The Proper Use of Scriptural Authority - Titus 2:15

INTRODUCTION (Read Titus 2:1-15)

The subject of “authority” seems to be a divisive issue for Christians these days. Many write book after book and preach sermon after sermon about who has authority over whom and why. Many pastors will correctly say that Bible teachers must teach with authority. However, many will also teach a dictatorial type of leadership both within the home where husbands claim strict authority over their wives, and in the church there are many who will tell pastors that they need to have strict authority over their “sheep.” Many pastors can’t talk about church without concentrating on church government and some seem as if they are unable to think about marriage without asking who has authority in it. And we can’t even listen to the Bible unless we have first heard the latest word on its authority. It seems that we have a problem understanding the biblical nature of authority.

It’s certainly possible that this is more of a problem in America because we don’t usually think of ourselves as being subject to authority. We think of ourselves as “free,” able to do as we please. Even so, our lives are filled with people and structures which demand our obedience. The police officer on the corner and the FBI have authority. Authority is not just the ability to compel another person. We call that “power.” Power is shared by both cops and robbers. Yet only the cop has “authority” – the morally legitimated ability to compel another. Indeed, this is our common notion of authority – it is a legitimated ability to compel another, backed (if need be) by force. However, this common notion doesn’t work when transferred into Christian contexts, for Jesus and his disciples had a very different vision of authority.

Christ’s teaching about authority among His followers contrasts their experience of it with every other society. Jesus said to His disciples that “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over their subjects and make that appear good by calling themselves ‘benefactors.’” In other words, Jesus was telling them that they exercise their power and try (more or less successfully) to make people think that it is for their own good. But Christ goes on to tell us that it should never be this way in the church. On the contrary, Jesus said that in the church, the one who leads is to do so as a servant and the one who rules is to do so meekly and with humility, as if he is the youngest of his family (Luke 22:24-27). Lest this lose its impact, you must stop and remember that in the first century, the youngest of families and the slaves of those families are precisely those without authority, at least in the normal sense of the word. Yet this is what leadership among Jesus’ people is to be like.

Sadly, we nearly always avoid the force of Christ’s drastically different teaching on the attitude and behavior of church leaders by transforming it into some sort of pious rhetoric. Pastors often style themselves as “servants” but sadly, they act just like the kings of the Gentiles in exercising authority. Yet even the kings of the Gentiles try to make their authority palatable by legitimating it with pious rhetoric; this is why they call themselves “benefactors.” But, how are many pastors today any different? How many times have pastors “pulled rank” on you when you have gently confronted them with their unbiblical actions and they’ve simply said, “Well, I’m THE pastor of this church and I’m telling you that this is the way it’s going to be!” O’ what a pompous and prideful attitude! Brethren, if the elders of this church are to lead like Jesus’ followers, we need to take seriously His teaching that church leaders are to be as meek as children and serve as slaves, those who in the first century, had no authority.

The NT uses two words which correspond to different aspects of what we mean by “authority.” The first, dunamis (du,namij), is usually (and rightly) translated as “power.” (cf. Rom. 1:16) This word is less important for us because though because although this type of “power” may be associated with some kinds of authority, it also can exist without authority. Someone waving a gun has power over others, but that does not necessarily give them the authority that they demand. Still, it will be worthwhile to look at who has du,namij (power) in the NT. If you take a walk through the NT, you will find that the following possess power: God, Jesus, the Spirit, as well as angels, demons, and “principalities and powers.” Human beings, oddly, don’t have power themselves; they are only energized by these other powers. The ministry of the gospel, the miracles of the apostles, and the lives of believers are all conditioned on the “power of God.” Strikingly, the NT seldom, if ever, recognizes human beings with “power” in their own right because power always comes to people from elsewhere.

Things become even more interesting when we turn to the other relevant Greek word: evxousi,a (exousia). This word is usually translated as “power” or “authority” and is the closest equivalent to our English word “authority.” The NT’s list of those who have evxousi,a (exousia) is essentially the same as those who have du,namij (dunamis): God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels and demons. But now, the list extends to humans who are not merely energized by heavenly authority but have authority themselves. So, kings have authority to rule (Ro 13:1-2) and Jesus’ disciples have authority over diseases and spirits (e.g., Matt. 10:1). Believers have authority over the various facets of their lives – their possessions (Acts 5:4), and eating, drinking, and being married (1Co 11:10). What is striking, however, is that the NT does not say anything about the average Christian having this type of authority over other believers (i.e., the evxousi,a [exousia] and du,namij [dunamis] types).

However, as we approach the end of chapter two of Paul’s epistle to Titus, we see in verse 15 one of the clearest statements in Scripture regarding the authority that is delegated to church leaders. Paul sent this letter to Titus, who was what we would today call a “church planter” or “missionary.” In the first century, missionaries such as Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Epaphroditus, and Titus would have been thought of as a “little-a” apostles – men who weren’t of the class of the twelve original apostles, but functioned as an apostle insofar as preaching and propagating apostolic doctrine through planting churches, appointing elders, and then helping to organize those local churches into self-governing bodies under the supreme authority of Jesus Christ.[1]

After the apostle Paul has instructed Titus as to the proper structure and function of New Testament church leadership (Ch. 1) and behavior of the saints (Ch. 2), he reminds Titus of his necessary, Biblical authority which was to “speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” This biblical authority was one that was to be exercised not only by apostles, but also by elders and it was especially important for the elders in the house churches of Crete after Titus moved on to another location to plant churches. We will look at verse 15 today and study the proper Scriptural authority of church leaders under four important points:

I. Scriptural Authority is Not Rooted in Personal Authority.

II. Scriptural Authority Is Not Rooted in Church Authority.

III. Scriptural Authority Is Not Rooted in Intellectual Authority.

IV. Scriptural Authority is Not Rooted in Experience.

EXPOSITION AND APPLICATION

I. Scriptural Authority is Not Rooted in Personal Authority.

Titus 2:15 These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

The word “authority” in verse 15 (evpitagh/j) is a strong word that means “to command, give orders, direction” so as to put things in their proper place. In literature outside the NT this word was used to describe the orders given by a highly-ranked military authority. It is the word used when Christ forcibly and powerfully commanded the demons to obey Him (Mark 1:27). That same force is used here for the authority given Paul by God in Titus 1:3 where he says that the truth of the gospel of Christ was manifested at the proper time “. . .in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior.” We see that Paul tells Timothy the same thing in 1 Tim. 1:1 where he says, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus” and Paul also says in Romans 16:26 that this type of Scriptural authority originates in the eternal decree of God.

