No matter what some people may think the study of Theology is of the utmost importance not just for academic Christians but all believers who seek to do the work of spreading the Gospel. The study of theology is a necessity because at its core “theology is faith seeking understanding”[1] and it provides a framework so we can not only comprehend our faith but know how to communicate it to others effectively.
Theology today is the culmination of over 2,000 years of study, history, experiences, turmoil, and intellectual growth as men and women attempt to give human language to matters which are beyond human comprehension. Despite the opinion of some, theology provides several key benefits for the church and the believer: it provides a process of systematic reflection, it helps to decouple us from our cultural biases, it gives us an overarching framework to see the Bible through and it gives language to better communicate our mission. Theology then is a compliment to mission and not an enemy of it, for without understanding there can be no success in delivering the message found within our mission to the world. For at the heart of the matter is the truth that every Christian is a theologian.
It is A Process of Systematic Reflection
We must begin with the idea that “theology is a kind of secondary and systematic reflection of the faith that we profess.”[2] Theology does not supersede or replace the Scriptures but rather it provides an array of tools to study and understand the scriptures in light of thousands of years of history. The ideas and spiritual struggles of previous generations continue to have value as human nature at its core has not changed and the great questions of life remain largely the same.
When used properly theology, and especially systematic theology acts as a processor of information much like a computer’s CPU. We can link together the different disciplines of study such as Biblical studies, anthropology, history and many other fields together in our search for understanding. It demonstrates not only how a verse was impacted by its history but also how history was impacted by a biblical verse or doctrine.
We could say that “basically, systematic theology is the reflection on and the ordered articulation of faith.”[3] No matter what some people may think there is no conflict between faith and theology because it is theology which helps us to articulate our faith to other people. Yes, there have been times when the Scriptures and theology as a whole has been taken to the academic extreme but those excesses do not cancel out the mountain of benefits theology provides not just for the academic but also the average believer. The truth is that “we want Christian practice to be theologically grounded”[4] but at the same time we also want theology to be practically grounded as we go from “from trusting God to understanding God.”[5]
It Helps Decouple Us from Cultural Biases
Each generation of the church must wrestle with the idea of how to be relevant to the world around it and how to best communicate the gospel. While it can be tempting to either remain unchanged or to embrace new culture to an unhealthy degree, theology when applied properly can aid us in avoiding either of these extremes. The concept of apostolic continuity applies to this subject as no matter the changes in culture we are still bound to the core teachings of Christ. Although we must learn how to translate those truths into the language, place and culture we are in, all the while being aware that “all theological assertions are historically conditioned.”[6]
When used properly theology can not only give us added language to communicate with but it also acts as a filter to strip out unnecessary doctrines, beliefs and traditions. Much like how the Protestant Reformation sought to eliminate what they saw as extra-biblical practices so modern theology acts in a similar manner. Proper theology then is the cure for Traditionalism which adheres to “lifeless conformity to past theological formations. Using dry language that has no meaning for people anymore.”[7]
The study of theology could be looked at as the study of what is actually important in the scripture and how we can be free of superstitions or doctrines which are grounded more in culture, politics, history, experience than on the scriptures themselves. This is especially true because “the Bible doesn’t address all our questions directly, as systematic theological perspective helps us to understand the Bible.”[8] As we see in our generation there are moral and cultural issues which were inconceivable thousands of years ago so theology must step in to provide guidelines and clarity on how to best live in this world which is so far beyond what the apostles and writers of scripture could ever imagine.
Theology Provides an Overarching Framework to Understand the Scriptures
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience provides for us a glimpse of the different facets of our faith and how all of them must be active in the life of a believer. So it is with theology, and especially systematic theology which seeks to bring all of the streams of study into a single river of understanding. Theology is a rational discipline according to Thomas Aquinas, as “Faith goes beyond reason” and “Reason has the role of building upon what is known by revelation, exploring what its implications might be.”[9]
With all of the competing disciplines such as Biblical Studies, Philosophical Theology, Historical Theology, Practical/Pastoral Theology, Mystical Theology and Apologetics fighting for control of the primary interpretation of scripture it can be daunting to understand what a verse or concept is actually saying to not only its original audience but to us today. However, with systematic theology we receive the tools to glean from all of these other disciplines in order to produce an informed interpretation or understanding of a scripture or a religious concept.
From this larger unified framework of theology we also find what is needed to protect us from allowing experience, allegory, general revelation or philosophy from taking priority over the teachings of scriptures in not only individual lives but also in the larger church. These mostly personal matters can add color to our understanding of scripture but they are not the canvas of theology we paint upon.
Theology Gives Language to Our Mission
It is one thing for me to go out in the zeal of mission and say that “Jesus saves,” but those words are irrelevant if it is unknown what they mean. Does Jesus save me a seat on the bus, or does He save me 15% on my insurance by switching to Geico? Mission without theology is just empty activity. From the study of theology, we can give clarity to matters such as atonement and all of the other matters we desire to speak about in our mission.
Going about mission without a solid theological understanding reduces evangelism to an exercise in humanism which seeks to better humanity. As opposed to the revelation of the death and resurrection of Christ which is made all the more real through proper exegetical analysis which shows the prefiguration of Christ in the Old Testament and can explain the “bread crumbs” left by God over the centuries. Theology also shows us why we are in need of a savior and in our best attempts allows us to say what we are redeemed from, why God would do such a thing and why we can have assurance that these things are true. While the endeavor of mission can produce converts only the proper application of theology can produce disciples.
[3] Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imageo Dei (Louisville, KT; Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 1.
[5] Alister E.McGrath, Christian Theology: An introduction, 25th anniversary edition (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2017), 84.
[6] Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imageo Dei (Louisville, KT; Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 6.
Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.
Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
Look busy Jesus is coming. Unfortunately for many Christians this is their worldview whether they are conscious of it or not. It is an expectation to do something, if not anything to occupy their lives until the day when Jesus returns to Earth. However, the writings of the New Testament and especially the Epistle to the Philippians paints a very different picture of how the Christian is to live and behave while they are in this world. One of the chief places to witness how the teachings of Jesus are synthesized into applicable actions and clear-cut expectations are through the writings of the Apostle Paul which are his field manuals to various up and coming Christian congregations.
The Epistle to the Philippians is one of those letters which is purposed to establish the expectations and responsibilities of the faith. In this letter Paul seeks to address a congregation struggling to learn what it means to be a Christian. What then did Paul expect of the Philippians and subsequent generations of Christians in terms of how they were supposed to live out their beliefs in light of the hope of Christ’s “already but not yet” victory? It is my intention to present how Philippians 2:1-11 demonstrates how the true Christian life is one marked by the same unity, humility and servanthood Jesus demonstrated before he was exalted to the place of authority in Heaven where he awaits the day when all of creation will bow before him in submission.
The Background of the Epistle to the Philippians
The Town of Philippi
To better understand the words spoken of by Paul to the Philippians we first need to examine the social background of that particular church. The town of Philippi[1] was established in 356 B.C. by King Philip II of Macedon the father of Alexander the Great and remained under Hellenistic control until the early days of the Roman Empire. Known as the site of one of Octavian’s (Augustus) victories against Cassius and Brutus in 42 B.C. it was later renamed Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis. The Roman influence went far beyond a memorial or a name change as the Emperor rewarded many of his soldiers with plots of land within the city’s territory. Due to the influx of retired Roman soldiers and government officers cultivating the city Philippi was “legally set up and run as if it were a miniature of Rome, following Roman laws and customs.”[2]
Latin became the primary language in the region and the people enjoyed the status of citizens of Rome along with all of its benefits such as tax exemption and Pax Romana and its responsibilities such as adherence to the Imperial Cult. Philippi then was a religiously pluralistic place where Greek, Phrygian, and Egyptian temples existed but “the imperial cult was the most prominent in the city.”[3] Given these Imperial influences it is no wonder then that “none of the Christians we know by name who are associated with Philippi have Jewish names—rather they are all Greek and Latin names.”[4]
This presents Paul’s letter in a light which is steeped in a culture which would have been similar to his upbringing in Tarsus with its Roman overtones. It is no wonder why Paul’s emphasis to the Philippians on unity and service was such an important matter is it would have matched their pre-Christian outlook on life. Although rather than the unity of the empire it would have been the unity of the church. Furthermore, rather than an obligation to offer service to the earthly ruler Caesar they would be now be offering service to the Heavenly ruler Christ.
Paul’s Purpose for Writing Philippians
It is generally held[5] that the Apostle Paul wrote this letter to the Philippians thanks in part to corroboration from early church fathers such as Polycarp in his own letter to the Philippian church.[6] Although there are some such as Ferdinand Christian Baur who “argued that the letter used Gnostic ideas in 2:6–11”[7]and that the letter was developed out of Paul’s thoughts in the Corinthian letters. While there is a general consensus on the authorship there are doubts about the formation of the letter as some see a single work, others as two combined letters which separates 3:2-4:1 from the remainder of the letter. Finally, some see Philippines as three letters which further separates 4:10-20 from the remainder of the work.
The epistle to the Philippians stands apart from other letters as it is presented as a friendship letter which fulfills the historical elements of such a letter.[8] In this appeal through friendship Paul was trying to remedy the growing amount of disunity found in the congregation. While Paul himself was imprisoned in Rome around A.D. 49 he appealed to this congregation to overcome the matters of selfish ambition, desire for personal prestige and concentration of self[9] and to better reflect the life and truths of Christ in their midst.
