Wesleyan philosophy 3 -- What about God?

The third installment
_____________________

If philosophy involves “meta-thinking,” thinking about thinking, then we are not surprised that there are a number of areas of philosophy that are the “philosophy of” some other discipline. There is a philosophy of history and philosophy of art. There is a philosophy of science. From a Christian perspective, the most important of these is surely the philosophy of religion.

What is the relationship between faith and reason?

When I think of the philosophy of religion, I especially think of three questions. I have already weighed in on the first one, namely, “What is the relationship between faith and reason?” While there are those who see faith as virtually provable and those who see it as virtually irrational, it seems to me that Wesley and Wesleyans have usually seen faith as reasonable although not necessarily “provable” from a human standpoint.

It seems to me that, historically, Wesleyans have not shied away from arguments for the existence of God, even if argument is not the heart of faith. I do think that, in recent decades, there has been somewhat of a move away from apologetics in some Wesleyan circles. True, no amount of argument brings a person to Christ. The Holy Spirit’s movement coupled with a faith response is the only path to God. God can use argument to do that, but no one is argued into the kingdom of God. God can use reason to clear a path, but reason never is what ultimately leads someone to God.

Faith is far more a matter of our “hearts.” Satan and demons presumably have a perfect head knowledge of God that far exceeds any human theologian who has ever lived. They would always get 100% on any test of knowledge about God. Their heads, in this respect are perfect in understanding.

Yet James 2:19 tells us they tremble before God. Is this not the point of James 2? If our faith is merely a knowledge of God, it is insufficient for salvation. “Though I have all knowledge,” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:2, but do not have love, my knowledge is pointless. Knowledge is thus a secondary feature of our faith, and our trust in and allegiance to God is primary. When 2 Timothy 3:16 speaks of all Scripture being God-breathed and being profitable for instruction and correction, it is not likely thinking of theology in the first place but in our faith and the way we live.

I suspect God might easily prove the divine existence to us. God might certainly do so in terms of our experience, but I suspect God could mount an irrefutable and possibly unfathomable rational argument. The problem is that our human minds are both finite and fallen. As finite, we cannot grasp the measurelessness of God’s reason. As fallen, our attempts to grasp God’s perfection will inevitably fail us to one degree or another.

The Ontological Argument

I take as a case in point the “ontological argument.” It might be advanced in several forms. Anselm’s version went something like this, in my words:

• I can conceive of a greatest possible Being. The greatest possible Being exists in my mind.
• But part of being the greatest possible Being means that God actually exists and is not just an idea in my head.
• Therefore God actually exists and is not just an idea.

In my opinion, Alvin Plantinga’s more recent version of the argument is much better and clearer. I would express it in the following way:

• There is a possible world in which God exists.
• But if God exists in one possible world, God must exist in all possible worlds.
• Therefore, God exists in all possible worlds, including mine.

I actually consider this a circular argument. It seems easy to say that it is possible that God exists, but the first premise is really asking whether God actually does exist. In other words, it does not prove anything. It simply poses the question of God’s existence in a way that seems at first to be less committal than it really is.

However, I suspect that God agrees with the ontological argument. As a person of faith, I believe this argument is correct. However, I believe it as a matter of faith. As a matter of reason, I do not think this argument actually proves anything, and most philosophers would agree. The problem is not God’s. The problem is that our human reason is finite.

The Cosmological Argument

So the second question that I think of when I think of the philosophy of religion is the question of whether God exists. Ultimately, as I have said, it is a matter of faith rather than proof. The opposite of faith is not reason but proof. Hebrews 1:6 says that, “without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who comes to God must have faith that he exists and that he rewards those who diligently seek him.”

There are a number of classic arguments for the existence of God. We already mentioned the ontological argument, which goes back to Anselm in the 1000s. Perhaps the most famous argument is the “cosmological argument” or the argument from cause. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s presented a classic version. However, I might present it something like the following:

• The universe would seem to be a constant sequence of causes and effects.
• This sequence does not seem to go back infinitely.
• Therefore, there must have been a first cause to the universe.

1500 years before Aquinas, the Greek philosopher Aristotle called this cause the “Prime Mover,” the unmoved mover that set everything in motion.

In the last seventy years, this argument has become more and more scientifically compelling. In the 1950s, it was very popular to believe that matter was constantly being generated somewhere in the universe and thus that the universe need never have had a beginning. Discovery of a gradually decreasing cosmic background radiation from the early universe eventually suggested a “big bang” near the beginning of the universe.

While some Christians do not like the concept of a big bang, this hesitance is because of the time frame that is usually suggested and the fact that such a bang is often discussed within an atheistic framework. However, the idea that God caused the universe to begin at some point in the past with a bang is more or less how Christians have long interpreted Genesis 1:1. There is nothing intrinsically unChristian about the notion that the universe began suddenly at a point in time! In fact that is precisely what we believe.

Once we have suggested the universe had a Creator, we have said very little about who or what that Creator was. In the end, natural revelation (what we might infer about God by reason and observation) needs special revelation (God’s direct revelation to humanity in Christ and Scripture) to arrive at anything close to the Christian understanding of God. Arguments for the existence of God thus must play a supporting role in our understanding. They are inadequate to bring us to a full knowledge of God.

We might infer, however, that a Creator who makes the universe out of nothing, which is what Christians have historically believed, must have enough power and knowledge to create what is created. The Creator out of nothing must then have all power in relation to the universe and all knowledge of the universe’s workings. Creation out of nothing might or might not suggest a full knowledge of the future, but it certainly implies a full knowledge of the universe’s possibilities. By faith, however, Wesleyans have traditionally believed that God has all actual knowledge of the future and not merely a knowledge of all the possibilities.

The age old question, “Where then did God come from?” simply does not understand the argument above. Nothing in any of the above argument suggests that the Creator must have a cause. The cosmological argument says, “This universe must have a cause.” It says nothing about what must be for that cause. Indeed, this question confuses God (whose essence must be outside this universe) with the universe. It treats God as if God is part of the universe.

The Teleological Argument

Another longstanding argument for the existence of God is the argument from design. In the 1700s, a pastor named William Paley advanced it with the example of the eye. The eye, he argued, is far to intricate to have happened by chance. If you find a watch, you presume there was a watchmaker. So when we consider aspects of nature like the eye, we should assume that they had an intelligent Designer.

There is a clear common sense to this argument. How could we possibly explain the intricacies of nature without supposing that there was an infinitely intelligent Designer behind it? On the other hand, the theory of evolution in the late 1800s seemed to many to undermine this argument severely. Suddenly God did not seem to be necessary at all to explain the origins of complex life.

However, we do not need to fight the battle for the teleological argument over evolution. There is an even more compelling argument to be made on the level of the entire universe, and it is sometimes called the “fine tuning argument.” The fine tuning argument is a strong argument not least because its force is readily admitted by physicists who are atheists. It basically says that the laws and parameters of the universe are so finely balanced that we are either fortunate beyond all imagination or there must have been a designer.

For example, if there were more mass in the universe, the universe would have crunched before any planets let alone life could form. If there were less mass the universe would have spread so quickly that no planets let alone life could form. The balance between matter and antimatter must have been just ever so slightly off. If it had been exact, E = mc^2 and there would only be energy in the universe.

If the balance between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force were different, protons would repel such that no atomic nuclei could form or electrons would be sucked into the nucleus. The same between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force. Instead, these forces balance out perfectly for us to have atoms.

If the universe had an inverse cube law instead of an inverse square law for gravity and the electromagnetic force, atoms and planets could not have formed. If all the hydrogen had become helium in the early universe, there would be no suns. If carbon did not have precisely the energy threshhold it has to form its nucleus, we would never have had carbon to form life.

These “finely tuned” aspects of the universe go on and on. As yet, there is no clear reason for the universe to be exactly this way by chance. Indeed, those cosmologists who are atheists usually resort so some theory of a multiverse. Out of what must be an astronomical number of universe failures, we would just happen to be on the completely unfathomably lucky one that was just right, a Goldilocks of universes.

A much simpler explanation is simply to suggest that there is an intelligent Designer. Again, we may need special revelation to know the character of that Designer. For example, this argument does not necessarily suggest that God is good. For that, we may very well need Scripture.

The Moral Argument

C.S. Lewis reluctantly came to the conclusion that God exists because of what we might call the “moral argument” for the existence of God. In his autobiographical Surprised by Joy, Lewis indicates that the key moment in his return to God was when he came to a choice between a world where good and evil were not real, only figments of our imagination and a world where there was some grounding of these ideas in reality. He finds it unfathomable that they not be real. This leads him eventually back to God.

We might call this argument for God the “argument from the existence of evil.” It concedes what the 1800s thinker Friedrich Nietzsche thought, namely, that good and evil are not real but concepts that “supermen” can invent for other people and fool them into believing. Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian writer, had earlier gone the other way from Nietzsche, but still claiming that “If there is no God, then everything is permissible.”

