Biblical Insight: What’s a Dad to Do?

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

Hebrews 12:7 (ESV)

When the film Rebel without a Cause came out in 1955, it touched a nerve. Warner Brothers advertised it as a “challenging drama of today’s juvenile violence.” It featured three rising young actors—James Dean (as Jim), Natalie Wood (as Judy), and Sal Mineo (as Plato)—each portraying troubled teens responding to their fathers’ insufficiencies. Jim’s father was spineless, Judy’s, cruelly strict, while Plato’s father was absent. World War II reminded America of the importance of a father’s presence, but Americans spent the next decade—with dramas like Rebel without a Cause and comedies like Ozzie and Harriet—asking the question, “What’s a dad to do?” We still suffer as a culture for lack of understanding the role of a faithful father.

Father copyHebrews 12 was not written as a prescription for earthly fathers, as much as its wisdom might apply to them. Rather, it was an exhortation to suffering Christians to cling to their heavenly Father. The author of the epistle pointed out that the trials, hardships, and difficulties Christians experience should sometimes be understood as an expression of God’s discipline—discipline that is ultimately for the believer’s spiritual welfare.

Sadly, when English speakers hear the word “discipline,” punishment most often comes to mind. But the Greek word can mean, more broadly, “guidance for proper living.” Biblically speaking, then, discipline is often as much about tender formation as it is about firm correction. When believers suffer for bearing the name of Christ, they need not conclude God has abandoned them or that He is punishing them for some wrong done—far from it! Trials only affirm that God is forging fidelity in the recesses of their hearts. Or, as the author of Hebrews put it, even though “for the moment” all discipline seems painful, it eventually “yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (v. 11). In other words, the fruits of discipline form faithful Christians!

Like any loving father, God uses the means of both formative and corrective discipline to help Christians more fully reflect the character of Jesus. Sanctification, the process whereby God brings his children to spiritual maturity, is a sometimes painful experience. Mature Christians come to recognize that the trials and difficulties they experience are not evidence of God’s arbitrariness, anger, or absenteeism. Instead, they understand that every trial is a manifestation of His love. Those He loves, He disciplines (v. 6).

What’s a dad to do? Dads dare to discipline. As a faithful Father, the Lord disciplines His children through many and various trials, tests, and corrections. The reality of the Christian life is that discipline is a part of discipleship. Helping individuals and congregations understand the shaping role of discipline is a crucial component of Christian leadership. Perceptive counseling can assist Christians to see the events in their lives as palpable evidences of the Father’s love and turn whining into gratitude and fickleness into faithfulness. In the process, those who understand the discipline of the Lord might even one day become better parents themselves!

Male and Female He Created Them

So God created man in his own image,CoupleDating
in the image of
God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

In April 2016, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that public schools may not discriminate against students on the basis of gender identity. Ruling in favor of a Virginia transgender student identified in court documents only as G.G., two judges on a three-judge panel held that schools may not segregate students into separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex alone. Within their ruling, the judges noted the supposed “limitations of a nonmalleable, binary conception of sex.” They also criticized the alleged limitations of “connot[ing] male and femaleness . . . by reference to the factors . . . termed ‘biological sex,’ namely reproductive organs.” [i] Standing in stark contrast to the judges’ opinion is Genesis 1:28, where gender is defined in a strikingly biological, “binary,” and “nonmalleable” way.

This verse employs Hebrew words for male (zakar) and female (neqeba) with distinctly biological connotations. Zakar likely had an original meaning of being sharp and thus came to reference the male anatomy, and by extension, the male gender.[ii] Neqeba, in contrast, derives from a term referencing a hole or cavity and thus came to signify the female gender.[iii] The anatomical references of the terms are intentional here, for they speak of sexual distinction among humans and set the stage for God’s command in the following verse to “be fruitful and multiply.” Indeed, humans are the only creatures whose binary gender distinction is noted in Genesis 1. This does not deny or obscure gender distinctions among animals but highlights the goodness and God-given character of human gender. In fact, gender helps constitute humans in the image of God in humankind.

