_ If I asked you to name all four of the Beatles, my guess is that the first two would be a cinch: Paul McCartney and John Lennon.  Some of you might easily rattle off Ringo Starr and George Harrison, but my guess is that the rest of you would pause to remember.  It’s not as if Ringo and George aren’t important to the Beatles; rather, it’s that they aren’t as well known as Paul and John.

The Holy Spirit is most likely the George Harrison or Ringo Starr of the Trinity.  I don’t just mean that he’s easily forgotten.  Rather, I mean that the Holy Spirit is like George Harrison in the sense that the Holy Spirit’s success is not independent of the Father and Son.  George Harrison was most successful as a Beatle; the Holy Spirit works as a person of the Trinity, not as an unsuccessful solo artist. 

The eleventh article of the Belgic restates and builds upon what is already written in the older, ecumenical creeds.  The Holy Spirit “proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.”  He is “true and eternal God.”  This is nothing new.

The interesting thing, however, is how he relates to the Father and the Son.  We tend to think of the Father as the Granddaddy of the Trinity and Jesus as the Superstar.  The Spirit is as much a member of the Trinity as these two, but his work is different.  The Spirit is understood as how he comes from the Father and the Son.  He works on their behalf.  He submits to their sending.

The Father sends the Spirit, as Jesus tells us in John 14:16.  The Son sends the Spirit, as we read in John 15:26.  In both of these instances, the Spirit does not do the sending, but he is the one who is sent.  He works for them.  He “proceeds eternally” from the Father and the Son.

As much praise as is due the Son for his humility to submit to the cross, the forgotten member of the Trinity is as humble.  As much praise belongs to Him as well.  But he calls no attention to himself.  He works for the Father and the Son, bringing them glory and honor.  He’s the technician at work during the Jesus Rock Concert, deflecting all praise.

I know Scripture teaches us to have the “mind of Christ” and not the mind of the Spirit (Phil. 2:5).  This does not offend the Holy Spirit.  He wants it that way; he deflects all attention to Christ.

This doesn’t mean that we must be like the Holy Spirit.  No, we are called to put on Christ.  But keep in mind that it is the powerful person of the Holy Spirit behind the scenes that enables, empowers, and sanctifies you to even live in Christ. 

You could praise him, but that’s like praising the concert technician.  He is worthy of praise and glory, no doubt.  But my guess is that you’d do him honor by praising the other two persons of the Trinity.  This is the work of the Spirit.  To praise the other two persons shows the Spirit is working within us.    

_ There is a saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same.  When we think about Christ, there is a sense of change and sameness as well.  The tenth article of the Belgic Confession reflects this truth. 

First, the Son of God shares sameness with God the Father.  “He is one in essence with the Father,” states the Belgic.  The Son of God is equally God just as God the Father.  This means that the Son of God is:

Eternal:  He existed before the foundation of the world.  There was never a time when the Son of God did not exist. 

Almighty:  The Son of God shares this attribute with God the Father.  All power and authority in this world derives from God, which includes the Son of God.  He is reliable, trustworthy, and can do far more than anything we imagine. 

Worthy of Worship:  A popular song leads us to sing that “It’s all about you, Jesus.”  While this is not entirely true, because God the Father as well as the Holy Spirit are involved in all aspects of salvation, it is not entirely false.  Jesus, as much as God the Father and the Holy Spirit, is worthy of our worship. 

Second, there is also a sense of change or distinction among the persons of the Trinity.  Even though the Son of God is one in essence with the Father, the Son of God is also:

Assumed:  The Son of God became man, not God the Father or the Holy Spirit.  He stooped low to us.    

Eternally begotten:  What does this mean?  First, we must understand that it is biblical.  It is a translation of John 3:16.  Second, we must understand what it does not mean.  It does not mean that the Son of God is a created son of God.  He is the eternal begotten Son of God, not the created Son of God.  This makes him different than us.  You and I are created and adopted by grace to be sons of God.    Jesus, on the other hand, is the eternal Son of God, neither created nor adopted.  Third, we must recognize that it is a difficult concept to understand.  I think it is sufficient to say that it refers to a relationship between the Father and Son that is unique and unshared between God and us.  To say that the Son of God is “eternally begotten” serves as a way to relationally describe how the Son is different with the Father than us. 

