Andronicus and Junia: Apostles?

"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who are in prison with me and are prominent among the apostles. They belonged to the Messiah before I did." - Romans 16:7​

@garethindman8144 your proposed reading that they were of note among other apostles is a possible reading of Romans 16:7. However there is a more natural way to read it which simply states that they were apostles themselves. This view has also traditional and scholarly support:

1. John Chrysostom (4th Century Church Father): "Greet Andronicus and Junia... how great the wisdom of this woman must have been, that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle." ... "To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is!" - (Homily 31 on Romans)

2. Richard Bauckham (Modern Biblical Scholar): "The phrase 'notable among the apostles' does not mean that Andronicus and Junia were well known to the apostles, but that they themselves were distinguished members of the group designated 'apostles' in the early Church." - (Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels)

3. N.T. Wright (New Testament Scholar): "Andronicus and Junia were apostles, part of the foundational missionary group who were sent out to plant churches, preach the gospel, and represent the risen Jesus in the wider world." - (Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part Two)

4. James D.G. Dunn (New Testament Theologian): "The most natural way to understand 'outstanding among the apostles' is that they were themselves apostles, not simply well known to the apostles. The term 'apostle' was used more widely in the early Church than simply of the Twelve and Paul... It applied to key figures in missionary outreach and church planting." - (Word Biblical Commentary on Romans)

5. Eldon Jay Epp (Biblical Scholar): "Andronicus and Junia were apostles, recognized as such by Paul, because they fulfilled the role of being sent out (Greek: apostolos) to proclaim the Gospel and establish Christian communities. Paul’s praise of them reflects their apostolic authority and prominence." - (Junia: The First Woman Apostle)

6. Ben Witherington III (New Testament Scholar): "The phrase ‘notable among the apostles’ indicates that Andronicus and Junia were part of the apostolic circle, involved in missionary activity, and distinguished by their efforts. This phrase, within the broader Pauline usage of the term 'apostle,' implies a recognized leadership role." - (Paul's Letter to the Romans)

Débatre Marie: Catholique vs Brahnamiste

Dernièrement, j'ai partagé une série d'échanges que j'ai eus avec une personne qui s'inscrit profondément dans la théologie Branhamiste. Et bien, récemment, il a partagé un nouveau point de contentieux entre leur système théologique et le système théologique catholique. Je cite le cœur de son opposition et j'y répondrai ci-dessous :

Ben-yamin Bashizi: "C’est seulement en 431, au concile d’Ephèse, que Marie a été déclarée “Mère de Dieu”. Après cela, on commença à lui donner différents titres comme: “Notre Dame”, “Reine du Ciel”, “Médiatrice”, “Celle qui secourt”, “Celle qui intercède”, “Mère de toutes grâces”, “Mère de l’Eglise”, et aussi “Celle qui a écrasé le serpent”, etc. etc. Beaucoup de ces désignations, qui se rapportaient à Christ, ont été transférées de Christ à Marie, et c’est la raison pour laquelle elles sont également antichrist."

Voici mes réponses:

1. Le Concile d'Éphèse en 431 (Théotokos = Mère de Dieu)

Le Concile d'Éphèse en 431 a proclamé Marie comme Théotokos, c'est-à-dire "Celle qui a enfanté Dieu" ou "celle qui porte Dieu" ou simplement, "Mère de Dieu" comme vous l'avait correctement indiqué. Cette déclaration visait à affirmer la nature divine de Jésus-Christ, en précisant que celui-ci est Dieu dès sa conception. Cependant, il est important de noter que le titre de Théotokos n'a pas été inventé lors de ce concile du 5eme siècle (AD 431), mais qu'il était déjà largement en usage bien avant 431. Par exemple, Saint Athanase d'Alexandrie, dans ses écrits au 4eme siècle (AD 360), utilisait ce terme pour décrire Marie. Dans son ouvrage contre les heresies Ariens, il appelle Marie, Theotokos à 4 reprises. En voici un example quand Il a écrit :

"He took flesh of the Virgin, Mary bearer of God [Theotokos /Mother of God], and was made man."

"Il a pris chair de la Vierge Marie, Mère de Dieu [Theotokos], et s'est fait homme." - Saint Athanase (AD. 360), Discours contre les Ariens, 3, 29.

Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm  

En outre, dans l'Évangile selon Luc, Élisabeth appelle Marie "mère de mon Seigneur" (Luc 1:43), ce qui est une reconnaissance explicite de son rôle unique et de l'identité divine de l'enfant qu'elle porte. Car le mot seigneur est cité 17 fois dans le chapitre premier de l'Evangile de saint Luc et à les 16 autre fois il est itulisé comme synonyme pour Dieu. Donc il est normale de comprendre que dans Luc 1:43, Seigneur fait aussi reference à Dieu incarnée en homme, à savoir Jesus Christ. Je recommende une video que j'ai faite dans le passé à ce sujet: "Marie, Mère de 'Dieu Avec Nous' (Emmanuel)" - voici le lien: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ8ZFVY8JNY&t=2s

2. Les Titres de Marie: Les divers titres donnés à Marie tels que "Notre Dame", "Reine du Ciel", "Médiatrice", etc., ont des fondements scripturaires et traditionnels. Ces titres reflètent différents aspects de son rôle dans l'histoire du salut et dans la vie de l'Église.

