Category Archives: Theology

What happens at death for believer and unbeliever?

Tombstone

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D. Gear

It is not unusual to hear or read comments like this in person or in an online Forum or blog, ‘There is no Hell, Hell was devised to scare people into believing in God. Believe or spend eternity in horrible pain, the choice is yours. God doesn’t send people to hell people send themselves to hell’ (Valdarama; this was formerly in the thread, ‘The debate on eternal hell fire’, Christian Forums, but it is now deleted).

The garbage of hell

In person, I have received the comment when the subject of hell was raised and I gave Jesus’ view, ‘You don’t believe in that garbage do you? That’s the stuff of fantasy land’

How do we respond? This is only a brief overview of what happens at death for all people.

1. If we start in the Bible with Romans 3:23 and the wages of sin being death, we have to ask the question, What is the nature of death? If we go way back to the beginning of the world and the fall into sin, we read that God said:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (Gen. 2:17 ESV).

When Adam and Eve sinned did they die, with their life ceasing? No! What happened?

‘Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked…. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him….’ (Gen. 2:8-9 ESV).

So, physical death did not come. Therefore, death was not meant to indicate the cessation of physical existence with the last breath breathed. When death came to our first parents, guilt came so that Adam hid from the presence of God. With this kind of death came guilt. In other words, it meant separation from God because of sin.

2. But what happens at physical death for people? In Ecclesiastes 12:7 we learn that at death, ‘the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it’ (ESV). Concerning the body, this is something like what is emphasised in Gen. 3:19, ‘….for you are dust, and to dust you shall return’.

So this confirms that human beings have something (body/flesh) that returns to dust but the ‘spirit returns to God’. So this is a clear statement that human beings are more than flesh, but they have an inner being that the ESV translates as ‘spirit’. Old Testament commentator, H. C. Leupold, states,

This verse refers to a coming into judgment, and the very thought of judgment denotes a personal responsibility of the spirit that returns to God. Why should that spirit have lost its personality? We shall not on the basis of this passage attempt to build up a full doctrine of the Old Testament concerning life eternal. This doctrine was simply not yet revealed in all its fullness to the Old Testament saints…. It tells every attentive reader: You personally will at your death appear before the judgment seat of God, therefore get ready.[1]

3. But if that spirit returns to God, does that mean that all people are in God’s holy and blessed presence and are experiencing bliss at death? If that were so, that would be the false teaching of universalism – all being saved. We know from Scripture that,

But to all who did receive him [Jesus], who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).

4. Verses such as Matt. 25:41, Matt. 3:12 and Luke 16:23-24 speak of the wicked experiencing punishment in eternal fire. And that the punishment of the wicked was as long – eternal – as the length of life for the Christians. But isn’t there language in the Bible that talks about ‘destruction’ for the wicked? How do you align eternal punishment (meaning punishing) with destruction? I’m thinking of verses like Matt. 7:13,

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many’ (ESV).

Possible conflict: fire vs. annihilation

Is there a possible conflict here between eternal fire and destruction? Those who support annihilation believe that ‘destruction’ means extinction or annihilation. However, even in English, destruction does not mean extinction. When I backed my car over my son’s toy, it was destroyed, but not annihilated.

If we took some isolated Scriptures, it may be possible to take these passages to mean annihilation. I’m thinking of the word, “destroy”, in Matt. 10:28, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [Greek: Gehenna]” (ESV). Even with passages such as Matt. 7:13-14 where the broad road leads to destruction and John 3:16, “Whoever believes in him shall not perish” could be pressed to try to get the meaning of annihilation. Even if we took the following passages alone without consideration of other passages, there is a possibility that extermination/extinction of the wicked could be an interpretation: John 10:28; 17:12; Romans 2:12; 9:22; Philippians 1:28; 3:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; Hebrews 10:39; James 4:12 and 2 Peter 3:7, 9. However, there’s a big barrier to this kind of interpretation.

There are verses that are impossible to square with destruction meaning annihilation. Second Thessalonians 1:9 is one of those barriers. It reads, “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (ESV). Who are “they”? They are “those who do not know God” and “do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess. 1:8). This is referring to unbelievers. The words from 2 Thess. 1:9, “everlasting destruction”, could hardly mean “everlasting annihilation”. This verse creates the added problem against annihilation that the ungodly will be “away from the presence of the Lord”, which indicates that their existence is continuing but they will be shut out from being in God’s presence. If one were to speak of being “destroyed” from the presence of the Lord, it would imply non-existence. Scot McKnight put it this way:

“Paul has in mind an irreversible verdict of eternal nonfellowship with God. A person exists but remains excluded from God’s good presence”.[2]

5. The story in Luke 16:19-31 about the rich man and Lazarus may be a true story as the name of Lazarus is used and names are not used in parables. It provides accurate information of what happens at death if one regards it as a parable. It does give an indication of what happens at death prior to Christ’s death and resurrection:

  • Clearly death is not the end of existence as….
  • Lazarus, the poor man, was by Abraham’s side in life after death (16:22);
  • The rich man was in Hades in torment (Luke 16:23).

6. There’s a third aspect to death that is described in the Bible. This is known as the ‘second death’ or eternal death and is expressed in Scriptures such as, Revelation 21:8,

‘But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death’ (NIV).

This ‘second death’, also known as eternal death, is the final state of unbelievers. ‘The second death is an endless period of punishment and of separation from the presence of God, the finalization of the lost state of the individual who is spiritually dead at the time of physical death’ (Erickson 1985:1170).

We know from Revelation 20:6 that Christian believers will not experience the second death.

However, as from the beginning of the universe, death does not mean extinction of existence, but separation from God.

That’s my quick overview of what happens at death for believer and non-believer.

For further information on life after death, see my articles:

Notes

[1] H. C. Leupold 1969. Exposition of Ecclesiastes. London: Evangelical Press, p. 297. This is a reprint of the original publication in 1942 by The Wartburg Press.

[2] In Robert A. Peterson 1995. Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, p. 163.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 9 June 2016.

Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22

Christianity in free fall: the Toronto blessing

(courtesy thepocketscroll.com)

By Spencer D Gear

I urge you to view what happens when the Scriptures are abandoned and chaos sets in. Take a read of My Experiences with the Toronto Vineyard (Rick Friedrich of Michigan)

Why wasn’t there pastoral leadership that stopped this lunacy and called it for what it was – an erroneous view of Christianity. Correcting false doctrine seems to be low on the agenda of many in the church today. What Toronto (and Pensacola) descended into was something abhorrent.

I pray for God’s leaders to become just that – men and women who are not afraid to correct and stop false doctrine. As a result, in some of these churches there is still a movement of existential nonsense when some churches gather. Sound doctrine goes out the window!

What is existentialism in religion?

clip_image001

Rudolf Bultmann (courtesy Wikipedia)

I use the term ‘religion’ because it is a far cry from the self-denial and commitment of Jesus Christ. Existentialist religion happens when experience is given a prominent place. We saw an example with German liberal, Rudolf Bultmann (AD 1884-1976), when he de-mythologised the Bible in the 20th century. In his chapter on ‘modern biblical interpretation and existential philosophy’, he wrote:

Over and over again I hear the objection that de-mythologizing transforms Christian faith into philosophy. This objection arises from the fact that I call de-mythologizing an interpretation, an existentialist interpretation, and that I make use of conceptions developed especially by Martin Heidegger in existentialist philosophy (1958:45).

See, ‘Rudolf Bultmann: A critique’, for an assessment of Bultmann’s theology.

But what is existentialism?

(courtesy www.wrs.vcu. edu)

 

Wikipedia has a lay-level article on existentialism that tries to help our understanding of what is happening in philosophy, psychology and counselling, and in the Christian churches. This philosophy, which is alive and well in many evangelical and Pentecostal churches around the world, is defined thus:

Existentialism is generally considered to be the philosophical and cultural movement which holds that the starting point of philosophical thinking must be the individual and the experiences of the individual, that moral thinking and scientific thinking together do not suffice to understand human existence, and, therefore, that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to understand human existence. (Authenticity, in the context of existentialism, is being true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character.)…. Existentialists generally regard traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

When applied to the church, this means that your experience of Jesus is given primary importance. Where do biblical teaching and theology fit into existentialist Christianity? Existentialism is alive and well thanks to liberal Christianity and the Pentecostal-charismatic movement.

However, there is a supposed difference. Liberal Christianity denigrates the Scriptures and has a different view of God. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

1. One assessment of Bultmann’s view was, ‘One could not know much about God, only what God did for one. (When Macquarrie urged him to follow Tillich in using the philosophy of Being to reconstruct a purified theism, Bultmann could only confess: “I myself cannot conceive of an ontological basis.”) One could not do much for God, only gamble one’s life on his reality and on his power to uphold one. One could not say much to God, only give thanks and surrender’ (Edwards 1976). Bultmann himself wrote, ‘The invisibility of God excludes every myth which tries to make God and His action visible; God holds Himself from view and observation. We can believe in God only in spite of experience, just as we can accept justification [by faith] only in spite of conscience’ (Bultmann 1958:83-84). That description automatically excludes Jesus, the second person of the Trinity as God, and his visible actions in our world.

2. How about the Episcopalian, John Shelby Spong’s, view of God? He wrote, ‘I refer here to a deity who is “a being,” not even if we claim for God the status of the highest being. I speak rather of the God I experience as the Ground and Source of All Being and therefore the presence that calls me to step beyond every boundary…. I intend to demonstrate that probing this new God-possibility begins with a search for clues in our religious past…. The limits on the theistic definition of God have been present for centuries…. The theistic God of the past was created by us and in our own image? As I have suggested in a previous book, “If horses had gods would they not look like horses?’ (Spong 2001:60-61). See my analysis of this publication by Spong in, ‘Spong’s swan song – at last!

3. Listen to Paul Tillich! ‘If God is called the living, if he is the ground of the creative processes of life, if history has significance for him, if there is no negative principle in addition to him which could account for evil and sin, how can one avoid positing a dialectical negativity in God himself?… The anticipation of nothingness at death gives human existence its existential character (Tillich 1968:I 210).

The Pentecostal-charismatic movement, at least in theory, confirms the authority of Scripture and of the Lord God Almighty as revealed in the Bible. However, I have my questions after visiting the website of this leading Pentecostal church on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast, Kings Christian Church (Buderim) and the outreach church that is now known as Noosa Hillsong. A friend of mine who visited this Buderim church called it an ‘ex-church’. The Brisbane Courier-Mail (April 22, 2007) described Kings Christian Church as ‘a new brand of church’ in which this could happen on women’s day:

IN A new building in the Sunshine Coast hinterland a woman spoons froth off a cappuccino. On her left, a teenager has her nails buffed while a silver-haired grandmother deliberates between shades of pearl and puce.

“I’ll take the pearl polish this week,” says the elderly woman. “And I’d love another coffee.”

It’s ladies’ day at the Kings Christian Church, west of Maroochydore, and groups of women are seated around “pampering stations”.

As Pastor Steve Penny dons a headset and prepares to take the stage, the women receive free manicures and premium coffee in the church’s new $4.5 million Champions Centre.

In this article, Pastor Penny ‘says young people expect the latest equipment’. The Courier-Mail goes on to report,

Officials expect to turn heads at the Champions Centre official opening and six-car giveaway next Sunday. The cars, which have been advertised on TV, will be handed out before free pizza and ice cream.

There will be jumping castles, buggy rides and fireworks at the “Event Spectacular”.

Pastor Penny said the giveaways were a means of expressing the church’s interest in the community. He said money spent on cars was donated by members and would ultimately come back to the church.

That sounds awfully like the advertising I wrote in my former days as a radio/TV announcer and copywriter. It is worldly thinking. How would it stack up against the emphases of Jesus’ instructions on being a Christian disciple?

There is some further information about Kings Christian Church, Buderim. The Sunshine Coast Daily reported problems with this church in 2010: ‘Residents fed up with church noise’ (20 January 2010). Part of the article read:

A MAJOR youth conference at a Tanawha church designed to instil community values in the young has instead led to a community backlash over the “deafening” live music at the event.

Unresolved, long-standing issues over the regular live music that blares from the massive Kings Christian Church, which has a congregation of about 1500 and hosts numerous events, reached flashpoint on Monday when the inaugural four-day Queensland Youth Alive Conference opened.

Fed-up nearby residents said years of complaints to the church, Sunshine Coast council and police over the “pounding bass” emanating from the church had landed on deaf ears.

Up to 600 people are attending this week’s youth conference, although it is believed the church’s huge hall can accommodate 1000 people.

“The music started at nine this morning,” one resident said yesterday.

“I feel traumatised. I’m tired … very traumatised.”

Police have been called to the Crosby Hill Road address an astonishing 17 times since 2007 – mainly because of excessive noise and traffic complaints – but said its hands were tied because council had issued the venue with a permit to stage church meetings.

