Does Colossians 1:15 Mean Jesus Was a Created Being?

Question: Colossians 1:15 says: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Is this saying that Jesus is a created entity? To be firstborn indicates that someone or something bore it, that the thing doing the bearing existed prior to the thing being born. Is it possible that Jesus and the Holy Spirit, while being fully God as well, we`re created by God initially?

Answer: Good question! I think, however, that to be created by God, means that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) could not be fully God.  So what should we make of this term, firstborn?  Well, it is somewhat confusing and this is one of two key passages most often used by Jehovah's Witnesses to try and disprove that Jesus was in fact, fully God.  The JW's know that if Jesus was a created being, he CANNOT be God, so they teach that "firstborn" must mean "first created thing."

They presume that Jesus is the archangel Michael; a great being, but not God. To press their point, they actually add to the text of the Bible in this passage. In their special translation (the New World Translation) they actually add the word "other" 6 times in this passage, in order to emphasize that Jesus was just one of many created things:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him." NWT

Now, their logic is correct, (if firstborn means first-created then Jesus cannot be God) but their understanding of that word "firstborn" is not correct and thus their diminishing of Christ from full Godhood is heretical, for three reasons:

First, their taking the liberty of adding the word "other" shows an inherent weakness in their interpretation. They have to tamper with the text to avoid the clear meaning of the ENTIRE passage in context: if ALL things were created through Jesus, (as the text actually says) then clearly Jesus was not one of the created things!

Second, while that Greek word "firstborn" contains the word 'born' inside it, we would be mistaken to infer that it must imply Christ had a beginning, like a 'first born' human child.  In New Testament Greek, the word was often understood to indicate preeminence of rank, not chronological origin.  

Some scholars see in the word an allusion to the ancient custom whereby the firstborn son in a family was accorded the rights and privileges the other children didn't have. Thus the firstborn was uniquely the Father's heir and representative. The emphasis then has nothing to do with a 'beginning' for the son, but rather is about rank, responsibility, rights and reflection of the Father. As further evidence that Paul means to communicate the supremacy of Christ and not the "origin" of Christ with this word, he goes to great lengths after verse 15 to emphasize that Jesus was responsible for the creation of EVERYTHING: invisible and visible, all spiritual powers, all worlds, all seen things in the universe we live in. He "existed before everything began and in him all creation holds together" (17). This is not a created being - clearly - since he is RESPONSIBLE for creation!  

He cannot be responsible for all Creation and also be a part of it, just as God cannot be Creator of the Universe and also a part of it.  This also echoes a psalm of David: “I will also make him My firstborn, greatest of the kings of the earth” (Ps 89:27). And elsewhere, Israel is called God’s “firstborn” (Ex 4:22) - clearly not “first in a series”, rather preeminent.

Third, this entire passage is Paul's treatise on the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. He is specifically comparing the greatness of Christ against the greatness of angels which the Colossian teachers falsely taught the Church to venerate (2:18). And this underlines just how egregious it is for the JW's to call Jesus an angel, when the whole flow of this chapter AND Hebrews 1 is designed to tell Christians that Jesus is NO angel, and no mere human nor merely another one of many exalted powerful creatures. Rather, he is "the image of the invisible God," (Col 1:15), and, "the Son is exact representation of His being" (Heb 1:3).  As if to put the matter beyond all doubt, Paul loses all restraint and says one chapter later, "For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body" (Col. 2:9)

In fact, Paul's use of "firstborn" in one sense matches Jesus own statement about himself in John 3:16 where is described as "begotten".  Again we might think begotten implies a time when Jesus was created, but in fact the real distinction is between something BEGOTTEN versus something MADE.  A man begets what is like himself, a son, but he makes was is unlike himself, a house or a painting.

That's why of all the analogies to apply to Jesus's relationship to God, the one he gave himself, "Son" is still the best.  Jesus is of the same stuff as the Father, begotten, not made.  It's true that while equal with the Father, Jesus's sonship says that he proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit being the "Spirit of Jesus" and the "Spirit of God" must proceed from the Father and Son.  They are separate persons as the New Testament shows, but that doesn't mean they were created.

So ANOTHER biblical metaphor will help understand how Jesus could be begotten but not made. The Bible says Jesus is "the Word", the Father then must be the Thought or Mind.  One proceeds from the other, but from all eternity, if you have one, you have the other.  As CS Lewis said, "Jesus is what the Father has to say, but there was never a time he wasn't saying it."

Why does this matter?  Well, the sufficiency of the Redemption hangs on the truth of Jesus identity.  If Jesus was a created being, he cannot carry sin, for any finite being cannot be the infinite satisfaction for God's just demands offended in creation's fall (Innocent lambs weren't good enough to cover sin - Heb 9:23 - why would angels be?).

Also, any intermediary substitute who is NOT God cannot resolve a broken relationship with God.  We say Jesus is a substitutionary sacrifice, and so he was, a substitute for US.  But he was not a substitute for God!  If he is some created thing, he cannot represent God's interest in the cosmic conflict with fallen man, just as you can't send an employee to offer vicarious forgiveness to your daughter when she messes up.  You have to go in yourself.

