New Thoughts (02/24/17-03/04/17)
Interpretational Challenge (02/26/17)
The clause that completes verse 13 is a challenge for interpretation, as can be seen by the amount of ink spilled on the topic in the various commentaries. It’s actually a two-fold challenge. First, there is the question of how sungkrinontes ought to be understood, that being the verbal action for the clause. Second, there is the question of what is being described as spiritual.
Let’s start with the first. There are, I believe, three general meanings provided by this term. The first, and most common, has the idea of explaining, unfolding, or interpreting. In this sense, we see the term used to translate Daniel. It is, I am led to believe, far and away the most common understanding of the word. There is also the idea of comparison, but that sense is only found one place, in the other letter to Corinth, assuming it is not to be applied here. Calvin offers what might be a third sense, with the suggestion that we should hear it as adapting. The editor of that commentary notes that Beza presents much the same idea. I think, however, that we can take adapting as a subset of explaining or interpreting. I will wait, for the moment, on addressing the implication of our choice.
As to what is referred to as spiritual, we have three or four theories proposed, depending how you count them. The first, and longest standing view holds that Paul speaks of comparing Old Testament to New. Certainly, that concept is well accepted. The Old foretells the New, and the New explains the Old. That is something of a principle of interpretation, isn’t it? But, as Clarke points out, such an understanding simply does not fit the context here. Paul is discussing what he received and what he taught, as well as the reaction to that teaching. More widely, he is dealing with divisions in the church and issues of cultural accretion. None of that gives cause to be talking of comparing his doctrine to the Old Testament.
A second option, one Clarke prefers, is that the spiritual references are to things in the first instance, and men in the second, such that Paul speaks of explaining spiritual things to spiritual men. From his perspective, ‘the following verse absolutely requires’ such an understanding. That feels a bit overstated. The question arises as to whether Paul is concluding the preceding point or beginning what follows. If he is beginning what follows, then yes, the fact that he now compares the natural man to the spiritual would suggest that we should be looking at the spiritual man here, as well. But, if he is still on his previous point, a third possibility arises.
This third possibility holds that Paul is not yet addressing the issue of man at all, but is rather discussing the fact that the doctrine he received and the words by which he taught are both spiritual. When I examined this in my first pass I found this the most natural reading. After all, Paul is addressing what he knows and what he speaks. That’s our most immediate context. “We received the Spirit from God to know from God” (verse 12). He adds, “What we speak is in words taught by the Spirit.” This leads directly to our interpretational challenge, which is appended to that point.
I would note that this understanding of the passage finds the support of Barnes, of Calvin, of Beza, and of the Wycliffe Translators. All in all, I conclude I am in good company here. Barnes notes the fit of this with the topic that has been more largely in view, that of the Greek rhetorical style and Paul’s decision not to avail himself of those arts. This is clearly a large part of why at least one of these factions had been seeking to devalue his authority.
At risk of taking a political turn, and without implying any undue idolization of President Trump, it strikes me that a lot of the reaction to him that we see amongst politicians follows this same line. He doesn’t talk with the standard levels of political obfuscation. He doesn’t use the flowery, carefully crafted language of the diplomat. He doesn’t defer to the lifers on his staff. He’s not one of us, and must therefore be an object of ridicule. I’ll say no more, but this does give us, perhaps, a gage by which to consider what Paul’s opponents were saying.
I’ll quickly note the fourth option; that the JFB offers, suggesting that Paul means to allow and imply all three of the preceding ideas at once. I find no reason to believe that. Paul may be hard to understand at times, but he’s rarely ambiguous. It seems to me that was just an effort not to take sides. Let’s leave it aside.
If it be accepted that Paul’s point consists in saying that both his doctrine and his style of communication are spiritual, there are some profound implications. To begin with, as Beza is said to have indicated, his point becomes that the Spirit’s message, being conveyed by the Spirit’s words, avoids being ‘corrupted by human contrivances’. If Paul’s readers caught such a point, there was rebuke indeed! But, the claim is certainly made that his utterance is as God-given and Spirit-led as his doctrine. This, I should think, ought to be the hope of every preacher and teacher of the Word.
Lord, as I consider that in but a few hours I shall be once again teaching on the matter of Christ as fulfilling the triple office of prophet, priest, and king, how I desire that my words would be from You. Guard these lips from suggesting anything in regard to You that is not true. Guard the minds of my students from receiving any such error as might come from me, and guard me as well. Correct me that I may know You aright and declare You aright.
As I say, thus far, we have a claim on Paul’s part that ought to be the desire of all believers, even, not just those who teach. May we know the God Who Is! But, this brings us around to a question I raised at the outset of my first pass notes: Who does Paul address as ‘we’. Who has received such wisdom, and such Spirit-directed capacity for relaying that wisdom? By degree, I could see it apply to all who believe. But, I see it applying in a higher and more restrictive sense to the Apostles. At least one commentary insists this is not the case; that while the doctrine of verbal inspiration is certainly true, this passage does not speak to the subject. Barnes advises otherwise, saying that this most certain is a claim for divine inspiration on the part of the Apostles. I tend to concur.
Here is a declaration, offered in defense of the unique authority of the Apostles, which is, after all, a large component of the discussion thus far in the letter. Paul is saying the Apostles operate under divine inspiration. He is further saying, as the added component of this point, that not only their doctrine is the direct result of inspiration, but also the words by which they convey those doctrines. Both, he says, are matters of revealed religion. This might color how we hear Paul back in 1Co 2:2. “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” While the syntax insists we recognize the determination as his active choice, we must not suppose that it was a choice made without recourse to the Spirit’s guidance. If he determined, it was by this same revelatory inspiration.
In spite of his wording there, I don’t think this a stretch. If Paul submitted himself to the Spirit’s guidance in determining where and when to preach, and if he was beholden to the Spirit for his understanding of the subject matter, is it so hard to accept that he was just as submitted to the Spirit as concerns how he would preach? If there was a change of approach between Athens and Corinth, was it really no more than Paul noting the lack of success in Athens and devising a different style? What would cause a man of substantial skill in the Greek style of argument and debate, a man skilled in the rhetorical arts, to set that aside in favor of so simple a presentation? It’s not a course of action that would naturally suggest itself, is it, particularly to one so familiar with the culture? It should be almost a given, I should think, that he was brought to this decision by the Spirit of the Living God.