Therefore, the provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act did not apply, a police spokeswoman said.

Police were last called to the church on Monday night, but once again residents were left frustrated.

“I would prefer a brothel over there,” another resident said.

“A legalised brothel that was quiet would be better than this. You don’t behave like this under normal Christianity.”

James Macpherson, who recently took over as the church’s senior pastor but is currently based in Townsville, plans to meet with residents when he arrives on the Coast soon.

Mr Macpherson said the church should be a “blessing to the community”.

“So I’m happy to sit down with people and talk things through,” he said.

Jesus gave this solemn warning about the cost of discipleship. This is not the cost of emotionalism and falling over at a meeting. It is more than Christianity in free fall. Discipleship involves a serious commitment:

“Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? (Matthew 16:24-26 ESV).

Related image(courtesy watchman4wales)

So existentialism and materialism are alive and well in this kind of Pentecostal-charismatic church. But also could it be catching on at Lifepointe Baptist Church, North Buderim?

Both the liberals and many Pentecostals emphasise an experience of God, but the experiences are radically different. Both can degenerate into existential encounters, one like Paul Tillich’s view and the other like the Toronto Blessing or Kings Christian Church.

Liberal Christianity and existentialism

Existentialists, in contrast to determinism and set rules or boundaries, want radical human freedom. German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, called any sort of determinism, ‘inauthenticity’. So, when human beings act freely rather than conforming to any church, conventional opinion, or the Scriptures, there is an unquestioned commitment to experience.

Erickson (1997:92) considers that experience is a presupposition, an unquestioned starting point. Erickson gave the example of Jean-Paul Sartre’s atheism: ‘There cannot be a god, for if there were, he would be a major encroachment on my freedom. I know, however, that I am free. Therefore, there is no God’.

Liberal theologian, Paul Tillich (AD 1886-1965), has tried to synthesise Protestant Christian theology with existentialist philosophy. See his Systematic Theology (1968) in which he stated:

The personal encounter with God and the reunion with him are the heart of all genuine religion. It presupposes the presence of a transforming power and the turn toward the ultimate from all preliminary concerns. Yet, in its distorted form, “piety” becomes a tool with which to achieve a transformation within one’s self (1968:II 99).

But who is his God/god? He stated that ‘”God has become man” is not a paradoxical but a nonsensical statement. It is a combination of words which makes sense only if it is not meant to mean what the words say’ (1968:II 109). He explains further,

Ground of Being http://www.doxa.ws/Being/Ground_Being.html

What liberalism does to missions

Take a read of this assessment of liberalism and missionary activities:

The relativistic scientific world view which underlies mainline liberalism finds it hard to be completely comfortable with the exclusiveness of the evangelical claim. Because of its respect for other religions, it is at best ambivalent about evangelization of non-Christians. Its witness is necessarily unaggressive witness, and it is far more comfortable with social witness (Hutcheson 1981).

Now look at the impact on missions when theological liberals are compared with conservative, evangelical organisations (in Erickson 1997:13):[1]

Number of foreign missionaries under appointment 1972 1988
Group A: Liberal in theology

1. American Baptist Churches

2. Episcopal Church

3. United Church of Christ

4. United Methodist Church

5. United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

 

262

165

244

951

604

 

179

72

214

416

435

Group B: Conservative Christian organisations

1. Evangelical Foreign Missions Association

2. Interdenominational Foreign Missions Association

3. Wycliffe Bible Translators

4. Southern Baptist Convention

 

 

7,074

6,130

2,220

2,507

 

 

9,000+

8,000+

2,269

3,839

Where are the sound doctrine and discernment promoted by these church leaders?

I’m saddened to speak like this, but we are called upon to uphold sound doctrine which comes from Scripture itself and not some existential experience. It is certainly true that those who repent of their sins and turn in faith to Jesus Christ alone for salvation, experience new life in Christ. See, ‘The content of the Gospel’.

The promotion of sound doctrine means that false teaching and ungodly manifestations will be stopped by church leaders.

What happened in that video above (Toronto ‘Blessing’) and what is happening in liberal and Pentecostal churches causes me to be ashamed to identify with a Christianity that will allow that kind of manifestation.

Related image(courtesy www.liveleak.com)

 

Where are the people of discernment in these ‘churches’? This is biblical Christianity:

“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound [healthy] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9 ESV)

AND

“Teach what accords with sound [healthy] doctrine” (Titus 2:1 ESV).

In the midst of Paul’s teaching on the gifts of the Spirit, he stated:

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Rom 12:2 ESV).

Then in 1 Corinthians we have this need when the gifts are manifested:

So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church (1 Cor. 14:12 ESV)

AND

Let the others weigh what is said (1 Cor 14:29 ESV)…. For God is not a God of confusion but peace (14:33)…. But all things should be done decently and in order (14:40).

When Toronto descended into what we saw on the video, we have the Word of God being violated because the people (especially the leaders) refused to implement what was taught in 1 Corinthians 14 and Romans 12.

Are we seeing here the fulfilment of 2 Timothy 4:3 and the movement away from sound or healthy teaching to accommodate people with itching ears? Could ‘itching ears’ include hair cuts, nail manicures, swimming pools and gyms?

I pray that Christian leaders will take the Scriptures seriously and stop this chaotic existentialism that happens in far too many churches. It is still going on around the world. I am a supporter of the continuing gifts of the Spirit, but I cannot promote this unbiblical chaos and movement away from sound teaching to existentialism and/or materialism – all in the name of the church.

Works consulted

Bultmann, R 1958. Jesus Christ and Mythology. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Edwards, D L 1976. Rudolf Bultmann: Scholar of faith (online). Christian Century, September 1-8, 728-730. Available at: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1827 (Accessed 13 June 2012).

Erickson, M J 1997. The evangelical left: Encountering postconservative evangelical theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Hutcheson Jr., R G 1981. Crisis in overseas mission: Shall we leave it to the independents? (online) Christian Century, March 18, 290-296. Available at: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1740 (Accessed 12 June 2012).

Spong, J S 2001. A new Christianity for a new world: Why traditional faith is dying and how a new faith is being born. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Tillich, P 1968. Systematic theology (combined volume of 3 vols). Digswell Place, Welwyn, Herts [UK]: James Nisbet & Co Ltd.

Notes:


[1] Erickson (1997:13, n. 1) gained this information from two mission handbooks: Missions Handbook: North American Protestant Ministries Overseas (1973) and Missions Handbook: USA/Canada Protestant Ministries Overseas (1989).

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 24 November 2015.

clip_image002

 

Are there two creation stories in Genesis?

clip_image002

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

It is a common view promoted by liberal theology and sceptics that there are two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. Here are a few examples:

  • In the Skeptics Annotated Bible, they outline, ‘The two contradictory creation accounts’;
  • Arthur Weiser: ‘It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing accounts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the creation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff’,,[1]
  • The Wikipedia article on the ‘Genesis creation narrative’ states that ‘The opening of [Genesis] verse 2:4 provides a “bridge” connecting the two accounts of the creation narrative’.

At the popular level, I encountered this view on a www forum, Christian Fellowship Forum. Jim Parker replied to me:

You seem to be rejecting out of hand, without consideration, the possibility that there could be more than one version of the creation and flood stories among these ancient people. That flies in the face of the existence of a variety of creation and flood stories among the ancient Mesopotamian people.[2]

I replied: Noah’s flood and the Gilgamesh epic have been answered over and over, but you trot it out again.[3]

Kermit: << There is only one creation story >>[4]
Jim: My Bible has two. One begins with: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1)
The other one begins with:  This [is] the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and [there was] no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Gen 2:4 -6)
Kermit: <<There is …only 1 flood story.>>
Jim: There are two. I already posted the facts. If you don’t want to know then that is your choice.

Spencer:[5] Can’t you see what you did? You confused your view that there are two creation stories with two flood stories.
Genesis 2 does not present a different creation account to the one in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 presupposes God’s completed work of creation from Genesis 1. What we have in Gen. 2:1-3 is the logical conclusion of carrying on the information from Genesis 1, using the same vocabulary and style as was used in chapter 1.

What Genesis 2 does is lay out the completion of God’s primary work done in Genesis 1 with the sanctity of the 7th day conferred as a memorial of what God had created.

Then Genesis 2:4 sums up the sequence of what had been surveyed previously with the words, “These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth”.

Since Moses (yes, author Moses) had now finished the overall survey of the subject, what does the author do? He then develops in detail one important feature, the creation of human beings.

It is Kenneth Kitchen who writes in Ancient Orient (p. 117):

“Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand and the immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism”.[6]

How do you like that description of what you have tried to do with trying to convince us of two creation accounts – obscurantism?

You have provided the argumentation of the historical-critical method and your presupposition comes gushing forth.

Conclusion

There is a reasonable contextual explanation for affirming that Genesis 1 and 2 form the fabric of one creation account and not two.

I recommend the article by Wayne Jackson, Apologetics Press, “Are there two creation accounts in Genesis?’ The straightforward biblical answer to the question, if one follows the Genesis text, is, NO! There is only ONE creation account in the Book of Genesis.

Notes:


[1] In Wayne Jackson, ‘Are there two creation accounts in Genesis?’, Apologetics Press, available at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131 (Accessed 9 June 2012).

[2] Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, ‘Dawkins won’t debate creationists’, #41, 5 June 12, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=40&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=121081 (Accessed 6 June 2012).

[3] Ibid., ozspen, #49.

[4] Ibid., FatherJimParker, #45.

[5] Ibid., ozspen #51. The following information is from Gleason L. Archer 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House), pp. 68-69.

[6] Ibid., p. 69.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 28 October 2015.

designBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-sma

What is the nature of death according to the Bible?

clip_image002

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D. Gear

Monday, 4 June 2012

Two days ago, Chris, my friend of 35 years, died suddenly of a stroke in a nearby hospital. It was only last Thursday, 9.15am, that he was sitting in the lounge room at home when he started making what his wife thought were funny faces. However, something far more serious was going on.

An ambulance was called. It arrived within 10 minutes and he was taken to the stroke unit at a local hospital. He had suffered a massive stroke and the right side of his body was paralysed. He was still conscious. His wife’s email stated that the drugs that were used in the hope of dispersing the clot did not work. He was stable, resting, but exhausted. All he could speak was a vague ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because of the paralysis.

Within 2.5 days, Chris, a committed Christian, had died and was present with his Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul stated it this way, ‘We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord’ (2 Corinthians 5:8 NIV). That is the Christian hope and understanding of what happens at death for believers.

However, what is the nature of his death according to Scriptures for all people?

Before we get to the Bible, we note the words of leading scientist, Stephen Hawking, who has suffered from a disability for the majority of his adult life and has stated some disparaging perspective on life after death. Here is one report:

SCIENTIST Stephen Hawking has dismissed heaven as a “fairy story for people afraid of the dark”.

And he insisted that, rather than advance to an afterlife, people’s brains switch off like “broken-down computers” when they die.

Renowned physicist Hawking, 69, admitted his views were partly influenced by his long battle with motor neurone disease, which has left him wheelchair-bound.[1]

He has stated that,

“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first,” he said.

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” he added.[2]

Is British astrophysicist (cosmologist), Stephen Hawking, correct about death and life after death? Read the tribute to Stephen Hawking by Christian leader, Albert Mohler Jr., ‘Professor Stephen Hawking at 70’. Stephen Hawking has been suffering motor neurone disease from about age 21. He was born in 1942.[3]

Photo Hawking with University of Oxford librarian Richard Ovenden (left) and naturalist David Attenborough (right) at the opening of the Weston Library, Oxford, in March 2015. Ovenden awarded the Bodley Medal to Hawking and Attenborough at the ceremony. Courtesy Wikipedia 2019. s.v. Stephen Hawking). Hawking died on 14 March 2018.

Another motor neurone disease (ALS) sufferer, Michael Wenham, has a completely different perspective to Hawking. He said: ‘I’d stake my life that Stephen Hawking is wrong about heaven. Hawking says some admirable things, but the idea that I believe in life after death because I’m afraid of the dark is insulting’.[4] As indicated above, Hawking has compared death to computers: ‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers — that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’.[5]

Stephen Hawking is one famous scientist who opposes any view of life after death as he approaches his own death.

When it comes to discuss the nature of what happens to a person at death, Christian or non-Christian, there are those who bring these kinds of accusations:

  • ‘The debate on eternal hell fire is an interesting one because both sides of the debate quote scripture. What’s the solution, or what’s the problem.
    It seems illogical to form a conclusion based on some scripture and not all. That’s the problem?’[6]
  • Timothew responded to this post ‘You are asking “How does immortality put on mortality?” Assuming we are all naturally immortal. Let me ask you, How does mortality put on immortality? I’ll answer it, by putting our faith in Jesus Christ. The bible says that death entered the world through sin. The wages of sin is death. Don’t let yourself be deceived by those who say that death is not really death. Death is death, but we can receive eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ. We can become immortal by receiving immortality from God, who alone is immortal. (1 Timothy 6:15-16).