Lewis and many others simply found this notion untenable, which led him eventually to believe in God as the guarantor of right and wrong. We should note that there are non-theists who have argued for the reality of good and evil apart from God’s existence. Philippa Foot and John Rawls would be two recent philosophers who tried to give a rational basis for morality apart from God. In the end neither give any absolute basis for morality in relation to an individual’s decisions.

Lewis gives a more fully formed moral argument for God’s existence in his book, Mere Christianity. I might summarize it something like the following:

• All humans have a concept of right and wrong, even though they might differ some on the specifics.
• There must be some grounding of this universal concept in reality.
• This grounding is in the existence of a good God.

I will confess that, while I agree by faith that right and wrong are grounded in the goodness of God, I have never found this argument compelling as an argument. C.S. Lewis had what I might call serious “Platonic” tendencies. That is to say, he tended to see ideas as having a reality indepedent of our brains. Plato believed that true reality was the world of thought. Accordingly, our basic conceptions were not just thoughts but realities that existed apart from ourselves.

It is no coincidence that Anselm, who formulated the ontological argument, was heavily influenced by Plato. If we can conceive of God, a fundamental conception of the greatest possible Being (which is a different kind of conception than conceiving of a unicorn), then God must actually exist apart from ourselves. Lewis’ train of thought shows similar Platonic influence. If there is a universal conception of right and wrong, then these concepts must have a real existence apart from ourselves, a transcendent one that goes beyond the world of sight and touch and taste and smell.

Charles Darwin, the “father of evolution” famously suggested that morality evolved among humans as an advantage to survival. Many others have taken up that line of thinking since. While I believe by faith that God grounds morality, I am not sure that I can prove this belief. It remains for me a matter of what I consider reasonable faith rather than proof.

Experiences of God

For the vast majority of Christians, the strongest personal argument for God’s existence is either a personal encounter with God or a faith in the accounts of others having personal encounters with God, not least in the Bible. An old hymn says, “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart.” A personal encounter with God and Christ is a very strong personal argument for God’s existence that is difficult to refute.

A former seminary professor of mine hated this hymn. He would respond that we know Jesus lives “because of the testimony of the apostles.” We will take up that argument for Jesus’ resurrection in a moment. We will also mention the argument from miracles in a moment.

Beyond any individual experience of God I might have are the countless testimonies of encounters with God that others have given throughout the centuries, including all those testimonies in Scripture. A very, very large number of people have believed themselves to have encountered God. If even half of these encounters were mistaken, how do we account for such a pervasive sense of divine encounter in the history of humanity?

Such transcendent experiences are so common that even those who do not have a belief in the Christian God or in a personal God have retained a sense of transcendent spirituality. Even the force of Star Wars gets at such a common sense that there are forces beyond those we learn in a physics class. If this sense of higher powers is coupled with the cosmological and teleological arguments above, we begin to get a sense of a personal divine power.

Miracles

The common definition of a miracle is something that happens that seemed highly unlikely, almost impossible to happen. That is not the technical definition of a miracle. A miracle in the philosophical sense is something that is actually impossible that happens. It is an event that stands outside the cause and effect chain of the world. A miracle would be if someone who was truly dead for over a day came back to life.

There are many, many people who have made such claims throughout history and in the Bible. If there were five loaves of bread and two fishes and Jesus was able to feed five thousand people full with them by multiplying them, that would be a miracle. Walking on water or turning water into wine, these are impossible actions. They are miracles. A check coming just in time on the day you needed it, that could be a miracle behind the scenes but it could also be a great coincidence. It was not something that was impossible to occur.

If you observe a miracle done in Jesus’ name, that is a very compelling argument for God’s existence. Many, many individuals have claimed to have seen or experienced such miracles.

The Resurrection

The most important miracle, indeed the foundational miracle of Christianity, is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. We cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus–it is an inductive argument and thus open-ended. However, we can make an argument that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is very reasonable if we allow for the possibility of miracles.

There are, of course, those who do not allow for the possibility of miracles. We think here especially of David Hume in the 1700s, who made the assumption that everything happens on the basis of cause and effect and thus that miracles are impossible a priori (before even looking at any claims that one might have happened). Hume had a “presupposition” that miracles could not happen.

This is an extremely flimsy claim. He simply dismisses the possibility on the basis of assumption. His argument amounts to a feeling. “Well, I’ve never seen a miracle” or “Smart people don’t believe in miracles.” These are not arguments, they are condescending assumptions without any proof whatsoever. Show me a real argument Mr. Hume. Disprove all the claims of miracles that have occurred throughout history. If even one miracle slips through, then your arrogant dismissal proves to be the ignorant assumption.

No, any person who is really interested in knowing what is true must allow for the possibility both of the supernatural and of miracles. That allowance does not prove they happen. It simply is the required openness of inductive reasoning.

The argument for the historicity of the resurrection is generally two prong. The first part is the empty tomb. They second has to do with eyewitnesses.

The empty tomb is the unanimous testimony of the ancient world and it is a very reasonable conclusion given the New Testament. All four Gospels assume an empty tomb. The women are unable to find the body. Given the status of women in that world, someone making the story up would surely not have invented women discovering the empty tomb, since they were not considered reliable sources of information.

The earliest argument we have against the resurrection is in Matthew 28 where there is a rumor that the disciples stole Jesus’ body. Note that this rumor assumes that there is no body. So even those who did not believe in the resurrection conceded that there was no body and an empty tomb.

It would be difficult to account for the resurrection believe of the early church if Jesus’ body could be located. These individuals were apparently willing to die for their beliefs. The apostle Paul is a case in point. 2 Corinthians 11-12 tell of the persecution and suffering he endured as he shared the good news around the world. It seems unlikely that he would endure such pain if he were not fully convinced of Jesus’ resurrection, a belief that seems doubtful if the location of Jesus’ body were known or highly in dispute.

So Jesus’ body was missing. We couple this fact with the fact that a host of people testified to seeing Jesus alive after his death. 1 Corinthians 15 gives a very early list within the lifetime of most of the witnesses. The Corinthians loved to question Paul, but we have no evidence that this list was contested by them or anyone in the early church. It has a historical ring of truth to it.

Paul points first to Peter, then the other inner circle of disciples, who believed that they saw Jesus alive after his death. Tradition suggests that almost all of these individuals were willing to die for that belief. If they were not strongly convinced of the resurrection, it is doubtful they would have made such a sacrifice. Over 500 people at once are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. He so much as says, “Check my references.” Then of course there was Paul himself. It is unreasonable to think that he was anything but fully convinced he had seen Jesus alive.

So we have an empty tomb and we have hundreds of people convinced they have seen Jesus alive. If you allow for the possibility of resurrections, this would seem to be an extremely strong case. And if Jesus rose from the dead, there is a strong argument for the existence of the God who raised Jesus from the dead.

The Soul-Making Explanation for Suffering

The third key question that the philosophy of religion asks is why God allows evil and suffering to persist in the world if God is truly good. This is the problem of evil and suffering. The question goes something like the following:

• A good God would want to end evil and suffering.
• An all-powerful God could end evil and suffering.
• Then why does God not stop evil and suffering?

Two key answers have been given over the last 2000 years. The first is what we might call the “soul-making theodicy,” where a theodicy is an explanation for how God can be just when he allows evil and suffering. We associate it with a Christian named Irenaeus in the 100s AD. It is basically summed up as “no pain no gain” or, to borrow a phrase from Nietzsche, “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

The sense is that suffering and particular present challenges to us that have the potential to help us grow in character. A body that never moves will atrophy and become weaker and weaker. However, exercise helps a body grow stronger. Moderate tearing down of the muscles results in them becoming stronger.

Accordingly, a world without serious multiple choices is not a world where we might easily become morally better. Rather, as we face moral challenges, we become stronger in our “souls.” When we face suffering, we can either wither away or rise to the challenge, by God’s grace and with the help of the Holy Spirit. Our “souls” are made stronger. The world of pain and suffering is like a moral workout gym. In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis spoke of the chisel of God whose blows hurt so much but hold the possibility of making us into beautiful moral creatures.

The Free Will Explanation for Evil

The second approach to the problem of evil came from Augustine in the 400s. We might call it the free-will theodicy. In this approach, God gave Adam and Eve a free choice between good and evil because a world in which we are free to make that choice is a better world than one in which we are forced to be good. [1]

However, having given that choice to Adam and Eve, they chose poorly. As a result, evil is in the world. Augustine popularized the idea of The Fall, where the power of Sin over the world was introduced by Adam’s sin. Similarly, suffering entered the world through Adam’s sin.

