Author Archives: Clarke Morledge

About Clarke Morledge

Unknown's avatar
Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary... I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit.
August 14, 2020

Should Christians “Lift Jesus Higher” in Their Worship?

By Clarke Morledge

I will quote one of my favorite Scripture songs that I learned as a young believer in the 1980’s:

Lift Jesus higher.  Lift Jesus higher. Lift him up for the world to see.  He said, “If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me.”

Written by an American song writer, it has been exported all over the world, and sung perhaps millions of times. Of course, we should lift up the name of Jesus, as He is worthy to be praised. The problem is that this song is largely taken from a single verse, John 12:32 (KJV), in a passage that few Christians bother to read carefully.

If you read that verse in context, this particular passage does not say what most Christians think it means. Look at the verse, and then read the very next verse:

(v.32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

(v.33) This he said, signifying what death he should die.

When we sing “Life Jesus Higher,” what are we really singing about?

As New Testament scholar Craig Keener demonstrates, John explicitly tells us what this text actually means, or signifies, as Jesus is prophetically saying that he would be physically lifted up on a cross, in order to die.

In other words, when we sing this song, it is like shouting out, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

Oooops….

Ponder that for a moment….

To borrow from that great philosopher, Inigo Montoya, in The Princess Bride, this verse does not mean what most Christians think it means.

Mmmph!!…..

But there is more to the difficulty concerning this verse: When we read that Jesus’ being lifted up “will draw all men unto me,” what does that mean?

Some have suggested that this verse is a prooftext for universalism, the belief that all people will be saved in the end …. as in every human being. Former evangelical megachurch pastor, Rob Bell, hinted at it in his wildly controversial 2011 book, Love Wins. Well known theologian, David Bentley Hart, has made this very case, quite explicitly and forcefully in recent years, culminating in his 2019 book, That All Shall Be Saved. For if “all men” are “drawn” to Jesus, would this not suggest that everyone… as in every single human person….. will come to know Jesus?

There are a couple of issues to consider, in an effort to clear things up:

First, the word “draw“, as in “draw all men unto me,” requires further consideration.  In John 6:44, we see another reference to “draw,” where we read, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day“(ESV). This would suggest that not everyone is necessarily “drawn” to Jesus.

This leads us into the thicket of the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, whereby advocates of limited atonement (Calvinist), those who believe that Jesus dies only for the elect, might say that John 6:44 teaches about God drawing the elect toward salvation. John 6:44 would thus restrict the scope of “all” in John 12:32, to only include “all of the elect.” Advocates of unlimited atonement (Arminian), those who believe that Jesus dies for every human person, might insist that the “draw” in John 12:32 is about Jesus’ death for all persons, but only in the sense of allowing for the potential of everyone’s salvation.

Secondly, it bears taking a closer look at who the “all” is about in this verse, from a different, hopefully more productive angle. Jesus’ speech takes place during a festival, where some “Greeks” (or Gentiles) had arrived (John 12:20). This has led many scholars to conclude that the “all” described by Jesus is not about all individuals, but rather it is about all kinds of people, including both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, Jesus’ death is not for Jews alone, but for Gentiles as well.

This does not resolve the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, but it refocuses our attention on a constant theme throughout the New Testament, regarding the relationship between Jew and Gentile, that does not receive as much attention as it should. It is very easy to get caught up theological debates that have raged throughout the evangelical movement over the past few hundred years, including the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, as well as the occasional interest in universalism. But a closer reexamination of the Jewish/Gentile conflict, that captivated the attention of the first century readers and writers of the New Testament, is a more responsible way of reading passages like this in John’s Gospel. A few modern study Bibles, such as the ESV Study Bible and the Zondervan NIV Study Bible, contend for this interpretation in their study notes, concerning John 12:32.

For years, I have sung this song, thinking that we are celebrating the glory of God, as Jesus is lifted up. The song has a very “happy-clappy” feel to it. But “lifting up Jesus,” in the context of this verse, is about how human sin drove Jesus to the cross, which should engender in believers a sense of sobriety, in view of how much we have rebelled against a holy and righteous God. In the most immediate sense, this is not very “happy-clappy.”