The question is really ‘Will you receive eternal life from Christ or reject Christ and therefore reject eternal life?’ [7]

  • Timothew responded again, ‘I wonder why so many are offended that there is no eternal torture, only death? Why are so many offended that the wages of sin is death? The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is the power of God to us who are being saved’.[8]
  • Then came this correction of Timothew: ‘Why do so many people refuse to let their minds be a little bit bigger so as to accept that fact that the fate of unbelievers is both? Clearly Scripture says both death and torment are eternal. Could it be you need to redefine “death” in your minds?[9]
  • Timothew’s retort was, ‘Yes, I think that if a person believes that someone can be both “dead” and “living forever in torment” they probably do need to redefine the word “death” in their mind’.[10]

How do we respond? We turn to the Scriptures to determine the definitions of death. Yes, ‘definitions’. However, before we get to an understanding of the nature of death, we need to understand the nature of human beings.

Are we just blobs of flesh with breath and when death comes and the last breath is taken, the body is left in the grave to rot and there is no such thing as life after death? Is it as Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and logician, stated, ‘I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive’? (Russell 1957:43).[11] He now knows the truth of what happens at death, as he died of influenza on 2 February 1970 at the age of 97.

If human beings are simply flesh that rots, then death means the cessation of existence. That’s the end for each one of us. But if human beings are more than flesh and bone, then death presents a different situation. Let’s go to the Scriptures for an understanding of human nature.

I hope that I do not have to convince you that human beings have flesh, blood and bone. However, it is the other dimension that can become more contentious. What is the true nature of a human being?

1. A human being is more than flesh, blood and bone

We know from the Christian Scriptures that human beings are more than flesh, blood and bone. Why turn to the Bible for an understanding of human nature? The internal evidence from the Bible is that all Scripture is ‘breathed out by God’ (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV). In this context it is referring primarily to the Scriptures from before the time of the apostle Paul, which is referring to the Old Testament. However, the apostle Peter, compared the writings of Paul with the ‘other Scriptures’ (2 Peter 3:16). Therefore, Peter placed the Paul’s epistles on the same level as the Old Testament Scriptures, which originate from God Himself.

Therefore, if I want to know the true nature of human beings, I don’t go to Confucius , Aristotle, Tertullian, St. Augustine, Descartes, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, D A Carson, or another other leading thinker. I would be foolish to go to any other than God Himself to determine your and my nature. However, this is built on the presupposition that the one and only true God of the Judeo-Christian faith exists and that the Bible is a trustworthy document. For further discussion of these points of theology and apologetics, see:

1.1 The soul [12]

A human being has an inner, immaterial dimension and an outer, material dimension. The inner dimension is often called “soul” or “spirit” and the outer dimension is usually called body.

Often in the Bible, the term, “soul,” is used to refer to more than the spiritual dimension of a human being and sometimes even includes the body (e.g. Gen. 2:7; Psalm 16:10).

However, the Bible presents examples of the soul being distinguished from the body as in Gen. 35:18: “And as her [Rachel’s] soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin” (ESV).

In I Thess. 5:23 the soul is noted as different from the body: “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ESV).

Rev. 6:9 indicates that souls are totally separated from the bodies for the saints: “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne” (ESV).

So, the “soul” means “life” as the principle of life in a human being. It is what animates the body of a human being. In fact, the word “soul” can sometimes refer to a dead body as in Lev. 19:28; 21:1; 23:4 in a way similar to the contemporary expression, “that poor soul.” However, the primary meaning of “soul” is probably best stated as meaning “person” which is usually in a body but is sometimes in a disembodied state.

Therefore, with this kind of understanding, it makes sense to state: “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4 ESV). It fits in with the biblical data, so long as we understand that this fits with “under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God” (Rev. 6:9). “Souls” are not extinguished at physical death.

1.2 What about the spirit?

In both Hebrew (ruach) and Greek (pneuma), spirit normally refers to the immaterial dimension of human beings. Often “spirit” and “soul” are interchangeable, as in a verses such as Luke 1:46-47, “And Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior . . .” (ESV).

James 2:26 speaks of the body without the “soul” as dead, while Jesus said at his death, “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30).

So, “spirit” is the immaterial dimension of human beings, as Jesus emphasised with his disciples: “And he said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have’” (Luke 24:38-39).

According to John 4:24, the invisible God “is spirit” and whose who worship him must worship “in spirit and in truth”.

1.3 The heart

In both the Hebrew (leb) and the Greek (kardia), the heart has a meaning so broad that at times it includes the “mind.”

In Prov. 23:7, the NASB translates, “For as he thinks within himself . . .”, where “himself” is leb = heart. The NET Bible captures this meaning, “For he is like someone calculating the cost in his mind.”

The heart, biblically, refers to the whole inner person. It is the place from which true faith in God springs, as we see from Rom. 10:9, “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (ESV).

It is the heart which we use to worship and love God: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5 ESV).

But the heart can be the set of evil also: “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34 ESV). Jeremiah 17:9 confirms that the heart can be the seat of evil: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (ESV).

So, the heart seems to reflect the whole inner being of a person.

1.4 The mind

The mind refers to that immaterial dimension of a person by which he/she thinks or imagines. It is included in the commandment given by Jesus: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30).

It is the mind that also needs God’s sanctifying renewal power: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind….” (Rom. 12:2). Why is this needed? Rom. 8:6-7 explains: “To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”

Therefore there is this kind of need for ever believer: “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

1.5 There is another dimension: the inner nature

Sometimes, the spiritual dimension of human beings is called “the inward man” (KJV), which is spoken of in 2 Cor. 4:16: “So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day” (ESV). Here the “inner nature” is what the KJV translates as: “the inward man,” which is related to “the things that are unseen,” which “are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18).

These are my biblical understandings of soul, spirit, heart, mind and the “inward man.”

Therefore, a human being, in addition to being flesh, blood and bone, has a soul/spirit/heart/mind/inward being.

When a human being dies, we know that the flesh and bone go into the ground to rot or to be consumed by a crematorium fire to become ash. But what happens to the ‘inner being’ at death? Before we get there, we have to examine the meaning of death from God’s perspective, as summarised in the Bible.

2. What is the nature of death from God’s point of view

When the first human beings committed the original sin, one of the consequences of that sin is:

  • Physical death is part of the penalty of original sin from Genesis 3 (see Gen 3:19; Job 4:18-19; 14:1-4; Rom 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor 15:21f; 15:56; 2 Cor 5:2, 4; 2 Tim 1:10). Paul stated it clearly in 1 Cor 15:22, ‘As in Adam all die’. But there is another dimension to death,
  • Spiritual and eternal death. This is what theologian Charles Hodge calls, ‘all penal evil, death spiritual and eternal, as well as the disillusion of the body’ (Hodge:1972:147).[13] This explanation is based on: (a) This is the consequence of sin from Gen. 3; (b) It is the common term used by writers throughout Scripture for the penal consequences of sin (e.g. Gen. 2:17; Ezek 18:4; Rom. 1:32; 6:23; 7:5; James 1:15 Rev. 20:14; etc.); (c) Throughout Scripture we have the constant interchange of ‘life’ with ‘death’. In ‘life’ there are rewards of the righteous; in ‘death’ there is punishment for disobedience (e.g. Deut 30:15; Jer 21:8; Prov. 11:19; Ps. 36:9; Matt 25:46; John 3:15; 2 Cor 2:16; etc.); (d) In Romans 5 there is a contrast of life by Christ and death by Adam (5:15, 17, 21). As Rom. 5:13-14 makes clear, death ‘means the evil, and any evil which is inflicted in punishment of sin’ (Hodge 1972:148). Rom. 5:12 is clear that this view of death ‘came to all people’ (NIV).

2.1 Biblical indications that death is more than physical dying of the body

2.1.1 An overview of verses from Old and New Testaments

Genesis 35:18: “And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin” (ESV).

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7: “Before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it”.

James 2:26: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead”

From these 3 verses, we cannot conclude that death is a state of annihilation or non-existence. As a person is dying, the soul or spirit, which is unseen by human eyes, is departing and returning to God who gave this soul/spirit to a human being. Also, the body that no longer has the spirit is dead. So, to speak of death as being non-existence of the person is meaningless. That’s not what these verses teach.

2.1.2 Further support from the Old Testament

Genesis 2:17: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”.

Genesis 3:3: “but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’”.

Genesis 3:8: “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden”.

Genesis 3:23: “therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken”.

In these 4 verses we see that “death” happened, from the moment that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, but they did not die physically at that point. The fellowship with God ceased, but though they were still living and could hear the voice/sound of God. So “death” here could not mean non-existence or extinction. It meant separation.

2.1.3 Further New Testament support for death being more than physical dying

Ephesians 2:1: “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”.

Ephesians 2:12-13: “Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ”.

1 Timothy 5:6: “But she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives”.

Eph. 2:1 describes the nature of a human being’s physical death to demonstrate spiritual death as human beings are “dead” in sin. Then in Eph. 2:12-13, this spiritual death is explained as being separated from Christ. For 1 Tim 5:6, a widow is described as being “dead” even though she is alive. So, death in here described as other than non-existence or annihilation.

What could Jesus mean when he stated, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead” (Luke 9:60)? It is blatantly obvious that he was not saying, “Let the non-existent, annihilated, unconscious or soul-sleep ones bury the non-existent, annihilated, unconscious, soul-sleeping ones”.

Jesus is making it clear that those who are separated from God are “dead” even they are still living.

Then we read:

1 Corinthians 15:26: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death”.

1 Corinthians 15:54-56: “When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law”

Hebrews 2:14-18:

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted”.

Philippians 1:21-24:

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account”.

Here in 1 Cor. 15:26, death is spoken about as “the last enemy”. Could we call it the huge enemy? 1 Cor. 15:54-56 speaks of death as a blend of the good and the bad and of the perishable (human body) putting on the imperishable, the immortal. How about that? Death involves immortality! Because of Christ’s death on the cross, death will eventually be destroyed – but not yet (Heb. 2:14-18).

Then Jesus’ death dealt with the one who has the power of death, the devil. For the believer, to “die” is “gain”, which means to be in relationship with Christ: “My desire is to depart [die] and be with Christ”.

In these latter verses, we see death as the last huge enemy which will be destroyed when Jesus returns, but there is no hint in any of the verses above that death means extinction, annihilation, non-existence.

This should get us thinking about the biblical nature of death, but this is only a start. There are many other verses that demonstrate that the biblical view of ‘death’ is more than the end of physical breath and life.

2.1.4 The second death

There’s a third aspect to death that is described in the Bible. This is known as the ‘second death’ or eternal death and is expressed in Scriptures such as, Revelation 21:8, ‘But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death’ (NIV).

This ‘second death’, also known as eternal death, is the final state of unbelievers. ‘The second death is an endless period of punishment and of separation from the presence of God, the finalization of the lost state of the individual who is spiritually dead at the time of physical death’ (Erickson 1985:1170).

We know from Revelation 20:6 that Christian believers will not experience the second death.

3. Where will you be one second after your last breath?

What happens at death for all people? Richard Dawkins claims that for him there will be ‘no death bed conversion’. He wants a tape recorder at his bedside when he dies so that nobody will be able to say he had a death bed conversion. He sees ‘death as terminal’ (2006:400), which is not unlike Bertrand Russell’s, ‘When I die I shall rot’ (1957:43).

What do the Scriptures state will happen to those who die, whether believer or unbeliever?

Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994) provides an exposition of “What happens when people die?” (Grudem 1994:816ff).

3.1 Death for the Christian believer

Wayne Grudem explains:

a. The souls of believers go immediately into God’s presence.

Death is a temporary cessation of bodily life and a separation of the soul from the body. Once a believer has died, though his or her physical body remains on the earth and is buried, at the moment of death the soul (or spirit) of that believer goes immediately into the presence of God with rejoicing. When Paul thinks about death he says, “We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). To be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord. He also says that his desire is “to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (Phil 1.23). And Jesus said to the thief who was dying on the cross next to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk 23:43), The author of Hebrews says that when Christians come together to worship they come not only into the presence of God in heaven, but also into the presence of “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb 12:23). However, as we shall see in more detail in the next chapter, God will not leave our dead bodies in the earth forever, for when Christ returns the souls of believers will be reunited with their bodies, their bodies will be raised from the dead, and they will live with Christ eternally…. (Grudem 1994:816-817).

b. The Bible does not teach the doctrine of purgatory Here is what Grudem states (1994:817-819):

The fact that the souls of believers go immediately into God’s presence means that there is no such thing as purgatory. In Roman Catholic teaching, purgatory is the place where the souls of believers go to be further purified from sin until they are ready to be admitted into heaven. According to this view, the sufferings of purgatory are given to God in substitute for the punishment for sins that believers should have received in time, but did not.

