Author: Christopher R Smith

The Rev. Dr. Christopher R. Smith is an an ordained minister, a writer, and a biblical scholar. He was active in parish and student ministry for twenty-five years. He was a consulting editor to the International Bible Society (now Biblica) for The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version (NIV) that presents the biblical books according to their natural literary outlines, without chapters and verses. His Understanding the Books of the Bible study guide series is keyed to this format. He was also a consultant to Tyndale House for the Immerse Bible, an edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) that similarly presents the Scriptures in their natural literary forms, without chapters and verses or section headings. He has a B.A. from Harvard in English and American Literature and Language, a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and a Ph.D. in the History of Christian Life and Thought, with a minor concentration in Bible, from Boston College, in the joint program with Andover Newton Theological School.

When and how did Paul become an apostle?

Q. When and how did Paul become an apostle? Was Paul an apostle or disciple? Or both?

I think we can say, on the basis of Paul’s own testimony during his trials as they are recorded in the book of Acts, that Paul became an apostle when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and sent him to proclaim the good news to the Gentiles. The word “apostle” literally means “one who is sent,” so the moment of Paul’s “sending” is the moment when he became an apostle.

When Paul was on trial before King Agrippa, he told him, “I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.”

So that was when Paul became an apostle. As for whether he was also a disciple, yes, he was. The word “disciple” literally means a “learner.” In the context of the New Testament, it refers to someone who is learning from Jesus how to live in the way that God wants. In other words, it simply means a follower of Jesus. We sometimes speak of his “twelve disciples,” meaning the twelve men he chose to teach in a special way, and after his resurrection, when he sent them out to proclaim the good news, they became the “twelve apostles.” (One of them, Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus, and so he was replaced by another man, Matthias.) But that is a specialized use of the term “disciples.” Generally, it applies to any follower of Jesus, and so it also applies to Paul.

Is “thus says the LORD” God the Father speaking?

Q. Is it correct to say that whenever God speaks in the Old Testament, such as “Thus says the LORD,” it is usually the Father speaking, but on some occasions it may be the Son or the Holy Spirit? Or is it more correct to say it is always the Father speaking? Or is there a better way to view this?

I think the general theological principle involved here is that the members of the Trinity, even though they are distinct persons, do things together. We see this, for example, in the creation account at the beginning of the Bible. It says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (likely referring to God the Father). But this account then relates how the Father created by speaking, which would be the cooperative activity of Jesus, the Word. As the gospel of John says, “In the beginning was the Word … all things were created by him.” And in that account we also see the activity of the Holy Spirit: “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters,” surveying the dark, formless world and no doubt planning how to bring order and light to it. So all three persons of the Trinity were involved together in the first divine action that the Bible relates, and I think that continues to be the case as the Bible progresses.

Even when the second person of the Trinity comes to earth and takes on human form, we continue to see this type of co-operation. Jesus said after one of his great healing miracles, “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son also does.”

I would apply this same principle to the instances of divine speech in the Old Testament. I think they are further examples of co-operation on the part of the Trinity. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews attributes to the Holy Spirit an oracle in Jeremiah that is originally spoken by “the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel,” who says of himself in that same oracle, “I am Israel’s father.” Hebrews says:

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

“This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds.”

Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more.”

But, as I noted, when God speaks these words in Jeremiah, the identification we have of him seems to be that of the Father. But this is not inconsistent with the principle of co-operation among the persons of the Trinity.

Hope this is helpful!

Would a person encounter spiritual harassment for going to church?

Q. I went to church Sunday. When I got home, everything went wrong.
Could Satan be messing with me?

The Bible teaches clearly that all those who seek to follow and obey God in this life will encounter opposition from “the world,” “the flesh,” and “the devil.” These phrases refer, respectively, to the worldwide system of interests opposed to God; to that part of us that wants to live without regard to God; and to evil spiritual beings who hate God and work to defeat those who believe in him. It is often difficult to determine exactly which part of this evil triumvirate we might be up against, and so I find it helpful to think of them as a collective and not try to parse things any more finely. We can just say, “I think I’m up against the world, the flesh, and the devil here.”