If the fullness of the Godhead rests in Christ (Col. 2:9), then and only then can it be true that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." (2 Cor 5:19)

Is it permissible for Christians to engage in premarital sex?

QUESTION: We are an adult Christian couple both soon to have final divorce documents complete. Our question is: When we are dating, is there any place for sexual intimacy in this budding relationship or is abstinence the only correct path. Please cite Hard Scripture in addition to any pastoral counseling experience you have on this matter.

ANSWER: I think that the Scriptures give a clear answer to your question, namely that sexual intimacy ought to be reserved for marriage.

The Bible says in Heb 13:4-5 that "marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."  So this is the simplest description of how sexuality ought to be used by Christians in that it describes the two primary ways to MIS-use it: through adultery and sexual immorality.  One is the sexual indiscretion of married people (Adultery) and the other refers to the sexual indiscretions of unmarried people (Sexual Immorality).  In fact the Greek word used here and elsewhere, "pornea", is used for a wide variety of sexual sins.

This rule essentially puts a net around the act of sex, containing it's tremendous power within a safe zone.  Why is such a safety net needed?  Well, nothing can be clearer from the beginning of the Bible to the end than that sex is a powerful, spiritual joining (Genesis 2:25, 1 Cor 6:18).  Hence God's design for sexuality is that it be between a man and a women in a committed, covenant bond.  So the 7th commandment about adultery (Deut 20:14) and all other sex guidelines in the Law that follow (Leviticus 18) clearly reserve sexual intercourse for the relative safety of the marriage bed.

Since marriage was the norm in Jewish society, the only sex between unmarried persons addressed in the law, regarded virgins.  But here too we see again the underlying Scriptural premise that the bond of sex is in some sense permanent, because a man who deflowered a virgin would be required to marry her (Ex 22:16).

So you can see that you can't separate adultery from what is often called "fornication".  Which is why the same word is often used for ALL sexual indiscretion, because it's all essentially a violation of a single ideal - one man, one woman, for life.  From God's perspective, the act of sex is the act of marriage, for God looks at your sex partner as a "one flesh" partner.

This is what underlines Jesus teaching on sex.  The spiritual permanence of the sexual bond is why Jesus was so upset with the state of marriage in his own day.  He called out the Jews for their rampant divorce and remarriage culture.  He even called those who divorce and remarry adulterers!  Matt 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Why would he do that?  It's not because divorce is an unforgivable sin.  He says this because the Jews weren't seeing ANY sin in divorce at all!  They thought that if they followed lawful and fair Mosaic procedures for divorce  that God was indifferent about the whole thing.  But Jesus wanted them to see that they were dead wrong.  Inherent in all divorce is a desecration of God's larger goals in sexuality, which is the creation of lifelong, one flesh bonds.  So while they wanted to talk about what was "lawful" (from Moses, Deut 24:1) Jesus wanted to talk about what brings Life from God's original creation design (Matt 19:4-6).  Therefore, because of that higher, creation design that says sexual intercourse forms spiritual bonds ("one flesh unions") , Jesus wanted us to see that divorce creates a situation where on one level, the divorcee, even if lawfully remarried is, by a life long bond, someone else's spouse - therefore is an adulterer.

Now, I do not teach (as some Christian leaders do) that Christians cannot ever get re-married.  But i do believe it's almost impossible that a Christian can divorce and remarry without some sin in the picture.  Only in exceptional circumstance (Jesus mentions the presence of sexual immorality as one exception, Paul mentions abandonment) can a Christian think that the dissolution of a marriage is a faultless, benign exercise.  HOWEVER, there is forgiveness in Christ for all sins, even the adultery caused by divorce and remarriage.  Like all sin, it should be confessed and repented of - but repentance would not include divorcing your second spouse!  Obviously, what you repent of in divorce is that you didn't follow God's creation design with sex as permanent bond... therefore, repentance would mean sorrow for marriage failure and a strong commitment to a remarriage that lasts.

In my experience, when a person justifies their divorce (except in cases of physical/sexual abuse) it's usually a guarantee that the issues that lead to the dissolution of the first marriage will follow you into the next.  Without a long period of mourning, confession, repentance and God's forgiveness and healing work and without needed counsel and wisdom inside the Body of Christ, a divorcee is not ready for remarriage.  If you're wanting to have sex without marriage, it tells me that you're probably not fully repentant yet... meaning you have not yet fully brought your mind in line with God's mind on sex.

How can I say that?  Because again, the whole premise of Scripture on sex is that it brings a deep spiritual bond and therefore must be accompanied by commensurate physical and emotional bonds of permanence - IE the marriage promise.   Paul says to those having sex outside of marriage "1 Cor 6:16-7:1  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."  There is no such thing as casual sex in God's book.

So again Paul does what Jesus does:  he goes back to the creation design for sex and says the question a Christian should be asking about sex is not, "what is permissible?" but rather "what brings Life according to the benevolent design of the Designer of sex?"  Getting on God's page requires that we see sex through different lenses than pure pragmatism, or desire or expedience.  Paul concludes the matter with a fitting challenge for you and your partner:  "Flee from sexual immorality.  All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.  Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

I trust you'll find amazing amounts of LIFE down God's path, even if it means accepting the privation of abstinence in the short run.  God's way always means short term pain, but long term pleasure, if we, by an act of faith, will trust Him and obey.