Speaking of purgatory, Ott says:

Suffrages operate in such a manner that the satisfactory value of the good works is offered to God in substitution for the temporal punishment for sins which the poor souls still have to render. It operates by way of remission of temporal punishments due to sins [Ott 1955:322].

But this doctrine is not taught in Scripture, and it is in fact contrary to the verses quoted immediately above. The Roman Catholic Church has found support for this doctrine, not in the pages of canonical Scripture as we defined it in chapter 3 above, and as Protestants have accepted it since the Reformation, but in the writings of the Apocrypha, particularly in 2 Maccabees 12:42–45 (RSV):

[Judas Maccabeus, the leader of the Jewish forces] also took a collection, man by man, to the amount of 2,000 drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking into account the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Here it is clear that prayer for the dead is approved, and also making an offering to God to deliver the dead from their sin. But in response it must be said that this literature is not equal to Scripture in authority, and should not be taken as an authoritative source of doctrine. Moreover, it contradicts the clear statements about departing and being with Christ quoted above, and thereby opposes the clear teaching of New Testament Scripture. Furthermore, when it talks about the offering of Judas making “atonement for the dead” it contradicts the explicit teaching of the New Testament that Christ alone made atonement for us. Finally, this passage in 2 Maccabees is difficult to square even with Roman Catholic teaching, because it teaches that soldiers who had died in the mortal sin of idolatry (which cannot be forgiven, according to Catholic teaching) should have prayers and sacrifices offered for them with the possibility that they will be delivered from their suffering.

Roman Catholic theology finds support for the doctrine of purgatory primarily in the passage from 2 Maccabees quoted above, and in the teaching of the tradition of the church. Other passages cited by Ott in support of the doctrine of purgatory are 2 Timothy 1:18; Matthew 5:26; 1 Corinthians 3:15; and Matthew 12:32. In 2 Timothy 1:18, Paul says, concerning Onesiphorus, “When he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me—may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day—and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus” (2 Tim. 1:17–18). The claim of those who find support for the doctrine of purgatory is that “Onesiphorus … apparently was no longer among the living at the time of the Second Epistle to Timothy.” This seems to be based on the fact that Paul refers not to Onesiphorus himself but “the household of Onesiphorus” (2 Tim. 1:16); however, that phrase does not prove that Onesiphorus had died, but only that Paul was wishing blessings not only on him but on his entire household. This would not be unusual since Onesiphorus had served in Ephesus where Paul had worked for three years (2 Tim. 1:18; cf. 4:19). To build support for purgatory on the idea that Onesiphorus had already died is simply to build it on an assumption that cannot be supported with clear evidence. (It is not unusual for Paul to express a wish that some Christians would be blessed in the Day of Judgment—see 1 Thess. 5:23.)

In Matthew 12:32, Jesus says, “Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Ott says that this sentence “leaves open the possibility that sins are forgiven not only in this world but in the world to come.” However, this is simply an error in reasoning: to say that something will not happen in the age to come does not imply that it might happen in the age to come! What is needed to prove the doctrine of purgatory is not a negative statement such as this but a positive statement that says that people suffer for the purpose of continuing purification after they die. But Scripture nowhere says this.

In 1 Corinthians 3:15 Paul says that on the Day of Judgment, the work that everyone has done will be judged and tested by fire, and then says, “If any man’s work is burned up he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” But this does not speak of a person being burned or suffering punishment, but simply of his work as being tested by fire—that which is good will be like gold, silver, and precious stones that will last forever (v. 12). Moreover, Ott himself admits that this is something that occurs not during this age but during the day of “the general judgment,” and this further indicates that it can hardly be used as a convincing argument for purgatory. Finally, in Matthew 5:26, after warning people to make friends quickly with their accusers while they are going to the court, lest the accuser hand them to the judge and the judge to the guard and they be put in prison, Jesus then says, “You will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” Ott understands this as a parable teaching a “time-limited condition of punishment in the other world.” But surely there is no indication in context that this is a parable—Jesus is giving practical teaching about reconciliation of human conflicts and the avoidance of situations that naturally lead to anger and personal injury (see Matt. 5:21–26). Other passages of Scripture that have sometimes been referred to in support of the doctrine of purgatory simply do not speak directly about this idea at all, and can all easily be understood in terms of punishment and deliverance from distress in this life, or of a life of eternal blessing with God in heaven in the life to come.

An even more serious problem with this doctrine is that it teaches that we must add something to the redemptive work of Christ, and that his redemptive work for us was not enough to pay the penalty for all our sins. But this is certainly contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Moreover, in a pastoral sense, the doctrine of purgatory robs believers of the great comfort that should be theirs in knowing that those who have died have immediately gone into the presence of the Lord, and knowing that they also, when they die, will “depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (Phil. 1:23).

You can listen to Dr. Francis Beckwith’s support of purgatory. He is a convert from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism.

b.  The Bible does not teach the doctrine of “soul sleep”

(Grudem 1994:816-821). For a rebuttal of the false doctrine of soul sleep, see my article, ‘Soul sleep: A refutation’.

3.2 Death for unbelievers

Death for the non-Christian is in stark contrast with those who do not trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Grudem explains:

The Souls of Unbelievers Go Immediately to Eternal Punishment. Scripture never encourages us to think that people will have a second chance to trust in Christ after death. In fact, the situation is quite the contrary. Jesus’ story about the rich man and Lazarus gives no hope that people can cross from hell to heaven after they have died: though the rich man in hell called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame,” Abraham replied to him, “Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us” (Luke 16:24-26).

The book of Hebrews connects death with the consequence of judgment in dose sequence: “just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment….” (Heb. 9:27). Moreover, Scripture never represents the final judgment as depending on anything done after we die, but only on what has happened in this life (Matt. 25:31-46; Rom. 2:5-10; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). Some have argued for a second chance to believe in the gospel on the basis of Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison in 1 Peter 3:18—20 and the preaching of the gospel “even to the dead” in 1 Peter 4:6, but those are inadequate interpretations of die verses in question, and, on closer inspection, do not support such a view.

We should also realize that the idea that there will be a second chance to accept Christ after death is based on the assumption that everyone deserves a chance to accept Christ and that eternal punishment only comes to those who consciously decide to reject him. But certainly that idea is not supported by Scripture: we all are sinners by nature and choice, and no one actually deserves any of God’s grace or deserves any opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ—those come only because of God’s unmerited favor. Condemnation comes not only because of a willful rejection of Christ, but also because of the sins that we have committed and the rebellion against God that those sins represent (see John 3:18).

The idea that people have a second chance to accept Christ after death would also destroy most motivation for evangelism and missionary activity today, and is not consistent with the intense missionary zeal that was felt by the New Testament church as a whole, and that was especially exemplified in the missionary travels of the apostle Paul.

The fact that there is conscious punishment for unbelievers after they die and that this punishment goes on forever is certainly a difficult doctrine for us to contemplate. But the passages teaching it appear so clear that it seems that we must affirm it if we are to affirm what Scripture teaches. Jesus says that at the day of final judgment he will say to those at his left hand, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” and he says that “they will go away into eternal punishment, but die righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:41, 46).

These passages show that we cannot accept as faithful to Scripture the doctrine annihilationism. This is a doctrine that says that unbelievers, either immediately upon death, or else after suffering for a period of time, will simply cease to exist— God will “annihilate” them and they will no longer be. Although the idea initially sounds attractive to us, and it avoids the emotional difficulty connected with ‘firming eternal conscious punishment for the wicked, such an idea is not explicitly affirmed in any passages of Scripture, and seems so clearly to be contradicted by those passages that connect the eternal blessing of the righteous with the eternal punishment of the wicked (Matt. 25:46) and that talk about punishment extending to the wicked day and night forever (Rev. 14:11; 20:10). Although unbelievers pass into a state of eternal punishment immediately upon death, their bodies will not be raised until the day of final judgment. On that day, their bodies will be raised and reunited with their souls, and they will stand before God’s throne for final judgment to be pronounced upon them in the body (see Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; and Rev. 20:12, 15).[Grudem 1994:822-824].

4. Summary

Death does not mean extinction. There is more to death than ‘When I die I rot’. Grudem’s statement is a sound basic understanding of what happens when the last breath ceases, ‘Death is the temporary cessation of bodily life and a separation of the soul from the body’ (1994:816). Millard Erickson put is this way, ‘Life and death, according to Scripture, are not to be thought of as existence and nonexistence, but as two different states of existence. Death is simply a transition to a different mode of existence; it is not as some tend to think, extinction’ (1985:1169).

We learn from the Scriptures that there are three aspects to death (based on Theissen 1949:271-272). These are:

  • Physical death. This is the separation of the soul from the body and this is the penalty of sin (see Gen. 2:17; 3:19; Num 16:29; 27:3; John 8:44; Rom 5:12, 14, 16, 17; 1 Peter 4:6).
  • Spiritual death. This is the separation of the soul from God which is a penalty from the fall into sin in the Garden of Eden (see Gen 2:17; Rom 5:21; Eph 2:1, 5; Luke 15:32; John 5:24; 8:51).
  • Eternal death (the second death). This is the completion of spiritual death, the eternal separation of the soul from God which is accompanied by eternal punishment (see Matt 10:28; 25:41; 2 Thess 1:9; Heb 10:31; Rev 14:11).

5. How to avoid eternal death and experience eternal life

It would be remiss of me not to give a way out of this eternal death. However, the decision to avoid eternal death is made in this life. To put it simply, we live in the church age when salvation through Christ is made available to all people (yes, I believe in unlimited atonement).

Second Peter 3:9 is abundantly clear on what God makes available to all people NOW: ‘The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance’ (NIV).

By Christ’s death, He has made atonement for the sins of all Old Testament believers and for all those since Christ’s death as well (see Romans 3:21-26). All that is required is:

  • You must understand God’s holiness;
  • You must understand the seriousness of your sin before this holy God;
  • Confess your sin to God, seeking his forgiveness;
  • Repent of your sin (as in 2 Pet 3:9). Repentance means a turn around – a u-turn from sinful behaviour;
  • Receive Jesus Christ by faith as your Lord and Saviour;
  • You will be regenerated from the inside of your being;
  • Then, join with other Christians for fellowship and growth in your faith;
  • Become a disciple of Jesus Christ and grow in your faith (Matt. 28:18-20).

For more biblical details of these points on how to become a Christian, see this summary, ‘Content of the gospel & some discipleship’.

Recommended

Patrick Zukeran, ‘What happens after death?‘ (Probe Ministries). It has a section on different perspectives on death.

References

Dawkins, R 2006. The God delusion. London: Black Swan (Transworld Publishers).

Erickson, M 1985. Christian theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Geisler, N L 2004, Systematic theology: Sin, salvation, vol. 3. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, Minneapolis.

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hodge, C 1972. Romans (Geneva Series Commentary). London: The Banner of Truth Trust.

Ott, L 1955. Fundamentals of Catholic dogma. Ed by J C Bastible. Tr by P Lynch. St Louis: Herder.[14]

Russell, B 1957. Why I am not a Christian. New York: Simon & Shuster.


Notes:

[1] Alex Peake 2011. ‘Hawking: Heaven is a fairy story’, The Sun [UK], 17 May. Available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3583956/Stephen-Hawking-on-death.html (Accessed 31 May 2012).

[2] Ian Sample 2011. ‘Stephen Hawking: There is no heaven, it’s a fairy story’, The Guardian [UK], 15 May. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven (Accessed 4 June 2012).

[3] See ‘Stephen Hawking’ in Wikipedia, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking (Accessed 31 May 2011).

[4] Headlines from Michael Wenham’s article, The Guardian, 17 May 2011. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/17/stephen-hawking-heaven (Accessed 31 May 2012).

[5] Alex Peake op cit (as in endnote #1).

[6] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘The debate on eternal hell fire’, Precepts #1, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7618877/ (Accessed 31 May 2012).

[7]Timothew, ibid., #3.

[8] Ibid., #8.

[9] WinbySurrender, ibid., #18.

[10] Ibid., #19.

[11] This was originally from Bertrand Russell’s booklet, ‘What I believe’, first published in 1925 that has been incorporated into Russell (1957). This quote is also cited in Richard Dawkins (2006:397).

[12] The following exposition of the nature of human beings is based on Geisler (2004:46-48).

[13] It was first published in 1835.

[14] This was ‘first published in German in 1952. A standard textbook of traditional Roman Catholic theology’ (Grudem 1994:1228).

