FBC Watchdog Part II: The Epitome of Godless Irrationalism

Here is my continued review of FBC Watchdog as promised. I pick up right where I left off the other day.

FBC Watchdog then made this ridiculous and outrageous statement in a personal exchange in the comments section of his blog, Ed says "You can hate God's Word and love Jesus? Impossible!" No one has said they hate God's word. They just said they don't have to believe it ALL to place their faith in Christ Jesus. The atheist and fundamentalist seem to agree on this view. Their position is that no one should trust Christ or believe in God unless they believe in the sun standing still and talking donkeys, which NONE of us do. Fundies might want to rethink their position.

Here is the claim in as clear a language as one can state it: “You do not have to believe all of God’s word in order to love Jesus!” Now, why should we love Jesus? Why should we even believe that Jesus is a literal historical figure? Why should we believe God has a word and that some of it should be believed while some of it can or even should not be believed? I intend to show that FBC Watchdog not only destroys a particular brand of Christianity by his arguments, I will show he destroys even those parts of Christianity he wants to keep. FBC Watchdogs arguments are not only irrational at their very foundation; they are patently unbiblical, and therefore false.

FBC, as we shall all him, wants to pick from the Bible those accounts and teachings and doctrines that he likes and reject those that he does not like. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Men have been doing this to Scripture since Scripture began to exist. Even in the garden, the whole point was that Adam and Eve wanted to take that part of the covenant they liked and reject that part that they did not like. Now, FBC is pretending to use reason and science as his principle for rejecting the story of Balaam and his donkey. Scripture records this astonishing event in Numbers 22, And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” FBC unequivocally rejects this event as true history, inferring that it is rubbish. The inference seems to be that such a story is foolish top to bottom. Donkeys do not speak. We have never observed a talking donkey. Everything we know from science tells us that a donkey cannot speak. FBC completely ignores the phrase, wayyiptaḥ yhw ʾet-pî hāʾātôn, “and the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey.” On the one hand, FBC believes that God created the donkey to be what it is, but somehow, God is helpless to make the donkey speak. Perhaps FBC should contemplate why it is that humans can speak.

There is another story that I believe FBC probably believes. That story is located in Matthew’s gospel. And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Here we have the story of ‘the Jesus’ FBC claims to love and of his human conception. Mary apparently conceived Jesus, not from copulation with a human man, but as a result of the divine action of the Holy Spirit. That’s right. A virgin became pregnant by the supernatural work of God. Now, I am going to suggest that if God can bring Mary to conceive Christ without sexual intercourse, it is no great thing for Him to make a donkey talk. Just like the Balaam story, where there is an angel and supernatural phenomenon taking place, the Christ story begins in precisely the same kind of circumstances. One has to ask, why does FBC cherish the latter and make fun of the former.

A --> B

A

/ B

If miracles are possible, then God can make a donkey speak.

Miracles are possible

Therefore, God can make a donkey speak.

From this argument, we have no rational ground to reject the possibility that a donkey could have spoken. We can also believe in the virgin birth and even the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let’s use the same Modus Ponens structure and change our referents.

If miracles are not possible, no donkey could speak in the history of donkeys.

Miracles are not possible

Therefore, no donkey has ever spoken.

From this argument, we can agree with FBC that the Balaam story is rubbish. But if we are going to be logically consistent, that is, if we are going to reject Balaam’s story on principle of accepting the above argument, then we must also reject the virgin birth and the miracle of a physical resurrection of Christ as well. Now, Paul tells us that if Christ has not risen from the dead, all our gospel preaching is in vain. Paul writes, kenon ara [kai] to kērygma hēmōn, kenē kai hē pistis hymōn;. And if our preaching is in vain, then our faith, the Christian faith is in vain. You see, Mr. and Mrs. Enlightened emergent ones, if we remove the talking donkey or a talking snake, we destroy Christianity.

He had also already made this remark, Can I believe that I'm a sinner and trust Jesus for my salvation without also believing in talking donkeys and stoning disobedient children? You tell me. Read my previous posts. Why can't I believe that I'm a sinner in need of a savior without also believing that the sun stood still? Why can't a Muslim believe parts of the Quran without believing he must kill the infidel. Because fanatical "holy men of Gawd" manipulate him into believing all or none. But I've already written a few posts on this. Go back and read them. I believe the gospel. Not in talking donkeys. The atheist says then I must also reject God and Christ. The fundy agrees with the atheist on that point. And the church continues to decline in numbers and depth.

