George Muller

This is the second biographical sketch that I am writing on a Christian from the past, and this person happens to be one individual who has influenced me greatly. He is, in my opinion, better known than Henry Martyn, but tends to be only superficially developed. It's a shame, because when I read about him in detail I am amazed at the great testimony of God's faithfulness throughout his life. This guy is named George Muller, and he lived during the 19th century, immigrating over to England from Germany. Muller is best known for starting an orphanage ministry in Bristol, England, and relying solely upon God for providing for the work's needs. In every aspect of his life the grace of God is shown, and this is why I am presenting him here on my blog. If God was not glorified through his life, then there is no reason to put him forward. Please accept my apologies for the seemingly excessive length of this entry.



George Muller was born on September 27, 1805, in a small town named Kroppenstedt, Prussia (now Germany). When I searched for this place on Google Earth, I was struck by how tiny it still is today (pop. 1,675). Surely God does wonderful things in calling His servants out of so many obscure places across the world. I know my own hometown (Walker Valley, NY) isn't much either. Anyway, George Muller's first 20 years were spent in prodigal sin. He frittered away the money given to him by his father in wild pursuits, and lived a double life even while studying to become a Lutheran clergyman in accordance with his father's wishes. The very night his mother died, he was gambling and getting drunk with his friends. After Muller was finally thrown into prison for nearly a month at the age of 16, his father sent him off to a stricter school, where he tried, unsuccessfully, to reform himself into a better and more respectable person. At last, in 1825, when a friend of Muller's invited him to a Christian gathering, the grace of God shone upon him and he was converted.

As usually happens to Christians upon their being born anew, George Muller's thoughts immediately turned to ministry, especially missionary work. He accordingly began to search for opportunities, and traveled to England to study under the London Missionary Society. During this time, due to much searching of the Bible, George Muller first began to develop his strong convictions. He eventually realized that, since the Society strictly controlled its missionaries and was too closely connected with the English government ("union of church and state"), he could not conscientiously serve under it. Accordingly, Muller began to minister among people in the area west of London, in such towns as Teignmouth and Bristol. Eventually, he joined up with the Open Brethren, a group of believers who determined to live simply, according to the practice of the early church of the book of Acts. In 1830, Muller married Mary Groves, sister of Anthony Norris Groves, who is known as one of the first "faith missionaries," having served in the Middle East.

It was during this time that George Muller solidified the convictions for which he is best known. He began to live "by faith," not asking anyone else but God to supply his needs. For instance, he refused to accept a stated salary as the pastor of the Brethren church he ministered in, since he wished the believers to give according to God's leading. He also wanted to be sure that he was relying completely upon God, instead of upon "an arm of flesh" - i.e., of other human beings. This approach may seem strange to many, and downright impossible in today's world, but there is no doubt that God honored George Muller's conviction. Not everyone is called to such a way to live, but for those who are called it is a wonderful opportunity to see the providence of a bountiful God. I myself have been very much influenced by Muller's example here.

As time went on, George Muller became burdened with the fact that there was still not much Biblical knowledge among the people he was acquainted with, as well as the deplorable mingling of worldly practices with the then-existing ministries in England (for example, many societies operated on a fee-based membership, and many unsaved people thereby became associated with them simply by paying the fee). He, along with his fellow believers, began "The Scriptural Knowledge Institution," which would publish Bibles, tracts, send out missionaries, and run Sunday Schools for children. This would continue for the course of his long life.

In 1835, Muller first began to think about establishing his most renowned enterprise, an Orphan House ministry for the children who otherwise would be enslaved to the mines and factories springing up everywhere in England during this time, or left to pursue a life of crime on the streets (aka Oliver Twist). Here is a summary of his own reasonings concerning the matter:

"I certainly did from my heart desire to be used by God to benefit the bodies of poor children, bereaved of both parents, and seek, in other respects, with the help of God, to do them good for this life ;-I also particularly longed to be used by God in getting the dear orphans trained up in the fear of God ;-but still, the first and primary object of the work was, (and still is:) that God might be magnified by the fact, that the orphans under my care are provided, with all they need, only by prayer and faith, without any one being asked by me or my fellow-labourers, whereby it may be seen, that God is FAITHFUL STILL, and HEARS PRAYER STILL."

Muller rented a large house in Bristol, and began to take in orphans. Within a year, the ministry had expanded to over 50 orphans and 2 houses. What was singularly remarkable was that Muller refused to solicit donations in any way, preferring instead to depend upon God to provide for the orphans, just as he had been doing in his own personal life. As he saw it, God would use the ministry of other Christians - even those across oceans and seas - to send the money that was needed for daily expenses. George Muller habitually published, every year, an account of what God had done for the orphanage ministry, and the Lord used this, along with word of mouth and other means, to stir up the hearts of many of His saints to provide for needs, even though Muller himself never asked outrightly for funds. Money came in from the most unlikely places, from the most unexpected people - saints of all types of status, age, and language. This would continue until the end of Muller's life, and even afterwards.

God was providing, but He often waited until the very last second, literally, to meet the needs of the day. George Muller wrote multiple times in his reports about how money had been called for to immediately pay for necessities, and he had then received donations exactly when they were required. Let me provide an example:

December 1, 1840: To-day we were so poor as to the Orphan-Fund, that we should not have been able to meet the demands of the day; but the Lord’s loving heart remembered us. There came in this morning 5 pounds, 7 shillings for some of the articles which were sent some time since from Stafford. I have purposely again and again mentioned how the help, which the love of some saints at Leeds and Stafford sent, delivered us, that it might be manifest that those donors were directed by the Lord in this matter.

There are hundreds of such events mentioned in the six decades of Muller's orphan ministry!

The ministry kept growing. Eventually, Muller began to build brand-new brick houses specifically designed to accommodate the orphans. This was an even bigger step of faith - thousands of pounds were required in hand before construction could even begin. Yet, George Muller refused to take out a loan or mortgage, often waiting at least 3 or 4 years for the money to accumulate in the building fund. This was because he was convinced that the Lord did not mean him to go into debt for any reason at all, since God is surely able as a Father to provide for all of His children's needs without them plunging into the contradictory position of being a slave to creditors. Scriptures such as Romans 13:8 ("Owe nobody anything but love") solidified this conviction. Only once the total construction sum was in hand would Muller commence the new house, because he was convinced that God was moving things along in His own timing. In all, 5 huge houses were built, and the whole process took 25 years. By 1870, there were over 2,000 children being accomodated in the Orphan Houses. The Houses were run with a design of training the children up in the fear of God and to apprentice them with skills so that they could contribute to society. In fact, it is said that so many kids went to the Houses that the factories and mines saw a shortage of child laborers. Truly, God had taken a small little effort and transformed it into a ministry that was changing successive generations in England and impacting the hearts and lives of Christians worldwide.

Bird's-eye view of the five Orphan Houses.

The Orphan Houses today, as seen in Google Earth (compare with the above picture).

You would think that George Muller at this time would say, "Well, yes, that's my life's work done right there. Time to retire and slowly fade away into the sunset." The truth is, amazingly, quite the opposite. At an age when most Americans have already entered into their hopeful dreams of recreational bliss, George Muller entered upon an entirely new ministry, one that traced its origins back to the days when he was a new creation in Christ. He had desired to be a missionary then, and God had deferred that opportunity for several decades. Now, the Orphan work was running well, and Muller was able to delegate most of the work to his subordinates - so he was free to travel around the world preaching the Gospel. From 1875 to 1892 (age 70 to 87), George Muller traveled approximately 200,000 miles, visiting countries all over the globe such as Israel, Australia, China, Japan, India, America, and Egypt. Even today with our higher life expectancy, such endurance seems inconceivable. No doubt it was the strength of God that kept him going. In fact, George Muller often stated that he felt better at 90 years of age than he had felt at 25 (mainly because he had suffered from several illnesses in his young adulthood).

During the last decade of his life, Muller did settle down just a little bit, but continued to oversee the Orphan ministry, along with his fellow worker and son-in-law James Wright. Even up to the time of his death, there were always trials and challenges of faith - for even though people all across the world knew about the ministry and were supporting it, expenditures continued to increase - 10,000's of pounds were now required to meet the needs of a single year. Yet as always, God continued to provide for a huge ministry, just as He had provided for a small undertaking. Size makes no difference to an omnipotent Lord!

A group of Orphan girls.