For this reason, Scripture elsewhere condemns the blurring of gender distinctions. For example, Deuteronomy 22:5 states that “a woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” The abiding principle, with different applications in various cultures, is that women should not attempt to look like men and vice versa. Similarly in the New Testament, Paul tells the Corinthians that when praying or prophesying in public worship, men and women should don attire appropriate to their respective genders (1 Corinthians 11:4-10). The norm for God’s people is to celebrate and not obscure God-given gender distinctions.

The biblical teaching is a marked departure from modern notions that gender is merely chosen, felt, or can be “reassigned” surgically. Gender is assigned by God, and it displays His marvelous creativity. Of course, in a fallen world there are tragic instances in which people experience feelings of dissatisfaction regarding their God-given genders. And some are born with both male and female sex organs or with irregular configurations of their sex chromosomes. But far from overturning traditional classifications of gender, these unfortunate conditions underscore the goodness of the God-assigned norm: “Male and female he created them.”

Given the pervasive challenge to this conception of gender, Christians have a responsibility to educate themselves regarding the biblical and medical realities, and take a stand when governments or businesses attempt to dismiss biological gender distinctions as discriminatory or degrading. Human happiness and even survival depend on embracing maleness and femaleness.

[i] G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, Case No. 15-2056 (4th Cir. 2016).

[ii] The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1906), s.v. “zakar.”

[iii] Ibid., s.v. “nequeba.”

Newly Published JETS Article by BibleMesh Contributors

Biblical_GreekThe Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society’s most recent issue (March 2016) contains an article on the Greek verbal system by three contributors to BibleMesh’s Greek courses. The article, coauthored by Nicholas J. Ellis, Michael G. Aubrey, and Mark Dubis, is titled “The Greek Verbal System and Aspectual Prominence: Revising Our Taxonomy and Nomenclature.” (Download here.)

This article describes BibleMesh’s approach to the Greek verbal system, particularly as advanced in our Greek courses. Building on the insights of D. S. Bhat, who argues that languages can give prominence to either tense, aspect, or mood, Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis argue that the morphology of Greek provides important evidence that Greek is an aspect-prominent language, though one that also incorporates tense within the indicative mood. Aspect can take three distinct forms in Greek: perfective, imperfective, and combinative. Aspect describes a situation’s internal temporal structure. For example, “he ate” is perfective in aspect, being presented as a simple whole, with no reference to anything that happened between the initiation and conclusion of the event. By way of contrast, “he was eating” is imperfective, describing a situation as being in process. “He has eaten” is combinative, describing a complex situation in which a perfective event (“he ate”) leads to a situation with ongoing results or relevance (e.g., the resulting relevance of having eaten previously may well be that no additional food is presently needed).

Using an extensive series of tables, Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis walk readers through Greek’s verbal system and demonstrate that Greek has a simpler and more straightforward organization than that which appears in traditional Greek grammars. Instead of being organized by the traditional six principal parts (present, future, aorist, perfect, perfect middle, and aorist passive), Greek’s fundamental arrangement is around its three aspects. Indeed, most of Greek’s verbal paradigms (that is, the nonindicative paradigms) make no use of tense, employing only aspect. It is only in the indicative mood that tense is layered on top of Greek’s fundamental aspectual organization, with the presence of the augment distinguishing past from nonpast forms. The resulting analysis of the indicative mood (in the active voice of the ω conjugation) is as follows[1]:


[1] Note that the combinative subjunctive and optative are left blank since they do not appear with distinct grammaticalized forms.

The above chart displays that regular perfective forms share a σ (or sometimes a κ, as with the “kappa aorists”); this σ is an “aspect marker” for perfective aspect (not a tense formative!). The imperfective forms share an unmarked lexical core (though in the μι conjugation, imperfective forms are explicitly marked by reduplication, e.g., the δι in δίδωμι). Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis dub the final aspect as “combinative” since it derives from a typical combination of imperfective and perfective aspect markers (both reduplication as an imperfective aspect marker and a κ as a perfective aspect marker). Since these combinative forms describe a past completed action with ongoing results or relevance, this morphological combination of aspect markers is not surprising: the past completed action is naturally referred to by the perfective aspect marker and the ongoing results or relevance of that completed action are naturally referred to by the imperfective aspect marker.

