Josh Benner

Category: Commentary

  • Let there be light? What is the light in Genesis 1

    Let there be light? What is the light in Genesis 1

    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 

    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. 
    -Genesis 1:1-5

    In Genesis 1, when God says “let there be light,” what does that mean? 

    If you’re a Christian who belives in the Bible, that may sound like a silly question. 

    Light is light! 

    But what is the light on the first day of creation? 

    Genesis 1 doesn’t talk about the sun until day 4. 

    14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. 
    -Genesis 1:14-19

    So then what is the light on day 1? 

    This is a question that theologians and scholars have pondered since before Jesus walked the earth. 

    Explanations people have given

    There are no shortage of explanations. One is that the sun was always shining but that it is not given its function until the fourth day. 

    One ancient view is that God had created another source of light on the first day that he extinguished on the fourth day with the creation of the sun. That might seem far fetched, but remember this. In the Old Testament, when the Israelites are in their desert wanderings, God leads them by a pillar of fire in the sky. 

    Second century theologian Tertullian believed that the light was the glory of Christ. 

    The fourth and fifth century theologian Augustine believed that the light came from the angels. And a number of Biblical texts could be pointed to in support of that view. 

    Psalm 104:4:  he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire. 

    Ezekiel 1:13-14: As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches moving to and fro among the living creatures. And the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14 And the living creatures darted to and fro, like the appearance of a flash of lightning. 

    Acts 12:7: And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands.

    Revelation 18:1: After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. 

    All three of those theories point to the light being supernatural, and that the light on the first day is not merely about light in the way we think of light in the modern world. 

    Light is an important image in the Bible that points to moral righteousness. It’s contrasted by darkness which symbolizes what is sinister and evil. Nowhere is this language stronger in the Bible than the Gospel of John, where we see Jesus as the light that shines in the darkness (John 1:5), the true light which gives light to everyone (John 1:9), and the light of the world (John 8:12). 

    In John, we see that men love darkness rather than the light because their works were evil (John 3:19).

    Light and glory

    I take the light in Genesis 1 to be the glory of the Triune God. Genesis 1 does not say that God created this light, because the Lord is eternally glorious. But that God acknowledges the light of his own glory when he says let there be light. 

    Further reading: 

    https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/days-without-sun-what-was-source-light/

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe!

  • Sermon: Something New – John 20:10-18

    The risen Christ is a paradigm shift for the world. In this passage, we are pointed to the revolutionary newness of what comes with the risen Christ. In this passage, we look at the atonement, holiness and glory which were needed to approach the Lord and how all of that has been achieved through the cross. We also see a new ways to relate to Christ in light of the resurrection.

    Sermon manuscript

  • Why Christians too often miss the point of Genesis 1

    Why Christians too often miss the point of Genesis 1

    Is the earth thousands of years old? Is it billions of years old? Is Genesis 1 literal? Are there six literal 24-hour days?

    Questions like these are part of an overarching discussion and debate on the interpretation of the Bible’s opening chapter. It’s a hot button issue in many circles.

    My point with this post is that this discussion is largely a waste of time where people get caught up in arguing about how long a day is in Genesis and miss the real point of the chapter.

    I’m not saying issues related to the length of time that creation took are unimportant but I’m saying that they’re not all important and they’re not the most important issue in Genesis 1 and when we get preoccupied with those questions, we can lose sight of the more compelling and significant themes in the text.

    The purpose of Genesis 1

    1. Genesis 1 points us to an all-powerful God who is mighty enough to create merely by the power of his word.
    2. Genesis 1 points us to the orderliness of God’s creation. It’s not chaotic or haphazard. Everything is brought forth by God at an appointed time.
    3. Genesis 1 points us to God’s creation while constantly telling us that the creation is good. It points us to an initially perfect creation. It also again points us to the God of the good creation who is himself good.

    Theological themes

    Genesis 1 also begins several theological trajectories which will run throughout the Bible.