Augustine’s theodicy distances God from the evil and suffering world by placing the blame on humanity itself, on Adam in particular. God does not dictate that evil must come into being. God creates a good world where evil is possible. Adam–and perhaps Satan–is then responsible for the specific existence of evil. [2]

The Augustinian approach to the problem of evil has been particularly important in the Wesleyan tradition. Some hyper-Calvinists have taken John Calvin (1500s) beyond his own teaching to see God predestining both Satan and Adam to sin. This approach is problematic for Wesleyans because it makes God directly responsible for evil. [3]

For Wesleyans, evil is a matter of the permissive will of God, things God allows, rather than the directive will of God, things God more or less commands. Wesleyans would also extend the free will theodicy beyond Adam. Wesley taught that the “prevenient grace” of God empowers us to be able to choose or not choose God individually even today. In that sense, the existence of evil today–and the suffering caused by evil–is not simply Adam’s fault but the fault of each individual who does not choose God throughout history. This is a far more satisfactory answer to the question than Augustine’s solution in itself.

What is good and evil?

Lurking in the discussion above is of course the question of exactly what good and evil even are. Augustine discussed them in terms of twisting a good end. However, given his Platonic tendencies, I wonder if his thinking comes perilously close to thinking of good as a thing. The Neoplatonism he drew on did indeed see evil as the absence of light, the absence of good.

The Bible presents love as the ultimate criteria of good and evil. When asked to summarize the commandments of God, Jesus summed them up as to love God and to love neighbor (Matthew 22). All of God’s commands fit within one or another of these categories, and the primary way we demonstrate love of God is by loving others, including our enemies.

Love here is not a feeling. It is not even “liking” someone. In relation to others, it is an orientation of attitude and action that acts in a way that is meant to benefit the other. In relation to God, it is a complete recognition of ultimate authority and an alligiance to God’s lordship. These two loves never contradict or conflict with each other.

Evil is thus any intentionality that is contrary to love of the other. Evil is any intentionality in relation to God that is contrary to allegiance to him. Evil thus existence within the sphere of human intentionality. It is not a thing. It is an intentionality contrary to love.

Adam and Jesus could be tempted because a good desire was directed toward an inappropriate object. In Adam’s case, the desire for knowledge and excelling were good but directed toward a forbidden object. In Jesus’ case, he wanted to avoid suffering in the Garden, a perfectly healthy desire, but in a context that would have gone against the will of God the Father and his love of humanity. A sinful nature is thus not a prerequisite for temptation.

Suffering is pain, which is understandable. It is not good or evil in itself. It only becomes evil when an intelligence chooses to inflict or allow it in an unloving way. In the case of God, we assume that God only allows suffering when it serves a greater good.

A Wesleyan Answer to Evil and Suffering

We can synthesize the various answers above into a coherent Wesleyan approach to the question of evil and suffering. We might summarize it in the following points:

• God created a world with the possibility of evil and suffering. He did not directly create evil but the possibility of evil.
• A world with moral choice is a good world. A world with suffering is not necessarily a bad world if that suffering brings about good. The creation of a world with these possibilities thus does not contradict the claim that God is good and loving. A hyper-Calvinist view, however, virtually equates God with Satan.
• The power of Sin came over the world because of Adam’s sin, with Adam as the first human. The theory of evolution, if accepted, would require some modifications which I might discuss in the next entry.
• All human beings are presented by God with a similar moral choice to Adam. The prevenient grace of the Spirit gives every person a choice at some point to choose God. That choice brings the possibility of good for all, as well as choice for evil.
• A good deal of human suffering results from the evil choices of human beings. In general, suffering does pose the possibility for “soul-growth.” Suffering in itself is thus morally neutral.
• We conclude that evil and suffering can exist even though God is all-good and all-powerful.

Christians also believe that Christ will return at some point of history and bring evil intentionality to an end. Scripture also indicates that suffering will end at that point (1 Cor. 15).

[1] Later, in the 1700s, Gottfried Leibniz would argue that this is the best of all possible worlds. He could not conceive that God could create any world but the best. It is difficult to know, however, what the “best” even means in the context of creation out of nothing. If God creates universes out of nothing, then surely whatever God creates would be the best for that universe by God’s fiat.

[2] See Greg Boyd’s Satan and the Problem of Evil for a more thorough exploration of Satan as the primary culprit for suffering and evil.

[3] The Calvinist distinction between primary and secondary causes is a distinction without a difference. Secondary causes for Calvinists amount simply to things God does through others.

Explanatory Notes -- Hebrews 11:23-40

11:23 By faith Moses, having been born, was hidden [for] three months by his parents because they saw the child was beautiful and they did not fear the command of the king.

The next section of Hebrews 11 turns from Abraham to Moses. If Abraham was the father of all Israel, Moses was the great lawgiver, the one through whom God revealed the Law. Together these two were the most important of all figures in the story of Israel. 

If Hebrews was a sermon to a church in Rome, the mention of a king surely would have brought Caesar to mind. If Hebrews dates to the time just after Jerusalem was destroyed and its Jewish leaders were paraded and slaughtered in Rome, the stakes of resisting the king would be firmly in mind. In such a context, the author of Hebrews makes a crystal clear point to the audience. No matter what Caesar might do, you should be like Moses' parents, who obeyed God over earthly authorities.

Faith here is faithfulness despite obstacles. They "keep faith" with God despite earthly opposition. They trust God despite what things look like with their eyes.

11:24 By faith Moses, having become big, denied to be called a son of the daughter of Pharaoh, 25. having chosen rather to be mistreated together with the people of God than to have the pleasure of sin for a time, 26. having considered the reproach of the Christ [to be] greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked to the reward.

The message of these comments was not too subtle for the audience. Perhaps some of them were Roman citizens. Perhaps some of them came from privilege. Perhaps some of them were "sons of the daughter of Pharoah," in a sense. 

The author of Hebrews makes it clear that the best path in the long run, the right path, was the path of Moses. Moses was willing to endure persecution now, in the present, looking for a future reward. Moses figuratively endured the "reproach of Christ," although Christ had not yet come. The audience must endure the reproach of Christ literally, being willing to endure suffering for him.

There are often worldly pleasures that are very enjoyable in the moment but lead to long term pain. Having an affair may seem pleasurable in the moment, but the long term consequences are generally horrible. So the audience of Hebrews might avoid suffering by denying Christ now, but the consequences after Christ's return would not be enviable.

11:27 By faith he left Egypt, not having feared the wrath of the king, for he endured as [one] seeing the invisible.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Just as we believe the world was not created out of things we can see, just as Noah built an ark long before he saw rain, Moses believed in a God that he had not yet seen. He would see him forty years later, at the burning bush. But he endured in faith long before he saw him. Similarly, he could not see the promise of Israel's deliverance yet. He had to believe it would eventually come.

This statement is a little puzzling in light of the Exodus story. In Exodus 2:15, it is precisely because Pharoah is trying to kill him that leads Moses to flee Egypt. It would be easy to read the story to indicate Moses fled precisely because he did fear the king. 

On the one hand, the point of Hebrews is a matter of Hebrews. The inspired point God was making through the author of Hebrews came through the way he read the story. The original meaning of Exodus is tangential.

It is also possible the author is saying that Moses left Egypt even though the promise was that Israel would be delivered from Egypt. How could Moses be part of Israel's exodus if he was no longer around. The faith then would be the faith that he would eventually come back.

The audience may have to flee Rome. Many Christians also fled Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans. You can flee in faith rather than fear. You can flee because it is not God's time to stay. 

The audience might get exiled from Rome. That would especially be something that the wrath of the Roman emperor might unleash. In that case, leaving Rome without fear of the emperor would be especially apropos.

11:28 By faith he has made the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood so that the destroyer might not touch their firstborn. 29. By faith they crossed the Red Sea as through dry land with regard to which, having made an attempt, the Egyptians were drowned.  

Moses did come back from Midian. Forty years later after God appeared to him at the burning bush. God did use Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt. The night before the exodus, there was the Passover. 

The perfect tense--"he has made the Passover"--is fascinating. The Passover and Moses are not merely figures from the past. The Passover "stands made." It continues to this day. Moses continues to this day in the heavenly city. The inauguration stands written in Scripture. The author sees these events through the eyes of a Scripture whose message continues regardless of the figures in history who are mentioned. Melchizedek continues to have "no end of life" because he never dies in the text.

The audience is sprinkled with the blood of Jesus. The destroyer will not touch them in the judgment. Even if the Romans threaten persecution, their superior worldly power does not promise them victory any more than the Egyptians were certain to win against Israel. With God on their side, the Israelites escaped through the Red Sea on dry ground, while the Egyptian army drowned.

 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been surrounded for seven days. 31. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who disobeyed, having received the spies with peace.

Leaving the Pentateuch, the author moves into the book of Joshua. From an earthly standpoint, it might have looked like Jericho was unassailable. With God on their side, Israel prevailed. Faith was the substance of an outcome that was hoped for. 

Rahab stood on the side of those who seemed vulnerable to the powers of the city. The audience, if in Rome, might have to choose whether to stand on the side of individuals pursued by the Romans. Playing it safe now would not lead to happy consequences later when Christ returns in judgment. Rahab bet on Israel and Israel's God. So the audience should persist and stand with Christ.