The Jews of Jesus’ day were used to their religious leaders demanding strict obedience to their authority and traditions. They were treated as if what they said carried great force and weight. However, after being confronted with the teaching from Jesus the listening crowds could tell the great difference between a mere show of outward religion versus the teaching of the One who had the utmost authority. Matthew 7:28-29 tells us that the crowd was “amazed at [Jesus’] teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.” Christ’s authority did not come from the traditional ecclesiastical and religious order of His day, for His authority was not rooted in that of man’s traditions and institutions, but was rooted in the power and authority of is heavenly Father. He plainly told the Pharisees such in the temple when He said, “So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. ¹⁷ "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:16-17)

Jesus also pointed out that those who are truly being drawn by God unto salvation and those who are following after Him will see that His teachings carry heavenly authority, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.” (John 8:28; cf. vv. 38, 40, 12:49). Now, if Christ, as the sinless and perfect Son of God restricted Himself to speaking only those things which the Father wanted Him to speak in His earthly ministry, how much more should missionaries and pastors recognize that the only way they can speak with full heavenly authority is when they are speaking the truths of Scripture? (!) This teaching is seen in Titus 1:9 where Paul says that an elder must be one whose authority exists because they “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” In other words, if the elder doesn’t hold to sound doctrine, then he carries neither the ability nor the authority to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it!

The elder is called by God to accurately interpret and proclaim the word of God with compassion, humility, and meekness, as a bondservant of Christ, but he is also commanded as God’s ambassador to present God’s message with crystal-clarity so that God’s people will know what God requires of them. So, it is important to make it clear at this point that pastoral authority does not exist outside of God’s word. In other words, if a pastor does not have contextually-based, Scriptural warrant for commanding or directing God’s people to do something, then he has no authority at all. As long as an elder teaches faithfully and in accordance with God’s word, he has the wonderful privilege of ministering God’s word to God’s people with God’s authority. The elder has not been called to share his personal insights, opinions, philosophies, or even his own contrived theology. He does not have the authority to entertain with words that tickle the ears of his listeners so as to gain a hearing from them by appealing to their fleshly whims or prejudices.

The pastor-elder must remove himself from the picture and let God’s word speak through Him clearly and unhindered. No matter what his educational background, pastoral experience, or abilities are, he only has spiritual authority insofar as what he says conforms to the word of God! When an elder does proclaim God’s word clearly, faithfully, and correctly, those who reject what is said are as much accountable for their rejection of what the elder said as if they would be had the Lord Jesus Himself spoke the same truth to them! It is in that way, and only that way that an elder is able to speak God’s commands with spiritual authority. It is also in that way that He is commanded to speak God’s word with spiritual authority. Consider what Paul told Timothy, “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. ³ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, ⁴ and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:2-4) So, what was Paul’s command to Timothy in order to correct the falsehood that abounded in the Ephesian church? “Preach the Word” and use it to “reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” The same word used by Paul in 2 Tim. 4:2 “reprove” is also used in Titus 2:15 (evle,gcw). It is obviously a negative command meaning “to convince and correct one who does not yet recognize or admit that he must turn away from what is wrong.”[2] So, the pastor is to be continually “reproving” with the word of God as needed (It is used here as a present active imperative here, hence the ongoing nature of the reproving.). This is the strongest and most forceful of these three imperatives in Titus 2:15. This word is sometimes translated “to rebuke, correct, censure, punish, convict.” “It designates fatherly or divine correction and [even] punishment for the purpose of improvement.”[3] (Cf. 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:13). Many pastor/elders are reticent to correct those in the assembly who are in unrepentant sin. They are pastors fearful of the sheep. They argue, that if they speak out, the immature sheep will seek other pastures. But the job of the elder is to pastor, and, to oversee what is happening with the flock. Thus, the elders must be prepared to stand up and reprove those who need it no matter what the consequences. This does not mean that they should embarrass someone who is morally or spiritually slipping, but instead, they should first seek biblical restoration one-on-one, in private in accordance with Matthew 18:15. But how often is this done? Summing it up, the faithful elder must strive to make his teaching clear, compelling, and most of all, Biblical.

Now, this means that a pastor must understand where his line of biblical authority ends. Many pastors that are actually hirelings end up emotionally manipulating their flocks into thinking that anything they demand of their people in Jesus’ name has God’s approval and authority. However, these hirelings and their deceived flocks fail to realize that pastors have no personal spiritual authority at all. Pastors only speak authoritatively when they speak and teach the Word of God accurately. This is why Paul said to Titus “these things speak, and exhort, and reprove with all authority, let no man disregard you.” Paul knew that Titus, as an apostle, would have full spiritual authority in the churches on Crete as long as he spoke the truth in accordance with God’s word and not his own personal opinions. You see brethren, spiritual leaders may have great insight in many areas, may be very intelligent, and may have a good handle on what’s going on in the world – but none of those things make an elder spiritually authoritative. They cannot command believers to follow God’s word if they themselves are not speaking God’s commands. Remember, in and of themselves, left to their own opinion, they are absolutely powerless. This brings us to point number two.

II. Scriptural Authority Is Not Rooted in Church Authority.

A second presumed area of authority is in the ecclesiastical or religious realm. Certain cults and religious groups lay claim to such great spiritual authority. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses claims to be God’s prophetic voice on earth and the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only true church of Jesus Christ. For fifteen hundred years the Roman Catholic Church has claimed authority over human governments and various countries. It has also claimed to have the rights over the very souls of men, which especially became a heated point of debate during the era right before the Protestant Reformation. Even though it affirms that the Bible is the word of God, it also claims to have infallible traditions that are equal to Scripture and sometimes override Scripture. Not only that, but their prime spiritual leader, the Pope, claims to be the next successor of the original 12 apostles and when he speaks authoritatively (i.e., an “ex cathedra” proclamation) then such proclamation is infallible, binding, and carries divine authority for all Catholics. It is also asserted that the accumulated announcements of the previous popes, the papal decrees, the church councils, and the teachings of the magisterium as a whole have the same authority as the Bible. To make things more complicated, the Catholic Church grants to its priests the authority to forgive sins, not only when prescribed confession is made but also through last rites (even if a person is completely unconscious at the time). All such religious authority is simply false, man-made traditions that are rotten to the core. This brings us to point number three.

III. Scriptural Authority Is Not Rooted in Intellectual Authority.

One of the chief characteristics of the move from healthy Christianity to the national apostasy of a nation is when men begin to think that the ideas of their own minds, working strictly apart from the input of divine revelation, carry any kind real and meaningful authority. This is what is called autonomous rationalism and it spawned such movements as the Renaissance and Enlightenment.[4] At that time in European history, many thought that autonomous reasoning was elevated to the status of deity and that man was essentially the “supreme being” of his world. This idea is the foundation of today’s modern secular humanist movement.

Man’s intellectual ability is a gracious gift given to Him by God. It shows that we are created in His image because just as God is rational and intellectual, so we, as His special creatures are rational and intellectual too. However, our intellects have been corrupted by the Fall and the unsaved mind is always at war with God (Rom. 8:7). Paul made it clear to the church at Rome that God exists and that all the heathen who have never been exposed to the revelation found in Scripture will be judged and condemned nonetheless because they failed to heed the knowledge that is intuitive within them, namely, that God exists (Rom. 1:20). Thus, the unregenerate mind is in sinful rebellion against God and seeks to throw off all the chains of God’s restraint upon their lives and operate autonomously. Paul said that such men, “even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools . . .” (Rom. 1:21-22).