George Muller passed away peacefully on March 10, 1898, in his 93rd year. His ministry did not die with him. It yet continues today, albeit in a changed form. The orphanages continued to run until after World War II, when changes in the nature of social work for children across Britain occurred. The houses were then sold (they are now part of a college) and the organization focused on running family group homes for children. When that too became obsolete in the 1970's, a more diverse assortment of ministries began, aiming at reestablishing the importance of family structure - for this time period also saw the breakdown of the traditional family units amid the "freedom movements." Today, there are day-care centers, school workers, various children's ministries, nursing homes for the elderly, and as always the literature of the Scriptural Knowledge Institution. "The George Muller Foundation" is the generic name under which all these ministries are represented. It still runs under the same principles which George Muller operated upon - depending upon God by faith alone, soliciting no donations, and not falling into debt.

The former Ashley Down Orphan Houses, now the City of Bristol College.

By the grace of God alone could a poor, destitute immigrant establish himself in a foreign country and carry out a ministry of mercy to literally tens of thousands of children and hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Here is a short list of what the Lord did through George Muller in terms of "financial aid" from the beginning of his ministry to his home-coming (figures are approximate):

- 110,000 pounds for day schools and Sunday Schools.

- 41,000 pounds for sale and distribution of Bibles.

- over 260,000 pounds for missionary work.

- 47,000 pounds for the sale and distribution of Christian literature.

- Almost one million pounds for the Orphan Ministry.

= Total: Nearly one-and-a-half million pounds sterling, received through prayer to God alone over a period of 64 years, without asking any human being for financial aid. This amounted to about $7,500,000 in American dollars at the time, which is worth much more in today's figures!

This is not a "get rich quick" scheme like what so many "prosperity gospel" preachers extol. This was a ministry difficult and laborious beyond imagination. Think of all the time George Muller labored in prayer, think of all the anxious moments he spent wondering where the next meal for the Orphans came from, think of the deep commitment and thankfulness to God such a ministry entails. What seems like small change in the course of a day can, over nearly six and a half decades, amount to a staggering sum. Such is how God works!

George Muller believed very strongly in the stewardship of money and in the Biblical truth of "laying up treasure in heaven." Accordingly, he lived simply and gave away much of the donations which he had received to supply his own personal needs. One estimate has him receiving 93,000 pounds over the course of his life, a veritable fortune. Yet, out of this he gave away over 81,000 pounds, leaving only 12,000 pounds to maintain himself over a time period of 60+ years. In fact, many times it was his own money that he used to bring the Orphan ministry relief from a pressing need; he never published this astonishing truth during the course of his life.

Many have thus thought that George Muller was some kind of "super saint," blessed with an uncommon gift of faith. In fact, Muller himself denied such a status. He said that anyone could follow the principles he undertook and see the blessing of God in such an endeavour. The physical result would not necessarily be the same, of course, but God would still honor the commitment, provided that it is being done for His glory. I personally feel this is worth trying out!

I do not set this man up on a pedestal. There are some things about him which I feel need to be thought over. This is true of anyone who has ever lived. Yet on the whole I fully recommend his example - because his example is a true display of the grace of God and how it can transform one's life. We do not need to do exactly what George Muller did in order to apply the convictions which he got from Scripture. In fact, one of the things many people tend to overlook is that his ministry would not have succeeded without the contributions of individuals with similar convictions. Time upon time we see letters or gifts from believers who are following the same principles and likewise encouraging Muller in his labors. It is these people, these names on a page, whom God used to make George Muller the front-page, so to speak, of a most remarkable ministry of His grace and providence. This can be us, too. Only a name on a page to the human world, perhaps, but to God a book full of details, a written memorial of His amazing work on this earth. We live, not for ourselves or to see how great we become, but to make our God great. This is how George Muller lived, and this is why he engaged in the ministries that he began - to glorify God.

I strongly urge you all to purchase a good book about Muller and read through it thoroughly. If possible, get a book that uses his words as much as possible. There is something about reading a primary source that gets you up close and intimate with the course of events that is being described. George Muller himself wrote a "Narrative of the Lord's Dealings" in 6 parts for the benefit of the Christian public to be encouraged and challenged by. In it, he minutely describes the events of 65+ years' duration and records the exact sums of money which came in to supply the needs of the day. These very pages drip with passion and the faithfulness of God, without which they would be a boring and tiring drudgery. Sprinkled throughout these records is a trove of practical advice and testimonies of the Lord's providence. In fact, it is largely because of the personal, everyday nature of the work that I highly recommend it. It shows that spirituality is not lived in a vacuum; it actually impacts the daily doings of life.

Here, below, are the recommended titles. There are many other books in print, but I feel that they are superficial and do not fully express the nature of George Muller's work, although they can be read quickly by those who have little time on their hands.

- George Muller of Bristol, by Arthur Pierson - The "Authorized Biography," written not long after Muller's death. It uses many excerpts from his works and ties together the events well. Somewhat topical in format.

- The Autobiography of George Muller: A Million and a Half in Answer to Prayer - I believe this is the best treatment of the man (I got this one for my mom). It uses his own words 95% of the time, contains many nice black-and-white pictures, and is bulky, yet a doable read (about 725 pages). Available through Westminster Literature Resources and perhaps on Amazon.com if it is up for a special deal (I got it for $17). DO NOT get the smaller, cheaper edition that shows up first on the Amazon list (although it might be ok in some respects). The bigger one is definitely worth your money AND your time! A Note to BBC Students: Look in the far, far reaches of the school library (Hint: Think History section) for a simple, black-bound age-worn book with this title. No flashy advertising like The Purpose-Driven Life, but of 250X more value.

- A Narrative of the Lord's Dealings with George Muller - This is everything you can get about the man and his ministry, every word. For a long time, it was not in print at all, but a small company named Dust and Ashes Publications has taken the liberty to reissue this important book. It is for serious students of Muller, and is also available to read online for free, although a paper copy is the best way to appreciate such a vast work. I have just gotten the 2 volumes and express my sincere approval. For but $65 (and I truly believe it is worth $200 for its spiritual value), you can get a copy too. One caveat is that it may be slightly hard to follow at times, and it also does not cover the last 12 years of Muller's life - that is why I recommend the above Autobio as a more well-rounded resource. Some sermons are included too as well, which look like they will be an interesting read.

Some websites also to look at:

http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/biorpmueller.html - a collection of information on Muller's life.

http://www.mullers.org/ - The George Muller Foundation, which still operates today in England.

http://www.dustandashes.com/ - The Publisher of George Muller's Narratives (also has a free online copy of the work).

The Wikipedia entry is not too bad, either (Do check out the series on the China Inland Mission and the ministry of Hudson Taylor, it is an excellent example of how good Wikipedia can be under proper controls) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Muller

I have committed to following the example of this man. I'm not without Biblical precedent, since the Apostle Paul also said "Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ." Just as Jesus depended on His Heavenly Father for all things, so George Muller also depended on the Father to provide for his needs. Not all may agree with the precise way in which he carried out this conviction (Indeed, I feel not everyone is called to do so), but there is no doubt that it deserves admiration. It is truly a wonderful thing to be going through each day in total trust upon God, and it greatly strengthens and challenges faith. This year of 2007 has been full of uncertainties, but God has not allowed me to stumble, and now I have a apartment and three amazing roommates and a steady job. At one time, I was not humanly assured of anything, but in the eyes of God I was assured of everything. George Muller saw things the same way. So, with God's help, I will exercise the convictions that he operated upon (such as no debt for any reason, trusting the Lord for all things, whether it be through a job or no, etc). Feel free to dialogue with me on this matter.

This has been the longest entry on my blog to date. I pray that it may have seemed short in your mind - I could easily expand it to 10 times this length, so passionate am I about displaying the wonderful things God has done. Every time I think about George Muller, I am challenged to increase my devotion and adoration of the Lord. I hope what little things I've written here can make a difference.

What is a cult?

There are many groups out there that claim to be Christian. However, upon further examination, they are found to be false, espousing teachings that are not found in Scripture. These groups are called cults, and they are extremely dangerous since those who fall into their clutches are very hard to remove. Cults range from the enormously popular Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to the small, esoteric apocalyptic groups that firmly believe the end of the world is at hand. In this entry, I want to give a brief overview of the characteristics of cultic groups so that we can be better prepared to recognize such people and stay away from them, as well as warn others about their dangers. I am indebted to the website http://www.carm.org/ for providing most of the information I am using for this blog entry - check it out by all means! It has been a wonderful apologetics resource on the Internet for a decade.