Barnes goes so far as to declare this a claim for divine inspiration, in spite of that other commentary insisting otherwise. In fact, he says, here we see Paul claiming divine inspiration as authorizing both their words and their doctrines. It’s not just the concepts that are revealed, but the methods by which they are to be conveyed. This should certainly cause us to pay greater heed to the particulars of grammar and syntax as we study the pages of Scripture!
Let me wrap this section up, though, with a quote from Barnes. “Words are the signs of thoughts; and if God designed that his truth should be accurately expressed in human language, there must have been a supervision over the WORDS used, that such should be employed, and such only, as should accurately express the sense which he intended to convey.” Certainly, we must apply this understanding to the pages of Scripture, and as I say, it must lead us to take greater care to understand the specific words chosen, and the specific syntactical decisions made by the author. This does not, to be clear, require us to suppose that Paul, Peter, and the others were mere dictation machines under the control of the Spirit. It does, however, insist that we recognize the result as infallible. As much as their writings reflect their personalities and priorities, they remain matters of revelation, guarded and guided by the infallible and inerrant Holy Spirit, and utterly trustworthy.
Here, Paul extends that guarding work to his live preaching, but that is not something to which we have access. We have this which is before us, the writings which God, through this same Sovereign Holy Spirit, determined to preserve for the guidance of His church. Here is Truth. Abide in it.
The Impact of that Interpretational Issue (02/27/17)
Now, if it be accepted that Paul’s point is that his words as well as his theology are Spirit-imparted, certain implications must follow. The simplest of these returns us to a point that has been present throughout this chapter. It’s not the preacher or the preaching that lead to conversions and the expansion of the kingdom. These things are ordained by Christ as the normal means for this expansion, but the fact remains that it is the Spirit of God first and last. Either He gives power and truth to the pastor’s sermon or there is no power. Either He opens the hearts and minds of those who listen or they hear to no advantage. As I have said often in recent months, this is a source both of humility and confidence for the preacher or teacher. To know God remains in control relieves one of the burdensome fear of making mistakes. To know that He alone can render your words effective relieves one of the tug of pride.
But, look again at Paul’s comment here. It’s not just the knowing that is tied back to the Spirit, but also the speaking, as the JFB points out. We must, I should think, extend that to the written words of the Apostles which are, after all, the capture of their spoken words. If this be true, then certainly, the fact that the Holy Spirit has been involved in the speaking, in the writing, must give cause for us to be careful to understand, and to utilize the words He has chosen. This comes as something of a caution to me, for I have long had the tendency to paraphrase what I read and comment upon. I think my reasons are sound enough. It is done as a way of internalizing what is being said. But, I must also acknowledge that there is always the risk of thereby internalizing a wholly incorrect meaning. Clarke’s comment pertains. “Let no man dare to speak of God in any other way than He speaks of Himself in His word.” That is something short of saying thou shalt not paraphrase, but it’s close. Certainly, if one is going to paraphrase, care must be taken not to allow that effort to lead one into declaring God is other than He is.
More widely, this same point stands as stark warning to those who wish to proclaim the results of their own dreams and visions as bearing on the revealed nature of God. I don’t know as I can stand with the school of thought that insists that all exercise of prophecy and the like are done. But, I do know I cannot stand with many of those who promote their fever dreams as having doctrinal weight. I will have more to say on that later, but here is a starting point: To speak of God as other than He is, to speak of Him in other ways than He speaks of Himself, is a danger most deadly to the soul, and to the souls of those who hear. This is exactly the sort of thing Paul is looking to correct in Corinth. Why would we suppose it is acceptable now?
Hear again the claim of the Apostle. I’ll let Matthew Henry provide the interpretive reading. “We have what we deliver in the name of God by inspiration from Him; and it is by His gracious illumination and influence that we know the things freely given to us of God unto salvation.” This, to be clear, is not a general statement regarding the Christian. It cannot even be held to be a general statement about the pastorate. It is about the Apostles, the authoritative interpreters of Christ and the source of those writings included in the New Testament canon. There are men who could make this claim in truth. There are men who had sat under the immediate tutelage of Christ – and yes, although the circumstances are most extraordinary, Paul could make that claim. There are men who could confer one with another by way of discerning that their interpretations were in concord one with another. There alone were men appointed by Christ to this purpose. The same cannot be said even of their immediate students and partners. Even Apollos, for all that he is held to be a particularly effective co-laborer, is not accorded such status.
For the rest, for those of us who follow in the steps of Timothy, or who in other capacities seek to proclaim the Gospel or to explain matters of doctrine and theology, it is well to remember what Mr. Henry suggests. God’s truths “look best in the words which the Holy Ghost teaches.” Here in New England, we can run the risk of allowing our pride in learning to drive us away from such an approach. We may well discover that we have given the Gospel away in preference for rhetorical style and presentation. It’s not just a New England thing, certainly, but I think we do have a stronger propensity toward such error. For all that I so often disagree with Mr. Clarke in his conclusions, on this occasion I would concur. “They know little, either of the spirit of Paul or the design of the Gospel, who make the chief excellence of their preaching to consist in the eloquence of language, or the depth of human reasoning.” We do well to recognize the validity of that statement, as well as the point with which he follows it: Such an approach is seldom accompanied by the demonstrated power of the Spirit.
If we would see God move, if we would see men and women brought to saving faith through the ministry of our church, does it not stand to reason that we must pursue a course of action in keeping with God’s desire? If He has determined that the best means for promoting His most glorious truths is through the constant and consistent proclaiming of the Gospel in simple, unadorned words, who are we to insist that the message be dressed up? If He has said that His message to mankind is Repent, Believe, and be Saved, who are we to present a self-help guide or, worse yet, that “I’m OK, You’re OK” soft-sell so popular to the liberal side of the church? The whole point of the Gospel is that neither you nor I are OK. We are sinners under death sentence. Barring Christ’s call, there is not going to be any pardon from the governor. The end is certain, and has been from birth. But, where the bad news is admitted, the Good News can be heard: God has made a way. His Way has a name: Jesus of Nazareth. His Way has a mission: Eternal Prophet, Priest, and King. His Way has the keys of heaven and hell, the power of life and death. This Way stepped down out of heaven to live the life of a man, a man of most humble means. This Way became man that He might pay the price of your sentence, dying in your stead. This Way remained God; that His death might have value in God’s sight, that His death might defeat death and establish a path to righteousness. No, and not merely a path, but the sole path. There is no other Name given to man by which he may be saved. There is only Jesus, the appointed Christ of God.