In like manner, many pastors sadly think that with their own skills and worldly insight, that they can help people solve their problems and overcome whatever moral, spiritual, or emotional tribulations may come their way. They refer them to the newest and greatest programs or try to get them to figure out their personality types so that they can then implement a plan for them to adjust their environment to fit their personality types. But brothers and sisters, I believe the apostle Paul would have rebuked this worldly thinking with this statement, “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. ² For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” (1 Cor. 2:1-2) This brings us to the fourth type of false authority that spiritual leaders should run from.

IV. Scriptural Authority is Not Rooted in Experience.

The real challenge of the pastor is to keep his own intuition and experience out of the text and to keep himself out of the teaching so that the voice God alone, speaking through the divinely inspired Scriptures is clearly heard. For the apostle Paul said, “For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake.” (2 Cor. 4:5) Sadly, congregations have heard for decades the preacher’s insights and learned the most recent psychological and social theories. Therefore, its no surprise that when these congregations of unregenerate people hear a “Thus says the Lord” type of statement from a pastor they are shocked and offended. To these untrained and unregenerate ears, the truth and the standards of Scripture seem unloving, harsh, outdated, and culturally irrelevant. The man who proclaims such things is also viewed in the same light.

Many church attendees simply do not want to hear the teaching of God’s divinely authoritative and demanding word. This means that they also abhor our divinely authoritative and demanding God! They are those whom Paul warned Timothy about, those who would “accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires”, teachers who would cause them to “have their ears tickled.” (2 Tim. 4:3) Certainly there is no short supply of false teachers who will gladly preach to meet people’s felt-needs so as to soothe their flesh and shout “peace and safety” when there is neither spiritual nor doctrinal peace and safety (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). As John MacArthur states,

By and large, the most popular preaching is broad-minded, anecdotal, entertaining, ego-building, and above all, never confrontational or dogmatic. It offends no pride, disturbs no conscience, and is a clear reflection of the humanistic spirit of the age, in which tolerance and unity at any cost are the supreme virtues.[5]

The cure for the spiritual bankruptcy that faces us daily is found in the consistent application of the word of God to our daily lives. We learn what the word requires of us as we submissively learn (1 Tim. 2:11) what God requires of us through clear and direct pastoral teaching (Titus 1:9). This is why Paul could say that Titus was to “speak and exhort” these things with all authority. The word “exhort” here is the common word parakale,w (parakaleo) that could also be translated “counsel” or “comfort.” The tense here indicates that Titus was to “be continually advising/counseling”[6] the Christians of Crete. The “these things” (tau/ta) mentioned in verse fifteen refers to all the commands Paul gave in the first fourteen verses above. He wants to ensure that they are repeated over and over again, with full reasoning power and conviction. Paul knows that the church is a body of Christians who have different problems and who will not mature and grow at the same pace. He knows that all believers do not fact the same temptations or issues. However, he also knows that the power of the gospel does not depend upon his personal authority, it doesn’t depend upon some supposed ecclesiastical apostolic authority, it doesn’t depend upon his autonomous intellect, nor does it reside in his ability to attract a crowd with smooth words and entertainment. No, the cure for spiritual bankruptcy is found in a clear, consistent, and continuous exhortation of repentance coming directly from the word of God through the elders of the church during the teaching that takes place in the gathered assembly on the Lord’s Day or it comes through individual Christians coming alongside the sinning brother or sister and either comforting them or calling them to repentance.

As verse 15 says, this exhortation comes from the spiritual leaders of the church primarily through the means of speaking. “Speak” in verse 15 is (lale,w – a present active imperative) is the most common word for simply talking or telling something in the NT. Paul wants this “telling” to be an ongoing process that continually reminds the saints of what he has cautioned about. It could be translated “keep on telling” them about what I said. The elder’s responsibility is to teach, announce, disclose, and keep on telling the truth to those whom God causes to understand so as to promote their spiritual growth. Finally, Paul’s closing admonition to Titus is this: “Let no one disregard you.” He knows that people inside and outside the churches of Crete will blow him off and try to talk behind his back to create dissension in the churches. The word “disregard” is a compound verb in the original language[7] that means, “Let no one think around you.” Or “Let no one think beyond you,” in the sense of writing off your abilities, thoughts, or authority. This verb is also used here as a present active imperative, as the previous three verbs in the verse. This means that Titus is to “be continually on guard not to let others write you off.” “Let no one think around you (and so despise you) . . .[it] implies the possibility of one making mental circles around one and so ‘out-thinking’ him.”[8] Those who have spent any time at all in the pastoral ministry know that there are some in the congregation who are always playing games. They plan and plot against the elders. They are continually being contentious and bringing on strife. This is why Paul warns the Corinthian Christians, “There is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?” (1 Cor. 3:3b). Such disobedience was demonic, and Paul commanded that it not be tolerated in the church.

CONCLUSION

Paul ends the chapter with the command to teach in both doctrine and ethics. It’s as if Paul says to Titus and all future church leaders, “These are your themes. You are not to communicate them objectively and hesitantly as if they were mere facts, but you are to proclaim and command them as truths directly from the Lord! Just as the very heart and soul of God had to be contained in Titus’ proclamation, so it goes with the church leaders today. When Paul commands Titus to have godly and biblical reasons behind the commands he utters, so must the pastors of this church and all other local churches follow suit. Oh what an awesome day it will be when faithful men of our times and the centuries gone by stand before the Lord and here, “Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’” (Matt. 25:23)

---

[1] See “Are There Apostles In Today’s Church?” (http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=1) for a detailed description of the “little-a” apostles that exist today in the form of church planters/missionaries.

[2] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Titus (Chicago, Ill: Moody Press, 1996), 132.

[3] Horst Balz, Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

[4] The Enlightenment lead to the French Revolution, which has also been called the “atheistic revolution” where many a church was burned down and many a priest or pastor killed in the name of “rationalism.”

[5] MacArthur, 131.

[6] The tense/voice/mood is present active imperative.

[7] From peri (“around, beyond”) and frone,w (“to think, consider”).

[8] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1931), 605.

The Slippery Slope of Naturalism

Note: The following is a series of notes presented several years ago at an apologetics conference. Enjoy!

INTRODUCTION

Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism refers to the view that nature is the “whole show” of all there is. There is no supernatural realm and no supernatural intervention in the world. In the strict sense, all forms of nontheisms are naturalistic, including atheism (the belief that God doesn’t exist), pantheism (God is everything and in everything), deism (There is a supernatural being that created the world, but isn’t interested in the universe and doesn’t perform miracles in it), and agnosticism (You can’t be sure that there is a God).

However, some theists, especially scientists, hold a form of methodological naturalism. That is, while acknowledging the existence of God and the possibility of miracles, they employ a method of approaching the natural world that does not admit of miracles (such as the Origin of Life). This is true of many theistic evolutionists. They insist that to admit miracles in nature to explain the unique or anomalous is to invoke “the God of the gaps.”[1] In this sense they are bedfellows with the antisupernaturalists, who deny miracles on the grounds that they are contrary to the scientific method.