However, it is also true that we human beings are perfectly capable of creating problems for ourselves! So when things go wrong, we shouldn’t automatically conclude that we are facing spiritual opposition. Nevertheless, sometimes, through spiritual discernment, we do get a sense that it is happening. Recently I suffered a minor injury right at a time when I needed good health and strength to do some important work for God. I was speaking to my pastor about this, and I said that I suspected the injury could be the result of spiritual opposition, although I also acknowledged that accidents do happen in this world. “We don’t need to blame the devil every time somebody stubs their toe,” I observed. “No,” my pastor replied, “but you can tell.”

I think that often we can indeed tell. The fact that you made a connection between going to church and “everything going wrong” when you got home suggests that perhaps, by spiritual discernment, you did recognize that “Satan was messing with you.” (That is, that you were up against the world, the flesh, and the devil.) I don’t know whether you meant that you had returned to church after some time of not attending, but if that was the case, then it would surely be likely that you would encounter turbulence as you moved from one set of commitments and activities to another set that reflected a renewed resolve to follow God. But even if you were already attending regularly, there might have been something in the experience of attending worship that day that had inspired deeper and stronger devotion, and it would not be a surprise if you encountered turbulence after that as well.

I would say that the most important thing to keep in mind in such situations is that the main goal of the forces opposed to God is to get you to act unlike a child of God. As one of my professors in seminary used to say, for as long as God has purposes to accomplish through you on this earth, “you are immortal.” The forces opposed to God cannot take you out. But if they can make you act unlike the son or daughter of God that you are, then that is a partial victory for them.

So even if one thing after another goes wrong and you are getting very frustrated, ask yourself, “How can I act as a child of God in this situation?” Recently an online vendor cancelled an order that I had placed and paid for, and the vendor only refunded a small part of the purchase price. Several weeks later, I am still trying to sort this out. But it dawned on me, when I first recognized the problem, “This is my chance to be nice.” I have made an effort to be very courteous with every person I have spoken with on the phone about this. They have noticed and thanked me for my patience. Will I eventually get the rest of my money back? I certainly hope so! But in the meantime, I want to act in this situation like a son of God.

So, I encourage you to continue attending church. Don’t let the turbulence keep you from that. Instead, you can say, “If the world, the flesh, and the devil are so upset about this, I should really keep doing it!” And if everything goes wrong again when you get home, see that as your chance to live in the situation as a son or daughter of God. God bless you!

Were the commands about kosher food and circumcision for health reasons?

Q. Why were certain foods considered unclean in the Old Testament? What was the reason/purpose for this? Why was circumcision required? What was the reason/purpose for this? I know these were based on God’s commandments, but I’m not sure of the reason/purpose. Was it for health reasons? Or something else? If it was for health reasons, doesn’t that imply we should follow these commandments today too?

Both being circumcised and keeping kosher were “insignia,” that is, signs that the people who did those things belonged to God as members of his covenant community.

Regarding circumcision, God said to Abraham, “This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. … My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.” The Hebrew idiom for making a covenant was to “cut” a covenant, since this often involved a ceremony in which sacrificed animals were cut up and the parties to the covenant walked between the pieces to indicate, “If I break this covenant, may this happen to me!” Circumcision also involves cutting, and in that way it was a symbol for covenant membership. (But note that the Bible only envisions male circumcision. It does not provide any warrant for so-called female circumcision. Women belonged fully to the covenant even though only men were circumcised.)

Distinguishing between “clean” and “unclean” animals (that is, between those that could be eaten and those that could not be eaten) was also a covenant sign. God said to the people of Israel through Moses, “I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations. You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. … You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.” (The phrases “set apart” and “make a distinction” translate the same Hebrew verb.)