11:32 And what yet am I saying? For the time will fail me telling about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, both David and Samuel and the prophets...

At this point the style of the example list changes. Instead of going into detail about a prominent hero of faith like Abraham or Moses, the author starts to list the names of individuals whose stories the audience likely knew from Scripture. Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah are all from the book of Judges. David and Samuel are chiefly from the books of 1 and 2 Samuel. A close examination of their stories can reveal some less than godly elements, but it is the ideal version of these individuals that Hebrews has in mind, the version some of us learned in Sunday School as children.

There is a name for the literary device used here. It is called "praeteritio." You say that you are not going to talk about what you then go on to talk about.

One of the most striking aspects of this verse is the fact that the author identifies himself with a masculine singular participle--"Time will fail me telling." In Greek, you must choose a gender and number for the word telling, one that goes with the word me. By making the participle masculine singular, the author indicates that he is a male.

As tiny as this grammatical feature is, it seems strong enough to prevail against interesting hypotheses that the author might be a woman. Aldof von Harnack suggested Priscilla in the early twentieth century, and others like Ruth Hoppin have more recently supported the theory. [1] However, the only likely way around the participle would be if the author were hiding her identity. Since the author and audience seem well acquainted with each other, we must conclude it almost certain that the author was a man.  

11:33 ... who through faith conquered kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34. quenched the power of fire, escaped the mouths of sword, were strengthened from sickness, became strong in war, drove away foreign armies.

The first examples the author gives involve winning on earth. They fight and win against other kingdoms, such as when Deborah and Barak defeat the enemies of Israel. They bring about the desired change for righteousness, such as when Hezekiah ends the sacrifices to other gods. They obtain promises, such as when they return from exile.

Daniel is not eaten by the lion. The three young Hebrew men are not destroyed in the fiery furnace. Elijah is not killed. Hezekiah is healed. Gideon wins. David defeats Goliath.

These examples hold out hope to the audience. They may face persecution in the days to come. But God might also deliver them from it. They might escape.

11:35 Women received their dead from resurrection, but others, not receiving redemption, were tortured in order that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36. And others received a trial of mocking and scouraging, and even of chains and jail. 37. They were stoned. They were sawed in two. They died by murder of sword. They went around in sheepskins, in goatskins, lacking, afflicted, treated badly, 38. of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes of the land.  

The audience, however, is not promised escape. They might not escape. Yes, there was a woman whose son was raised from the dead by Elisha. But there have been other mothers whose sons were not raised. The author likely alludes to the story in 2 Maccabees 7 were a mother loses all seven of her sons to persecution. That chapter includes the strongest anticipation of bodily resurrection of any known Jewish writing outside the New Testament. There is a tradition that the prophet Isaiah died by being sawed in two.

The mention of individuals, likely prophets, going around in sheepskins and goatskins not only has us thinking of Elijah, but of John the Baptist. It is at least possible that the author here blurs into the time of Jesus. Certainly, we know that Elijah hid in a cave. 

11:39 And these all, having been witnessed through faith, did not receive the promise. 40. God having foreseen something better concerning us, that they might not be perfected without us.

The mention of having been witnessed ends the chapter as it started. This same concept of witnessing started this example list in 11:2. This literary structure, as mentioned above, is called an "inclusio." The similar words at the beginning and end of the chapter bind the chapter together with bookends of a sort.

The heroes of this chapter were all part of the old covenant. They were prior to Jesus' death and enthronement at God's right hand. The promise was made about what Jesus would make possible and what Jesus would make happen. In 10:2 and 7:19 we learned that the sacrifices of the Jewish Law were not actually able to take away sins. They were not able to "perfect" the worshipper by cleansing their sins.

Every sacrifice under the old covenant was thus a raincheck for the one truly effective sacrifice of Jesus Christ. None of the heroes of faith in the old covenant actually received the promise, which required Christ to come. They were all looking forward to Christ and the coming unshakeable kingdom. They were not able to be "perfected" or truly cleansed of their sins without Jesus.

But now Jesus has come! Now perfection is possible. Now sins can truly be saved. They had been waiting. Now the time had come. The day of perfection had arrived for the faithful of the past and present to experience together! 

[1] Priscilla's Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Lost Coast, 2000). 

A Tribute to Fallen Chickens (May 9, 2022)

We knew that it was difficult to transport chickens. We had 33 of them when we left NY, believe it or not. If I knew then what I know now, we would still have them all. But we ended up losing four of them on the trip from New York back to Indiana. I want to remember them before I forget.

Millie

Millie was a smart Easter Egger. She loved milk worms and was not afraid to jump on your lap to plead for them. 

 

Cocoa (grey) lived. She was a good friend to Millie, another Easter Egger pictured here next to Millie. We almost lost her on the trip. But she was able to pull out of her dehydrated stupor. She is now back to being the fastest blueberry stealer in the west.

Sandy

The second fallen one was Sandy, the Ostralorp. Nobody messed with Sandy. We put aprons on a number of the hens because we had too many roosters and they were frankly causing the hens to loose some feathers. But Sandy had a way of not getting bothered. She was a solid soul.

Here's a drive-by of Sandy. She was not as quick to come up to you as some others, unless you had milk worms.

JD

The third fallen was JD, one of my favorites. He and George were Ayam Cemanis. I privately called him the Jesus rooster. He was big and strong enough to beat all the others, but it wasn't his thing. The ladies liked him because he didn't jump on them as much, it seemed. I have a very fun memory of him chasing George around the yard when he had enough. George might have thought himself the superior, but not when JD stood up for himself.

JD was still able to open his eyes when we arrived that fateful morning, but he was not able to drink. He died very soon after our arrival.

George

George was able to walk for a second after we arrived. Then he lost his standing power. I was able to get him to drink all morning and early afternoon. I fear I gave him too much? Perhaps it was inevitable.

He was a funny bird. He loved to come in the house. He would go in the corner or hide behind something. Here's Cocoa with him inside. He was Angie's favorite, and I liked him a lot too. I have a pair of jeans whose first rip came from him. He would occasionally attack my feet.

He was always getting into fights either with Fred, his big brother, or JD. That took a lot of energy. He would get himself all bloody like a boxer and we'd put flour and blue goo on him.

Farewell to the fallen, May 9, 2022

Here is a final picture with Millie, Sandy, and George in it.

 

Wesleyan philosophy 2 -- What is good thinking?

Deductive Reasoning
There is a style of logic whose official form seems to go back to Aristotle from 384-322 BC. You might call it “syllogistic logic” because it has a format that involves “syllogisms.” With syllogisms, you have premises that build to logical conclusions. If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must also be true.

I have never been able to imagine a scenario where this approach to truth claims would not be valid. I recognize that such logic might possibly take on a different form in a different culture. For most of us, especially in daily life, our reasoning is more intuitive and implicit. We do not usually tell our spouse, “premise 1, premise 2, conclusion.” (Some of us might from time to time, but our spouses may consider us rather weird and annoying.)

While this particular form of logic might be cultural in some sense, I cannot see where it does not reflect underlying absolute truths of this universe. Another culture might express such truths in other forms, but I consider that a difference in form rather than substance.

The moniker, “Western logic” seems a bit peculiar. Ancient Greece was a quite different world than mine. There was no Europe at that time. Ancient Greece was different from Renaissance Italy and Enlightenment Prussia too. “Western” mainly says, “not Eastern, not Africa, not Middle East, not South American," and so forth. I suppose it means a modern European perspective on Aristotelian logic that has carried over from Europe to academic philosophy in the United States.

While I believe more metaphorical and intuitive forms of logic are valid and get at the same truths, I find Aristotelian logic and its heritage to be more precise and thus more helpful at truth-processing than more impressionistic, everyday arguments or more narrative versions. The syllogism is a bit like math, and it is hard to argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Accordingly, if all truth is God’s truth, then syllogistic logic is part of natural revelation and thus absolute truth in its substance. I can’t see any way around it. I find it extremely unhelpful to align it with certain people groups, except perhaps in relation to its form.

I call this sort of reason, “micro-reason.” It is not worldview reasoning or even paradigmatic reasoning. Such larger “macro-reason” is very open to question and examination. "Macro-reason" is the use of micro-reason to argue for truths. It is micro-reason in action. When our contemporaries question Wesley’s quadrilateral, they must surely be questioning macro-reason with larger assumptions and the application of micro-reason. When they do so, they are using micro-reason or fundamental logic.

Micro-reason is used in all thinking, as soon as we connect two atoms of thought together. We cannot interpret the Bible without using our micro-reasoning. [1] We cannot process a word from the Lord through the Holy Spirit without micro-reasoning. From Tertullian to Kierkegaard to Barth, these “I believe it because it is absurd” folk used micro-reason. Even Jacques Derrida, as opaque as his deconstructionist writings are, used micro-reason, although he tried very hard to obfuscate it. Micro-reason is thus foundational, underlying truth of any propositional kind, including truths we might draw from the Bible.