NATURALISM, ORIGIN, AND OPERATION SCIENCE

Naturalistic scientists claim that they must practice methodological naturalism, i.e. that natural causes are the only ones allowed, and God, if He exists, did nothing that can be investigated contrary to Romans 1:18–23 which says,

Romans 1:18-23 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

These naturalistic scientists claim that if they only accept natural causes as an explanation, then this doesn’t have to necessarily imply that nature is all that really does exist, and God doesn’t.[2] However, the opposite is true, which is one reason methodological naturalism is promoted by so many atheists — atheists must believe that nature is all there is because the other option is, for them, frightening.

The scare tactic they use to promote methodological naturalism is reasoning like:

‘It is simply not possible to solve a scientific question if one is willing to invoke a supernatural answer, because supernatural answers foreclose further scientific inquiry. As we have already noted, a person who accounts for the motion of the planets by asserting that angels propel them is simply not going to be able to account for Kepler’s laws of planetary motion in any kind of fruitful way.’

This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past which can never be repeated or tested and must always start with certain assumptions about what may have happened.

Operational science has indeed been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, e.g. putting men on the moon and curing diseases. As the Bible explains in Genesis 1 & 2, because creation was finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation science, and would not invoke a miracle to explain any repeating event in nature in the present. So a creationist would actually not dispute Lerner’s statement as far as operational science is concerned, despite his best efforts to caricaturize our position. This can be shown in a letter that a creation scientist wrote to an enquirer who believed that atoms had to be held together by miraculous means:

“‘Natural laws’ also help us make predictions about future events. In the case of the atom, the explanation of the electrons staying in their orbitals is the positive electric charge and large mass of the nucleus. This enables us to make predictions about how strongly a particular electron is held by a particular atom, for example, making the science of chemistry possible. While this is certainly an example of Col. 1:17, simply saying ‘God upholds the electron’ doesn’t help us make predictions.”

So naturalists are wrong in saying that creationists are in any way hindered in real operational science research, either in theory or in practice.

In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science.

The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through silly assertions such as the following by another anti-supernaturalist named Levitt (as quoted by Lerner):

‘… evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.’

However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no-one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.

To explain further: the laws that govern the operation of a computer are not those that made the computer in the first place. The naturalist’s anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyze a computer’s workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead. Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup. Let’s look at some forms of metaphysical naturalism.

Forms of Metaphysical Naturalism. Metaphysical naturalists are of two basic kinds: materialists and pantheists. The materialist reduces everything to matter and the pantheist reduces all to mind or spirit. Both deny that any supernatural realm intervenes in the natural world. They differ chiefly about whether the natural world is composed ultimately of purely matter or of mind (spirit). Those who hold the latter often admit the possibility of supernormal events by tapping into this invisible spiritual Force (Which is like the Zen Buddhist idea of the “Force” in Stars Wars). However, these are not supernatural events in the Biblical sense of a supernatural being intervening in the natural world he created.

Bases for Naturalism. Metaphysical naturalists reject miracles outright. They vary only in the basis for their criticism of the supernatural. Benedict Spinoza believed miracles are impossible because they are irrational. David Hume claimed that miracles are incredible. Rudolph Bultmann held that miracles are unhistorical and mythical (He was a religious liberal who denied the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible). Based on the unrepeatability of the miraculous, the atheist Antony Flew argued that miracles are unidentifiable. Immanuel Kant contended that miracles are not essential to religion. All of these allegations have been care fully analyzed and found to be without foundation.

Evaluation of Naturalism. Theistic Inadequacy of Naturalism. Naturalistic views either admit that a deistic sort of God exists or deny or doubt existence of any divine Being. But the alleged disproofs for God are notoriously unsuccessful with the greatest proof of His existence being found in the Bible. The evidence that God exists is strong and the Biblical record shows that the creation “screams” to us that there is a God. As for views that admit the existence of a supernatural God but deny miracles (such as deism), many critics have pointed out their basic incoherence. For if God can and has performed the greatest supernatural act of all—creating the world out of nothing, then there is no reason to deny the possibility of lesser supernatural events (i.e., miracles). For making water out of nothing (as God did in Genesis 1 ) is a greater supernatural event than making water into wine (as Jesus did in John 2 ).

Scientific Insufficiency. Modern science has pointed to its own miracle—the origin of the material universe out of nothing or that the universe is eternal and cyclical. The evidence that the universe had a beginning is testified to by the Scriptures and by the science of thermodynamics. This evidence includes the second law of thermodynamics, the expanding universe, etc. If so, then matter is neither eternal nor all there is. And if there is a Creator of the whole universe from nothing, the greatest miracle of all has occurred.

Philosophical Insufficiency. Two premises common to all forms of secular humanism/naturalism are nontheism (No-God) and naturalism (No need for God). These can be treated together, since if there is no supernatural being (Creator) beyond the natural universe, then nature is all there is. Often naturalism means that everything can be explained in terms of chemical and physical processes. At a minimum it means that every event in the universe can be explained in terms of the whole universe or the whole system working together to produce the whole thing as it exists together. Naturalists believe there is no need to appeal to anything (or Anyone) outside the universe to explain any event in the universe nor to explain the whole universe itself.

But the very scientific naturalists who insist on explaining everything in terms of physical and chemical laws cannot explain their own scientific theories or laws in terms of mere physical and chemical processes. For a “theory” or “law” about physical processes is obviously not itself a physical process. It is a nonphysical theory about physical things. A physics professor was once asked: “If everything is matter, then what is a scientific theory about matter?” His response was, “It is magic!” When asked his basis for believing that, he replied “Faith.” It is interesting to note the inconsistency that a purely materialistic worldview resorts to faith in “magic” as the basis of their materialistic beliefs. Another argument revealing the inconsistency of pure naturalism can be summarized in the following quote by C.S. Lewis:

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. (Lewis, Miracles, 22).

If naturalism is claiming to be true then there must be more than mere natural processes; there must be “reason,” which is not purely a natural physical process.

Another way to state the inconsistency of naturalism is to show that a basic premise of science, which even naturalists hold, is contrary to their conclusion that every event in the universe can be explained in terms of the whole universe. This premise that “every event has a cause” is at the philosophical heart of scientific research. Scientists—certainly naturalistic ones—are trying to find the natural explanation or cause for all events. But if every event has a cause, then it follows that the whole universe has a cause. For the universe as conceived by modern science is the sum total of all events at a given time. But if each event is caused, then every event is caused. And if the universe is the sum total of every event, then the whole universe is caused. For instance, if each tile on the floor is brown, then the whole floor is brown. And if each part of the table is wooden, then the whole table is wooden. Likewise, if every event in the universe is an effect, then adding up all the events (effects) does not equal a cause. Rather, the sum total of all caused events needs a cause to explain it.

It is not sufficient for the naturalist to say there is something “more” to the universe than the sum of all the events or “parts,” for then he is not really explaining everything in terms of the physical “parts” or events but in terms of something beyond them. It is, however, perfectly consistent for the Biblical Creationist to insist that all the events of the universe cannot be explained solely in terms of the physical universe of events. But naturalism is not able to explain either itself or the universe on a purely naturalistic premise.[3]

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology and naturalism. He wrote a very revealing comment. This comment illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the scientific facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’[4]

The Atheists Know Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution!