Jesus is not just a glorified teacher; he is the glory of God.  Worthy of worship, because he is God, we rejoice that the eternal Son of God assumed our flesh so that we might partake in a life of godliness. 

_ As the structure of the Belgic Confession moves from how we know (the revelation of God in Creation and in this written Word) to who we know, it begins with the Trinity, summarized in the eighth article.  The ninth article now answers the question, “Where is there proof for the doctrine of the Trinity?”  It answers that question with two points: Scripture and experience.   

The Belgic Confession takes us through some key passages in the Old and New Testaments that teach the doctrine of the Trinity.  But we must carefully understand how we approach this topic.  We do not read into Scripture the doctrine of the Trinity.  Scripture is the basis for our doctrine, which is the point of the ninth article.  The revelation of Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Besides Scripture, the Belgic states that our experience is the other proof for the doctrine of the Trinity.  The Belgic states, “All these things we know from the testimonies of the Holy Scripture as well as from the effects of the persons, especially from those we feel within ourselves.”  This is significant.  Scriptural teachings, or doctrines, are not things of the head in place of the heart or hands.  On the contrary, doctrines are emotional and experiential.  The teaching of the Trinity is a part of our experience.

What I mean is that there is a wrong way we usually think about the Trinity.  The wrong way is to approach the Triune God as a spectator, sitting in our seats, watching the game, trying to figure out its rules.  Then we dust off our pants, take the subway home, and think about the Trinity the next time we visit.  The problem is that the Trinity is not so clean.

The more proper approach to the Trinity is as if we are actually playing the game.  We aren’t spectators, figuring out the rules of the game; we’re participants, figuring out the rules of the game.  When God breathed new life in us, he placed us at shortstop, in the middle of the fifth inning.  He brought us into His game, His story.  Our role is to play our position well because the game is already in progress.  We’ll get messy; we’ll make an error; and we might even get confused.  But this isn’t our game.  We didn’t set the rules; we’re trying to learn the rules of it as we go along.  The point is that the Trinity is not something we think about that happens outside of us; rather, God brings us into the work of the Trinity.     

So why does the doctrine of the Trinity matter?  Let’s suppose a man’s car breaks down.  He pops the lid, takes out the oil dipstick, and sees that there is no oil on it.  He doesn’t know exactly where to put the oil.  He deduces that since the dipstick reaches the oil, he can simply pour the oil down the dipstick shaft.  A half hour later, he finishes with the quart of oil, looks up and sees another part on the engine with typed letters, “Place Oil Here.”

The mechanically ignorant man already has the resources in front of him and he doesn’t know it.  As Christians, we have the resources for confidence, joy, boldness, patience, endurance, strength, peace, good works, and motivation in front of us and we’re tempted to neglect them.  We’re created, redeemed, and restored already in the life of the Trinity.  God was already at work before we were born; He is still at work, even in our ignorance; and He will bring all things to completion, even in our cynicism. 

Suppose a child complains that his parents don’t care for him while on his way home for dinner.  Yet, his ignorance blinds him to the ways in which he is already involved in his parents’ care and provision.  He has a home; he is given food.  As Christians, our redemption is the work of the Triune God.  Our daily life depends on the work of the Trinity, which we experience as the power of our Father, the blood of His Son, and the Spirit living I our hearts.  Our hope depends on the Trinity.  Arguing that the Trinity doesn’t matter shows our ignorance to the work of God all around us.  Both Scripture and our experience declare the work of the Triune God. 

_ Between now and Lent, which begins on Ash Wednesday on February 22, we will go through a new series looking closely at the Lord’s Prayer, with help from the Heidelberg Catechism.  The reason we will go through this series during this season is because the revelation (or epiphany) of Christ is also a revelation of Christ’s kingdom.  Prayer is a fundamental aspect of living in Christ’s kingdom.  Prayer is the most natural activity in which we will ever engage in life. 

Yet, how many of us feel confident in our prayer life?  How many of us can honestly say that prayer comes naturally to us? 

When we drove back from Iowa last Monday, we hit bad weather east of Chicago.  In the distraction of the snow, I slowed down, maintained a speed, and used the wipers to clean off the windshield.  I was less concerned about where I was going and more concerned about dealing with the distraction of snow.  I was less concerned about my destination and more concerned about the windshield.