FBC Watchdog wants to accept the supernatural principle of salvation, that a man dying 2,000 years ago could really, really, really do something amazing in me today, while at the same time rejecting that very principle because it seems unscientific and irrational when it comes to a talking donkey, snake, or particular ethical code. Somehow a man hanging on a cross claiming to be God and claiming to not only be capable of atoning for sin, but actually atoning for the sins of millions of others is rational while believing that this same God could make a donkey talk is in someway, irrational. Such a man holding to these kinds of beliefs is a living, breathing, wandering contradictio.

You see, the entire idea of salvation in Christ transcends both science and human reason. Now, if Christ is the very core of the unfolding plan of redemption in the biblical record, and Christianity certainly affirms this to be the case, and it is necessarily true that such redemption transcends both human reason and science, then it follows that neither of these methods could be used as criteria from which to judge the credibility, truthfulness, or reliability of the biblical record. But I must be careful here not to send the signal that I believe that science and reason are somehow hostile to revelation. I do not believe something so absurd as that revelation is inherently inconsistent with science and reason. What I do mean is that fallen men, men who have not been endowed with the gift of faith, misuse science and reason and by that misuse, they not only pervert Scripture, but they also corrupt natural science and human reason.

Summary Facts Regarding the Basic Claims of Christianity

Before I cover a few of the most basic tenets of Christianity I want to make this statement loud and clear: Christianity is a supernatural religion. It is a religion that is built on truths that are transcendent. These truths reach beyond the bounds of finite human reason and natural science. Christianity makes claims that are at their core, paradoxical in nature. Many of these beliefs, if shown to be false, would change Christianity so radically that Christianity as we have come to know it would cease to exist. In Short there would be no Christianity, at least not in any meaningfully objective sense.

Creation

God, a being no one has ever seen created the universe and all that is in it from nothing. Not only is this view unscientific based on the criteria of science, it is irrational based on the criteria of autonomous human reason. Yet, unless you believe this claim, you are not a Christian. And unless this claim is true, Christianity is false. In other words, the principle FBC uses to reject a talking donkey also requires that we reject this claim as well.

The Fall

Adam and Eve were created miraculously from the dust of the earth. They were created perfect and without sin. God spoke to them and commanded them not to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And if they ate from that tree, they would surely die. If I embrace FBC’s principle, there is no way I can reasonably accept the story of Adam and Eve with a straight face. I must reject the story of man’s creation and fall if I am going to consistent. Once again, rejection of this account is to contradict and disagree with Jesus Christ Himself, not to mention the divine revelation, God’s word that is. To reject this account of history is to reject Christianity. The fall of Adam and the redemption of mankind from out of that fall become a myth, a fairy tale and the Christ event becomes absolutely meaningless.

Miracles

To reject a talking donkey because it is supernatural and therefore unscientific is to reject that God spoke to Moses from a burning bush. It is to reject the snake in Eden. It is to reject the miracle of fulfilled prophecy of a coming Messiah. It is to reject the virgin birth, all the miracle claims of the gospel writers account of Christ. It is to reject the resurrection. It is to reduce Christianity to legend, an interesting myth but nothing to be taken seriously.

Trinity

Christianity teaches that the God of Scripture is the self-contained ontological Trinity. He is three persons in one being, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. There is a unity and a diversity in the Trinity that defies human logic. The doctrine of the trinity is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. It is Christianity. Without the Triune God of Scripture, Christianity is no more. But if I accept FBC’s principle that results in the rejection of a talking donkey, I also have to reject the Trinity. Essentially, I have to reject Christianity. Looks like the atheists and fundies are far more consistent in their reasoning than FBC.

I could go on to talk about other essential doctrines of Christianity, like the Christ Event for example and how no one could ever explain the person of Jesus Christ within the bounds of biological science and human reason. The existence of Jesus Christ as the God-Man defies all scientific explanation and reason fares no better in its attempts to reconcile the apparent contradiction. Moreover, the very idea that Christians are saved, that we needed saving, needed redemption, needed a new birth is complete and absolute rubbish if I apply FBC’s principle. The same principle he applies to Balaam.

In the end, it comes down to FBC’s view of Scripture. It comes down to his view of epistemic authority. FBC rejects Scripture as his authority for justified true belief and in its place he wants to insert science and human reason. But in so doing, he demonstrates that if he really wants to go down this path, he must become an all-out atheist. Right now, FBC is a closet atheist. The principle that he has embraced does not allow for things like Christian theism. Sooner or later, he will have to give up the ‘Jesus that he says he loves, that he says saved him’ or he will have to believe in talking donkeys and snakes. There is no middle ground. Those who love God hear (do) God’s Word. You cannot refuse to place your faith in God’s Word while claiming to place your faith in God. You cannot accept the miracle of the Messiah and reject the miracle of a talking donkey because it is a miracle. That is the epitome of irrationalism.