In each of the three aspects, the lexical core along with its aspect markers constitute the aspect stem. Thus all of the forms of λύω in the chart above can be broken down into three aspect stems: the perfective λυσ, the imperfective λυ, and the combinative λελυκ. With the inclusion of an augment, the indicative forms of these three aspects subdivide into past and non-past forms. Thus aorist and future indicatives are both perfective, present and imperfect indicatives are both imperfective, and perfect and pluperfect forms are both combinative.

The full article applies this aspectual analysis in greater depth to μι conjugation verbs as well as middle-passive forms (which, following Carl Conrad, are viewed as a single voice encompassing both middle and passive functions, so that Greek has only two instead of three voices).

The significance of this article is at least twofold. First, Greek grammar has a simpler organizational structure than that which appears in traditional Greek grammars, and a realization of this (and a corresponding restructuring of Greek paradigms) makes Greek easier for professors to teach and easier for students to learn. Second, some traditional grammatical labels misconstrue the true structure of Greek, particularly those that treat Greek as though it were, like English, a tense-prominent language (e.g., the use of “present” outside of the indicative mood or the use of “tense formative” for morphemes that are really aspect markers). Consequently, we need to reform our descriptive labels and our general conception of Greek accordingly. In doing so, we will see the simplicity and beauty of the Greek verb for what it is and, more importantly, we will be better equipped to interpret the message of the New Testament without imposing the alien constraints of our own language upon it.

To download the full article, click the following bibliographical link:

Nicholas J. Ellis, Michael G. Aubrey, and Mark Dubis. “The Greek Verbal System and Aspectual Prominence: Revising Our Taxonomy and Nomenclature.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59/1 (2016): 33–62.

To see descriptions of BibleMesh’s Greek courses, go to




Was Jesus Omniscient During His Earthly Life?

The short answer to this question is an unequivocal yes. But a longer answer may be more helpful in processing the biblical data. That’s because Scripture, at first blush, appears to make contradictory statements about Jesus’ knowledge. On one hand, He knew people’s thoughts (Mark 2:8), was able to distinguish true believers from non-believers (John 6:64), knew “from the beginning” Judas would betray Him (John 6:64), and in fact knew “all things” (John 16:30). On the other hand, He “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52) and did not know the day or hour of His second coming (Mark 13:32). How do we put these statements together? How can one who knows all things also not know the time of His return? How can one who knows all things also increase in wisdom?

BiblepagesThe answer lies in a doctrine articulated some 1,500 years ago at a gathering of Christian leaders known as the Council of Chalcedon. That meeting yielded a now-famous statement declaring Jesus to possess “two natures . . . the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons.” In other words, Jesus possessed (and continues to possess) both a divine nature and a human nature. But He doesn’t somehow have a split personality or, like the Trinity, possess distinct persons who interact with one another within the same essence. No, the single, unified person of Jesus is both fully God and fully human.

Scripture, while making it “perfectly evident that only one person is intended,”[1] makes some statements that seem to apply specifically to one nature or the other. For instance, Romans 1:3-4 says Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness.” Similarly, Philippians 2:6-8 says He “was in the form of God” and also was “found in human form.” Someone might be tempted to ask, “Which is it? Was Jesus in the form of God or in human form? Was He descended from David or the Son of God?” But the doctrine of His two natures in one person allows us to respond, “It’s both.”