The term "cult" has been variously defined. A common blanket definition is "a group radically committed to a leader or principle." Obviously, this isn't adequate, since almost anyone could thus be a cultic member. I am defining "cult" from a Christian perspective, and so the definition I will adopt will not include other religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism, which deny any affiliation with Christianity at all.

Basically, a cult can be defined as a group which includes the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures, but distorts the Word in order to support its aberrant doctrines. When I mean "distort," I mean the cult denies the essential doctrines of Scripture. Secondary matters, such as the difference between dispensationalism/reformed theology, infant baptism (as long as it's not for salvation)/believer's baptism, and the timing of the rapture do not distinguish heresy from orthodoxy. Some essential doctrines of Scripture include:

- The deity of Christ
- The Trinity
- Salvation by grace alone through faith
- The physical resurrection of Christ

In addition, there are some groups that do hold to these essentials, but are so extreme in secondary doctrines that they must be avoided, since they choose to emphasize on what divides rather than on what unifies. They are not properly "cultic," but are still dangerous in their own right.

Another key characteristic of cults is that they tend to add human works to the gift of salvation. This is the case with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, since they both teach that Christ indeed paid a price for our sins, but we must work with Him to confirm our salvation. In other words, we do our best and hope God does the rest. Of course, this denies several Scriptures such as Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Even some well-known groups, such as Roman Catholicism, fall into this danger since they also emphasize the adding of our works to God's grace. The Protestant Reformation happened mainly because of the abuses of the Church of Rome, especially in the area of doctrine, and the regaining of the central doctrine of our justification by grace alone through faith was a major hallmark in the recovery of the true church of God. We need to cling to this doctrine with all our might, because it gives God all the glory for our salvation, and puts us into our proper place. More has been said by me in previous posts, such as in the ones on Justification and Sanctification.

Some cults also add their own Scriptures to the Bible. The Mormons acknowledge such books as the Book of Mormon (acknowledged to be "the most correct book of our religion" by founder Joseph Smith) and The Pearl of Great Price. The Jehovah's Witnesses count as authoritative the materials published by the Watchtower organization, as well as their version of the Bible called "The New World Translation" that corrupts several verses in favor of bad doctrine. Christian Scientists revere books written by Mary Baker Eddy (ex. Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures). In all of these cases, the books radically change Christianity to a form which the cult in question approves of. So, when examining a group, it is good to see what authority it places on its own publications as compared to Scripture.

Cults also tend to be strongly controlling. They are usually led by a single person or a powerful body of leaders. Such people may have highly charismatic abilities and strong powers of conviction. Of course, this alone is not a determining factor in defining a cult, since there are many strong preachers and people who God has raised up in orthodox Christianity to edify the saints. However, it is still true that most cults are led by domineering, controlling people. Such leaders may claim special revelation from God, have unique abilities tailored for their mission, and demand high levels of commitment and trust (i.e., they can't be questioned at all). Eventually, the cult tends to rule over all areas of its members' lives. That is why it is so difficult to extricate people from cultic groups.

By no means are all cults strange-looking. Some groups are very upright, honest, and moral people by the standards of this world. They do a good job of sweeping most of the "odd" stuff under the carpet. Many Mormons, for example, have an admirable record of honesty and uprightness, as do many Roman Catholics as well. Indeed, this may be a key reason why many people join cults. Cults can provide them with a strong sense of "belonging," and appear to meet their key needs. The group can be a key source of support and comfort (and of conflict once the member desires to leave the cult). In this world, where so many people are alone and distraught, cults put up an attractive front and lure their hapless victims into the clutches of heresy. Satan has been using this technique for thousands of years with devastating results. However, praise God that He continues to expose the errors of these cults and to receive many souls into His true Kingdom!

When encountering cults, it is extremely important to understand what you are going up against. Many cults use similar terminology as orthodox Christians, but give them different definitions. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is inerrant. What they mean, though, is that their New World Translation of the Bible is inerrant, and all others are frauds. The Holy Spirit, according to the JW's, is not a person but rather an impersonal "force." For a Mormon, eternal life is not about living forever in heaven with God, but actually becoming a god of your own. Mormons also believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan and is actually a god distinct from God the Father (they believe the Trinity is three separate gods instead of one God in three persons). There is much more I could say, but I think the above information is sufficient to show that we are dealing with different things represented by the same terms.

So what can we do if we know people who have fallen into cult traps? Patience and hard work is the key. First of all, perseverance in prayer. Second, maintain communication with the person(s), and at all times determine to show the love of Christ to them so that they can see the alternative. Lovingly share your concerns about the group they are with, and give the relevant information about false doctrine if they are able to bear it. The problem is, of course, that cult members tend to become antagonistic if you attack their group - so that is why I urge caution when showing them how they are wrong. Ask God for wisdom and discernment about what to say in these situations. Sometimes it is better to be bold; sometimes it is better to be more discreet. Each situation must be examined in its own perspective. God is very merciful and has saved thousands of people from cults, and there are many helpful resources on the Internet and with various ministries to help people who are escaping from bondage to these groups. www.carm.org, as I stated before, is one such resource.

I may delve into certain groups in more detail in future entries. Definitely the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses deserve an in-depth description. But perhaps Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostalism, Scientology, Seventh-day Adventism, and Bahai'ism may be mentioned as well. There are a lot of groups out there, but some are more common than others - and that is why I choose to talk more about them. Word needs to get out about the dangers of these cults: for example, in Japan, most "Christians" are actually members of cults which masquerade as the one true faith. Part of our witness as Christians means exposing false doctrine to the light. So that is why it is good for us to know at least the basic details about cults so that God can use us to reveal the lies of the devil and substitute the truth in their place.

I hope I can continue to write more often - in truth, it is the comments on my blog that help me know that I have an audience and that what I write is actually read. But, of course, I serve God in my writing and as I write He helps me clear my thinking better. I write to please Him, and that needs to be my utmost motive in everything. Nevertheless, I welcome comments and questions, so I can interact with my readers.

Have a good day!

Some insights on the Incarnation of Christ

I'm glad to have the weekend off from work to write a bit on this blog once again. As all of you can probably suspect, work is the reason why I haven't been posting as frequently! Being "unemployed" definitely had a positive influence on the amount of material I was able to post here ;)

I have decided, in this blog post, to address a deep theological topic in a devotional way. This is partly to make the subject easier to understand for those who may not be acquainted with it, and to remind ourselves of how amazing God's dealings with this world have been. I am talking about the subject of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ - that is, God's appearing on this earth in human form. The word "Incarnation" is a Latin-based theological term meaning "embodied in flesh," and is not a directly Scriptural term; just one developed to identify the doctrine (like with the "Trinity" or the "Rapture"). So, we can refer to this important doctrine as "Jesus Christ embodied in flesh."

The Incarnation is one of the central, fundamental truths of Christianity. John in his letter outlines this clearly: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already" (1 John 4:2-3). He was addressing a group of people who were claiming that Jesus could not be a man because He, being God, could not be tainted with the supposed evil of possessing human flesh. It is interesting that our present world's main problem is believing in Jesus as God; the main problem back in John's day was believing that Christ was actually a man! Of course, this brings us into the question of the deity/humanity of Christ, which is not the subject of this blog (but is still a vital theological truth). I just wanted to show that this doctrine, being so important, has been attacked many times by those who do not accept the truth.


I will present the basic Scriptural proofs of the Incarnation and then proceed to make some devotional insights.


First, Jesus was clearly born of a human woman, Mary, and one of the names given to Him affirms His deity:


"....an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us)." Matt 1:20-23)

The Virgin Birth shown here, I should add, is also important to orthodox Christianity, because it clearly establishes both the divine and human natures of Christ. God did come down to Earth and undergo the normal human process of birth!

One of the most important verses also deals with Christ's coming down to Earth:

"And the Word [Christ] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).



In Romans, Paul details a further reason for Christ's taking a human body upon Himself:

"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh..." (Romans 8:3)

That is, because our legal efforts could not make ourselves righteous in God's sight, He then sent Christ, the Perfect Man, to be blameless and perfect and utterly vanquish sin.

The celebrated passage on Christ's utter humiliation also refers to His incarnation:

"....though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11)"

Because Christ needed to totally identify Himself with us, He did take upon the same kind of substance as us humans, so that He could truly be our representative and decisively defeat Satan:

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

I think these passages together present a powerful picture as to the truth of God's dwelling among us as a human being. Let's push these verses home a little further, so that we may see that all this is really relevant to us.

