created the earth, the plants, animal, and also man. Man is unique to creation and his uniqueness was first experienced when there was no helper fit for Adam. God is the One who said, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). God pronounced the first marriage union in history (538). Thus, an appreciation and respect of God’s institution is a principle we must honor with our minds and our lives. Honoring marriage is honoring God’s creative work.

Closely related to the institution of marriage is the foundational purpose of marriage. God said that it was not good for man to be alone so he made a helper fit for him. By His words God declared that the reason marriage is necessary is because man is not a complete creature without an intimate companion. Even in a perfect world with unhindered fellowship with God Adam still lacked companionship! Companionship therefore is essential to our nature as created human beings. The need for companionship is fulfilled in different ways: friendships, parents, brothers and sisters. But companionship is exclusive in the context of the intimate companionship of marriage. The intimacy is so deep in the unique marriage bond that the Bible declares that two persons become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). This intimacy demands that the closest relationship a man should have with another human being is his/her spouse. So, the purpose of marriage is to fulfill man’s need for companionship. We must acknowledge this by ridding ourselves of an overly independent “I don’t need anyone else” attitude and openly admit our created need for companionship.

It is essential to understand that God patterned the marriage relationship after the kind of relationship he has with his people. This truth is repeated in both the Old and New Covenant. This truth is what enables us to understand the reason for exclusivity in marriage. God is jealous for his people and expects complete faithfulness from them. The first commandment states, “I am the Lord your God…you shall have no other gods besides me” (Exod 20:2-3). Since God likens himself to a husband and his people to a bride we can infer that the first commandment of the marriage relationship is, “I am your husband, you shall have no other husbands but me!”

Since that is true then sex is also exclusive to the marriage relationship. Marriage companionship is far deeper than friendship alone it also involves “romantic passion” (Ryken, 538). Sexual union fuses two souls into one physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Scripture addresses this union from both a positive and negative aspect. Genesis describes the two becoming one flesh and Paul in his letter to the Corinthians expounds on that same truth. He explained that a Christian who unites himself with a prostitute has become one flesh with her (1 Cor. 6:16). Since sex creates such a deep union it is logical to understand that we don’t want to be united to anything that is not of God.

Another principle of the ideal marriage is that of a covenant. Again, this idea comes directly from the same type of relationship God has with his people. God gave Moses the Old Covenant. By a covenant God promised to Abraham that he would bless the entire world through him (etc.). Jesus’ sacrifice instituted the New Covenant and in that covenant he promised that he would never leave nor forsake those who obey him. A covenant is a promise of commitment and faithfulness. When the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land Moses implored them, “Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always” (Deut. 11:1 emphasis mine). Hosea was a living parable for Israel because he symbolized God’s faithfulness to his people. After Israel had broken the covenant they had made with God, He was still faithful. God assumed the image of a cheated husband and said to Israel, “I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion” (Hos. 2:19) and God said this after his people had committed adultery. A covenant is permanent. Thus God expects marriages to be “till death do us part.” Micah directly stated that marriage was a covenant when he told the people that their prayers weren’t answered because, “You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant” (Mic. 2:14). God expects that both husband and wife commit themselves to each other for life; therefore he hates divorce (Mic. 2:16)!

God’s command of husband and wife is to be productive. This means bringing forth children. God wanted his creation to be full of his creatures and he gave man the amazing privilege of joining him in his work.
The family unit was meant to function as a “little church” (Thomas). The roles and responsibilities of the husband and wife are different but this difference is what brings out the most complete image of God known to humanity. Just as Christ is the head of the church the husband is the head of the wife and just as Jesus loved the church so much that he gave his life for her the man should love his wife in that same manner (Eph. 5:23-25). Just as God wants love, respect, and obedience from his people a man wants the same from his wife. Likewise just as the people of God need his sacrificial love so a wife also needs sacrificial love from her husband.

These principles must be understood in order to give proper counsel to those who are married so they can work toward an objective and ideal goal that actually works because it is God’s design for marriage. In a nutshell marriage is, “a personal-sexual-spiritual companionship ordained and instituted by God” (Buttrick, 286).

Bibliography:

Buttrick, George Arthur. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1962.

Ryken, Leland and James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998.

Strong, James. The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001.

The Revell Bible Dictionary. New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984.