The Emergent Apostate: A Paradigm for Deceptive Unbelief

As I continue to provide an apologetic for the traditional Christian belief about Scripture as over against, let’s call him Ted to respect his request not to be called by name, my detractor, I want to be clear that if the reader thinks we are going to provide the sort of argument Ted thinks he needs to change his mind, then he or she will be sorely disappointed. I told Ted at the beginning of our discourse over at Cannon Fodder that our basic disagreement was at the level of worldview. Specifically, my belief about the nature of Scripture and Ted’s belief about the nature of Scripture are radically contradictory. Ted has repeatedly argued that Scripture is not the Word of God, that it is not authoritative, that it is not binding, and that it is not inerrant. Ted argues that a person’s view on the nature of Scripture cannot rise above the level of opinion. It is all a matter of interpretation and since it is a matter of interpretation, there can be no final word on the subject. Now, it is not my purpose to write a defense of Scripture. I provided a previous post to that end. It is my intent to criticize Ted’s line of reasoning, his method of argumentation if you will.

First of all, we are gong to work with the definition of knowledge as justified true belief. We say that a person possesses knowledge when they hold a belief x, that they have good reason for believing x, and that x happens to be the case. Notice that if Ted is correct in his understanding of interpretation, he cannot know anything at all. The best he can do is form an opinion. Opinions, at least in this context, are not authoritative. Hence, God does not have these sorts of opinions. In order for Ted to refute traditional Christianity, he will have to do better than give us his opinion. Second, Ted wishes to make claims about whether or not other people possess knowledge. For instance, he says that I cannot know God’s position on Luke’s belief that Adam was a historical person. To what does Ted appeal in order to substantiate his claim? After all, if everything is a matter of opinion and interpretation, so too is this view. And if this statement by Ted is nothing more than Ted’s opinion based on his own fallible interpretation, then why should I bother to pay any attention to what he says? Does Ted possess knowledge that all human opinions are just human opinions and that none of them ever rise to the level of knowledge? Would not such a position require omniscience? I suspect Ted would deny that he makes this claim even though this is the logical end of his argument.

Now, Ted believes that the Scriptures are not the Word of God. Ted’s belief is based on his claim that Bible never claims to be the Word of God. Is it the case that the Bible is not the Word of God? Does Ted demonstrate justified true belief?

The key to Ted’s claim to knowledge is in the second proposition: “Ted’s belief that the Bible is not the Word of God” is based on his view that the Bible does not make this literal claim about itself. Is this a good reason for Ted’s belief? Does the Bible have to say that it is the Word of God in order for me to believe that it is the Word of God? I do not know how such a proposition can be defended. Does Ted have to claim to be a man in order for someone to believe he is a man? Does my wife have to claim to be my wife before I believe that she is my wife? Does a dog have to claim that it is a dog in order for me to believe it is a dog? Are there other reasons that would justify my belief that the Bible is the Word of God? I think I have given those reasons. The Bible communicates with presumed final authority. The authors of Scripture refer to other parts of Scripture as the Word of God and binding. Jesus’ own position lends itself to this view. Ancient Judaism and historic Christianity have both held this view of Scripture. The history of the Bible itself demonstrates that at the very least, the Jewish and Christian authors, and leaders throughout the centuries testify to this belief. But more than that, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit on Christian beliefs lead us to conclude that the holy Scripture is the Word of God, binding, authoritative, inspired by God, and inerrant. Christianity as a system affirms the Bible is the Word of God. Christianity also affirms that only the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit can open human understanding to know this truth. Finally, Christianity affirms the belief that the Bible is the Word of God is a faith position.

The conclusion is that Ted’s reason for rejecting the belief that the Bible is the Word of God is simply not plausible. It follows then that Ted’s reason for his belief is not a good reason. Since knowledge requires good reason for the belief, we can conclude that Ted cannot possible know that the Bible is not the word of God because his knowledge claim involves insufficient reasons. What we end up with is that Ted believes that the Bible is not the X. But his reason for believing that the Bible is not X is logically implausible. Additionally, it is actually not the case that the Bible is not X. Hence, Ted’s claim to knowledge in this case turns out to be a logically indefensible argument. I should also mention that Ted’s claim that I nor anyone else can know that the Bible is the Word of God is even more of a epistemological and logical blunder than his claim that it is not the Word of God. The reasons are obvious and I will not get into them here. How could Ted know what someone else knows?