a) Notre Dame : Ce titre trouve ses racines dans l'Ancien Testament et les traditions du Proche-Orient ancien. Le terme "Notre Dame" peut être lié au titre de "Reine Mère" en Israël, connu sous le nom de Gebirah ou "Grande Dame". Dans la monarchie davidique, la mère du roi avait un statut élevé et était honorée comme la Gebirah. Par exemple, dans 1 Rois 2:19, Salomon fait asseoir sa mère Bethsabée à sa droite, un signe de grande estime et d'honneur. Puisque Jésus est présenté comme le successeur du roi David par Saint Luc lors de l'Annonciation de Gabriel (Luc 1:32-33), 

Luke 1:32-33  "Il [Jésus] sera grand et sera appelé Fils du Très Haut, et le Seigneur Dieu lui donnera le trône de David, son père. Il règnera sur la maison de Jacob éternellement, et son règne n'aura point de fin." 

Il en découle naturellement donc que Marie recevait sa vocation de mère du Roi d'Israël, aussi connut sous le nom de la "Gebirah" ou, en d'autres mots, "la (Grande) Dame". 

Le mot "Gebirah" (גְּבִירָה, gebı̂yrâh) apparaît six fois dans la Bible (voir eSword King James Concordance, H1377) : 1 Rois 11:19, 1 Rois 15:13, 2 Rois 10:13, 2 Chroniques 15:16, Jérémie 13:18, Jérémie 29:2. Selon l'encyclopédie Wikipedia , le mot "Gebirah" signifie: 

Version Anglaise [original]: "Literally translated, the title means '[Great] Lady', with the word being the feminine counterpart to gəḇīr (גְּבִיר), 'lord'. However, given that this title is most often attributed to a queen mother, the two have become synonymous, and therefore gəḇīrā is most often translated as 'Queen Mother'." 

Traduction Française: "Traduit littéralement, le titre signifie '[Grande] Dame', le mot étant le pendant féminin de gəḇīr (גְּבִיר), 'seigneur'. Cependant, étant donné que ce titre est le plus souvent attribué à une reine mère, les deux sont devenus synonymes, et donc gəḇīrā est le plus souvent traduit par 'Reine Mère'". - Lien Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebirah

Donc appellé Marie, Notre Dame (Gebirah) n'est pas une invention sournoise mais un simple fait de l'histoire biblique, car les reine-Mère Juifs étaient appellé, Gebirah, i.e Dame. Et puisque Jésus est roi, sa mère est automatiquement une Gebirah, notre Dame.

Source érudite : 

• Scott Hahn, "Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God"; 
• Brant Pitre, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah"; 
• Video produite par des protestants: "The Queen Mother in the Bible and Ancient Near East"  - lien youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_sLpLwG1c

b) Reine du Ciel : Cette expression trouve sa base dans l'Apocalypse (12:1), où Marie est souvent identifiée avec la femme couronnée d'étoiles. Le texte dit : 

"Un grand signe apparut dans le ciel : une femme vêtue du soleil, la lune sous ses pieds et une couronne de douze étoiles sur sa tête." 

Cette description est généralement interprétée comme une référence à Marie par les Catholiques et même quelques érudits biblique Protestants (Ben Witherington III; Chilton, etc.) car elle apparaît dans le ciel avec une couronne donc royauté dans le ciel, ce qui en fait logiquement la "Reine du Ciel".

c) Médiatrice et Intercesseuse: Je vais traité les 2 point ensemble puisqu'ils sont lié.

Il est important de comprendre que seul Christ est le médiateur d'une nouvelle et éternelle alliance:

Hébreux 9:15 : "Et c'est pour cela qu'il est le médiateur d'une nouvelle alliance, afin que, la mort étant intervenue pour le rachat des transgressions commises sous la première alliance, ceux qui sont appelés reçoivent la promesse de l'héritage éternel".

Cependant, les croyants jouent leur rôle de médiation de différentes manières, non pas en établissant une nouvelle alliance, mais en parlant aux hommes de Dieu (par la prédication, la proclamation, l'exhortation), et en parlant des hommes à Dieu (dans la prière d'intercession). En bref, en faisant office d'ambassadeur pour Christ:

"Nous faisons donc les fonctions d'ambassadeurs pour Christ, comme si Dieu exhortait par nous; nous vous en supplions au nom de Christ: Soyez réconciliés avec Dieu!" - 2 Corinthiens 5:20

 Un des aspects de cette médiation c'est l'interecession. Par exemple, Saint Paul exhorte les croyants à être des intercesseurspar leur prière:

"Je recommande donc, avant tout, qu'on fasse des supplications, des prières, des intercessions, des actions de grâces, pour tous les hommes" - 1 Timothée 2:1

"Faites en tout temps par l'Esprit toutes sortes de prières et de supplications. Veillez à cela avec une entière persévérance, et priez pour tous les saints. Priez pour moi, afin qu'il me soit donné, quand j'ouvre la bouche, de faire connaître hardiment et librement le mystère de l'Évangile". - Éphésiens 6:18-19

Il est donc normale de voir les croyants comme des médiateurs/médiatrices, intercesseuses, intercesseurs de par leur prières et par le fait qu'ils soient des ambassadeurs, des réconciliateurs entre Dieu et les hommes. Certe, la sainte Vierge Marie ne saurait être soustrait de cette noble tâche de médiatrice et intercesseuse.

d) Celle qui secourt : Tous ceux qui sont appelés à être co-ouvriers avec Dieu (1Corinthiens 3:9) deviennent des secouristes. 

