Showing posts with label Rob Bell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rob Bell. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Putting The Gay Argument In Its Place
18. For
|
|
19. Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
|
|
20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
|
|
21. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
|
|
Participial clause, modifying those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Professing is actually strong asserting, or affirming themselves to be wise.
|
22. Professing to be wise, they became fools,
|
kai is a conjunction joining "the previous sentence with this one." Fallen humanity exchanged the glory of God for an image, singular. This has nothing to do with the Greek pantheon. It has to do with the fact that if the true God is not worshipped, then a created god will take his place in the mind of man. Man worships and image of his own making. Man has not created gods that are all derived from an image of man's own making. This image may take the form of man, birds, animals and crawling creatures. But it is one image; a created image.
|
23. And exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
|
dio, therefore. The principle here is that this sentence relates an inference drawn from the previous section. dio is an inferential conjunction and it is giving a deduction, conclusion, or summary to the preceding discussion. It was not because men were engaging in same sex relations while worshipping false gods that God gave them over to impurity. It was because they 1) suppressed the truth in unrighteousness by refusing to acknowledge God and 2) because they worshipped their own created image of God. For this reason, God poured out His wrath on them so that they were given to impurity. The idea of this impurity is sexual in nature. It is recognized as filthy behavior. God turned them over to this state.
|
24. THEREFORE God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them
|
Actually, "who": this is a relative clause. The relative clause refers back to v. 22, the ones that had become fools.
|
25. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
|
Dio touto. The clause introduced by dio touto is constrained to have a causal relation with the preceding discourse. In other words, God gave them over to degrading passions not because they were engaging in degrading passions during idolatry, but rather, because they were idolaters. It was their idolatry that provoked God to give them over to these degrading passions.
Note the epexegetical gar in the next sentence, expounding on the specifics of these degrading passions. In addition, we have elaboration of the point "men with men." The cause of this state was produced by humanity's suppression of the truth and its consequent idolatry. Confusion in worship produces confusion even in the most basic of natural behavior such as human sexuality. |
FOR THIS REASON God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
|
Kai conjunction now connecting the results of God's wrath with the sinful behavior of human autonomy. Because they did not acknowledge the truth of God and because they refused to worship the uncreated God, God gave them over to a depraved mind.
|
28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
|
Participial clause expounding on "those things which are not proper."
|
29. being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
|
continued exposition of "those things which are not proper." This is a bleak description of the human condition.
|
30. slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
|
Two groups are condemned: those who practice these things stand condemned along with those who approve of such things. This is a sobering rebuke that every interpreter should heed. Cranfield notes, "and a good many others have seen, that the man who applauds and encourages others in doing what is wicked is, even if he never actually commits the same wicked deed himself, not only as guilty as those who do commit it, but very often more guilty than they."
|
32. And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
|
The "gay Christian" debate is so lacking in credibility that it hardly merits much more than an answer and a sharp rebuke. We would not debate with a prostitute or a whore or a murderer or a pedophile would we? I suggest we answer these cavils with the kind of sharp and stinging rebuke their vile teachings deserve and excommunicate them and their supporters from the Church. This debate is a debate about men wanting to have sex with men and still be in the Church. It is a debate about women wanting to have sex with women and still wanting to be in the Church. It is about a group of perverse humans engaging in unnatural acts and demanding to be treated as if their behavior is perfectly natural. We must answer their challenge. That is a given. But we must do so in a way that makes it clear that we do not give any consideration to their claims for even a second. Their arguments are baseless, without exegetical support, and deserve ridicule and rejection. We cannot afford to inadvertently communicate even an ounce of respect for their claims.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
What Does the Bible Teach About Hell? – Conclusion
We now come to the place where we begin to explore what the
Bible is talking about when it talks about hell. The word “hell” appears in the
NASB New Testament 13 times. The Greek word translated into the English
language is Gehenna. Gehenna was a
ravine south of the city of Jerusalem currently known as the Wadi er–Rababeh,
running S-SW of the city. It is also, according to popular Jewish belief, a
place where the final judgment of God takes place. In fact, the liberal Jewish
reform movement said this about the idea of hell in Judaism:
We reassert the doctrine of
Judaism, that the soul of man is immortal, grounding this belief on the divine
nature of the human spirit, which forever finds bliss in righteousness and
misery in wickedness. We reject as ideas not rooted in Judaism the belief both
in bodily resurrection and in Gehenna and Eden (hell and paradise), as abodes
for everlasting punishment or reward.[1]
This liberal Jewish reform movement is seeking to remove the
traditional Jewish teaching on the subject of eternal life for the righteous
and eternal punishment for the wicked. In order for the doctrine of eternal
punishment to be purged from Jewish tradition, it must exist in Jewish
tradition. This indicates that the view of an eternal judgment and punishment
of the wicked has a very long and deep history in both Jewish and Christian
theology.
The first time we see the use of the term Gehenna in the NT is located in Mark
9:43-48. Jesus is talking about removing things that offend in our lives
because it is better for us to enter life crippled than to go into hell, into
the unquenchable fire not crippled. The first thing I notice is the Greek
expression, εἰς τὴν γέενναν,
εἰς τὸ πῦρ
τὸ ἄσβεστον, into hell, into the unquenchable fire.