The Nature of God

Ted also argues against the traditional view of God’s righteous nature. Ted claims that the actions of OT Israel, where children were killed are immoral. The Christian God, Ted claims, is a loving God and He would never participate in such conduct. First of all, Ted provides no argument for how he knows this about the Christian God. Remember the requirements for true knowledge. Ted must believe that God is X; he must have good reasons for believing that God is X; and X must actually be the case. But when pressed about his claims, Ted provides no objective reasons whatsoever. All he gives us are his own opinions about what God is like. The basis of Ted’s opinions is not objectively grounded in knowledge about God but rather, Ted’s feelings or sense of what God must be like. Ted may want to quote the New Testament in order to support his view. But if he does, he will have to explain to us why his fallible interpretation should be preferred over two millennia of Church history and scholarship. Secondly, Ted will have to explain why he thinks Scripture is unreliable in other places but reliable when it comes to this or that isolated text that describes God as loving. An example of God’s wrath is displayed in Acts 5 when Ananias and Sapphira were both executed by God for lying. Here we have two people who sold their property and gave half of it to the Church. Couldn’t God have overlooked a little vanity? After all, to give half is more than generous. Yet, God killed both of them. Ted may retort that this story should be taken as myth. But Luke gives us no reason to think that the story is anything but actual history.  We are not entitled to relegate historical narrative to myth just because we don’t like how the narrative depicts God.

Ted says that it is immoral for God to send a 16 year-old boy to hell just because the boy sinned for 3-4 years. Now, this is an example straight out of Rob Bell. This is emergent nonsense. By thinking along such lines, Ted reveals a gross misunderstanding of God’s righteous nature as well as the nature of sin. Sin is behavior contrary to the perfect holy nature of an infinite God. Temporal punishment would never satisfy the nature of an infinitely righteous God. Additionally, Revelation 21:8 confines all men who were guilty of rejecting God in this life to eternal damnation and this is without respect to their age.

The Nature of Man

Ted has also denied that men are born sinners. Paul explicitly refutes this view in Romans 5:12-21. Ted’s view of sin does not comport with Paul’s teaching on Sin or on Jesus teaching on the necessity to be born again. David clearly said he was formed in sin in his mother’s womb. Men are not good people that make pretty bad mistakes from time to time. We are wicked people who engage in grossly wicked conduct from birth. But for grace, no man would ever submit his life to the holy God of Scripture. Ted denies that men hate God yet when the God revealed in Scripture is described to Ted; it is not hard to see how Ted feels about Him. He is an immoral monster unworthy of worship.

The Nature of Language

Another interesting move by Ted in his effort to eradicate historic Christian orthodoxy is his attempt to assign the biblical texts to that of the products of men, natural works with no supernatural components. Moreover, Ted claims that the OT historical narrative is really best understood as myth rather than Jewish men like Moses writing under the influence and control of the Holy Spirit to produce exactly what God wanted written. Why does Ted believe this? He claims that since all the other ANE narratives contain myth, so too must the Jewish religious texts. Once again, we have to ask if this argument is logically cohesive. Upon examination we discover that it is not. It commits the genetic fallacy, and that, in a very loose way. It is simply wrong to think that because writers from this era utilized myth as a literary device, that the Hebrew writers like Moses must have used it as well. Why should we believe this? Remember true knowledge is defined as follows: one believes X; one has good reasons for believing X, and X happens to be the case. Does Ted have good reasons for thinking that the Hebrew writers wrote just like every other ANE writer? What is the connection? Why is Scripture classified with those documents when it is clearly unique? Moreover, is all the material from the ANE mythic in nature? Are there details that are intended to be literal historical records? The problem for Ted is that he does not like the behavior of God on the one hand, the miracles on the other, and then, Ted’s idol of modern science that serves as his sole authority for what he will and will not believe. As it turns out, the argument that the OT is filled with myth or legend is based on an overly loose view of how ANE writers approached history on the one hand and, more importantly, it completely ignores the unique character of the sacred Scripture on the other hand.