Atheist Richard Bozarth said,

‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’[5]

Aldous Huxley: Admits motive for anti-theistic bias

Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, and died the same day that John Kennedy was assassinated (22 Nov. 1963). Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-theistic motivation:

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’[6]

A designer is unscientific—even if all the evidence supports one!

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University said:

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’[7]

Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’[8]

Dr. Ruse also made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled 'The New Antievolutionism' (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.)¹ These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science?, denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.

He appeared to admit that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous creation/creator — in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant. Ruse said this (emphasis added):

'at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.'

He went on to defend this unprovable assumption by the fact that, in his view, it works. Nevertheless, said Ruse,

'evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.'

Further on, he said that one can't just say that evolution is science, creation is religion, period. One has to have some other 'coherence theory of truth, or something like that. I still think that one can certainly exclude creation science on those grounds'.

Law professor Phillip Johnson has severely criticized Ruse's anti-creation testimony at the 1982 Arkansas trial at which the sorts of admissions above failed to surface. Johnson quoted Ruse as stating that it is OK to say different things on this subject to different audiences:

'I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics … should recognize … that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which — it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law — but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.'[9]

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. This is called the religion of secular humanism.

Atheists such as Eugenie Scott, who is the Executive Director of the NCSE, know that if a materialistic framework of thinking can be established in young people through the education system, then Christianity will not stand. No wonder the American Humanist Association recently presented Scott with a major award for her work against Biblical creation. Atheism has evolution (everything made itself) as its logical foundation. Christianity has creation as its logical foundation. Christianity with evolution as its foundation will collapse. Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’ (Frank Zindler, in a debate with William Lane Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996).

The Naturalist’s underlying attitude was undoubtedly summarised by Michael Shermer (himself a self-confessed apostate) of the Skeptics Society (USA):

‘It is important to note that Skeptics and scientists have no quarrel with genuinely religious people and their religious organisations who make no claims of scientific proof for their religious beliefs’ (in the preface to 25 creationists’ arguments and 25 evolutionists’ answers, The Skeptics Society, 1994).

In other words, you can ‘believe’ whatever you like, as long as you don’t claim your beliefs have any basis in objective reality—that there is tangible evidence for what you believe that can challenge others to believe also. As long as ‘religious’ people keep it in their churches and in their heads, the Skeptics and the Naturalists will leave them alone, because they know that such a faith will die with the next generation.

How can anything be ‘religiously neutral’ anyway? Jesus said we are either for Him or against Him—there is no ‘neutral’ position:

Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

The Naturalist is vehemently opposed to Christians who believe the Biblical account of history, from the beginning. Is that ‘religiously neutral’? The agenda of the naturalist and the hardened skeptics is to see everyone taught that ‘evolution’ explains the origins of everything, so ‘God’ is unnecessary in this ‘scientific’ view. This totally contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible that God is clearly revealed in what He has created. The Bible says:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

God is made invisible by the teaching of evolution and thus men will not need to heed the laws of an imaginary Creator (at least in their minds). That’s why atheists are so enthusiastic about evolution! If there are any real (i.e. Bible-believing) Christians supporting Naturalistic and Skeptical societies (like the National Center for Science Education), they should heed the command of God:

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? ¹⁵ Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? ¹⁶ Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. ¹⁷ "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.

Finally, the best antidote against occultism, superstition and charlatanism is not godless skepticism, but Biblical Christianity with a firm grasp of essential Christian doctrines. As Paul told Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

---

[1] God of the gaps is when we can’t explain something through natural causes and invoke God as the supernatural cause of the unexplainable event. i.e: The Origin of Life.

[2] This is what is known as ontological naturalism.

[3] Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker reference library (Page 521). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

[4] Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

[5] G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

[6] Huxley, A., Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.

[7] Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

[8] Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[9] A complete transcript of the talk is available from the (so-called) National Center for Science Education, PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709–0477, USA (Cost: $US 1.00 plus postage). The NCSE is an organisation totally devoted to promoting evolution, with hardly a hint of real science like physics, chemistry, etc.

The Proper Commemoration of the Incarnation

INTRODUCTION (Read Luke 2:1-20)

In today’s modern world, the materialistic hype and spin of our culture surrounds us and constantly tries to squeeze us into its mold, especially during what has been traditionally known as the “Christmas” season. Many people, especially professing Christians, use this season of the year as an excuse to become willingly ensnared by the idol of materialism (Matt. 6:24). However, this is the time of year when many Christians genuinely celebrate the incarnation and first advent of the Messiah who is known as Immanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:23). Many faithful believers the world over take this time of year to meditate on the wonder and greatness of our God, Who before the universe was created, decreed to send His Son into this sin-cursed world, to save sinners by bringing them under the care of the Great Shepherd, who would die for sinners (John 10:10, 15; Rom. 5:8).

Historically, what we now call “Christmas” was originally known as the “Christ-mass”, a celebration that was developed within the early Roman Catholic Church and was designed to counter the rival pagan festivals that were held at the end of each year. Many have heard about the ancient pagan festivals of Saturnalia which occurred at the end of December of each year and some have even said that the birth of the pagan god Mithra was on December 25^th.[1] Either way, the term “Christmas” as we understand it today, does have many pagan elements, but not necessarily because it developed as a rival celebration in opposition to the pagan gods that were prevalent within the Roman Empire but because today’s typical understanding of “Christmas” absolutely reeks of modern selfishness, materialism, worldliness and secular humanism. There are many today who, in the name of Biblical Christianity would avoid celebrating the birth of Christ at this time of year because they believe that it would mean that we are somehow conceding to or indirectly participating in the ancient pagan rituals often associated with those rival celebrations set up by the early Roman Catholic Church. They reason that because we know that such and such a group worshipped trees several thousands of years ago and placed glitter and gold on it then that means that we are doing the same thing when we put up a tree and put glittering lights on it during the Advent. Now, when I compare the tree issue with similar issues in the New Testament, it becomes clear to me that my concerned Christian friends have gone a little overboard. The issues Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 10:19-31 and in Romans 14:15 deal with issues much more likely to be “tainted.” The issue of meat sacrificed to idols was a very hot topic of the day, and there was not question about the “background” of such meat. Likewise, the observance/honoring of Sabbaths or religious festivals (cf. Col 2:16-17), was a current and hot topic. But Paul said these were “indifferent things” and things which were a matter of individual preference: if you wanted to honor one day above another, go ahead. If you wanted to eat the meat from the temples, go ahead as long as you knew the meat was nothing special (cf. Rom 14:14). So, when there is grace and freedom about such very contemporary and very well-known and very “religious-looking” matters in the New Testament (such as freedom for me to eat meat offered to idols), it is difficult for me to make the much-less-dramatic issue of “Christmas trees” into something to be avoided on Biblical grounds. Let’s look at two very common examples. I don’t know many Christians who avoid referring to the fourth day of the week as “Wednesday” because the origin of that name of that day is found in the pagan god Wodin, nor do I know of any Christians who accuse other Christians of hypocrisy, compromise, and syncretism when they do so! On the other hand, there are symbols in our (any) culture that are “tainted” and perceived as something repulsive or inherently evil, unlike Christmas trees or Wednesday. For instance, in American culture, I personally would not use the Swastika or a Pentagram to signify something that otherwise for me would have a holy meaning simply because the associations of those symbols are still too fresh in the minds of the populus and too well-known for their association with evil. So, in my opinion, the difference between your teenager wearing a pentagram around their neck versus your family decorating a tree during a celebration of Christ’s first advent is measured in light-years.