Philippians 2 in Context
Philippians 2:1-11 stands out from the rest of the book as it appears that Paul may not have written a portion of it, as “the majority of scholars accept Phil 2:6–11 as a pre-Pauline hymn, based on the structure and language of the passage.”[10] The evidence for this stems in part from “when the verses are read aloud, the stress falls in such a way as to give a rhythmical cadence to the lines.”[11] Additionally the hymn appears to have a more Semitic structure to it compared to most of Paul’s more Hellenistic writings along with “the use of words which are not found again in Paul’s writings.”[12] Philippians appears to possess 42 words which are not found in the remainder of the New Testament and 34 words which are not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings.
Despite these variations between the Christological hymn and the remainder of the book there does remain lexical ties which lead some to reinforce Pauline authorship of the hymn.[13] We can see that Philippians 2 consists of 1:1-4 which is a four-part conditional clause written in a chiastic structure (ABBA)[14]and is followed by a creedal hymn. These sections combine in order to display the responsibilities and expectations which Paul had placed upon the community to ensure their unity amongst themselves and in reinforcing the necessity of their continual service to Christ the true King.
Understanding Philippians 2
Unity
Paul begins his friendly exhortation by calling on the Philippian Christians to come to the place of unity where they have “one mind” with another. Paul achieves this imagery by using the word φρονέω, a word commonly used by Paul which describes a “single-minded commitment to something and the conditions for such commitment.”[15] For the Philippians they are being challenged to embody and exemplify the same type of φρονεῖν which Jesus demonstrated with the disciples and in his earthly relationship with the Father. This is then a call to “oneness of mind in commitment to the Kyrios, which does not, however, mean uniformity”[16] rather it is unifying not personal characteristics but cooperation in the larger evangelistic mission.
For this unity to become a reality Paul introduces the need for love to be present and not just any love but “a love that rejoices in what is best for others… This kind of love will not result in selfish behavior that sinfully exploits others.”[17] An exhortation which was needed given the apparent strife among some members of the church and Paul’s earlier appeal in 1:9-10 “that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ.”[18]
Paul understood that “unity is a by-product of the great truths on which the gospel rests, but he did not see it as coming about automatically or effortlessly.”[19] In order for this congregation to grow and thrive it needed to address these issues lest they see their strifes morph into schisms and unnecessary ridicule of the church by outsiders. To bring about the necessary unity the people were going to have to live according to the ways of love which could only be confirmed through their actions of humility.
Humility
In 2:3 Paul speaks of doing “nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” This is a form of humility which is grounded in the example of Christ which Paul later explains. On a technical level Paul chose to employ the word ταπεινοφροσύνη in this instance, a word which has a history in Hellenistic writings as
“the basic meaning to be ‘low,’ ‘flat.’”[20] While this image conveys a lessening of a person it fails to fully grasp the theological idea Paul is presenting. Beyond the idea of self-abasement this concept of humility is based on the understanding that:
According to Phil 2:3 ταπεινοφροσύνη is the fundamental attitude of Christians in view of the unity of the church. It stands over against any attitude of selfishness and conceit, which disrupts and destroys church life. Humility counts others better than oneself — regardless of social standing. Those who are humble seek not their own advantage but the opportunity to serve others (v. 4).[21] By demonstrating this type of interpersonal humility, the unity and oneness of mind among the people would be brought to light.
Paul’s chief concern here was that the people’s conduct did not reflect the realities of the Gospel which was a life code that went far beyond the ways the people grew up in. As “true biblical humility was frowned upon in the ancient world as despicable because it was misunderstood as abject cringing before one’s fellow-men.[22] The understanding is that the community itself will benefit the greatest when the people are not attempting to create their own sub-kingdoms. The concept of love returns as through the Holy Spirit believers have their hearts and motivations transformed so they better match those of Jesus.
Servanthood
For Paul the natural ability of the people to demonstrate humility was not the benchmark they were to follow. Rather it was the example of Christ who took on the form of humanity through the miracle of the kenosis which fulfilled the ultimate act of humility. For the Christians at Philippi “this act of kenosis is an act of obedience; obedience unto death, but a death that leads to new life.”[23] Christ was able to step away from his heavenly abode and live among us not as a demi-god but as one who was man but still in the form and likeness of God. For Jesus he maintained the form of God or in Greek he maintained the μορφή the “the essence of a person or thing”[24] yet washed the feet of the disciples and submitted to the power of death for those very same Philippians.
This expectation of humility through servanthood should come as no surprise as throughout the Old Testament obedience is the reciprocal demand of being in covenant with God. No longer is it service to the temple through sacrifices but service to others through our actions of love, humility and servanthood with Christ the ultimate prototype of those actions. “The notion that Jesus became a slave or servant means that he became the Father’s servant to carry out his will, even if that will mean death by crucifixion for the servant.”[25]
The concept of servanthood then is not an undesirable concept but now it becomes a way to imitate Christ, their new Heavenly ruler. The God Jesus took on “the very natureof a servant, being made in human likeness” and in doing so he fulfilled Isaiah 53:12. This presents a challenge and a firm example that the Philippians were also to walk in a similar degree of humility as they practiced and followed Christ’s example of servanthood.
Exaltation
At this point Paul diverges from what he expects from the Philippians and begins to demonstrate the blessings, benefits and glories Jesus received in response to his humility and servanthood. From the grave which Jesus’s humility and servanthood placed him into he later rose and was exalted at the right hand of God. No longer as the second YHWH who walked with Adam, Cain, Abraham, Samuel and Jeremiah, but now as supreme ruler of the cosmos. This term exalted used in Philippians 2 comes from the Greek word ὑπερυψόω which is translated as “super-eminentlyexalted”[26] or “to raise someone to the loftiest height.”[27] This verbal form of this stem is only found in this place in the New Testament, but it is found in Psalm 97:9 (LXX). While the adverb form of this word used in Ephesians 1:21, 4:10, and Hebrews 9:5 is used to speak of things which were “above.”
This exaltation Paul speaks of includes with it the eternal blessings for obedience which benefits both Christ and those who follow him. Through his actions we see that “the obedience of Christ did not force the hand of God… The action of God is but the other side of that obedience, and a vindication of all that the obedience involved.”[28] Jesus was tempted in this world as we are therefore we are able to declare that he could be greatly blessed because of his faithfulness to the commands of God. Exaltation then not only returns Jesus to Heaven but also places him at the right hand of God, not awaiting coronation but now sitting in the courts of Heaven.
Authority
From the place of exaltation Jesus takes hold of the authority given to him by God, the Ancient of Days has inaugurated the Kingdom of the Son of God. It is an authority which is encapsulated in a single name, the name of Jesus. Yet the letters themselves do not create power but rather they reflect the actions and victory accomplished by Christ. Otherwise there would be nothing separating the heavenly Jesus from others bearing the same name, which would have been a problem in the first century.
On a technical level the name Jesus originates from the Hebrew name Yeshua (Ye’hoshua) which is properly translated into English as Joshua. This original name carried the meaning of “YWHW saves/delivers”[29] which speaks to the purpose of Christ’s coming. The authority in the name then is seen as the declaration that through the Christ God (YHWH) has provided spiritual deliverance to the people and access to a heavenly promised land. Along with this title of Savior/Deliverer Jesus is referred to as κύριος a word which to the Philippians “denotes rulership based upon competent and authoritative power, the ability to dispose of what one possesses.”[30] Yet for Paul this word branches off from the Hebrew word adonai which was the substitute word used to speak of YHWH.
While the Philippians would have been comfortable referring to Caesar or even other gods as κύριος the declaration that Jesus was κύριος was dangerous to openly declare. To call Jesus κύριος “meant that he was the Master and the Owner of all life; he was the King of Kings; he was the Lord in a way in which the gods of the old religions and the idols could never be; he was nothing less than divine.”[31] Jesus then is presented in Paul’s writings as the one who rules over all and seeks to expand the territory of his kingdom through those he places his name upon.[32]
Submission
From this place of authority Jesus awaits the day when “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” This eschatological day spoken of in Isaiah 45:23 in which all intelligent created beings in all three planes of existence come before the inaugurated and recognized king so they can bow before him in submission. Some will bow out of love and obedience while others will bow out of fear and condemnation. “Paul is not speaking here of voluntary obedience,”[33] but is rather painting a picture of the conquered submitting to their new king, some people will welcome the deliverance while the rebels will fear its coming.
Furthermore “it is necessary to understand that the writer is here asserting that homage is to be paid to Jesus as Lord, not through Jesus to God.”[34] This is not an indirect submission by humans, angels and demons[35] to YHWH but a direct recognition of Jesus as the ruling King. This exhortation given to the Philippians once again elevates Christ above Caesar and gives hope for a future day when all things will be made right. The unity, humility and servanthood of Christ has resulted in his exaltation, appointment of authority and requirement for all to submit to him. If Christ can achieve all of this through humble means then the Philippians would be forced to concede that they to must follow in these same footsteps if they wish to flourish as a unified congregation. These people are those who have already bowed before Christ and are to follow Christ’s example and Paul’s teaching so they all together can bring glory to God. “The Father’s glory is not diminished but enhanced by the work of Christ on the cross”[36] and through the expansion of the Son’s territory within the hearts of people.
Applying the Text Today
The Christian’s Responsibility
In many ways the “values Paul articulates in Philippians is not only at variance with the values of ancient Roman Philippi; it is at variance with the tendencies and inclinations of the fleshly impulses of all humans anytime and everywhere.”[37] This makes the possible applications of Philippians 2:1-11 a universal endeavor as the exhortations towards unity, humility and servanthood are constants of the Christian faith. In our age matters such as strife and selfishness endure and continue to damage the lives of Christian and the well-being of entire congregations. The responsibilities which Paul has assigned to the Philippians then are still in effect in our modern day.