Whatever hell is, it is a place of unquenchable fire according to Jesus. The
unquenchable fire is quite simply a fire that no one can extinguish. Should we
handle this text literally or as some sort of metaphor? If we decide that it is
a metaphor we are confronted with explaining what “life” means in the preceding
clause. When Jesus says it is better for you to enter life crippled than to go
to hell whole. If we take life at face value, literally, eternal life, then we
must take this description of hell literally as well.
Now, someone will add that it does not follow that eternal
fire means that a person going to hell will burn eternally. They could
eventually be released or they could burn up and cease to exist. Let’s take
another look at the text to see if Jesus reveals more about this place of fire
He calls hell. Jesus tells us ὅπου ὁ
σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ
καὶ τὸ πῦρ
οὐ σβέννυται. Hell is a place where their worm will not
die and the fire will not be extinguished. Now, this is an expression that was
used hundreds of years earlier to describe the very same place by Isaiah the prophet.
Isa. 66:24, uses the very same phrase. So what do Jesus and Isaiah mean by
“worm?” The idea is that the maggots will always have food. In other words,
while the fire and the worm usually run out of sustenance because the body is
consumed and no more, in this place that will not be the case. This condition
is pictured as an unending state, however one might understand that state.
Hell is referred to as a place where one is sentenced to go
according to Jesus in Matt. 23:33. It is a place where God has the authority to
send people in Luke 12:5. Jesus also uses it to describe the religious
hypocrites, calling them the sons of hell. James uses it as a description of
the dangers of the human tongue, describing it as set on fire by hell. One can
clearly see that there is more than one use of the word hell in the NT. But
just as we use words differently to mean different things, so too does the NT.
The question around how to understand a word revolves more around how it is
used than any it does any lexical data we may look at. Rebecca Trotter’s
material is, quite frankly, filled with one exegetical fallacy after another.
When she says that a particular Greek noun has one agreed upon meaning, she is
exposing her ignorance, not only of Greek and Hebrew, but of how any language
works. One has to look no further than how the NT uses “hell” to understand
that nearly any word has a range of possible meanings and the best way to
understand what a word means is to understand how it is being used. That is the
most basic issue in how we should engage in the “word study” step in biblical
exegesis.
At a minimum then, we know that the NT informs us that hell,
when it is used to describe the future abode of the dead is a place where God
assigns people that are wicked. We also know it to be a place with unquenchable
fire. What else then does the NT tell us about the future state of the wicked?
Will they burn up in this place or will they actually have a chance to be
released at some future time?
In Matthew 19, a rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked
Him what he must do to inherit “eternal life.” The Greek phrase is zoen aionion. Now, we all understand
this expression to mean “life that never ends.” They way Matthew uses the word aionion clearly indicates he means life
without duration. It is interesting to me that no one ever questions this
construction or the meaning of the word aionion
in these contexts where eternal life in heaven is the subject of the
conversation.
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus uses this very same construction to
refer to an eternal fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. If
we take life to be a state without end or duration, we must also take this fire
to be the same unless there is good reason in the text, some marker or device
indicating otherwise. In this case, no such device is present. In v.46 of this
same pericope, Jesus says, “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life.” Once more, this is the same construction we have
been dealing with all along. The word punishment here indicates that Jesus
means “severe suffering.” He contrasts this severe suffering with the eternal
life of the righteous. The wicked, according to Jesus will enter a place called
hell, which is a place where the fire is never quenched, and according to
Jesus, they will be subjected to severe suffering without duration, without
end. Daniel references this state in 12:2, calling it everlasting contempt.
John refers to two judgments in 5:29 of his gospel, calling them a resurrection
of life and a resurrection of judgment respectively.
The fact is that the Greek word aionios always means eternal, unending, without duration everywhere
it is used in the NT with two exceptions. In those exceptions the construction
involves the use of the word chronos.
This construction appears in Rom. 16:25 and Titus 1:2. Chronos actually can
mean a long period of time but it is also used to refer to points in time or a
moment in time. It is only when aionios
is used with chronos that it is not
referring to an unlimited or infinite amount of time. This means that 69 out of
the 71 times it is used in the NT, it is used to convey the sense of an
unending state.
This data, and I have only covered a tiny fraction of it,
clearly indicates that the wicked will be consigned to a place described by
unending fire where they will experience severe suffering that is also
unending. Since one cannot suffer if one does not exist, this effectively
closes off the option that the wicked will cease to exist. Moreover, it also
closes off the option that the wicked will be released from this state in the
future because the grammar does not support the notion of a “long period of
time.” Rather, the grammar clearly indicates the state to be eternal, without
end.
The end of the wicked is foretold in Revelation 20:10: And
the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone,
where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day
and night forever and ever.
If Rebecca Trotter, Ben Corey, Rob Bell, and others are
correct, that hell is not eternal after all, then neither is heaven. The
grammar that describes heaven is the same grammar that describes hell.
Furthermore, the implications of their message for the atonement of Christ are
far more significant than one could ever imagine. All one needs to do is simply
read the Scripture and they can surely understand why the Church has taught
from the very beginning that there is a literal place called hell with literal
fire where wicked people will enter and where they will suffer eternal
punishment without any possibility of escape or annihilation. So how do we
account for this challenge? It is really quite simple: philosophical
presuppositions about the kind of God that exists have been employed to
displace the divine self-disclosure of God in Scripture for the image of a god
that is far more tolerable and much less offensive and certainly must less
demanding than the one that actually exists.
[1]
Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green, eds., The Encyclopedia of Judaism (Leiden;
Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000), 164.
Friday, July 4, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)