But windshields are not meant to be looked at; windshields are meant to be looked through.  Distractions take your focus off the goal and set it on something else.  The distraction of snow took my attention from looking through the windshield to looking at the windshield.  It occurred to me that this is very much like our prayer life.  With all the distractions that come our way, we get more concerned with the mechanics of prayer (How-To, For-What) than with the goal of prayer. 

The Christian life is a journey.  Prayer is an important tool in our backpack.  It is to help us on our journey.  It is not the point of the journey.  Our goal, our destination, is not to become Prayer Warriors.  The goal of the Christian life is to become lovers of God and mankind: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”  That is where we are headed; prayer is God’s gift to reach that destination.      

This series is meant to encourage Forest Grove toward that goal, that destination of maturity as a church.  We will pay particular attention to the tool of prayer, God’s gift to us. 

Our guide will be the Lord’s Prayer.  This is not the say that the only prayer is the Lord’s Prayer; neither is it to say that spontaneous prayer is bad.  It is to say that the Lord’s Prayer acts like a musical scale for musicians.  In order for musicians to get better, they learn and practice musical scales.  Now, did that student discover the scale?  No, the scale is basic to every piece of music.  Every piece of music follows some sort of scale.  They receive it and use it.

The Lord’s Prayer is like the musical scale for prayerful living.  We receive it from the lips of the Son of God.  We learn it and practice it.  And as we practice it, we find that we can play more songs than before. 

(This is a reason for moving the Lord’s Prayer to where it is now in the service.  I want the children to hear their mom and dad confidently and boldly and loudly and wholeheartedly praying the Lord’s Prayer.  I want them to experience the joy and wonder of it from you, mom and dad.) 

But why do we need help from the Heidelberg Catechism?  Some person might think that the Heidelberg Catechism is “boring.”  I cannot speak for everyone but only for myself.  In my experience, I have discovered that I am boring, not the Heidelberg.  I am boring because I have a very limited understanding of God, the world, and myself.  To listen to the Heidelberg on the same topics opens my mind to other opinions and other thoughts that never occurred to me.

Some other person might object to the Heidelberg because it is old.  The assumption is that only new things are good and old things are bad.  (I’m not sure where the line is drawn, but if you consider yourself “old”, then you might want to watch out for people who share this assumption.) 

Let me speak primarily to those around my age, especially in high school.  We must be careful of the temptation called “Chronological Snobbery”.  Chronological Snobbery is the belief that our generation has it figured out and we don’t need to hear from anyone else.  Chronological Snobbery masks itself as tolerance, for it advocates the importance of listening to others.  However, it is nothing but intolerance, for it ridicules any voice outside of its own generation or time. 

Listening to the Heidelberg as we study the Lord’s Prayer breaks chronological snobbery.  It invites us to consider the same words in Scripture from two different generations.  While these two generations might be separated by over 400 years, we share the same goal, which is to love the Lord and our neighbors.   

_Let us not glide over the fact that Christ was born in Bethlehem.  Do you realize how this shocked the Jewish people?  The Old Testament is clear about the importance of Jerusalem.  Scripture says, “Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion (Jerusalem), that is, the city of David” (2 Sam. 5:7).  Jerusalem is called the “city of David.”  Jerusalem is the home of the Temple; it is the place of kings.  It is the proper place where the King of Kings ought to be born. 

 
But things are not as they ought to be.  Jesus, the king of Kings, is born in Bethlehem, a poor, peasant town of perhaps 100 people about 6 miles from Jerusalem.  Bethlehem's only claim to fame is that it was the birthplace of David, the greatest king of Israel in the Old Testament.  And yet, it was to Bethlehem that the prophet Micah (750 years before Christ) foretold would come the ruler in Israel (5:2).  This was shocking to the hearers of the prophecy, for the ruler of Israel should be born in a palace, not a small, one-claim-to-fame town.

 
The fact that the ruler for Israel was born in Bethlehem and not Jerusalem is symbolic.  We expect Jerusalem because that's the place of important people.  We expect Jerusalem because we know the proper place of one-hit wonders and the true artists.  But the Lord does not come to the important people; rather, He comes to the humble people.  He comes to the once-created glory of creation to redeem it (Ps. 8).  Bethlehem receives the Lord, not the important city of Jerusalem.    

God chose Bethlehem, the birthplace of David, to be the birthplace of David’s long-awaited son.  It was Bethlehem--not Jerusalem--upon whom the honor was given, reminding us that the world is not as it should be, that God looks upon the world not as those who live good lives against those who live bad lives, but as those who are humble against those who are proud.