Les croyants sauvent les gens dans leur détresse et de leurs multiples maux. La Bible dit dans Jacques 5 que les croyants sauvent les égarés : 

"qu’il sache que celui qui ramènera un pécheur de la voie où il s’égarait sauvera son âme de la mort et couvrira une multitude de péchés." - Jacques 5:20 

Dans 1 Timothée, le prédicateur de l'évangile se sauve et sauve d'autres : 

"En persévérant dans ces choses, tu te sauveras toi-même, et tu sauveras ceux qui t'écoutent." - 1 Timothée 4:16

Dans Galates 6 et Romains 13-14, les croyants se soutiennent mutuellement en portant leurs fardeaux les uns des autres : 

"Portez les fardeaux les uns des autres, et vous accomplirez ainsi la loi de Christ." - Galates 6:2

"Accueillez celui qui est faible dans la foi, et ne discutez pas sur les opinions." (Romains 14:1). 

Tout ces textes montrent le role de sécoure que donnent les croyants au prochains. Par conséquent, la Mère du Seigneur, Marie, ne saurait être exemptée d'être une de ces secouristes, surtout qu'elle a été la première à secourir le monde en disant "oui" à Dieu et en nous donnant un Sauveur, Maranatha!

e) Mère de toutes grâces : Marie est la Mère de toute grâce pour deux raisons. 

Premièrement, parce que son Fils Jésus-Christ est le détenteur de toute grâce, car "la loi a été donnée par Moïse, la grâce et la vérité sont venues par Jésus-Christ" (Jean 1:17). 

Deuxièmement, l'ange Gabriel, en annonçant son rôle futur de devenir la mère du Roi Jésus, la salue comme étant "Pleine de grâce" [charitoo] ou "celle qui a trouvé grâce" (Luc 1:28, 30). Donc, il n'y a aucune raison d'avoir un malaise à ce sujet.

f) Mère de l’Église : Si nous nous rappelons dans Apocalypse 12, Marie est introduite comme Reine du Ciel au verset 1, ayant une couronne et apparaissant au ciel. Elle est aussi présentée comme enfantant un Fils qui régnera sur le monde, le Messie (verset 5). Donc, elle est la Mère de Jésus le Messie, et elle est aussi présentée comme étant la mère de ceux qui croient et qui sont persécutés par le dragon, Satan, dans Apocalypse 12:17 : 

"Et le dragon, irrité contre la femme, s'en alla faire la guerre au reste de sa postérité, à ceux qui gardent les commandements de Dieu et qui ont le témoignage de Jésus."

Ceux qui gardent les commandements de Dieu et le témoignage de Jésus sont évidament membre de l'Eglise, sont aussi appelé la postérité de la femme, la même femme qui enfantant le Christ Jésus (verset 5). Donc elle est la mère de Jesus, et aussi la mère de son corps mystique (la communauté de croyants), donc la mère de l'Eglise. On ne devrait pas ce tiré les cheveux pour cette appelation. D'après tous st. Jean lui me mêest à l'aise avec cette nouvelle forme de filiation spirituel (Jean 19:26-27).

e) Celle qui a écrasé le serpent : Pourquoi sommes-nous étonnés qu'elle ait écrasé le serpent ? N'est-ce pas le langage biblique de ceux qui parviennent à vaincre Satan ? 

Jésus dit aux disciples qu'il leur a donné,

"Voici, je vous ai donné le pouvoir de marcher sur les serpents et les scorpions, et sur toute la puissance de l'ennemi; et rien ne pourra vous nuire." - Luc 10:19

Saint Paul dit aussi aux Romains que bientôt, 

"Le Dieu de paix écrasera bientôt Satan sous vos pieds. Que la grâce de notre Seigneur Jésus soit avec vous !" - Romains 16:20

Pourquoi penser donc que la mère de notre Seigneur serait exemptée de cette expérience de victoire sur le diable, elle qui est l'image même du prémier chrétien, disciple de Jésus.

En conclusion: 

Je suis d'avis contraire à ceque vous avez posté ci-haut. La théologie catholique sur Marie est profondément ancrée dans la tradition biblique et une coherente réflection théologique par l'Eglise sur son rôle. Certe, nous differont sur nos interprétation des sainte écritures, mais divergence sur l'interpretation ne veut dire guerre que nos croyances manques de fondement biblique. Quand les divers titre mariale son bien comprise, on remarque qu'elle ne diminue en rien la centralité de Jésus-Christ, mais au contraire, elle éclaire et enrichit la compréhension du mystère de l'Incarnation et de la Rédemption en nous montrant comment nous devenons participants à la nature divine (2 Pierre 1:4). 