So these provisions in the law were ultimately ways by which the people of Israel were to identify themselves as God’s people. There are some similar “insignia” for the New Covenant, particularly being baptized and observing the Lord’s Supper, but the most important markers of God’s people now are the “fruit of the Spirit,” the character qualities that the Holy Spirit builds into the lives of believers: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These are the things we should be most careful to build into our lives as God’s people today. I believe we are free to make our own choices about circumcision and kosher.

Why did Saul of Tarsus want to murder the disciples?

Q. Luke tells us in Acts that Saul of Tarsus, who later became known as the apostle Paul, “was breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples.” Why did he want to kill them?

Later in the book of Acts, as Paul is on trial before King Agrippa, he explains that before he became a follower of Jesus, “I was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.”

So basically, as Paul himself describes here, he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. He specifically did not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, which his followers claimed was proof that he was the Messiah. Paul felt that anyone who made these claims about Jesus was a threat to true religion, and he was so zealous for the Jewish religion that, as he describes, he hunted down followers of Jesus and persecuted them.

But Jesus revealed himself personally to Paul, and from then on Paul knew that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. This made him a committed follower of Jesus. He always regretted how he had harmed believers, but he trusted that God’s grace could nevertheless make him an effective worker for Jesus. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “I am the least of the apostles, and I do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.”

Do the persons of the Trinity have distinct personalities?

A reader of my previous post, “In what sense is Jesus God’s Son?” (in which I mentioned the Holy Spirit briefly in the context of the Trinity), commented, “I’d like to hear your thoughts on the Holy Spirit.” Here are some thoughts.

In light of the themes of that previous post, I would emphasize primarily that the Holy Spirit is a person, not an impersonal force. As this article by Don Stewart documents well, in the Bible we see the Holy Spirit demonstrating all the attributes of a person: thinking, feeling, choosing, speaking, interacting with others in relationship. So the Holy Spirit is one of three persons who make up the single being of God. This means, as I said in the other post, that “at the essence of God is community and relationship in which individuality is nevertheless affirmed and flourishes.” We should aspire to the same kind of community and relationships as humans.

Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, an interesting question is whether they have distinct personalities, and if so, whether we can tell that we are interacting with one of these persons rather than another from the personality of the person with whom we are interacting. Christian theology affirms that all three persons of the Trinity do everything together. They have been eternally characterized by the same co-operation that existed between Jesus the Son and God the Father when Jesus was on earth. But does this mean that as Christians, we could not also interact with one of them individually, for example, by praying to the Son or to Spirit rather than to the Father? And might we recognize a distinct personality if we did?

I’m not sure that this question can be answered through theological discussion, but let me attempt an answer by telling a story—by retelling one, actually. Here is a brief episode from a post on another of my blogs, Endless Mercies. That blog tells the story of God’s faithfulness to my late wife Priscilla and me during her courageous four-year battle with ALS. She had reached the point where she could no longer stand up, meaning that she could no longer dance even to a slow song with me holding her up. We had done that for the last time at a wedding, and some time afterward …

“Priscilla found herself half-dreaming as she woke up one morning about what it would be like to dance with the various persons of the Trinity. She imagined that with the Father it would be a more formal ‘daddy-daughter’ waltz. Jesus loved a party, she knew—hadn’t he changed water into wine to keep a wedding reception going?—and so he would probably lead her, and everyone else who was anywhere nearby, in a Mediterranean line dance. And the energetic and creative Holy Spirit, she decided, would definitely do hip-hop.”

You can read the rest of the story here. It doesn’t prove that the persons of the Trinity have distinct personalities. But it suggests that they might.

In what sense is Jesus God’s Son?

Q. What does it mean to say Jesus is the Son of God? In what sense is Jesus God’s Son? What does it mean to say Jesus is the Logos?

The Bible speaks of Jesus as God’s Son in two different senses.

The first is what I would call the minor sense. The title “Son of God” means “Messiah.” The phrase in this sense comes from Psalm 2, a royal enthronement psalm, in which a king of Israel, presumably David, says, “I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.'”

