What is a “Pericope”?
O
ne of the most commonly used words in Biblical studies is “pericope.” Sitting on the page, it looks like a misspelling of “periscope.” One might even think it should be pronounced in a similar way. Both assumptions are incorrect.
The prefix “peri” is from the Greek. It means “about,” “around,” or “beyond.” The rest of the word – “cope” – is from the Greek kope, which means “a cutting.” It is pronounced ko-pay. A pe-ri-ko-pay is a section of text from a book or a document. It has been “cut around” and identified as a literary unit. The Bible is made up of myriad literary units or pericopes. To study a verse of Scripture without consideration for the larger literary unit of which it is a part is to take it out of its immediate context.
We find the word pericope used as a technical term in Hellenistic literature in the 3rd century of our era. There it refers to a short section or passage of writing. Jerome (340? - 420 AD) carried the term over into Latin to designate portions of Scripture.
Scholars often focus on pericopes as self-contained units of text. For example, Mark 3:1-6 is a pericope. It tells the story of Jesus’ encounter in a synagogue with a man with a withered hand. Verse 1 opens the story and verse 6 closes it. To understand any of the verses in this literary unit, one must study the whole pericope – that is, the whole literary unit.
Is Mark the only Gospel writer who includes this story? No. Matthew includes it as well, but the details differ somewhat from Mark’s account. We find Matthew’s pericope in Matthew 13:53-58. Matthew does not include the account of the man with the withered hand, yet he includes and emphasizes other parts of the story.
What about Luke? Does he include this story in his Gospel? Yes, but the pericope in Luke is out of order in the normal flow of the Gospel account. It is found in Luke 4:16-30. Luke’s wording is also at variance with the other two accounts.
If we are going to understand the story of Jesus’ entrance into the synagogue at (probably) Capernaum, “his home town,” we must study all three pericopes together. In doing so, we must ask, “Who wrote first?” Who borrowed from whom? Whose account is the most authentic? Why does one writer include something while another omits it? Why did Luke place the story where he did in his account?
Recommended Bible Help
In studying Scripture, it is vital to first assemble all of the relevant pericopes on any given subject for consideration as a whole. An excellent Bible help for doing this for the first three Gospels is Gospel Parallels by Burton H. Throckmorton. It is more current and far more helpful than the old harmonies of the Gospels commonly used by many. If you purchase it, be sure to read the explanatory material at the beginning before proceeding.
Incidentally, it is not enough to simply study the English-language translations of these pericopes. Though it is good to compare 5-7 translations of any given pericope, it is also helpful to examine the Greek texts themselves. Translations cannot always be relied upon to remain faithful to the intent of the original.
Chapters & Verses
Originally, most of the “books” or scrolls of Scripture had no chapters or verses. The text simply flowed continuously. The one exception is the Book of Psalms which was originally divided into chapters with titles. When Jerome made his Latin translation of the Catholic version of the Bible, he subdivided the first section of Scripture – the Pentateuch – into 175 pericopes. The word “Pentateuch” is Greek. “Penta” is “five.” This is the name given to the five Mosaic books that were originally a part of single scroll at the time the Greek-speaking pharaohs ruled Egypt. We call this translation the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew name for these books is the Chumash which means “fivefold” or pentad. The first five books of the Bible also constitute the first of three divisions of what we erroneously call “The Old Testament.” To the Jews, it is the TaNaKh. This is an acronym taken from three words, the first of which is Torah. The word Torah does not, as is commonly supposed, mean “Law.” It means “instruction” or “teaching.”
The word Torah also refers to the whole Hebrew Bible, and to the entirety of Oral Law – in other words, it is all of the instruction that God has ever given to His people from the beginning of time to the present. We will discuss this further in a study on the subject of “Torah.”
Suffice it to say that the Bible was not originally divided into discreet pericopes. It was written mainly as a continuous narrative. Pericopes were considered when the chapter and verse divisions were made for both Testaments. Chapters and verses, as Halley’s Bible Handbook (p. 755) reminds us, “…were added by Cardinal Caro (A.D. 1236) and Robert Stephens (A.D. 1551).” Stephens, whose real name was Robert Stephanus, or Etienne, published a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament in Geneva in 1551. Many have questioned the apparent arbitrariness of Stephen’s verse divisions that were made while on a journey from Paris to Lyons. His own son suggested that horse bumps may have caused his pen to jump from time to time.
Be cautious in identifying pericopes for study. Often, modern translations tend to identify them by the way the page is laid out. For the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Throckmorton’s (mentioned earlier) is most helpful.
- Brian Knowles
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Pericope?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sermon on the Mount
Friday, December 10, 2010
Faithful words
Recently struck by the idea , that has failed me previously , that "faithful sayings" were commonly held thoughts in the early church , that Paul is citing, in his ministry to Timothy. This is a confirmation of this by Sadler
There is, however, one phrase ocourring several times in these Epistles which requires notice. In no other Epistles have we the " faithful sayings." " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners " (1 Tim. i. 15). "This is a faithful saying" (rendered in the authorized " true ") (1 Tim. iii. 1). " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation " (iv. 9). " It is a faithful saying " (2 Tim. ii. 11). How is it that St. Paul quotes four of these faithful words in his later Epistles and not elsewhere ? Evidently because in his later years a number of sayings or short sentences had become proverbial, and were in everyone's mouth: and so St. Paul appealed to three or four of these in support of what he was writing. It is simply an interesting circumstance, but critics must be very hard up for arguments to use it as a reason for rejecting these Epistles.
The Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians, Thessalonians, and Timothy
By Michael Ferrebee SadlerWednesday, December 08, 2010
NETBible: Faithful Sayings
FAITHFUL SAYINGS [ISBE]
FAITHFUL SAYINGS - sa'-inz (pistos ho logos): "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation" (the King James Version). These words form a striking formula which is found--with slight variations--only in the Pastoral Epistles, in 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Tit 3:8. A similar expression occurs in Rev (21:5 and 22:6 the King James Version), "These sayings are faithful and true."The Five "Sayings."