What We Know and Why (02/27/17)
If the receiving of revelatory knowledge is restricted to the Apostles, such that Paul’s ‘we have received’ ought to be heard as a royal we; what follows is not restricted to them. When Paul says, “that we might know the things freely given to us by God,” we find ourselves brought in. We are brought in because of what follows after: “Which things we speak.” Again, for the Apostles, we must hold a unique view that what they spoke, they spoke, “not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit.” Thereafter, we pray that the same can be said of those who proclaim the Gospel, but we must hold that this can only be true insofar as they who proclaim remain true to the Word once for all delivered. That is to say, they can claim to teach what is taught by the Spirit to the extent that they teach what is contained in the Scriptures. When the teaching veers into opinions, preferred understandings, or outright fabrications, then however much the teacher may desire to claim Spiritual inspiration, the facts are very much different.
Here is something we should know. The Holy Spirit is from God. The Holy Spirit is God, every bit as much God as Father and Son. That being the case, the Holy Spirit shares the same essential character of God. How can He not? He is God! One quintessential character of God is Truth. That being the case, we must recognize that what comes of the Spirit must be ‘of solid and unvarying truth’, as Calvin writes. His words are beyond doubt. What is assuredly in doubt is the claim of any man living to deliver new revelation of new truth. What is not just in doubt, but must be soundly rejected is any such claim that proclaims a matter contrary to Scripture. If the Spirit has spoken through the Apostles, and the Spirit has overseen the assembled canon of Scripture so as to preserve and protect its inerrancy – and He assuredly has! – then there can be no place for a new revelation that insists the order of Scripture has been or is to be overthrown. That is not the Holy Spirit speaking. That is the spirit of deception, the spirit of antichrist, which has been abroad in the world since even the days of the Apostles!
But, there is good news. That clause in the midst, that “we might know the things freely given to us by God,” does pertain to us. We KNOW these things. They are not matters of conjecture, opinion, or wishful thinking. They are matters of confirmed certainty, established on the Word of God, revealed and written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1Co 10:11). This is the most wonderful impact of that interpretational challenge faced in this passage. Let Mr. Barnes declare it plainly for us. “It is possible for all Christians to know and be fully assured of the truth of those things, and of their interest in them.” Here is the foundation for our blessed assurance! God, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, has so moved upon His chose vessels as to assure that their doctrine is accurate, and their words perfectly designed to impart that doctrine. God, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, has overseen not only the composition of the Scriptures, whose pages reveal to us the saga of Redemption, and God’s steady hand upon the events of history; He has also acted, down through the ages of man, to ensure that these Scriptures persist. Come what may, come however many hordes of heathens to wipe the record of His Truth from the earth, His Word stands. Come whatever machinations of fallen men within the Church itself, His Word stands unaltered. It is preserved because He Himself sees to it. YOU are preserved because He Himself sees to it. The self-same care that He has for His Word He has for all His own. “Of those whom Thou hast given Me I lost not a one” (Jn 18:9). It was true then. It is true now. It shall be true into all eternity. Like Paul, I am confident of this very thing – and so should you be, too! “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Php 1:6).
The Natural Man (02/28/17)
Paul draws clear distinction between the spiritual and the natural man. The one contemplates spiritual matters by the light of the Spirit. The other has not the equipment by which to rightly consider spiritual matters. The one can appraise only in such light as his own intellect provides, the other adds to his natural capacity the mind of Christ, the illumination of the Spirit. What is it about the natural man that causes so great a blockage? There seems to be two schools of thought on this, although they in large part amount to the same thing.
Calvin insists that what Paul is describing in this passage is something beyond an obstinate will opposed to God. It is rather, a ‘total impotence of understanding’. That is to say, that the natural man is not merely unwilling to apprehend the Gospel, it is incapable of doing so. Matthew Henry reverses the opinion, suggesting that what is in view is not an ‘entire absence of discernment’, but rather the evil inclination of the mind making that mind unwilling to yield to what is discerned. It would seem we have two men wholly at odds on the matter, would it not? Yet, as I say, I am not convinced they are as far apart as they appear. When Calvin speaks of a ‘total impotence of understanding’, he does not exclude a resistant will, only insists that the issue goes further. Mr. Henry, is, I think, correct in saying it is not an ‘entire absence of discernment’, but Calvin’s point stands, that it is a total impotence.
What I mean to say here is that while the mind of man, apart from the Spirit, can certainly know something of what the Scriptures teach, can hear and understand the arguments presented and even recognize in some degree the wisdom and morality that are contained in the text, he cannot arrive at saving knowledge. He cannot arrive at an appreciation of the God thus revealed. He cannot, for all that, allow himself to admit that what is revealed here is God. To do so would require a response he is unwilling to make, and unable to will.
Now, both men would be agreed on this point: The unsanctified man cannot receive the things of God. His fallen mind is so entirely prejudiced against God that he cannot possibly receive from God. While he may gain speculative knowledge of these things, as Barnes puts it, and may even be capable of speaking such knowledge accurately and with well-phrased words, still, “he cannot know them as to approve and receive.” On this basis Barnes concludes that the incapacity is moral rather than physical. That is to say, the natural man is not a moron, although when it comes to matters of the Gospel, he behaves moronically. The vehement atheists of our day are not stupid men. But, they are certainly blinded men. The proponents of radical immorality are not so daft as they may appear to us. They are absolutely, however, blinded both to the absurdity of their claims and to the religious nature of their insistence that those claims be accepted in spite of their counter-factual nature.
These are men of almost exactly the sort Paul has in view. I have to admit I find a certain amount of entertainment value in watching recent Tucker Carlson interviews with proponents of such curious perversities. It is stunning to watch the total disconnect of reason on display. And yet, I know at the same time that were some denizen of the left to be watching, they would no doubt conclude that it is Mr. Carlson who is suffering the disconnect. Now, these are at one level matters of politics and policy. But, in so far as they become moral claims for immorality, they become matters of faith and religion. One cannot step into this world of gender-fluid self-selected sexuality as a person of faith and leave God out of the equation. If God created you man, on what basis do you decide you are a woman? If God created you with intelligence and reason, by what right do you lay that aside and insist that your feeling that you are whatever you feel you are makes you so?