For example, when we compare the Genesis creation account with the Enuma Elish, we observe a number of very significant differences. First, the Babylonians gods are identified with nature while the God of Genesis is separate from all of creation. The gods of Babylon depend on magical incantations while the God of Genesis is viewed as powerful within Himself. The God of Genesis is one while the Babylonian gods are many. The creation account in Genesis is orderly and structured while the Babylonian account takes place through intense conflict and warfare. These are just a few significant differences. In addition, the Enuma Elish was written somewhere around the 18^th to the 12^th century while Moses wrote Genesis around the 15^th century. Given the context of Moses’ life, it is simply a position of rank unbelief to think that he would have borrowed from such a pagan polytheistic source.

In summary

Ted’s doctrine on Scripture is based on his own indefensible claim that the Bible must claim to be the Word of God. Now, I believe the Scriptures actually do make that claim and they make it clearly. But for the sake of argument we shall be satisfied with debunking Ted’s method of argumentation.

Ted’s doctrine of God is based on his own philosophy as opposed to God’s own divine self-disclosure. He thinks he picks Christ over the God of the OT when all he has done is make the revelation for both completely unreliable, at least within his system.

Ted’s claim that men are not born sinners and that they do not hate God is a matter of outright contradiction to the teaching of Scripture on the subject. 1 Corinthians 1-2, Romans 1-3, 8 are all clear about this. Finally, Ted’s philosophy of language literally leads to skepticism. Based on Ted’s own view of true knowledge, no one could really know anything with any authority whatsoever. And if they could, then Ted’s entire argument reduces to nonsense. Ted’s entire approach is consistent with that of the emergent Church. They stand for nothing, or so they think, and question everything.

Ted’s position on the nature of Scripture, God, humanity, and language are each non-Christian positions. Ted’s argument is an argument from unbelief. Whatever Jesus Ted claims to love, it is not the Jesus who was brutally crucified today, 2,000 years ago to satisfy the wrath of a righteous God so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.

פסח מאושר

ἠγέρθη
ἠγέρθη αληθεια

What Does the Bible Teach About Hell? (Pt 2)

The first step in attaining truth about the existence and nature of hell is to recognize that we have presuppositions about the subject that need to be submitted to the source for truth about the subject itself. The only true source of truth we have for understanding the existence and nature of hell is the Bible. So, in order to understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about hell, we must turn to the Bible and the culture in which in was written.

Before I turn to the subject at hand, it should be noted that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment should not be viewed in isolation from the rest of Christian doctrine. It has implications on other cardinal teachings of Christianity, such as the atonement, judgment, and sin. The impacts to the basic teachings of Christianity will become obvious as I move through the issue of the subject at hand.

Turning to the cultural and historical context of the concept of hell, we find that the idea of eternal conscious torment has a very long history. Concerning this belief in ancient Judaism, Ronald Eisenberg writes,

“A response to the fear of death was the concept that individuals survive as incorporeal spirits. Related to this was the belief in retributive judgment, with the righteous rewarded with eternal bliss in Paradise while the wicked are punished in Hell. The final mitigation of the terror of death in rabbinic literature was the belief in the resurrection of the dead and the world to come.”^[1]

In fact, if one investigates the subject of hell and the idea of judgment and eternal conscious torment, they find that it was not a modern invention, but extends back as far as records exist on the subject with views varying on the state of the wicked. We can draw two conclusions from the historical evidence. First, we can conclude that the notion of eternal conscious torment of the wicked predated Christ by several centuries. Second, we can safely conclude that beliefs regarding the state of the wicked cannot be trusted. We cannot rely on extra-biblical historical evidence in order to make definite conclusions about the nature of the state of the wicked in death. However, the historical evidence provides excellent guidance on what the Bible is talking about when it talks about the state of the wicked beyond the living. For that reason, understanding the history of this conversation is extremely beneficial to our understanding of Scripture on the subject.

Judaism is the source of two words used to form the concept of judgment and torment of the wicked after death. Abyssos means a particular place of terror, which constitutes a refuge for demons; gehenna is the eschatological fiery hell to which the ungodly will be eternally condemned at the last judgment.[2] But where did these ideas arise? What was the source of this thinking? Was it the product of sheer conjecture? We are better off reserving judgment until we have more evidence. The best approach is to resist drawing a conclusion until we survey all the available material. Now, that being said, this is a blog and one should not expect an academic level contribution to the subject at hand. Rather, what one should expect is a very high-level overview of the main points of evidence either for or against the orthodox Christian doctrine of hell. Space and time prohibit anything more than that.

We have already explained that ancient Jews discussed the state of the wicked after death. It is clear that there were varying opinions regarding the subject. Now, we move forward to Jewish thought about the existence of hell during the second temple period. You see, the Old and New Testaments are our source for our beliefs about hell and both were written within Jewish context and it is that context that should guide our understanding of what the Bible means when the Bible talks about hell.