For this purpose we will combine the ideas of unity and being of “one-mind” and demonstrate how a person and a congregation can fulfill these mandates. When it comes to the concept of unity we must see it as a unity of purpose and mission. Far too often the misguided ideas of unity in the church better resemble science fiction archetypes such as Star Trek’s Borg and their hive consciousness. Christians also unknowingly drawn upon the metaphysical concept of the “overmind” or the failures of the Shepherding movement. In all of the above cases the concept of unity is replaced with the mandate of absolute obedience and strict conformity whereby all people think, dress and act the same. In terms of what Paul is presenting in this text it is rather a unification of purpose and mission which is being addressed. The Philippians were not exhorted to live as Jews, or Antiochians but rather they were to demonstrate allegiance to Christ which was matched up with their actions.
For us today this can be a reality as believers join together as they follow the guidance of Christ and Paul and seek to work together for the common good of the Kingdom of God. This is why matters such as strife and self-promotion were rejected as in these cases the induvial seeks to elevate themselves above the kingdom community or they seek to live outside of it while maintaining its benefits. This then does not preclude disagreements or debates over secondary doctrines, rather it provides the means to engage in these matters without irreparable harm to the larger community. The unifying goal is to continue the work of Christ on this world and those who follow Christ are to replicate the same unity which Jesus demonstrated with not only the Father but the disciples as well.
From this place of unity comes the added responsibility of living in a humble manner with other believers and even with the world at large. Yet to benefit from this our worldview must change because,
Jesus viewed us—his church—as a collectivist community. He came to establish a people of God, over which he would reign as king. It is not really “me and Jesus.” He will reign in my heart because he will reign over all creation (Phil 2:10). In the West, it may help if the church started thinking more in terms of we than me.[38]
This form of humility is not an attitude which says “I have no worth” but instead it is an attitude which says “this other person has just as much or more worth than I do.” The matter is not about self-abasement but of mutual exaltation whereby the community works together not to punish the able but to elevate the weak so all can faithfully serve Christ and not just a select few.
Paul used language which was “deliberately extreme to shock the audience into following Christ’s example of self-humbling and self-sacrificial service, as a cure for party spirit, rivalry, or tensions in the community.”[39] Matter such as these remain in our day and age which brings about an even greater need for true humility which operates through servanthood to change the hearts of people to seek ways to benefit other people so that the Kingdom as a whole can blossom. Our responsibility then as Christians according to Philippians 2:1-11 is to be an active force which stands together in unity to achieve the communal goal of expanding the kingdom of God through a paradigm of humility which is exemplified by a form of servanthood demonstrated by Christ.
The Christian’s Expectation
We cannot bear the burden of responsibility fully unless we firmly grasp the benefits which come from obeying these commands. To the Philippians and the modern Christians, the eschatological expectation remains the same. While the means and charts vary the common thread remains that we believe in Christ who while seated at the right hand of God in full authority still remains at arm’s length of total rulership of the world. It is the embodiment of the parable of the minas which speak of the ruler who left for a time and appointed his servants to work until he returned.
The expectation of Christ’s conquest of the world and of the universal submission to him must bring about greater motivation to live out the responsibilities laid out by Paul. We live humbly yet we are higher than our previous disposition because of what Christ has done for us. We live as servants since we are the disciples and subjects of the greatest servant who is seeking to bring new servants into his household in order that as many people as possible can joyfully bow before him at the end of the age.
The Work of Responsibility Brings with it the Benefits of Expectation
To process the companionship between the responsibilities and expectations laid out by Paul we could apply a chiastic structure (ABCCBA) to this argument. When we follow the commands to live in Unity as a group of Christians we are working towards the ultimate Submission of the world. Our actions of Humility bring about a greater outpouring of the Authority of Christ which is demonstrated in this world as we follow in these footsteps and pray for his providential intervention. Finally, our Servanthood becomes the greatest witness for Jesus’s Exaltation. His servanthood brought about eternal and unchanging exaltation, but our daily actions of servanthood bring about the continual exaltation of the name of Jesus upon the earth. In short unity brings submission, humility brings authority and servanthood brings exaltation.
The crucifixion in a metaphorical sense established the ocean and our actions act as rivers to bring others to it. All those who through strife, pride and selfish ambitions instead carve out metaphorical rivers that lead the people to stagnant ponds with no life. Through our faithfulness we are given the ability to share in the benefits of Christ as we become co-champions with him.
Conclusion
Through Paul’s writings and the Christological hymn utilized in Philippians 2 we are witnesses to the fact that the Christian life is one marked by the same unity, humility and servanthood Jesus demonstrated. Paul speaking to a Roman audience laid out their responsibilities in terms they understood to show how they had fallen short in living out lives which lined up with the example of Christ. They were to live out their live in that prescribed manner because Christ was already exalted as the true ruler of not only heaven but the world as well. Jesus is now ruling his kingdom and awaiting the day in which all people, angels and demons will bow before him at the end of the age.
In light of this expectation we as believers are given a life code to live by to ensure that we and as many people as possible can stand before Christ that day and willfully and joyfully bow before him. While those who rebelled against him, persecuted the church and rejected adhering to lives of unity, humility and servanthood are diminished while those who made themselves low in Christ are exalted.
The church is to be a unified community who through true humility and a willingness to serve establish the kingdom on earth not out of fear but out of hope of their ultimate expectations. When the responsibilities of unity, humility and servanthood are combined with the expectations of exaltation, Christ’s authority, and universal submission to him then and only then can Christians flourish in this world. The message of Philippians 2:1-11 is not an exhortation to look busy because Jesus is coming, but instead to faithfully work together because of what Christ has already done for us.
[1] Known as Krenides in modern times.
[2] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 5.
[3] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 2–3.
[4] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 5.
[5] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 15.
[6] Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 178.
[7] John T. Fitzgerald, “Philippians, Epistle to the,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 319.
[8] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 7.
[9] William Barclay, The Letters to Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 3rd ed. fully rev. and updated., The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 37.
[10] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Php 2:1–11.
[11] Ralph P. Martin, Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 11, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 114–115.
[12] Ibid, 115.
[13] Harold W. Hoehner, Philip W. Comfort, and Peter H. Davids, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon., vol. 16 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 171.
[14] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 118.
[15] Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 438.
[16] Ibid, 439.
[17] James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 485.
[18] Scriptures taken from ESV unless otherwise noted.
[19] J. A. Motyer, The Message of Philippians, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 105.
[20] Walter Grundmann, “Ταπεινός, Ταπεινόω, Ταπείνωσις, Ταπεινόφρων, Ταπεινοφροσύνη,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), vol. 8, 21.
[21] Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 334.
[22] Ralph P. Martin, Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 11, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 101.
[23] Markus Locker, “Seeing the Unseeable—Speaking the Unspeakable: From a Kenosis of Exegesis toward a Spiritual Biblical Theology,” ed. Paul Elbert, Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 4 (2012): 12.
[24] Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430–431.
[25] Harold W. Hoehner, Philip W. Comfort, and Peter H. Davids, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon., vol. 16 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 175.
[26] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 364.
[27] Harold W. Hoehner, Philip W. Comfort, and Peter H. Davids, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon., vol. 16 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 170.
[28] Moisés Silva, “Philippians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 837.
[29] Earle L. Wilson, Alex R. G. Deasley, and Barry L. Callen, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians: A Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2007), 189.
[30] Ralph P. Martin, Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 11, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 113.
[31] William Barclay, The Letters to Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 3rd ed. fully rev. and updated., The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 46.
[32] see Revelation 3:12.
[33] Moisés Silva, “Philippians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 837.
[34] Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, et. all. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 43: Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan Academic, 2015), 127.
[35] See 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Colossians 1:16.
[36] Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 26.
[37] James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 484.
[38] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 110.
[39] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 149.
Where was Jesus before the incarnation? For many this is an unpopular question to ask even in light of contemporary viewpoints on the Trinity. Typically, Christians believe that Jesus suddenly sprang into action in the Fall of 5BC when he was born in a manger and became Immanuel (God with us) and was called Jesus (YHWH saves). However, a grander look at the Old Testament presents to us a different view of what we would call the second member of the Trinity. Not as one waiting in line to be incarnated but rather as an active and integral part of God’s interactions with His covenant people and creation in general.
My goal today is to demonstrate how Michael Heiser and others with a similar viewpoint understand Jesus as the culmination of the now heretical (in Jewish theology) view of the second YHWH, who interacted physically with God’s chosen people in the centuries prior to the incarnation in a way which preserves the Jewish Shema, the Christian concept of the Trinity and larger Ancient Near East religious narratives.
The Revealing of a Second YHWH
In the beginning we encounter in the garden of Eden not an ethereal deity floating amidst the garden in the “cool of the day,” but one who walked beside His creation. From this point on we have many instances of the supreme, omniscient, omnipotent God and creator interacting with His creation. How God goes about this however is a matter of debate, do we see God as all places at all times or do we see Him as a singularity at limited places at limited times, or in the language of the Trinity is it somehow both?
If we are to follow Trinitarian language, we would ascribe the first member of the Trinity (the Father) as the one being all places at all times in the fullness of eternity. We then could see the second member of the Trinity (the Son in New Testament language) as being a limited corporeal (viewable by natural eyes) version or expression of God which is able to coexist and interact with creation while maintaining the fullness of His divinity without unleashing His full presence and glory. It is still God yet a distinct person who takes on the role of a physical mediator or point of contact between the heavenly realm and the natural realm and is distinct from the Holy Spirit who is a spiritual/ethereal point of contact between the two realms.