This truth is instructive when it comes to understanding Christ’s knowledge. Statements of omniscience during His earthly ministry reference His divine nature while statements of limited knowledge reference His human nature. Theologian Wayne Grudem explained it this way: “Jesus learned things and had limited knowledge with respect to His human nature but was always omniscient with respect to His divine nature, and therefore he was able any time to ‘call to mind’ whatever information would be needed for His ministry.”[2]

If this seems confusing or even fanciful, consider an analogy: You and I have a body and a soul yet within one undivided person. The body is material, with all the properties of physical matter and, in itself, none of the properties of an immaterial soul. The soul, on the other hand, is non-physical and has properties like eternality, consciousness, and intelligence. Some statements predicated of a single, undivided person are made with singular reference to either body or soul. For instance, “Bob got burned” references Bob’s body while “Bob is intelligent” references his soul. “Bob craves pizza” references his body while “Bob is morally virtuous” references his soul. At times, statements about Bob may appear contradictory because of his body-soul union within one person. For instance, “Bob is eternal” yet “Bob will die and decay.” Obviously, analogies have limits, but you get the point.[3]

If the interplay between Christ’s omniscience and His limited knowledge still seems a bit fuzzy to you, don’t worry. As with, many of the Bible’s great doctrines, our job is to trust God, and then give praise for “the depth of the riches and wisdom of God,” whose judgments ultimately are “unsearchable” and whose ways are “inscrutable” (Romans 10:33).


[1] Louis Berkhoff, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938), 323.

[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 561.

[3] This analogy is drawn from Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, [1871]), 378-80.

A Christian Nation on First Impression

In 2008, Times columnist Matthew Parris wrote a surprising piece entitled, “As an Atheist, I Truly Believe Africa Needs God.”[i] He built part of his case on first impressions:

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away.

I thought of Parris’s account when reading recently a series of reports written some 180 years earlier by a Frenchman visiting the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville. His hefty Tocquevillebook Democracy in America chronicled his impressions, which were basically favorable. He’d seen the fruit of the French Revolution, and now he was reflecting on the outcomes of the American Revolution. He didn’t give our budding nation a clean bill of health, for Andrew Jackson, famous for pushing the Cherokees on a Trail of Tears, was in the White House, and the Civil War that would end slavery was decades away. Furthermore, he was skeptical that the arts could rise to European levels, but he was impressed with the spirit of the people, a spirit he found to be informed by their faith. In his estimation, they had “brought to the New World a Christianity” he could not “depict better than to call it democratic and republican . . . From the beginning, politics and religion were in accord, and they have not ceased to be so since.”[ii]

He noted that “the sects in the United States are within the great Christian unity, and the morality of Christianity is everywhere the same.” He granted that there must be hypocrites and those who followed “their habits more than their convictions,” but concluded, “America is . . . still the place in the world where the Christian religion has most preserved genuine powers over souls; and nothing shows better how useful and natural to man it is in our day, since the country in which it exercises the greatest empire is at the same time the most enlightened and most free.” [iii]

He admired the separation of church and state, but insisted religion should “be considered as the first of their political institutions” for “it singularly facilitates their use of” freedom. He went on, “I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion—for who can read to the bottom of hearts?—but I am sure they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks.”[iv] Not surprising, for, in his view, it was “religion that gave birth to the Anglo-American societies: one must never forget this; in the United States religion is therefore intermingled with all national habits and all the sentiments to which a native country gives birth; that gives it a particular strength.”[v]

He went on to say that Islam could not support an America,[vi] and lamented the comparative loss of faith in his homeland: “I am ignorant of what one would have to do to give back the energy of youth to European Christianity, God alone could do it.”[vii] And while giving the predominating Protestantism its due, he was pleased to report, “America is the most democratic land on earth, and it is at the same time the county where, according to trustworthy reports, the Catholic religion is making most progress.”[viii]

Psalm 33:12a says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,” and, arguably, Tocqueville saw this truth reflected in some measure in America. Of course, we must ask what he would see if he returned today, either to America or to his native Europe. What evidence would he find of Christian devotion and its concomitant blessedness? Were his investigations discouraging, we could at least join him in a hope for revival, all the while granting that “God alone could do it.”


[i] Matthew Parris, “As an Atheist, I Truly Believe Africa Needs God,” Times, December 27, (accessed March 18, 2016).

[ii] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Translated, Edited, and with an Introduction by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 275.

[iii] Tocqueville, 278.

[iv] Tocqueville, 280.

[v] Tocqueville, 406.

[vi] Tocqueville, 419, 420.

[vii] Tocqueville, 288.

[viii] Tocqueville, 424.

Clash of Worldviews—”Man: A Course of Study”

In 1963, Harvard psychology professor Jerome Bruner convened a group of scholars in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Their purpose was to develop a new social studies curriculum for America’s schools. Intoxicated with visions of the Great Society, many evolution.earthbelieved that the social sciences could solve the nation’s greatest ills. The National Science Foundation eventually awarded Bruner’s team $4.8 million to develop Man: A Course of Study (MACOS), a curriculum designed to teach fourth through sixth graders a purely naturalistic view of human nature.1 Many hailed it as a groundbreaking advance in educational theory. Christian parents, however, recognized it as a dangerous tool of social manipulation and secular indoctrination.

Bruner was perhaps the nation’s premier “expert” in educational matters. After a stint with the Army during World War II, studying the effects of propaganda on public opinion, he turned his attention to public education. He published several books including The Process of Education and The Culture of Education.2 Rejecting the traditional model of a teacher imparting knowledge to students, Bruner advanced a more liberal theory of education based on the free expression of ideas—students would learn more from creating answers than from reading them in books.3

True to Bruner’s philosophy, MACOS rejected an objective moral standard; right and wrong were determined solely by one’s environment. For instance, one segment of the course focused on the Netsilik Eskimos, among whom euthanasia and infanticide were common. Of course, such practices were unacceptable in American society, but who was to say they were absolutely wrong in a harsh environment where food was scarce? The course also denied any fundamental distinction between human and beast, inviting students to draw conclusions about humans from the behavior of salmon or apes.

Again and again, MACOS pressed the idea that no belief or behavior had value apart from its cultural context. “Our hope,” said Bruner, “is to lead children to understand how man goes about understanding the world, making sense of it; that one kind of explanation is no more human than another.”4 Congress eventually defunded MACOS, but by 1974, it had been purchased by some 1,700 schools in forty-seven states.5 And though its day has passed, it lives on through its many offspring, found in public schools throughout the land. In fact, the spirit of MACOS even lives on in other parts of the world.6

Christian parents may hope their schoolchildren are being taught firm morality, consistent with God’s Word. Unfortunately, many young people are being tutored in cultural relativism, the notion that all ethical judgments are subjective and arbitrary. Without trust in a transcendent, righteous, Creator God, many teachers make man the measure of all things—and a poor measure at that.7 Public schools may be the best option for a particular child’s education, but Christian parents must know their children are learning more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. They may be absorbing a worldview that can undermine and destroy the Christian values instilled at home.


1 Dorothy Nelkin, The Creation Controversy (New York: W.W. Norton, 1982), 48.

2  Mark K. Smith, “Jerome Bruner and the Process of Education,” The Encyclopedia of Informal Education Website,

3 This summary of Bruner’s educational philosophy taken from Nelkin, 49-51.

4 Ibid., 50.

5 Ibid., 51.

6 In the 1970s, MACOS “kits” found their way to Queensland, Australia where parents quickly objected to their children being told stories of wife-swapping Eskimos. Although MACOS was stopped, an indigenous version was created, the Social Education Materials Project (SEMP). The SEMP curriculum taught that all values and behaviors are equal, and it encouraged teachers to avoid any moralizing or criticizing. Although the government banned SEMP in 1978, the promotion of “progressive” education has not faltered. See Dan O’Donnell, “Ethics and Values in Education: Can Schools Teach Right and Wrong?” (a paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Newcastle, Australia, November 24, 1994), The Australian Association for Research in Education Website, (accessed June 28, 2005).

7 This is exactly what teachers in Hong Kong are tempted to do. In a 2002 survey, a group of teachers indicated an appreciation for a humanistic curriculum that makes students “the crucial source of science curriculum” (italics added). Pun Hon Ng and Derek Cheung, “Student-teachers’ Beliefs on Primary Science Curriculum Orientations,” New Horizons in Education 45-46 (May – November 2002), 44. The MACOS worldview is evident: objective truth and the mastery of science takes a back seat to “personal liberation and development.”