This sort of micro-reason or fundamental logic to the universe ultimately boils down to fundamental presuppositions. At some point, you hit basic definitions and assumptions that cannot be proved. Geometric proofs ultimately are built on the basis of fundamental axioms that cannot be proven. They are simply assumed.

One of the fundamental tests for truth is the coherence test. Does a proposed truth contradict itself? The law of non-contradiction states that a claim cannot both be true and untrue if it is stated literally. So if you find a fundamental contradiction in a collection of truth claims, at least one of your truth claims must be false in some way.

It does not seem to me that any of these understandings of logic contradict faith in general, let alone Wesleyan faith. Logic seems to be fundamental to the way God has made this universe. It is part of absolute truth. It is part of natural revelation. We cannot avoid it, not even when we are trying to listen to Scripture and interpret it.

Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning starts with certain assumptions and then draws conclusions, like an upside-down V. By contrast, inductive reasoning is like a normal V. You draw in evidence and make inferences. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning tends to be open-ended. Unless you have all the possible data, there is always the chance that the next piece of data you collect will throw the coherence test out of whack and sink your hypothesis.

The scientific method is inductive. You collect evidence. You form a hypothesis. You collect more data and test the hypothesis. You refine the hypothesis if necessary. Eventually, you have enough proven results to present a theory, and so forth. This process never strictly ends as long as there is more data to collect. Paradigms form. Paradigms shift. And so on.

A recent display at the Smithsonian declared the scientific method to be white in nature. We face a similar question to that we mentioned in relation to Aristotelian logic. In this case, we point back to Francis Bacon, who was English and lived from 1561-1626.

I consider any such designation extremely unfortunate and undesirable because of how incredibly successful the method has been. It seems to me that it describes the approach that people in all times and all places have used in one form or another for discovery. Where can we find water? Such and such suggests we might dig here. Let’s dig. No water. Let’s try over here. Water. While there may be cultural dimensions to the way the scientific method is expressed and formulated, let us strongly refrain from associating it with any ethnicity or people group. That almost begs for racist inferences of a most heinous nature.

Thus while the results of any particular scientific quest are not absolute truth, the scientific method as a model for seeking truth would seem to be part of the logic of the universe. It is sound reasoning. The results, however, are more often than not eternally tentative.

If the coherence test is a test for truth that relates to deductive reasoning, the “correspondence test” is a test that relates to inductive reasoning. Does the claim that I am making correlate with the data I have? A third test for truth is the pragmatic test. If I operate on the assumption that this hypothesis is true, does it “work” in the world? Does it get me from a to b? You may have heard the expression, “for heuristic purposes.” The idea is that I assume something to see if the hypothesis “works” without assuming it is actually true.

Logical Fallacies
Many different logical fallacies lurk and abound in our reasoning. Some are formal and relate more to deductive reasoning. Others are informal and relate more to inductive reasoning. They are fallacies because they violate the fundamental laws of logic above. Note that one’s conclusion might be true and yet poorly argued.

Below are some logical fallacies. We should point out that they are fallacies because they do not necessitate a certain conclusion. Practically speaking, sometimes this sort of reasoning turns out to point to something that proves to be true in the “real world.” By calling them logical fallacies, we mean that you cannot be certain the conclusion is true. The conclusion does not follow for certain.

• Hasty generalization – you form a conclusion without enough evidence yet
• Ad hominem fallacy – you attack the person rather than the argument they are making
• Circumstantial fallacy – you assume a conclusion without direct observation but from surrounding, “circumstantial” evidence.
• “After this, because of this” – A form of the circumstantial fallacy. Just because something followed something else chronologically doesn’t prove the first thing caused the second.
• Genetic fallacy – The origins of a conclusion or the reasons why someone believes a conclusion neither prove nor disprove the conclusion.
• Fallacy of diversion – basically, changing the subject
• Fallacy of equivocation -- slipping a different meaning to your terms in mid-argument
• False alternative – You give an "a or b" choice when there are actually other options as well.
• Slippery slope fallacy – Once you start moving in a particular direction, it is not guaranteed that you will continue moving further in that direction.
• Circular reasoning/begging the question – assuming your conclusion in your argument
• Fallacies of composition and division – You assume everything in a group is a certain way because something in that group is that way. Also the opposite: because of a general trend of a group you assume everything in that group manifests that trend.
• Appeal to ignorance – Absence of evidence does not disprove a claim
• Appeal to the majority – something isn’t true just because most people believe it
• Appeal to improper authority – citing someone who is not an authority on an issue does not support your case
• Appeal to emotion – something isn’t true because it “feels so right”
• Appeal to force – you can’t make something true by forcing people to affirm it

These basic fallacies would seem to be sound warnings. They do not indicate for certain that your conclusion is false, but they do indicate that your logic for reaching those conclusions is invalid. They are the stuff of political and religious rhetoric. We would be wise to know them well so that we can spot when our minds are potentially being manipulated.

There is nothing unWesleyan about the idea of these fallacies. This would seem to be a good thing because they would seem to be part of the absolute truth of the universe as God has created it. Their form may have cultural elements, but the underlying truth to which they point would seem to be unassailable. They are part of natural revelation.

[1] Unavoidably, micro-reason is thus logically prior to Scripture because we cannot interpret Scripture or any revelation without using it. When we speak of the priority of Scripture to reason in the quadrilateral, we are speaking of it in relation to what I am calling "macro-reason."

Clear Instructions and Online Education

I would seem to be quite bright in some ways and quite stupid in others. Perhaps the two are related. One of my strengths is to see the big picture when others cannot. One of my weaknesses is not seeing what's right in front of me. 

This past year, I've taken a number of classes with Southern New Hampshire, the "Game Programming and Development" major. I have enjoyed the courses for the most part. Honestly, the courses have not really made me competent at anything. I find the 8 weeks just enough to get a taste of each subject. They are like bookmarks on subjects I would need to return to if I wanted to go anywhere with them.

Mind you, 8 weeks is pretty much standard now for online courses. It's not something that can really be negotiated, I don't think. I took a Calculus II course with Arizona State last year that was 7 weeks long and brutal. They didn't cut out a thing. But it's almost inevitable, IMO, that these 8-week courses won't cover as much material as a normal 15-week one. To me, it's an argument for self-paced learning.

I messed up on a final project for an SNHU class recently because of accompanying documentation that was supposed to go with a project. Mind you, I had some distractions and turned it in during the middle of the night. The code I turned in was almost up to snuff. The grade was more because of a failure to include things I could have easily included. How did that happen?

It happened because I didn't double-check the rubric. This is a pet peeve of mine with the courses I've taken with Southern New Hampshire. The instructions for assignments are usually pretty thin. To get a sense of what you need to turn in, you pretty much have to go to the rubric and translate it into steps yourself. I find this incredibly annoying. The best courses have been those when individual professors have stood in what seems to me a glaring gap at times (and they do have some really good adjuncts).

I have wondered if there is an intentional desire for students to learn how to go to the web to figure out things ourselves. I doubt it. It just seems that there is an unintentional and quite inappropriate gap between the knowledge base you need to complete some assignments and that which is provided. 

Now this may be my stupidity in part, my inability to see what is right in front of me. It could be my incredible blindness at times. I'm not leaning in that direction, but I have to accept it is possible. I had a high school teacher who couldn't believe that I could read a whole book and not have noticed who the author was. She was wrong.

Here's another pet peeve of mine. It was true at IWU with their online programs and they wanted it to be true of the seminary some 7 years ago. I'm sure they've given in. 

I wanted instructions to spell out what day of the week assignments were due on. So if your first discussion post was due on Thursday, I wanted to say so. They did something like "Day 4." WHY?????

Southern New Hampshire doesn't even do that. Somehow, when you take your first class, you pick up that discussions are on a Thursday-Sunday flow and assignments are due Sunday. But they don't say anything like that in the instructions for an individual assignment.

This has been an annoyed student. When I create online courses, they have clear instructions. Just saying.

 

Wesleyan philosophy 1 -- What is philosophy and is it Christian?

We are possibly creating a Wesleyan wiki on philosophy. Here was my opening salvo on the first question:

1. What is philosophy (and is it even Christian)?  

Philosophy, if we built off the etymology of the word, would seem to involve the “love of wisdom.” Here Proverbs 1:7 immediately comes to mind: “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” Proverbs suggests that, if we are to pursue true wisdom and knowledge, God must stand at the beginning of our quest.

This observation suggests to me that philosophy need not be antithetical to faith. Might we not say something in keeping with the proverb to say, “Faith in God is the proper beginning of philosophy.” I would see Augustine quite in keeping with this approach when he spoke of “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum).

What of Colossians 2:8: “Look lest someone will be one taking you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to the traditions of mortals, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ”? On the one hand, this statement would not preclude a philosophy “according to Christ.” On the other, the rest of the passage makes it clear that a particular religious practice is in view, perhaps a form of Jewish mysticism or syncretism. Perhaps the word philosophy does not really convey in English the nature of the group to which Colossians refers.

What then is philosophy as it has been approached in the “Western” tradition? It is what we might call a “meta-discipline.” Philosophy stands outside of all other areas of thinking and asks, “What’s going on?” It is like a scaffolding beside other knowledge. First order knowledge asks questions about a subject. Second order knowledge asks, “What is going on as we ask and answer questions about a subject?”

Here we do run into a potential conflict with faith. Are we allowed to ask questions about the existence of God? Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for it is necessary for the one who comes to God to believe that he is and that to those who seek him he becomes a rewarder.”

Here is where various Christian thinkers have parted ways. Let me mention three key positions on this question. 

• “I believe because it is absurd.” (Tertullian) 
• “I believe in order to understand.” (Anselm) 
• “I understand in order to believe.” (Abelard)

The first position has a radical sense that faith will not make rational sense or that reason has little or nothing to do with faith. As Tertullian put it, “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem or the Academy to do with the Church.” Ironically, of course, Tertullian uses reason and was influenced by Stoicism. In the 1800s, Kierkegaard had a similar perspective but uses reason to tell us about it.

The Reformed tradition has often leaned in this direction as well. Whether it be Abraham Kuyper or Karl Barth, there is a strong sense that without proper presuppositions, no truly meaningful and valid knowledge is possible. Barth has had an immense influence on post-liberalism in the United States, and this impact has been felt on the Wesleyan tradition in general. Many broader Wesleyan thinkers are only a “hair’s breadth” from Reformed epistemology.

On the other end of the spectrum, grass-roots Wesleyanism has drunk deeply from American fundamentalism. Although it might deny it, it comes close to the third position. Josh McDowell famously wrote a book titled, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. We are enamored by Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ and C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. These works assume that human reason leads directly to God and faith.

Because we find Wesleyans in all three positions, we dare not say that there is just one Wesleyan position on this question. I personally think that Wesley himself came closest to the “faith seeking understanding” approach. Wesley was no enemy to reason, but he clearly began all his explorations with faith. The core of faith for him would not have been revisable but reason, tradition, and experience might negotiate around the edges.

My own position is that faith is the starting point for all discussions and that it is reasonable. It may not seem provable from our finite, skewed vantage point as humans. I suspect it is provable from God’s infinite, omni-accurate perspective. I just do not have complete access to that. Even my reading of the Bible has to go through my finite, skewed brain.

The Bible does not reject the asking of questions (e.g., Habakkuk 1:2). Faith is not afraid of questions because it is confident that God knows the answers. Nor is God afraid that he might disappear if we try to ask objective questions about his existence. It seems to me that the motto, “Faith seeking understanding” is very Wesleyan.

Acts 2 Explanatory Notes

Happy Pentecost! Although I have published extensive notes on Acts, I haven't done so in the format I use to self-publish. I posted Acts 1 a year ago. Here are re-formatted notes on Acts 2:
___________________________
Witnesses in Jerusalem (Acts 2-7)

The Day of Pentecost (2:1-47)
2:1 And when the Day of Pentecost was fulfilled, all were together into the same [place], [1] 2. and a sound suddenly came from the sky, as of a forceful wind bringing, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.[2]
The Day of Pentecost was one of the three times when a Jewish male was supposed to appear in Jerusalem at the temple before the Lord (cf. Exod 34:23). It was also known as the "Feast of Weeks" because it was seven weeks after Easter and the "Feast of Ingathering" or "Feast of First Fruits" because it celebrated the beginning of the wheat harvest (cf. 34:22).

We can assume from Acts 1:14 that these believers have been praying as important context for the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is also significant that they are "together." That is, they are unified.

The word for spirit (pneuma) is related to the word for wind (pnoe). Spirit is something that is blown. The metaphor of "filling" is frequently used with the Holy Spirit, like a cup that is filled.

3. And distributed tongues as of fire appeared to them and sat upon each one of them.
The idea of tongues of fire is attested by Philo at the event of the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, and we can find in other places an association between Pentecost and Sinai. It is thus at least possible that we should hear new covenant overtones to the Day of Pentecost. Pentecost is the birth of the church, the full inauguration of the new covenant, the "feast" of the first fruits of the Spirit and the first ingathering of harvest!

 
4. And all were filled with Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages as the Spirit was giving to them to make utterance.
Acts uses a number of expressions for the event that takes place here. They are "filled" with the Spirit. They are "baptized" in the Holy Spirit. They "receive" the Holy Spirit. These would all seem to be roughly synonymous expressions.

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is an initiatory experience in the book of Acts. That is to say, a person has not truly become part of the people of God until he or she has received the Spirit. This baptism in the Spirit is the means by which one's past sins are cleansed (cf. Acts 15:9).

Within the narrative world of Luke-Acts, this event is the fulfillment of Luke 3:16. That is to say, we would introduce foreign elements into Luke's story if we insert John 20:22 here where Jesus breathes on them to receive the Holy Spirit. In the story world of Luke-Acts, this is the first time that the disciples receive the Spirit.

For Acts, Paul, and Hebrews, receiving the Holy Spirit is the initiatory experience for a Christian. Faith (Paul), repentance (Luke), and confession (John) are important precursors to inclusion in the people of God, but they are not the borderline per se. "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not his" (Rom. 8:9). The Holy Spirit is a seal indicating God's ownership of us (2 Cor. 1:22). He is the earnest of our inheritance, serving both as a down payment and guarantee of our salvation (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5).

From the perspective of much of the New Testament, therefore, one is thus not a "Christian" unless one has received the Holy Spirit, and if someone has received the Holy Spirit, he or she is part of the people of God. Therefore, in the narrative world of Luke-Acts, the Day of Pentecost is the birth of the church.

The primary manifestation of receiving the Holy Spirit is power, as indicated in Acts 1:8. The first manifestation of this power in Acts is speaking in languages, although people do not speak in these "tongues" every time they are baptized in the Spirit in Acts. These would seem to be human languages in Acts 2. The word for utterance here also seems to suggest divinely revealed messages.

5. And Jews were dwelling in Jerusalem, devout men [and women] from every ethnos that is under the sky. 6. And when this sound came to be, [3] the multitude came together and was confused because each one was hearing them speaking in their own dialect.
We should picture this crowd as an overwhelmingly Jewish crowd. The mention of every "ethnos" does not mean that they are Gentiles but that these Jews have come from every "nation." However, the word nation is misleading because the Roman world was an empire, not a collection of nation-states like we have today. They were rather regions dominated by certain ethnic groups, under Roman rule. An ethnos is thus a region dominated by a certain people group, with other people groups like Jews living among them.

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was a feature of the Judaism of the day, especially to the three pilgrimage festivals of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. We thus see, thus the picture of Diaspora Jews from all over the Roman Empire coming to the temple. The volume of the noise from the rushing wind must be quite spectacular to attract a large crowd from the broader city.

7. And they were amazed and marveled saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? [4] 8. and how are we each hearing in our own dialect in which we were born-- 9. Parthians and Medes and Elamites and ones who dwell in Mesopotamia, both Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10. both Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya by Cyrene, and the residents of Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11. Cretans and Arabs, we hear them speaking the great things of God in our languages?
In 2:7-11 we get a sense of how many regions were represented in Jerusalem on feast days. This cross-section of Diaspora Judaism will serve as a conduit for the Jesus movement spreading throughout the world. When Paul writes Romans over twenty-five years later, we might be puzzled how the church got there. The Day of Pentecost is often mentioned as a strong possibility.

We get an overtone here that people might not have thought Galileans to be likely to speak in so many different languages. It is not the only place where we pick up on a certain negative stereotype of these Jews from the northern part of Israel.

2:8 indicates that the languages spoken were human languages and that the use of tongues here served the purpose of evangelism. Some have emphasized the word hear, suggesting either that the gift was in the ability of the audience to hear in their own language and, perhaps, that the apostles were speaking the same ecstatic tongues as in 1 Corinthians 14.

However, this interpretation goes well beyond what the verse says and is based rather on the drive to harmonize this chapter with 1 Corinthians. It says that they were speaking in our language. Accordingly, they heard them speaking in their languages, just as we might hear someone speaking another language today. Although the other instances of tongues-speaking in Acts do not indicate the nature of the tongues, Acts 2 may tip the scales toward them being human languages in the other instances too.

Acts does not indicate that tongues always accompanied receiving the Holy Spirit. The believers at Samaria are not said to speak in tongues in Acts 8, nor is Paul said to in Acts 9. Acts thus does not lead us to believe that tongues is in some way the sign of the Holy Spirit.

The content of what they were saying was understood. These thus do not seem to be the same tongues as 1 Corinthians 14, which were not understood without a distinct interpretation. The content of the speaking was witness to "great works of God," likely with the resurrection of Jesus at the core.

12. And all were amazed and were perplexed, one saying to another, "What does this want to be? 13. But different [ones], mocking, were saying, "They have become drunk with wine."
There seem to be two basic reactions to the event. Some are perplexed and want to know more. Others immediately reject the spiritual nature of the event and propose that the men are drunk. In other words, some have ears to hear and others do not.

Peter's Sermon (14-36)
14. But Peter, having stood with the eleven, lifted up his voice and uttered to them, "Men, Jews and all the residents of Jerusalem, let this be known to you and hear my words, 15. for these are not drunk as you yourselves suggest, for it is the third hour of the day.
This is the first and most important sermon in Acts, giving Peter's response to the crowd. We call the basic gospel message of this sermon the "kerygma," that which is proclaimed. The sermon of Acts 2 gives us a basic sense of the preaching of the early church as Luke reports it.

For more than one reason, we probably shouldn't think of this sermon as verbatim. It would be in keeping with the practices of ancient history writing for Luke to summarize, paraphrase, even at times create material for such speeches. [4] The main parts of the sermon each begin with a word that addresses the crowd. The first is "Men, Jews, and all those dwelling in Jerusalem."

First, Peter rejects the claim that they are drunk. It is only 9 in the morning. There may be some implied parallel between being filled with the Spirit and being drunk with wine (Eph. 5:18). We might note that Peter fully assumes that they do consume the kind of wine that can make a person drunk. It is just not the time of day that they would normally be doing so.

16. "But this is that which has been spoken through the prophet Joel,
By contrast, Peter indicates that the event is the fulfillment of the words of Joel 2. The New Testament authors read the Old Testament with spiritual eyes. The Holy Spirit inspired them to hear God's voice in the words, often in a "fuller sense" or sensus plenior that gave the words extended meanings beyond what their original authors understood. Joel himself probably did not know the fullness of how God would use his words at that time, which were directed to the Israel of his own day centuries before.

17. "'And it will be in the last days,' says the Lord,

'I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh,
     And your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
And your young men will see visions,
     And your old men will dream dreams.
18. And, indeed, upon my male servants and female servants in those days,
     I will pour out from my Spirit
     and they will prophesy.
These are key verses indicating that the age of the Spirit is one in which both men and women will preach. Preaching is often a form of prophesying, that is, speaking forth the word that the Lord has given to a particular group of people, a divine utterance. Prophecy is much more "forth-telling" than it is "fore-telling." It is not usually about the very distant future but about the people right in front of you.

The Spirit is the great equalizer, and since men and women possess the Spirit in full measure, there is no spiritual activity that is limited to a certain gender or type of person. "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free. There is not male and female" (Gal. 3:28). Acts knows no limits on what a woman might do in the church.

19. "And I will give wonders in the sky above
     and signs on the earth below,
     blood and fire and vapor of smoke,
20. The sun will be transformed into darkness,
     and the moon into blood
Before the Day of the Lord comes,
     the great and glorious,

In the prophets, the Day of the Lord was a day of the Lord's judgment, one that could occur as often as needed. Acts presumably relates this to the great Day of the Lord, the final judgment. In that sense, the entire age of the church is syncopated into this moment.

Language of the moon darkening and the sun turning to blood is eclipse language. It is not clear that Luke foresees a literal eclipse at some time but this is apocalyptic language. He may actually be saying that the Day of Pentecost fulfilled the thrust of those signs.

21. And it will be [that] everyone who calls 
     on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
One of the main themes of Acts is that anyone can now call on the Lord, and anyone who does will be saved. Luke also uses deterministic language but these two types of language should not be connected philosophically as in Calvinism. In keeping with the fatalism of the day, Luke assumes that those who are called have been chosen by God and yet also believes that the gospel is for everyone and anyone merely need call upon God to be saved.

 
22. "Men, Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazarene [was] a man attested by God to you by powers and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.
The next section of the sermon, beginning with “Men, Israelites,” goes from 2:22-35. These verses focus on Psalm 16:8-11, which Luke uses in conjunction with Psalm 110:1 to indicate that Jesus' resurrection is also the fulfillment of prophecy, just like the day of Pentecost. One of the first points of each sermon in Acts is that the events taking place fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures and were all part of God’s plan.

In 2:22 specifically, Luke's Christology focuses on the empowered humanity of Jesus. Jesus is specifically described as a man whom God endorsed by empowering him to do signs and wonders through the Holy Spirit. In this sense Jesus the man gives us an example of what is possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.

23. "This [man], given up by the appointed plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed through the hand of lawless people, having crucified [him]...
One feature of the sermons of Acts, of which this one is the most important and central one, is that the enemies of Christ did not prevail. Jesus' death was in accordance with the foreknowledge and plan of God. No one has ever gotten the best of God, not even for a moment.

24. "... whom God raised, having loosed the birth-pains of death, since it was not possible for him to be held by it.
The climax of every sermon in Acts except one (Stephen's sermon--he is stoned to death before he can get to this part of the sermon) is the statement that "God raised him from the dead." Notice again that the agency is that of God the Father rather than Jesus himself.

25. "For David says to him, 
'I saw the Lord before me constantly, 
    because he is on my right [hand]
    so that I might not be shaken.
The Greek version of Psalm 16:8 differs a little from the Hebrew, a hint that Luke is at least paraphrasing. The Hebrew reads, "I put the LORD" but the Greek reads, "I foresaw." While Peter might have known some Greek, it seems more likely that he would have spoken Aramaic on the Day of Pentecost, suggesting that Luke is at the very least making Peter's sermon conform to the text in which his audience would have read the psalm. More importantly, this different wording leads Luke's Peter to see these words as a prophecy by the psalmist, understood to be David, rather than a statement about the psalmist himself, as it likely was in its original meaning.

26. "'Because of this, my heart rejoiced,
    and my tongue exulted,
    and still my flesh will dwell in hope.
The version Luke's Peter quotes in 2:26 also follows the Septuagint with the expression "in hope" rather than the likely Hebrew, "securely." These variations should not bother us. Under God’s inspiration, The New Testament use of Scripture focused on the message the audience needed to hear, not on historical or inductive study of what the Old Testament texts originally meant. This use of Scripture was fully in keeping with the way most Jews read the biblical texts at the time. [5] Because God wants to be understood, he meets us where we are in our understanding, largely in our categories, and takes us from there.

27. Because you will not abandon my life in Hades,
    nor will you give your holy [one] to see corruption.
28. You have made known to me ways of life;
    you have filled me with gladness with your face.'

29. "Men, brothers [and sisters], being permissible for me to say with boldness to you concerning our patriarch David that he both died and was buried and his tomb is among us until this day.
Now Peter gives a spiritual interpretation of the psalm. The original psalmist was likely expressing his confidence that God was going to save him from dying. Hades was the Greek word for the place of the dead in general rather than hell as a place of torment for the wicked. “Hades” thus could be a metaphor for death. God was not going to let the psalmist die in his current situation. It was yet time for the psalmist’s body to decay. God was going to rescue him from his current danger.

Here in Acts 2, Luke’s Peter takes the psalm spiritually to mean that God would not leave the Messiah dead. Again, we should not be troubled that Peter reads the psalm differently than its original meaning. God is speaking through the words as Peter understands them and bringing a true message to the crowd.

30. "Therefore, being a prophet and having known that God swore to him with an oath [that] from the fruit of his loins to sit upon his throne, 31. "... having foreseen, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ that neither was he abandoned in Hades nor did his flesh see corruption, 32. this Jesus God raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
The core event to which the apostles gave witness was the resurrection. An apostle is someone who is sent with a commission. In Acts, the apostles were sent with a very clear task to give witness to the resurrection. In most cases in the New Testament, an apostle is someone to whom the risen Christ has appeared, who has been sent to witness to his resurrection, which means to witness to his Lordship.

As we mentioned, Peter is reading Psalm 16 through spiritual eyes. He is hearing a word that relates directly to Jesus, a fuller meaning to the biblical text when it is read in relation to Jesus and his resurrection. Christians still today often have the words of the Bible jump out at them in this way. The Spirit blows where he wants (John 3:8).

33. "Therefore, having been exalted to the right [hand] of God and the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father, he has poured out this that you yourselves both are seeing and hearing.
The New Testament indicates that the age of the Spirit can only commence once Jesus has completed his mission to die and rise from the dead. This is at least one sense in which the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The Son runs his part of salvation’s race then tags the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ returns to earth.

In a number of places, the Gospel of John almost echoes themes in Luke and Acts, making us wonder if John had read them. Here is a theme that John will develop in the later part of his Gospel. Jesus ascends to heaven and then sends the Holy Spirit.

34. "For David did not ascend to the skies, but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit on my right [hand] 35. until I should place your enemies under your feet."'
Here we have a foundational interpretation of Psalm 110:1 for the early church, one that may have been central to early Christian understanding of the resurrection. Jesus' resurrection is understood to be a cosmic enthronement whereby Jesus is exalted to God's right hand in the highest heaven.