The concept of an intermediary figure is not a new one as Jewish scholarship has shed light on this concept through the lens of,
various intermediary figures, such as angels and personified divine attributes, and the exalted role attributed to human figures such as Enoch, Moses, and Abel. It is thus quite possible that early Christianity’s view of Jesus, even the more developed Christology of John’s Gospel and later theologians, may owe more to Christianity’s Jewish roots.[1]
Furthermore, Benjamin Sommer states,
No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one.[2]
This proposed understanding can remain valid through a Christian theological worldview as this intermediary is presented not as a created being assuming the attributes of God but rather we see according to Heiser, “God understood that only he could be trusted with perfectly accomplishing his own will.”[3] Thus the necessity of God utilizing Himself in the form of a second YWHW or though the Christian understanding of the Trinity becomes paramount. This is especially true for Heiser who seeks to reintroduce the Jewish supernatural worldview which includes a divine council of elohims[4] to modern theology, with Christ now being the head of this council.
The Second YHWH “heresy” in Judaism
While it may be tempting to contain this argument within Christian theology there is a need to delve into the Rabbinic arguments which surround this concept of a second more corporeal YHWH who was present in the Old Testament. The best modern source of this debate comes from Alan Segal and his work The Two Powers in Heaven, there Segal states, “It became clear that ‘two powers in heaven’ was a very early category of heresy, earlier than Jesus.”[5] This shows in part that the theological foundation stones used by the church were not spontaneous but came from an older tradition which was hotly contested by intertestamental Rabbis. Research shows us that “there is significant evidence (uncovered in large part by Segal) that in the first century many— perhaps most— Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God,”[6] one in which Christians were able to understand through the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation.
Heiser points out that “In regard to the rabbinic material, Segal took note that the rabbinic justification for a second power, a second YHWH figure, was linked to passages such as Exodus 15:3 and Daniel 7:13. The former text portrayed YHWH, the God of Israel, as “a man of war.” The latter identified a second figure in the throne room of Israel’s God (the “Ancient of Days”) as a “human one” who bore the epithet of the cloud rider, elsewhere used only of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible.”[7]
Originally for some Rabbinic scholars the original issue was that the visible YHWH began to be ascribed to the likes of David and other “exalted” patriarchs, biblical angelic beings such as Michael and even extra-biblical beings such as Metatron and the fear was that these created beings would be elevated to the level of YHWH and in effect to either usurp or falsely claim YHWH’s power and position in heaven. It is no wonder then that following the resurrection this debate was sparked among Rabbis once again to discredit the Christian teaching that Christ was now equal with YHWH through this exalted status as the one seated at His right hand.
The matter is not that God became corporeal as it was generally accepted by Rabbis in the intertestamental era as “For the Tanakh… God has always been a corporeal being. For Christianity, in contrast, God deigned to take on a body at a particular moment in time; existence in a body was not part of the eternal essence of divinity. In short: Christians believe in incarnation, whereas the Tanakh simply believes in embodiment.”[8]
Ugaritic Roots of Second YHWH
While the controversy about this expression of God was expounded following the resurrection the debate goes back far further into the history of Israel. There is debate that this bitrintarin or co-regency model may have been inspired or reflected in the Ugaritic religious belief which permeated the Levant before and after Israel came out of Egypt. In the Ugaritic model Heiser points to how there is a divine council which “featured a co-regency involving a high sovereign deity (El) who ruled heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed co-regent deity (Ba’al). The co-regent Ba’al, referred to as “king of the gods” outranked the other deities in council, including the “sons of El” and divine messengers.”[9] From this revelation we can make several arguments, either the biblical account was inspired by the Ugaritic account, the biblical account was catered to counter or supersede the Ugaritic account or finally it may be a matter of a shared cultural starting point such as the tower of Babel incident.
No matter which hypothesis is correct the “end result was a binitarian or ditheistic portrayal of YHWHas both high sovereign (the “El role”) and the co-regent (the “Ba’al role”).[10] However, it is presented in the Old Testament as having YHWHoccupying both roles. It is no wonder why later on “Christ followers from within Judaism perceived in this co-regency structure a biblical precedent for the belief in Jesus as YHWHincarnate that maintained loyal monotheism to the God of Israel.” [11]
Jesus Before the Incarnation and the Angel of the LORD
With the Christian, Jewish and Ugaritic foundations laid out we can now begin to see how God through the second member of the Trinity which is equated with the preincarnate Christ interacted with creation at critical points in the development of the “redemption narrative.” Since God in this case could trust no one but Himself to accomplish the task through the guise of the word of the LORD, the Angel of the Lord or even the name of the LORD. In the case of Abraham in Genesis 22 we encounter a blurring of the lines between YHWH and His messenger. “The Angel speaks to Abraham in verse 11, and so is distinguished from God. But immediately after doing so, he commends Abraham for not withholding Isaac “from me.” There is a switch to the first person which, given that God himself had told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:1–2), seems to require seeing YHWH as the speaker.[12] For Heiser his view on the preexistence of the Trinity begins to be displayed in these earlier Genesis stories. He advocates strongly in favor that many (not all) instances of the angel of YHWH point towards the visible second member of the Trinity who became Jesus of Nazareth.
Going forward in the narrative the blurring of the lines between the angel and YHWH become even more complicated throughout the life of Jacob; both during the wrestling narrative and in his blessing of Joseph’s children. Heiser in a detailed study of the concept of Elohim highlights what transpires in Genesis 32:20 as Jacob speaks of seeing God (Elohim) face to face and his later comments in Genesis 48:15-16 how the angel (malak) is responsible for his deliverance and goes on to link those statements with Hosea 12:4-5 where “Hosea quite clearly refers to this particular malek as elohim… One must either interpret Gen 48.15-16 as an identification of the God of Israel as malek or grant that a particular malek is here considered a deity and identified with the God of Israel.”[13]
“By the time readers reached the exodus deliverance, YHWH and His angel had been closely identified with each other”[14] thanks to the language demonstrated throughout Genesis. When we come to the encounter between Moses and YHWH in Exodus 3 there is enough of a theological precedent to show the seriousness of the encounter. In this encounter we see interchangeable language used between YHWH and the angel and the possibility that it was more than a flame in the bush but the physical appearance of the Angel of the LORD who was in this instance the second member of the Trinity. Since Moses was commanded to remove his sandals due to the holiness of the encounter, something not seen with Gabriel appearing to Mary or Elizabeth.
Later in Exodus 23:20-22 the same angel reappears again but once again it seems to be no common angel as “this angel has the authority to pardon sins or not, a status that belongs to God. More specifically, God tells Moses that the reason this angel has this authority is “my name is in him” (v. 21).”[15] Even at a surface glance this language is also clearly attributed to Jesus as being the one able to pardon sins, judge the people and having God’s name upon Him. We also cannot forget that the meaning of the name chosen by God and communicated through Gabriel for the incarnation of the second member of the Trinity was YHWH delivers (Joshua/Jesus).
Early Window into the Trinity
With everything we have witnessed about the Angel of YHWH and these interactions between the divine and His creation one begins to question the adherence of Israelites to their monotheism. The use of elohim and the appearance of a being who seems to share YHWH’s attributes may spark some theological confusion. Heiser comments, “one would assume in the context of a zealous monotheistic revolution that a term like elohim (‘gods’) would be used with great care after the biblical period so as to avoid any hint of earlier, subsequently offensive, polytheism. But this is precisely what does not happen.”[16] Instead we see that this kind of language, interpretation and expansions by the prophets continues unaltered, either in the language of the Angel of YHWH, theophanies and even in divine council language.
Among Old Testament Israelites we witness a “kind of practical monotheism, requiring a whole pattern of daily life and cultic worship formed by exclusive allegiance to the one God, presupposes a god who is in some way significantly identifiable.[17] While the Israelites (usually) remained devout to the idea of a single supreme deity and expression of Him thereof “it appears that the only real exception to this rule is found in some traditions involving the Son of Man…the Son of Man is said to exercise judgment on God’s behalf, having been placed on God’s throne… One could argue that this theology is actually generated directly from the implications of Dan. 7:13–14.”[18]
The Ancient of Days language along with the claim of being the cloud rider is what drove the Pharisees over the edge in their illegal trail against Jesus. As Jesus called Himself equal with God and being the one who was coming on the clouds and having the right to sit at YHWH’s right hand. This is language familiar to the Pharisees on two fronts: as God’s promise of His coming Messianic reign, and as the superseding of Canaanite/Ugaritic language of Ba’al being the great warrior and cloud rider.
Unlike Canaanite/Ugaritic belief what is being advanced in this theology is God once again entrusting Himself through the person of the second member of the Trinity later incarnated into Jesus as being the one who had the right to rule and reign in His power. The Trinity then becomes the focus as God is not exalting a natural created being or a divine council member.[19] While “in the Old Testament we do find, however, the provision of a functioning network and community for Yahweh in the divine council. He stands alone, but he does not work alone (i.e., no pantheon, but a functioning council).”[20] Instead we witness YHWH injecting Himself into creation so that the relationship and lines of communication can be restored through the culmination of the resurrection.
The Man, The Name, The Logos
In many instances of in the Old Testament such as Psalm 20 the use of the word “Name is clearly cast as an entity, as Yahweh himself, In other passages, “the Name” functions as a substitute word for Yahweh.”[21] In John 5:43 Jesus speaks of coming in His Father’s name and later in John 10:25 Jesus speaks of how He does His mighty works through His Father’s name. When we go beyond the Western idea of a name as being an identifying mark and move to an Ancient Near Eastern view of a name giving function, identity, purpose and authority our understanding begins to change. Jesus is not just saying a magic formula but instead is the embodiment of the fullness of YHWH and by speaking of His name He is speaking of His essence. It is no wonder why the patriarchs would “call on the name of the LORD” (Gen 26:25). They were not invoking a recollection of a deity’s identity but calling for manifestation and presence of YHWH, or at the very least commemorating where that name appeared to them.