Where do we draw the line? We have seen this applied to matters of gender, as if mere physical reality had nothing to do with it. We have seen it applied to matters of race, although others insist that this is not the same thing. Apparently the genetics of sex are less binding than those of race, but one’s sense of racial identity is less binding than one’s sense of sexual identity. I don’t know. Physics, last I saw, did not subject itself to feelings. It described realities. Perhaps that has changed.
But, what we really see is the same Truth that Paul declares here: Unsanctified men cannot receive the things of God. Let us set aside the differences in viewpoint and admit that not only is he unable, but he is also unwilling. Which is cause and which the effect is moot. As Barnes describes it, the sinner, “while he thus remains in love with sin, cannot perceive the beauty of the plan of salvation, or the excellency of the doctrines of religion.” The fallen mind being so entirely prejudiced against the things of God, the possessor of that mind can only view them as so much foolishness, at best. At worst, as we see around us today, he considers them evidence of vile prejudice, even as he expresses his own vile prejudices against the man of faith.
But, for all that, I will maintain that the soul, at least when held up alongside the spirit of man, is not itself evil. It is, in that the entirety of the man is fallen, the depravity of sin polluting every part. But, to suggest, as some do, that the spirit is the ‘good’ part of man and the soul is the ‘bad’, is to set up a dichotomy that is unsupported by Scripture. It’s a return in part to the Manichean view of man that requires a total denunciation of all things physical in pursuit of the entirely spiritual. That is not the point of Scripture. Scripture does not instruct us to deny the flesh utterly. It instructs us to submit the flesh. It does not require us to seek to eject the soul with which God, Who is Spirit, created us. That’s nutty. Why would God create us with a soul if He does not wish us to have one? The same may be said – MUST be said of reason. Why would God create man as a reasoning creature, made in His image, Who is Reason, and then insist that faith lead us to abandon reason entirely? He does not, and it is foolish to think otherwise.
What is in view here is the soul apart from the Spirit, or the soul that has usurped the place of the spirit of man. Such a soul is insufficient. It is so insufficient as to be utterly incapable. As one author or another has said in regard to this, the spirit of the man is that organ by which he is able to receive the Spirit. It is also, I am willing to accede, the part of the man which ought rightly to reign over body and soul. The problem for fallen man, then, is that it does not do so. Soul reigns, or worse yet, body.
Welcome to Corinth! Welcome to America. Barnes points out that this sensually-influenced style of life was a common feature of the pagan world in Paul’s day. We might even say it was the common feature. So common was it that even philosophers functioned by the dictates of sensuality. Again I would say, look around. What else is at play in a society that supposes feelings trump facts? Such a society cannot but despise the Gospel, given its preference for other things. The Gospel insists that many of these sensual ‘pleasures’ are to be utterly eschewed. Have nothing to do with such things! An acknowledgement that one has been created by a perfectly good God leaves little room for these ideas that one is the wrong sex, the wrong race, the wrong shape. It leaves little room for complaints that you were made wrong. God doesn’t make things wrong.
To return us, though, to Paul’s primary argument, the fundamental point is this: The natural man cannot possibly know the mind of God. He can’t even comprehend or accept the first things of God. He certainly is in no position to tell God how things ought to be done. Not even the spiritual man is suited to that task. But, then, the spiritual man hopefully knows this and finds no cause to try. But, simply put, as Clarke so kindly does, “How can the animal man know the mind of the Lord?” If he cannot know, he certainly cannot teach that which he does not know.
Over against this incapacity to know or to convey, Paul sets the spiritual man, the one who not only knows the mind of the Lord, but ‘has’ it in Christ and in the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. But, let us take care that being reminded that this is our story, we not become so puffed up with pride that we find ourselves again identified as Corinthians.
The Spiritual Man (03/01/17)
Of the natural man we may rightly conclude, together with the JFB, that while he may not be the lowest of men, he assuredly remains utterly estranged from divine life. Whatever he may discern of the Gospel, it does not suffice to save, because the Spirit is not in it. But, what of the spiritual man? He has the Spirit, assuredly! It cannot be otherwise. But, does this, as some would suggest, require that he set aside all reason in preference for some blind, trusting faith? If you have read my studies at all, you know I would never advocate such a view. Neither does Paul.
It is true that natural powers of reason are insufficient to the task. But, they are not without value. The Christian, upon receiving the Spirit, has not been commanded to repent of his reasoning, only of his sin. Matthew Henry makes the very point. “He does not lose the power of reasoning, nor denounce the principles of it, by founding his faith and religion on revelation.” It’s not a question of trading one for the other, but of adding the one to the other. Reason alone is not enough, but reason is a good gift of a good God, given to saint and sinner alike, if not in equal measure.
So, then, the spiritual man retains his capacity to discern natural things. It is often pointed out, and rightly so, that the major advances of science were primarily achieved by men of faith. They believed in God. They believed this orderly, reasonable God must have created an orderly, reasonable universe to reflect His character, and therefore surmised that reasonable men ought rightly to be able to discern that order. So, too, the very nature of Scripture lends itself to understanding by the gift of reason which God has given man. But, it goes beyond. It combines reason with revelation, and so must the one who would truly understand its tenets and applications. This, man cannot do alone, but must have the Spirit working within, bringing that same light of revelation to his thinking in the form we speak of technically as illumination. And even in this, reason remains a necessary component of our grappling with what God has revealed.
Revelation without reason lies prone to every lying spirit of the devil. It lies open to every equivocating justification of fleshly lusts. What, exactly, do you think has been going on in Corinth? It is exactly this. And, it is exactly for this reason that Paul finds it needful to focus so much energy on the correct apprehension and application of the pneumatika. The people of Corinth were, to be very clear, Spirit-filled believers. That’s not in question. They were also spirit-led, and in some cases, at least, spirit-led to the exclusion of rational thought. It oughtn’t surprise. Their upbringing and history would suggest such an approach to the gods. The Delphic oracles did not attain to their place in the cultural conscience by rational explanation of their visions. Their position largely depended on keeping thought out of it. Just deliver the message, and the more cryptic the better. Leave it ambiguous, and the faithful are bound to find the oracle true, whatever comes.