Paul's faithful sayings are thus five in number, and "were no doubt rehearsed constantly in the assemblies, till they became well-known watchwords in the various churches scattered over the Mediterranean-washed provinces of the Roman empire" (Ellicott, New Testament Commentary on 1 Tim 1:15).
1. The First "Saying":
The first of the faithful sayings speaks of the pre-existence of Christ, of His coming into the world, and the purpose why He came is distinctly stated--to save the lost, irrespective of race or nationality, sinners who, apart from Christ, are without God and without hope.
2. The Second "Saying":
The second of the faithful sayings refers to the work of being a minister of the gospel, a work then so full of danger and always full of difficulty. The office in question is honorable and Christlike, and, in those early days, it meant stern and ceaseless work, grave and constant danger. This faithful saying would act as a call to young men to offer themselves for the work of proclaiming the gospel to the world, and of witnessing for Christ.
3. The Third "Saying":
The third saying is that godliness has an influence that is world-wide; it consists, not merely in holiness and in that fellowship and communion with God which is the very life of the soul; it is also an active force which springs from "the love of Christ constraining us," and manifests itself in love toward all our fellow-men, for they are God's creatures. Godliness transfigures every rank and condition of life. It has the promise of the life that now is: to those who seek the kingdom of God first, all other things will be added. And it has the promise of the life that is to come, the rich prospect of eternal blessedness with Christ. Compare with this saying the remarkable words in Tit 1:2, "in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal." Godliness gives all gladness here, and future glory too. This is a faithful saying.
4. The Fourth "Saying":
The fourth of the faithful sayings speaks of the Christian believer's union with Christ, and of the blessedness of that union. The Christian is "dead with Christ," he "suffers with Christ." But the union with Christ is eternal, "We shall also live with him; .... we shall also reign with him" in life that is fadeless, endless and full of glory. Surely then, no one will draw back, for "if we deny him," "if we believe not," "he also will deny us," for "he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself."
5. The Fifth "Saying":
The fifth and last of the faithful sayings speaks of our former unconverted state, "for we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures. But .... the kindness and love of God .... toward man appeared, not by works which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us." Blessedness is now the Christian's lot, and this is the result not of our works: we owe it all to the tender love of God, to His Divine pity, to His redeeming grace. Yes, this is a faithful saying.
John Rutherfurd
Was Paul citing a held source or stating a biblical position?
DJR
The Jesus Seminar
Probe Ministries
The Jesus Seminar Jimmy Williams
Introduction
"Jesus did not ask us to believe that his death was a blood sacrifice, that he was going to die for our sins." "Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was the messiah. He certainly never suggested that he was the second person of the trinity. In fact, he rarely referred to himself at all." "Jesus did not call upon people to repent, or fast, or observe the sabbath. He did not threaten with hell or promise heaven." "Jesus did not ask us to believe that he would be raised from the dead." "Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was born of a virgin." "Jesus did not regard scripture as infallible or even inspired." So says Robert W. Funk, Architect and Founder of the Jesus Seminar, in a Keynote Address to the Jesus Seminar Fellows in the spring of 1994.(1) The Jesus Seminar has been receiving extensive coverage lately in such periodicals as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, as well as on network television.
Biographical
The Jesus Seminar Fellows
The Jesus Seminar is a group of New Testament scholars who have been meeting periodically since 1985. The initial two hundred has now dwindled to about seventy-four active members. They initially focused on the sayings of Jesus within the four Gospels to determine the probability of His actually having said the things attributed to Him in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each scholar offered his/her opinion on each "Jesus" statement by voting with different colored bead:
Red: Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it. Pink: Jesus probably or might have said something like this. Gray: Jesus did not say this, but the ideas are close to His own. Black: Jesus did not say this; it represents a later tradition. Their voting conclusions: Over 80% of the statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are, by voting consensus, either gray or black. This means that only 20% of Jesus' statements are likely to have been spoken by Him. The other 80% are most assuredly, they say, unlikely to have ever been uttered by Jesus.Their conclusions were published in 1993 in a book entitled, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. The primary author of the book, Robert W. Funk, also the Founder and Chair of the Jesus Seminar, crafted the results of their deliberations in a slick, color-coded format with charts, graphics, appendices, and copious footnotes. (The Gospel of Thomas is to be included with the traditional four gospels, they say.)
Who are these scholars, and what are their credentials? Robert W. Funk, former professor of the New Testament at the University of Montana is the most prominent leader. He is joined by two other major contributors, John Dominic Crossan, of DePaul University, Chicago, who has authored several books including The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, The Essential Jesus, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, and Marcus Borg of Oregon State University, also the author of several books including: Jesus: A New Vision and Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith.
Of the remaining active participants, only fourteen are well-known scholars in New Testament studies. Another twenty are recognizable within the narrow confines of the discipline, but they are not widely published beyond a few journal articles or dissertations. The remaining forty are virtually unknowns, and most of them are either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College, three universities widely considered among the most liberal in the field.
The public, exposed by the mass of publicity and attention given to the Jesus Seminar by the media has been inclined to assume that the theories of these scholars represent the "cutting edge," the mainstream of current New Testament thought. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nearly all of these scholars are American. European scholarship is nearly non-existent and, that being the case, it would be inaccurate, if not deceiving for the Jesus Seminar participants to present themselves, their work, and their conclusions as a broad, representative consensus of worldwide New Testament scholarship.
While the media and the general public may tend to be gullible and naive about the authority and findings of the Jesus Seminar, Christians need not be intimidated.
Philosophical
Why is this movement important? Should Christians be concerned with this? Haven't the gospel traditions had their skeptics and critics for centuries? What is different about the Jesus Seminar?Scholars since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century have questioned such things as the miracles, the prophecies, and the extraordinary claims of Christ in the Gospels.
Beginning in Germany, a separation began to occur between the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of Faith"; that is, it came to be popularly believed that a man named Jesus really lived, but that fantastic myths grew up around Him and about His powers and claims, and thus He became for many the "Christ of Faith" in story, symbol, and worship. Scholars promoting this separation conclude that biblical history is not what is important; but rather, one's personal experience, one's search for meaning and timeless truths. Those are of primary importance to an individual.