_  The Belgic Confession makes certain that all our ducks are in row.  Before we can state what we believe, it answers the question, “How do we know what we know?”  Articles 2-7 answer that question sufficiently.  Now our ducks are ordered nicely.  Article 8 directs our attention to who we know: "we believe in one God, who is one single essence, in whom there are three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunicable properties" (Article 8).  We know one God in three persons.

 

The 8th Article of the Belgic clarifies what we mean about one God in three persons.  We believe in one God in “one single essence.”  What does this mean?  Go back to Article 1 for the answer: this one God is simple and spiritual.  The one God is “eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty, completely wise, just, and good, and the overflowing source of all good.”    

 

But God is also three persons.  This is not the same as three gods.  There is no Jerry-Maguire-“You-Complete-Me” in the Trinity.  Jesus does not “complete” the Father, as if the Father was missing something like an arm.  There is one God: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4).  Each person is fully God. 

 

As one God in three persons, this does not mean that God plays three different roles.  The Father does not change hats to act like the Son in the life and ministry of Jesus.  God is not one God with three hats.  This view is often advocated by an unhelpful illustration.  Some try to understand the Trinity by pointing to a man and saying, “Look, he is a father, son, and worker.  God is like this, too!”  This illustration describes roles or Halloween costumes, not persons. God is three persons, all existing eternally.  The 8th Article of the Belgic holds the tension between these two revealed truths: God is one and He exists as three eternal persons.    

 

This tension between one God in three persons is not a logical contradiction.  It would be a contradiction if He was three persons and one person.  But He isn’t.  He is one in essence and He is three in person.  “Essence” and “person” are different just as “apple” and “blue” are different.     

 

While it may not be a logical contradiction, the Trinity certainly is a difficult doctrine.  It is difficult not because it is made up.  Even the Bible never uses the word “Trinity”, it certainly teaches the concept of Trinity.  It is difficult, rather, because of how it works.  How can one God be three persons?  Though we cannot fully understand how God is one God in three persons, we can trust that God is one God in three persons. 

How are they different from each other?  Scripture is clear that the Father—not the Son nor the Spirit—is the creator of all things (Gen. 1-2; Ps. 8).  The Son is the Wisdom and the image of the Father, not the Holy Spirit (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).  The Holy Spirit is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son (Joel 2:28; John 6:63).

The 8th Article of the Belgic Confession elaborates the same teachings of the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.  Each of these creeds presents one God in three persons, as well.  This is nothing new.  It simply expands our understanding of this one God in three persons.

_ Doesn’t it seem like the Belgic goes in circles, making the same point in different ways?  Did we not already discuss the sufficiency of Scripture in previous articles?  Well, no.  The fifth article addressed the question of which books should be considered authoritative.  Now that the canonical books are declared authoritative, the seventh article addresses the question of how we should understand these books compared to other works of literature.  Are any outside sources binding on Christians for saving grace?  The seventh article clearly states that no "custom, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else."  The reason is because “all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself."  The written Word of God, however, is “from God and also because they prove themselves to be from God” (Belgic Confession, Article 5).  The difference, in other words, is origin. 

Paul declares the origin of the Scriptures in God: “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16a).  God did not breathe into the Scriptures, making them simply a witness to God’s revelation.  Rather, God breathed out the written Word of God.  They are from God. 

What is the role of the human writers?  Are they machines?  No.  Peter writes, “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21).  Men spoke “from God”, which means that all words originated in God.  At the same time, “they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  God worked with the distinct personalities of each writer for his written Word.  Human authors acted more like instruments, each with their distinct sound. 

What does it mean that Scripture is sufficient?  It means that it "contains all that the Church needs to know in this world for its guidance in the way of salvation and service, and it contains the principles for its own interpretation within itself" (J.I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God).  It does not mean that other books are forbidden to read.  Actually, we’re encouraged to read other works of literature, like searching for gold in the hills of California.  But we mine with the belief that the standard of gold is the written Word of God.  God already revealed our riches in Christ. 

Notice that the article uses the word “infallible”.  Infallible means that something cannot be in error.  As the written Word of God, Scripture cannot deceive.  The reason is because their origin is God.  God is true.  All that comes from God is true.  Therefore, the Word is true.  The history revealed in Scripture is true.  The commands revealed in Scripture are true.  The message of Jesus is true.  But perhaps the issue is less about the truthfulness of Scripture and rather the implications of what that means for us.  (This is a topic for another day.) 