But, the Spirit comes with illumination, exposing the rational revelation of God. He does not come in such a fashion as brings revelation knowledge, in its technically correct definition, to every believer. Every dreamer of dreams and every seer of visions has not necessarily dreamed and seen something God-sent. More often than not, it’s pretty clearly the opposite that holds true, as they take their dreams and visions as more certain the Scripture, and promote one or another ancient heresy one more time. It’s revelation without rationality. It’s the spirit of antichrist finding a welcome in one who will not have his spirit sullied by rational thought.
No, the Christian is not called to set that aside. He is not called to deny the things of nature, or the things of the world. He is not required to pretend that bad things don’t happen, that the sickness in his body isn’t there, that the death of the body will not come about, or any other such lunacy. He is not advised to pursue every last suggestion of spiritual power or supernatural event. He is called to go beyond this, to submit the sense data to the discernment of spiritual purpose. If there are bad things happening, the spiritual man does not deny them. Neither does he just say, “Oh, well.” No. He is not a creature of fate, but a child of God. He looks to his Father to seek such understanding of events as He wills to provide. He trusts his Father, knowing that He is good, and works all things for good to those who are called according to His purpose (Ro 8:28), and gives thanks that he can count himself in that number. He recalls to mind men like Joseph of old, who assuredly underwent great trial, but to great purpose.
He seeks to perceive the purposes of God in the events of nature, the events of his life. He concludes that given God’s Providence, there is no coincidence. He is, to be sure, often tempted to declare a matter coincidental in spite of this conclusion, but he cannot. God is sovereign. God is in his life, and his life is in God. Rational thought requires an end to coincidence, being in the hands of so magnificent and majestic a King. We are granted the requisite capacities to appraise all things, as Paul says here. It doesn’t set us above judgment, but it does provide us with the capacity for sound judgment, and the understanding that sound judgment must ask of every event, “Lord, what is it You have in mind here?”
This is an incredibly difficult perspective to maintain, I assure you! It is not a question that naturally occurs in the shower. Lord, what would You have me do at this moment? Whom should I be praying for? It’s certainly not something we’re inclined to ask as we navigate the roads en route to work and back. Lord, what is Your reason for this guy cutting me off? What am I to learn? No, we just don’t do that. Lord, why am I in this job at this time? Oh, we might ask for help from on high when trying to solve some particularly thorny challenge on the job, but to ask why we’re there? It requires constant reminding, constant prompting from the Spirit to even consider that question. It requires God working and willing within to heed the answers He provides.
The Spiritual Doctrine (03/02/17)
As previously noted, if we misapprehend the scope of Paul’s intentions here, we wind up with a mess, as the situation in Corinth demonstrates. So, where do we begin? We can begin with this. When the Spirit speaks, He speaks from His understanding. He speaks to convey meaning, to impart knowledge, to edify the one who hears. If you are one who has the mind of Christ, as Paul puts it, this does not imply that you are possessed of perfect knowledge. You do, however, have access to Him who does. Thus, as the JFB structures the matter, we have the mind of Christ ‘in our degree of capability to apprehend it’.
Apart from the Spirit indwelling, you would have it not at all. You would hear to no avail. But, you being thus indwelt, you are enabled to receive the good purpose of His words, because He is working upon and within you to empower your reception of His words. Now, it must be recognized that though we are indwelt by this most Holy Spirit, yet we remain sinful. We remain rebellious, like Israel before us. We oft times hear with understanding but refuse to act upon that understanding. If, then, we are to make progress in the work of sanctification, it must be Spirit and man laboring together as one in us. If we are to be a positive asset to the kingdom of Christ, we must be joined with the Spirit in the work of that kingdom. If we are not joined with Him in that work, then we must assume that we are not joined with Him at all. If we are, then we can know that however halting our steps, however stiff-necked we remain, yet we will come to the place of fully realized sanctification. I have no doubt but that this full realization will never come to pass in this life, but must await the next. But, I have no doubt that it will come to pass.
Now, then: How shall we safeguard our sense of self as spiritual men possessed of the mind of Christ? For one, we do well to recognize that what Paul is saying here is to be applied not to the individual believer or preacher, but the word of God, the Scriptures. It is this which conveys the wisdom of God in words taught by the Spirit. Wycliffe’s commentary insists that we are not discussing the verbal inspiration of Scripture in this instance, but I think they may be wrong about that. If, as they surmise, Paul is only speaking of the mode by which doctrine is communicated and taught, then we are back to a situation where any believer might stand up and claim the same direct line from heaven for his words.
In part, I should hope that this is true. But, it cannot be. I would gladly accept that what Paul says extends as far as the live teaching of the Apostles themselves. It is on this basis that we accept texts such as Mark and Luke into the canon. These were not apostles, but it is understood that their writings captured the preaching of an apostle. Mark’s Gospel in particular is taken to reflect Peter’s preaching, and Luke is well known as a longstanding close companion of Paul. But one has only to think about the situation in Corinth, or the situation in the Church today to see the folly of allowing the idea that all believers or even all pastors teach in words taught by the Spirit. Does the Spirit teach contradiction? Does He teach competitive preaching? After all, the issue Paul is addressing at present is that of competing preachers, or the factions that compete on their behalf. The problem is the idea that two teachers teaching conflicting messages can somehow both represent the same God and speak from the same Spirit. This cannot be.
Even if we restrict ourselves to the subset of denominations that we feel have not entirely abandoned the faith once delivered, we find such an array of truths propounded that we are forced to accept that in the realm of theology there are myriad secondary issues, and really but a handful of fundamentals upon which one must be agreed if he is to be accounted a Christian. Certainly, the idea of a Christian who denies the deity and the uniqueness of Christ should be incomprehensible. And yet, it happens. The claim is made that such a one is a Christian, but it is a patently false claim. One cannot follow a Christ one does not believe. But, let the fundamentals stand and we find vehement proclamations made on these secondary things: Pre-millenial or Post? Egalitarian or Complimentarian? Cessationist or Continuist?
If, to take the last example, MacArthur were to insist that is views on the charismata were matters he was communicating as taught by the Spirit in words given by the Spirit, and at the same time we had an A-G pastor requiring tongues as evidence of faith on the same basis, what are we to do? Do we play the Post-modernist game and allow that both are right for them, and neither may be right for me? God forbid! Do we denounce one or the other as heretical? I could argue that if this were the true situation we might do well to denounce both. But, I am purposely exaggerating the situation, lest there be any doubt.