The Jesus Seminar stands in this tradition. But what is most significant about their work is that it has widened the circle of awareness (i.e., the general public) to New Testament studies and criticism, and a focus upon issues which up until now have been primarily restricted to academic discussions among New Testament scholars.
This group has brought into question the very authenticity and validity of the gospels which lie at the center of Christianity's credibility. If what the Jesus Seminar espouses is historically accurate, the sooner the naive Christian community can be educated to these facts the better, according to these scholars.
A major presupposition of the Jesus Seminar, therefore, is philosophical naturalistic world view which categorically denies the supernatural. Therefore they say one must be wary of the following in the Gospels:
Therefore the Jesus Fellows assert that the Gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses in the mid-first century. On the basis of this philosophical presupposition, the Jesus Seminar considers itself personally and collectively free to select or discard any statement of the Gospels which is philosophically repugnant.
- Prophetic statements. Predictions by Jesus of such things as the destruction of the Temple, or of Jerusalem, or His own resurrection are later literary additions or interpolations. How do we know this? Because no one can predict the future. So they MUST have been added later by zealous followers.
- Miracles. Since miracles are not possible, every recorded miracle in the Gospels must be a later elaboration by an admiring disciple or follower, or must be explained on the basis of some physical or natural cause (i.e., the Feeding of the 5,000: Jesus gave the signal, and all those present reached beneath their cloaks, pulled out their own "sack lunches," and ate together!).
- Claims of Jesus. Christ claimed to be God, Savior, Messiah, Judge, Forgiver of sin, sacrificial Lamb of God, etc. All of these, say the Jesus Fellows, are the later work of His devoted followers. The historical Jesus never claimed these things for Himself, as Funk infers in his above-mentioned statements. Reality isn't like this. It couldn't be true.
There is nothing new about this approach in New Testament scholarship. Thomas Jefferson, a great American patriot and president did the same thing in the late 1700s with almost identical results. He admired Jesus as a moral man, but like the Jesus Fellows, he assumed all supernatural and extraordinary elements in the Gospels were unreliable and could not be true. With scissors and paste, Jefferson cut out of the Gospels any and everything which contravened the laws of nature and his own reason.
When he had finished his project, only 82 columns of the four Gospels out of his King James Bible remained from an original 700. The other nine-tenths lay on the cutting room floor. Jefferson entitled his creation The Life and Morals of Jesus, and his book ended with the words, "There laid they Jesus . . . and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed."(2)
Jefferson and the Jesus Fellows, like all skeptics, prefer their own reason and biases over the possibility that the Gospels are accurate in what they say about miracles, prophecy, and the claims of Christ. They are like the man who visited the psychiatrist and informed him of a grave problem: "I think I'm dead!" The psychiatrist said, "That is a serious problem. May I ask you a question? Do you believe that dead men bleed?" The man quickly answered, "Of course not. Dead men don't bleed." The psychiatrist reached forward, and taking a hat pin, he pricked the man's finger. The man looked down at his bleeding finger and exclaimed, "Well, what do you know! Dead men bleed after all!"
Canonical
The Jesus Fellows, on the basis of their naturalistic bias, conclude that at least the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) could not have been written at the time tradition and many New Testament scholars assume they were. The "Priority of Mark" as the earliest gospel written has strong (but not universal) support. And yet Mark 13 records Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple, something that did not actually occur until A.D. 70.Since the Jesus Fellows do not believe prophecy is possible, they judge Mark, the "earliest" of the Gospels, to have been written after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Romans. If Mark was written in the early 70s, still later dates are then required for Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of the Book of Acts which must follow them with an even later date.
Now, this gives the Jesus Scholars a "window" of about 40 years from the time of Jesus' death (a A.D. 32.) to the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) to look for earlier sources devoid of miracles and extraordinary claims. They think they have found two such primary sources which fit their assumptions. The first of these is the "Q" source, or "Quelle."
Synoptics/Quelle
It has long been observed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke must have had some kind of symbiotic relationship, as if they were aware of one another, or used the same sources, or some of the same sources. The prevailing theory is that Mark (the shortest of the three) was written first, and was later substantially incorporated into both Matthew and Luke. There is a high, but not total agreement, in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke where the two reflect the book of Mark.But Matthew and Luke have additional material, some 250 verses (i.e., the Christmas stories, greater elaboration on the resurrection events, etc.). And there are some verses which are common to both Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. Thus many scholars conclude there was some other document or source available to Matthew and Luke which explains why they contain these additional 250 verses along with the corpus of Mark. The scholars have designated this material as "Q," or "Quelle," which is the German word for "Source." Outside of the Synoptic gospels, there is no written documentary evidence to substantiate Quelle.
A number of New Testament scholars thus claim that Quelle must have been an early, written document which preceded the writing of the Synoptic gospels and was incorporated into them. And they claim that in these 250 verses we only find a very "normal, human" Jesus who is more likely to have been the historical man.
The Gospel of Thomas
The second source given high priority and preference by the Jesus Seminar Fellows is the Gospel of Thomas. In fact, they value it so highly they have placed it alongside the four traditional ones, giving it equal, if not superior, value and historical authenticity.A complete copy of The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in the 1940s at an Egyptian site called Nag Hammadi, where archaeologists found an entire library of ancient texts including the Gospel of Thomas. It was dated around A.D. 400 and written in Coptic, the language of the ancient Egyptian church. This astonishing cache consisted of early Christian and Gnostic texts.
This Gospel of Thomas has now been studied for forty years, and the overwhelming conclusion of scholars worldwide has been that the document carries many of the identifying marks of a Gnostic literary genre, from a sect prominent in Egypt and the Nile Valley during the second, third, and fourth centuries.
It has been almost universally assumed that the parallels in Thomas to the New Testament Gospels and epistles were copied or paraphrased (not the reverse, as the Jesus Fellows claim) to suit Gnostic purposes, teachings which were opposed to all ideas about a supernatural God in the flesh Who could perform miracles, forgive sin, and rise from the dead. The Jesus Seminar Scholars have fit Thomas nicely together with "Q" to frame an historical portrait of Jesus based primarily upon these two sources.
The Jesus Scholars have declared that the Gospel of Thomas and the Q Source were written within the forty years between Jesus' death and the fall of Jerusalem, pushing forward the writing of the four canonical gospels (a necessity on their part to uphold their theory) to very late in the first century.