Thus, my purpose today will not be to rail against all the ancient and medieval pagan elements that may have crept into the modern form of what is known as “Christmas”[2] simply because neither you nor I have any personal and absolute connection to neither ancient nor medieval pagan practices. More importantly, I want to discuss the problem of the trading of the commemoration of the advent of Christ with the materialistic blasphemy and selfishness that has taken place and offer a biblical solution for this problem.

Christ’s first advent is supposed to be a message to the world that Christians can celebrate and experience joy not through false gods and materialism, but through the fact that God the Son was incarnated as a man (John 1:14). However, the advent celebration of the birth of the Savior has veered far into materialistic idolatry for several reasons, one of which is a lack of seriousness about God, Christ, and the Bible. Listen to what Evangelical Greek Scholar, Daniel Wallace states regarding the marginalization of Christ and the watering down of the gospel in the contemporary evangelical church,

Even with the proliferation of Bibles today, Christians are reading their Bibles less and less. I believe the evangelical church has only 50 years of life left. 50 years left of evangelicalism because of marginalization of the Word of God. We need another Reformation! The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text [“the text” = the text of Scripture – DSS]. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.’ His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized. Or, as Erasmus remarked, “When you read the Greek New Testament, you can see the face of Jesus more clearly than if you were one of his disciples”! A bit of hyperbole, but the point is worth underscoring: The God we worship today no longer resembles the God of the Bible. Unless we return to him through a reading and digesting of the scriptures—through a commitment to the text, the evangelical church will become irrelevant, useless, dead.[3]

These are strong words that should issue words of warning to lazy Christians. When you fully grasp what Dr. Wallace is saying about today’s contemporary evangelical church, you do indeed get the idea that God is “warm and fuzzy,” and almost acts like a “genie in a bottle” that is here to minister to our “felt-needs.” When you speak with modern evangelicals, you sometimes get the idea that they often view Jesus as a limp-wristed, pale-faced teacher of love and peace who came to help everyone get along and look over their differences. You get the idea that Jesus is like a slot machine where you can put a prayer in the slot and out pops your wish. In today’s shallow world of Christianity, where marketing the gospel seems to be more important than actually preaching it,[4] where does a true, Biblical commemoration of Christ’s birth fit in? In light of this materialistic type of attitude, is it any wonder that the modern-day church has failed to impact the culture with the message of the Biblical Jesus?

As a man who loves the Lord Jesus Christ and this local flock, I am so much against what the world does during that time of year because it does absolutely nothing to give God the glory for the Incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ. In light of the fact that the world doesn’t give glory and praise to God for the birth of His Son, I want to take the time this morning to commemorate the incarnation and first advent of the One who died to make sinners clean. This opportunity should not happen just once a year, but should be done every day, and particularly any time the Lord's people gather together. When we celebrate the first advent of Christ, we must remember that one of the most significant events in human history is this: God became flesh! Today we will discuss this significant historical event and the importance of giving glory to God in our commemoration of it and we will do so under four main points:

1. The Shepherd’s Had Proper Reverence and Fear of God (vv. 8-9)
2. The Angels Gave Proper and Due Glory to God (vv. 13-14).
3. Those Who Heard Wondered and Pondered the Glory of God (vv. 18-19)
4. The Shepherd’s Rejoiced because of the Truth of God (v. 20).

EXPOSITION AND APPLICATION

In this narrative, probably set sometime around 4 B.C., we have the birth of Christ Jesus provided for us by Doctor Luke in detail. We see in verses 1-2 that there was a formal decree sent out by Octavius Caesar that all the inhabited land should be registered.[5] This census (a decree…to register all the empire) is one of the more disputed historical remarks in Luke and has created much cause for non-believers to question the integrity the Lukan account. The alleged problem is that Quirinius did not become governor until @ 7 A.D. according to Josephus, while Christ was born before Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.[6] However, renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay concluded from various coin inscriptions that Quirinius ruled Syria on two separate occasions.[7] Also, another possible explanation offered by Greek language scholars is that verse 2 could actually be more accurately translated, “This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.”[8] Under this scenario, Luke’s use of the word translated “first” (prw,th) would be more accurately translated “before” and thus would actually refer to the first census in 7 B.C., rather than the well-known one in 7 A.D. Either way, a God-lover should always be skeptical of charges of error in Luke’s account, for the archaeologist Sir William Ramsay stated: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[9] So, in spite of what skeptics of the Bible may say, credible explanations exist.[10]

Successfully carrying out a census like this would have been a massive undertaking for the Roman Empire and the travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem would have certainly taxed Mary and Joseph physically as she was near to giving birth. The text tells us in verse 6 “the days were completed for her to give birth” meaning, that the time was fulfilled for Christ to come into the world scene just as God had predetermined (Gal. 4:4). Indeed the world scene was ripe for the Messiah. The Pax Romana had been successfully established by Emperor Octavius, which allowed for the reasonably safe travel that Mary and Joseph experienced. The over 500 year old prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 about the coming ministry of Messiah the Prince was due to be fulfilled. Isaiah’s 750 year old Messianic prophecies about the coming Prince of Peace (9:6) who would be born of a virgin (7:14) was due to be fulfilled, and Micah’s 700 year old prophecy about the ruler whose human birth would occur in Bethlehem but whose going forth has been from the days of eternity were ready to be fulfilled (Mic. 5:2). And so these prophecies were fulfilled as we read in Luke 2:6, “the days were completed for her to give birth.”

Now, it was customary for newborn Jewish infants to be securely and warmly wrapped in strips of cloth (evsparga,nwsen) as we see of Jesus in verse 7. However, the feeding trough, or manger (as is commonly called) that Jesus was laid in was not a common sight. Given the census that was being taken by the Romans, Bethlehem was probably very crowded as those who had their ancestral roots in Bethlehem had to go to that city to be registered in the census (cf. for hints of this in vv. 4-5). So, upon investigation it was found by Joseph that all the local rented rooms were taken and so this poor, 14-15 year old Jewish girl gave birth to the God-man in a lodging place that was normally occupied by animals. So, we see, that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords was born in the town where His human ancestor King David was born, just as was prophesied by Micah (5:2). Surely the divine Messiah had the right to be born with all the trappings of royalty and fanfare, but instead God the Father chose to have the Divine Messiah be born in humble circumstances, excluded from the normal shelter others enjoyed (cf. Lk. 9:58). And that my friends is the first demonstration of Jesus’ humanity, servanthood, and humility for He later said in His earthly ministry, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” Now we turn our attention to the lowly shepherds in the field who demonstrated a proper reverence and fear for God and His glory.