Let me end by addressing a common statement I hear today.  Some say that Scripture is only true in “faith and practice.”  They imply, most likely, that the history of the Bible is untrue.  “God didn’t really create the world in six days!  It’s scientifically inaccurate!”  Now, it is true that the written Word of God presents many difficulties.  But why assume that the error is automatically in the written Word of God?  Is it not more proper to assume that we fallible creatures misunderstand God’s written Word?  Plus, let me simply point out a contradiction in the statement above.  The person wants it both ways: he wants the Bible true in “faith” but not in history.  But they also claim that their faith is in the historical person Jesus Christ.  But that doesn’t work.  If the history recorded in Scripture is not trustworthy, then it follows that the resurrection of Christ is not trustworthy.  If the historical event of Christ’s resurrection is not trustworthy, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17).  The Christian faith, which is a revealed and historical faith from God, is sufficiently given to us in His written Word.    

_  The fourth Article of the Belgic Confession continues the topic of canonical Scripture.  It addresses the “apocryphal” or “hidden away” books of the Old Testament. 

What are the apocryphal books?  To begin, we must know about the Septuagint.  The Septuagint refers to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures between 300 and 200 BC.  During this period in Jewish history, Hebrew was spoken less and a Greek translation of the Jewish canon was necessary for stability.   

Besides the traditional OT books written in Hebrew, the Septuagint also contained books written in Greek after the last prophet Malachi.  These books are referred to as the Apocryphal or “hidden away” books.  This doesn’t mean that they have any secret teachings; rather, it refers to their secondary status of authority.  These books are listed in the sixth Article.  The Roman Catholic Church maintains the canonicity of the books. 

The Reformers, on the other hand, objected to these books as canonical for several reasons:

1.      The early Jews never received them as canonical;

2.      They were never quoted by the Lord or apostles;

3.      The early church did not receive them as canonical;

4.      They contain historical errors; and,

5.      They contain teachings in conflict with biblical faith;

 
What does this mean for us now?  For some of you, this might mean very little.  You will most likely encounter them only in a Roman Catholic version of the Holy Bible.  This may not be a habit for many of you.  For some of the more curious of you, the apocryphal books are not forbidden.  You may read them, as the Article states.  But something allowed does not mean that it is fruitful.  Parents might allow their teenagers to see a movie, but that does not mean that the movie will produce godly fruit.   


One of my favorite poems as a child was written by Shel Silverstein.  The poem is about a young boy who is given $1 by his father.  He trades it for two quarters because two is more than one.  And then he trades the two quarters for three dimes because three is more than two.  At the end, he shows his father five shiny pennies.  He is proud of himself because he thinks he has more money now than before.  The child was suckered, but he didn’t know it.


The point is that we can be easily suckered.  A line has been drawn and we want to cross it because we think the other side has greener pastures.  We hear “hidden” books and think that we’re the last to know about a giant secret suppressed by thousands of years.  For many of us, there is a giant secret to be uncovered: it is the dusty Bible in our home.

 
Know the worth of the canonical books.  Know their content.  Enjoy their riches.  You won’t want to trade any of them for two apocryphal books as you begin to know their worth.   

What role does the written Word of God play in our lives?  It is the authoritative Word of God, delegated above tradition, recognized by the church, testified by the Spirit, and proven by God himself.

The first section of the 5th Article of the Belgic Confession explicitly states that only these 66 books (stated in the 4th Article) are holy and canonical.  During the time of the 16th century Reformation, many Protestants objected to the elevation of tradition by the Roman Catholic Church.  They placed tradition alongside, and sometimes above, the authority of Scripture.  The Protestants answered that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority for God’s Word.  As a Protestant/Reformed confession, 5th Article stresses that only Scripture is authoritative.

The authority of the written Word of God is not given by the church but recognized by the church.  My child does not give me authority over her; she recognizes that I am in a position of authority over her.  It is God’s design.  Likewise, we don’t give authority to the Word of God; we recognize the authority of these 66 books of the Old and New Testaments by God’s design.