However, it is the Resurrection, in which Jesus had victory over sin and death, that should cause us to celebrate. So, yes, we are to lift up the name of Jesus, and it is in this way that we can joyfully sing praise to the Lord, thanking him for giving up his life, so that we as believers might receive new life. Furthermore, this new life is for everyone…. all kinds of people,….. whether they be Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, black or white.

Though I still like the song, it makes me think twice about what we think and do as Christians, in our worship. Sometimes, we as Christians get the right lesson to be learned from the wrong text!

1 Comment   |  tags: , | posted in Topics

August 8, 2020

What About Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans???

By Clarke Morledge

In Colossians 4:16, the apostle Paul talks about a letter he wrote concerning the Laodiceans. What is the story behind this mysterious letter?

The ESV puts the verse as follows:

“And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.”

First, note that the word “from” is highlighted. There is a good deal of controversy regarding how this should be translated, as the phrasing is ambiguous. Most translations, like the ESV, say that that letter came from Laodicea, which might imply that it was the Laodiceans who wrote the letter. For if the letter actually came from Laodicea, it might imply that Paul wrote it while in Laodicea. The difficulty here is that there is no evidence to indicate that Paul was ever in Laodicea.

The ancient city of Laodicea, an early church city site, mentioned in the Book of Revelation. The Apostle Paul also mentions a mysterious letter, with respect to the church in Laodicea, in his letter to the Colossians.
(Credit: Rjdeadly – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19781425)

It is possible to say that the letter “from Laodicea” was actually another letter written by Paul, that was being circulated around the area, which had most recently been in the hands of the Laodiceans. The strongest candidate for this letter would be Ephesians, as most scholars contend that Ephesians was not written for any particular church community location, but rather was intended to be circulated among a number of churches nearby Ephesus, which could also include Laodicea.

Either way, most scholars today contend that it was actually Paul who wrote the letter, and not the church in Laodicea. The New Living Translation (NLT) is one of the few translations that explicitly puts this out there (the NASB is similar):

“After you have read this letter, pass it on to the church at Laodicea so they can read it, too. And you should read the letter I wrote to them.”

This then raises the question as to what this letter is: If it is not the Book of Ephesians, then what is it?

Interestingly, some copies of the Latin Vulgate, dating back to at least the 6th century (if not earlier), possess a copy of the “Epistle to the Laodiceans.” What makes this very remarkable is that a separate “Epistle to the Laodiceans” has never been confirmed as being in our possession today, as being written by Paul. Such skepticism can be found with Jerome, the original translator of the first version of the Vulgate, back in the 4th century, who completely rejected the “Epistle to the Laodiceans” as a forgery.

Nevertheless, this “Epistle to the Laodiceans” survived in popularity, well into the late medieval period. John Wycliffe, the early English proto-Reformer, included the “Epistle to the Laodiceans” in his English translation of the Bible. Despite there being no surviving Greek text for this document, we still have some Christians, like the Quakers in the 16th century, still claiming it was a valid letter from Paul.

If you actually read the “Epistle to the Laodiceans,” it does not really say much of anything of theological substance. But it does make you wonder why the popularity of this book survived for so long, as being something authentically from Paul, when there is really very little, if any evidence, to support this assertion.

Pastor/teacher John Piper, in this video answers the question, as to what we should do if an authentically Pauline “Epistle to the Laodiceans” were to ever show up:

Piper correctly notes that it would be extraordinarily difficult to determine if a newly discovered document was this so-called lost “Epistle to the Laodiceans.” The evidential support for such a claim would have to be quite extraordinary.

The Proverbial “Who Cares?”

Why even bother with this question? Because in recent centuries, a number of the letters of Paul have been disputed as being actually written by Paul. Of the thirteen letters attributed by Paul, in our New Testament, six of them fall into the category of being “disputed.” The seven undisputed letters written by Paul are:

  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Philippians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • Philemon

To varying degrees, the disputed letters include:

  • Ephesians
  • Colossians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus

In general, the first three in the list have a higher degree of confidence, as being written by Paul, as compared to the last three (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy & Titus). These disputed letters are notable as they contain important teaching material that is not repeated as clearly as in other parts of the Bible. For example, Ephesians is known for having some important material regarding predestination. 1 Timothy and Titus are the only letters of Paul that discuss the concept of “elders.”