Chronological
Apart from completely ignoring Paul's epistles which were written between A.D. 45 and his martyrdom at the hands of Nero in A.D. 68, the Jesus Fellows have a critical problem in fitting their theory into first century chronology.In the last chapter of the Book of Acts (28), Luke leaves us with the impression that Paul is in Rome, and still alive. Tradition tells us he died in A.D. 68. In Acts, Luke shows keen awareness of people, places and contemporary events, both within and without the church. And he records the martyrdoms of both Stephen and James. It is highly unlikely, if the deaths of Paul and Peter and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) had already occurred when Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, that he would have failed to record these most important events.
New Testament scholars are in strong agreement that whoever wrote Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke two volumes by one author, both addressed to a man named "Theophilus." And since Luke is supposed to have incorporated Mark and the Q Source material into the writing of his own Gospel, and Acts was written after Luke, but before Paul's death (A.D. 68) and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), then Mark and Quelle must have been written by the mid 60s. The same difficulty in Luke exists with Mark, who is said to have written his gospel with Peter as his source, Peter having been martyred in Rome about the same time as Paul.
It is highly unlikely that these two obscure sources, Quelle and the Gospel of Thomas, could have been circulating throughout the Christian community and having such impact that they overshadowed what Paul was at the very same time saying about Jesus in all of his epistles.
Real church history is not kind to the Jesus Fellows at this point. The church did not first flourish in the Nile Valley and spread elsewhere. The clear pattern of expansion from both biblical and the earliest patristic writings is from Jerusalem to Antioch, Asia Minor, Greece, and finally Rome. Ironically, the earliest of the Church Fathers, Clement of Rome (ca. A.D. 30 to ca. A.D. 100) writes from Rome at the end of the first century an epistle to the Corinthians (1 Clement) which is considered to be the oldest extant letter after the writings of the Apostles. It had such stature in the early church that it was initially considered by some to be a part of the Canon. All the other early church fathers (2nd century) are scattered around in cities within the areas mentioned above, with the exception of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150 to c. A.D. 215) who reflects some Gnostic ideas in his teachings.
The more traditional and accepted chronology for the documents under consideration is as follows:
Dating/chronology of First Century Authorship
(All dates are A.D.)Uncontested:
End of First Century: 100
Fall of Jerusalem: 70
Martyrdom of Paul and Peter: 68
Epistles of Paul: 45-68
Some Oral Tradition: 32-70
Crucifixion of Jesus: 32
Traditional:(3)
Clement of Rome: 96
Revelation (John): 96
Epistles of John: 90-94
Gospel of John: 85-90
Acts of Apostles: 66-68
Matthew & Luke: 64-66
Gospel of Mark: 64-65
Jesus Seminar:(4)
Gospel of John: 85-90
Acts of Apostles: 80-100
Gospel of Luke: 80-100
Gospel of Matthew: 80-90
Gospel of Mark: 70-80
Gospel of Thomas: 70-100
In comparing the two chronologies, it appears there simply is not enough time for the simple Jesus of history to evolve into the Christ of faith. Myths and legends need time to develop. There is none available in the first century to accommodate the Jesus Seminar's theory.
Christological
On the basis of the Gospel of Thomas and Quelle, the Jesus Fellows believe the historical Jesus was simply a sage, a spinner of one- liners, a teller of parables, an effective preacher. This is what He was historically according to these scholars. The "high Christology" (supernatural phenomena, the messianic claims, the miracles, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection) all came as a result of a persecuted church community which needed a more powerful God for encouragement and worship. His suffering, ardent followers are responsible for these embellishments which created the "Christ of Faith." The real Jesus was a winsome, bright, articulate peasant, sort of like Will Rogers.Various other portraits of Jesus have proliferated among the Jesus Fellows, suggesting that he was a religious genius, a social revolutionary, an eschatological prophet. He was all of these things, we would say, but offer that He was something more.
The Jesus Seminar assumes a "low christology" (Jesus as a peasant sage) preceded the "high christology" created later by the church. Is there anything that would suggest otherwise?
The Epistles of Paul
The Apostle Paul conducted his church-planting ministry between approximately 40 to the time of his death, A.D. 68. It was also during this time that he wrote all of his epistles. While some New Testament scholars question the authenticity of Paul's authorship of a number of these epistles, virtually all, even the most liberal, will accept Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians as genuinely Pauline.What kind of "Christology" do we find in these epistles? A high christology. The Jesus Seminar is asking us to believe that at the very same time the Gospel of Thomas and the Q source were alleged to have been written portraying Jesus as a wise, peasant sage, Paul was planting churches across the Mediterranean world and ascribing to Jesus the same high christology found later in the four gospels!
The Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15 clearly indicates that Paul was aware of and connected to Jerusalem and its church leadership (Peter and James). After the Council Paul and Barnabas were given the express task of taking and distributing to the churches a written document of the Council's instructions about how Gentiles were to be incorporated into the church.
The Jesus Seminar simply chooses to ignore this mass of clear, Pauline evidence almost universally accepted by New Testament scholars. The notion that a high christology (the Gospels and the epistles) evolved from a low christology (the Gospel of Thomas, Quelle) is unsupportable.
Jesus the Sage
If we accept the Jesus Seminar notion that the historical Jesus was a simple peasant later revered and deified, with what are we left? Jesus is so stripped down that He becomes the "Christian dummy" of the first century church! The community is more brilliant than the leader! Even Renan, the French skeptic said, "It would take a Jesus to forge a Jesus." Further, if Jesus was such a "regular guy," why was He crucified? Crucifixion by the Romans was used only for deviants, malcontents, and political revolutionaries (like Barabbas). What did this simple peasant do to create such a stir that He would suffer such a death?The Jesus Seminar portrayal of Jesus simply cannot explain the explosion of Christianity in the first and second centuries. With their view of Christ, they cannot create a cause monumental enough to explain the documented, historical effects that even they must accept.
© 1996 Probe Ministries
Notes
1. Robert W. Funk, "The Gospel of Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels," The Fourth R (November/December, 1993), p. 8.
2. Smithsonian.
3. Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody, 1967), Matthew, 470ff (Mt), 493 (Mk), 511 (Lk), 543 (Jn), 567 (Acts).
4. Robert J. Miller, Editor. The Complete Gospels (Harper SanFrancisco, a division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1994). pp. 10 (Mk), 56 (Mt), 198 (Jn). Note: a date for Luke-Acts is not provided, but on the basis of the book's date for Mark, we would assume 80 to 100 A.D.
5. James R. Edwards, "Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?" Christianity Today: March 4, 1996, p. 17.
About the Author
James F. Williams is the founder and past president of Probe Ministries International, and currently serves as Minister at Large. He holds degrees from Southern Methodist University (B.A.) and Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.). He also has pursued inter-disciplinary doctoral studies (a.b.d.) in the humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas.During the past thirty-five years, he has visited, lectured, and counseled on more than 180 university campuses in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the former Soviet Union.
He has also served on the faculties of the American, Latin American, and European Institutes of Biblical Studies. Jimmy can be reached via e-mail at jwilliams@probe.org.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at Probe.org
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by writing to:
Probe Ministries
2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano, TX 75075
(972) 941-4565
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright (C) 1996-2010 Probe Ministries Printer-Friendly Version
copyright © 1995-2010 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
See Related Resources
-->
Updated: 14 July 2002
Refutation of the errors of the Jesus seminar
DJR
Biblical Training Institute: New Testament | How the Bible was Written
© 2000-2010 BiblicalTraining.org | Privacy | Terms of Service | Copyright | Contact Us | Your Account | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube
Started going through this material; helpful so far
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Is Jesus God?
DJR
From time to time scholars suggest the divinity of Jesus is a later invention of the Church. Jesus, they claim, did not believe himself to be God, nor did he claim to be. His first followers, and the early church, likewise did not believe he was God but rather thought of him as a good teacher and moral example. The Da Vinci Code echoes such sentiments by declaring that “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.” He was not considered to be God until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.
The problem with this view, however, is that the NT records clearly and repeatedly state otherwise. Paul, writing in the A.D. 50s, said Jesus is the “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised” (Rom. 9:5). Equally clear is his statement, penned in the early A.D. 60s, that “Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). Similarly, he noted that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). Elsewhere, he spoke of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13).
The Gospels uniformly attest to Jesus’ claim to be God and to his followers’ belief that he was God. Peter confessed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Mark wrote “the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Before the Jewish high priest at his trial, when charged under oath by the living God to state whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus responded, “Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One . . .” (Matt. 26:63–64).
Perhaps the clearest affirmations of Jesus as God in any of the Gospels are found in the Gospel of John. In the opening verse, John identifies “the Word” (i.e. Jesus) as God (John 1:1). Jesus’ claim to be God was clearly understood by his opponents during his earthly ministry, as is made clear in John 5:18: “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
In John 8:58, Jesus claims, “before Abraham was born, I am,” using the OT name of God. Again, this implicit claim to deity was clearly understood by Jesus’ Jewish opponents, who picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy. Later, Jesus is recorded as saying, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and Thomas confesses him as his Lord and God (John 20:28). Finally, in his first epistle John wrote, “And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”
We could go on and cite additional NT evidence (such as Heb. 1:3, 8 or 2 Pet. 1:1), but the above examples show that there is ample biblical support for the belief that Jesus knew himself to be God and claimed to be God during his earthly ministry and that his first followers—as well as his opponents—clearly understood him to claim divinity for himself. In fact, all but one of the Twelve and many other early Christians suffered martyrdom for this belief.
For further study, see my recently released booklet on The Da Vinci Code. See also Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Baker, 1992). I am also working on a book tentatively titled Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (NSBT; IVP, forthcoming), in which I will deal with Jesus’ deity in light of first-century Jewish monotheism.
by Andreas Köstenberger - March 27th, 2006.
Filed under: Bible, Theology.
One Comments to “Is Jesus God?”
Andreas Kostenberger says:
April 20, 2006 at 11:03 am
A reader responded to Dr. Köstenberger’s blog, “Is Jesus God?”
The reader claims that Jesus is begotten, that is, created, and that, since God is One, not Three, Jesus had a beginning.
He also claims that Jesus is only the Son of God, not God. He says Jesus never referred to himself as God. Rather, Jesus called God his “God” or “Father.”
Dr. Köstenberger’s response:
Thank you for your reply to my blog.
I completely agree that, as you say, “We must allow Scripture to be our only source for truth, even if it goes against what our beloved pastors and teachers have taught us.” I would challenge you to live by this maxim of yours and to consider carefully the following Scripture passages in each of which Jesus is clearly called “God.”
• Romans 9:5: “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
• Philippians 2:6: “Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God.”
• Titus 2:13: “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
• Matthew 1:23: “they will call him Immanuel, which means, ‘God with us.’ “
• Hebrews 1:8: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.’ ”
• 2 Peter 1:1: “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
• John 20:28: [Thomas worshipping Jesus:] “My Lord and my God!”
• 1 John 5:20: “even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God . . .”
Note that in all these passages Jesus is not merely called “the Son of God” but “God.” Note also that these passages span the entire New Testament, including Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews. Note, finally, that the early Christians, like Thomas, worshipped Jesus as God. This is the testimony of Scripture.
Sincerely,
Andreas J. Köstenberger
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
1 Thessalonians 2:13 and an Emerging Canon Consciousness
DJR
“And so we too constantly thank God that when you received God’s message that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human message, but as it truly is, God’s message, which is at work among you who believe” (NET).
Does this verse mean that Paul really knew that he was speaking and writing scripture? If so, it is the earliest reference to such canon consciousness within the New Testament. And if that is the case, then we have an excellent basis for seeing this emerging canon consciousness as something that was from the beginning.
But to keep to the exact phrase, we do see in the New Testament that many are said to proclaim the ‘word of God.’ Consider the following texts (every reference has λόγος θεοῦ in Greek; the translation is that of the NET):
What should be recognized in at least the majority of the texts quoted above is that, on the one hand, the apostolic witness to Christ regarded itself as verbalizing the word of God—or the message from God about Christ—because the ultimate revelation was in Jesus. When Paul speaks of “carrying out the proclamation of the word of God” (Col 1.25) he is not speaking about proclaiming scripture (which would have been the Old Testament) but proclaiming the message about Jesus. Even in 1 Thess 2.13, this must be the case: the ‘word of God’ that Paul is referring to is the proclamation he and Silas made in Thessalonica, not the letter of 1 Thessalonians since he is referring to what he and Silas proclaimed in person before this letter was ever penned. Hence, we must not think that ‘word of God’ = Bible as a rule. On the other hand, Paul recognized that his message originated with God, not with himself. And at some point, it was a natural development for the early church to regard the apostolic writings as scripture, though this did not seem to explicitly happen, except in isolated instances, until the latter half of the second century.
There is thus an emerging ‘canon consciousness’ with respect to the apostolic writings. By AD 50, it is not yet there. There are two passages in the New Testament, both written much later, that are often cited as proof texts that the New Testament writers were self-consciously writing scripture, or at least that they were calling other portions of the New Testament ‘scripture.’ We will examine those in another study, but for now the question that we are raising is this: When did the early church begin to see the writings of the New Testament as scripture? When did they begin to place them explicitly on the same level of authority as the Old Testament? Did it take place within the pages of the New Testament itself, or only later? And, if later, how much later? All of this is part and parcel to the theological development within the New Testament (and beyond) that begins with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is that radical event that ultimately changed how a small band of Jews would think of God, scripture, the people of God and, above all, the Messiah.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
More of Christ! More of Christ!
What is it my soul, which causes this uneasiness, this dissatisfaction, this deep inward yearning after something which you have not, or do not at present enjoy? I am not at rest. I am not rejoicing in God. I am not singing from the heights of Zion. Yet, I have no slavish fears, I have no gloomy doubts of my saving interest in Christ, I have no actual dread of death or the judgment. But I feel a desire to climb higher, to know more, and to enjoy the power of religion within — as I have not of late. It seems to me that all myneeds lead me to Christ, and all my desires go out toward Christ. I want — well, what do I want?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Future Punishment: Its Character and Duration
Future Punishment: Its Character and Duration
F. B. Hole.
There is no point within the whole compass of Divine truth where human thoughts and opinions are of any value. But at no point is it more necessary to rigidly exclude them than from the solemn subject which is now to occupy us. Immediately the punishment of sin is in question we are all of us alert and inclined to make our voices heard. We are none of us disinterested spectators, but rather in the position of a criminal in the dock being tried for his life. Now a criminal is never an unprejudiced judge of his own case, neither are we in this matter of future punishment. So let us begin by recognizing the very natural warp of our fallen reason In relation to this theme, and resolving to close our minds to our own thoughts as to what ought to be, and to listen to the plain declarations of what is going to be, given to us in Scripture by God the Judge of all.
It may be well to begin at the very beginning and enquire if the Bible indicates that there is to be such a thing as punishment at all? There are not wanting those who would do away with the whole idea in relation to God's government of His creatures, just as there are also those who are always inclined to bewail the bitter fate of the assassin when brought face to face with justice, whilst having scant sympathy, or none at all, to spare for his victim!
Read carefully Romans 2: 1 to 16, and you will find that Scripture testifies with no uncertain sound to the reality of future punishment. There is such a thing as "the judgment of God." That judgment is going to be expressed in "wrath" in the coming "day of wrath." It is going to probe beneath the surface of things in that day and deal with "the secrets of men." And if any should enquire what exactly "wrath" may mean, we are told in further detail when it is said that to those contentious, and who do not obey the truth, God will render "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish" (ver. 9), and that without any respect of persons.
There is nothing surprising in these statements. They are guise after the analogy of those dealings of God's government which are visible to us. He most evidently has attached temporal penalties to sins, which are often clearly to be seen in this life. Why not, then, the full and proper penalties in the life to come?
Another question now comes up for settlement. Granted that the future punishment of sin is a reality, what is to be its character? Is it remedial and reformatory, or is it penal and retributory? A very important question, for the answer to it will go a long way towards settlement of the subsequent question as to its duration. If punishment in the life to come is with the object of making its subjects better, it stands to reason that it cannot be for ever.
Is future punishment spoken of in Scripture as an instrument of reformation? Is hell to be a great penitentiary, designed to effect that betterment in recalcitrant mankind which the preaching of grace never effected? We unhesitatingly answer, No.
Not only do we answer, No, but we go further and assert that at no time do we find reformation produced by God's dealings in judgment. In Egypt God dealt with Pharaoh, increasing the severity of His strokes. Was his heart softened? No, it was hardened. Later, God dealt in the same way with His apostate people Israel as He said He would in Leviticus 26. After foretelling some of the dreadful calamities to come He says in verse 23, "If ye will not be reformed by Me in these things . . . then will I . . . punish you yet seven times for your sins." Were they reformed? No; the extremes" punishments indicated came upon them as a nation. Concerning future judgment we read in Revelation 16: 11 how men will blaspheme the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and will not repent of their deeds.
Today, thank God, men do repent, but why? Because, as Romans 2: 4 tells us, it is "the goodness of God" that leads to repentance. But it is this very chapter that asserts that if men do not suffer the goodness of God to take them by the hand and lead them to repentance, they will find themselves seized by the severity of God and haled to judgment.
We do not need to go outside that passage to discover what character the judgment of God bears. It is said to be "against them which commit such things," for they are "worthy of death" according to the last verse of Romans 1. The sinner is asked if he thinks that he shall "escape the judgment of God." This language is not that which befits reformation but points clearly to retribution.
The fact is, this idea that hell is a kind of penitentiary, which is hardly distinguishable from the purgatory of the Romanist, cuts right at the roots of the Gospel. Salvation never has been, is not today, and never will be by reformation. Salvation is by faith and on the ground of the penalty and retribution of sin having been borne — of old typically in connection with the sacrifices, now borne really and fully by the sacrifice of Christ Himself upon the Cross.
Salvation by a reformation which, it is claimed, the fires of hell will produce, might be conceivable IF it were accomplished today by a reformation which the Gospel produces. Since, however, it is to-day only to be found in the bearing of sin's righteous penalty and retribution by another, the Lord Jesus Christ, it could only be found in eternity by a similar bearing of the penalty, and this will never be; for Christ will not suffer again, and no sinner can take up the penalty and exhaust it. If a sinner passes under sin's penalty, under it he must remain forever.
No Scripture referring to future punishment treats it as a matter of reformation, and a great many of the passages are so worded as clearly to negative that idea, and show it is a matter of retribution As an instance of this latter class take 1 Peter 4: 17, 18. That Apostle asks, "If it [judgment] first begin at us [Christians] what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God? and if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" He evidently knew well enough that no one with any show of truth could turn round and say, "Why, of course, the end of those that obey not the Gospel will be just the same as that of those who obey: the ungodly and sinners will ultimately appear, refined by age-long fires, in the same heaven as the godly and the saints."
That which lies ahead of the ungodly and sinners as their end is "judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb. 10: 27).
Now we approach the fateful question: —
Does Scripture indicate that this coming fiery indignation of God against sinners will be forever? The answer is that it clearly does so.
Take as one example out of many scriptures, Matthew 25: 46. The words we allude to were spoken by the Lord Himself as the climax of His description of the judgment He will execute on the living nations assembled before Him, as He begins His millennial reign. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
That particular judgment, then, will have a twofold issue. It will be either life or punishment. Life in its full and proper sense will embrace all that aggregate of privileges, relationships, and blessings, the crown of all being the knowledge of the Lord, of which the earth will then be full. Punishment will embrace all those woes and penalties which are appropriate to the state of sin in which men generally are found, and to the individual sins of those in question, including the crowning one of the rejection of the Divine testimony through those whom the King acknowledges as His brethren. And both the life and the punishment are eternal. No one seems anxious to prove that eternal life is not eternal. Multitudes labour to explain that eternal punishment is not eternal. Why? It is simply a case of the prisoner in the dock revolting against his sentence! Apart from such prejudice — natural enough, but very fatal if indulged in — there is no reason for denying to eternal in the first half of the sentence what is freely admitted as to it in the second. Scripturally both parts stand or fall together.
This scripture is only one out of many that might be cited, from the solemn warnings of our Lord as to the worm that never dies and "the fire that never shall be quenched," in the Gospels, to the awful words as to "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death," in the last book of the New Testament. There really is no doubt as to what is the testimony of Scripture on the point, though the attempts to juggle with its words and make them give another voice have been, and still continue to be, without number.
With all the ingenuity that has been expended and wasted in this way only two alternatives to eternal punishment have ever been imagined. The one is that in some way or other all will finally be saved. This is known as "universalism." The other is that man naturally just dies as the beasts that perish and that endless being and existence are only his as born again and in Christ. This is known as "annihilationism" or the "conditional immortality" theory.
Now one verse of Scripture — John 3: 36 — utterly destroys both theories. We read: " He that believeth not the Son shall not see life." The universalist theory is that ultimately, no matter how remote the age may be, he shall see life. The Lord Jesus says he shall NOT. He added, "But the wrath of God abideth on him." According to the annihilationist he is non-existent and therefore not there for the wrath of God to abide upon. According to the Lord Jesus he is there and upon him the wrath abides, without any hint of a moment when it ceases to abide.
The Lord Jesus thus, with Divine foreknowledge, negatived these specious theories of a later age.
By this denial of the two rival theories, therefore, we come back to the solemn fact, so abundantly stated in a positive way in Scripture, that there is such a thing as future punishment, that it is in the nature of solemn retribution for sin, and that once falling it endures for ever.
That the punishment of sin should be eternal is a dreadful thought. Can it be defended as just, and therefore right?
It is truly a dreadful thought, and the reality will be more dreadful still; but, then, sin is a dreadful thing. Who can measure sin's demerit? Can we embrace within our finite minds the full bearing, the uttermost ramifications, of an act of lawless rebellion against God? No, indeed. That would be as impossible as to embrace within our arms the solar system of which this earth is a very insignificant part. Who are we, then, to form and express opinions as to what may be the just and proper punishment to fit the case?
God is "the Judge of all the earth" and He will do right. Let us quit the folly of attempting to pronounce upon what He ought to do, and rather pay attention to what He has stated in the Scriptures that He will do; for that, and that alone, will ultimately stand.
Is it, however, quite certain that the Greek word rendered "eternal" and "everlasting" in our version really has the force of "endless"? May it not just mean "age-long," as its derivation would indicate?
As we have before observed, the derivation of a word settles little or nothing; it is its usage that matters. It is quite true that the Greek adjective aionios is built up from aion — an age, hence age-lasting may have been one of its meanings. The word, however, acquired the sense of eternal, and this is its sense in Scripture, as a good concordance will easily show you. It is used in regard to God, the Spirit, salvation, redemption, life, and many other great verities of the faith. So that we may say that except it does denote endlessness we know of nothing at all that is endless.
One of the most conclusive passages we can cite on this point is 2 Corinthians 4: 18, where the Apostle contrasts the things which are seen with those not seen. The former, he says, are "temporal," the latter, "eternal."
Here the word eternal MUST be used in the sense of "having no end," otherwise it would be no true contrast to temporal, which means "having an end." The seen things may endure for many thousands of years — for ages, as we speak. They may be age-long but they have an end. The unseen things abide not for ages merely, but for ever. They have no end.
Here, then, we shall surely find used the true and proper word for eternal if the Greek language possesses it, and not merely a word meaning "age-lasting." We turn up a Greek Testament, and what word do we find? —
Could proof be stronger that in Scripture usage aionios means eternal in its true and proper sense?
Some people think that eternal punishment cannot be reconciled with the fact that God is love, and therefore they refuse to believe it. Is there any force in this argument?
None whatever. The Scriptures reveal equally both facts, so that those who speak thus are really levelling their accusation of inconsistency at the Bible.
As a matter of fact, however, there is no inconsistency at all, but the very reverse. The strongest possible abhorrence is quite consistent with the strongest possible affection; we would indeed go further and say it is inseparable from it. It is impossible to regard any one with deep love and not heartily hate all that imperils that person in any way.
There is nothing, therefore, incompatible with God's love in His declared purpose to segregate all that is evil in eternity. At present good and evil seem hopelessly mixed in this world. A day is coming in which they will be finally disentangled. Good will bask in the sunshine of His favour. Evil will lie eternally beneath His frown. Thus, evil, eternally shut up in its own place, and enduring its just penalty, will no longer be able to threaten the peace and blessing of God's redeemed creation.
No one regards the isolation of small-pox patients or the still more sorrowful life-isolation of lepers as measures incompatible with benevolence amongst men. Why, then, object to God acting with similar intent in eternity?
Hell is sometimes painted in such lurid colours that minds are revolted. Is there foundation for this?
Imagination has, we fear, often run riot with this solemn subject, and people sometimes mistake Dante's Inferno for the hell of the Bible. This has furnished a useful handle to those who would deny the whole subject. The Bible speaks as ever in the language of reserve and restraint, yet the glimpses it gives are full of terror and it evidently is not intended that they should be otherwise.
To be incarcerated in sin's great prison-house for all eternity in conscious torment will be a fearful thing, and it is the kindness of God that plainly warns us of sin's consequences.
Moreover, it is evidently God's way to have a memorial of sin's effects, even when those effects are otherwise not visible. During the millennial age, for instance, when the face of the earth will be smiling with abundant fruitfulness, and mankind will be richly blessed, there will be certain spots of which it is written, "they shall not be healed; for they shall be given to salt" (Ezek. 47: 11), and also in some way "the carcases of the men that have transgressed" against the Lord will be preserved so that men shall "go forth and look, upon" them (Isa. 66: 23, 24). It will be salutary for those blessed in that delightful age to have before them reminders of sin's former havoc both in nature and amongst men.
May there not be an analogy between God's action in such matters and His action in the far greater matter of an eternal hell? Who can affirm that the solemn doom of the lost in the lake of fire may not have some such service to render throughout eternity?
Is it clear from Scripture that the souls of men are immortal? The doctrine of eternal punishment can hardly be maintained apart from that.
In Scripture the adjectives "mortal" and "immortal" are applied to man's body, and we do not find the phrase "immortal soul." Yet it is quite clear that the soul, or spiritual part of man, survives death. Our Lord said, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. 10: 28). He used here a word of strong force, meaning "to kill utterly or entirely." A feeble man may easily thus kill the body of another, but the soul is immortal and eludes him. The Lord added, "fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," and here He changed the word and used another, which means, "to mar or ruin, as regards the purpose for which a thing exists." It is the word used for perish in John 3: 16, and for the perishing of the bottles in Matthew 9: 17. It is also used in Matthew 27: 20, when we read of the leaders persuading the multitude "that they should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus." A very clear proof this, that destruction does not mean annihilation.
The whole verse teaches, first, that the soul is not mortal like the body, and, second, that in hell God intends not to annihilate, but to bring down into ruin, the whole man, both soul and body.
The soul, therefore, IS immortal, for man has it in connection with spirit, receiving it by the Divine in-breathing as Genesis 2: 7 records. Becoming a "living soul" in this fashion, man is not as the; beasts which perish.
There are many who argue that just as death is ceasing to exist, so the lake of fire, which is the second death, must imply total cessation of existence. Is this reasoning sound?
Viewed as a piece of reasoning, it is about as feeble and fallacious as can be. Were we to reply in reasoning vein, we should simply observe that if death is ceasing to exist then there can be no second death. You can't cease to exist in any proper sense, and yet exist so as to cease to exist in a second death! What strange things men will say in their efforts to overthrow the plain truth of God.
Yet, superficially, the statement has the appearance of being a real objection. This is derived from the giving of a false value to one of the great words of Scripture, viz. death.
This word occurs first in Genesis 2: 17, and Genesis 3 is the record of how the death sentence fell on our first parents. Its use in the Bible is constant until we reach the last chapter but one of the New Testament, where we find "a new heaven and a new earth" where "there shall be no more death," and yet at the same time 'the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Now, right through, we affirm that death NEVER means "ceasing to exist," but always has the force of separation: either, the separation of the creature spiritually and morally from God, in which sense men are "dead in trespasses and sins;" or the separation of soul and spirit from the body, which is death physically; or yet again the final separation of the whole man, if unrepentant and unsaved, from God and all that is good and bright and worth possessing, in the lake of fire, and that is the second death.
The first use of the word death in Genesis 2 and 3 clearly bears this out. God threatened Adam with death on the day of his disobedience. Adam disobeyed and lived on to the age of nine hundred and thirty years. Was it, then, an idle threat? Not at all. The day he sinned he died, in the first sense of the word, i.e. he became totally separated and estranged from his Maker, "dead in sins." His physical death was deferred inasmuch as the Lord brought death that day upon some other denizen or denizens of the gar 'en and clothed the guilty sinners with their skins. Centuries after, physical death supervened. Adam then passed out of all touch with this world, but he exists as regards God. As the Lord Himself said, "all live unto Him" (Luke 20: 38).
We therefore repeat with emphasis: Death, in Scripture, does not mean "ceasing to exist."
So many people, apparently true Christians, cannot accept the teaching of eternal punishment. Is it of such great moment whether they do or whether they do not?
Seeing that all the items of God's truth are not so many isolated fragments, but one whole, each item being like a stone of an arch, it matters much. Knock out one stone and you never know which will go next.
Suppose that, after all, eternal punishment is a mistake, then whichever alternative view we adopt we must at least conclude that sin is a matter much less grave than we had supposed; that its demerit, though perhaps considerable, cannot be infinite. That being so, we need not suppose that an infinite sacrifice is needed to atone for it, nor, consequently, that it must be necessary for a Person of infinite worth and value to become that sacrifice. Logically, therefore, we can abandon without difficulty the great truth of Atonement by blood, and of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. We could quite consistently and conveniently become of Unitarian persuasion.
And as a matter of fact and history, it is to Unitarianism, full-blown, that the denial of eternal punishment has always led, though not all advance to the final conclusions with giant strides.
That is why the denial of eternal punishment is a matter of such gravity.
Sound ministry in response to the errors of Universalism. The disproportionate number of Early Church Fathers holding this error has led me to this consideration
Don Raymond