The authority of the written Word of God is also testified by the Holy Spirit.  Notice that it does not say that the Spirit of God works apart from the written Word of God.  Rather, the Holy Spirit testifies through the Word.  This is an important point.  The Holy Spirit illumines the written Word of God; he does not prophecy against it or in contradiction to it. 

The authority of the written Word of God is most importantly stated by God Himself.  God speaks to us about His written Word as authoritative because it comes from Him (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 3:16; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:42).  In other words, the authority of the written Word of God rests in God Himself.  God declared His Word authoritative. 

How is it, then, that we have so many translations?  We have many different translations because the original manuscripts of the written Word of God are lost.  We have many copies of the written Word.  Because copies were done by human hands, errors were made in the copies. 

So can we trust the copies?  While it is uncertain why God chose not to preserve the originals, we trust that through good work we can obtain a credible and reliable copy.  Suppose I write a letter to my children while I am away.  Jodi receives the letter and instructs my children to copy it.  Jodi loses my original letter.  She returns to my children to ask for their copies.  Are they reliable copies?  Well, comparing the two copies helps Jodi return to a more accurate and reliable letter.  In the same way, we can trust the Bible.  Not all copies are the same, which means hard work and discipline are needed to discern a more accurate copy. 

God chose not to preserve the originals.  But God also raised faithful workers to discern and advance credible and reliable copies.  Can we trust the copies?  Well, can we trust God and His providential hand over all things?  Your answer to the latter question will give you the answer to the former question.      

A recent post by Kevin DeYoung speaks to same subject I'm teaching right now for the men's Bible study on Wednesday night: Biblical Masculinity.  In fact, he references one source that I used last night in our first study to illustrate the problem we have today: men are confused about what it means to be a man. 

We believe in the providence of God, not coincidences.  Because of his recent post, I decided to include my notes from the first class on biblical masculinity.  (You are more than welcome  to join us on Wednesday nights at 7pm for this topic.)

Lesson 1: Overview

The problem

The problem we face today is that there is widespread confusion about what it means to be a man. 

Attempts to solve it

Television shows attempt to address the confusion and provide answers:

Married with Children:  incompetent father, patronized by long-suffering wife and clever children.

Last Man Standing:  a married father of three tries to maintain his manliness in a world dominated by women.  Outdoors man who is now pulled in more to work at home, and he bumbles around.           

New movies

Cowboys: rugged individuals who can’t do anything at home, meant to be in the wild

Action movies: men conquer women

Manulescence: Grown men playing games as children

New books

            John Eldredge, Wild at Heart: men are untamed, civilized by women

The result

            False understandings—unclear or confusing or not fully developed

                        Macho Man:  abuse, only do this or that (Only watch Braveheart, not Mr. Rogers)

                        Mushy Man: abandon

            Even in Church

                        My experience as a pastor is that many husbands and fathers leave the “churchy” thing to their wives or mothers as they pursue more “manly” things.  Since when is religion only a woman thing?  What has happened to the church?


Sobering Reality: this confusion is nothing new. 

            100 years ago:

Boy Scouts emphasized the untamed masculine nature in their 1914 manual (Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth)

            200 years ago in America:

                        Feminization of American Culture as chronicled in Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth   

            Biblical times:

Thyatira: The church is rebuked by Jesus for their tolerance of Jezebel, a seduction of pleasure and luxury and ruthless violence.  Why did anyone let it come to this?  What happened to the men that they thought this was acceptable?

Judges 19:10-25 tells a difficult story about men abusing women for their own gain and comfort.

                        Genesis 3:9 reveals that God holds Adam responsible, not Eve.

A simple, biblical definition I offer for biblical masculinity is the joyful acceptance of responsibility.

The question we will address in this class is: What does God say what it means to be a man as revealed in his written Word? 

            Our class will cover Genesis 1-3 mostly because we must go back to the order of creation for answers.

            Influenced by William Mouser’s study Five Aspects of Man, we will look at these five traits of biblical masculinity and their             main text:   

                Lords, Genesis 1

                Husbands, Genesis 2

                Warriors, Genesis 3

                Sage, Proverbs 1-9

                Glory, 1 Corinthians 11:7

My assumptions about this study are as follows:

Creation Order: Genesis 1-2 is factually true.  This means that the aspects of masculinity come from the creation itself.

The only perfect Masculine Man is Christ

There is equality between men and women (Gen. 1).

            Yet, there is also a created difference in roles and responsibilities for men and women.