The book of 1 Enoch talks extensively about hell. This book was written around 100 B.C. and is even quoted by Jude. It declares, “And the judgment was held first over the stars, and they were judged and found guilty, and went to the place of condemnation, and they were cast into an abyss, full of fire and flaming, and full of pillars of fire.”^[3]

Another book written around the time of Jesus is Pseudo-Philo and it also describes this place of torment in several places. This work talks about a place where God sends the condemned and describes it as an abyss, full of fire and flame (63:4). In addition, two other books written near the end of the first century, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch describe a place of eternal torment for the damned. These are just a few references to this place of fire and eternal torment specifically designed for the wicked and condemned.

While none of these texts should be understood as describing hell in an authoritative sense, the fact remains that they are excellent resources and quite useful for helping us understand the context in which Jesus and the authors of Scripture spoke and wrote about hell. Hence, they help us understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about hell. What this means, as Preston Sprinkle puts it, “The traditional doctrine of hell correlates perfectly with its Jewish context.” (Source)

One text that stands out in the OT is found in Daniel 12:2. “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”^[4] The Hebrew word עוֹלָם, ʿôlām, carries the basic meaning of forever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, and even ancient. But as Allan Macrae points out, “Though ʿôlām is used more than three hundred times to indicate indefinite continuance into the very distant future, the meaning of the word is not confined to the future.”^[5] Before we leap into the abyss of lexicographical confusion, a word or two should be said about the place of lexical studies in the process of exegesis. Moses Silva points out, “In the first place, paying so much attention to a word and (usually) its derivatives often leads to an exaggerated estimate of etymological studies…Second, there is the danger of illegitimate totality transfer,” a somewhat awkward phrase intended to stress the simply fact that any one instance of a word will not bear all the meaning possible for that word.”[6] There is almost always a possible range of meanings with any word in any language and the same holds true for the biblical text. It is completely illegitimate to argue that because a word could mean something else that it must then mean something else. This is precisely the tactic that is employed by bloggers at Patheos like Rebecca Trotter, Ben Corey, and authors like Rob Bell.

The single greatest factor that goes into the meaning of any word is the context in which it is used. What is interesting about Daniel is that he selects a word that in over 90% of the cases where is it employed in the Hebrew text, it is used in the sense of everlasting or perpetual time. Our question is how is it used in Dan. 12:2.

Daniel is referring to a time in the future when mean will wake. This is obviously a reference to the future resurrection. Some of these that are raised will do so to everlasting life. There can be absolutely no question here but that Daniel is using ʿôlām in an everlasting or perpetual sense. It is a life that will have no end. It is perpetual life. The bad news for folks like Trotter, Corey, and Bell is that Daniel uses the very same word and structure to refer to a second class of people that will be resurrected to perpetual and everlasting contempt and shame.

First, if the second meaning of the word is something other than perpetual, then the first use must carry that meaning as well. If group B is being resurrected to a particular sort of life for a particular time then so too must group A. In other words, if the latter group’s contempt is less than everlasting, then the former group’s life must also be limited. But who is teaching that? Would Bell, Trotter, and Corey accept the view that heaven is not everlasting? Would they suggest that somehow we have misunderstood the length of stay we will experience in heaven? If this all hinges on the meaning of a couple of words without respect to their context, then Bell, Trotter, and Corey should be just as concerned that we have also misunderstood the Bible’s teaching on heaven.

I anticipate two to three more posts on this subject. Those posts will deal with the very poor lexicography in the arguments of those that don’t like the Bible’s teaching on hell. In the end we will turn our attention to the heretical views of universalism, which is also embraced and promulgated by these teachers. The reason such teachers don’t attack the Bible’s teaching on heaven is really quite simple: they like it. They like the idea of heaven and of it lasting forever. But if you choose to get rid of hell on lexicographical grounds, then heaven has no choice but to go with it. Either man will occupy heaven and hell forever or they will occupy neither forever. These false teachers are to be commended: they have unwittingly destroyed the Bible’s teachings that redeemed men will dwell with God in a world without end.

           

---

^[1] Ronald L. Eisenberg, The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions, 1st ed. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), 75.

[2] H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT, Vol. 2, 205.

^[3] R. H. Charles and W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Enoch (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917), 77.

^[4] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Da 12:2.

^[5] Allan A. Macrae, “1631 עלם,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 672.

[6] Silva, Moses. Biblical Words and Their Meaning. 25.