New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner, at Southern Baptist Seminary, takes 6-minutes to lay out the issues:

The problem with having a “disputed” letter in the canon of Scripture is that all of these thirteen letters explicitly say that they were written by Paul. Aside from a particularly unique proposal called “allonymity,” the idea of having letters in our New Testament that were not written by Paul, even though the actual text of these letters all claimed to have been written by Paul, is a particularly devastating claim made against an orthodox perspective of the Bible.

But as we see with the case of the “Epistle to the Laodiceans,” great care has been taken over the centuries to dismiss certain documents as being forgeries, and rejecting them from the canon of Scripture, even when such documents at times still linger on as being popular, in some circles (In the Tom Schreiner video above, Dr. Schreiner lays out a similar case against the second century work, The Acts of Paul and Thecla). Part of the reason why it took so long for the canon of Scripture to mature is that Christians, particularly in the early church, wanted to make sure that the texts that were claimed to be inspired actually measured up to such claims.

The truth of the matter is that while the text of the original New and Old Testament is inspired, the table of contents section is not. Nevertheless, we have good reasons to believe that our current canon of Scripture, that has survived the test of time, is still sufficient for us to maintain our confidence in what is listed in the table of contents of our Bibles.

 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , | posted in Apostle Paul

August 3, 2020

2020 Updates for English Bible Translations

By Clarke Morledge

Newcomers to the English Bible often lament the seemingly never-ending proliferation of Bible translations: Which one do I pick? Long gone are the days when the King James Version of the Bible ruled them all!

The past ten years have seen a particular spurt of growth of newer English Bible translations. The late 20th century classic, the New International Version (NIV) 1984, got a major facelift in 2011. The English Standard Version (ESV) got its last update in 2016.

But while the well-known NIV and ESV battle it out over which one is more popular, other English translations have emerged. The New English Translation (NET) Bible, known for its extensive footnotes, and all available online, got a major revision in 2019. The Holman Christian Standard Bible was replaced by the Christian Standard Bible (CSB), in 2017.

Bible translations. How many do we really need?

Just when you thought we would be worn out by all of these new translations and updates, we learn in 2020 of yet another round of updates.  First, the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) got a minor revision of updates, of less than 1% of the text, in early 2020. The CSB project was driven a lot by Dr. Thomas Schreiner, of Southern Baptist Seminary. Dr. Schreiner was once a graduate student of Dr. Donald Hagner, at Fuller Seminary. Hagner was my primary New Testament professor, when I went to Fuller. An interview with Dr. Schreiner, about the CSB, can be found here on YouTube. The CSB committee suggests that the small update this year will be the last one, for perhaps the next 10 years. Find out all about it here. A downloadable PDF of the changes can be found here.

Secondly, the venerable New American Standard Bible (NASB), developed by the Lockman Foundation, first published in 1971, was last updated in 1995. A new update for 2020 is expected to hit the printers by early 2021. But you can see a preview of the changes on Facebook.

Finally, we learn that Southern California pastor John MacArthur is planning on yet another revision of the NASB, to be called the Legacy Standard Bible. The impetus behind the Legacy Standard Bible is to provide an “accurate” translation, based on the latest advances in the study of ancient Bible manuscripts, while shying away from some current interpretive trends in certain modern translations.

Here is my take: The positive side of having all of these Bible translations is that it helps to compare different nuances in how English words and phrases can be used to translate the original Hebrew and Greek. All of the major translations available today are very good (only a handful, like the Passion Translation, generally should be avoided). That is why I make regular use of websites like BibleGateway.com, where you can compare different Bible translations, side-by-side, as part of my devotional and study reading, in addition to normally reading from my English Standard Version (ESV) study Bible.

But sometimes we can go too far. The downside to having so many Bible translations available, the situation will continue to lead towards more tribalism in English-speaking Christianity. Different Bible translations, with different perspectives, will compete for different readerships in mind, and individual believers and churches will find themselves gravitating towards one silo, or another, thereby undermining widespread trust across multiple segments of evangelicalism, a case that Bible scholar Mark Ward strongly made most recently.

In other words, the plethora of Bible translations will thrill the Bible nerd, like me, but it will surely frustrate and confuse the average Christian, for whom a regular pattern of Bible reading and study can be a struggle…. and it is simply better to have in mind the plumbers, Soccer moms, and restaurant table waiters, than in trying to cater to the Bible nerds.