Par conséquent, ces titres et honneurs ne sont ni des exagérations ni des innovations, mais des reconnaissances appropriées du rôle unique de Marie dans l'histoire du salut, et une image de notre rôle de chrétiens dans l'histoire du salut.

The Theory of Biological Evolution is Evolving

 For this post, I am going to share a fascinating reflection by Dr. William Lane Craig about the evolution of the Theory of Biological Evolution. I found it to be insightful.

.....

I think one of the most important take-aways for laymen from my study of this subject is the realization that the theory of biological evolution has itself evolved. If we leave aside the theories of Charles Darwin’s predecessors, there are three major stages in evolutionary theory:

Stage I: Darwinism. This was Darwin’s original theory of evolution laid out in his book On the Origin of Species (1859). Darwin’s theory of evolution comprised two fundamental theses: (i) descent with modification of all living organisms from one or a few common ancestors, and (ii) natural selection as the explanatory mechanism for evolutionary change. Darwin’s theory was dead almost upon arrival. While his thesis of common ancestry quickly won the day, for seventy years following the publication of Origin of Species Darwin’s second thesis was widely regarded as explanatorily deficient. Ignorant of Mendel’s genetics, Darwin could provide no account of the sources of the variability of hereditary traits nor how such traits were inherited. It has been justifiably quipped that Darwin’s theory explained the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.

Stage II: The Modern Synthesis. Formulated during the 1930s and 40s, the Modern Synthesis represented the marriage of Darwin’s natural selection and Mendel’s genetics. Its chief contribution was the thesis that hereditary variability arises by random genetic mutations, which, when acted upon by natural selection, can be the source of new and advantageous traits over time. It thereby supplemented Darwin’s theory with a genetic explanation of the source of heritable variations. On this theory new species originated by rather small steps that accumulated over many generations. This theory, sometimes called “Neo-Darwinism,” rapidly became orthodoxy among evolutionary biologists and prevailed almost till the close of the twentieth century.

Stage III: The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Proponents of this theory indict the Modern Synthesis for its myopic focus on genetic inheritance as the source of evolutionary change. They contend that new data from adjacent fields such as developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology, and social science now demand a wider theory. The following diagram illustrates the relation between the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the Modern Synthesis, and Darwin’s theory:

The fact is that the Modern Synthesis did not really offer much by way of explanation of the causes of how organisms change over time. The Modern Synthesis postulated correlations between an organism’s genotype (its genetic makeup) and its phenotype (its observable traits) but not causal mechanisms connecting them. As a result, the Modern Synthesis treated all mechanistic aspects of evolutionary change as a “black-box” and so was unable to explain how organismal change is actualized.

According to Pigliucci and Müller, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis thus prompts several reforms to the Modern Synthesis:

First is gradualism. Because the Modern Synthesis assumed that evolutionary change proceeds via incremental genetic variation, all non-gradualist forms of evolutionary change were excluded. But various new approaches show that non-gradual change is a property of evolutionary processes. Second is externalism. Under the Modern Synthesis the direction of the evolutionary process results exclusively from natural selection. In the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, organisms themselves are determinants of selectable variation and innovation. Thus, in sharp contrast to claims of the Modern Synthesis, mutations may not be random but actually biased toward the benefit of the host organism in which they occur. Third is “gene-centrism.” The Modern Synthesis’ focus on the gene as the sole agent of variation and unit of inheritance suppressed all calls for more comprehensive attitudes. In the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, extra-genetic (epigenetic) influences on developing embryos is increasingly emphasized, in contrast to genetic mutations.

J. B. S. Haldane Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design have long complained about the explanatory deficits of the Modern Synthesis but were uniformly ignored, probably because they were able only to poke holes in the theory without offering a credible alternative. J. B. S. Haldane once remarked that “Theories pass through four stages of acceptance: (i) this is worthless nonsense; (ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; (iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; (iv) I have always said so.” Today contemporary textbooks already incorporate many of the new insights of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis without noting the explanatory deficiencies of the Modern Synthesis thereby exposed.

It should not be thought that with the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the evolution of the theory of evolution has come to an end, and we can breathe a sigh of relief that all is well. No, while the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis served to expose explanatory weaknesses in the heretofore prevailing evolutionary paradigm and so to open new avenues of research, many of the ideas of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis remain unproven, poorly understood, and controversial, so that the quest for a final theory must continue. The evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin observes that what follows in a “post-Modern” era is not a post-Modern Synthesis but a post-Modern state “characterized by a pluralism of processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization.” He opines that whether the directions currently being pursued in post-Modern research “can be combined in a new evolutionary synthesis in the foreseeable future, is too early to tell. I will venture one confident prediction, though: those celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Origin will see a vastly different landscape of evolutionary biology.”

Still Fighting for the Word "One" Mediator?

Some section of the Christian Church gets savagely attacked because they seem to use the word, 'mediator' in an apparently loosed fashion which tend to give the impression that the text "one mediator between God and men" might not be taken seriously with all its strictness. The detractors readily point-out and correctly for that matter to what St. Paul said to his protégé,

"There is one God. There is also one mediator between God and human beings—a human, the Messiah Jesus." - 1 Timothy 2:5 ISV

You can't get a clearer text than that. And yet, overwhelming number of believers in the Church over the centuries have regarded this very same verse in a widely different interpretative framework. 