    1. Most obviously, the Doctrine of Creation which is a recurring theme throughout the Bible. We see creative language used in the Psalms. We see an uncreation in the plagues of the Exodus. We see a new creation through the work and ministry of Jesus and in the New Heaven and the New Earth of Revelation.
    2. Genesis 1 also starts off important theological themes such as temple. In the Bible, a temple is not merely about a building. It’s the place where God is with his people. In Genesis 1, we see that the entire creation is a temple to God’s goodness and glory. In Genesis 2, we see Adam consecrated as the priest of the temple who’s given charge to “work and keep” to the garden, the temple.
    3. I would argue that we also see the beginning of Trinitarian theology in Genesis 1. From the beginning, we see the Spirit of God (Gen. 1:2). In creation, God says “let us make man in our image.”

    A couple of considerations

    The Hebrew word for day is yom. In both Hebrew and English, the words we use for day can have a variety of meanings. A day can refer to a 24 hour period of time. A day can refer to the part of a 24 hour period of time where there is daylight. A day can refer to a longer period of time (e.g. when people uses phrases like “Back in my day.”)

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe!

  • Leaked Supreme Court docs point to a potential end to Roe v. Wade

    Leaked Supreme Court docs point to a potential end to Roe v. Wade

    Many years from now, I think I’ll remember where I was when I heard the news that documents had been leaked related to a Supreme Court opinion on Roe v. Wade, the controversial landmark decision from 1973 which made abortion legal throughout the country. 

    I feel like I can’t let myself get too excited until the decision is officially overturned. Justices who have reportedly sided with reversing Roe can still change their minds. But it is exciting that overturning the decision looks to be a real possibility. 

    To be honest, it’s not something I ever thought I’d see. 

    If the changes go forward, the work will not be done for either side as the issue would go back to the states. It’s estimated that 20-26 states could ban abortion. Blue states like California and New York would allow abortion full term. Other states would be in between and allow abortions to ceratin points or under certain circumstances. 

    Before Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, 30 states had made abortion illegal and it was only allowed under certain circumstances in 16 more. We hear a lot about democracy and “threats to democracy.” Roe was a threat to our humanity. Roe went against the will of the people and in the process, led to horrendous casualties. 

    We’ve made termination the easy way out over choosing life. We’ve undermined the value of life of those conceived in cases of rape and incest and made them political pawns as if their lives are expendable. We’ve talked about people being raised in less stable families as if they’d be better not being able to live at all. Millions of people who have lived through similarly challenging upbringings would beg to differ. 

    In the 50 years since Roe, I think of the sixty millions of babies who have been aborted and I don’t understand how anyone doesn’t find that number heartbreaking to every American. Tens of millions of lives have been created and terminated. Tens of millions of lives have been created yet never got to be lived. We’ve devalued life. We’ve taken something precious and made it a problem to be dealt with. We’ve taken something as tragic as abortion and turned it into a big business, both for abortion providers and those who work to lobby on its behalf. 

    If this decision goes well, many will demonize the Supreme Court. There will be those who talk about adding more justices, about trying to pass federal laws which allow abortion, of trying to ban the fillibuster. But for the justices who look set to reverse Roe, if they hold true to that decision, millions of lives will be saved. 

    Fifty years of this barbarity. I think of the millions of lives lost but also the kids and grandkids those people would have had. At the end of the movie Schindler’s List, they give Liam Neeson (who plays Oskar Schindler) a ring with an inscription from the Talmud which says “whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.” 

    Tonight at dinner, I was looking at my six month old son and I thought “for all I know, this decision could save the life of his future wife.” 

    Again, there is work to be done and the pro-choice side will never let this go and will fight fiercely for a woman’s so called right to have an abortion. But for those who stand for life, this is an exciting day. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe! 

  • The case for believer’s baptism

    The case for believer’s baptism

    Baptism is a subject that has a rich tradition within the church and which has, at times, been the source of heated division. 

    The importance of baptism is almost universally agreed upon within Christendom. But from that common starting point, churches have diverged on nearly every aspect of baptism. Questions which have been at the forefront of the historical debate have included: 


    Who can be baptized? 