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 September 2019.

Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22

The youth God squad and healing

clip_image002Courtesy The Australian

By Spencer D Gear

The Australian newspaper (story from the Sunday Mail) reported on ‘Teen God squad Culture Shifters’ miracle cure claims’ (April 15, 2012). The account began:

CHILDREN as young as 13 claim they have instantly healed hundreds of people using the miracle powers of Jesus on Queensland streets.

The Pentecostal group Culture Shifters in Queensland says it has healed people suffering from cancer and multiple sclerosis and is developing a large youth following.

Children from the group have been approaching people at random on the street, prompting alarm from parents and warnings from doctors for the sick to seek medical attention.

“Anyone who has a medical condition should always seek advice from their doctor,” Australian Medical Association Queensland president Dr Richard Kidd said.

Leaders, aged in their teens and 20s, claim they have also healed an entire football team’s injuries, given hearing to a deaf woman and brought sight to a girl’s blind eye.

What is the verification for this kind of healing? Have the football team’s injuries been checked by a medical practitioner to confirm that the healings are legitimate? What about the healed deaf woman and healed blind eye? How do we know they are valid healings?

The story went on to say that this 160-member group of Culture Shifters is from Christian Outreach Centre, Bridgeman Downs (a northern Brisbane suburb) and is led by Grant Shaw, 27, and his wife, Emma, 23.

It claimed these Culture Shifters were even talking to teens in busy places like the Chermside Shopping Centre.

Some live action

If you want to see these people in action, live, see the report on Today Tonight, ‘Teenage God squad’ (Yahoo!7 News). Viewing these images caused me some concern. It is typical of some of the scenes I have seen in Pentecostal and charismatic churches with people falling and lying spread out on the floor after ‘falling under the Spirit’.

My concerns

Here are some of my concerns:

  1. It is rare for the mass media to report in an accurate and sympathetic manner in most ordinary circumstances with the church. Viewing something as extreme as this is hardly going to attract balanced journalism, in my view.
  2. The mass media can give Christianity a bashing on too many occasions. See ‘Gay rights protest outside Court’s church’; ‘Sometimes. love, even if a gift from Jesus, is not good enough’; ‘Sunday nights with John Cleary: Bishop Shelby Spong’. Therefore, with the Culture Shifters (Teen God squad) there could be a possibility that the media have taken a true event and given some media spin to make it sound like the deluded fanatics are involved in this event.
  3. From the news item and the TV program, there is no way to know if the media are reporting accurately. However,
  4. As a former Assemblies of God minister and Bible college teacher, I can say that I’ve seen some fruit-loopy things happen in the name of being ‘slain in the Spirit’. I have to admit that some of what I’ve seen could have involved another spirit.
  5. I have known a very few people associated with various Christian Outreach Centres and have found them to be reasonable, committed evangelical Christians who love the Lord and are available for the Lord’s ministry through the gifts of the Spirit. They are sane people whose relationship with Jesus is sound.
  6. By the very nature of Pentecostal-charismatic churches, we can expect to see some extreme behaviour – depending on the extent to which the pastors and elders maintain the biblical requirement, ‘But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way’ (1 Cor. 14:40 NIV). We have seen out-there behaviour associated with the alleged Toronto Blessing and the Brownsville Pensacola Outpouring.
  7. However, charismatic manifestations have extended to other churches. An example locally to me is Burpengary Baptist Church (northern Brisbane).

What we need

image

ChristArt

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the need for verification of what they are doing in a very secular Australia. I do not find anywhere in Scripture where God promises physical healing to all who are prayed for. The secular media love to report failures. Is doing this on the streets risky and could it give false hope? Also, Today Tonight reported that it has not seen any certificates to verify the healings. This is a valid request.

I believe in the God who can heal, but we must never order him when to do this. He’s the sovereign Lord. What do secular people think when they are prayed for and nothing happens?

This raises another issue. It seems to me that the Scriptures teach that the ministry of healing is to be within the church and not taking it to the secular mainstream. The gifts of healing (1 Cor. 12:9, 28, 30) and praying for the sick, anointing with oil (James 5:14) are church ministries within the church. There are good reasons why the Lord has made it this way in a pastoral, caring environment where there also is further support.

Was healing ever an evangelistic tool after the Lord’s resurrection? I know some will turn to Mark 16:15-18 where proclaiming the Gospel is associated with ‘these signs will accompany those who believe’, including laying hands on the sick and they will recover (v. 18). However, Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and some other early Greek NT witnesses that we have. It could have been an insertion that was not in the original documents. However, it does seem to indicate that this was an example of the continuing ministry of the church after the death of the apostles.

To address this textual issue, I commend, ‘Irony in the end: A textual and literary analysis of Mark 16:8’.

Conclusion

image

ChristArt

The gifts of the Spirit do continue into the 21st century. See my articles,

We need to take seriously the exhortation of Scripture to ‘weigh carefully’ the content of the gifts of the Spirit. The ‘weigh carefully’ message was particularly related to the gift of prophecy. See my article, ‘1 Corinthians 14:29: Weigh carefully’.

There is no way to know if the healing ministry of the teen God squad of the Culture Shifters is genuine without verification of the reality of healings. There is a danger that a wrong emphasis can be given to secular people when there is prayer for healing and no healing takes place. God’s gift of healing is sovereign and according to his will. See my article, ‘Should God heal all Christians who pray for healing?

Care must be taken to avoid Pentecostal extremes. However, the mass media are not likely to deliver a balanced view of what is happening. Extreme behaviour will attract the media, but balanced treatment can’t be expected from the secular journalists. They have a different agenda. When God heals, it is designed to bring glory and attraction to the Lord.

‘But all things should be done decently and in order’ (1 Cor 14:40 ESV)

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 16 October 2015.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

St. Augustine: The leading Church Father who dared to change his mind about divine healing

Augustinus 1.jpg
St Augustine of Hippo (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear PhD [1a]

She was “a woman of the highest social standing in her community,” but disaster had struck. She was dying from a disease that would not respond to any known medical treatment. Two choices were available to her: she could have surgery, or she could accept no treatment. Either way, death was inevitable.

On the advice of an eminent doctor who was a family friend, Innocentia chose to refuse treatment for her breast cancer. But that doctor didn’t realize this godly woman had access to resources he knew nothing of.

In a dream she was told by the Lord to “wait on the women’s side of the baptistry until the first of the newly baptized women would approach, and then ask her to make the sign of Christ on the affected breast.”  She was instantly healed.

The doctor was amazed. His previous examination showed clearly that the tumor was malignant. What special treatment had she received?  He was anxious to hear about the miracle medication.

When he heard her story, his lips and face expressed nothing but contempt, and she was afraid that he was going to begin blaspheming against Christ. The doctor controlled his anger, but sarcastically said, “I had hoped you might have told me something significant.”

Innocentia was shocked by the doctor’s attitude, but her reply was prompt and penetrating: “Well, for Christ to heal a cancer after He raised to life a man four days dead is not, I suppose, particularly significant.”

What makes this testimony of God’s healing power so remarkable is that Innocentia lived in the fifth century when medical science was in its infancy. Anesthetics had not been invented to give to patients before surgery.

Even more profound is the fact that the one who told this story was Augustine, the famous bishop of Hippo in northern Africa and he had believed miracles did not happen in the age in which he lived. This is one of the classic illustrations of the man who dared to change his mind about healing.

Augustine had a Madison Avenue flare. He was “positively angry” that such a great miracle had not been publicized across the city of Carthage. Innocentia had been so silent about the incident that even her closest friends “had heard nothing of the affair.”

Augustine made her tell her story in detail “while her friends, who were there, listened in immense amazement and, when she was done, glorified God.” [1b]  The important question is: What caused Augustine to change his mind about miracles?

A. The doubter becomes a believer

This famous bishop and theologian of the church was a man with a checkered career. Before his Christian conversion he was wild and reckless.  He  indulged  in  drinking, cheating, stealing, and all kinds of illicit sexual activities. To use his own words, he was “a slave to sex rather than a lover of marriage.” [2]

But he was a searcher for truth. At the age of 32 his life was dramatically transformed through an encounter with Jesus Christ.

Augustine became the most important  Christian  writer and preacher of his time. His teachings profoundly affected the church for about a thousand years. “Salvation by grace alone” was the foundation of his ministry, preparing the way for the Protestant reformers in the 1500s.

Like many people today, Augustine had a problem with the supernatural. He knew that the miracles of Jesus were real, but he had doubts about whether they could happen in the day in which he lived. He believed “miracles were not allowed to continue till our time, lest the mind should always seek visible things.” [3]

But about four years before his death he changed his mind: “What I said is not to be interpreted that no miracles are believed to be performed in the name of Christ at the present time. For when I wrote that book, I myself had recently learned that a blind man had been restored to sight in Milan . . . and I knew about some others, so numerous even in these times, that we cannot know about all of them nor enumerate those we know.” [4]

Augustine the doubter once questioned: “Why, you ask, do such miracles not occur now? Because they would not move people, unless they were miraculous; and if they were customary, they would not be miraculous.” [5]

Later he revised that statement: “I meant, however, that such great and numerous miracles no longer take place, not that no miracles occur in our times.” [6]

B.  Why the change?

At the close of one of his most influential writings, The City of God, Augustine tells of a man who was healed of gout; another was instantly cured of paralysis and hernia; evil spirits were driven out of others by prayer. [7] A youth whose eye had been dislocated from its socket and severely damaged, had his sight restored to perfect condition through the prayers of the believers. [8]

A child, dying after being crushed by an ox-drawn cart, was miraculously “returned to consciousness, but showed no sign of the crushing he had suffered.” [9]

The son of Augustine’s neighbor died, “The corpse was laid out; the funeral was arranged; everyone was grieving and sorrowing.” A friend of the family anointed the body with oil. “This was no sooner done than the boy came back to life.” [10]

In his latter years this prominent church leader was witness to, or heard about, demonstrations of God’s supernatural power that were reminiscent of the New Testament church. He had to admit: “If I kept merely to [telling of] miracles of healing and omitted all others. . . I should have to fill several volumes.” [11]

What caused the dramatic turn around in his beliefs? Augustine explains that it came about when “I realized how many miracles were occurring in our own day and which were so like the miracles of old, and how wrong it would be to allow the memory of these marvels of divine power to perish from among our people. It is only two years ago that the keeping of records was begun here in Hippo, and already, at this writing we have nearly seventy attested miracles.” [12]

In spite of initial skepticism, Augustine faced honestly what was happening in his parish. He had to admit that God was at work in the power of the Spirit because of what he saw. To other doubters he recommended: “At least, such people should investigate facts and, if they find them true, should accept them.” [13]

For Augustine, the transformation in his thinking was amazing. “It is a simple fact, then, that there is no lack of miracles even in our day. And the God who works the miracles we read of in the Scripture uses any means and manner He chooses.” [14]

But for Augustine, miracles were not sent primarily by God to relieve pain (although that was a benefit), or to create a spectacle that would attract crowds, or to provide stories that would make a national best-seller. “Miracles have no purpose but to help men believe that Christ is God.” [15] Miracles demonstrate that Jesus Christ is alive and well – they validate the resurrection. He said “the miracles were made known to help men’s faith.” [16]

The miracle that left the most lasting impression on Augustine and his congregation was one that took place in their church one Easter weekend. “It was no more remarkable than others . . . but it was so clear and obvious to everyone that no one who lives here could have failed to see it, or, at least, to hear about it, and certainly no one could ever forget it.”

A brother and sister who were both suffering from convulsive seizures came to town. “Throughout the city they were a spectacle for all to see.”

On Easter morning before the service, the young man was in the crowded church when he fell down as if in a trance. Fear swept across the congregation. But in a moment the fellow stood to his feet and faced the congregation, perfectly normal and well.

The believers erupted in a prayer of thanksgiving to the Lord. Many reported the events to Augustine, and there was a striking similarity in all of their stories: the Lord had performed a miracle before their eyes.

Three days later Augustine stood before the congregation with the brother and sister (he was well; she was still trembling with convulsions), and read the young man’s statement of healing.

The sermon that followed was interrupted by loud cries from the woman who was praying in desperation about her condition. God answered her prayer at that moment. She had the same experience as her brother, fell to the floor as if in a trance, but rose to her feet healed.

Augustine described the scene that followed: “Praise to God was shouted so loud that my ears could scarcely stand the din. But, of course, the main point was that, in the hearts of all this clamoring crowd, there burned that faith in Christ for which the martyr Stephen shed his blood.” [17]

C.  Implications

Why is Augustine’s change of mind about healing so significant? First, there are many fine Christians today who believe the biblical-style miracles ceased with the death of the original  twelve apostles. Augustine’s writings clearly disagree with that position.