Even after Israel was no longer a kingdom, this language of being God’s Son was applied to the expected Messiah, who would resume the royal house of David. In his sermon in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, Paul applied this language to Jesus. He said: “What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.'” So to say that Jesus is the Son of God means, for one thing, that he is the Messiah.

But there is also what I would call the major sense. In a way that is difficult for the human mind to appreciate fully, there is an organic relationship between Jesus (the second person of the Trinity) and the first person of the Trinity. Since that relationship can be well understood, according to the Bible, along the lines of the organic relationship between a child and a parent, the first person of the Trinity is called God the Father and Jesus is called God the Son.

However, there is an important difference here. An earthly parent has a child at a given time. Before that, the child does not exist. But in the case of Jesus, he has existed from all eternity, even though he is also in an organic relationship with the first person of the Trinity that can well be described with the language of a father-son relationship. That is why Christian theology speaks of Jesus being “eternally begotten” of the Father.

This brings us to the question about what it means to say that Jesus is the Logos. In his gospel, John uses the language of logos, a complex Greek term, to describe Jesus and his relationship to God the Father: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning.” The word logos could mean an inward thought, or speech that expressed an inward thought, or just speech. Therefore it was particularly well suited to describe the relationship between the second person of the Trinity and the first person of the Trinity, since in one sense they are separate persons (“just speech”), in another sense they are part of the same Godhead (“an inward thought”), and in yet another sense they have an interdependent relationship (“speech that expresses thought”).

This is admittedly complicated. The relationship of the persons of the Trinity (I haven’t even brought up the Holy Spirit yet!) is certainly a mystery beyond human comprehension. But I think the take-home message for us can be the reassuring conviction that at the essence of God is community and relationship in which individuality is nevertheless affirmed and flourishes. Making that the model for our own lives is enough of a welcome challenge that we do not need to try to sort out any other issues definitively.

But to summarize, the second thing we mean when we say that Jesus is the Son of God is that while he became fully human on earth, he is also fully God, eternally begotten of the Father.

Is it correct to say that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Bible throughout history?

Q. Is it correct to say that the Holy Spirit has providentially preserved (and will continue providentially to preserve) the Bible throughout history?

Yes, I would agree with this statement. I cannot think of a specific passage in Scripture that says this explicitly. But certainly we see throughout the Bible how God wants people to have his word and how God wants his people to treasure and safeguard his word. We can also see in history that while there have been continual widespread attempts to wipe out the Bible, it has not only been preserved, it has been translated and distributed to more and more groups of people. (The organization I am currently working with, unfoldingWord, states as its purpose, “The church in every people group, the Bible in every language,” and that goal could be reached in our own generation.) While the agency of the Holy Spirit in preserving the Bible is not literally visible in history, I believe that we can discern it by faith.

How many covenants are there in the Bible?

Q. How many covenants are there in the Bible? If there are too many to list, what are the main ones?

Hebrews 8:7 talks about the first covenant and the second covenant. Is that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant? If so, wouldn’t be more accurate to call the Abrahamic (or Adamic Covenant) the first covenant? How can the Mosaic Covenant be the first covenant and the New Covenant be the second covenant if there are other covenants before and after the Mosaic Covenant (and in between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant)?

Why do we call the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament? Which covenant is the Old Testament a reference to? Is it the Mosaic Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant? Is it the Mosaic Covenant because that was the main Covenant in those books?

Thank you for your excellent questions. I will answer them according to the way I understand the biblical covenants.

While various people make covenants with each other over the course of the Bible’s story (for example, Jonathan and David), there are five covenants between God and humans, and those provide the framework for the biblical narrative at its highest level:

First, the covenant between God and every living creature, mediated by Noah, in which God promises unconditionally that a flood will never again destroy all life on earth.

Second, the covenant between God and Abraham, unmediated, in which God promises unconditionally to give Abraham descendants, to give those descendants a land in which to live, and to make Abraham a blessing to all nations. God extends this covenant to Isaac and Jacob.