1. The very idea that God Himself, being in heaven, a place where He was completely happy and satisfied, lacking in nothing, willingly chose to humble Himself and walk upon this sin-cursed earth is absolutely mind-blowing. We daily see the filthiness and lowliness of our daily existence and the gross limitations of our finite bodies, whose needs must be continually met. This world is a rotten mess of corruption, one that the sinless God absolutely detests. Yet - because He is loving, He still chose to make a difference and restore the race of fallen humanity. So, Jesus walked on this earth for 33 years and experienced all the wide range of sufferings that we fellow humans endured. He was tired. He was sick, I'm sure. He wept. He suffered intense pain and agony. The very act of His birth was a trial to His mother, as because of sin all childbirth is painful to all women. He needed to sleep. He was continually wearied by the huge throngs of people clamoring to see Him day and night. And, most of all, He died. Not just a normal death, but the worst one that could be inflicted by that time's standards - crucifixion. Surely it is an amazing thing that God Himself should experience this world's pains, and this truly shows the depth of His great love.

2. Not only did God come down to this Earth, but He came down to one of the meanest corners of the world. A people despised and abhorred, an object of mockery to the pagan nations around it - these people Christ chose to make His principal dwelling with. Why could He not have entered upon the splendor of Rome and been the son of Caesar? Enjoyed the riches of Egypt? Inherited the courage and daring of Parthia? Been immersed in the ancient wisdom of the Chinese? But, no, He made His abode with the Jewish people, a people conquered and crushed under the dominion of the Gentiles. A people of no great fame or renown, known mostly for its strange custom of worshipping simply one God with fanatic fervor and ardor. Yet, God had chosen this nation to bring Christ forth, and God ordained things this way to put the worldly wisdom of Greece and Rome to shame. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Virgil, Epicurus - who are they compared to Christ? Their insights are but incomplete and poor compared to our Savior's full knowledge. Yet they did come from the richest and most prosperous nations at that time, and Christ came from one of the most destitute. Here, we see once again the manifold and profound wisdom of God, in choosing to incarnate Himself upon this Earth in a manner that blows our minds.

3. The fact that in taking the likeness of sinful flesh upon Himself, Christ thus made Himself our representative before God so that we would not have to suffer eternal damnation is one of the great mysteries of the Truth that will take all of eternity to explore and grasp. Why should God do thus? Why put Someone in our place to suffer for our sins? Why such great love? Simple - it is because of Who He is. He has testified of Who He is in His Word. Is there another God? No. Can this God change? No. He is loving, and the Father has sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sins. That is the truth of this universe. There is nothing else that competes with this reality. And I am so thankful that things are the way they are, that God is Who He is. It might conceivably have been different - but this, right now, is the truth and there is no changing it.

The sacrifices of the Old Testament all pointed to Christ as the substitution that God put in our place to suffer sin's punishment. The animals - bulls and goats - reminded Israel that its sins were covered by the shedding of another's blood. But the blood of these creatures was not efficacious to take away sin. It merely shadowed Christ's greater, efficacious sacrifice. In order to be a true atonement for sin, He had to be "made like His brethren." A human needed to suffer for humans - yet this was no mere sinful human, but a pure, holy, and sinless God-man, Who was completely divine yet completely human. In Romans, Christ is called "the last Adam," because He vividly contrasts the tragic fall of the first Adam. The first Adam brought pain and ruin upon the creation; the last Adam restored it to its true glory. The first Adam showed his weakness and futility by succumbing to the temptation to sin; the last Adam showed His strength and victory by crushing Satan under His feet. Just as a human brought man into grievous sin, so a human delivered man from the curse of sin. What a wonder we have here from the glorious God!

4. Christ sympathizes with us in our weaknesses, having endured all the temptations that beset humanity. Hebrews talks much about this, in affirming Christ's absolute appropriateness as our representative. We can come to Him with all our concerns and infirmities, knowing that He will not cast us out. Lepers, the blind, the deaf, the demonic, the spiritually tormented - all those came to Him when He was on Earth and were not rejected. And He continues to receive such people even today into eternal salvation - both physically and spiritually. Let us pray, then, and seek to cast all our cares upon Him, for He cares for us. Everything from eternal salvation to security over enduring BBC orals, we can come to Him for. Think on this, and rejoice!

I have to confess, once I start writing about these glorious things, it can be difficult to stop going on and on! But for the sake of brevity, it is best to conclude my thoughts here. I only wish that I thought on the glorious truths of Christianity and on my Savior so much more. My prayer for those of you who do not know Christ is that He may reveal to you just how amazing and glorious He is, so that you will rejoice with me and with my brothers and sisters over His salvation.

In His Name, I bid you a good day :).

Youth Groups - An Examination

The last fifty years have seen an explosion in the number of ministries devoted primarily to reaching young people ranging from preschool age to college age. I was involved with one of them, Word of Life Fellowship, which is based in the Adirondacks of New York and was founded in the 1940's. Word of Life has grown internationally, and operates Bible Clubs, Bible Institutes (one of which I attended for 2 years), youth camps, and conference centers. In New York, it runs the Campground, the Island, the Inn, and the Ranch - all catering to different age groups (not just young people, but families and older people as well). However, Word of Life's primary mission is to reach young people for Jesus Christ, and its ministries are developed with this end in mind. WOL is just one example of the many parachurch ("alongside the church") groups developed to meet the growing needs of the youth community - other organizations include Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, Young Life, and Campus Bible Fellowship.

It is amazing to see all the services that Christians have for youth these days. I am grateful for such ministries. I fondly remember my times as a new, growing Christian in my church's youth group. Yet I do wonder if we tend to overemphasize this aspect of our ministries, especially in our developed countries (America and Europe). That's why I am writing this blog entry to examine more closely the purpose of youth ministries and how we can balance things better.

The Scriptures present the idea of a unified Body of Christ - where there is no distinction between nations, races, gender, and age. The Body is uniform in the sense that everyone has an equal standing before Jesus Christ, no matter what type of person he or she may be. Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." A similar passage, Colossians 3:11, declares, "Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all." I am sure that old and young people can belong into this category as well. The great tragedy of the past 50 years has been the great youth rebellion away from authority and from their elders. Because of this, a split has developed in American society, where both groups tend to do their own thing. This has tended to spill over into churches as well, and I do know of some churches where young people hold their own separate services, without any spiritual contact whatsoever with their elders. This is a destructive practice that grievously wounds the Body of Christ. There are a host of commands in Scripture where the young are called to respect the old, and there are even some church teachings concerning this matter. For example, Paul in Titus declares concerning older women: "[They] likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled" (2:3-5). We see here a fundamental principle in church ministry: that the older people act as examples to the younger people, teaching them and training them to live their lives reverently and godly. Not only does this make Biblical sense, but it also makes practical sense: older folks tend to have a better overview of life and know the mistakes they've committed in the past when young, so they are in a position to teach young folks all about how to live rightly.

Thus, I greatly desire youth ministries to be better overseen by the older members of the church. A common objection one may make is that the old folks don't understand these newer times, with all our recent technological innovations - so how can they teach us accurately these days? That is a lame argument, however - because time has shown, over and over again, the solidness of the foundation of elder (and Scriptural) respect. Great upheavals have occurred in society, but usually a return to more traditional ways has proven to be more beneficial. Moral principles never change, no matter what manner of society is dominant. Murder is still wrong all across the world. It is the same way with Biblical authority and principles. I have further addressed this issue of absolutes in my entry on Truth.

By no means am I saying that youth should no longer take leadership positions in these ministries. After all, Timothy was the pastor at Ephesus; and he was young and intimidated by such a great responsibility. Paul said to him, "Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). God has called up many bright young people to key ministry positions all over the world. Nevertheless, the general pattern is for leaders to be people of maturity, which does often mean having the wisdom which a greater age gives. If a young person is qualified for a important role in ministry, it should only be confirmed after much prayer and much advice and much examination by older believers.

One other thing - I feel that the emergence of the "teenage" age group has been an overall detriment to American society as a whole. The term "teenager" has been around for only about 65 years and is a more casual version of "adolescent." Of course, I recognize that this time period, from the ages of 13 to 19, is filled with complex changes in both body and mind that need to be adjusted to. However, it is my opinion that we have encouraged teenagers to see this period of transition as being a time of "extended childhood" rather than "young adulthood." Hence, there is a catastrophic blend of childish impulsiveness with the material possessions of "grown-up people." College life also seems to be a continuation of this mentality, albeit with a more adult-oriented aspect. I know many will disagree with my assessment, but I feel that this state of affairs can easily be seen just by a general examination of American society as a whole. There are some solutions in my mind that I think might help the situation, but they are beyond the scope of this blog entry to address.