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

QUESTION: I'm continually amused by people who build their life on a person we don't even know existed. And please don't cite the Bible as evidence, it's a story written by insiders long after the fact, without anything we could consider fact. The whole thing is biased, and suspect as history. You'd think if Jesus was everything it claims I'd love to see at least SOME reference to him elsewhere, but there's not.  The best we can say is that Jesus is a person alleged to have existed.

 RESPONSE: I`m pleased by your commendable openness to correction from real, empirical evidence.  In fact there is evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the Bible and of a quantity and type that make this case something of a slam dunk.  Given your openness (and assuming you will verify what I`m saying represents the real state of the evidence) I look forward to changing your mind on Jesus!

For starters, I don`t think it`s fair of you to make sweeping invalidation of the whole New Testament as an historical source simply because it`s biased, or polemical or that contains the supernatural.  "Mein Kampf" is biased and erroneous in places, but it is not for that reason completely void of historical facts.  The great majority of history as we know it was written without much consideration for "objectivity" - that includes a ton of stuff that you would consider historically true, such as "Gaulic Wars" by Julius Caesar.

So the Gospels can`t, in one fell swoop, be invalidated as historical sources simply because they are "sermons". They are... but Luke/Acts for example, contains tons of verifiable, falsifiable historical information that any real historian would pay attention to, no matter what Luke`s agenda is. Yes, he writes of many account that you might consider untrue because they are miraculous, but no scholar thinks Luke is writing mythology. He lodges his story in time and space with incredible precision, naming names, citing places and events that can be verified.

To rule this out as a valid historical source simply because there`s an account of some non-physical phenomena in it, not very scholarly. By this criteria you would rule out much of recorded history. Verifiable and falsifiable content in the Gospels include the names of Roman rulers, Herod, Pilate, Philip; geographical facts about towns and places, religious facts about 1st century Judaism, facts about structures in and around Jerusalem that have been confirmed by archaeology - Herod`s Temple, the 5 sided portico at the pool of Siloam, the pool of Bethesda, the sheep gate, the Hulda gates, Caesarea, the existence of Nazareth etc, etc.

These are unquestioned facts.

But, we don`t have to only rely on the Gospels alone to confirm the mere existence of Jesus. Here`s a list of sources:

The Gospel of Q: We don't have an existing fragment of Q but many believe this collection of sayings, teachings, and stories about Jesus was transmitted orally and was first written down by Jesus` followers long before 50 - they form the base material for the Synopics (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

Epistles from the New Testament: Liberal theologians believe that some of these were written as late as 150 CE, but ALL scholars believe that Paul authored Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Romans and 1&2 Thessalonians prior to his death in the mid 60`s.  This is another source.

The challenge here is to have a more scholarly view of the Bible. That is, you ought not to see the Bible as ONE SOURCE for the existence of Jesus (that can be all swept aside in one move) but as at least 5 to 8 sources which all have to be independently evaluated.

Paul is an independent witness from the Gospels and Paul is even earlier than the Gospels. That Paul was a man writing in the middle of the first century is considered unquestioned fact by every reputable scholar.  He confirms the physical existence of a man named Jesus repeatedly, writing during a time that witnesses could verify his claims - certainly the most basic claim that Jesus actually LIVED would have been beyond dispute. Paul also mentioned that a fellow Christian, James, the brother of Jesus, headed up the Jerusalem Church. Paul alone is a strong indicator that a man named Jesus had lived in the early 1st century.

The Gnostics: This early Christian movement (strong from 100-200 CE) was composed of Gnostic Christians, Jewish Christians, and Pauline Christians. They had non Orthodox views, but they believed that a man "Jesus" was imbued with the "Christ" essence in the 1st century.

Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. He wrote a book, Antiquities of the Jews circa 93 CE. He described Jesus` as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate:  "About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful deeds, and a teacher of men who gladly receive the truth.] He drew to himself many [both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. He was the Christ]; and when Pilate, on the indictment of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not cease to do so, [for he appeared to them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things about him.] And even to this day the race of Christians, who are named from him, has not died out." The passages in parenthesis may be the result of a later Christian forger who appended the text to confirm the Bible`s story. But even if you take those out, Josephus, a trusted historian, unquestionably claims that Jesus existed. Other Roman historians:

TACITUS: who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE) "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration. Hence, to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome..." 

 SUETONIUS: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE.  He wrote: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is sometimes said to refer to someone other than Christ (since the name is misspelled) but in fact this confirms exactly what Luke said - that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome around that time. 

 SUETONIUS: "Punishment [by Nero] was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." 

 PLINY: In questioning Christians brought to trial he discovered (120 CE?)... "They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when they should be called on to deliver it up..." 

 LUCIAN: Greek writer and satirist (150? CE): "...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world...Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." 