In Exodus 34:5 YHWH came down from the cloud and proclaimed His name, that is His presence, to them but in the Gospels we see Jesus and the presence of God moving about because it is the same person in Exodus 34 and in John 1. What all of this points to is that Jesus is YHWH and has manifested Himself to creation even before the incarnation. It shows us that “Jesus is no mere servant of God but participates in the unique divine sovereignty and is, therefore, intrinsic to the unique divine identity, he must be so eternally… for Jewish monotheists, no room even for servants of God to carry out his work at his command.”[22] Larry Hurtado confirms these assumptions by Bauchkam and Heiser by demonstrating:
(1) Jesus is exalted to a particular position, second only to the one God. (2) In this position, he acts by divinely granted authority and as God’s principal agent in the execution of God’s will. (3) He is directly associated with the one God and likened to him in certain ways (e.g., he is given the “name above every name”).[23]
Even the Apostle Paul realizes the implications of this, and it has been argued[24] that 1 Corinthians 8:6 was his reformation of the Shema to demonstrate Christ’s divinity. There “he is arguing that the early Jewish definition of God could include the person of the Son without a violation of monotheism.”[25]
Conclusion
What we have witnessed from Michael Heiser and others is how if Jesus is divine and eternal then His role in the history of creation did not begin in 5BC. Rather we can argue that Jesus the second member of the Trinity has always been the point of contact between YHWH and creation at key moments in history. Appearing either as embodied YHWH, the Angel of YHWH (at times) the name of the YHWH, or even the Word of YHWH (1 Samuel 3).
Through the Rabbinic history and even the Ugaritic material we see the foundations of a co-regency model and type of bitrintarian fluidity which the early Christians recognized and used as proof of Jesus’s claims of divinity. Heiser through his attention to the Intertestamental theological records and Ancient Near Eastern studies provides a compelling framework to recognize the Trinity in a greater way in the Old Testament without sacrificing monotheism. Instead Heiser has returned our attention to YHWH as the one seeking to reconnect with humanity through the person of the second member of the Trinity.
[1]James F. McGrath, The Only True God : Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 9, ProQuest Ebook Central.
[3] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 240.
[4] Non-fallen created spiritual beings of a lower rank than YWHW
[5] Daniel, Boyarin,“Two Powers in Heaven; or, The Making of a Heresy,” pages 331-370 in The idea of biblical interpretation : Essays in honor of James L. Kugel, edited by H. Najman, et al., (BRILL, 2003), 333, ProQuest Ebook Central
[7] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 196.
[9] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 197.
[12] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 136.
[13] Michael Heiser, “Should אלה ים (ʾĕlōhîm) with plural predication be translated “gods”?” The Bible Translator vol. 61, no. 3 (July 2010): 127.
[14] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 218.
[15] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 143.
[16] Michael S. Heiser, “Monotheism and the Language of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Tyndale Bulletin 65.1 (2014): 90.
[17] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel : God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 6, ProQuest Ebook Central.
[18] Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 69.
[19] Theodore Hiebert, “Theophany in the OT,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 510–511.
[20] John H.Walton, Old Testament Theology for Christians : From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (InterVarsity Press, 2017), 38, ProQuest Ebook Central,
[21] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 144.
[22] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 26, ProQuest Ebook Central.
[24] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 213, ProQuest Ebook Central.
[25] Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 67–68.
Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.
Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
“Your kingdom come your will be done.” Jesus’ familiar words from the “Lord’s Prayer” evoke a sense of power and curiosity as we desire God to bring this kingdom to earth, but at the same time we question what it could look like. This idea of kingdom which may seem innocuous at first is in fact a crucial doctrinal issue in not only the Gospel of Matthew but for the entirety of the New Testament.
Therefore, what exactly is the kingdom of God in the eyes of Matthew? We shall see how in the gospel of Matthew the kingdom of God is summed up as the process by which God becomes king in the world. We shall see how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies and intertestamental allusions in a way which the author of the gospel uses to confirm the divine and kingly status of Jesus. This revelation is presented to the new covenant community who are being encouraged to remain faithful to their new heavenly king despite the persecution and cultural shunning they were receiving. This gospel then is a testimony of how the actions, teachings and parables of Jesus confirm his kingly rule and demonstrates how followers of this persecuted yet heavenly king are to live upon the earth.
What is the Kingdom of God?
The kingdom we speak of is more than a theological or ethereal concept, it is one of the foundational pillars of understanding the scripture. Theologians such as Thomas Schreiner are correct when he speaks of the kingdom of God being “of prime importance in New Testament theology,”[1] and others speak of this applying to the entire Bible.[2] The kingdom of God then “serves as a leading image of Jesus’ mission.”[3] A mission marked by the fulfillment of God’s long awaited promises that He through Christ would assume full rulership of Earth and those created in His image.
On a technical level “a kingdom involves at least three things: first, a king who rules; second, subjects who are ruled; and third, the actual exercise of the function of rulership.”[4] For Matthew’s original readers they would have been familiar with this concept through the political power of Rome and its local governors in Syria and Judea. In terms of Christ and His kingdom we can see how the terminology could better be understood as being “translated as “kingly rule,” “reign,” or “sovereignty” rather than “kingdom.””[5] These definitions goes beyond mere political borders and speak of a ruler being recognized through exercising authority and not just territorial control.
Given the Jewish undertones of the gospel of Matthew it could be assumed that the author sought to apply verses such as 1 Chr. 28:5, 2 Chr 13:8, Ps 103:19 and 145:11-13 which speak of the power of the kingdom of YHWH. This data can be combined with various declaration in Psalms[6] which speak about God as being the king of Israel. The word for kingdom often used here is “the Hebrew malkut which means “rule, reign, dominion…When malkut is used of God, it almost always refers to his authority or to his rule as the heavenly King.”[7]
Even with these allusions the phrase “Kingdom of God” is not found in this form in the canonized scriptures. However, we do find this phrase used elsewhere in apocryphal literature such as in Psalm of Solomon 17:3-4; “3 But we will hope in God our savior, because the strength of our God is forever with mercy, 4and the kingdom of our God is forever over the nations.”[8]
Original Audience and Context
Literary Context
The Gospel of Matthew is written in a style of an ancient biography and perhaps more specifically as a “hero story”[9] with a plot, setting and characterization which emphasizes the author’s key points. The author of Matthew selected specific stories and structure to convey the realities of Jesus’ actions and words in a manner which will inspire his original audience. Jesus then is presented not just as being divine, but also king and savior and through this hero motif we see how the narrative unfolds.
It is also possible that the author of Matthew viewed his work as a continuation of the Old Testament and more specifically 2 Chronicles, the last book in the Tanakh. This is significant as 2 Chronicles emphasizes the genealogy of David, the destruction of Jerusalem and “ends with the commission to rebuild the temple.
Struggles of the Original Audience
The general consensus is that this gospel was written post-70AD to an audience feeling the aftereffects of the Roman-Jewish war and the renewed zeal of the surviving Pharisees trying to protect what was left of their faith. In following the post-70AD date we see a community of Jewish believers who were faced with a growing number of gentile converts as both struggled to fit into this new world. Matthew’s gospel had to preserve the traditions of the Jews to accommodate the gentiles and do it in a way which not only presented the truth of Christ but also demonstrated how they were to live within this new invisible kingdom.
Messianic Expectations
Longing for a King
The original audience would have been familiar with the traditions of a coming Messiah who would rule the world from Jerusalem. Therefore, it is necessary that if we are “to understand the man from Nazareth, it is necessary to understand Judaism. More, it is necessary to see Jesus as firmly within Judaism rather than standing apart from it.”[10] The Messianic expectations of the coming King from the lineage of David who would rule the world stems from these intertestamental Jewish understandings. In many ways this “messianic hope was the response in early Judaism to the failure of the Davidic line to sustain even itself, much less the nation as a whole.”[11] It was the hope that God would no longer allow Israel to be oppressed by the likes of the Babylonians, Seleucids or the Romans.
Old Testament Promises
The words of the prophet in Isaiah 40:9-11, 52:7-10 speaks of the theme of YHWH returning to Zion with imagery of a king, conqueror and as a comforter. This “theme is especially pronounced in Isaiah and grows out of the prophet’s vision of “My eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Isa 6:5).”[12] But the most graphic expectation in the Old Testament comes from Daniel 7:13–14 where “a human being is ushered into the very presence of the “Ancient of Days” (i.e., God) and given universal dominion over the kingdoms of the earth.”[13] In this vision we witness YHWH upon his throne distributing his power and authority to a being like himself, yet also a human worthy of exercising eternal rulership. This “language takes us well beyond any normal idea of Messiahship such as the title ‘King of the Jews’ might have suggested.”[14]
The words of Daniel was so clear that when Jesus confessed that “But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The Sanhedrin knew instantly that Jesus was declaring himself to be the Son of Man from Daniel’s vision and was claiming the title of the coming eternal king. We see then that “Only in the New Testament were these mysteries fully revealed. The Old Testament, therefore, must be viewed in the light of a preparatory economy, which comes to its perfect fulfillment in Christ.”[15]
Apocryphal Influences
The intertestamental writings are also a treasure trove of these messianic and kingdom expectations. For Matthew’s audience and the people Jesus encountered they would have been familiar with these writings and in many ways they shaped how Jesus’ hero story is portrayed in the gospels. For instance, in 1 Enoch “the elect people of God, including those who are resurrected (1 En. 22), will live in a final paradisiacal state on earth where God, whose throne is on a mountain, is an “eternal King,” “King of Kings,” or “King of the Universe.””[16]
Along with the expectation of a coming messianic king there was also the hope of one being sent by God to once and for all to destroy Satan and his power. Assumption of Moses 10:1:3 declares that “his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation. Then the devil will have an end. Yea, sorrow will be led away with him.”[17] A sentiment repeated in Jubilee 23:29-30
“all of their days they will be complete and live in peace and rejoicing and there will be no Satan and no evil (one) who will destroy, because all of their days will be days of blessing and healing.”[18]
Matthew’s original audience had a rich and varied expectation for a soon coming divine king who would restore the world, put an end to Satan and inaugurate the full rulership of God.