I will now list some key points that can be followed when dealing with youth ministries:

1. I think youth groups should be limited to the children of church members/families with consistent attendance. They do not exist just for the purpose of "having fun" and gathering a group of similarly-aged people together. A youth group is a ministry of the local church that is designed to disciple and train up the young people, more specifically those who have professed salvation. Youth groups are traditionally comprised of teenagers, so this means that only teenage believers in the local church should be allowed to regularly participate in youth groups.

2. The focus of the time in youth group should be teaching. I do not say that youth groups should be "a church within a church," but I do say that the teaching should be of such a nature as is designed to build up the young people in the faith, teaching them the Biblical foundations and main doctrines of theology. Along with the pastoral teaching from the pulpit, the teaching of the youth pastor can be combined to present a wonderful body of spiritual material that can be greatly used by God to mature His young believers. These truths also need to be applied within the youth group, and that is where activities come in. For example, the youth group can go on evangelistic trips, do outreaches to elderly members of the church, and have Bible studies designed to sharpen the theological skill of the members. I see no harm in having times of fun, but these are not the focus of youth group - teaching and building up in the Word is the focus.

3. I personally looked forward to retreats as one of the most enjoyable events of my time in my church's youth group. Some helpful comments I can give about retreats are:

- Do make sure you have a valid spiritual reason for the retreat. These kind of events are, strictly speaking, about getting away from normal life for a while to focus on the things of God. Sometimes, I felt that the times of fun at retreats were more important than the times of Bible teaching. That is why it is important for the overall tone to be about Christ.

- Do provide times of relaxing. Fellowship is a very wonderful thing when done in the name of Christ.

- Again, only believing teenagers should be a part of retreats. Unbelievers will not understand the nature of such trips, and I would only condone their appearance at a retreat if the general tone of the Bible messages was going to be about salvation. In that case, I would make sure that these messages overshadowed any times of fun that were planned.

- If the main purpose of a trip is to have a fun time of fellowship, do not call it a retreat!

4. The youth pastor can be an older man (middle-aged), rather than a young person. The focus here is not on "being relevant" age-wise to young people, but on imparting Biblical wisdom to teenagers. If in doubt, it is always good to have assistants who are still young (early 20's, perhaps?) and show spiritual maturity, so that they can have a more personal idea of the contemporary struggles today's youth experience. Situations, of course, are always flexible, and each church needs to examine itself to determine the best type of person, whether young or old, to be the youth pastor. I will not express an absolutely adamant opinion on this matter.

5. As for parachurch youth ministries, they need to be complementary to the work of the local church. One problem I felt that Word of Life had was that, while it had a local church branch, it did not actively encourage all of its students from the Bible Institute to find churches. That may have partly been due to its remote location in upstate New York. Instead, we had services every Sunday on campus. This raised interesting questions about the validity of Communion in our gatherings, since we often partook of the Lord's Supper as a Bible Institute body.

Another blog entry is needed to fully address the parachurch movement, but for now it suffices to say that parachurches must not interfere with the local church in such a way that they entirely replace the church's work in a community. God's plan for this age is to work through local assemblies of believers that practice the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper; parachurches are simply organizations developed by believers that are designed to improve the effectiveness of local churches in a particular aspect (i.e., evangelism, apologetics, missions). Thus, parachurch youth ministries are to support the youth ministries of local churches so that the Body of Christ can be built up and become stronger.

These are the main points I feel need to be addressed by youth ministries. I recognize that there is much room for diversity of opinion on these points, and I respect those who may hold different practices for managing youth groups, as long as their reasons for doing so are soundly Biblical. I just wanted to reveal some personal concerns and suggestions about this whole matter, so that we Christians can all have better communication regarding youth groups. They are an integral part of today's society, for better or for worse, and we need to always be looking for ways to improve them. As always, I am open to further discussion on this topic!

God bless, and I hope to write more entries now that I have adjusted to my routine of a new job!

The Inerrancy of Scripture

One of the key fundamentals of Christianity is the belief that the Bible is authoritative over all matters of our lives - our minds, our bodies, and our actions. In general, this has meant that Christians throughout the ages have accepted Scripture unquestioningly - in other words, the "inerrancy" of the Scriptures was assumed. The Bible, as being inerrant, is without a single mistake in the letters and words of the original manuscripts and has been passed down faithfully through the ages by our copyists.

However, over the last hundred years or so, a trend has developed in Christendom towards saying that the Bible continues to be authoritative while being simply a human book, fraught with the same errors and limitations as any other work compiled by fallible men. For example, Neo-Orthodoxy, a movement begun in the early 20th-century, says that we should focus on Jesus Christ, the Word, rather than the Scriptures, which do attest to Him albeit in an imperfect way. According to Neo-Orthodoxy, the Bible becomes real (i.e., "inerrant" or "truthful") to us only when our experience confirms it. This same trend has also crept into doctrinal statements, where the words "authoritative," "inspired," and "infallible" no longer carry the meaning of "without error." Accordingly, it is very important that we use the correct, exact words to describe the authority of Scripture in our doctrinal statements. This is of practical importance, since one can often tell much about what a church is like just by reading its statement of faith.

I will lay out a overview of how the inerrancy of Scripture is supported, using Scripture itself to back up this doctrine, and express some practical ways in which we can defend this fundamental of the faith. I take this very seriously, because I believe that without the objective truthfulness of Scripture, there is no absolute foundation to support Christianity. Experience only will be our guide, and experience, with its always changing and shifting guidelines, will destroy Christianity.

The classic passage referring to the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (ESV) "Breathed out" has been translated "inspired" in some versions, but I prefer the former's use because it expresses the actual Greek more precisely. Scripture comes from the very mouth of God, and its source is absolutely infallible and inerrant. Therefore, it is easy to assume that the product of such a perfect Being must necessarily be perfect, especially if it is something like the Scriptures. Unlike with the creation and man, God did not let sin and imperfection eventually enter into His Scriptures; He breathed them out flawlessly and has preserved them for thousands of years, so that we can be confident that what we have now, the original readers had. Amazing, huh?

So, how did God work through imperfect human beings to get His words written down on paper? 2 Peter 1:20-21 provides the answer: "....no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 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. " Scripture is not a mishmash of perfect and imperfect words; it was providentially directed through the great power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit supernaturally worked through the thoughts and minds of men to make sure that the words were inscribed according to God's perfect intention. Thus, we find that David says, "The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; His word is on my tongue" (2 Samuel 23:2). David, even though he committed many notorious sinful acts, was still blessed to be an agent whom God used to record His words.

A common stereotype raised by critics is that this method of inspiration reduces the writers to the state of robots, who merely "dictated" what God demanded them to write. This is a misleading and incorrect description of the whole process of writing Scripture. In a remarkable way, akin to the great paradoxical quandaries of the Trinity, the divine sovereignty / human responsibility issue, and the divine/human nature of Christ, a perfect God recorded His inerrant Scriptures through the hands of very imperfect men. He used their training, education, personalities, and styles of writing to craft the Bible. One just has to read Paul's letters to see how evident this is, and how his personality impacts the thrust of the text! :) Holding to a dictation theory of inspiration is indeed too simple a way to attempt understanding such a profound Divine action. The specific theological term of describing the creation of Scripture is: the verbal (each word), plenary (complete in every respect), inerrant (without error) inspiration (God-breathed) of the Scriptures. So, we see how using specific terminology can make a world of difference when it comes to explaining doctrine.

Also, in several occurrences in Scripture, the intrinsic holy nature of God's Word is supported by the people whom it records. Jesus, for example, had a very high view of the Scriptures. When He was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, He phrased each of His answers in Scriptural form: "It is written...." In another place, Jesus said to his opponents "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). A remarkable testimony to the precise preservation of God's Word was also given by Christ Himself when he responded to a group of Jewish people who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Jesus stated that when God spoke to Moses from the burning bush (in the book of Exodus), He identified Himself: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." From this, Christ deduced: "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 21:31-32). Even though the three patriarchs mentioned had bodily died a long time before, their spirits were still alive and would be eventually reunited with their bodies - they did not simply go out of existence. Even more amazing, the difference here is a simple matter of tense: "I am the God," versus "I was the God." If He insisted so much on the specific tense of a particular word, it is no doubt that Jesus Christ indeed believed that the Old Testament had been faithfully passed down through the past 1,500 years!


"Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth," prayed Jesus (John 17:17). He perhaps was remembering the great Psalm 119, which is devoted entirely to the praising of God's mighty Word: "The sum of Your Word is truth" (v. 160). Christ's prayer was that the disciples would be set apart unto holiness by the truthful Scriptures, which gave and taught them everything necessary in order to know God. We cannot find God through nature. We cannot find Him through other human beings. We can only find Him through a Book which He has written. This Book tells us Who He is, and how to interpret the world which we live in. Only then can we rightly see God working in everyday affairs. If this Book is not inerrant, what can we trust instead? Thus, it is not only of great theological importance that the Bible must be without error, but practical living is also directly affected. I spoke on Truth earlier in this blog, and refer you back to it for further details on the nature of absolute truth.

"Well, that is all good and neat," some might say, "but what evidence is there besides Scripture itself that Scripture is actually inerrant? For example, has it really been passed down faithfully?" Well, I have diligently researched this question and found convincing answers.

First of all, the question of the preservation of the Scriptures. The Old Testament was copied with absolute precision by Jewish Scribes. If they made a mistake in copying, the manuscript was immediately buried out of sight. Every time the name of God was written, the scribe would ceremoniously wash himself and utter prayers. This is actually why we do not have too many OT manuscripts; because the scribes were so careful in copying Scripture, they destroyed all the incorrect copies. At least let me give you some manuscript dates: For a long time, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts we had were from the 8th-9th centuries AD, so we used these to get our translations. However, in the 1940's, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, which contained large portions of the OT. Amazingly, some of these dated from before the time of Christ! A comparison with the later manuscripts found almost no differences whatsoever; the only variations were in spelling and a few word placement situations that hardly affected the overall meaning of the text. This confirms that we can trust the Old Testament.

As for the New Testament, it was written in Greek. Indeed, it is the best-attested ancient Greek document of all, with over 5,000 manuscripts. Homer's Iliad runs a distant second, with about 600 to 700 manuscripts. Furthermore, the earliest NT copies date from the 2nd century BC, only about a hundred years after Christ. Homer's earliest copy is dated approximately 500 years after he wrote the Iliad. Other famous works of antiquity are even less impressive in their manuscript evidence: for the Roman historian Tacitus, we only have 20 copies, and the earliest one is dated over 1,000 years from when he wrote his books (1st century AD). The great philosopher Aristotle, whose works are world-renowned, has about 50 copies, and 1,400 years separate these copies from the original manuscripts (4th century BC).

How, then, can we discredit the Bible purely on the basis of manuscript evidence? If we say goodbye to Scripture, then we must say goodbye to the Greeks and Romans too. Let me make a personal observation: I have been currently reading up on classical history for months. The works are well-written and full of consistency and detail (according to the standards of these times). Yet Livy, Suetonius, and Herodotus all have late copies of their manuscripts, much later than those of the NT. Does that mean I think their works are complete fiction? Of course not! I fully expect these writers to be reliable sources for the history of Greek and Rome, but do exercise discretion since they are only human and liable to make mistakes and errors of judgment. How much more should I respect the dear Scriptures to which I steadfastly hold to, which were not only perfectly preserved but also inerrantly written?

Furthermore, the small number of manuscripts from most writings of antiquity make it impossible to know how consistent they are with the original. With 5,000+ Greek manuscripts from the New Testament, comparison is much easier to make. Upon examining this evidence, we find out that 99.5% of the New Testament is textually pure. The remaining .5% is mostly spelling differences and word order; no major doctrine at all is affected by those variations. What other ancient writing can compare with this level of accuracy? Through the violent turmoils of history, much has been lost and destroyed, including many writings of antiquity, yet the Bible has been preserved completely through it all. Thank God for His amazing providence!

The Bible, itself, is also a wonderfully consistent book. We must realize that it was not written at one time, immediately - it is the product of 1,500 years of progressive revelation from God. A myriad of authors have been used by God to write Scripture - kings (David, Solomon), prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah), shepherds (Amos, Moses), a tax collector (Matthew), a doctor (Luke), and an educated religious leader (Paul). You would think there would be all kinds of inconsistences between the books of the Bible - but no, the unity is incredible! Everything makes sense, from history to doctrine, to the character of God, etc - there are no variations. It is true that there are "difficulties" in many areas, but these are partly due to the vastness of God's understanding as compared to our limited comprehension, and also because of cultural differences in the way they understood things back then (chronology, customs, etc). The point is - there may be apparent contradictions in Scripture, but in reality there are none. There are always sound explanations to get past Biblical difficulties. If any of you have questions regarding a "contradiction," by all means feel free to ask me. I love studying this stuff so I can get answers.

These are the main supports of Biblical inerrancy that I've given above. The Scriptures are something we cannot ignore - and so many of us Christians, myself included, are guilty of minimizing their importance. This book is Holy - it is special, beyond special even. The Holy Spirit of God has used it to save millions upon millions of people. "Bible" means "Book" - so "Holy Bible" means "Holy Book." That is all we need to describe this amazing volume - it is God's own personal revelation down to us so that we can know Him, worship Him, and find salvation through Jesus Christ alone. What a true privilege it is to hold this book in our hands, and realize that God was not indebted to give us such a precious work! The Bible is a book produced by divine love, so that we, as fallen humanity, would be reconciled to our God and have peace with Him once again. Let us give the Scriptures our proper appreciation, then, and devour them hungrily, looking to sustain our spiritual lives and enjoy the great God Whom we serve.

Gaius Julius Caesar: An Assessment

I am currently studying a pivotal time in Roman History: the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. The man who perhaps did more than ever to effect this remarkable change to Roman affairs is Gaius Julius Caesar, made world-famous by Shakespeare's play and the aura of majesty that he has passed down upon kingdoms after kingdoms - with rulers using his name adapted to their language: "Kaiser," and "Tsar/Czar," for example. The Biblical world was also affected as well - because of Caesar's notable actions, the stage was set for the Roman Empire, ruled by one man (Caesar's adopted son, Augustus), to bring about the great peace that would rule the Mediterranean world and pave the way for the spread of the true Faith through the preaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles.

So, I ask, how may we look at this man? What should we make of him? For a while, I have now been puzzling over an extremely pivotal question that has been endlessly debated by historians: Was Caesar out to preserve the Republic, or was he determined to bring about the Empire? History shows us what has happened, but the question of Caesar's actual intentions is more difficult to determine. I will lay out here my own personal conclusions, and I will try to make everything simple and easily understandable to many of you, who may not be acquainted with Caesar's life.

First of all, we must consider the world Caesar grew up in. He was born about 100 BC, and came to manhood in the turbulent time of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who both warred for control of the Roman state (my prior entry on the decline of the Republic details how events came to this sorry mess). The entire Republic was in turmoil. The renegade Sulla, having defeated King Mithridates of Pontus, who had seriously threatened Roman dominion in Asia, attacked Marius' forces in Italy. Although Marius himself had passed from the scene, his son continued on the war in his name. Sulla eventually won out, had himself declared dictator with absolute powers, and established a brutal reign of terror by way of proscription lists. Every day, Rome's inhabitants had to go to the Forum and see who was marked out for death. Some individuals managed to escape and buy some time, but bounty hunters almost always were able to discover and slaughter them. It was not a good time to be a Roman!

Julius Caesar was around 18 years old at this time. Unfortunately for him, he was connected to Marius through his aunt, for she had married him - so that meant Caesar was Marius' nephew. Furthermore, he had married Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna, another prominent member of the Marian party. When he was brought before Sulla, Sulla felt some pity for him due to his youth, but ordered Caesar to divorce his wife and thus sever the connection with the opposing party. The young man boldly refused. Sulla, taken somewhat aback by Caesar's bravery, let him go but admitted to his friends, "There are many Mariuses in this young man." Interestingly, Sulla (perhaps regretting his savagery) eventually resigned his office and lived as a private citizen until his natural death a couple years later. Caesar in later days ridiculed him, saying: "Sulla never knew his political ABC's."

By examining Caesar's youth, several key characteristics of his personality and approach to power become clearer. Caesar was always a key favorer of the people, always striving to keep himself popular. In the civil wars which he fought for control of Rome, he treated his conquered enemies with amazing humanity, pardoning many of them (including those who would eventually become his murderers), and even as dictator never pushed forth any personal vendettas upon anyone. In this, he most likely reacted against Sulla's abuses and remembered the turbulent times of his own youth.