    Is it for believers or for believers and their children? 

    Who can do the baptizing? 

    Does it have to be an ordained minister or can others from within the church or the biological family baptize? 

    How should the baptism be administered?

    Should a person be dunked in water? Or sprinkled with water? Or should water be poured? 

    Is there special about the water itself?

    The first church I ever attended was a Presbyterian Church and someone had taken a trip to Israel and this church had water that was from the River Jordan. The pastor always poured a little bit into the baptismal. 

    What is said during baptism? 

    I read a story earlier this year about a Catholic Priest who realized that he had said the wrong words for over 20 years. He was supposed to say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 

    What he actually said was “We baptize you.” 

    In the eyes of the Catholic Church, those baptisms are not considered valid. 

    Is there any formal preparation for the baptism? 

    Throughout history, some churches have had various requirements such as fasting, or confirmation classes before being baptized. 

    What does the baptism signify? 

    Is it the cause of our being born again? Does it wash away sin? 

    What happens spiritually when a person is baptized? 

    Does it save us? Does it help save us? Do we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism? 

    What does someone wear during a baptism? 

    In some churches, people wear white. In the early church, there are accounts of people being baptized naked! 

    Is baptism necessary for salvation? 

    And there are many other questions. 

    Just about the only thing that all churches agree on is that baptism involves water. 

    General observations

    I want to begin with a couple of general comments on baptism. 

    Baptism is important.

    At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus commanded his disciples to: 

     19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

    Baptism is important to Jesus and it should be important to his Church. 

    At the church I pastor, we teach and practice believer’s baptism – sometimes also called credobaptism. Credo comes from the Latin word for believe. That is the idea that in order to be baptized, a person must give a profession of faith that Jesus Christ is their Lord and savior in whom they have placed their faith. 

    The other major side of the baptism discussion are churches who practice infant baptism. I know many people in this church were raised in churches that practice infant baptism. 

    The believer’s or infant baptism discussion is an important subject. While we don’t teach infant baptism, there are churches that do who are faithfully preaching the gospel who love Jesus, who love the Word of God. There are faithful brothers and sisters in Christ who agree on the importance of baptism but disagree not on if but when it should be done. 

    And while I affirm believer’s baptism, I can sincerely respect the arguments for infant baptism. 

    I read those arguments, and it’s not like I come away thinking “well how could someone believe that?” I don’t think it involves in crazy leaps studying your Bible to come down on that side.

    No, they have legitimate points, but I think the Biblical reasons for believer’s baptism are simply stronger. 

    Church interview story 

    I’ll tell this quick story. A few years ago, before we had ever interviewed with this church, I interviewed at another church and the subject of baptism came up. They too believed in believer’s baptism but as people started talking, some of them were really mocking the idea of infant baptism and churches who practice it. 

    I didn’t appreciate that. 

    I do think that disagreements on that subject should be done in a Spirit of grace and respect within the church. 

    It wasn’t the only factor but when that church invited me to candidate to be their pastor, I turned them down. 

    In this post, I want to make the case for mwhy I favor believer’s baptism. Again this is an expansive debate and I can’t begin to answer every aspect of the baptism discussion in one blog post, but I think this is a helpful starting point. 

    The case for believer’s baptism

    Why should we believer believer’s baptism? 

    There is not one single text in the Bible which explicitly calls for the baptism of newborns.

    I’ll say that again. 

    There is no text in the Bible which explicitly says that babies ought to be baptized or for that matter, that anyone who cannot profess to believe in the gospel should be baptized. . 

    Our passage this morning comes from the Book of Acts and it’s an important passage because it takes place on Pentecost. That’s the day that the Holy Spirit was first poured out on the disciples and the new followers of Jesus. 

    I often talk about the ordering of the life, death, resurrection of Jesus. But then after that, you have his ascension, when he ascended into heaven. That’s in Acts chapter 1. And then you have Pentecost which is when the Spirit was poured out on the Church in our passage in Acts 2. 