 Jewish literature: The Talmud (from 2nd Century CE) states that Jesus lived. They confirm his miraculous deeds and attribute them to demons.

In the book, "Case for Christ" Dr Edwin Yamauchi summarizes what we can know about Christ even if there were NO New Testament:

1. Jesus was a Jewish Teacher
2. Many people believed he performed healings and exorcisms
3. some people believed he was the Messiah
4. he was rejected by the Jewish leaders
5. he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
6. despite his shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread in Rome by A.D. 64, and
7. all kinds of people from the cities and countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshiped him as God.

I think you`ll find it`s a minority opinion among scholarship (believing and non-believing) that Jesus didn't even exist. The question that is truly controversial is, given that Jesus did exist, who was he really, what did he teach and what did he say he came to do? I hope you`ll now consider those important questions.

What Should Christians Believe about Creation and Evolution?

QUESTION:  What should Christians believe about creation/evolution?  Did God make everything at once or could God have made the snails first knowing humans would need something to eat?  I’m not sure about the Bible’s story of creation, but I’m serious about Christ and want to know what I should believe about this.


RESPONSE: A short answer is that Christians are divided in how they think God created. Some are OK with some version of the creation story that science tells us, the idea that things changed slowly.  Some think God used that process or partially used that process of evolution to make people over many eons. Others think God did it quickly, all things at once a short while ago.
 The three main camps we break into are:

- Theistic Evolutionists.  These are Christians who believe that the theory of evolution as we learn it in school can basically be reconciled with Scripture’s account of creation.  They think Genesis is metaphor and tells us the ‘why’, but science tells us the ‘how’.  They believe God superintended the process of evolution by setting up the exact initial conditions of our universe, thus making the creation of man possible through a natural process without denying the infusion of God’s image on man at some point in the distant past.  Some well-known adherents of this view who are deeply committed Christians who take the Bible seriously are Francis Collins and CS Lewis.

- Progressive Creationists.  These are Christians who believe that the theory of evolution has many scientific problems.  They don’t have a preexisting theological issue with the idea that biological things may change over time or that the universe is very old.  They see, however, that in reconciling Scripture with the natural record, that a Designer must have been actively involved in creation infusing design and information all along the way.  Some see God creating new types (including modern man) during different creative epochs stretched over vast ages.  Intelligent Design and Day/Age theorists fall into this camp and a vast array of views fit here.  Some prominent adherents are Philip E Johnston and Hugh Ross.

- Young Earth Creationists.  These are Christians who believe that no part of the theory of evolution can be reconciled with the biblical record.  They see the anti-supernaturalist motive in play in many of evolution’s adherents since the theory explicitly rejects a “theistic” interpretation because this process is ‘unguided’ by definition.  Because of this bent, any sign of apparent conflict between the natural record and Scripture must be resolved by siding with a literal reading of the Genesis record and attempting to make the data fit it.  Thus any signs of age in the universe must be “apparent” age, since they are committed to creation happening in 7, 24-hour days some time in the recent past.  God created all life forms, all at once, in a ‘perfect’ ecosystem that had no carnivorous death until the fall.  Some notable adherents are Henry Morris and Ken Ham.

There’s a basic theological tension involved in whichever view you adopt.  In other words, there’s no ‘default’ position that Christians can take on this issue without bringing up some controversy in their faith assuming that you are deeply committed to the inspiration of all of Scripture. 

For example, the more you lean toward the textbook explanation of origins through evolution the more you have to deal with questions about the nature of Salvation.  Salvation in the Christian view is a work that God does to restore His creation design, first in fallen human hearts but finally in creation as well.  But in the evolutionary view there never was a ‘creation ideal’ – in fact, the theory says things are getting more complex and better designed and more ‘fit’ as time goes on.  

So fitting in classic Christian teachings like the special creation of people in the image of God and the catastrophic Fall of mankind into sin and how that brought curse to us and our world (and thus the need for Christ’s redeeming work) is a key issue for any who try to adopt the molecules to man view. 

On the other hand, the more you lean toward a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1, the more closed you may be to what the data may be saying from an honest study of nature.  This is not just a challenge to intellectual honesty, it’s a challenge to the very teachings of our Scripture which tell us that God is speaking a message to us through Creation (Ps 19 and Romans 1).  

This tendency sets us up to believe in a God who is somewhat duplicitous, telling us one thing in the World and another in Word.  One simple example will suffice to outline the difficulty:  if the universe is 6000 years old, then the light coming to us from other stars and galaxies is a “show” and not reality.  God would have had to create the photons en route for them to get here in a such a short period of time.  This essentially means the heavens declare a fiction of God, and not his glory.  Some explanations are offered to resolve this particular problem, but the reliability of God and natural revelation is a key issue for any who adopt a young earth view. 

If you're wondering what is a sort of minimum that Christians really must believe about creation to be serious about their faith in Christ and take their Bible seriously, the answer is this: we believe that God speaks in two books: the book of God's Word (the Bible) and the book of Nature. Some things between those two books seem to be in conflict with each other, but if so, all true Christians believe that this means we are reading one or both of those books wrongly.  

Is this possible?  Yes!

It's possible for science to misread the book of nature which is why some scientists think nature rules out even the possibility of God's existence or intervention!  It's also possible for us to misread the book of Scripture and think that the Bible is making a scientific claim it’s not really making.  Some day, maybe we'll read both Books perfectly well and see exactly how they are both telling us the exact same true story of God's creating work... until then, there's lots of debate in the church about HOW God did it. But if God is the God of Creation and Scripture, then both books must be consistent somehow.

Some note that the Genesis story seen one way fits almost every creation model:

• The universe is not eternal, but finite with a Cause outside itself
• Creation began in an explosion of light.
• Creation unfolded, not all at once, but over time.
• The youngest species, appearing last, is mankind who is made, not out of nothing, but from the existing material of earth out of which he sprang.

It’s really something to marvel at; that these 4 tenets, first taught in Genesis, are something that even rigid naturalists can agree with!  I've also heard some very compelling harmonizations between the Genesis account and the timelines offered by modern cosmology. See one here.

Now, aside from these basic facts, there is much disagreement among Christians about how God did it.  I myself used by a Young Earth Creationist, but I’ve changed my camp and would now consider myself some sort of progressive creationist.  But what all serious Christians agree on is that God is our Creator and that God made people special, to be stewards of creation and that He made us in His image.  We further believe that we fell out of right relationship with God in the distant past through sin and this brought us and our world under a curse – this is what we all believe about the ‘whys’ of Creation. 

Because this is such a rich and potent bit of agreement, we ought to clearly separate in our minds, the “how” and the “why” questions of Scripture.  The Bible claims to be true in all the matters it touches on, but it does not claim to give exhaustive truth on matters of God’s methods.  Yet on matters of God’s meaning in creation, and in the New Creation in Christ, the Bible is explicit.  So when debating the “how”, we do well to listen to a great scientist who also happened to be a devoted follower of Jesus Christ and who had some experience wrestling with the tension of faith and science and what the Bible teaches: 

Galileo (1632): "From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that: since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still: whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane: nor whether the earth is located at its center or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one, neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them, and that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes."

How Does Faith in Christ Affect Being Transgendered?

QUESTION:  I am a transgendered person (ftm) and am struggling with how this affects faith. Does the bible view being transgender the same way as it does being gay? Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.

RESPONSE:  Hi, and thanks for your brave inquiry into this difficult topic.  You make perfect sense.

First, I admit beforehand that any response you’ll read here will be inadequate as a final solution to the struggle you’re having.  So out of the gate, I want to remind you that while this kind of Q and A can begin (or move along) a dialogue with you and the Christian Faith, the dialogue will need human contact at some point.  This is best done in the Christian community, where we all allow our struggles to surface in respect-filled, and trusted relationships with fellow travelers on the Christian path.  Good Christian counsel cannot be undersold as a tool in helping to uncover all the issues involved in transgenderism, and how it relates to faith in Jesus personally.

Of course, you already know about the culture’s voice on this issue which has been loudly tone setting – especially in light of recent high profile cases of transgendered persons, Caitlyn Jenner being the most notable.  The clear and consistent message outside the church is that transgender is normal, natural, and amoral.  Further, the only solution to transgender given in the press and by most physicians is costly and invasive gender reassignment surgery.

You’re suspecting that the Church’s response to this issue biblically will be along similar lines as our response to the gay debate.  You're right in this way:  we believe in sexual design.  Christians believe the world is made by a Designer.  And while we believe there are things inside of nature that do not conform to God's design, at a fundamental level Scripture teaches us to look at creation and say, "it is good."

So when we look at sex, it is right there, in the creation narrative, "male and female" - a complimentary design, which is not only said to be "very good", not only a means to "fill the earth", it is also said to reflect the communal oneness within God himself (Gen 1:27)!  Our gender then, and the duality of it is intrinsically good and an unalterable part of God's design for sex.  Jesus would double down on all this too, when he affirmed and summarized this design as faithful, loving, permanent and heterosexual (Matt 19:4-9).

Now, for the non-Christian, one of the reasons a multiplicity of sexual options seems reasonable is that they do NOT believe in Design.  Neo-Darwinism is the lens through which we look at everything, including sex.  So if you are here through a series of biological and chemical accidents without forethought, planning or design, then sex can have no inherent meaning or prescription.  Thus, I'm bound only to follow my sexual feelings wherever they lead.

Well, Christians, having submitted to a Mind higher than our own, cannot go there.  So the question of your spiritual walk is of utmost importance, because devotion to Jesus changes how you look at Design. Jesus does not just save the human soul, he means to bring us back into God's good creation designs.  So the Christian brings their very life (including gender and sexuality) under his good leadership.

If that is true of you, then the design question has been forever settled - sex has an order to it, and a prescription.  Think about Legos.  You could use those however you wanted, you could throw them at people as a projectile, or try to eat them.  But just looking at them, you would know, this is made for building stuff.  People are given sex as a gift, and they can and do use it however they want, but you don't have to study sex very long to realize it was made for something specific.

Therefore, Christian opposition to forms of sexual expression other than faithful, heterosexual monogamy has nothing to do with hate or discomfort or lack of science training or phobias.  It has to do with design.

Now, the Christian transgendered person may have no real incompatibility with “faithful, heterosexual monogamy” as God's design – they may simply wish to live that good design for themselves by reassigning their gender.  In this case, transgenderism may appear very different than homosexuality.  Surgery may seem the answer to live out God’s good design!

Unfortunately, I think that reassigning gender is essentially an impossible wish physically, with broad and unsettling side effects, as I’ll explain below.  It seeks to fix something that isn't broken (the body) by calling something fine that's actually broken (the mind).  To put it in Paul's words, we should rather seek the transformation of our lives by the renewing of our minds, rather than being conformed to the world (Romans 12:1,2).

If you have transgendered feelings, realize that no one comes to Jesus without their mind needing to be renewed.  So your transgendered feelings do not put you in an altogether different position than the millions of people struggling with addictions, depressions, bipolar, or anxiety disorders.  I hope you’re not offended by the comparison with other mental illnesses.  Rather than offensive, I hope it's merely self evident:  a person with a man’s body and XY chromosomal structure will function best with a male persona IN that male body.  And to have a female persona in that male body is by definition a malfunction – a disorder.

So, is the fundamental problem in the mind (which can change), or in the body (which cannot fundamentally change)?  

But perhaps you dispute that the body cannot change.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, says that sex change is “biologically impossible.” Dr. McHugh, explains that transgender surgery is not the right solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.  Transgenderism is actually a mental illness that merits treatment, and thus people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

He's collected studies that show the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people!  Also, Dr McHugh cites studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

The Christian view then, is that the promoters of gender reassignment as treatment for transgenderism are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their gender confusion as a right in need of defending, rather than as a mental illness that deserves compassion, understanding, treatment and prevention.

Take for example people who are “dangerously thin” and who nevertheless look in the mirror and see a fat person.  Their mental assumption about themselves is not in line with their actual nature, and this constitutes a disorder, which we call anorexia.  Here we CAN fix the mind in many cases, and no one thinks it's a good idea to try to fix an anorexic's body to make them feel thinner.  It's probably only because sex is involved with transgendered feelings that we don’t automatically use the exact same reasoning.  (Unrestricted sexual liberty, after all, is the idol of our times.)

For those who have had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”  At Hopkins Hospital they just stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

With the transgendered, as with the homosexual, we have observed that if a person has a personal desire and deep commitment to bring their feelings in line with sexual Design, great mental change is possible.  No change is possible without this, so abandon all attempts at coercive change for a husband, wife or child.  But change is even more probable, we believe, with the power of God in operation in the fully surrendered Christian’s life.

However, as my ex-gay Christian friend recently told me, they must not pretend or cover up their struggle – that will surely lead to frustration and probably a falling away from a faith they deemed “didn’t work”.

So the end game for the Christian transgendered person is not about Jesus “working” for them – it’s not about being happy – it’s not about being heterosexually attracted – it’s not about having all the right feelings – it’s not about sanctioning the feelings I do have – it’s about holiness!  The Christian doesn’t tell Jesus how the journey will go, he accepts the privations involved in obedience and straps in for the adventure of where Jesus and his grace will take them.

And likely that journey in Christ will not mean never wrestling with gender confusion again, but will mean being whole in Jesus, by faith forgiven and completed in Him, struggles and all, fully accepted, adopted, adored, and walking forward in trusting obedience.

For a fascinating personal story on this, go here.

Did Jesus Really Tell Us We Had to Hate Our Parents? (Luke 14:25-33)

QUESTION:  Hey Rick!  Picked up the book by Francis Chan, Multiply. He mentioned a verse that has always been a hard one and I was hoping you might help! Luke 14:25-33.  It just seems to really contradict a lot of scripture and even commandments (honor your parents). It just seems so OFF so maybe there is something I'm not getting.

RESPONSE: While it maybe seems “off”, this passage is certainly not abnormal in the N.T. or the teachings of Jesus… but it feels somehow different from “salvation by grace” right?  Let me quote it here for those unfamiliar with it:

Luke 14:26-33 "If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple. 27 And if you do not carry your own cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple. 

28 "But don't begin until you count the cost. For who would begin construction of a building without first calculating the cost to see if there is enough money to finish it? 29 Otherwise, you might complete only the foundation before running out of money, and then everyone would laugh at you. 30 They would say, 'There's the person who started that building and couldn't afford to finish it!'

31 "Or what king would go to war against another king without first sitting down with his counselors to discuss whether his army of 10,000 could defeat the 20,000 soldiers marching against him? 32 And if he can't, he will send a delegation to discuss terms of peace while the enemy is still far away. 33 So you cannot become my disciple without giving up everything you own." NLT

While a little strange sounding to our grace-trained ears, this teaching fits perfectly with Pauline doctrine.  It shows that while the Bible is completely unanimous that salvation cannot be earned, it is also completely unanimous that salvation is CONNECTED to obedience in important ways.

In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, if you look at the beatitudes, you can see this clearly.  It begins with the blessing on the poor in heart, and the blessing on the mournful.  These are people who come to God with NOTHING but their shame and sin, and they mourn over it.  This means Jesus is clearly teaching that one does not come to the Kingdom unless they first confess, and repent and have faith in God’s mercy and goodness – only these are promised heaven and earth.  (This agrees with Paul who teaches, Romans 3:28-29, “For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” HBV.  So we don’t earn it.)

However, if we come to Jesus with this kind of brokenhearted humility, we will also HUNGER for righteousness.  Therefore, the grace that calls us in, also calls us to a passion for more of the God who saved us and gives us mercy.

That is why Jesus says in Luke 14, that when you come to him, you A) revoke all other primary loves and consider them as hatred compared to your love for Christ, and B) you count the cost of followership, BEFORE you enter the kingdom, and everything is submitted to his leadership, all relationships and money etc. 

Jesus never divorced salvation and discipleship. Unfortunately, we have in the church too often.  If we understand both Jesus and Paul correctly, we will refuse to do this.  Those who come to Jesus humble, confessing AND repentant do not carry on in an ongoing pattern of sin.  They cannot, for God’s seed is now in them (1 John 3:10).  Do Christians still sin?  Sure.  Do they only slowly change over time?  Yes.  Do they sometimes go backward in devotion?  Yes.  But while we are saved by grace and not works, God’s grace …works!  That is, it works to effect the changes in us that the LAW never could.  It makes us new kinds of people, IF we come repentant, and let the gospel do its work.

So much of the problem of "backsliding believers" and "carnal Christians" and "nominal Christians" would be solved if we taught the invitation to the kingdom exactly the way Jesus did.  Like this:  come one and all and take your place with the prostitutes and tax collectors who are poor in spirit, they have nothing to bring God, no pretense that they could earn anything from him.  (This matches the Pauline message, you are saved by Grace not works, Eph 2:8,9). 

But, come like they came: so desperate that they are willing to lay down ALL for the treasure of God’s forgiving love.  (Recall the treasure-hidden-in-the field parable?)  They don’t come proud, demanding forgiveness, yet wanting to keep walking in the way that first made them bankrupt before God!  That makes no sense (again, Paul in Romans 6:1,2).  No, they come counting the cost, gladly making all their affections take a back seat to the Jesus who saves them from sin.  ALL my other relationships are second place.  ALL my priorities are rearranged by my love for him who had mercy on me.

So that explains that tricky part about “hating your parents”.  That is not contradicting the 5th commandment… remember Jesus used hyperbole a lot.  (Example: the “cut off your hand” thing!)  So “hate” is not saying you dishonor your parents, it’s saying “you must be willing to put your devotion to them below devotion to Me.” Compared to that, love for them will look like hate.

Remember too, in the Ancient Near East, it would be unheard of if a man belonged to a religion let’s say, and his whole family didn’t also.  So strong were the ties of family in their honor bound culture, that you followed the patriarch no matter what; blood ties ruled everything, family first uber alles.  So speaking into that cultural expectation, Jesus is introducing a different sort sequence. 

Of course, in our day this is commonly understood.  A teen let’s say, will have some epiphany where they leave their mom’s “ways” and strike out on their own, at the risk of offending them.  This is almost expected in our context, Hollywood has kicked out a gaggle of movies with this premise!  But that very idea, so noble in our day, would have been considered the height of insubordination and offensiveness in Jesus’ culture.  So it was JESUS who first gave us this idea that there’s a higher loyalty than mom or dad… of course for him it wasn’t a permission to be rebellious and go smoke pot, it was his permission to be rebellious and go follow Messiah – himself!

IS JESUS BEING CRUEL WHEN HE CALLS A WOMAN A 'DOG' IN Mark 7:24?

So the obvious problem in this passage is how dismissive (even cruel!) Jesus seems to be of this poor woman and her plea for help.  Two points can be made to help us understand what Jesus was saying to her.

1.  There is at root in Jesus response a consistent New Testament principle about the flow of salvation from Jew first, to Gentile second.  Because of God’s promises to Abraham, salvation is “from” the Jews (as Jesus himself said, John 4:22) and so it must always start with the Jews before it goes anywhere else.  

Jesus ministry reflects this.  Given that the Christian church took on such an international flavor so early, we are surprised that Jesus doesn't have much interaction with Gentiles. Yes, he famously talked with a Samaritan woman, and praised a Roman centurion, but if God wants to enfold all people, why not go all out and travel to Rome?  Instead, Jesus has a calling to Israel, and it's very intentional.  

Now, when he does work with Gentiles, he is amazingly gracious, foreshadowing that the gospel will go to them – eventually - but that’s NOT his focus.  So when he says in Mark 7:27 that the "children" must eat all they want first he is meaning the children of Israel.  And “eating” here must refer to their chance to get in on God’s healing grace that’s being revealed in Messiah.  In Matthew 15 the parallel account shows Jesus saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - he has missional specificity and he doesn't apologize for it. Again, going 'first' to Jews does not mean that salvation will not ever be offered to Gentiles – it will be!  Intentionally, specifically and prolifically!  This was anticipated and even commanded by Jesus himself – just not “first”.