Third, the covenant between God and the Israelites, mediated by Moses, in which God promises, conditional on obedience to his law, to give the Israelites the land of Canaan in which to live and to show their “wisdom and understanding to the nations.”

Fourth, the covenant between God and David, unmediated, in which God promises unconditionally that a descendant of David will always be on the throne of Israel. (Christians believe that while Israel ceased to be a kingdom, this promise is nevertheless being fulfilled in the reign of Jesus the Messiah.)

Fifth, the covenant between God and people of all nations who believe, mediated by Jesus, in which God promises unconditionally to forgive their sins and put his law in their minds and write it on their hearts so that they will know him.

It is clear from the context in the book of Hebrews that when the author refers in 8:7 to “that first covenant,” he is referring to the covenant mediated by Moses and contrasting it with the covenant mediated by Jesus. The word “first” can be well translated as “former.” Many English Bibles say “another” rather than “a second.” So the author of Hebrews only has two covenants in view and is contrasting them. He is not saying that these are the only two covenants or that the covenant mediated by Moses was the first one that God made with humans.

The meaning is the same in the title Old Testament, which means Old Covenant. I like the title in other languages such as French, Ancien Testament, or Spanish, Antiguo Testamento. That suggests the idea of Former Covenant or Covenant of Antiquity. Such titles acknowledge this covenant as one step on the way towards the ultimate covenant between God and humans, the one mediated by Jesus. It is important to recognize, as the book of Hebrews particularly stresses, along with Paul’s writings, that believers are no longer bound to keep the law of that covenant as a law. In that sense it is “old,” meaning no longer in effect. But believers nevertheless keep the law as the Spirit leads them to live according to what God has put in their minds and written in their hearts. So in that sense, it is “of antiquity.”

I hope these responses are helpful.

A reader responded through the “Ask a Question” option:

I found your answer here to be very helpful. I just wanted to ask for clarification on one or two points. You said, ‘The meaning is the same in the title Old Testament, which means Old Covenant.’ So the meaning of Old Testament is the covenant mediated by Moses, correct? Also, does the Hebrew Bible have this name ‘Old Testament’ because the covenant mediated by Moses was the main Covenant in the Hebrew Bible?

In response, I would say yes, the title Old Testament refers to the covenant mediated by Moses, using the word “Old” in the same sense that the book of Hebrews uses the term “first” or “former.” We might also think of this as “old” in the sense of “the covenant that was in effect when Jesus brought the new covenant.” And yes, the covenant mediated by Moses is the main covenant in the Hebrew Bible. It is the focus of most of the writings in the Old Testament.

How do we reconcile the biblical presentation of a young earth with scientific findings?

Q. I cannot reconcile the earth and the entire universe as being only 6,000 years old, and the scientific findings that the “big bang” happened billions of years ago. According to Genesis they were created within the same week. And while on the subject, surely, the all-powerful God did not have to REST on the 7th day. Fact is, He could have created all that He created in 6 days, with a snap of His fingers, if He had wanted to. What gives? Thanks.

Regarding reconciling the biblical presentation of a young earth with scientific findings, let me refer you to another blog of mine, Paradigms on Pilgrimage, which is actually a book in blog form. I wrote it with Dr. Stephen J. Godfrey, curator of paleontology at the Calvert Marine Museum, to address precisely that issue. In the book, we each tell our own story of coming to a satisfying understanding of it.

Regarding God resting, let me refer you to this post, in which I say, in part, commenting on what Exodus says about God, “on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed“:

In what way could an infinitely powerful God be refreshed, if by definition He could never get tired in the first place? Many interpreters consider the “refreshment” of God to be, in effect, the “aaah” feeling He got when He surveyed “all that He had made” and saw that it was “very good.” While God first got this overview at the end of the sixth day, He devoted the entire next day to contemplating and admiring the beauty of the entire finished creation.