    In Acts 2:14-36, the Apostle Peter gives his Pentecost sermon. In that sermon, Peter is talking about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and his exaltation which was prophesied in the Old Testament. Peter also talks of how the Old Testament looked to a time when God’s Spirit would be given to God’s people. 

    Verse 37 picks up with people’s response to Peter. 

    37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

    The people are asking how they should respond to the gospel that Peter has just preached

    . 

    38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

    Repent and be baptized. 

    That order is important. 

    It’s not be baptized and then maybe in a few years, you’ll hopefully repent. 

    Now the Book of Acts chronicles the activities of the early church and the pattern we see in Acts is that a response of faith precedes baptism. 

    Acts 8:12-13, the Apostle Philip has preached the gospel and people have believed: 

    12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.

    Acts 9:18, following the conversion of the man we know as the Apostle Paul: 

    18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized

    In Acts 19:4-5, the Apostle Paul is sharing the gospel in Ephesus: 

    And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    And there are other examples but that’s the pattern and I would argue that’s always the pattern in the Bible. 

    A person has faith, believes in the gospel and baptism is a response to the inward faith. 

    At Pentecost, Peter said to repent and be baptized. 

    True repentance is something that we do because of faith. Repentance is looking to our sinfulness and turning from that. That requires both faith and awareness of our sins. 

    What about household baptisms? 

    One of the common arguments for infant baptism is that in the Book of Acts, there are household baptisms. There are four such household baptisms in Acts and we hear one referenced in First Corinthians. In those passages, a person comes to faith and they are baptized and the passage mentions that their household was too. 

    The argument assumes that there must have also been babies in some of those homes and so that is demonstrating infant baptism. 

    None of those passages specifically say that there were infants or children. A person could counter argue, that those passages also don’t say that there weren’t any children or infants. 

    That’s true. But I think the more significant point when considering household baptisms is the fact that none of the passages point to one person coming to faith and the rest of their family also getting baptized against their will as unrepentant and unregenerate nonbelievers. 

    I’ll show what I mean. 

    In Acts 16, we learn about a Philippian jailer who asks Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved. 

    Acts 16:30-31

    “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    So does that mean if this man comes to faith, his entire household will also come to faith? 

    Is the text saying that if this man believes, then his whole family will believe because he believed? 

    No. 

    Next couple of verses: 

    ​​” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family (Acts 16:32-33).

    A person could still look at this and argue that the whole household got baptized because the father became a Christian. 

    But the key is verse 34: 

    34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. 

    The most plausible interpretation is that his household believed and that was the source of their rejoicing. It was not because he had a family of unrepentant people who opposed the gospel who received a no faith baptism that they’re rejoicing in a gospel that they don’t believe in. 

    Acts 18:8 talks of the household of a man named Crispus being baptized. 

     8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

    Once again, the passage says that his household was baptized but it also said that his entire household had believed in the gospel. 

    That’s the pattern that we see in Acts. In our primary text of Acts 2:41, we see believers responding to the gospel in faith:

    ​​” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 

    Acts 10 talks of the household of Cornelius coming to faith and as a response to that faith, they are baptized. 

    Acts 10:46-48: 

    they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

    In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul mentions having baptized the household of Stephanus. 

    But then later in the letter, Paul talks of the faith of the family of Stephanus when he says in 1 Corinthians 16:15: 

    15 Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints—

    Acts 16 talks of a woman named Lydia coming to faith and being baptized along with her household. That is the one text where there is not quite as much elaboration but given the pattern we’ve seen elsewhere, I think the best argument is that her household was baptized because her household were believers in the gospel. 

    I return to my premise from the beginning that there is not one single text in the Bible which definitively points to infant baptism.  

    Even the household baptism passages point to household being baptized after having responded to the gospel by faith. 

    All of the passages we’ve discussed I would argue point to a consistent pattern in the New Testament of having faith in the gospel and being baptized as a result of that faith.

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe!