Digging Deep

July 26, 2010

Be Filled With The Spirit

Filed under: Biblical Studies, Christian Living, Craig Smith, Holy Spirit, Theology — Tags: , , , , , , — Craig Smith @ 6:15 AM

(this one’s a little tiny bit technical for a just bit…but the practical payoff is totally worth it!  :)   )

I spent most of July in Guatemala, lecturing on the book of Ephesians to pastors and ministers from all over Central and South America.  Preparing and delivering those lectures was a very enriching time for me and I will probably just go ahead, bite the bullet and write a full-length commentary.  In the meantime, though, I wanted to jot down one or two thoughts that have been particularly impactful.  Today, I want to focus on Eph. 5:18:  …and do not get drunk on wine, in which is dissapation, but instead be filled with the Spirit.

For many Christians, this is a familiar command, yet one which is not easily put into practice.  It’s hard not to read this verse and wonder, “How exactly can I do that?”  The not-getting-drunk part is easy to apply, but the be-filled-with-the-Spirit part is a little less concrete, isn’t it?  I remember when I was involved with Campus Crusade for Christ back in Kent, Ohio in the early 90’s, the staff used to talk about something called “spiritual breathing” in which we were to breathe out sin (i.e. confess our sin to God) and breathe in the power of the Holy Spirit (i.e. appropriate the power of the Holy Spirit for Christian living).  This was an attempt to make Paul’s command in Eph. 5:18 practical on a daily basis, an attempt which I fully endorse.  However, as well-intentioned as the attempt was, it fell a bit short in terms of actual practicality.  “Breathe in/appropriate the power of the Holy Spirit” is really no less abstract than Paul’s original command.

However, in my recent work on Ephesians I realized that Paul’s command is not abstract at all.  In fact, Paul gave us very explicit, practical instruction on how to go about being filled with the Spirit.  This instruction immediately follows the command in question:

…speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and being subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (Eph. 5:19-21)

Here, Paul uses five verbs, each of which gives us practical instruction on how to be filled by the Spirit.   Actually, to be technically accurate, it might be better to say that Paul instructs us how to position ourselves to be filled by the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is God, of course, and therefore is not subject to our will.  We cannot “make” the Holy Spirit do anything, but we can do things which make us ready to take advantage of the Holy Spirit’s preferred mode of operation.  When Paul says “be filled with the Holy Spirit”, the form of the verb “be filled” reflects this reality.  In the Greek, this verb is a present, passive imperative which is slightly odd.  See, the passive form suggests something that is done to us, rather than something that is done be us…hence “be filled” rather than “fill yourselves”.  Yet the fact that this is an imperative means that there is something which we must actively do in order for this to happen.  So while we cannot “fill ourselves” with the Spirit, we can put ourselves in a position to “be filled” by the Spirit and the five verbs in vv.19-21 outline what it is that we are to do.

Now I should probably point out that not all commentators agree with me on this.  In fact, it appears to me that most commentators take the five verbs in vv.19-21 as the results of being filled by the Spirit rather than the means to being filled by the Spirit.  Thus, most commentators think that being filled by the Spirit will result in speaking to one another in songs and hymns and spiritual songs, singing, making music, giving thanks and being subject to one another.  This interpretation is quite possible, because the five verbs in question here are actually participles which are usually translated in English with an “ing” ending:  speaking, singing, thanking, etc.  And participles may sometimes denote the results of an earlier verb, so I understand how commentators can come to this conclusion. 

However, I disagree with taking these participles as the result of being filled with the Spirit for basically four reasons.  First, if these verbs denote the result of being filled with the Spirit, then we have no practical instruction on how to go about doing what we are commanded to do.  Second, while participles can denote result of an earlier verb, they do not usually do so and probably shouldn’t be understood this way unless there is a clear indication of this in the text, such as the presence of a purpose-word (“so that…”, “in order that…”, etc.).  No such clear indication is present in Eph. 5.  Third, if these five actions are the result of being filled with the Spirit, then no further instruction regarding them would be required.  What I mean is that if being filled with the Spirit results in singing, then this singing is essentially out of our control.  No further instruction on how to sing would be necessary.  And yet these five participles have accompanying instruction, some of which are even in the form of imperatives (direct commands).  We are told what kinds of songs to sing, when to be thankful and given extensive instruction on how to “be subject to one another.”  This instruction goes on well into chapter 6.  But all of this instruction makes little sense if the verbs in question are themselves results.  That would be like saying “jump out of the window with the result that you are falling and I command you to hit the ground at a speed of 60 m.p.h.!”

The fourth reason I differ from many/most commentators in my interpretation of this passage is simply that understanding these verbs as means rather than results fits perfectly with other clear biblical teaching.  Why should singing praise and songs of adoration lead to being filled by the Spirit?  Because as Psalm 22:3 states, “[God] you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel”.[1]  This theme is echoed in other places as well, including Mat. 18:20.  Why should thankfulness lead to being filled by the Spirit?  Because in gratitude we focus on what God has done and thus align ourselves with His purposes rather than being fixated on our circumstances.  Why should ”being subject to one another” lead to being filled with the Spirit?  Because being subject to one another leads to unity and unity within the body of Christ grants us access to the Holy Spirit’s power.  This is a significant theme in Ephesians and is emphasized in many other parts of the New Testament as well. 

On the whole, then, I think it’s pretty clear that Paul is giving us solid, practical instruction on how to go about fulfilling the command to be filled with the Holy Spirit:  we are to worship God in song, we are to be thankful to him in all things and we are to be subject to one another, fostering unity within the body.

One final issue which some of you more observant readers may have already  noted:  understood this way, the command to “be filled with the Holy Spirit” is a command to the church rather than to individuals.  In other words, Paul is giving instruction here on how the church is to operate so that the church will be filled with the Holy Spirit.  This is not a command or instructions for individual believers.  Again, this goes against the grain of most popular teaching on the subject, but two things should be noted.  First, in the original Greek, the command is clearly plural, stressing the communal nature of the instruction.  The lack of a second person plural in English makes this difficult to bring out in translation but it is clear in the original.  Second, saying that the command to “be filled with the Spirit” is intended for the church as a whole does not mean that it does not also apply to individuals.  In fact, this command will only be fulfilled in the church as a whole to the extent that it is fulfilled in the lives of the individuals who make up that church.

So…if we want to experience the power of God in our churches, the answer’s probably not the newest church-growth technique or the latest preaching fad.  If we want to see God move in power among us, maybe we should be concentrating on what God has already told us to do in order to get ready for precisely that!

[1] There is some question about the translation of this line.  In addition to the normal translation given above it could also be rendered as “yet you are enthroned as the Holy one, You are the praise of Israel.”  However, this translation, while possible, seems awkward given the original Hebrew word-order.  Moreover, the LXX Greek translation of this line favors the more common translation given above.

May 20, 2010

The Bible in an Age of Skepticism

Filed under: Apologetics, Biblical Studies, Craig Smith, Theology — Tags: , , , , , , — Craig Smith @ 7:54 AM

Christian speaker and author Craig Smith speaks about the Bible in an age of skepticism on Daystar TV.


Buy the book here.

April 23, 2010

Making Right

Filed under: Christian Living, Craig Smith, Ethics, Morality, Philosophy, Theology — Tags: , , , , , , — Craig Smith @ 4:45 AM

A common question I get asked a Christian teacher:  what makes some things right and some things wrong?

The simplistic answer often given to this important question is that the Bible defines right and wrong, but there are two problems with this answer.  First, the Bible doesn’t directly address every question of right and wrong that we will encounter.  Second, the Bible is a means of revelation, not of determination.  In other words, the Bible doesn’t determine right and wrong, it merely reveals it, like turning a spotlight on a fence in a dark field.  As soon as you see the fence you know if you’re on the right or wrong side of the fence, but without the spotlight you might not even know there was a fence.  But the spotlight isn’t the fence, it merely reveals the fence.  So what is the fence?  What makes the authoritative determination of what is right and what is wrong?

As I see it, there are essentially three thee loci of right/wrong:  the nature of God, the nature of God’s creation and the nature of God’s will.  While there is some interconnectedness of all three, they can be thought of as distinct loci.

The first locus is the nature of God.  These are moral truths that depend on what God is like.  For example, lying is wrong because God is truth.  God Himself cannot lie (Heb. 6:18)  because His essential nature is truthful. Faithfulness is right because God is faithful, love is right because God is love, etc.  These are necessary (in the philosophical sense; i.e. they can’t be any other way), transcendent and unchanging truths.  God could never make a world where these moral truths didn’t apply because God Himself never changes in His essential nature. 

The second locus is the nature of God’s creation.  These are moral truths that emerge from the way God set the universe up.  I believe the prohibitions against homosexuality fit into this category.  There is no particular reason why we have to have 2 genders (male and female) that come together in marriage and produce children.  God could have made it so that there were 4 or 48!  He could have even created us so that there was only 1 gender and we spawned children like polyps!  If He had created humans in one of these other ways, the prohibitions against homosexuality wouldn’t apply.  However…we don’t live in that universe.  The universe that we inhabit was set up with 2 genders and homosexuality was forbidden because it goes against the way God created this universe to function.  These second kind of moral truths are also unchanging, at least so long as we inhabit this universe.  They are not, however, necessary because they do not directly emerge from God’s unchanging nature.

The third locus of right and wrong is the nature of God’s will.  So, for instance, God told the Israelites not to eat pork.  There is nothing inherently wrong with pork.  In fact, before His covenant with Moses and the people of Israel, God allowed people to eat pork (see Gen. 9:3).  Moreover, Jesus declared all foods clean in Mar. 7:19, so pork was and is acceptable food for humans generally…but not for the Israelites during the O.T. covenant.  Why?  Well, we can speculate on why, but I think it boils down to making the Israelites noticably distinct.  But that’s another discussioin.  My point here is simply this:  pork isn’t inherently bad, but God told the Israelites not to eat it.  If they did eat it, it was considered a moral lapse and atonement was required.  In other words, this instance of right and wrong emerged from what God told them to do.  The same holds true for individuals.  If God told me to go into ministry and I didn’t, I would be sinning.  But if you haven’t been called to ministry, then not going into ministry isn’t a sin.  Again, what makes the choice about not going into ministry right or wrong is God’s will for each of us.  So, this particular locus of right and wrong is neither transcendent nor unchanging.  It can change as God reveals a new phase of His plan for His people (either corporately or individually).

So there’s my take on making right:  right emerges from the nature of God, from the nature of God’s creation or the nature of God Himself.

April 21, 2010

Cultic Prostitution?

Filed under: Biblical Studies, Craig Smith, Theology — Tags: , , , — Craig Smith @ 7:10 AM

How’s that for a provocotive post title? 

One of my favorite things about being a Christian speaker and teacher is that I get asked all kinds of interesting questions.  Today I was asked about whether God forbids prostitution or merely forbids temple prostitution (also called cultic prostitution; the act of engaging in prostitution as part of a religious observance).  The reason for the question is that the Bible seems to speak most directly against temple prostitution but has less direct prohibitions against prostitution more generally. 

In reality, however, the Bible prohibits all forms of prostitution fairly clearly, although there’s a translation difficulty that can make this issue seem less clear than it actually is.

For instance, Deu. 23:17-18 uses the two Hebrew words for prostitution, qadesh and zanah:  None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute (qadesh), nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute (qadesh).  18 “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot (zanah) or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Within Semitic language groups generally, qadesh meant a cultic prostitute whereas zanah was more typically used of a common prostitute.  However, Deu 23:17-18 connects them as being essentially the same by speaking of cultic prostitutes and then immediately stating that the wages earned by a common prostitute (zanah) could not be brought into the temple.  While this does not explicitly forbid common prostitution in the same way that it forbids cultic prostitution, it is is clearly a prohibition against any woman or man being either kind of prostitute (i.e. if the money earned by prostitution was unacceptable to the Lord, then even more so is the means by which it was earned).

Every occurrence of qadesh in the Hebrew Bible appears to be paired with zanah, strongly suggesting that the Hebrews saw no distinction between cultic and common prostitution.  That being the case, the prohibition of Deu 23:17 should probably be translated as “none of the daughters of Israel shall be a prostitute” instead of  “…none…shall be a cult prostitute.”  Again, while some Semitic languages used the two words distinctly, the Hebrew usage of qadesh and zanah appear to be essentially synonymous.

Support for this translation is found in the LXX which renders both qadesh and zanah as pornē (There shall not be a harlot (pornē ) of the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a fornicator (pornē ) of the sons of Israel; there shall not be an idolatress of the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be an initiated person of the sons of Israel. 18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot (pornē ), nor the price of a dog into the house of the Lord thy God, for any vow; because even both are an abomination to the Lord thy God).  This clearly means that the first translators of the Hebrew Bible understand the two Hebrew terms to be synonymous. 

Consequently, although some English translations distinguish between the two Hebrew terms, translating one as a cultic prostitute and the other as a common prostitute, this distinction is probably not intended in the majority of the Old Testament passage which use the two words (although there are certainly some places where the distinction may still be meaningful).  Thus, prohibitions against “temple prostitution” are almost always prohibitions against “common prostitution as well.”

February 22, 2010

Olympic Imperfection

Filed under: Susan Rieske, Theology — Susan Rieske @ 3:47 PM

I love the Olympics. I love everything about it: the athletic excellence, the patriotism, the personal stories, the competition…all of it. And I’m not even a huge sports fan. But the Olympics, well…it’s different. For this year’s Olympics, my excitement began as it always does with the opening ceremony. And even though it was tinged with the sadness over the death of the Georgian Olympian, the ceremony was filled with the usual excellence of opening ceremonies…until the end, that is. Until the glitch.

As usual, the ceremony culminated in the great final event: the lighting of the Olympic cauldron. Four Canadian sports heroes were to simultaneously light the cauldron through giant pillars that were to rise up out of the floor. However, to everyone’s dismay, one pillar did not come up. The door failed to open. What the Canadians planned as a stunning display of perfection actually became a stunning display of imperfection. The grand finale of the night was somewhat soiled. It was still amazing, yes, but not perfect.

Perfection is an interesting term. Many moments during this Olympics will be considered perfect and others considered not so perfect. But what makes something perfect? If it has no mistakes? No glitches? No blemishes? Perhaps. But isn’t perfection somewhat in the eye of the beholder? Something one person might consider perfect, another might not consider perfect, right? If perfection is indeed in the eye of the beholder, than the beholder somehow determines perfection. In the Olympics, the judges are the primary ones who determine perfection, although as we know, they almost never issue a perfect score in anything, do they? Their standards of perfection are very high.

As I think about Olympic perfection, my thoughts are drawn towards God’s view of perfection. What are his standards? As a perfect God, we might guess that he must have extremely high standards of perfection. In fact, the Bible says this very thing. That to God, perfection means absolutely no mistakes, no errors, no blemishes…100% perfect. And this is the kind of perfection he asks from us. Yes, a standard of perfection even higher than that demanded by the Olympic judges.

Why? Well, for one reason, because he himself is so completely and wholly perfect, only things that are perfect can be in close relationship with him. If anything imperfect were to come in close contact with God, it would, in theory, soil him.

My two oldest children are very different. My son is quite neat and orderly. As for my daughter…well…not so much. This is never quite as evident as when they go out to play. My son can spend the day outside on the muddiest of days and come in perfectly clean. However, with my daughter, it seems as if dirt jumps off the ground and clings magnetically to her. She cannot look at dirt without getting dirty. If my daughter and dirt are in the same universe, dirt will find her instantly. This is why to keep her clean, we need to keep her far away from anything that even approximates dirt.

That is kind of how it is with God. For God to stay clean, to stay perfect, he has to stay far away from dirt. And of course I am not talking about physical dirt, but spiritual dirt. Something the Bible calls “sin.” And his home, heaven, needs to remain pure and imperfection-free. No dirt. No sin. Nada. Nothing.

Hence, the problem with us and God. We all want to be in heaven, someday, right? I have yet to meet a single person who says after death, they don’t want to be in a happy, pain-free, perfect place. But if we are all imperfect (and does any of us really think we are not?), how in the world can we ever get anywhere near a perfect God who by his nature necessitates complete perfection?

Thankfully, the Bible gives us a solution for this in Jesus, the only human who truly was perfect. We have the ability to make a trade with him: our imperfect life for his perfect life. One moment in time, one decision, one commitment, one expression of need, one sincere prayer of surrender, asking for Jesus’ perfection to become ours, and it’s done. Jesus takes our imperfection and gives us his perfection. After that point, God no longer looks at us and sees imperfection. Even though we continue to make mistakes, he sees perfection. We gain what every Olympian can only dream of: a perfect score. And we have instant access to a perfect God and can live with him forever in a perfect heaven. No imperfection then will enter there. Nothing is soiled. All remains pure…clean…perfect.

So have you asked Jesus to make the trade? Will God look at you and see your imperfection or will he see Jesus’ perfection? That day we stand before him will truly be the finale of our lives. I hope it is a stunning display of perfection.

February 15, 2010

Jesus & Joy

Filed under: Biblical Studies, Christian Living, Craig Smith, Encouragement, Theology — Tags: , , , , — Craig Smith @ 11:19 AM

I’ve been thinking about joy a lot lately.  I have not been thinking about all the technical distinctions we try to make between “joy” and “happiness”, though I suppose there is some validity in those distinctions.  No, my thoughts have been more about whether or not joy is  really evident in the Christian community.  “Christian community” is probably too broad.  As a Christian speaker and teacher, I get to go to a lot of different churches and Christian events where the presence of authentic joy is kind of hit-or-miss.  Some places seem to bristle with joy.  Others are as joyless as a funeral parlor.

It seems to me that there are two types of joyless Christians:  those who realize something is missing and those who wear their joylessness like a badge of honor.  I don’t really mind the first type.  In fact, I love being able to share things that God has taught me about joy and passion and purpose in the hope that God will use that ministry to awaken something in my stuggling brothers and sisters. But that second type of joylessless I have very little patience for.  And at least part of my lack of patience with those who seem to think that following Jesus – at least in this life – is supposed to be a somber, bleak affair comes from Jesus’ description of his own ministry:

A   We played the flute for you and you did not dance

          B   We sang a dirge for you and you did not mourn

          B’   John came neither eating nor drinking and they say “He has a demon.”

A’   The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, “Here is a glutton and a drunkard…”

Here, in Luke 7:32-34, Jesus contrasts his own ministry with John the Baptist’s by the use of a chiasm (where the first half of the passage corresponds in reverse order to the second).  Joh played a dirge by not eating or drinking (i.e. he didn’t celebrate) but Jesus came playing a flute and inviting people to dance by eating and drinking (i.e. he celebrated).  Of course, Jesus spoke this to a hostile audience who rejected both John and Jesus, but the way Jesus characterized his own ministry is fascinating, isn’t it?  Jesus came playing a flute, eating and drinking…in other words, Jesus’ ministry is a celebration of God’s involvement in our world. 

How can we possibly respond to that kind of ministry with anything less than authentic joy?

February 3, 2010

A Clarifying Contrast

Filed under: Biblical Studies, Christian Living, Craig Smith, Encouragement, Theology, Uncategorized — Craig Smith @ 11:14 AM

Ephesians 2:1-10 contains one of the most interesting contrasts between the way we were before Jesus and the way we are now.  The entire passage is chiastic (the first half of the passage has a series of units that correspond in inverse order to the units of the second half), but the one the two corresponding units that most grab my attention are 2:1 and 2:10:

2:1  As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live…

2:10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance for us to do.

The NIV translated quoted here doesn’t quite capture the essence of the thought.  In both 2:1 and 2:10, Paul uses a particular Greek verb:  peripateo (peri = around, pateo = to walk) which means something like “to walk around in” or, more meaningfully, “to be characterized by”.  This is the verb translated in 2:1 as “used to live” and in 2:10 as “to do”.  Literally, though, these verses speak of “walking around in” sin before Christ and “walking around in” good deeds since we trusted in Christ.

What a powerful and motivating contrast!  Whereas before we knew Jesus our whole lives were characterized by sin and transgression, since we came to faith in Jesus, our lives are meant to be characterized by good deeds which God has prepared in advance for us to do! 

I look forward to discovering those good deeds today, and doing them for Jesus’ sake!  Happy hunting!

Powered by WordPress