1. The Shepherds Had Proper Reverence and Fear of God (vv. 8-9)

Luke 2:8-9 In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. ⁹ And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

The words “terribly frightened” in verse 9 (evfobh,qhsan fo,bon me,gan) can literally be translated “they were made very fearful.” In the visible light of the glory of the Lord these Shepherds had the proper response to the divine message. They were fearful at the presence of the angel because they were sinners and were accustomed to the teaching from the OT that angels were often messengers of God’s coming judgment. We also see this same fearful response exude from God-lovers in the OT period when they were confronted with the glory and power of God.[11] We especially see this same attitude of fear in Zechariah in Luke 1:12 where it says that he was confronted by an angel telling him about the coming birth of his son, John the Baptist. So, the fear that these shepherds exhibited was natural, godly, and reverent, whereas such an attitude is laughed at today. Now, there are probably several important reasons why the angel of the Lord appeared to shepherds versus other types of people.

1. Among the various occupations that were held by Jews at the time of Christ, being a shepherd was one of the most lowly. Shepherds were generally considered untrustworthy and their work made them ceremonially unclean according to the Law of Moses. Therefore, we see that God didn’t choose to first reveal the good news of the newly born Divine Messiah to Kings, Priests, and Prelates, but instead he chose to reveal the first proclamation of the gospel to the social outcasts of the day. Paul confirms that this is often the way God does things in 1 Corinthians 1:26-29,

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; ²⁷ but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, ²⁸ and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, ²⁹ so that no man may boast before God.

Shepherds were looked down upon by the general Jewish community as a whole, and they were considered so untrustworthy that they weren’t even allowed to give testimony in a court of law.[12] So, we talk about the goodness, grandeur, and glory of God yet we fail to realize that God chose to first tell His good news to people who were basically our modern equivalent of those who are referred to as “trailer trash”.[13]

2. In both the Old and New Testaments, shepherds symbolize those who care for God’s people, including the Lord Himself (cf. Ps. 23:1; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 23:1-4; Heb. 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:2). Notice that verse 8 says that they were “staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night.” At night, when they could, shepherds would try to bring their flocks into crude shelters, pens, or take other protective measures so that the sheep could be cared for and also so that they wouldn’t be harmed by bad weather, predatory animals, and thieves. Obviously, on this night, these shepherds had to stay out in the field to carefully watch their flocks.[14] Now, in light of that truth, it is interesting that Jesus Christ, the incarnate word, would be made like unto one of these lowly shepherds by having nowhere to lay his head (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58), yet He takes special care of us, His sheep, and has taken and is now taking special precautionary measures to protect us from spiritual wolves and spiritual thieves (Heb. 7:25). He does so by continually making intercession for us before the Father as Satan makes accusation against us as the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:10). Jesus also raises up godly human shepherds - faithful pastors who have been given a heart for Him and His word and seek to humble themselves in service to Christ’s sheep and feed them on His knowledge and His understanding (Jer. 3:15; Acts 20:28).

Again, verse 9 shows that the shepherds were absolutely terrified by the visible manifestation of the glory of God, something that neither Zechariah in Luke 1:12 nor Mary had seen when they were confronted by an angel. But just as the angel reassured Zechariah in Luke 1:13 and Mary in 1:30, so also he reassured the shepherds in verses 10-11, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; ¹¹ for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

And so, an angel, brilliant and strong stands “suddenly” before them (v. 9) and the manifestation of God’s presence and power flashed about them and so they were properly “terrified.” These weren’t the cute little chubby angels with pretty little pink cheeks that you see gracing your local Christian bookstores. No, this was a representative of God’s heavenly army, one who stood in the strength and power of Yahweh, and so they were absolutely terrified! They were terrified as sinners; which explains why the angel has to say literally as it reads in the original language, “Stop being fearful!” (mh. fobei/sqe[15]) So, the angel then proclaims wonderfully in verse 10, “I bring you good news” meaning – “I am bringing you the announcement of the gospel for the first time!” Oh brethren, how wonderful that God the Father, through the mediation of a heavenly angel first announces the gospel to what would be the equivalent of lowly, 1^st century “trailer trash”!

And so the announcement of the birth of the promised Divine Savior is given in verse 11 (for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.). Notice that the text doesn’t say “THE Savior” but “A Savior.” This is grammatically significant because by saying it without using the definite article, the angel wanted to emphasize the saving work of Jesus. It was if he was saying, “for today in the city of David there has been born for who is above all other things, A SAVIOR!” And so, the angel gives this great proclamation of the gospel for the first time and when he does so, he does so to a group of societal outcasts. He doesn’t leave the outcasts clueless as to how to find this child, but he gives them a characteristic sign to look for, “a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” (v. 12) They weren’t to look for any baby wrapped in strips of linen cloths, for that was common in 1^st century Israel, but what was uncommon was a newborn infant lying in a feeding trough. Oh my friends what humility we see in our Savior in even the earliest aspects of His divinely ordained life! With that in mind I want to draw your attention to the proper and due glory that the angels gave to God.

2. The Angels Gave Proper and Due Glory to God (vv. 13-14).

And so the lone angel, standing and giving the first proclamation of the gospel to lowly shepherds is suddenly joined by “a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” (vv. 13-14). This is the grand climax of this narrative, where the lowly, trailer-trash shepherds are exposed to the glorious splendor of not just one angel, but now an army of angels giving glory to the God of heaven for the birth of Messiah Jesus! How truly awesome that event must have been for them![16] These angels, having known and experienced Christ’s pre-incarnate glory, were all too familiar with His riches and majesty (cf. Isaiah 6:1-4; John 12:41). They also knew that man was fallen sinner, desperately in need of salvation from sin. And so, they knew of God’s provision of salvation for mankind in Jesus and they wanted to give all glory, praise, and honor to God for this unmerited gift bestowed upon sinful man! How wonderful that those who are not direct recipients of Christ’s salvation should give honor and glory to the God of heaven for it! Was it not the apostle Paul who, when thinking about God’s love shown in Christ said, “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” (2 Cor. 8:9; 9:15) And was not this love very probably included among “the things which angels desire to look into” (1 Peter 1:12) but very probably cannot? Nevertheless, they gave glory to God for this gift to sinful man!

Now, it is important to point out that the KJV translation of verse 14 doesn’t really have the best translation. The KJV says, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” whereas the NASB says, “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." Now that’s a big difference in translation! The NASB has the better reading, based on a better representation of the underlying Greek text. For those of you who are more doctrinally astute, you can see how the NASB’s reading is more consistent with the biblical doctrines of God’s sovereign grace. Bruce Metzger states in regards to this passage,

“The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure.”[17] It is also interesting to note that several similar expressions have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls such as “the sons of his [God’s] good pleasure,” and “the elect of his [God’s] good pleasure.”[18]

So, this proclamation of the angels: that God’s true peace is bestowed on those whom He has sovereignly chosen for salvation; was proclaimed in the first presentation of the gospel to sinful men![19] Oh Christians, how we would do well to follow after the practice of these angels and preach the gospel of God’s sovereign grace to sinners. We should really do nothing else as we wait for Christ’s second advent, for this is part of the good news that these angels glorified God and blessed man with at Jesus’ first advent!

