Who is Jesus?

In Matthew chapter 16 Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” The disciples replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But who do you say I am?” Jesus asked. And so Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

I am sure that when people of Jesus’ day said that they thought he was John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah, they meant to be generous and complimentary. After all, it was an honorable thing to be numbered among the great prophets! Jesus Himself said that John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets. To be identified with them would be an honor indeed.

Not surprisingly, then, when we ask people today the same question — “Who is Jesus?” — similar answers are often given. Some may say he was a prophet like the other prophets, with some differences perhaps. They may say he was a great teacher. Or they may place him in a respectable category of religious leaders such a Mohammed, Budah, Confucious. We often hear that he was a man like other men — a man with superior qualities in significant areas, of course, but in the final analysis, a man on the level of other men.

What is significant is that these answers, as respectful as they may have seemed, did not satisfy our Lord. Not until Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Divine Messiah was the question answered well enough. “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!”

 In his comments on this passage Matthew Henry observes, simply, that it is entirely possible to have an honorable opinion of the Lord Jesus which is nonetheless wrong. An honorable opinion that is not honorable enough. Not until, like Peter, we acknowledge Jesus’ uniqueness and recognize Him as the Lord from Heaven do we give Him the honor and reverence that is due Him.

Wenham, Warfield, and Inspiration

I recently re-read John Wenham’s Christ and the Bible and was reminded what a helpful work it is. His purpose, as the title indicates, is to demonstrate Jesus’ view of Scripture. The survey of the evidence is excellent, treating in turn Jesus’ view of the Old Testament, his endorsement of the New Testament (ahead of time), the apostles’ understanding of their role as Jesus’ spokesmen, and concluding with an examination of the extent of the canon and the reliability of the Biblical text. Throughout he also answers objections that have been brought against each point under discussion. In the end he provides a very helpful summary of the historic Christian doctrine of Scripture. It is a truly valuable resource for anyone approaching the topic.

There is, however, a curious observation that arises from his Introduction. Here at the outset Wenham gives laudatory mention of Warfield and the momentous event he was in the history of the doctrine of inspiration. Of course. But then he goes on to claim that the argument he (Wenham) gives here (in Christ and the Bible) is substantively new. Specifically, what he has in mind is the old problem of establishing the authority of Scripture by the authority of Scripture: if we say we believe that the Bible is our supreme authority because the Bible claims to be the supreme authority, is that not reasoning in a perfect circle?

Wenham’s “new” argument circumvents this problem, arguing that quite aside from the presumption of inspiration and on any reading of the historical documents, we must say that Jesus believed and taught the doctrine.  And this is the ground on which we believe in inspiration – Jesus taught it.

All that is very good. But what is interesting is that this is not new at all. Warfield emphasized this a century ago. He stressed it at several points in his works and especially in his “The Real Problem of Inspiration” – we believe in inspiration because Jesus (and his appointed apostles) taught it.

Two observations arise from this. First, as it has been said so many times, anything in the last century written on the doctrine of inspiration is but a footnote to Warfield. It is very difficult indeed to add to the massive exposition and defense of the doctrine he provided.

Second, Wenham illustrates a point I have made elsewhere — that many today seem to reference Warfield without really reading him. No reading of Warfield could have missed this point, but Wenham thinks his argument is new.  In fact, Wenham’s argument does offer more detail on several points, sometimes considerably so, but there is nothing substantively new at all.

This second observation came to mind again while reading Wenham’s chapter on the canon. He states disagreement with Warfield but does not seem to have considered Warfield’s argument very thoroughly.

Honest, I am not on a campaign to see that every Christian read all of Warfield (even though in the back of my mind while I write this I’m thinking you’d be better for it if you did!). But I am a confessed Warfield affectionado. And we might do well to remember that when it comes to studying the doctrine of inspiration Warfield already said it, and he very likely said it better. Our study of this major point of doctrine just is not done until we have read Warfield ourselves. In God’s good providence, this was Warfield’s gift to the church, and we neglect him to our own loss.

You and Your Temper!

Proverbs 14:17 counsels us, “A man of quick temper acts foolishly, and a man of evil devices is hated” (ESV).

 This proverb warns of human anger and its results in relation to others, and it does it in a most interesting way. Notice that two men are identified in the verse, along with their distinguishing characteristics, and are then noted in respect to the effect of their actions on those around them.

The first man is short tempered, soon angry. In Proverbs 14:29 this same person is described as one who is of a “hasty spirit.” The idea, obviously, is that of one who is impatient, quick-tempered, or as we say, “has a short fuse.”

This short-tempered man “acts foolishly,” or “works foolishness” as the KJV renders it. “Foolishness” in Proverbs implies moral more than mental deficiency, and in Proverbs 14:29 it is the opposite of “great understanding” which likewise has moral as well as mental connotations. The “fool” in Proverbs is one who both lacks sense and is generally corrupt.

This first man then, by his quick temper, does things that are senseless and morally wrong. The sense seems to be that of explosive, unpremeditated violence. The proverb does not specify the precise reaction of those around him, but their distaste for him is clearly implied (17b). By his actions the wrathful man displays his own folly (14:29) and so is an unfit companion (22:24-25). He’s the kind of person whose company no one desires.

The second man is identified as “a man of wicked imaginations” or “intentions.” This man is one who, rather than being explosively violent, is one whose anger is not so visible. Rather, he quietly plots and schemes. His expressions of anger are more calculated and so more “hateful.” As the saying goes, he doesn’t get mad — he gets even.

So there are two men here, and both have a problem with anger and revenge. Just as the short-tempered man works foolishness by an anger that is quick and uncalculated; so the man of craftiness, although he displays his anger more subtly, is just as vengeful and contemptible. And so anger may show itself by an uncontrolled spirit which is quick to explode, or it may show itself in cunning and deliberate methods of retaliation. But both are reprehensible and despised.

And notice that neither man is very well liked in the community! In fact, they are disliked. People “hate” them, and do not want them to be around. It doesn’t seem to matter much how you vent your anger — in haste and violence, or by scheming revenge. The effect is about the same — no one will want your company.

The proverb, then, warns of two kinds of anger — the violent, explosive anger of a man with a short temper; and the cold, calculated revenge of an otherwise seemingly mild man. Both are foolish, and both are despised.

A man with an easily excited temper is foolish (Prov. 14:17, 29), troublesome (15:18), wicked (21:24, 29:22), and self-destructive (19:19, 25:28).

In contrast to the hot-tempered man is the man with a calm temper, the man who is able to control and even defer his anger (Prov. 19:11). Calmness of temper is a virtue that is both wise (14:29, 19:11) and profitable (15:1, 25:15), and it brings “glory” to a man (19:11) rather than shame and hatred. A calm temper shows a man to be wise (14:29). A quick temper shows a man to be a fool, and that man will be the friend of no one.

Likewise, a man who quietly and carefully devises his method of retaliation is also hated. Indeed, his wrath is more culpable, being due not to weakness but to willingness. Such a man is recognized as evil (Prov. 24:8), is hated by others (14:17) and God (6:18), and will incur condemnation (12:2 14:22). It is true folly.

By contrast, wisdom shows itself in self-restraint (Prov.12:16, 19:11), and such restraint evidences true greatness (16:32).

Both kinds of anger are senseless and moral foolishness, and both kinds are hateful. The wisdom which this proverb enjoins is that which brings a man to quell his wrath and live peaceably with all men.

We further learn from this proverb our need of Christ and his provision of the Holy Spirit whose it is to work in us self control (Galatians 5:22-23).