|
|
| |
|
| by Editor Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
“The Antithesis” is a major Biblical theme which flows from the beginning to the end of the Bible, “...I will put enmity between your (Satan’s) seed and her seed, he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). Thus a correct view of history requires a correct view of the fall and God’s response to it. This passage tells us man’s problem and how God is going to deal with man’s problem and the enmity (“The Antithesis”) between two seeds. [67]
In Genesis we see that fallen man had a guilty conscience and that guilty conscience caused an enmity between Adam and his wife as well as between himself and God as he sought to flee His presence.
We see as well God’s curse against the serpent because he dared to beguile man into repudiating God’s self-attesting word. Thus from the beginning of the Fall we see the antithesis placed by God against His word and the word of Satan. In the Hebrew “enmity” appears first in the sentence and thus literally Genesis 3:15 could read “Enmity will I put...” Likewise, this antithesis, enmity, is not a mere result of the fall in and of itself but is a judgment of God. Thus HE put it there! It is not merely predicted as being in the future but is inflicted as a curse from God.
So the distinction or antithesis must and will be maintained and only in that light can we properly understand the messiah crushing the head of the serpent. If you disregard this antithesis the meaning of the gospel is lost as Paul states, “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption and forgiveness of sins.” (Colossians 1:13-14) The antithesis is between the real and power of darkness and that of the light of the Son.
The temptation to again blur the distinction of the Antithesis is again seen in Genesis 5:2 where there is the temptation to enter godless marriages. In Joshua 23 and Judges 1 Satan tempts God’s people toward an unwarranted tolerance toward His enemies. In Judges 1:25 Satan tempts every man to do what is right in his own eyes. (cf. Psalm 106, Hosea 2, Ezekiel 16,) and trust in the power of some other god, (cf. 1 Kings 18, 1 Chronicles 16, Isaiah 30) Or by finally repudiating the Messiah as did the world (John 1:10-11). Later he tempted the early Christians to bow the knee to Caesar as he had even attempted to tempt Jesus by compromising the antithesis (Matthew 4:8-10).
So if we would live up to Paul’s assessment we are not to be ignorant of Satan’s devices (2 Corinthians 2:11) then we must be sure not to ignore the persistent tactic used by Satan to water down or ignore the antithesis God judicially inflicted between His people and the world.
In Genesis 4 we read of Cain’s slaying of Able because God had respect unto Abel's offering instead of Cain's. The antithesis between those who please God and those who do is already in at work in human history. John tells us, “Cain, who was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.” (1 John 3:12)
Like wise there is an antithesis in Genesis between the seed of the ungodly and of the seed of Shem and Noah, but the ungodly try to unify all the ungodly by uniting at the tower of Babel. But God continues to make a distinction with the line of Abraham between Isaac and Ishmael, between Jacob and Esau. God is doing a work of dividing between the seed whereas the world seeks a unified commonness which is illicid in the eyes of God.
In Exodus through Joshua we see Israel being called out of Egypt and the call to display the Cannanite tribes and be established as a Holy people unto God. There is a constant theme throughout all the accounts of the antithesis between the two lines of seed.
In the Psalms and prophetic literature the theme of antithesis runs through it like a thread such as in the imprecatory Psalms, the denunciation of the nations and the ruthless kingdoms of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.
Constantly God’s people are to be separate from the pagan practice and a Holy people set apart from their practices and Peter takes this as the matter of Christian living, “For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use as it as bondslaves of God.” (1 Peter 1:15-16)
In the New Testament Jesus states this antithesis clearly, “(Matthew 6:24; 12:30). He identified the enemy of the kingdom, “ (Matthew. 13:39). This Peter called the believer’s adversary, “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.” (1 Peter 5:8). In Ephesians 6:10-17 Paul rouses us to spiritual conflict and so there is clearly a hostility between the two seeds and their world views.
Jesus called those who opposed him sons of the devil (John 8:42-44) and Paul calls them the enemy of the cross (Philippians. 3:18-20) John reinforces the antithesis in 1 John 2:14 when he says we ought not to love the world. Finally, this antithesis will never goal away as the sheep are separated from the goats.
What is the significance of this for apologetics? It is relevant when we remember this pervasive thesis in Scripture applies to just as the mental life and conduct as it does to their other affairs and their outward behavior; social, political, familial etc. as Paul states, “...because the mind set on the flesh is hostile (enmity) toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7). Paul is talking about the mind of the person we are talking to when we do apologetics. If there is no peace between the mindset of the unbeliever and God then why do we adapt their methodology in thinking in trying to win him to Christ.
There is NO neutral ground or “no man’s land” between the believer and unbeliever. The unbeliever is an enemy and alienated from God in his mind, his thinking, reasoning and thus epistemology (Colossians 1:21). Thus we ought to take heed and let no one defraud us by accepting their philosophy of reasoning (Colossians 2:18) For they are vain in their thinking (Romans 1:18-21) and when they try to oppose the faith with knowledge falsely so-called. And when they oppose the faith they are actually prosecuting (opposing) themselves (2 Timothy 2:25). The Christian is to cast down the unbeliever’s method of thinking, his epistemology.
The Self Attesting Authority of Scripture
Do we believe in the scriptures because we can answer individual critiques by the believer concerning the Scriptures or do we believe in the scriptures because of what they say about itself?
The first approach is that of the evidentialist as he states, “I believe in the scriptures because I have good evidence when it is challenged. I believe the Bible to be inerrant because my extra-biblical materials and arguments give me warrant for believing that.”
The other approach (presuppositional) says, “I may not be able to answer ALL of your challenges about this or that but in the end, my view of Scripture doesn’t come from my research and analysis but from Scripture itself.” [68]
Scripture’s self witness is important for without it we really would not have any Biblical authority. In other words, if God in the Bible did not say it is the word of God we could not by consensus determine the Bible to be God’s word. Thus the Biblical doctrine of Biblical authority must be proven by the Bible and the final authority is the Bible. How can we claim Sola Scriptura on all other Biblical doctrines and yet not our doctrine of Scripture?
While the word of God is proven by evidence whether one accepts the evidence, interprets the evidence as verifying, will depend on whether or not one interprets the evidence by the word of God. Thus while there is not merely a statement from God “I am the final authority” and He evidences His authority in our lives and experiences we interpret the message by God’s authoritative word which accompanies the evidence (i.e. miracles). But if we interpret the details and evidences apart from His word we will not conclude that He has final authority. Why? Because we would be interpreting the evidence based on our supposed authority. We would be making our autonomous mind the ultimate authority and thus interpret the evidences accompanying His word as invalid. Thus both the believer and unbeliever judge the evidence in a circular fashion based on foundational authoritative interpretive methodologies.
|
|