Caesar, however, was no saint when it came to politics. He behaved in a very utilitarian manner, often using bribery and manipulation to achieve his ends. When he was elected consul in 59BC, Caesar prevented his partner from working with him and forced through his own agendas so effectively that Romans referred to this year as "The consulship of Julius and Caesar." Caesar throughout his early political career also threw many forms of lavish entertainment for the populace of Rome, which included enormous parties and awestriking gladiator exhibitions. He thus gained the public favor but at the same time was plunged into the depths of debt. It was probably partly because of the excesses which characterized his consulship and his enormous obligation to his creditors that Caesar desired to keep a grip on power, because any Roman in a key political office was immune from prosecution until his term ended. There was no doubt that Caesar's enemies would bring him to trial once he left public office.

Julius Caesar did long for greatness: when he was on a military campaign in Spain, he saw a statue of Alexander the Great and wept over the fact that he was about the same age as Alexander was when he died, having conquered the whole world - and yet Caesar himself had not really accomplished anything at all! This confirms a key point of Scripture, which speaks clearly on the principle of the natural, unsaved man living solely for his own glory in the very end:

"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh....For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Romans 8:5,7).

Also,

"For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:16).

Natural man desires for honor and glory - some through power, some through charity to others, that they might be thought good and virtuous. The question remains: Was Julius Caesar seeking to advance his name through either personal despotism or as the Savior of Rome?

There is no doubt that Caesar in some way wished to preserve his person. After his consulship ended, he was given command of Rome's provinces in Gaul for 5 years, thanks to an informal power-playing partnership between him, Pompey the Great, and Marcus Crassus, Rome's richest man. Now, in command of armies, Caesar could do great exploits and make his name even more untouchable. This is precisely what he did. Over the next seven years, he would defeat innumerable armies of Gauls and Germans; make the first Roman incursions into Britain; masterfully besiege the Gaulish leader Vercingetorix while being himself besieged by the Gauls' relief army, and win a remarkable victory over both forces; and write what has been considered to be a supreme example of Latin literature in action: his war commentaries. The Senate, who distrusted Caesar, was becoming increasingly worried at his growing power and his popularity with the people - a new civil war was not afar off. Caesar claims that he did everything he could to avert the conflict, but it broke out nevertheless.

This war, between Caesar and Pompey the Great, who championed the cause of the Senate, raged for four years and continued even after Pompey was murdered by the Egyptians; the other key leaders of the Senate took up the fight again. As I remarked before, Caesar was characterized by an almost extravagant propensity towards clemency to his opponents. Often, the enemies whom he pardoned would actually go back to the opposing armies and fight him again later! He took great pains to minimize the losses of enemy Romans in battle and preferred to attack allies who were not of Italian ancestry. This, in a sense, is admirable, but I feel that Caesar learned his lesson from Sulla too sharply; he swung to the opposite extreme. Whereas Sulla slaughtered all of his major enemies, Caesar pardoned them all, even those who had wronged him greatly - and some of them would later bring about his death. A balance between pardon and execution is important if one wishes to weigh mercy and justice accurately - and only the most discerning men have been able to achieve such a status. Julius Caesar did gain popularity by his mercy - but at the ultimate cost of his life.

Once Caesar had prevailed over his enemies, the Senate voted unprecedented honors upon him: he was the perpetual dictator; he had the powers of a tribune; he could wear his triumphal robes at all public places; his statue was set up with those of the gods; the Roman month Quintilis was renamed to July after him (and this is our July today!); and so on. Caesar generally accepted these honors, and it was thought by many that he desired to bring back the monarchy of Rome, which had been removed hundreds of years ago due to the last king's terrible abuses of power. For example, at a festival, Mark Antony, Caesar's partner in the consulship, offered him a crown in the name of the people of Rome. Caesar refused this offer several times, saying that the chief god Jupiter was the real king of Rome. Nevertheless, it was suspected that Caesar and Antony had planned this ceremony for show.




Caesar on a coin at the time of his perpetual dictatorship.






Was the Roman Republic savable at this point? Caesar, by all purposes, was effectively the king of Rome in all but name. My previous post on Rome made the case that the Republic expanded beyond a point where it could reasonably govern. It may have worked well when the Romans were in control of only a small area of land, but now in an empire with dozens of languages and nationalities and customs and values, its foundation became shaky. Over the last hundred and fifty years (back to around 200 BC), single men grew more and more involved in state affairs and ended up fighting on and off for control of the state for over fifty years (c. 85 BC to 30 BC). Many senators during this time longed sentimentally for the more "peaceful" times of the early Republic, when the government at least was stable. That is one reason Rome resisted the change of its system of rule for so long - it believed its way of ruling (at least in the eyes of the Senate itself) was perfect and did not need to be altered. Caesar undoubtedly believed that things needed to change, and he might have tackled this enormous issue in more detail if it was not for his untimely death.

Julius Caesar desired fame, prestige, and renown, but he also desired the state of affairs to change. I am not sure what he exactly envisioned, but it was not the Republic of the past. The Republic in its present form had failed and was incompatible with the times and circumstances. If it was to continue, it would need to be radically reformed. Caesar may have believed that a monarchy was the best way to address this problem, but it fell to his adopted son Augustus to smoothen the process (by keeping the form of the Republic while practically adopting absolute power in his own person as the princeps, or first citizen). Ironically, it was by senators who were hoping for the restoration of the ancient Republic that Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. The assassins, instead of bringing about a glorious and peaceful return to the bliss of Republicanism, instead plunged Rome into more dreadful civil wars for the next decade and a half. The issue would be decided not by a select body of men chosen by the people, but by one man assuming the power unto himself - Augustus.

Julius Caesar, whatever his intentions may have been, did show Rome one thing - that sometimes it takes the decisive action of one man to bring about stability in the government. Rome could probably have survived under a modified Republic, but the imperial power won out in the end. Nevertheless, it is true that abuses of power happen on both the republican end and the imperial end. I am not saying a republic is bad, but I am saying that a republic has notorious weaknesses, as does a monarchy/dictatorship. I frown upon Caesar's unscrupulousness in gaining power by political maneuvering, but I do recognize that through his power peace briefly came to Rome. In a republic, peace and harmony exists when the people are well-informed and thoughful in electing their leaders; in a monarchy, peace and harmony exists when an intelligent and principled man/woman is administrating governmental affairs for the good of the people. Is it not interesting what the eternal form of government shall be? Christ as King and Absolute Despot of the Universe - One Man in Power! Yet we Christians, as saints, shall also rule with Him and have a hand in the government. And we will not need to worry about our Lord abusing His power - for He is all-wise, all-truthful, all-just, all-merciful, and all-sovereign!

I do not think Julius Caesar acted totally for his own interests at the expense of the people. He was too careful for that, and he remembered what had happened with Sulla. Rather, he tried to blend the two sides together in order to get the best of both worlds - his fame and the good of Rome. This fusion is best shown by Caesar's last will and testament: he gave every Roman citizen a sum of money and some of his own property as a city park for the enjoyment of the people. His own name and the prosperity of Rome would thus be enhanced. Tragically, since Julius Caesar's life was cut short at the age of 55 at the height of his glory and in the middle of his great schemes, we will only know at the Judgment what he truly desired to create.


I encourage all of you to read the primary sources about Caesar and come to your own judgment about him. We are blessed with a great amount of information about him, and much of that is from his own hand, in the War Commentaries (although he presents himself in a strictly factual way and does not philosophize). The works can be read online or purchased, most commonly from Penguin Classics. Here are the major titles:

Plutarch, Caesar's Life - Very readable and takes the position of Caesar aspiring to absolute power.

Appian, Civil Wars - Basic overview of Caesar's war with Pompey.

Dio Cassius, Roman History - Sometimes harsh and biting, but recognizes Caesar's talents.

Suetonius, Life of Julius, from The Twelve Caesars - his style is in a form of snippets detailing Caesar's life, personality, quirks, and talents.

Caesar's own Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars - particularly excellent from a military perspective, somewhat dry but with some fascinating details.

Also, there are many biographies out there, often of varying quality. Use your judgment!

As always, post comments if you have questions or need me to clarify something more specifically. In my next entry, I promise to deal with something theological!

Henry Martyn

Every now and then, I have thought it would be a good idea to present short biographical sketches of key Christian figures who contributed greatly to the growth of the Church. As we read over what God did through them, we are encouraged, admonished, challenged, and inspired to imitate them in the same way that Paul told believers to imitate him (c.f. 1 Cor. 4:16, Phil. 3:17). Hebrews 13:7 also reminds us to imitate the faith of our leaders who spoke the Word of God to us, and in a way this can be true of those who are dead yet speak to us through their writings and examples. It is not their strength or their holiness that sets them apart, but rather the grace and power of God who chose them according to His good pleasure to extend the boundaries of His Kingdom so that He might be greatly glorified.