Thomas, Gary. “A Marriage After God’s Own Heart.” Discipleship Journal July/August 2004:
24:4.

Wright, H. Norman. The Pillars of Marriage. Glendale: Regal Books, 1980.

The Moral Argument

One of the arguments to support the existence of God is the moral argument.

The moral argument states:

->Moral values are objective facts:

--->Either atheism or theism must account for these facts.

----->Atheism cannot account for the facts.

------->Theism (belief in God) can account for the facts therefore theism is correct.


For the moral argument to work 2 things must be proven:

1) Moral values are truly objective (not subject to anyone's personal opinion but rather are always true despite how some people may feel about them).

2) Atheism really can't account for the existence of objective morals.


Are moral values truly unalterable? Can some moral decisions be "true" for some people and "untrue" for others? Let's get out of the realm of the abstract and let's get to a down to earth situation to answer these questions.

Suppose your wife or your mother decides to go out for an evening to get some groceries. She goes in, gets everything on the list and checks out. Then she carts the food out into the parking lot and gets all the food into the car. Seeing that it is 9:00 PM and very dark she gets into the car and after she gets a mile down the road she feels a gun pressed to her neck and a raspy voice telling her where to go. After driving a couple of hours outside of anyone's sight the man tells her, "Stop the car. Get out. Take off your clothes." After a restless and frantic night of police calls and every desperate measure to find out where your wife was you get word from an officer who found the car and the woman a couple hours outside of town. "I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this sir, but your wife was raped several times and then she was murderer."

If something inside you doesn't burn with the most violent rage at the person who would do such a thing, something is terribly wrong! We start thinking of the most painful torture fit for such evil people!

Now let me ask you a question. Can someone really say "Rape is ok for me but you may have a different opinion and we will just have to respect each others differences?" My answer to that is a HELL NO! Don't just listen to me though, ask yourself how you would feel in such a circumstance. How do newscasters report these stories? Do they do it with a grin like the weatherman who gives the 5 day forecast? No!! They are distraught and disturbed. They are solemn.

Ok I think most people will agree with me on that particular matter but are morals truly objective and not determined by personal preference? Let's look at some moral issues that are widely debated. Abortion. Some people think its ok and some think its wrong. Does this prove that morality is determined by people? No. The reason this isn't so is because the main issue at stake in abortion is not whether or not murder is wrong but what is argued is whether or not abortion classifies as murder! It is helpful to think of morals in columns: Adultery: Murder: Stealing: Lying. Now it is obvious that everyone agrees that these are wrong but what is argued about is whether or not something falls under that category. For example, Mormons believe that it isn't wrong for a man to have many wives. Even though that is the case adultery is still a sin to them! How can that be? It is possible because they don't think of having many wives as breaking the moral code of adultery but being unfaithful to those wives is adultery. A mormon would consider adultery as one of his wives having a sexual relationship with someone else or even himself having sex with a woman other than his wives.

This is important to understand because the only thing disputing about morals does is ensure that there truly are objective morals!! Consider these evidences of an objective moral code as well:

1) Humans live as if they are obligated to obey certain real values.
2) Moral outrage is evidence of a universal moral obligation.
3) Moral judgments are evidence of a universal moral obligation.
4) Every society has a similar moral code.

Let's look at this negatively as well. If all moral decision were relative then...

1) No moral code could be better than another!
2) There can be no such thing as moral progress ("I'm becoming a better person!").
3) Moral effort becomes meaningless.
4) No human being is better than another human.
5) All choices are equally good.

Really think about some of those. If there isn't a standard to judge our actions by then there is no correct behavior! That is not how we live though. We live with the weight of moral obligation every day of our lives. Would you really believe that there are no evil or good people? Was Mother Theresa a better person than Hitler? Not if you believe that morality is based on personal opinion because if it is then there is no correct opinion.

The reason Atheism can't account for the existence of objective morals is because something can only be objective (free from opinion) if it is determined by an eternal and unchanging source. The God of the Bible, Yahweh, has told us that he is that eternal and unchanging source. Since that is the case his character becomes the standard for all right behavior because he is the eternal One! Amen.

An Awesome Hope- 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Crystal's question:

Daniel,
I want to know or learn more about " The dead shall rise first" in 1 or 2 Thessalonians. What does that mean in the whole picture of things?