Matthew’s Use of the Kingdom of God
Kingdom of Heaven vs Kingdom of God
First, the apparent division or differences between the concept of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven must be addressed. The reasoning for this use of “heaven” in place of “God” when speaking about the great kingdom is less of a doctrinal issue and is instead a matter of culture. Both terms mean the same thing and are interchangeable with one another, and in the case of Matthew his use of the “kingdom of heaven” is an attempt to follow the intertestamental protocol of avoiding saying the name of God (YHWH). The author of Matthew “is not speaking of a different kingdom but is simply using a very Jewish way of referring to the Creator.”[19] Understanding this we can then use “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” interchangeably.
Jesus as a Legal Descendant of David
Matthew begins his discourse on the kingdom by first pointing out Jesus’ royal ancestry and confirms Jesus’ claim of leadership. From the beginning Jesus was recognized as a king but was misinterpreted as a natural competitor to Herod’s dynasty, a theme which continued up to the cross when Jesus was labeled the “king of the Jews” by Pilate. Theologically Jesus’ genealogy is important because it demonstrates how “the one promised in 2 Samuel 7, who will sit on David’s eternal throne, is now revealed to be more than just a man.”[20] Understanding this it is no wonder why “One of the most distinctive titles for Jesus in Matthew is Son of David. It occurs nine times, eight of which are unparalleled in any of the other Gospels, whereas Mark uses it only three times and Luke four.”[21]
John the Baptist
Next Matthew moves to the introduction of John the Baptist whose mission was to preach repentance and announce the coming kingdom. John preached this message knowing “full well that the Jewish leaders are not fleeing from the coming wrath. This wrath forms part of the full arrival of the kingdom, which will lead to judgment of God’s enemies as well as blessing for his followers. ”[22] His declaration of “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”[23] leads into Jesus’ arrival and baptism where God announces his favor upon Jesus and in a way inaugurates his journey to kingship. In the narrative John plays the role of Elijah who was to herald the end of the age and usher in the coming king.
God as King
Between John’s preaching and the theophany at Jesus’ baptism we see that this was no earthly king coming to set up a purely political kingdom. Rather it could be seen as God returning to his original intent for himself to be the king of Israel, making this a reversal of 1 Samuel 8-10 where the people rejected God’s kingship in favor of Saul. Therefore, this matter of Jesus’ kingship is of such importance to Matthew as:
Jesus ‘fulfils’ the institution of kingship in the Old Testament: he is the ‘son of David’, the ‘greater than Solomon’ (see on 12:3–4, 42)…The mission of Jesus was to establish God’s kingship. The phrase ‘the kingdom of God’ therefore points not to a specific situation or event, but to ‘God in control’, with all the breadth of meaning that that phrase could cover.[24]
Kingdom and authority exerted by God echoes back to the Exodus where God himself through the Angel of the LORD[25] lead and cared for the people. The idea is that God was taking back his rulership over creation and those in covenant community with Him. “Scripture begins with the declaration that God… is the sovereign ruler and King of the universe… the entire universe is God’s kingdom since he is presently Lord and King.”[26] It represents a return to Eden where the bridge between Heaven and Earth would be restored and expanded and God through Christ would once again be in total control of the world with a people loyal to himself.
Kingdom of God Through Preaching
Matthew 4:17 records Jesus saying “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” and other exhortations imploring the people to recognize the season of God’s arrival. It was a message of change and reprioritization much like the prophets of old as “The message of the kingdom, preached by John, Jesus, and the disciples, included both the need for repentance and the announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom.”[27]
However, Jesus went beyond the call to repentance and the expectation of the kingdom. Following Matthew’s narrative of the temptation and arrival in Galilee we are presented with Jesus the teacher. Upon the mountain Jesus lays out the commands for how his people are to live under the laws of the new kingdom he was bringing to fruition. The Beatitudes portray a “family portrait of those who inhabit the blessed realm of the kingdom of God,”[28] and it teaches us how to live, pray and have faith in this new paradigm.
Kingdom of God Through Parables
Beyond the discourses such as the Sermon on the Mount Jesus often conveyed the coming realities of the kingdom through the use of parables. Matthew 13 is a prime example of this use of parables and “illustrate how Jesus retells and even subverts competing understandings of Israel’s place in the divine drama.”[29] The weeds, the pearl, the hidden treasure and the net are used to show not only entry into the kingdom but the cost one must pay for citizenship. The parables in Matthew also furthers the use of divine ironic reversals in how many who expected to enjoy the Messiah’s benefits are the same ones being denied entry into the new kingdom, as we see with the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21.
Kingdom of God in Action
The greatest sign of the manifestation of the kingdom of God was seen in Jesus’ works of divine power and authority. Through divine healing, rebuking evil spirits or exerting control over nature Jesus is presented as having true and final authority over the natural realm. In many ways Matthew’s author paints his portrait of Jesus “by identifying him with Israel’s God. What is true of God is true of Jesus. In that vein, Jesus is often identified with the divine warrior motif found throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 18:7–15; 24:7–10; 68:4; 104:1–3).”[30] The case of the calming of the storm in Matthew “is thick with Old Testament influence, particularly in Matthew’s retelling of the event. In the Old Testament, the sea symbolizes rebellion and hostility toward God’s creation… only the Lord has the ability to judge sea monsters and calm the chaotic waters”[31] (see also Ps. 74:13-14, 65:5-7, 89:6-10, 107:23-32, Ezk. 32:2, Dan. 7:2).
The Spiritual Dimension
By exerting power and authority over creation, sickness and evil spirits Jesus states that through these signs the arrival of the kingdom has finally taken place. But with these announcements comes the warnings of rebellion, resistance and retaliation from both natural and spiritual forces. Going back to Matthew 4 we see how “Jesus’ victory over temptation appears to have prepared him to conquer the one who was the ultimate satanic prince of the Canaanites and of all wicked nations and to conquer the land in a way that Israel had not been able to.”[32]
It is a one-sided battle which harkens back to earlier Apocryphal expectations of the coming Messiah destroying Satan. Jesus’ miracles and actions then are testimonies of his divine power and his authority over the fallen spiritual forces who control and enslave humanity. Jesus, by “Comparing a divided Satan to a divided kingdom strongly implies that Jesus understands his great foe as the head of a kingdom that, by further implication, opposes God’s kingdom.”[33] An opposition which is defeated to one degree at the cross but still active in other ways through humanity’s continued rebellion.
Already but Not-Yet
While the author of Matthew portrays Jesus’ power and authority the coming kingdom seems to be a divided conquest. On the one hand there are tangible signs of an immediate inauguration but at the same time there seems to be an incompleteness to this newly arrived kingdom. The kingdom had established a foothold through Jesus but the totality of the conquest is far from over. Matthew’s audience is to be comforted by this realization that while the fulfillment of the kingdom is assured, they would have to endure as representatives or ambassadors of his established yet distant kingdom no matter where they lived. There is the hope then that the world is filled with embassies of the king but the fullness of that kingdom had not yet fully arrived.
Duty of Believers as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of God
The concept of the kingdom in Matthew acts as an encouragement for his audience who had received adoption, redemption from sins and a restored relationship with God. Yet there is still work to be done and suffering which is to be endured. All of this speaks to not only an expectation of God’s involvement in the world but also an eternal hope. Matthew through the discourses and parables chosen for his hero story about Jesus lays out the expectations for the covenant community going forward. As the ultimate “mission of the kingdom includes both evangelism and edification, both worldwide proclamation and comprehensive teaching.”[34]
Followers of Christ are to live with the expectations of God’s assistance and the reality of persecution, they are to proclaim a gospel of not only salvation from sins but also a loyalty to a truly divine king, unlike the self-assumed divinity of the Caesars. These disciples “must be prepared to give up everything that would stand in the way of wholehearted commitment to the priority of the kingdom of God, as emphasized in the parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl merchant.”[35] The cost presented in the gospel is real but the rewards are ultimately greater than the cost therefore continued faithfulness to Christ despite persecution by Romans and Jewish religious leaders alike is a small price to pay for eternal citizenship in the already but not-yet kingdom of God.
Conclusion
The ultimate meaning of the kingdom of God in the gospel of Matthew is the realization that finally after thousands of years of prophecy, wandering, suffering and expectations God has become king on the earth. Albeit in an already but not-yet fashion where the kingdom is marked by outposts and not assumed territory. Christ’s kingship is demonstrated through acts of authority, preaching and the call for his followers to spread the message of the coming eternal kingdom to the whole earth. From this place of expectation Matthew’s original audience was encouraged to endure suffering, persecution and the monotony of waiting as Christ’s kingdom remains present but still at a distance from its full eschatological power and authority.
This does not mean that the kingdom is absent but instead “we may say the kingdom of God is present wherever the king is to be found. Jesus is present by his Spirit both in the church and in the world.”[36] The author of Matthew through his presentations of Jesus’ power, authority teaching, claims to Daniel 7, the titles of Son of Man, Son of David and revealed Messiah point towards the fact that the kingdom, its coming and our citizenship in it through the cross was a core narrative of the gospel.