My point is simply this: If we take Paul’s point as applying beyond Scripture and its authors, we open our arms in welcome of chaos. To maintain such a view, we must believe in the Holy Spirit as the author of chaos. Either He is a chaotic being with a chaotic message and all (or even most) of those who claim to have heard from Him are right in spite of their contradictory messages, or some or all of those making such claims are lying liars and ought to be encouraged to repent. Failing that, they ought to come under the strong discipline urged by the Apostles. I refer to it often, but only because it needs constant referral: “Do not even greet such a one. To greet him is to participate in his evil deeds” (2Jn 10). It’s serious business.
Now, even with the endless array of doctrines that decorate the Christian landscape, it would require an incredible degree of pride and ego to suppose one had all the correct answers. It is a foolish thing to propose that our doctrines are all in perfect order on all the secondary and tertiary issues, and everyone who disagrees must necessarily be suspect at best, antichrist at worst. To be sure, the spirit of antichrist is abroad in the world, and has been all along. But, the larger part of our disagreement comes down to our own limitations as fallen creatures.
If we will set aside our pride and self-confidence and look honestly at our own history, we are almost certain to find doctrines we held with great certainty in the past which we reject out of hand today. We likely hold as certain today doctrines that we disavowed with full-throated vigor in the past. I know I do. A dear brother from church speaks often of the fact that he has always been perfectly correct in his doctrine throughout his Christian life, in spite of having so many reversals of conviction on various points. It is, lest this is not obvious, a statement made tongue in cheek. His point is exactly to the point here. We are ever confident of our beliefs – right up to the moment when a different understanding emerges. For me, Romans was such a turning point in belief. There were things I had held certain, like the great risk for the believer of losing his salvation if he weren’t careful, which I simply could not retain after careful consideration of that text.
Some would argue that my views on the charismata have undergone a similar reversal, but I don’t believe so. I am still convinced of their continuance and of the occasional validity of their practice. I am also largely convinced that a great deal of what is passed off as charismatic, Spirit-led activity today is absolute deception. The great concern that brought me into this study some two years ago now is that so many of my charismatic brothers and sisters are unwilling to even consider such a possibility. If it’s spiritual, it must be godly, appears to be the viewpoint.
Doctrine kills and thinking is to be discouraged. These are ideas I have personally heard promoted. But such an approach to faith is nowhere to be found advised in Scripture. Are God’s ways far and away beyond our own, and His thoughts infinitely higher than ours? If they aren’t, then we’re not contemplating God yet! But, the whole thrust of Scripture urges us to ‘come up higher’. We are on a heavenward road. We ought to be striving to be and to think in more god-like ways. We most assuredly ought not, however, to suppose we are becoming gods. That’s ego talking, not Spirit.
Where do we land? Let me offer a few points from those who have gone before us. I’ll start with Calvin. “The truth of faith, which depends on God alone, and is grounded on His word, does not stand or fall according to the pleasure of men.” I could take the ‘of faith’ out of that and still hold to it. Truth depends on God alone, who IS Truth. His Word, being His, is a true and faithful declaration of Truth. His Word, therefore, is utterly independent of the pleasure of men. It is not subject to every interpretation men place on it. It means what it is intended to mean, and the individual judgment as to its import is only accurate in proportion as that individual has ‘the measure of grace conferred upon him’, to again take to Calvin’s words, who appends, ‘and no farther’.
This holds for individual believer, for individual church, and even for the Church taken as a universal whole. It can only be deemed infallible and impeccable in the degree that it is led by the Spirit. “The Spirit leads into all truth and holiness; but His influence on believers and the Church is yet partial. Jesus alone, who had the Spirit without measure, is both infallible and impeccable.” This comes from the JFB commentary. It is the wise believer who recognizes his limits. It is the wise believer who remains ever aware that as much as the Spirit leads, his fallen nature leaves him only partially led; his eyes partially open; his heart still very much a work in progress.
We are not impeccable, and certainly not infallible. God is. His Word, the Scriptural revelation of His person and His contract with mankind, is. It is because He has caused it to be so. He is given this Word as the only certain guide to the Church, the reference work to which she must return time and time again to take the measure of her belief and practice. If there are spiritual gifts extent today, they must necessarily be measured by the Word. If there are prophecies today, then they either accord with what has already been declared in Scripture or they must be found false.
Of False Prophets (03/03/17)
I don’t want to spend a great deal of time on the subject at this juncture, but it does need to be touched upon. Careful consideration of Paul’s point regarding Spirit-revealed and Spirit-explained doctrine must lead us to consider just how careful we ought to be in laying claim to so direct a word from God. Let me begin with those who simply speak of impressions. “I feel the Lord says,” or, “I asked the Lord and He said.” At one level this is just Christianese, and it generally means little more than, “I think.” But, there is a vast gulf between the implications of, “I think,” and the implications of, “the Lord says.” One offers opinion. The other purports to relay the words of He who is Truth.
It is fair to say that those inclined to speak in such terms don’t think of their words in such a light. They are likely to suppose it reflects an admirable intimacy with God and a devotion to living prayerful and contemplative lives. In reality, though, it reflects a dangerous disregard for His holiness, and a refusal to hear the full counsel of Scripture. There are reminders of this throughout both testaments. I will take but a few of them to consider.
Let’s start with the Law. The bulk of Deuteronomy 13 is taken up with the matter of false leadership. Now, I will say from the outset that this is concerned with a more serious case. “If your brother, your mother’s son, your son or daughter, the wife you cherish, a friend as dear to you as your own soul, comes whispering, ‘let us go serve other gods’…” (Dt 13:6). Immediately, we are struck by the closeness of the relationships chosen. They are chosen for that very reason. Here are your nearest and dearest, and if they are the ones urging this, Lord, what are we to do?
“You shall not yield or listen” (v8). So far so good. I can handle that. Just say no. Got it. But, it’s not just say no. It’s first say no. Then proceed. “You shall have no pity on him. You shall not spare him. You shall not conceal him.” In fact, these efforts to preserve life are entirely countermanded. “You shall surely kill him. Your hand shall be first against him” (v9). Why? “Because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God.” (v10). It’s got to be a serious matter if the Lord of Life pronounces to one who is commanded, “You shall not murder,” (Ex 20:13) says, “Put that one to death. Now.”