Here is two examples from this very same verse which are widely accepted within the orthodox Christian community (1 Timothy 2:5):

(a) "There is one God", meaning that God was indeed One but that His Oneness is Trinitarian (3 persons in one God) and not Unitarian.

(b) "a human, the Messiah Jesus", meaning that Jesus was indeed truly man. However, His humanity did not preclude that He was also more than just a man, more than a carpenter. He is equally one of the person of the trinitarian Godhead, meaning the Messiah is divine. This is known among theologians as the "hypostatic union" of Christ.

So the same Church pointed out and still points out that none of the points (a) and (b) above weakens the expressions, 'one God' or 'the Messiah is a man'. Since point (a) and (b) are true given other corroborative biblical texts, what about this third expression of the verse, "there is one mediator between God and Men"? Could it be that there could also be a wider interpretative framework within sacred Scriptures to understand it? This is what I will attempt to answer. However, before I do that I'd like to take you into a small voyage of discovery which is much overdue for this long awaited conversation.

I/ ONLY ONE TEACHER

Jesus warned His disciples when He said, "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' because you have only one teacher, and all of you are brothers." - Matthews 23:8

To understand the prohibition, one has to understand what the word, Rabbi, means. The Strong Greek/Hebrew dictionary explain the word as such: "Rhabbi (of Hebrew origin) means, my master. An official title of honor: Master or Rabbi."

It is therefore unmistakable that Jesus Christ taught that there is only one Teacher for His disciples and hence no one should call himself a teacher among themselves. You can't get a clearer text than this. Jesus Christ was to be regarded as the only Teacher among the believers.

And yet ...

We read in the New Testament Bible these astonishing texts in light of Jesus admonishment above,

 "And God set some in the church, firstly, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers, then works of power, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, kinds of languages." - 1 Corinthians 12:28  

"That is why God says, "When he went up to the highest place he led captives into captivity and gave gifts to people ... And it is he who gifted some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, and still others to be pastors and teachers," - Ephesians 4:8, 11 

"And in Antioch some among the existing church were prophets and teachers. (such as Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." - Act 13:1  

Clearly, despite the fact that there is only one Teacher (Rabbi) as written in Matthew, the New Testament Bible also equally affirmed that, (i) God set some believers to be teachers (1Co12:28), (ii) Jesus gifted some believers to be teachers (Eph4:11) and (iii) the Holy Spirit spoke to teachers in the Church of Antioch (Act13:1). How can we explain this obvious departure of the scripture teaching about there being "only one Teacher"? We can explain this when we remember that in the Gospel, the Lord Jesus Christ is bringing a teaching that was in departure from what other teachers of his time were teaching. In one such occasion, the common people noticed the difference of teachings and reacted,

"The people were utterly amazed at his teaching, because he was teaching them like one with authority and not like their scribes." - Mark 1:22  

Jesus teaching was different from what other Rabbi/teachers of the time taught. Therefore acknowledging that one was a teacher also meant that the teacher brought his own set of teachings. For this reason, Jesus prohibited that there should be any other head teacher/Rabbi among His disciples for none had the right to bring a different set of teaching than what He, himself brought. Hence to say that there is "only one Teacher" also implied that there was only 'one particular faith being taught' which was different from other faiths or doctrines/teachings other teachers were teaching at the time. St. Paul recognized as much,

"There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism" - Ephesians 4:5   

To ensure that His teaching, doctrines and faith remained, the Lord Jesus informed His disciples that He will be sending His Holy Spirit so as to preserve one teachings under One Teacher. His Spirit will not teach them anything outside of what He taught them. Hence, the Spirit of Truth preserved Jesus as the supreme teacher with only one school of thought.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything that I have told you." - John 14:26   

"Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own accord, but will speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come." John 16:13  

The first reason the Lord Jesus was so adamant about there being no other Teacher/Rabbi among His disciples, was to deter the temptation to teach new and different things in the Church from what He had taught, and in so doing removing the possibilities of having competing teachings within the Church as if there were more than one Rabbi/head Teacher within the Church. The second reason was to ascertain that His teaching prevails within the Church because of the divine origin of His teaching. Jesus had received what He was teaching from God the Father Himself.

"because I have not spoken on my own authority. Instead, the Father who sent me has himself commanded me what to say and how to speak. And I know that what He commands brings eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me." - John 12:49-50 

In this sense, even though in the Church we have teachers, these teachers are not head Teachers/Rabbi in the sense of bringing a new line of teaching, a new set of doctrines or a new spiritual paradigm. No! Believers who are called teachers are only called so as an extension of Jesus own teaching ministry. They bring no new faith, nor no new doctrines. They only repeat and teach what the Lord Jesus had taught and commended and nothing else. Nothing different from what He taught. We therefore see that it is not new teaching being produced within the Church but rather it is the same teaching from the only head Teacher the Church knows, namely Jesus Christ. All we do as small teachers is to pass on what He had already taught.