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 41.
[2] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 243.
[3] Leland Ryken et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 478–479.
[4] Alva J. McClain, “The Greatness of the Kingdom,” Bibliotheca Sacra 112 (1955): 12.
[5] Dennis C. Duling, “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven: OT, Early Judaism, and Hellenistic Usage,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 50.
[7] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Reference Library (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 775.
[8] Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Ps Sol 17:3–4.
[9] Leland Ryken, Jesus the Hero: A Guided Literary Study of the Gospels, Reading the Bible as Literature (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 35–36.
[10] Ben Witherington III, The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament: The Individual Witnesses, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 68–69.
[12] Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 15, 2005, 51.
[13] Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 33.
[14] R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 50.
[15] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, vol. 2 (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940–1952), 144.
[16] Dennis C. Duling, “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven: OT, Early Judaism, and Hellenistic Usage,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 51.
[17] James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 931.
[18] Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 15, 2005, 56.
[19] Barney Kasdan, Matthew Presents Yeshua, King Messiah: A Messianic Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Messianic Jewish Publishers, 2011), 29.
[20] Sandra L. Richter, The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 216.
[21] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 28.
[23] Scriptures taken from the ESV unless otherwise noted.
[24] R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 48–49.
[25] Likely a preincarnate form of the Son as seen in the conversation with Abraham and the pre-70AD Jewish concept of the Second YHWH.
[26] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 243.
[27] Mark L. Bailey, “The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (1999): 443.
[28] Leland Ryken et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 480.
[29] N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (London; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic; SPCK, 2019), 204.
[30] G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, The Story Retold: A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2020), 44.
[32] G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 17, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL; England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004), 173.
[33] Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 15, 2005, 67.
[34] Mark L. Bailey, “The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (1999): 448.
Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.
Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
In our day and age, it appears as if we take the concept of idolatry for granted, it was something done long ago in the age of Pantheons and the height of pagan religion. Or at the very least we see it as a casual annoyance for God as he watched over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Through our modern desensitization to the overall idea of idolatry it is no wonder then why we have lost the theological and moral implications of these actions. In his book We Become What We Worship G.K. Beale has set out to remind contemporary readers of the dangers, consequences and power that idolatry held over the Israelites. Not only that he sets out to demonstrate how even Christians today who claim a better covenant are still susceptible to this corruption of the heart and relationship with God. Therefore, we shall delve into how G.K. Beale understands not only the core of idolatry but how it applied to the Israelites and modern Christians through his core thesis of “what people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or restoration.”[1]
What is Idolatry
The Act of Idolatry
At its core “idolatry is the ultimate expression of unfaithfulness to God and for that reason is the occasion for severe divine punishment.”[2] Therein lies the danger and the allure of idolatry as whatever idol or source is set above God becomes the foundation of a person’s life. In essence idolatry can be expressed as “whatever your heart clings to or relies on for ultimate security.”[3] Throughout his book, Beale examines this topic primarily through Isaiah’s appointment, Isaiah’s prophecies in chapters 40-66 and through the episode of the golden calf at Mt. Sinai. These prophecies and events are presented as the backbone of Israelite idol worship which was the attempt by the nation to find security, fulfillment and purpose outside of God.
These idolatrous actions and attitudes of the heart are not just an absence of devotion in a person or nation but rather the corruption of it since there is no neutrality in this process. The cost of idolatry then is great as:
when we worship something in creation, we become like it, as spiritually lifeless and insensitive to God as a piece of wood, rock or stone. We become spiritually blind, deaf and dumb even though we have physical eyes and ears. If we commit ourselves to something that does not have God’s Spirit, to that degree we will be lacking the Spirit. We will be like ancient Israel.[4]
This insight by Beale forms the backbone of his theology, for as Israel followed their idols to a greater degree the more the people resembled those idols. This transformation did not bring them the life they hoped for but instead left them blind, deaf and dumb spiritually. It left them spiritually deficient which is no wonder why the likes of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Elijah were in the minority for much of Israel’s history.
What is an Idol?
Understanding the action of idolatry then begs the question of what exactly is an idol and how can this hunk of stone or wood have so much power? At its core, an idol “is anything worshiped in place of the true God,”[5] it is a physical representation of a spiritual force or idea which draws the devotion of a person or nation. In the era of the Old Testament “an idol or image contained a god’s presence, though that presence was not limited to the image.”[6] This can be seen in Israel through the Asherah poles or even the statue within the temple compound during the ministry of Jeremiah. These images ranged from giant statues to small household statues like the one Rachel stole from her family. While these were prohibited in Israel, they were prevalent throughout Israel’s neighbors for they believed that each idol was a connecting point between the gods and the people.
Connection Between Idols and Demons
Scriptures such as Deuteronomy 32 and 1 Corinthians 10 make it clear that behind many of these idols were fallen spiritual forces who were opposed to God. People believed their idols were tied to real spiritual forces and the testimony of the Scripture was that while they did “exist” they were all beneath YHWH. Beale presents idols in this light as a means to emphasize the severity of idolatry as the people were worshipping fallen creatures rather than the creator.
Various Israelite traditions connect this idea with the worshipping of the golden calf at Mt. Sinai, as even Paul’s discourse in 1 Corinthians is “parallel with the targumic traditions that see the activity of Satan working through the golden calf idol to influence Israel to be spiritually identified with the idol.”[7] Furthermore Paul “interprets sacrifices to idols to be also sacrifices to demons, which necessarily entails ‘becoming a sharer in demons,’ who indwell the idol.”[8] This is a revelation which was true centuries ago and while controversial still applies to modern times as behind many ideologies, contemporary idols and other matters lie spiritual forces who lead people against God and his purposes for humanity.
By understanding these aspects of idols and the act of idolatry it becomes clear that the heart of this issue is a rejection of God, his rulership and his nature. There is only worship of God or rejection of him in favor of idolatry, there is no grey area in between and this is “why half-heartedness is a template of idolatry. When someone wants to embrace both (cf. 11:19, 21), it invariably leads to whole-scale apostasy.”[9] Jesus warned his followers about being double minded for this very reason, and it is why he used the language of those not understanding his teaching being blind or deaf.
Becoming What You Worship
Idolatry is the action of endorsing and supporting any spiritual being, ideology, person, tradition, attitude or action which stands in opposition to God. Through this consignment to opposing forces the idolater assumes the heart and nature of whatever they have chosen in place of God, this is Beale’s core idea of “becoming what you worship.” We can see this idea go all the way back to the garden of Eden as “Adam’s allegiance shifted from God to himself and prob-ably also to Satan, since he comes to resemble the serpent’s character in some ways.”[10] Beale describes how this happened through Adam not trusting in God’s words and in Eve’s misquoting those same commands.
This pattern then repeats itself throughout the history of humanity, but on a theological and historical level it reached a climax at Mt. Sinai. There the people grew impatient with Moses and created a new god, or a new embodiment of God for themselves. Another option is that “a calf or bull was among the most important of the Egyptian animal images that represented Egypt’s gods,” [11] specifically Ptah. God subsequently judged the people for these actions of rejection and Moses destroyed the original commandments, and this is where most people stop with the story. However, Deuteronomy 29:3 states “But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear” (ESV). Through their idolatry and spiritual stubbornness God had allowed Israel to resemble what they truly worshiped, and it left them spiritually blind. “Just as idols had eyes but could not see and ears but could not hear, so Isa. 6:9–10 describes apostate Israelites likewise to indicate figuratively that what they revered they had come to resemble.”[12]
This episode of the golden calf Beale points out is the origin of the language of Israel being “stiff-necked” like a wild young ox, language which repeats itself throughout the Old Testament. “To understand this is also to understand the way idols subverted Israel’s security. YHWH was the sworn protector of Israel. As he had made them, so he would be with them.”[13] Yet despite all of this the Northern Tribes still erected their own golden calves in defiance of Jerusalem and the people continued following these and other gods until the exile. The judgment they faced from the Assyrians and the Babylonians becomes more understandable as God was treating the people as he would treat their idols. Especially when we consider places such as Isaiah 9 where “idolaters are compared to cultic trees and their judgement is suitably depicted as cultic trees being burned.”[14]
How Does Idolatry Warp the Image of God?
We have seen how “all idolatry is human rejection of the Goodness of God and the finality of God’s moral authority,”[15] yet this corruption goes far deeper into the core of humanity. It could be argued that idolatry obscures the image of God within people, as it directs our love and attention away from God our true source and forces us to take in counterfeit life from another. Beale elaborates this point as to how, “Those who are not ‘loving God’ and consequently, not being ‘conformed to the image of God’s Son’ are loving some other earthly object of worship and, consequently, being conformed to that earthly image.”[16]
Humanity’s Nature and Purpose
One of the great tragedies of idolatry is that it goes counter to the purpose of God creating humanity, that is to be an image or a physical representation of God within the Earth. In this twisting of nature the ones who are in the image of God have instead chosen to reject that assignment and worship other creatures. When humans sinned they chose “not to conform their life to God’s image but to the image of the serpent’s sinful and deceptive character.”[17] A decision we continue to live with today as while the image of God is innate in all people it is visible in only a few who are willing to forsake their idols and reclaim their position as imagers of God through Christ. These are those who work towards “the penultimate goal of the Creator was to make creation a liveable place for humans in order that they would achieve the grand aim of glorifying him.”[18]
Idolatry Changes our Source
In the story of the fall “There also seems to be an element of self-worship in that Adam decided that he knew what was better for him than God did, that he wanted to advance himself at all costs, and that he trusted in himself, a created man, instead of in the Creator.”[19] Adam changed the source of his life and ideology in exchange for a forbidden wisdom that he desired so he could be like God. A great lie for Adam since he was already in the image of God, meaning he already was to a degree like God. Therefore, Adam’s source changed from life to death, he exchanged God’s glory for entropy and futility and from this place the meaning and mind of humanity began to drift. We could look at this change as if humanity had altered its operating system or even replaced it, such as replacing Windows with iOS. However, humanity was not compatible with that change of source and operating system so it sought to either find new gods for themselves or to submit to other spiritual forces who were determined to make humans suffer despite promises of health, wealth and joy. No longer did humans look to God for fulfillment but instead turned to other sources for happiness and security. This is the lesson of Adam who “stopped being committed to God and reflecting his image, he revered something else in place of God and resembled his new object of worship. Thus, at the heart of Adam’s sin was idolatry.”[20]
Idolatry in our Contemporary Age
From the lessons of ancient Israel who trusted in idols such as the golden calves, Baal and Asherah more than God we move on to our more “civilized” age where we claim to no longer follow these idols. When in actuality our gods of wood, stone and metal have been replaced by the gods of Self, Money, Ideology and Tradition.