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

“Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.” (TNIV)

EXPLANATION:

We can conclude just from reading this passage that the Christians in Thessalonica weren’t completely sure about what happened to their fellow Christians who had died. Paul gives the reason for teaching this lesson on resurrection in verse 13. Paul didn’t want the believers in Thessalonica to grieve for the believers who had died as if they didn’t have any hope of seeing them ever again. Some scholars suggest that the church in Thessalonica thought that the believers who had died before Jesus’ return would miss out on the resurrection. Paul counters this false idea by teaching and emphasizing that it is the believers who had died that would be the first to experience resurrection not those living at the return of Christ! The main emphasis of this passage is the hope that all Christians look forward to whether alive or dead.

Paul then goes on and gives the resurrection hope that all Christians share based on the resurrection of Jesus. God is going to bring the dead Christians with him when he returns at the Last Day and at that time they will be the first to experience their life in their new resurrected bodies! The time between the resurrection of the dead and the resurrection of the living won't be long though. All resurrections will happen on the same day, there is just an order that God has for the resurrection.

When Paul says that the believers who are still alive at the return of Christ will not “precede” those who have died in Christ he is saying that we will not be the first to be raised! It says that the dead in Christ will rise first. So Crystal to answer your question, what Paul is talking about when he says that the dead will rise first is that on the Last Day, the Day that Jesus returns, the Christians who have died will be resurrected first and then the Christians who are still alive will be resurrected second.

In the whole picture of things this is an encouragement that all Christians will be resurrected and will be with God and that God has an orderly plan for how things will proceed on the Last Day. This is meant to be an encouragement to all Christians so that we can rejoice in what awaits us!

HOW ARE WE TO APPLY THIS MESSAGE?

As Christians we need to have such a firm confidence of our hope of being resurrected that when the death of a believer occurs we will not grieve like the world. In William Barclay’s commentary he quotes an ancient letter that says,

“Irene to Taonnophris and Philo, good comfort.
I was sorry and wept over the departed one as I wept for Didymas…But nevertheless against such things (death) one can do nothing. Therefore comfort one another.”

That’s it? That’s all the world can offer to encourage people who are experiencing the painful loss of a loved one? That is pathetic! How different is the hope that we have as Christians? Paul tells us that the dead will be resurrected into a new healthy, powerful body and that Christians will be reunited to their loved ones that have died. Best of all, after our resurrection we will be with the Lord FOREVER! That is why Paul says “Encourage one another with these words” (1 Thess 4:18). We can encourage each other with a genuine hope.

Another way that we can apply this passage is by being active in sharing our faith. Something that scares me more than anything is when my friends tell me that someone close to them has passed away and I ask them, “Was he a faithful Christian?” Something that you may want to highlight in your Bible is the phrase “in him” and “the dead in Christ.” This hope and promise is only for the person who has trusted and believed in Christ unto death. What hope can we offer as Christians to people that are grieving over the loss of a loved one who was not in Christ? None. That is a hard pill to swallow but it is the truth. God doesn’t expect us to evangelize the world but he does expect us to be a light to the people he has placed in our lives.

If you aren’t a Christian you can claim this hope for yourself by learning what Jesus has done for you then repenting of your sin and being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and also to receive the Holy Spirit. You need others as well. Talk to a friend who is a Christian for guidance.

Finally, I would encourage all of you to imagine what that Day will be like when God will raise his people. Think of both the resurrection of those you love and also of your own personal resurrection. For me this passage is so encouraging. I ponder the resurrection of my Dad. His body has been battered because of all the years he has been a mechanic. He has been through 5 surgeries. I have cried every time I have visited him before he goes into surgery. It hurts me to hear how bad his back is killing him. I remember seeing him with 2 large metal staples in his neck. His body hurts and he’s my Dad! I can’t wait to see the resurrection of my Dad! I wonder how God will do it? I want to watch as God removes the metal from his bones and then maybe I will see my Dad’s flesh return to a young healthy state. I want to see his cuts vanish and his glasses broken. I want to hear shouts of joy instead of painful groans. I want to see my Dad sprint to me as God renews me! What a day. It will be better than we could ever possibly imagine!

Read 1 Corinthians 15:35-58.

Back Home

Sarah and I felt like being dorks while we were waiting for our food to cook so we took some fun pictures. I conveniently haven't posted the really dorky pics.