Second, this famous church leader gives a clear example of what Christian maturity involves. He was flexible enough to change his views when presented with evidence that could not be disputed. Like the apostle Thomas (John 20), his doubt was turned to belief by what he saw.

Third, miracles multiplied in Augustine’s ministry and parish when he was open to such supernatural possibilities. There was little to report about physical healings in his writings when he took the position that miracles were not for his time. God requires people to trust Him for the impossible if the miraculous is to occur.

Christians need to stand firm on biblical principles that never change. But there comes a time when one has to be big enough to admit that a personal interpretation was wrong. Near the end of his life, Augustine revised 93 of his writings and changed “anything that offends me or might offend others.” [18] He had the mettle to admit his mistakes in public and make necessary changes. He dared to change his mind about divine healing.

Notes

[1] This article was originally published as, “The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing,” in the Pentecostal Evangel, September 11, 1983, pp. 18-20.

[1a]  I completed my dissertation-only PhD in New Testament at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, when I was aged 69 in 2015.

[1b] Saint Augustine, The City of God, translated by Gerald G. Waigh and Daniel J. Honan, volume 24 in the series, The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954), pp. 437, 488.
[2] Mildred Tengborn, “The Saint and His Saintly Mother,” Eternity (January 1983), pp. 46-47.
[3] John A. Mourant, lntroduction to the Philosophy of Saint Augustine: Selected Readings and Commentaries, (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964), pp. 64-65. Quoting from Augustine’s “On the True Religion,” chapter 25:47.
[4] Saint Augustine, The Retractions, translated by Sister Mary Inez Bogan, volume 60 in the series, The Fathers of the  Church (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1968), p. 55.
[5] Saint Augustine, “The Advantage of Believing,” in Writings of Saint Augustine, translated by Luaime Meagher, volume 2 in the series, The Fathers of the Church (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1947), p. 438.
[6] Retractions, pp. 61, 62.
[7] City of God, p. 439.
[8] Ibid., p. 441.
[9] Ibid., p. 444.
[10] Ibid., p. 445.
[11] Ibid., p. 445.
[12] Ibid., p. 445.
[13] Ibid., p. 447.
[14] Ibid., p. 447.
[15] Ibid., p. 456.
[16] Saint Augustine, The City of God, an abridged version from the translation by Gerald G. Walsh, Demetrius B. Zema, Grace Monahan, and Daniel J. Honan- Edited, with an introduction, by Vernon J. Bourke (Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books, 1958), p. 513.
[17] City of God (as in endnote 1), pp. 448-450.
[18] Retractions, p. xiii.

 

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 9 December 2017.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

What is the nature of the Bible’s inspiration?

clip_image002Courtesy ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

Is the Bible a book that contains errors of history, contradictions of various sorts, and can still be described as the authoritative word of God?

There are heretical groups like the Jesus Seminar that want us to believe that ‘Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him’ (Funk et al 1998:5).

What about John Dominic Crossan’s assessment? (He’s also a fellow of the Jesus Seminar)

What happened after the death and burial of Jesus is told in the last chapters of the four New Testament gospels. On Easter Sunday morning his tomb was found empty, and by Easter Sunday evening Jesus himself had appeared to his closest followers and all was well once again. Friday was hard, Saturday was long, but by Sunday all was resolved. Is this fact or fiction, history or mythology? Do fiction and mythology crowd closely around the end of the story just as they did around its beginning? And if there is fiction or mythology, on what is it based? I have already argued, for instance, that Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals. We can still glimpse what happened before, behind, and despite those fictional overlays precisely by imagining what they were created to hide. What happened on Easter Sunday? Is that the story of one day? Or of several years? Is that the story of all Christians gathered together as a single group in Jerusalem? Or is that the story of but one group among several, maybe of one group who claimed to be the whole?…

The Easter story at the end is, like the Nativity story at the beginning, so engraved on our imagination as factual history rather than fictional mythology. (Crossan 1994:160-161).

If that is your view of the Bible, what is your view of Christ’s death on the cross and his atonement for sins? Crossan takes offense at the substitutionary atonement:

What are his statements about the nature of Christ’s atonement? His view is that blood sacrifice should not include suffering and substitution and should not include ‘substitutionary suffering’. He stated that ‘worst of all, imagine that somebody brought together sacrifice, suffering, and substitution….That theology would be a crime against divinity’. While it is correct to call Jesus’ death a sacrifice, but ‘substitutionary atonement is bad as theoretical Christian theology just as suicidal terrorism is bad as practical Islamic theology. Jesus died because of our sins, or from our sins, but that should never be misread as for our sins’ (Crossan 2007:140).

Crossan’s presuppositions about the atonement

What are the presuppositions that underlie this theology that opposes substitutionary atonement?

On Christian Forums I was discussing the nature of Scripture when I stated that in about 50 years as an evangelical Christian, I’ve come across a few apparent contradictions, but with some further study all of them have been resolved to my satisfaction.

My starting point is that the God of Scriptures tells the truth and I’ve provided this biblical evidence for this in a previous post on this thread. Since God is the God of truth, we will not tell me a lie or present a real contradiction to me. It may be an apparent contradiction in Scripture from my human perspective, but I’ve been able to resolve/harmonise them to my satisfaction.[1]

Pointless exercise

Ebia’s response was:

Because its (sic) a pointless exercise, like worrying about whether the Maths textbook has got their height of the tower of Pisa correct. No – correct that – a worse than pointless exercise. “resolving” the discrepancies ends up devaluing the actual messages of the texts in order to hang on to some inappropriate notion of truth that reflects a particular cultural hang-up.
Sure, one can convince oneself that anything is not a contradiction if one is prepared to go far enough to do it. The question is whether that’s a good idea.[2]

There was a back and forth between us in which there were differences between us of the meaning of biblical authority.

Ebia responded to another of my posts:

‘Because the discrepancies [in Scripture] tend to exist for a reason; they result from the differences in what different authors are trying to say. A best resolving them risks flattening out the accounts and drowning out those messages, at worst it produces a farce like some of the attempts to harmonize the cock-crow/denial accounts or the resurrection morning accounts. And either way it’s a distraction. In no case does it – can it – do anything actually useful. Assuming that the gospels are “God’s word (TM)”, it’s the gospels as written that are that, not some harmonization of them’.[3]

In another she asked:

What do I take from the letter to Timothy? That scripture is a unique gift from God, useful and reliable for teaching,… And in some sense a living thing. That it has authority in the sense Tom Wright talks about.[4]

I was asking for her understanding of the meaning of theopneustos (‘inspiration’ or ‘breathed out by God’) in 2 Tim. 3:16.

How would you respond to her continuing emphases?

  • ‘You’re going around in circles because you are trying to force an answer in terms of a framework that is not one that I or Tom [N T Wright] accept.

I don’t accept that inconsistency in factual detail is an error in texts that aren’t trying to communicate that level of factual detail (see my Maths textbook analogy) and therefore to keep framing the question on those terms is, to me, to misformed (sic) the question’.[5]

  • ‘It takes two to tango. But the reason we are both going around in circles is that the way you keep framing the question fits your worldview assumptions but not mine, instead of being prepared to consider what I actually have to say.
    In particular I don’t share your view that a discrepancy in a factual detail – lets say the name of Joseph’s great-grandfather in the male line – constitutes an error in a meaningful sense.
    Tom Wright leaves out what I would want to leave out because it’s the wrong question to be asking.
    Of course we aren’t going to agree. Is the only point of a conversation to make people agree with you?’[6]
  • ‘You claim it’s a “conflict with the nature of God”. I don’t agree because I don’t see a discrepancy in factual detail to be an “error” if the concern of the text is not accuracy in that detail but something entirely different.
    Your question is “wrong” because it has an underlying assumption about tangential factual details that I don’t share.
    It’s a bit like keeping asking “have you stopped beating your wife yet; yes or no?”’[7]
  • ‘Discrepancies [in Scripture] tend to exist for a reason; they result from the differences in what different authors are trying to say’.

Presuppositions imposed on biblical text

I find it impossible to have a rational discussion with this person and her views on the nature of the origin of the Bible because her presuppositions are based on an imposition on the biblical text. The view of Scripture is not that expounded from the Scriptures themselves. This is my assessment:

(1) If we try to resolve the discrepancies in the text, it ends up devaluing the actual messages of the texts is her statement. Her view is that the message of the Bible can contain discrepancies (i.e. errors), but that doesn’t affect the message. My presupposition is that the God of truth does not tell lies and the original documents of the Bible would not have been given by God to contain errors if he is the God of truth and justice as I’ve attempted to show in this article.

(2) Her view is that an inconsistency in factual detail is not an error in texts. That is a loose view of the authority of Scripture that allows or glosses over errors in factual details in the Bible. Therefore, how do we decide which are the factual errors and which are not? Is the ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) creation of the universe and all that is in it, according to the Genesis record, a factual inconsistency when compared with the theory of evolution? Is the virgin birth of Christ and inconsistency or factually true? I find it better to study the Bible inductively – from the biblical texts. Listen to what the biblical text states. There may be statements that I don’t yet understand with my limited knowledge and there may be apparent inconsistencies, but to date I have not found an alleged discrepancy for which there has not been an adequate explanation provided with study.

(3) According to this poster, the discrepancies are there for a reason and are because different authors are trying to say different things. But, what about the God of truth and what he is overseeing? If he is the God of truth, shouldn’t that guarantee the truth of what he superintends, no matter which author is writing?

(4) I ask you: Is ebia on the correct path when she compares my view of wanting to know if the Bible is an infallible document or not, with ‘like keeping asking “have you stopped beating your wife yet; yes or no?”’ Is the requirement to know the origin of the Bible, whether it is infallible or not, in any way like asking, ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet; yes or no?’ I object strongly to such an interpretation of my views. I find ebia to be promoting a weak view of the Scripture and she is trying to justify her view.

I hope you see that this interchange is important because it helps to uncover the presupposition we both have with regard to the Scripture. Ebia believes that the Bible can make errors in tangential factual details and still be regarded as Scripture. My view is that the God of truth and righteousness will always tell the truth and never lie. What he tells us in Scripture is inerrant in the original manuscripts.

See the articles that follow that I have written, except for the first one:

Apparent contradictions and inerrancy’ by my son, Paul Gear;

The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals;

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Can you trust the bible? Part 4

I have a copy of the American edition[8] – and have read all of it – of N T Wright’s The Last Word (HarperSanFrancisco 2005). He begins his preface to the American edition with,

Writing a book about the Bible is like building a sandcastle in front of the Matterhorn (p. ix).

He states that the central claim of this book is

that the phrase “authority of Scripture” can make Christian sense only if it is a shorthand for “the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture” (p. 23, emphasis in original).

Later, under the heading, ‘Inspiration and “the Word of YHWH”‘, he stated

“Inspiration” is a shorthand way of talking about the belief that by his Spirit God guided the very different writers and editors, to that the books they produced were the books God intended his people to have. This is not the subject of the present book, but we should note that some kind of divine inspiration of scripture was taken for granted in most of the ancient Israelite scriptures themselves as well as in the beliefs of the early Christians (p. 37).

He admits that

many of the accusations not merely of diversity but of flat contradiction arise not from historical study proper but from impositions on the texts of categories from which later Western thought (from, for instance, the sixteenth or the nineteenth century (p. 52).

He explains that

‘the Reformers’ sola scriptura slogan was part of their protest against perceived medieval corruptions. Go back to scripture, they insisted, and you will find the once-for-all death of Jesus but not the Mass, justification by faith but not purgatory, the power of God’s word but not that of the pope…. Nothing beyond scripture is to be taught as needing to be believed in order for one to be saved (pp. 71-72, emphasis in original).

He stated that his major conclusion was

that the shorthand phrase “the authority of scripture,” when unpacked, offers a picture of God’s sovereign and saving plan for the entire cosmos, dramatically inaugurated by Jesus himself, and now to be implemented through the Spirit-led life of the church precisely as the scripture-reading community” (p. 114, emphasis in original).

He goes on to explain that he has argued in this book that

“the authority of Scripture” is really a shorthand for “the authority of God exercised through scripture”; and God’s authority is not merely his right to control and order the church, but his sovereign power, exercised in an through Jesus and the Spirit, to bring all things in heaven and on earth into subjection to his judging and healing rule. (Ephesians 1 sets this out more spectacularly than most passages.) In other words, if we are to be true, at the deepest level, to what scriptural authority really means, we must understand it like this: God is at work, through scripture (in other words, through the Spirit who is at work as people read, study, teach and preach scripture) to energize, enable and direct the outgoing mission of the church, genuinely anticipating thereby the time when all things will be made new in Christ (p. 138).