Luke 2:15-17 When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, "Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us." ¹⁶ So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger. ¹⁷ When they had seen this, they made known the statement which had been told them about this Child.

And so the shepherds, filled with excitement after receiving the gospel directly from God through the angels, went to Bethlehem and looked for the divine infant lying in feeding trough. And the result after hearing the gospel and seeing the divine Christ was what? Verse 17 says that they told not only Mary and Joseph about the glorious appearance of the angels, but the text intimates that they felt constrained to tell as many as they could about the birth of Messiah Jesus! And what happened to those who heard?

3. Those Who Heard Wondered and Pondered the Glory of God (vv. 18-19)

Luke 2:18 And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds.

It should be no surprise to us that there was wonder and amazement at the things that the shepherds said. Think about it: an imperial decree, angelic messages, divine signs to tell you who and where to look, a virgin-born child in Bethlehem lying in a feeding trough! “One can never fully appreciate this unless he is able to agree”[20] by faith with the words of Charles Wesley,

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see:

Hail th’Incarnate Deity.

And of course, wonder and amazement is to be expected with the Jews, but something more is seen in Jesus’ mother Mary. Verse 19 states, “But Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart.” Notice that verse 19 says that “Mary treasured these things . . .” This sentence is literally translated “But Mary treasured up all these words . . .” meaning that she was putting it all together and mulling over it in her mind. She had been told by her betrothed husband about the divine dreams he had been given (Matt. 1:20ff), she remembered what she was told by the angel Gabriel (Lk. 1:26ff), she thought about all the contingencies that lead to her having to be in Bethlehem to give birth to her promised Son (Mic. 5:2); and what the shepherds told her about the announcement of the angels (Lk. 2:17). Yes, she was treasuring all these sayings up and “pondering them in her heart.” She stops to consider the meaning of it all. She did this later in Jesus’ life after they found Him in the temple as a young boy questioning the religious leaders of the day (1:51), and eventually, we see Jesus’ own mother worshipping the very One to whom she gave human birth (Acts 1:14). Her prayerful “pondering” of all those things God had been doing and was going to do through her Divine Son produced in her a steadfast faith that had been foreordained from all eternity! We also have a fantastic end of the story for those lowly shepherds too!

4. The Shepherd’s Rejoiced because of the Truth of God (v. 20).

Luke 2:20 The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.

These lowly shepherds had mingled with the lowly Joseph and Mary to see “a Savior, Christ the Lord.” They glorified God that what had been told them by the angel was true and that God’s promised divine Messiah had finally arrived on the world scene. They were like the 72 disciples that Jesus sent out on a preaching mission, whom upon returning (10:17) were “glorifying and praising God” for all the wonderful things that they had seen.[21] And it is this attitude of giving glory to God in the midst of a humble, lowly situation that was characteristic of the first Advent of Christ!

Conclusion

Brothers and sisters, have you given due honor, praise, and glory to God for the greatest gift the world has ever known or have you become ensnared by the idols of materialism and selfishness that are so prevalent during the Advent season? Have you continually sought to give glory to God by faithfully proclaiming as well as living out the truth of God’s sovereign grace in your lives? Have you, like Mary sought to carefully meditate and consider God’s active hand in your life or have you become dull, insensitive, and ignorant of God’s dealings in your life? Do you rejoice at the giving of the greatest Gift the world has ever known or will know, or have traded the beauty of the Divine Savior for a mess of materialistic pottage? Oh brothers and sisters, I admonish you to repent and turn from your dependence on material things, for they will rust and corrupt, they can be stolen by thieves, they can be repossessed by the empires of this world. But the greatest gift the world has ever known, “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (v. 11) can never be taken away from you, for He is the giver of all things, and in Him we find the greatest display of God’s love for your sorry soul.

---

[1] Walter L. Liefeld, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, Luke, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 845. It is important also to note that Liefeld points out that by setting up a rival celebration, another pagan celebration called “Sol Invictus” or the

“Unconquerable Sun” was indeed conquered by the celebration of the nativity.

[2] I have found it very difficult to see why events and practices from someone else, in a far distant past, unknown (or at least not taken seriously one way or another) by myself and all my 'pagan' acquaintances (cf. 1 Cor. 10), and of no logical connection to the modern

implements of the celebration of the Advent season (i.e., Christmas trees) should enslave me.

[3] http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/4versions.htm

[4] I.e: “The Purpose Driven” this and that type philosophy which has run rampant in such as books with the titles, “The Purpose Driven Life, The Purpose Driven Church, etc.”

[5] This decree would’ve been sent via the Roman Senate because the phrase "from the emperor” indicates that . Octavian was Caesar from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. He was known for his administrative prowess. The passive infinitive verb avpogra,fesqai (apographesthai) translated “should be registered” (so ESV, NKJ) is regarded as a technical term for official registration in tax & military lists (cf. BDAG 108 s.v. avpogra,fw).

[6] Josephus (Ant. 18.1.1 [18.1–2]) only mentions a census in A.D. 6, which is obviously way too late for this setting. Such a census would have been a massive undertaking; it could have started under one ruler and emerged under another, to whose name it became attached. This is one possibility to explain the data. Another is that Quirinius, who became governor in Syria for the later census, may have been merely an administrator for this census.

[7] Aramaic paraphrases of the OT originating in the last few centuries BC, and committed to writing about AD 500. See F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood, p. 133, Rev. Ed. 1963; Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982; W. Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 223 ff, 1953.

[8] Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966), 23-24, edem, Syntax, 32. Also, New Testament scholar N.T. Wright points out that πρώτος (prōtos) not only means “first”, but when followed by the genitive can mean “before” (cf. Jn. 1:15, 15:18). Cf. N.T. Wright, Who was Jesus, SPCK, Great Britain, p. 89, 1992. This book is an excellent critique by a New Testament scholar of the three recent anti-Christian books: 1) Barbara Thiering, Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls; 2) A.N. Wilson, Jesus, Sinclair-Stevenson, London, 1992; 3) J.S. Spong, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus, HarperSanFrancisco, 1992.

[9] W. Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 222, 1953.

[10] For detailed positive evaluations of this historico-critical problem online, see http://www.tektonics.org/af/censuscheck.html and

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

[11] Ex. 14:31; 1 Sam. 12:18; 1 Kings 18:3; 1 Chron. 16:25; Psa. 47:2; 76:11; 96:4; Jon. 1:16; Mal. 1:14, 3:16.

[12] Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch., Vol. II, 113.

[13] I am in no way disparaging those who live in mobile homes with this observation. I am simply pointing to the fact that just as people are stereotypically mislabeled today by the conditions they live and work by other sinful people who think they are better off materially, so it was with the field shepherds in 1^st century Palestine.

[14] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary on Luke, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), 149.

[15] fobei/sqe is the present middle imperative 2nd person plural (deponent) verb from fobe,omai.

[16] This phrase in verse 14, “Glory to God in the highest” is what has been traditionally known as the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, translated from the old Latin Vulgate Bible. See footnote at Luke 2:14 in the NASB Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 1463.

[17] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society, 1994), 111.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Hendriksen, 156.

[20] Ibid., 158.

[21] Walter L. Liefeld, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, Luke, 847.