A Culture of Self-Idolatry
The culture of the western world in the past hundred years has been marked by the desire of the individual to rise up above something, anything, in attempt to find meaning and understanding in this world. From this has come consumerism and rationalism which leads people into thinking that their purpose is to take in resources and trust that their finances will grow by 2-5% every year so they can continue the process of consumption. It is a mindset which places us as gods over ourselves as “we know best,” or that we “trust our gut” as the paragon of intuition and guidance. Leaving people unaware that “the fundamental idolatry described by the Bible lies also at the heart of the varied modern idolatries: the idolatry of the self. The self is set at the center of existence as a god: ultimate significance is found in god-like individual autonomy, self-set goals and boundaries.”[21] Beale highlights this idea in saying, “modern people devote themselves to ‘self’ by taking every expedient in order to insure the welfare of their “self,” ultimately without concern for others or for God.”[22]
We worship the self by indulging in its appetites and through the quest of happiness and fulfillment through the resources of creation. “Consequently, if we try to make ourselves great, then we are actually reflecting our own egos in a greater and greater way.”[23] This is the trap of setting ourselves above God in our own eyes or by rejecting God because he won’t let us have what we want (whether it is a matter of sin or not). When this is done a person might as well bow down to a statue of themselves, or even before a mirror. No matter how hard we try, “Desiring to reflect the idol of ourselves and making ourselves larger can only lead to becoming small, because of judgment.”[24]
A Culture of Financial Idolatry
Beyond the culture of self-idolatry Beale tackles next the issue of financial idolatry which is more than worshipping money in itself but through placing trust, lust and dependency upon the entire system of greed. Beale points out how “The worship of idols likely often involves not only the usurpation of divine prerogatives but self-worship, since people would worship various gods in the ancient world in order to ensure their own physical, economic and spiritual welfare.”[25] This is an issue pointed out in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation as many of the charges against places such as Thyatira concerned their allegiance to trade guilds which participated in pagan practices and idolatry. Even Israel sought security from idols such as Baal the storm god and bringer of rain along with other gods who promised fertility and blessings.
The blunt fact is “greed is idolatry because the greedy contravene God’s exclusive rights to human love, trust and obedience.”[26] It is a religious devotion to acquisition which inevitably forces the worshipper to do so at any cost to themselves but especially to others. This is done in the name of security or “protecting my family” or keeping “investors happy.” These people place “their ultimate security in the excessive trappings of their money, jewels, beautiful clothes, cars, and houses; they place their trust in financial security, which is idolatry, and they literally begin to take on the appearance of the wealth in which they have trusted.”[27] Paul in Colossians 3:5 confirms the idea that greed in itself can be seen as idolatry, not that business or providing for a family is evil, but it is when your life is dictated by those pursuits.
A Culture of Ideological Idolatry
A subject that deserves mentioning but Beale does not touch on is the idea of ideology as being a form of idolatry. Recent examples such as the social justice warrior movement, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, MAGA and a host of other battlelines drawn between liberals and conservatives all invoke a religious and idolatrous connotation. If religious ideology can be a form of idolatry it could be argued that the same can be said about social or political idolatries. Especially in this highly charged and polarized society where in many cases social acceptance is tied to total allegiance to certain ideologies which have become idols in themselves.
In speaking about Proverbs 14:12 Beale comments “The idolaters thought the idols would bring greater life and prosperity, but they would only inherit death and emptiness, which is to become like the spiritually dead and empty idols.” This same sentiment can and should be applied today to various ideologies as people commit to these beliefs out of hope (or fear) that they will bring about health, wealth and security. Often this is “achieved” through the powers of indoctrination, destruction and fear. Therefore, when we trust in ideologies or in “false teaching, which is a false substitute for truth, then we are guilty of idol worship. The church must guard itself from venerating false theology as a substitute for the true.”[28]
A Culture of Christian Idolatry
Perhaps most controversial of all of these modern forms of idolatry is the amalgamation of these idolatries into the operation and expectation of the modern church. One that in the eyes of some is only concerned with growth, finances, collecting people and appealing to people’s base desire for self-fulfillment or uncritiqued worship of self. These matters have been matched by critiques of the church such as “Too many churches of today are market-driven, attempting to meet the need of their consumers’ desires for idolatrous self-fulfillment… Much of the Church today, especially that part of it which is evangelical, is in captivity to this idolatry of the self.”[29] On the surface the church can see itself as the dwelling place of God but at the same time be indistinguishable from its surrounding culture. All the while claiming spiritual superiority given its status as the house of God, a claim made by earlier Israelites which was met with judgment from God.
Even the likes of Eugene Peterson spoke out against this alteration of the heart of the church and how it has strayed from its true devotion:
Do we realize how almost exactly the Baal culture of Canaan is reproduced in American church culture? Baal religion is about what makes you feel good. Baal worship is a total immersion in what I can get out of it. And of course, it was incredibly successful. The Baal priests could gather crowds that outnumbered followers of Yahweh 20 to 1.[30]
In many ways then the church itself has adopted an idolatry of growth, financial security, along with an aversion to tackle ideological idolatries of the day and in enabling the continued idolatry of the “self” by many in the congregation.
Restoring the Image of God
Trying to find restoration or relief without first letting go of idols is a fruitless endeavor because “One’s only hope in being delivered from reflecting the spiritually lifeless images of the world is to be recreated or reformed by God into an image that reflects God’s living image, which results in spiritual life.”[31] Any attempt to do otherwise only ends up in people trading one idol(s) for another which may draw them even deeper into the proverbial darkness. Stanley Grenz points out that “according to Paul, the divine glory is precisely what fallen humanity has failed to attain, for sinful humans have refused to glorify God,”[32] therefore the cure to idolatry should be found in glorifying God and more specifically through worshipping and following Christ.
Beale postulates “that the image of God’s son to which Christians are becoming conformed in Rom. 8 is the antithesis to the worldly “image” that unbelieving humanity had exchanged in place of God’s glory in Rom. 1.”[33] Christ as God and man presents us with a new source of being and gives us a path out of the darkness of idolatry, if we are willing to follow him fully. In many ways this offer of cleansing and redirection is even greater than what transpired in Isaiah 6 when the prophet saw the glory of God and received cleansing in exchange for service. For those in Christ the image of God is able to once again reflect the glory and purpose of God as people have the option to no longer trust in themselves or creation but have access to God and his provision and guidance once again.
All of this boils down to whether or not a person will reject their idols and recognize God as being the only true God and source for humanity. Beale points out that when “we love God, and in the process of loving him, we become what God wants us to become. Loving God, paradoxically, is the best expression of self-love, for in loving God we are truly happy.”[34]
Conclusion
Through Beale’s book We Become What We Worship and many of his other works he presents the idea that what people worship they will become. This includes becoming spiritually blind, deaf and dumb as their physical idols and being labeled for judgment for rejecting God as God. This applied not only to Israel in the past but continues today as people worship the idols of self, finances (greed), ideology and even church practices. However, there is a remedy for this corruption of the heart which leads to idolatry. Though Christ people are able to receive cleansing and forgiveness by which they are able to recognize God as God with a clear mind. This then presents a choice to people of, what do they want to become? They in turn answer this by determining what they will place their trust in as they seek for security, blessing and peace. Beale leaves us with the sobering challenge of “whatever work Christians do, they should pray, ‘Lord, cause me to take pleasure in your glory and not in mine.’”[35]
[1] G.K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 16.
[2] Brian S. Rosner, “The Concept of Idolatry,” Themelios 24, no. 3 (1999): 21.
[3][3] A. Motyer, “Idolatry,” in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Leicester U.K.: Inter Varsity Press, 1980), 2:680.
[11] “Calf” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Peter W. van der Horst (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1999), p. 181
[12] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 239.
[13] Richard Lints, Identity and Idolatry. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015. 81.
[14] G. K. Beale, “Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolatry.” Vetus Testamentum 41, no. 3 (1991): 278.
[15] C. J. H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 164.
[16] G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 376.
[17] G. K. Beale, Redemptive Reversals and the Ironic Overturning of Human Wisdom, ed. Dane C. Ortlund and Miles V. Van Pelt, Short Studies in Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 54.
[18] G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 17, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL; England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004), 82.
[26] B. S. Rosner, “Idolatry,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 575.
[27] G. K. Beale, Redemptive Reversals and the Ironic Overturning of Human Wisdom, ed. Dane C. Ortlund and Miles V. Van Pelt, Short Studies in Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 65.
[32] Stanley Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 232.
[33] G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 376.
Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.
Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