OK, Jeff, but what has this to do with the topic you say you are considering? I tell you it relates very closely. It relates because those who falsely lay claim to God’s authority in their words are doing this very thing. They are luring the godly away after other gods. You think this a stretch? It is not. If God is Truth, He speaks truly, and those who would speak for Him must likewise speak truly. If the one claiming to speak for or from Him pronounces a lie, can it be that he truly presents the words of Truth? Clearly not. He must, therefore be speaking on behalf of the father of lies, wittingly or not.
I will grant that the subject of ire in Deuteronomy would seem to be aware of his deception, but the application runs much wider. Any attempt to paint God as other than He is, to represent Him as something other than He is, to claim as His words He did not speak, is a call to go follow some other god. In Deuteronomy, it is typically the gods of the surrounding peoples. For us, it is more likely a god of our own devising. And so corrupt are we that we rarely recognize what we are doing as we do it.
Let’s jump forward rather a long ways into the book of Ezekiel, to another chapter 13. Here is a true prophet relaying the message given him to deliver. “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy from their own inspiration…” (Eze 13:1). Notice the problem, because it is stated immediately. The anti-prophet, the false prophet, certainly laid claim to speaking for the Lord, just as Ezekiel does. Notice the message he is given. It begins thusly: “Thus says the Lord GOD” (v3). No doubt, these others did likewise. After all, they were trained prophets. They knew what a prophet was supposed to do and say. They were sure they had the authority. They were sure the stuff popping into their heads must come from God. It felt right. They had peace, as the popular test suggests we measure our spiritual input. But, what does God say of this? They are “following their own spirit and have seen nothing” (Eze 13:3). They say, “The LORD declares,” (Eze 13:6), but they see falsehoods and lying divination.
Do you see the connection? There is nothing here about them seeking purposefully to lead Israel astray after other gods, but that is the end result. They lie when they claim to speak for Truth, and Truth is not amused. Hear His reaction. “Because you have spoken falsehood and seen a lie, therefore I am against you” (Eze 13:8). They are cast out of Israel, unacknowledged, rejected from her councils and refused entry into the land (v9). Why? “It is definitely because they have misled My people” (v10). Again, I need to stress, there’s nothing here about them intentionally seeking to mislead. There is only the result. How did they get there? They got there by assuming. They got there by supposing that whatever impressions they got in their spirit must be the Lord. They thought more highly of themselves than they ought.
In my experience, this issue is prevalent throughout the Charismatic movement in our day, and sadly, it seems to be highly contagious. The impact of, “Thus says the LORD”, or, “The LORD declares,” is great. We toss it around far too lightly, and we think of it far too lightly. If we truly believed that what we put forth as coming from the Lord came from Him, we would believe there was no room for further discussion, that there could only be obey and obey now. But, the fact of the matter is that we do not believe this. It just means that we have gone from, “I think,” to, “I feel really strongly about this.” But, it’s still I. It’s still feel. It’s not the LORD, and He has not said.
Is your strong feeling, your conviction on this matter or that, really worth the risk of hearing, “I AM against you because you misled My people”? Are you so confident of your spiritual input that you would set yourself under penalty of stoning if you are wrong? Would you really desire for your dearest loved ones to be set under so great a strain as to be required to stand first in line to inflict that punishment? I can readily imagine the anguish I should feel. You are being called to choose whom you will set first in your heart: Your God or your spouse, your God or your child. If you truly acknowledge God as God, there can be no choice. That is a very hard thing to accept. And yet, it is a necessary conclusion to reach.
Jesus reinforces this point. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. He who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Mt 10:37). We are indeed to love and honor our family, to cherish the wife of our youth, and care for parent and children. But, they cannot be granted a higher place in our hearts than God. Jesus Himself had to face this in the flesh. “Who are My mother and My brothers” (Mk 3:33)? If they have set themselves against the purpose of God, they must give way, and His way hold. Praise be to God that this was not the end for them, but only a season. Even where we must reject kin for their godless ways or their false claims, we need not cease praying for them. Like David, we would do well to petition God with all earnestness so long as there is hope of their repentance. But, when the case is closed, it’s time to worship God and glorify His name, whatever the result in their lives.
I don’t for a minute imagine it’s an easy thing for a parent to accept that their child has died, let alone died outside of faith. What a horrible situation to come to grips with. I think of my brother, whom I love dearly, and yet I know he remains utterly opposed to faith. I think of my daughter, running to all manner of new age nonsense in her efforts to avoid God. Will He move upon them while yet there is time? I pray He does. But, if He does not? If I must stand by their graveside knowing (to the degree it can be known) that they rejected Jesus to the end? Shall I complain to Him of His cruelty? How can I? He is glorified in His justice as much as His mercy. He is God and He is good and true. Come what may, these things do not change. I may not understand, but I must know.
I will look at one more passage on this topic before I move along, one quite familiar to me, and pretty much always brought to bear on matters of spiritual influence. In this instance, it is also one of the reasons I decided to pursue this subject at this time, as it came up as a reference from the JFB. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1Jn 4:1). This is followed by the very popular test for spirits. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1Jn 4:2). The general assumption taken away from this is that if they can get the words out, they must be legit. But, that cannot be the point. We have only to go back to Mark 1:24 to prove this. “What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are, the Holy One of God!” They certainly seem to have gotten the words out, but they can hardly be supposed to be spirits with which a Christian should have dealings.
No, the point in 1 John is not some magic phrase that we can insist on hearing before we will listen. It’s not the words, it’s the conviction behind them. It’s not every spirit that says, it’s every spirit that confesses. It goes back to the very same thing Ezekiel speaks of, the very same thing that Deuteronomy addresses: If the spirit councils pursuit of anything besides what God has revealed, that spirit is a duplicitous spirit, an agent of antichrist sent to distract and disturb the Church.