Well, even if we can see a divinely ordered sequence to Christ's mission, we still have to deal with his calling a Gentile a “Dog”.  It's a horrible slur to us, and frankly it was also in their context.  Gentiles were called 'dogs' by Jews because they were considered unclean, and without God's law, sort of bestial.

Despite that common usage, I think Jesus may be using the term more as illustration here than slur.  We can infer this because the image he presents is of a feast on the table, and dogs around tables looking for scraps to come their way (a common occurrence in my household!).  This is a metaphor for the sequence of gospel mission.  

But given that, the woman's retort is remarkably insightful and full of faith. Without missing a beat, she accepts Jesus illustration and turns into an affirmation of her belief that God loves so lavishly, his gifts are so vast that they spill over far beyond his chosen people.  Jesus loves this response, and grants her request.  

So why does he hesitate?  Not because he doesn’t want to, but because his FIRST mission field is not the Gentiles, which he makes clear many times (in the parallel passage, Matt 15:24, and in his instructions to his disciples in Matthew 10:5,6).  Paul also notes a divine order in dispensing the goods:  Jew first, Gentile second (Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”.) 

Now, why this order?  Probably because of promises to Abraham, the blessing flows from him to his children, which become a great nation and finally to ALL nations of the earth.  Paul will say the Jewish rejection of this blessing will lead directly to the overflow of “crumbs” to the Gentiles.

Jesus alluded to this many times.

John 10:16 “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd”

Matt 22:8-10 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'  

In the 2nd example, in Matt 22, the point of the parable is that the Kingdom invitation goes to those you EXPECT it should go to, first.  When they reject it, THEN and only then does it go to the ones you DON’T expect, the "outsiders", the "wild branches" (Romans 11:24), the hobos living in "street corners", the "dogs" – these are all names for us Gentiles in Scripture!  Are you offended by that?  Well, this beautiful woman, apparently, was not.  In fact, her lack of offense probably relates directly to her humble acknowledgement that she is in fact helpless and broken, and such humility is always a key component to saving faith.

Paul tells us that in God’s foreknowledge, he saw his chosen people rejecting free grace, and then in his upside down way, he will take his offer to unsuspecting pagans who weren’t even seeking him, and give them the gift his own children rejected (Romans 9:30).  And all this underscores just how awesome God is, how great in mercy, and how the first shall be last, and the last first.

But to prove that, God has to START with the FIRST – that is, the Jews, which is exactly what Jesus does.  The fact that this woman anticipates all this, and sees God's heart to make the last first and graft in the wild branches, before Paul ever wrote explicitly about such ideas, speaks highly of her faith and insight.  No wonder Jesus embraces her!

2.  Secondly these hard comments may not even have been directed at the woman but his disciples.  Taking in the extra detail from the account in Matt 15, when the woman first asked Jesus to help her here's what happened:

Matt 15:23:  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

One scholar I read takes Jesus initial silence as a clue to understand his seeming harshness with the woman  It’s a test, not really for her, but for his followers.  See, his disciples are right there the whole time – and they’re clearly indignant about her and the intensity of her request (and her gender, ethnicity?).  Why doesn't Jesus say anything to her?  Perhaps to see what THEY, the 12, will say.

What they do say is disappointing – “send her away!”  It reveals what's in their hearts.  So Jesus may be responding to their implicit assumptions, when he then reminds them of his mission, first to Jew, then to Gentile.  That comment looks directed at them, not her, since they and their indignation are the subject of the preceding sentence.  Could this be a test to see if they’re getting how big God’s grace is, to see if they can imagine a day or a way that it might be bigger than Israel?  How many people does Jesus have to heal before they see that the heart of God is to bless the whole world!?  They say nothing, perhaps nodding in approval - "yes, the mission is the Jews!".  The one to speak next is not them but the woman, who pleads again, "Lord help me!" (Matt 15:25).

Now, with the disciples right there, silent, one commentator I read imagined Jesus saying what he says to the woman, while looking at the disciples, who we know had been trying to shoo her away.  He imagines Jesus saying it like this:  “Well, lady, as you’ve already gathered from my associates, it’s not right to take God’s gifts and give them just ANYone – right boys?  Isn’t that what you’ve just told her?”

Before they can chime in to agree, or detect the sarcasm and change their tune, the Gentile woman pipes up (for a third time) with amazing faith.  She says in effect, “yes, Lord, but surely God’s gifts are so lavish, so undeserved, so large, that they spill over to everyone, regardless of status - even to someone like me!”

This is what Jesus was hoping his disciples would say.

But Jesus is nevertheless thrilled with this response!  "Good answer!"  "Your Faith is great!"  I mean, we must hear this, because that is not a begrudging or miserly response.  No, Jesus is delightfully surprised by her!  Not just because he longs to help her, but because she has just become the teacher of his own disciples who weren’t getting what they were supposed to be learning by now.

He’s thrilled because this poor woman shows us all what God is looking for in a person - a heart of childlike trust in the extravagant goodness of God for unworthy people - and she shows up the disciples own small mindedness about the size of God’s grace.  His gracious response confirms all this.