However, after reading his book, I find that N. T. Wright is skirting around or avoiding the issue of the nature of the Bible and how it was given in the original documents – infallibility or inerrancy are far from his keyboard, but he does admit that ‘the church clearly can’t live without the Bible’ (p. ix). My question is, ‘What kind of Bible?’ Is it one that includes inaccuracies and contradictions, or as ebia, a supporter of N. T. Wright’s view, states that it does not matter if in factual detail there is an error in the texts?

Wright does include in the preface the statement that he has tried

to face head on the question of how we can speak of the Bible being in some sense “authoritative” when the Bible itself declares that all authority belongs to the one true God, and that this is now embodied in Jesus Himself (p. xi).

But how do we know this book is a reliable and trustworthy document? Did the God of truth, perfection and justice (Deut. 32:4; Ps 19:9; John 17:17; 2 Tim 3:16; Rev 15:3-4; 16:7; 19:1-4) who gave us the Bible, give his revelation in a document that includes errors and contradictions in the original manuscripts?

These questions need to be answered and I do not think that N. T. Wright did that in his book on the authority of Scripture, The Last Word (HarperSanFrancisco 2005).

Major problem of omission

After I wrote the above, I sought out reviews of Wright’s, The Last Word. Theologian John Frame measured my theological pulse when he wrote:

By way of evaluation[9]: So far as I am aware, there is no statement in the book that I simply disagree with. And the book contains some excellent insights about Scripture, on its kingdom context, the canon, and Scripture’s relations with tradition, reason, and experience. Wright also has valuable things to say here about biblical interpretation: on how the New Testament fulfills the Old, and on what a “literal” interpretation ought to mean.

But there is a major problem of omission. If one is to deal seriously with the “Bible wars,” even somehow to transcend them, one must ask whether and how inspiration affects the text of Scripture. Wright defines inspiration by saying that “by his Spirit God guided the very different writers and editors, so that the books they produced were the books God intended his people to have” (37). But the same can be said about the books in my library: that God moved writers, editors, publishers, et al., so that the books in my library are the ones God wants me to have. Nevertheless, there are some horrible books in my library (which I keep for various good reasons). So it is important to ask whether inspiration is simply divine providence, or whether it carries God’s endorsement. Is God, in any sense, the author of inspired books?

Wright doesn’t discuss this question, but Scripture itself does. The Decalogue was the writing of God’s finger (Ex. 31:18). The prophets identified the source of their preaching by the phrase “thus says the Lord.” Jesus attributes David’s words to the Spirit (Matt. 22:43). Paul says that the Old Testament Scriptures were God-breathed, i.e., spoken by God (2 Tim. 3:16). And Paul connects this God-breathed quality with the authority of Scripture, indicating that biblical authority is not only the authority of divine power, but also of divine speech.
Or look at it this way:  “Word of God” in Scripture, is not merely “a strange personal presence, creating, judging, healing, recreating” (38).” It is all of these things, but it is also, obviously, divine speech (as Wright himself recognizes on 34). When God creates, for example, he creates by speech, by commanding the world to exist. Prophecy and Scripture are “word of God,” not only in their power, but also as speech and language: not only power, but also meaning.

Wright is right to say that God’s word, and specifically Scripture, is more than doctrines and commands. But if inspiration confers divine authorship, and if God’s word is true speech, then it becomes very important, within the context of the kingdom narrative, to believe God’s doctrines and to obey God’s commands. Indeed, as Wright notes, the very nature of narrative poses the question of whether the events described “really happened:” that is, what should we believe about them, and how should we act in response. But then narrative itself implies doctrines to be believed and commandments to obey.7
That is what the Bible wars are about. One can believe everything Wright says about the narrative context of biblical authority and still ask responsibly whether the words of Scripture are God’s words to us. Wright’s book does not speak helpfully to this question, nor does it succeed (if this was Wright’s purpose) in persuading us not to ask it. So, like the worship books mentioned earlier, The Last Word does not discuss what is most relevant to the controversy. It proposes a context, but a context is not enough. Two people who accept Wright’s proposal may nevertheless differ radically on the question of whether the Bible is the word of God.

Many of us would like to get away from the debates of the liberal/fundamentalist controversy. But if Scripture is God’s very word, then we cannot be indifferent to its doctrinal and ethical authority, or silent against attacks on that authority. Wright has done some great work in defending the truth of Scripture, and it is evident in the present volume that he has scant regard for the scholarship of enlightenment skeptics like those of the Jesus Seminar. So he has himself entered into the Bible wars. But are these wars merely contests to see who is the better scholar, or is the word of God itself at issue? If the latter, much more must be said and done (Review of N. T. Wright, The Last Word. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005, by John M. Frame).

How did ebia respond to the above?

You’re going around in circles because you are trying to force an answer in terms of a framework that is not one that I or Tom accept.

I don’t accept that in inconsistency in factual detail is an error in texts that aren’t trying to communicate that level of factual detail (see my Maths textbook analogy) and therefore to keep framing the question on those terms is, to me, to misformed the question.[10]

My response is that it is not I who is going around in circles. Ebia seems to like Tom Wright’s perspective where he doesn’t want to admit to the infallibility of Scripture in the original documents, which affirms the origin of Scripture, which is consistent with the nature of the God of truth who does not lie.

John Frame picked that one well. It is what Wright leaves out that is what I consider of critical importance. Is Scripture truthful (infallible) or does it include discrepancies, even in minor factual details?

However, ebia and I are not going to agree on the infallibility of Scripture because our presuppositions are very different.[11]

Works consulted

Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, J D 2007. God and empire: Jesus against Rome, then and now. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Funk, R W, Hoover, R W & The Jesus Seminar 1993. The five gospels: The search for the authentic words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Notes

[1] OzSpen #89, Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Bible contradictions’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7643378-9/ (Accessed 7 April 2012).

[2] #91 ibid.

[3] #93, ibid.

[4] Ebia #99, ibid, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7643378-10/ (Accessed 7 April 2012).

[5] Ibid. #101.

[6] Ibid, #103.

[7] Ibid. #105.

[8] This information I posted as OzSpen at #100, ibid.

[9] He is reviewing N T Wright 2005. The Last Word. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

[10] Ebia #101, Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Bible contradictions’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7643378-10/ (Accessed 7 April 2012).

[11] Ibid., #102.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 16 October 2015.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

 

Those who live and believe in Jesus Christ shall never die

image

By Spencer D. Gear

What happens to Christians when they die? It is standard Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) teaching that the soul sleeps at death. It is the doctrine known as ‘soul sleep’. Let’s check out what these two cults believe about this doctrine:

Seventh Day Adventist:

We, as Adventists, have reached the definite conclusion that man rests in the tomb until the resurrection morning. Then, at the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4, 5), the resurrection of the just (Acts 24:15), the righteous come forth immortalized, at the call of Christ the Life-giver. And they then enter into life everlasting, in their eternal home in the kingdom of glory. Such is our understanding (At Issue 1957: 520).

Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower):

The dead are shown to be ‘conscious of nothing at all’ and the death state to be one of complete inactivity. (Eccl. 9:5, 10; Ps. 146:4). In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures death is likened to sleep, a fitting comparison, not only due to the unconscious condition of the dead, but also because of the hope of an awakening through the resurrection (“Condition of Human Dead” in Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 431, cited in MacGregor n.d.).

Thus the JW’s view of life after death is that the dead enter a place of unconsciousness or sleep. Because of the many years of exposure to the false doctrine of soul sleep (see my article, “Soul sleep: A refutation), many SDAs find it difficult to grasp the biblical teaching on what happens at death.

Here is an example from Harold, the SDA:

What is false about Jesus calling it ‘sleep’ when that is what He said Lazarus was doing?  What is false about Paul telling us that ‘not all of us will sleep’?  What is false about Daniel saying that ‘many of them will sleep’?  What is false about Jesus saying that, ‘those in their graves shall hear His voice’?  What is false about the writer of 1 Kings telling us that ‘David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David’?
What is false about sixty or so more texts exactly like those???[1]

What is false is what Harold does. He takes the metaphor of ‘sleep’ (what a dead person looks like), and then he makes it into a doctrine of soul sleep or unconsciousness at death, which conflicts with other Scriptures. Of course, he does not believe in the immortality of the soul.

Let’s consider what the Bible teaches.

  1. We know that Jesus did not believe in soul sleep because this is what He believed: “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26 NIV). Does this SDA person believe this? No he doesn’t!
  2. There is not the faintest indication of soul sleep in these two verses. Jesus stated, “Whoever lives by believing in me will never die“. We need to understand this clear statement: The one who lives and believes in Jesus will NEVER DIE, even though his/her physical body perishes to dust in the ground. No matter how often the SDAs and JWs want to use the metaphor of ‘sleep’ to convince themselves that soul sleep is real, Jesus does not and never will agree this false teaching. That’s Bible. These cults, SDA and JW, need to quit their metaphorical imposition on what the Jesus said about what actually happens at death.
  3. What is false about their trying to impose on us that Paul taught soul sleep? Paul’s own words should convict the soul sleepers: ‘Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8).
  4. Daniel said, ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt’ (Dan 12:2). He was talking about the metaphor of what people look like at death and that at a time in the future, there will be a joining of the body and the soul. No matter how hard he tries, people like Harold, can’t get past the truth that soul sleep is not taught in the Bible.
  5. We know what happened at death for the OT believers. What did Jesus say about Abraham, Isaac & Jacob? ‘And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not God of the dead, but of the living’ (Matt. 22:31-32). So, when Jesus was alive on earth, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive. God is not the God of the dead (or those who soul sleep in the grave) because he is the God of the living. What was true of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was true of Daniel. Even though Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Daniel had looked like they were sleeping at death (metaphor), they were alive and well. How do we know so? It’s on the authority of Jesus.
  6. If soul sleep is what happens at death for believers, Jesus would not have met with Moses and Elijah at his Transfiguration. This is what we read in Matthew 17:1-4 (NIV):

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

One possible soul sleep application of these verses could be that Moses and Elijah had been ‘asleep’ and Jesus woke them for the event at the Transfiguration. However, we know that this would not be true because it would conflict with John 11:25-26: ‘Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”’

I have written on this and related topics elsewhere:

References

At Issue 1957, Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C. Question 41, available from: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q41.htm (Accessed 17 March 2012).

MacGregor, L. n.d., Jehovah’s Witnesses, soul sleep and the state of the dead. Available from:  http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W0901.pdf (Accessed 17 March 2012).

Notes


[1] This was in a Christian Fellowship Forum (CFF) response in the directory, “Bible Study & Discipleship”, thread, “What does this mean?”, Harold #777, dated 3 March 2012, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=760&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=120846 (Accessed 17 March 2012). Some of what follows I provided as a response to Harold, as ozspen, #780, on the CFF topic.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 9 June 2016.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise at death – with Jesus?

Crucify

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Where did the thief on the cross beside Jesus go when he took his last breath? Jesus’ words were: ‘And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”’ (Luke 23:43 ESV). Let’s look at a few committee translations of the Bible and see how they translate this sentence:

1. KJV: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

2. NKJV: And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

3. D-RB: And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise

4. NIV: Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

5. NASB: And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

6. NLT: And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

7. RSV: And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

8. NRSV: He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’

9. NAB: He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

10. NJB: He answered him, ‘In truth I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.’

All of these translations have the comma before “today”, but there is the occasional exception. One of them comes from the JWs. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation gives this translation of Luke 23:43: ‘And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise’.

Please note that the comma is AFTER “today” and not BEFORE “today” as in the major committee translations of the Bible.

Why the change of comma?

There were no punctuation marks, breaks between words, or clearly defined sentences (as we understand them in English) in the original Greek of the NT.[1] Therefore, how do we interpret this statement? Greek scholars have called the SDA, JW, and Christadelphian interpretation of Luke 23:43 (with the comma after, ‘today’) various things, including “grammatically senseless” (Lutzer 1997:49) because it was obvious that Jesus was speaking to the thief on that very day. Jesus could not have been saying it in the past or in the future. Why would Jesus add the word, “today” to this sentence if it were only referring to Jesus’ and the thief’s existence on that day in which they were both alive and going to die?

It is getting into illogical nonsense to get Jesus to say that it was that very day on which he was saying it. That is obvious. It needs no reinforcement from Jesus that he is speaking to anyone today! If I am speaking to someone today, I don’t say something like, “I am speaking to you today and because it is today, I ask you to help me with carrying the groceries from the car to the house”. It is useless, redundant, superfluous, pointless, senseless, meaningless, worthless, stupid and inane to say that I am speaking to you today when I am speaking to anyone on this very day. The same adjectives can be used to describe the SDA, JW and Christadelphian interpretation of Luke 23:43.

Instead, Luke 23:43 should read as all of the committee translations at the beginning of this article state, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43 ESV).

Christ was giving assurance to the thief that on that very day they would both meet in Paradise, the place where all believers go at death.