Henry Martyn is not a particularly well-known figure among most Protestants today, the fact of which I find deplorable. A native of Cornwall in southwest England, he lived from 1781 to 1812, and was one of the "Evangelical Anglicans" in the Church of England, associating with such better-known figures as John Newton, the writer of Amazing Grace, and William Wilberforce, who led the fight in Parliament to abolish the slave trade (the recent movie titled after Newton's song has Wilberforce as its main character). As such, in a denomination largely characterized by ritualism and nominalism, his presence was a breath of fresh gospel air to whomever he came in contact with.


Martyn was a model student, attending Cambridge University and becoming "Senior Wrangler," the highest-ranked person in his class in the mathematics department. As such, he was seriously considering going into the field of law, but when he became acquainted with the minister Charles Simeon and heard about the great missionary need overseas, especially in India, his heart was convicted. Martyn therefore resolved to go into the ministry and enlisted as a chaplain in the British East India Company. During this time, he began to keep a journal of his daily activities and his spiritual life, and was greatly influenced by David Brainerd, a missionary to Native Americans in America during the 1740's (whose diary was published by the famous preacher Jonathan Edwards after Brainerd's death). There was, however, not a little impediment in the road to overseas missionary service for him: He fell in love. The lady's name was Lydia Grenfell, and though she was a few years older than him, her devotion to God was no less fervent. However, despite this severe conflict between love and service to the Lord, Martyn was able to press on with his desire to go to India and Lydia did express some interest in joining him there.

In 1805, Henry Martyn set sail for India and had a most eventful trip. He landed in Brazil, shared the gospel with some of the Catholic priests there, was a spectator of a battle at Cape Town in Africa between the British and the Dutch (the wars of Europe with Napoleon were beginning to rage at this time), and held services for largely unresponsive sailors and military personnel on board his ship. Once he arrived at Calcutta, he met William Carey, a Baptist shoemaker turned Bible Translator who is often called "the Father of Modern Missions." Martyn had an exceptional aptitude in linguistic skill, and so he planned to translate the Bible into the Hindustani language as well as serve his chaplaincy duties. Upon reaching India, Martyn wrote the memorable line in his journal, "Now let me burn out for God!"

During his time in India, from 1806 to 1811, Henry Martyn stayed at two stations, Dinapur and Kanpur (Cawnpore). The work of translation was slow and difficult, since Martyn had to deal with often quarrelsome and opinionated Hindu pundits (religious experts) and munshis (secretaries). He needed them, however, since they knew the language well and were able to assist him in the laborious work.





















Artist rendering of Martyn translating with the aid of his munshi (the spelling was different back then)

Martyn kept corresponding with Lydia, whom he now seriously hoped to marry. However, everything came to naught when Lydia's mother refused to let her daughter go to such a faraway and strange place like India. Brokenhearted, they nevertheless continued writing to each other, but now only in the name of friendship.

The climate of India is severe, with seasons of oppressive heat and torrential rain. Martyn, whose health was never top-notch, often suffered greatly, but continued to persevere. He finished translating the New Testament into Hindustani, and also completed a version in the Persian (Iranian) language. However, upon further inquiry with other Persians, he discovered that the Persian translation was horrendously defective. Martyn thus intended to travel to Persia, and then to Arabia, to correct his translation and work on newer ones.

From Calcutta, he sailed to Bombay, then to the Persian Coast, and made a difficult overland journey to the city of Shiraz. For many months, he stayed there, perfecting the Persian translation and engaging in ceaseless debates and disputes with leading Shi'a Islamic scholars and mystic Sufi gurus. Since Martyn was the first missionary in hundreds of years to enter this land, he was constantly the object of constant inquiry. Nevertheless, he conducted himself
admirably and bravefully.

Finally, once the translation was done, Martyn began the journey to the Shah of Persia to present the New Testament into his hands. As he travelled, he continued to meet with inquirers and discuss the question of Christianity. At one point, he was in a room full of Muslim clerics who demanded that he affirm the Islamic statement of faith: "God is God, and Muhammad is his prophet." Henry Martyn carefully responded, "God is God, and Jesus is the Son of God." There was such an uproar following this utterance that he barely escaped with the papers of his New Testament translation.

















The scene following Martyn's great profession of the Christian faith, as depicted by an artist.

Unfortunately, shortly after this event, Martyn collapsed due to illness and was not able to personally give the Bible to the Shah - another person went in his place. He spent a few months recuperating at Tabriz, in northwestern Persia, and decided that he needed to travel back to England to regain his health before continuing his labors. In the fall of 1812, he set forth on the difficult overland route across Turkey towards Constantinople (Istanbul). At first, the journey went pleasantly enough, but once he entered into Turkish dominions his new guides began to push him too strongly, and his health broke again. Plague was also raging in the lands between him and Constantinople, and he was forced to enter into that country. At last, taking advantage of a brief respite in this exhausting journey, Martyn found the time to pen a few last lines in his journal:

October 6. No horses being to be had, I had an unexpected repose. I sat in the orchard, and thought with sweet comfort and peace, of my God; in solitude my company, my friend, and comforter. Oh! when shall time give place to eternity? when shall appear that new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness? There, there shall in no wise enter in any thing that defileth: none of that wickedness which has made men worse than wild beasts,--none of those corruptions which add still more to the miseries of mortality, shall be seen or heard of any more.

Ten days later, in the city of Tokat in central Turkey, Henry Martyn's faithful life came to an end, ingloriously buried among a host of plague-ridden victims. Several years later, some missionaries located his grave and erected a memorial obelisk over it. His bones remained there until, pressed by the expanding city's hunger for development, they were obliterated and the obelisk unceremoniously placed away in the recesses of the Tokat museum.

So, no discernible form of the remains of Henry Martyn can be found on this earth, but the impact of his life endures. In his time, the sorrow at his passing in England was great. The Anglican church sainted him (an act that he would have been mortified by), his friend published a biography largely based on his journals that became a spiritual classic, and dozens of missionaries were inspired to follow up on his work in India and in Iran. The effect of his ministry among the natives was not forgotten; although revival never happened, several individuals did come to faith and the remembrance of him as a "man of God" was a sweet savor for many years to a land in darkness. Above all, his translations formed the backbone of further versions of the Bible in Hindustani and Persian. It is no doubt that the present-day church in Iran, currently undergoing severe persecution from the Islamic authorities, owes much of its heritage to the labors of this frail young man who lived 200 years ago. It was God shining through him, and God alone who challenged the Indians and the Iranians with gospel truth through the courageous witness and translation work of Henry Martyn.

I strongly encourage more reading up on Henry Martyn. His journals, while sometimes overly melancholic, are still full of a rich trove of spiritual insight and riveting accounts of his dealings with the people of India and Iran. Below are some recommended resources for further exploration:

Life and Letters of Henry Martyn, by John Sargent - The pioneering work, there are many old editions that may be found in used bookstores. A friend of mine got this off Amazon after I told her about it. It uses the journals very well, but chooses to skim over Martyn's relationship to Lydia and thus does not show the full picture of him as a human being. Also available on Google Books.

For the Love of India: The Story of Henry Martyn, by Jim Cromarty (2005) - I have not read this, but on the surface it seems to be a thorough book, and may be a good modern-day perspective on Martyn.

Letters and Journals of the Rev. Henry Martyn, by Samuel Wilberforce - Also available online, I read both this and Sargent's version together. It fills in Sargent's deficiencies, showing many of Martyn's letters to Lydia.

Henry Martyn, Saint and Scholar, First Modern Missionary, by George Smith (1892) - I recently looked over this on Google Books, its main value is the excerpts from Lydia's own diary and a fuller perspective on his time period from nearly 100 years later; otherwise, it is similar to Sargent and Wilberforce.

Does your heart not feel encouraged at how God has strengthened so many people to proclaim His name across the wide world, among so many civilized and barbarous nations? That is why I offer these biographical sketches, to exhort all of us to trust in God and remember His mighty dealings and His awesome power by which He uses us poor weak vessels to perform His magnificent actions worthy of the highest praise and song. And, of course, through Jesus Christ He saved us so that we could serve Him. Let us praise Him for His glorious redemption!