"Dear friends, although I was eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I found it necessary to write to you and urge you to continue your vigorous defense of the faith that was passed down to the saints once and for all." - Jude 1:3

In this sense, we understand that there is only one Teacher/Rabbi, Jesus Christ, and all of us who are commissioned to teach are called to pass down what the Lord has taught once and for all. We aren't Rabbi bring our own new teachings or different gospels. Understood in that sense, we understand that there is no conflict between the statement, "only one Teacher" talking about Jesus Christ and the statements, "God set teachers", talking about believers who simply carry out the only teaching of the only Teacher that matters, namely the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, the New Testament speaks of only one Rabbi (head Teacher) and only one teachings which has to be carried out by small teachers under that the leadership of the Head Teacher. Let's remember the last word of Jesus Christ, the only one true Teacher of the Church,

"Teach them to obey everything that I have told you to do. You can be sure that I will be with you always. I will continue with you until the end of time." - Matthew 28:20  

II/ ONE SHEPHERD (ONE PASTOR) 

Jesus Christ made sure that there would be no confusion about who is the Shepherd and who are the sheep. He said, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep ... I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, ... I have other sheep that don't belong to this fold. I must lead these also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock and one shepherd." - John 10:11,14,16

The English word, "Shepherd" in the Greek New Testament comes from the word, "Poimēn" which is translated by the Strong Greek/Hebrew Dictionary as: Pastor.

The text therefore point out that there is truly one Pastor or Shepherd who is Jesus Christ. Other texts also speak of Jesus as THE Shepherd and not as A shepherd. His uniqueness as Shepherd is continuously emphasized in the New Testament Bible. This also is linked to another word synonymous for shepherds/ pastors which is overseers.

"For you were as sheep going astray, but now you are turned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." - 1 Peter 2:25 

You can't get a clearer text than this, one shepherd/ one Pastor. No room for maneuvering to make Jesus Christ one of the Shepherd. He did not leave that option open to us. One flock of sheep and one Pastor, that's it!

And yet ...

Believers are also called Pastors (shepherds, overseers) in the same New Testament. Here is an example,

"And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers," - Ephesians 4:11   

If we understood the biblical logic used above about the only 'One Teacher', then we will have no trouble understanding the logic of 'One Pastor' in this section. The teaching remains that there is no competing authorities for the sheep, for the pastorate represents authority and leadership. For the believers, there can never be two or more competing spiritual leadership. It is either Jesus Christ leadership or Mammon authority. 

"No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." - Matthew 6:24   

It is either Jesus Christ authority under which we submit or it is demonic authority.

"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot dine with the Lord and dine with demons" - 1 Corinthians 10:21  

It is either Jesus Christ spiritual leadership we are under or it is the World. It is either Jesus teaching authority or it is human understanding we have submitted to. 

"Demas loved this world too much. That is why he left me. ..." - 2 Timothy 4:10   

"Stop loving the world and the things that are in the world. If anyone persists in loving the world, the Father's love is not in him." - 1 John 2:15   

The contrast could continue ad nauseam. The message is clear. There is no competing with God nor His Son, Jesus Christ. Either Jesus Christ shepherd us or someone else shepherd us and hence showing that we might not be of Jesus' sheep. The language is as clearly cut as the one were read about Jesus Christ being the only Teacher. Since there is no middle way, this gets quite perplexing since the New Testament recognizes the presence of other Pastors or Overseers? The answer to this is given to us by St. Peter in his epistle,

"I exhort the elders who are among you, I being also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God among you, taking the oversight ... over those allotted to you by God, and when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory." - 1 Peter 5:1-3, 5

Jesus Christ who is the One Shepherd of John 10 has established other 'sheep', the elder sheep to be precise, to oversee and feed the flock of God on His behalf. The text still point out that the flock is still called the 'flock of God' recognizing that the sheep did not leave Him to belong to another Shepherd. God is still their Shepherd, only this time He is providing His Shepherding through other vessels (i.e the Elders). This means that the Elders' authority are supposed to be the natural extension of Jesus Christ own authority and nothing else. We see this particular understanding among the Believers in the Galatia Church,

"My sickness was a burden to you, but you did not stop showing me respect or make me leave. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel from God. You accepted me as if I were Jesus Christ himself!" - Galatians 4:14  

This demonstrates that believers understood that they have no other Chief Shepherd but the Lord Jesus Christ. And when God sent believers with the gifts of being Pastors toward the Christian believers, the Believers did not looked at the human vessels as being a different or another spiritual Authority, but they saw Jesus Christ Himself through them, for believers have no other Chief Shepherd. All Christian Elders (Priests) we may have as pastors, are simply believers chosen by God to extend His own Pastorate in favor of the believers by protecting them from wolves, by feeding them and caring for them as Jesus Christ Himself would have done (even dying for the sheep).

Jesus Christ will remain uniquely qualified as the Shepherd of believers just like He remains the only Teacher and source of spiritual teachings and doctrines.

"Now may the God of peace (who brought again our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant)" - Hebrew 13:20  

III/ ONLY ONE HOLY ONE 

We have the same biblical logic being expressed here as above, "Lord, who won't fear and praise your name? For you alone are holy, and all the nations will come and worship you because your judgments have been revealed."- Revelation 15:4

"There is no one holy like the LORD, indeed there is no one besides you, there is no rock like our God." - 1 Samuel 2:2  

You can't make this verse more clearer than it has been formulated. God alone is holy. No one is Holy like the Lord. You read this in the Old Testament, you read this also in the New Testament.