It is obvious why the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Christadelphians do not want the thief on the cross to be in Paradise with Jesus that very day. They do not believe in the teaching of believers going into the presence of the Lord at death. They believe in the false doctrine of soul sleep or unconsciousness at death. Let’s check out their statements about what happens at death for the believer:

Jehovah’s Witnesses on what happens at death: “When a person dies, he ceases to exist. Death is the opposite of life. The dead do not see or hear or think. Not even one part of us survives the death of the body. We do not possess an immortal soul or spirit…. Jesus compared death to rest and sleep*

Seventh-Day Adventists on what happens at death: “The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people [this is commonly called ‘soul sleep’]” (Adventist fundamental beliefs #26, ‘Death and Resurrection’.

Christadelphians on what happens at death: “While awaiting this inheritance, all await resurrection in the sleep of death, where there is no consciousness (Psalm 146:3-4, Ecl. 9:10)”.

What happens for believers at death, according to the Bible?

From Luke 23:42, the thief on the cross asked, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (ESV). Jesus’ response was, “Today you will be with me in Paradise”. But we have a few pointed questions to answer:

1. Jesus said that the thief would be in Paradise with him that very day, but wasn’t Jesus in the grave (the tomb) for 3 days? (See Luke 23:50-56).

2. Didn’t Jesus go to Hades between death and his resurrection? (See Job 38:17, Psalm 68:18-22; Matthew 12:38-41; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:7-10, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6. The Apostles’ Creed states of Jesus Christ that he “was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell”).

3. What about this idea that Jesus didn’t go to Paradise until after his resurrection? If this is the truth about what happened to Jesus at death, Jesus could not make a promise to meet the thief that very day in Paradise. A Christadelphian website quotes Acts 1:3 (NKJV) that states that Jesus presented himself alive after his suffering by ‘many infallible proofs’ during the 40 days after his resurrection. Therefore, say the Christadelphians, ‘it was after these forty days that Jesus ascended to his Father in heaven. Therefore, if Paradise is indeed heaven, it was 43 days before Jesus got there, so by saying to the thief “You’re going to be there with me today”, Jesus would be lying’.

Christ’s promise to the thief on the cross was “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Stephen, the martyr, prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). He did not pray, “Lord Jesus, send me to the grave to sleep until the resurrection of the just and unjust”.

Why is the destiny of the redeemed, whether immediately at death or in the future, variously described in the NT as heaven (Col. 1:5), Paradise (Luke 23:43), and Abraham’s bosom/side (Luke 16:22)? We have no difficulty referring to a house as a residence, mansion, dwelling, and perhaps a palace for some. I once lived in an old weather-board house on a Queensland cane farm, but later graduated to a brick-veneer house. God has no difficulty referring to what happens after death by these various designations (see also 2 Corinthians 12).

Where was Jesus between death and his resurrection?

1. Yes, his body was in the tomb (Matt 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55; John 19:38-42). Matthew indicates that the tomb was sealed with a large stone (Matt. 27:62-65). This should guarantee that the tomb contained the body of Jesus for the 3 days. However, what happened to Jesus’ soul/spirit? Nothing is said in these verses about it. Remember the words of Jesus: ‘Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy bot soul and body in hell’ (Matt 10:28 NIV).

2. What was Paul’s view of what happened at death? Paul stated that ‘we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8). This is parallel with what happened to the thief on the cross, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).

3. There are passages of Scripture that indicate an intermediate state following death and before the resurrection. It is a state in which the soul of the individual continues to live in conscious existence. For an indication of what happens to believers, see Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:1-9, esp. v8; Phil. 1:23 and Heb. 12:23. For unbelievers, see Luke 16:24-26 and Heb. 9:27.

4. What about unbelievers at death? Bible.org has an article by Greg Herrick which states that ‘the intermediate state for unbelievers (i.e., what happens to them after death) seems to involve conscious punishment in Hades where they await a future, bodily resurrection to eternal punishment in Hell, the final place of the Devil, his angels, and the wicked (Matthew 25:41; Luke 16:19-31; 2 Thess 1:8-9)’. Therefore, the Christian belief (also included in late Judaism) was that at death, Christians go immediately into the presence of God (this is not going to their final residence, heaven) as Paul indicates in Philippians 1 and 2 Corinthians 5.

5. So, in Luke 23:43, Jesus was affirming what happened to believers at death. Their spirit/soul would go to Paradise (Luke 23:43). It is also called Abraham’s bosom/side in Luke 16:22.

6. The view, based on Christian tradition, that Jesus’ soul/spirit was in Hades between his death and resurrection comes from passages like Eph. 4:9; 1 Peter 3:19 and 1 Peter 4:6. The KJV and ESV translate Eph. 4:9 as ‘the lower parts of the earth’. The NIV and the NLT get to the meaning: (a) “descended to the lower, earthly regions” (NIV); (b) “descended to our lowly world” (NLT). The meaning from Eph. 4:9 is that this is not speaking of Jesus’ experience between his death and resurrection, but that He came down from heaven to earth at his incarnation. The evidence is fairly questionable that Jesus spent any length of time in Hades (‘prison’) between his death and resurrection.

7. John 20:17 (NIV) might be an indication that Jesus was not in heaven (as opposed to Paradise) until after the resurrection. The verse states, ‘Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’”.

8. If Jesus was incorrect and he was NOT in Paradise when he died in order to meet the thief there, we are only left with theological guesswork as to where Jesus was between his death and resurrection – the cults vs orthodox Christianity. The Scriptures are more specific than that. Jesus went at death where all believers go – to Paradise or Abraham’s bosom/side. When Jesus proclaimed that the thief would be in Paradise with Him on that very day, Jesus was not only confirming where believers go at death (it is not to sleep), but also he was declaring that the work of salvation was complete. The vicarious and substitutionary atonement, and propitiation had been completed and justification by faith was available to all who would believe in Christ alone for salvation (points 1-8, with help from Kaiser et al 1996:488-489).

I have written a detailed refutation of the false doctrine of soul sleep in “Soul Sleep: A Refutation”. See also Dr. Richard Bucher’s exposition, “Where does the soul go after death? (Paradise or Soul Sleep)?” Dr. Bucher has stated:

But the soul sleep argument depends on all of these passages being taken literally. But is that really the case? Is it not possible, or even probable, that the “death as sleep” passages are intended to be understood in a figurative sense? Someone who has died looks like he is sleeping, which is why people of many cultures have described death in this way. Even if the soul and body are sleeping in some real sense, who can be sure that it is a sleep exactly like the sleep of the living, that is, a totally unconscious sleep? Who can be sure what the sleep of the dead is exactly like?

A valuable contribution is in, “Where did Jesus go after he died on the cross?

Works consulted

Kaiser Jr, W C; Davids, P H; Bruce, F F & Brauch, M T 1996. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Lutzer, E W 1997. One Minute after You Die: A Preview of Your Final Destination. Chicago: Moody Press.

Notes:


[1] I read NT Greek and have taught NT Greek at theological college level.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 16 October 2015.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

Whytehouse Designs

Apparent contradictions and inerrancy

(public domain)

By Paul Gear

I’ve been studying the Gospel of John at college this semester, and one view that i’ve encountered is the view that John’s chronology of the Passion week, in particular the day of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion, contradicts that of the Synoptic Gospels. This article by Barry D. Smith explains some of the issues and argues for the view that there is no contradiction.

This got me thinking about the implications of this view for the doctrine of inerrancy. Inerrancy is a presupposition in this case (the only one that i’m prepared to bring to biblical studies), but i think it is a reasonable one based on inductive study of the Scripture. Wayne A. Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture”, in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), argues decisively that Scripture itself gives Christians no option but to accept inerrancy.

Here are some quotes from his article (emphasis in the original in all cases):

God’s words, especially God’s words as spoken and written by men … are viewed consistently by the Old Testament authors as different in character and truth status from all other human words; … In truth status they are seen as being different from all other human words, for human words invariably contain falsehood and error (Ps. 116:11), but these do not; they are spoken by God who never lies (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). They are completely truthful (Ps. 119:160) and free from impurity or unreliability of any kind … (p. 35)

Perhaps it has not been stated emphatically enough that nowhere in the Old Testament or in the New Testament does any writer give any hint of a tendency to distrust or consider slightly unreliable any other part of Scripture. Hundreds of texts encourage God’s people to trust Scripture completely, but no text encourages any doubt or even slight mistrust of Scripture. To rely on the “inerrancy” of every historical detail affirmed in Scripture is not to adopt a “twentieth-century view” of truth or error; it is to follow the teaching and practice of the biblical authors themselves. It is to adopt a biblical view of truth and error. (p. 58-59)

To believe that all the words of the Bible are God’s words and that God cannot speak untruthfully will significantly affect the way in which one approaches a “problem text” or “alleged error” in Scripture. To seek for a harmonization of parallel accounts will be a worthy undertaking. To approach a text with the confident expectation that it will, if rightly understood, be consistent with what the rest of the Bible says, will be a proper attitude. (p. 59)

I have looked at dozens of [“problem texts”], and in every single case there are possible solutions in the commentaries. If one accepts the Bible’s claim to be God’s very words, then the real question is not how “probable” any proposed solution is in itself, but how one weighs the probability of that proposed solution against the probability that God has spoken falsely. Personally I must say that the “difficult texts” would have to become many times more difficult and many times more numerous before I would come to think that I had misunderstood the hundreds of texts about the truthfulness of God’s words in Scripture, or that God had spoken falsely. (pp. 367-368; 59n84)

The last two paragraphs quoted above are particularly relevant here. It seems to me there are a few possibilities in the particular case of John’s Passion chronology:

  1. John might or might not have been aware of the Synoptics, and was unaware that his account contradicted theirs. (This might also include such views as that John was written before the Synoptics.)
  2. John was aware of the Synoptics, was aware that his account contradicted theirs, but didn’t care because he wasn’t seeking to be historically accurate.
  3. John was aware of the Synoptics, was aware that his account contradicted theirs, and was consciously seeking to correct them.
  4. John might or might not have been aware of the Synoptics, or might or might not have been aware that his account contradicted theirs, but decided to change which night the Last Supper was on for theological, thematic, stylistic, or other reasons.
  5. Neither John nor the Synoptics was being precise about their use of Passover festival terminology, thus there is no contradiction.

Smith’s article seems to prefer solution #5. There may be other options that i haven’t considered. I’d be happy to hear about them if you have any references.

Based on the principles outlined in Grudem’s article, i would make the following conclusions about each option:

  1. John, while not specifically contradicting the Synoptics, may nonetheless be guilty of historical blunder.
  2. John is not specifically contradicting the Synoptics, but is working at a lower level of precision. This runs aground on the fact that his language is specifically locating the events in question on certain days, so it would be hard to argue that he is aiming for less precision.
  3. At least one of the two chronologies (John or the Synoptics) is historically incorrect.
  4. John, in specifically employing an unhistorical approach, is saying that these details are inconsequential, and secondary to his greater purpose, which is to engender faith. This runs aground on the same issue as #2 (his specific language about days), and also raises the question, “Why should i believe in a Jesus presented by someone who has deliberately muddied the waters about the details of the object and origin of that belief?” Or, put another way, “How does setting Jesus’ upper room discourse and crucifixion on days on which they did not really occur help to promote belief in Jesus? Rather doesn’t it diminish belief in Jesus?”
  5. This view seems to take appropriate account of the facts marshalled by Grudem, while acknowledging that the level of precision used by the Gospel writers does not meet with 21st century expectations of precision (the so-called “videotape view of history”).

Assuming i have a reasonable grasp of the available options, i can’t see any reasonable option for Evangelicals but to choose #5 (or possibly a combination of #1 & #5, although i think this is infeasible on other grounds).1

Of course, there is another alternative: that the biblical authors were incorrect (either by mistake, or by deliberate misrepresentation) in asserting that the Scriptures are without error and that God cannot lie, and that we should not require ourselves to believe what they believed. (I am discounting the possibility that Grudem’s conclusion about Scripture’s self-attestation is wrong. He brings literally hundreds of Scriptures to bear on the problem, and the evidence marshalled is overwhelming.) My question in response is: if the biblical authors were wrong hundreds of times about the trustworthiness of Scripture, what were they right about? If i am to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but at any point he could be lying (because in this view, God can lie) about Scripture, salvation, or anything else of consequence, that is not a Jesus i am willing to believe in.


Notes

See Richard Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark” in The Gospels for All Christians: rethinking the Gospel audiences, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Bauckham’s argument is that John assumed knowledge of Mark on the part of his readers, and left specific markers in the text to enable readers to calibrate his chronology with Mark’s.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 16 October 2015.

Blue Greek Key With Lines Border by GR8DAN - A blue greek key based border.