The key to this interpretation is to see “my Lord” as David referring to the Messiah. In the original meaning, the psalmist was probably referring to an earthly king. In the original meaning, the psalmist says that Yahweh, the LORD, anointed the psalmist’s Lord, the king, and placed him as king at God’s right hand. In the spiritual interpretation, David writes of how YHWH would install the Messiah as king.

36. "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that both Lord and Christ God has made this Jesus, whom you yourselves crucified."
Here is the climax and finale of the sermon. Jesus has been enthroned as Lord and Messiah. God “has made him.” They crucified him. God enthroned him. The timing of the enthronement in context is post-resurrection. Thus we might say that Jesus was heir apparent up to this point, but then is seated on the throne after his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation. This is the “session,” the seating of Christ on the throne.

The vast majority of the New Testament puts the focus of Jesus’ identity as Messiah at his resurrection. Only the Gospel of John emphasizes the pre-existence of Jesus. In Acts, as in Paul and Hebrews, the resurrection and exaltation is Jesus’ commencement in office as Son of God. His anointing as king most focally takes place at this moment, even if sonship language might apply to him previous to that point as well.

The Response (2:37-41)
37. And having heard, they were pierced to the heart, and they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "What should we do, men, brothers [and sisters]?"
Here we have the response to Peter’s sermon. We should note that the boldness of Peter to preach is one of the manifestations of the power that has come on him because of the filling of the Holy Spirit. Immediately after the crucifixion, he and the disciples hid from those who might come after them. Now they are speaking boldly in public.

The crowd realizes what they have done. The crowd has a moment of conviction. Upon realizing that they have participated in the crucifixion of their own Messiah, they want to turn and see restoration.

38. And Peter says to them, "Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39. "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all [those] from afar as many as the Lord our God should call."

This verse unfolds how to call on the name of the Lord. First, one repents or turns from one's self-destructive path. Repentance is a major feature of Luke's theology (in contrast to Paul, who hardly mentions it). Then one believes or exercises faith. The crucial moment, however, is when one receives the Holy Spirit. This is the moment when one actually becomes part of the people of God, is cleansed of one's past sins, and is going to be saved on the Day of the Lord.

The timing of receiving the Spirit seems clear. While I deeply respect the tradition of my own church that receiving the Spirit is a subsequent experience to “conversion,” nothing in this verse suggests such a thing. The clear impression of the text is that when a person repents and is baptized in water, filling with the Spirit should follow. It is a problem in Samaria when they have been baptized but have not immediately received the Holy Spirit (8:14-17).

Sins are a problem and obstacle to reconciliation with God. In some way that Acts does not make explicit, baptism in the name of Jesus relates to the forgiveness of sins. It likely relates to a cleansing inside that corresponds to the cleansing of the body on the outside. This is not simply a matter of ritual. The right attitude must accompany the baptism—repentance.

Similarly, we might infer from the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43 that water baptism is a normal and important part of the process but not essential. The thief does not have an opportunity for baptism before his death. (True, this is before the age of the Spirit commences) Similarly, the Gentiles in Acts 10 receive the Holy Spirit before they are baptized in water. They are already “in” the people of God before the ritual act that signifies their cleansing and usually catalyzes the Holy Spirit coming in Acts.

The promise was first for the Jews. It was for all Israel. The good news was not something different from God’s promises to Israel but good news for true Israel and the true Israel of the future. In Acts 10 we will learn that the good news is for the Gentiles as well. It is as Joel said for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord.

40. And with many different words he was witnessing and exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from his crooked generation." 41. Therefore, those who received his word were baptized and about three thousand souls were added on that day.
Those who repent, are forgiven, and receive the Holy Spirit are part of the people of God. Within Israel, they are the true Israel, the righteous remnant. By contrast, those in Israel who have not belied were a “crooked” and destined for judgment. Perhaps Peter especially had the leadership of Israel at that time in mind.

About 3000 people respond positively to the message and join the Jesus movement. The pattern in Acts is repeated several times. Some group is praying and the Holy Spirit suddenly comes on them. The group receives power, along with the cleansing of the Spirit and forgiveness of sins.

That power shows itself in various ways. It typically involves boldness to witness to the good news. Sometimes they speak in other languages as part of this proclamation. Sometimes they have the power to heal, as in Acts 3 immediately following Pentecost. Two consequences usually follow also on these demonstrations. We will see persecution soon enough, and it seems to grow with each demonstration. 2:41 shows us the other typical consequence—people turning to the Lord. The number of “converts” to the Jesus movement also grows as time goes on.

Early Church Fellowship (2:42-47)
42. And they were holding fast to the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers.
One principle of biblical application is that “description is not prescription.” Just because Judas went out and hanged himself, we are not to do the same when we betray the Lord. In that instance, the text describes what happened without prescribing it. However, biblical narratives often do have what is called an “evaluative point of view.” Whenever God’s perspective is given, it is clearly the evaluative point of view of the text. [6] At other times, we must try to infer whether the story is implying that what happens is positive or negative.

These verses give us an idyllic picture of the earliest church, and Luke seems to consider this picture a very positive one indeed. That is, Luke wants us to see this picture as the ideal. He is not merely describing the early church. The evaluative point of view of Acts is entirely positive toward this picture.

The earliest Christian community involved teaching and teaching by the apostles. The source of their teaching is presumably the Holy Spirit, although they have also been apprentices of Jesus and have learned much from him. Community life involves fellowship (koinonia) and prayer. The importance of fellowship should not be underestimated. The breaking of bread suggests a level of mutual approval and intimacy. The early church became family.

Prayer is something that Luke positively emphasizes in both Luke and Acts. Luke has more parables and teaching on prayer than any other Gospel. The disciples were presumably praying on the Day of Pentecost before the Holy Spirit came.

43. And fear was coming on every soul, and many wonders and signs through the apostles were coming to be.
The apostles performed miracles, which brought a fear at the seriousness of the power of the Spirit. It is interesting that it is not suggested that all the believers there performed miracles. However, 1 Corinthians 12:10 suggests that ordinary people in the church could also have the gift to do so. Nothing in the biblical texts suggests that such gifts ended with the first apostles. Rather, in the age of the Spirit, we would expect these powers to be present in an ongoing way among Christian communities that have the Spirit.

44. And all the [ones] who believed were in the same [mind] and were holding all [things] common, 45. and the goods and the possessions they were selling and distributing them to all as ever they were having need.
There was a communal aspect to the early church. Those who had more possessions than they needed sold them and gave them to others who had need. The sense probably is not that they sold everything, although it is possible that some did. Those who think the Lord will return immediately or soon sometimes rashly do such things.

Again, the evaluative point of view of Acts is positive toward this sharing of possessions. It does not mandate it, however. Ananias and Sapphira were not mandated to sell all their property (5:4). Nevertheless, clearly Acts smiles on these believers sharing their excess with those in need. In other words, the early church behaved as a family, and they helped each other out accordingly.

46. And daily holding fast together in the temple and breaking bread at home, they were partaking of food with rejoicing and a generous heart, 47.praising God and having grace with all the people, and the Lord added to those being saved daily into the same [group].
They continued to pray at the temple. We get no sense at this point that they were anticipating that the temple would soon be destroyed. Indeed, Acts 21:24 suggests they continued to participate in the sacrificial system, perhaps implying that they did not yet understand the full scope of Christ’s atoning death. We have to remember that many things are clear to us in hindsight that were not yet clear to them.

The centrality of fellowship and eating in each other’s homes continues. The church is a new family. The “Lord’s supper” was such a meal that they probably shared weekly on Sundays. It was not at that time a small, distinct ceremony as we practice it today. It was probably more like what we call a pitch in dinner or potluck. Jude seems to call it an agape or “love feast” (Jude 12). Paul addresses abuses of the Lord’s supper at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

New people were “being saved” daily. This is shorthand for individuals repenting, being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, joining the people of God, and thus beginning a journey toward the salvation that would take place when the Lord returned and they did not face the wrath of God.

Nor is the sense one of “progressive salvation,” as if we are gradually being saved. Rather, people were being saved daily, one by one, salvation event by event. One person was saved and then another, not “I’m a little bit saved. Now I’m more saved.”

They also held favor with the people. Under peaceful circumstances, non-believers should respect and admire believers for their wholesome and peace-loving nature. One of Luke’s special emphases is the unified and peaceful nature of the church. Christianity sometimes had a bad reputation in the Roman empire. Luke wants Theophilus and all his readers to know that these rumors are false. Christians are not troublemakers by nature, although trouble sometimes comes to them from their opponents.

[1] temporal infinitive construction

[2] periphrastic

[3] genitive absolute

[4] question expecting a yes answer

[5] Cf. the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who says he composed some of the speeches in his history of the Peloponnesian War.

[6] Here we should remember that God meets us where we are in revelation. The books of the Bible are instances of God meeting his people largely within their own categories and taking them from there. For example, the perspective of God at the end of Job is God as revealed to the author of Job at that point in the flow of biblical revelation. It is a contextualized presentation of God’s perspective.