6 Comments   |  tags: | posted in Topics

July 30, 2020

John Lewis Crosses the Edmund Pettus Bridge…. One Last Time

By Clarke Morledge

A pretty powerful moment. Listen for the cicadas and tree crickets. The late John Lewis crosses the bridge in Selma, one final time. He originally tried to cross the bridge, on the way to Montgomery, before being stopped by a police riot, 55 years ago.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in Topics

July 24, 2020

What is “Critical Theory”?

By Clarke Morledge

Have you ever heard the term “critical theory”? Specifically, have you heard of “critical race theory”?

With all of the discussion about “Black Lives Matter,” many are not aware that the concept of “critical theory” has made “BLM” the watchword for today. For some, critical theory is simply a tool for understanding how power dynamics work between oppressor and oppressor groups, in societies. Historically, this is fairly close to how Christians have talked about “social justice” and “fighting racism,” etc. Yes, there are genuinely oppressed people…. and yes, justice is a theme that runs all through the Bible, as is combatting racism. In this sense, we as Christians can surely affirm the idea that “black lives” really do “matter.” What could be wrong with that?

But is there more to this movement? Many are not aware that “critical theory,” whether it is applied towards race, gender, or sexual orientation, also has its roots in postmodern philosophy (think Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida, JeanFrancois Lyotard, etc).

(Photo by DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP via Getty Images)

As it has been taught in many American universities, since about the early-mid 1990s, “critical theory” in this sense has come across as being very, very different, even to the point of being antithetical to the Gospel. According to James Lindsay, a scholar at New Discources, this version of critical theory has almost become a new religion, where there is no such thing as absolute truth. In this sense, “critical theory” goes even beyond “politics.” Many Christians lump all of this into “identity politics,” but this is merely a symptom of a deeper problem, rooted in postmodernism.

So, what is the fundamental idea, associated with the “critical theory” approach to postmodernism?In a nutshell: Claims to truth are simply attempts by an oppressor group to oppress others, in order to hold onto their power. Gone is the vision imagined by Martin Luther King, Jr., whereby a person should be judged, not by color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Now, the color of a person’s skin means everything. In other words, what Christians have historically meant by “social justice” does not mean the same thing as what “critical theorists” today mean by “social justice.”

So, what do people actually mean when they say, “Black Lives Matter?”  I do not really know. Perhaps it means something like what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned… OR, perhaps it means a NeoMarxist view of reality. The meaning appears to differ from person to person.

Confusion about critical theory is causing a crisis for Christians. Sadly, as a result, critical theory is dividing the evangelical church today. Some, like popular Christian author Jemar Tisby, referenced in an earlier Veracity blog post, believe “critical theory” to be very useful for Christians. Monique Duson, of the Center for Biblical Unity, on the other hand, rejects this use of “critical theory,” as actually undermining Gospel.

What makes this even more difficult is that a growing number of secular thinkers are catching onto what is going on (see atheist, mathematician James Lyndsay, in this provocative and alarming YouTube video) , while many Christians remain puzzled. When we can not even agree on what the words mean, we get into serious trouble (Where is C.S. Lewis, when you need him?).

We need a conversation about this. How should we respond, yet as followers of Jesus?

In recent months, I have blogged about conspiracy theories, on the right, that fascinate a number of my fellow Christians. But the “uncritical” acceptance, without sufficient nuance, of critical race theory, among other of my fellow Christians, has a lot of the same properties of being a conspiracy theory, but this time, on the left. It is as though we are all caught in the middle of ideological cross-fire, where one extreme is the mirror image of the other extreme. We live in strange times, that require great amounts of wise, Spirit-led discernment.

Here below is a helpful video, where Christian apologist Alisa Childers interviews Monique Duson, of the Center for Biblical Unity, who explains, why she, as a black Christian, rejects critical race theory. If the first 10 seconds of the video do not interest you, I do not know what will.

YES: I recognize that the video is an hour long. I am sorry, but this type of stuff is exceedingly complex, and can not be summed up in a Twitter tweet or a sound bite.  But if you really only have 4 minutes to spare, I have also included a 4-minute clip of an interview by Bobby Conway with Neil Shenvi, one of the top Christian thinkers who understands critical theory, where he sums up his advice for Christians and Christian leaders (link to full interview):

Let the conversation begin: What do you think?:

3 Comments   |  tags: | posted in Topics