Will I preclude the possibility of a true prophet in our day? No. I will preclude any such prophet as would seek to propound a new revelation, who promotes a message that cannot be tested against Scripture. Why? Because in Scripture we have THE Revelation of God. Because in Scripture we have the verified and validated expression of Truth such as the God Who is Truth determined it should be expressed. Here is the absolute. Whatever else may be said, whether by the Spirit, or by an angel, or by man, must be measured against that absolute. If it suggests anything contrary to what we find in the recorded Word of God, it ought to be rejected and the one who spoke it ejected. We cannot advise stoning or the like. In light of the New Covenant, I don’t even think we can rightly suggest it, as often as I have done that very thing. No. But, we can and should apply church discipline to such a case. We can and should refuse to have any congress with such a one, not even greeting them and certainly not welcoming them into our homes – even over the Internet.
I’ll sum it up as I did in previous study of this part of the text. The one who says, “The Lord says,” and is not reading from the pages of Scripture should be treated with utmost suspicion. Again, I am not saying it is impossible, but the ratio of imposter to prophet has always been high, and with the easy availability of wide broadcast messaging, it’s only gotten higher. For every honest prophet with a real message from God, you can be assured there are thousands who, dishonest or not, do not have a real message from God, but only vain imaginations and pizza dreams. There is great reason for skepticism. Even if a multitude of voices are singing the same chorus, this is no assurance. Even if they are making predictions, and those predictions come true, Scripture says, this is no assurance. If their message sends you off after other gods, or after God but in a fashion other than He reveals Himself in Scripture, they are to be rejected and ejected. That’s His verdict. How can ours be otherwise?
Weighing the Natural Man’s Response (03/04/17)
As Paul has been addressing the claims of those who would have their factions, he has been concerned with many different underlying issues. He has touched upon the nature of apostolic authority. He has begun to deal with issues of spiritual pride. But, he is also dealing with matters that lead one to look to other leaders. The natural man in us will reason that if our fellow men are so fully opposed to this religion there must be something to their claims. Beaten down by the constant drumbeat of ridicule, defense mechanisms kick in. Nobody desires to be the object of constant rejection. Nobody willingly remains in the company of those that despise him. There are two choices by which to escape. One may simply depart their company, or one may begin to adopt their views and habits so as to become, or at least appear to become one of them.
But, when it is the whole of society around you, where is the opportunity to depart? It is taken off the table, and the only option by which one can escape the derision is to become part of the deriding team. The temptation is great. This issue was also feeding into the problems at Corinth. Here was a tiny minority religion, looked down upon by all, decried as hopelessly backward and silly. Here were a people proud of their heritage and their arts. In a place where athletic competitions included debate, one can imagine the pain of being declared a fool. And one still had to go to work by day, amongst coworkers who laughed openly at you for having joined this church. You must be kidding! You? Are you so daft as all that? How could you fall for this nonsense about some foreign criminal Rome crucified being in control of the universe? Philosopher or mystic, one can find plenty of lifestyles to pursue here in Achaia offer more reason to do so, and present more sensible arguments.
So, you can imagine that there were plenty in the church, particularly as the inter-factional debates began to heat up, who were questioning the wisdom of joining. If this is True, what’s going on at the helm? If Paul was so right in what he preached, why are these who came to faith through his preaching now saying something different? Are we fools after all?
Now, I do think that Paul is simultaneously defending himself here. What is he saying? He is saying that apart from the indwelling Spirit of God, no man is equipped to assess spiritual doctrine. He is also saying that for the one who is indwelt by the Spirit, there is no man in all creation in position to correct him. I think we must accept a qualification on that statement: that there is no man devoid of the Spirit in such a position. The Christian is not beyond judgment. That’s not the point. The point is that the reaction of natural men, men devoid of Spirit, has no bearing on Truth.
We face a world of natural men. They have rejected the Light, being wholly unequipped to see the Light. But, as Calvin asks, should we likewise reject the light that is given to us because these others cannot see it? It would, as I wrote some time back, be like asking an art history major to act as your dentist. He has no qualifications whatsoever that would serve in that regard, and you would be foolish indeed to subject yourself to his efforts. It would be like asking a blind man to assess a painting to determine if it were a Rembrandt. I find I am not alone in these sorts of analogies. The Wycliffe Commentary offers a similar thought. “Deaf men are unable to judge music contests; blind men cannot enjoy beautiful scenery, and the unsaved are incompetent to judge spiritual things.”
That captures the point nicely. The unsaved are incompetent to judge spiritual things. To be clear, this is not a means for the Charismatic to declare his pronouncements unassailable. Not at all. No Christian can think to set himself upon such a pedestal of inerrancy. Even the Apostles were careful to delineate the point at which they spoke their own views and not necessarily those of the Spirit. But, the Spirit testifies on behalf of their pronouncements. This presents us with a bit of a challenge when we seek to rightly handle passages where Paul says, “I don’t have the word of the Lord on this.” For, the presence of the passage in Scripture seems to say he does. And we cannot discount his message on the point he is addressing as being merely Paul’s opinion, can we? It is still Scripture. It is still God-breathed, even if Paul was unsure of it at the time.
But, as concerns this passage, there are two points to retain in regard to the worldly wise. On the one hand, as Barnes points out, those who cannot apprehend God can no more comprehend the Christian. We ought not to be surprised, then, that the world finds it incomprehensible that we remain committed to Christ and His Church in this day and age. We ought not be surprised at the vehemence of the reaction. If they hated Him, of course they are going to hate us as well. That is not an excuse to be hateful, but it must condition our response to rejection by the worldly wise.
The second point, as the JFB presents it, is that worldly wisdom cannot hope to expound on spiritual things. If our preaching has become an effort to present philosophical arguments for God, we have failed. If we are counting on careful argumentation and fine phrasing to make the case for God, we have failed. If we are listening to preachers for such cause, we are failing. It is not the eloquence of the man, nor is it the display of signs and wonders, which advise us of the truth of the message. It is the Gospel delivered simply, as it was first presented: Christ and Him crucified. It is the plain message that you are a sinner in need of grace, and a gracious God has provided the very thing for your remedy.
Today has been laid before you death and life, curse and blessing. Choose life. And, may the Spirit of the Living God so move upon your heart that you can so and do so choose. If you have already been found amongst the elect, heard the call of Christ and answered, may that same Spirit of God who opened your ears continue to speak into them, to strengthen you to stand fast, knowing that He who began the good work in you is faithful to complete it. Fear not what man thinks or what he can do. Greater is He who is in you. He has never lost a one, nor ever shall, for He came for the purpose of your salvation, and as to that work, He has declared, “It is finished!”