And yet ...

The New Testament Bible speaks of Saints numerous times. The word, "Saint" means "Holy". The Greek word translated as saints in the Scripture is the word, "Hagios" which means both Holy and Saint.

"Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren that are with me salute you." - Philippians 4:21   

The scripture also makes references to God's calling to believers as being holiness. It goes so far as to request believers to become holy just as God Himself is Holy.

"but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct, because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy." - 1 Peter 1:15-16

The tension between God being the only one Holy and believers being also Holy is easily resolved once we realize that the same logic applies as it was used earlier with the "only one Teacher" and the "only one Shepherd". Just like believers who received the gift of teaching or the gift of pastorate, Holiness is also given to believers as an extension of God's own Holiness. It is not a different holiness. In the New Testament teaching, The Holy God is Spirit (John 4:24). Since He alone is Holy, God has made believers part of Himself. And by doing so, His Holiness becomes our Holiness by our union with Him. There is not Holiness outside of God, for only God is Holy. 

"And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God ... But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." - 1 Corinthians 6:11,17  

St. Paul is simply clarifying the fact that our sanctification (the process to make us Holy) is done in the Spirit of God. And since by believing Jesus teachings, we join ourselves with the Lord, we become therefore 'one spirit' with the Lord. And since the Spirit of the Lord is Holy, we therefore become Holy as well as part of our union with a Holy God and not apart from God. Hence it can truly be said that only God is Holy, and all form of Holiness believers might display doesn't contradict that statement but simply recognizes the mechanism God used to make us partake on His own Holiness.

IV/ ONE MEDIATOR

This is the text that launched this whole discussion, "There is one God. There is also one mediator between God and human beings—a human, the Messiah Jesus." - 1 Timothy 2:5

The English word, "Mediator" comes from the Greek word, "Mesitēs" which is translated from the Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary as: "a go between, which means, a) an internunciator: someone who speaks on behalf of someone else, or (b) a reconciler: someone who tries to bring peace (intercessor): - a mediator."

Clearly the text says unambiguously that Jesus Christ is the one mediator/ internunciator / reconciler / intercessor between men and God. You can't make this text more emphatic than it has already been made.

"Therefore, because [Jesus] always lives to intercede for them, he is able to save completely those who come to God through him. We need such a high priest—one who is holy, innocent, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens."- Hebrews 7:25-26  

"Who is the one to condemn? It is the Messiah Jesus who is interceding on our behalf. He died, and more importantly, has been raised and is seated at the right hand of God." - Romans 8:34  

Summary: Jesus Christ is the one mediator between men and God (1Tim2:5), the intercessor between God and them [the human race] (Heb7:25) and the one interceding before God on our behalf [the believers] (Rom8:34).

And yet ...

Believers in the same chapter in which Jesus is presented as the only mediator are also requested to be mediators by offering intercessions to all men which as we saw above from the Greek definition is a synonym of mediation.

"First of all, then, I exhort that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men," - 1 Timothy 2:1  

So how is Jesus mediation and intercession different from human intercession? What type of Mediation Jesus did that made Him uniquely qualified that excludes all other form of mediation? If we can't answer this, we then have a conflict between these two biblical statements, namely Jesus is the one mediator between God and men and Believers are also called to make intercessions/mediation for all men before God. Let's remember that intercession, reconciler and internunciator are synonymous with mediation (Mesitēs) in the Strong Greek/Hebrew Dictionary.

Put simply, Jesus Christ mediation is unique for it is a mediation made at the cost of His own life. It is a mediation of a new covenant between Men and God. It is a mediation that reconcile a lost humanity with a loving God.

"and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel." - Hebrew 12:24  

"And for this cause He is the Mediator of the new covenant, so that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, those who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." - Hebrews 9:15  

There is no new covenant outside of the covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ. Hence, there can never be another Mediator, or another reconciler (someone who bring reconciliation) between God and Men. Only Jesus Christ uniquely qualifies. And that is where we find the open doors for the believers to express his intercessions and mediation (reconciler) in favor of all men.

"All of this comes from God, who has reconciled us to himself through the Messiah and has given us the ministry of reconciliation," - 2 Corinthians 5:18 

"for through the Messiah, God was reconciling the world to himself by not counting their sins against them. He has committed his message of reconciliation to us." - 2 Corinthians 5:19   

This is how we have become ourselves small mediators. The mediation is not done under our own authority for we have no authority to reconcile the World with God. Our experience of mediation, intercession, reconciliation that we perform is a logical extension of Jesus Christ own Mediation. Believers as part of the mystic body of Christ are a natural extension of Jesus Christ own Mediation to a broken world.

Coming back to my initial contention, when believers of a certain Christian community says that so and so is a mediator or a mediatrix, it is not in defiance of the 'One Mediator between God and Man' but it is an acknowledgement that Christ Mediation is shared with Believers to bring about the reconciliation between God and Man through the blood of the New Covenant, the Blood of Jesus Christ.

V/ FINAL REMINDER: DIVINE TRANSFER 

The lessons to be drawn from this study; namely (a) the only Teacher, (b) The only Shepherd/Pastor, (c) The only one to be Holy and (d) the One Mediator; is that God so loved the World that He gave His Only begotten Son to change unrepentant men into sanctified believers capable of experiencing the divine attributes according to God's calling for them and according to the measure of faith given to each believers. Thus, what was only known to be of God become also experienced by extension to believers. Only Christ is the teacher, the shepherd, the mediator and because we are united to Him, we received divine gifts to also teach, shepherd and mediate in His name and not apart of His name and authority. There is a transference of divine nature to believers which allows God's Kingdom to advance in fulfilling God's agenda on earth through mere and blessed humans.

"Through these He has given us His precious and wonderful promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, seeing that you have escaped the corruption that is in the world caused by evil desires." - 2 Peter 1:4 

Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability

Since my exposure to historical Apologetic through the writing of Josh McDowell classic: "More than a Carpenter", i have shown great sympathy to the "evidentialist position" although i still believe that many things in my faith should be received by faith.

Two years ago, I had found a new apologeticwebsite and i kind of liked their approach on the manuscript of the New Testament. This paragraph below sums up the whole argument of the link below:

"If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer..."

Read more by clicking on this link:

http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testa\
ment-reliability

P.S: Don't forget to check out my book - Help Me Understand Jesus. Check My Book by clicking here or more here.

The Problem of Pleasure (VG & Porn)

From Google Image

 I wonder if this is just a coincidence or a divine providence? Early today, i was reading an excerpt of Dr. Ravi Zacharis new book, Why Jesus - in the book he argues, just like he does in his speaking engagements, that people are now fast approaching the trends of suicide due to a meaningless life, not because of suffering but because of pleasure.

Pleasure is our new big problem, he reflects and philosophically argued. I probably would have forgotten all about that if I didn't read and listen few hours after that to an expert psychologist who now brought what seems to be an argument about the danger of excessive pleasures based on data collection and research that his team had done.

Basically, Video gaming (VG) and Pornography is the new problem and the new dream-killer of our youth generation of male. Who would have thought that pleasure could have such detrimental effects on lives? Well, Christians thinkers and other wise observers warned about that for many decades and centuries. Today, social scientists are joining those old voices in providing more and more data to sustain their ominous predictions.

What is fascinating is that, male (boys and men) are being the principal victims of this new destroyer! Honestly, it ain't much of a NEW destroyer. It is actually an OLD destroyer of dreams and visions. The first couple lost the first paradise because of pleasure*

" When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it" Genesis 3:6

The lust and thirsty for that which is forbidden has long been the central problem of our human race. These pleasurable things may seem harmless but they are profoundly destructive when handled by unwise mind.

" (...) researchers say ... young men become hooked on arousal, sacrificing their schoolwork and relationships in the pursuit of getting a tech-based buzz. Every compulsive gambler, alcoholic or drug addict will tell you that they want increasingly more of a game or drink or drug in order to get the same quality of buzz. Video game and porn addictions are different. They are "arousal addictions," where the attraction is in the novelty, the variety or the surprise factor of the content. Sameness is soon habituated; newness heightens excitement. In traditional drug arousal, conversely, addicts want more of the same cocaine or heroin or favorite food.The consequences could be dramatic: The excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment."

You can read more about that on this CNN article titled: "The Demise of guys: How video games and porn are ruining a generation".

The lead researcher has also given a very short introduction on TED which i recommend the brief listening.

I hope you find this instructive and informative. May the Lord bring more of His light to this world through His church.
Check My Book here.


* Genesis 3:6, doesn't speak of sexual pleasure. It couldn't be a sexual offense for the simple reason that Eve and Adam were a couple and had already received the mandate to replenish the earth (Genesis 1 and 2), and we know well how human populates a region, right?

Ispiring Christian Scientist Scholars

Three provocative and well-credentialed Christian Scientists favorites:

Dr. Vern Poythress -

"He earned a B.S. in Mathematics from California Institute of Technology (1966), where he was a Putnam fellow in 1964, and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University (1970). He studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics at the University of Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and he enrolled at Westminster Theological Seminary, earning an M.Div. (1974) and a Th.M. in apologetics (1974). He then received an M.Litt. in New Testament from University of Cambridge (1977) and a Th.D. in New Testament from the University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa (1981)."

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles_topic.htm


Dr. John Lennox -

"John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University.

He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds a DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Wuerzburg and Freiburg in Germany. In addition to over seventy published mathematical papers he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series. "

http://johnlennox.org/



 
Dr. Ard Louis -

"Ard A. Louis is a Royal Society University Research Fellow and a Reader in Theoretical Physics at the University of Oxford, where he leads an interdisciplinary research group studying problems on the border between chemistry, physics and biology. He is also International Secretary for Christians in Science and an associate of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, and served on the European advisory board of the John Templeton Foundation. He occasionally writes for BioLogos.

Prior to his post at Oxford he taught Theoretical Chemistry at Cambridge University where he was also director of studies in Natural Sciences at Hughes Hall.

He was born in the Netherlands, was raised in Gabon and received his first degree from the University of Utrecht and his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Cornell University."

http://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/people/ArdLouis/

All three are very insightful and approachable folks, so they say!