Hi Don -
I wanted to comment on the Romans 8:1-7 and Matthew 4:1 references ... here is how I understand them.
Remember, I believe that being "indwelt" by the spirit and having the "filling" of the spirit are the same thing in the NT. I also think that this was an eschatological ministry of the spirit that ceased with the death of the apostles and the destruction of the temple. I also think that most often Paul is talking about the "spirit" being "within" the midst of the churches. I don't think his focus is on "individuals" so much.
I think that when the Biblical writers talk about the "spirit" they are making reference to the "revelations" that were being confirmed by miraculous signs among the apostles and churches. The emphasis is on the "spirit" and what God was revealing and changing through Jesus and the apostles. In other words, Paul was urging the "nations" to obey what God was revealing through him on the basis of the "signs" that confirmed that the "gospel" was from God. To walk by the "spirit" was to heed the things preached by Jesus and the apostles in the same way that we would obey the NT today (except that we do not have the eschatological manifestations of the spirit - we have the confirmed and canonized revelation to accept by faith).
I think that the "spirit" led Jesus in the same way ... it seems that he received revelations from the Father, but he also probably "grew in wisdom" as he studied the scripture and recognized that he was the Messiah in order that he might fulfill the will of the Father.
What I'm saying, Don, is that I try not to get too technical about this stuff. Having come out of Reformed theology (philosophy!) I think we tend to "compartmentalize" the "spirit" into some little "package" that "indwells" people and somehow "speaks" to them and tells them what to do. I think the emphasis lies more on the revelation and faith that motivates correct behavior, which has its origin from God who is the source of the scripture.
Like John MacArthur teaches, the "will of God" is not revealed in scripture for any particular individual. You and I are led by the spirit in as much as we believe the truth and apply it, but I serve the Lord in Advertising and you serve him as a Computer person because this is the choice we've made, and ultimately it is God's will for us right now. Jesus probably worked as a carpenter because that's the trade he learned from Joseph.
What do you think ...?
Chris
Hi Don -
I think the significance of the virgin birth is the little bit that is said about it in the Gospels, namely that it is a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I just don't find any explanation of its significance in terms of the "nature" of Christ. So, I don't speculate about it very much.
Certainly, I think that there is significance to God being Jesus' father because this is what the writer of Hebrews uses to show that Jesus is exalted above the angels (who ruled the OT times) - see Heb 1-2. Also, the identification of Jesus as the "beloved Son in who I am well pleased" is used by the Gospel writers and John the baptizer to confirm that Jesus is the Messiah. That's one of the reasons I think that his ministry really begins after John hears this pronouncement at the baptism.
I realize the dilemma we face when it seems like I'm telling you that Jesus is a "mere man." Perhaps he was "special" in some genetic way, the problem, Don, is that the biblical writers had no concept of genetics and thus we can't justify looking for this kind of teaching about the "nature" of Jesus. I don't like to speculate about the "nature" of Jesus because I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it is anything of significance, other than the "like his brethren" stuff in Hebrews and the "like Adam" stuff in Romans and 1 Cor. These passages are made significant by the NT writers, and that's why I prefer to focus on the humanity of Christ - this is the element of his "nature" that seems to be important to the apostles. The title "God" is applied to him in several places (to show his rank), but it is never in the context of a discussion of Jesus' "essence" or "nature." That's one of the main problems with the whole "deity of Christ" issue. The "essence and nature" of Christ did not become an issue at all until hundreds of years after the apostles.
Does this help at all?
CHRIS
Don -
I just read the post by Jack Gilespie ...
Isn't it interesting how the Trinitarians will keep quoting a passage like Col 1:12 which explicitly says that Jesus is "the firstborn (most important - highest ranking) of every CREATURE" and then they say that people who "worship a creature" are apostates.
If Jesus is the firstborn of every "creature," then he is one of those "creatures" right? You can't be the "firstborn" of something if you are not one of the "somethings." It's a shame how these people are so preoccupied with condemning others, that they render themselves completely ignorant of the explicit words of God ...
This is another characteristic of "cultic" behavior. Evangelicals are no different than Mormons, or JW's, or Christadelphians, etc ... these are all cult groups that require their members to accept an extra-biblical creed (like Reformed theology) in order to be "saved." If you don't agree with them, they take it upon themselves to condemn you.
From a psychological standpoint, cultic behavior is often motivated by fear ... in other words, sometimes people will fight the hardest against something that they fear may be true. It gives them more of a sense that what they "fear" is really something that is so terrible that their fear is justified. This is why I think that Ed, in particular, is such a vicious opposer of unitarianism. The harder he fights it, the more he convinces himself that it's something to be afraid of ...
CHRIS
Don -
When you ask about Matt 28:19, I'm assuming you are referring to the "name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit ..."
The main thing to understand about interpreting any passage is the "assumptions" that one takes into the meaning of the words. The words of a text must first be interpreted in light of the their original possible meanings (you know this already). The whole "trinitarian" interpretation of this passage rests upon the "assumption" that the singular use of "name" followed by "three" other "names (i.e. Father, Son, holy spirit) requires that the "three" must be "co-equal and co-eternal" as in "Trinity."
The problem is simply that none of the elements of that "assumption" are found anywhere in the language of scripture - they are all terms that come from post-biblical philosophy and theology. As you know, the entire explanation of the "Trinity" doctrine is expressed in unbiblical terminology which makes it quite obvious that it is not derived from scripture!
Think of it this way, Don, since the scriptures have been meticulously translated into modern English language, and we can't even find biblical words that are translatable with terms like "Trinity" and "God the Son" etc, then it is apparent that the biblical writers were not expressing these concepts!
As far as Matt 28:19, there is no necessity to read a "3 in one person" philosophy into this text. Even in our own language today we can say something like "stop in the name of the law" and we know that the singular "name" represents the authority of our legal/judicial system without implying that every cop, judge, and public servant is "one being with distinct personalities." If fact, "law" in the phrase could be interpreted to mean the inanimate "laws" written in the Constitution, etc and not the "persons" in authority. In Matt 28:19, we could certainly regard "holy spirit" as a reference to the impersonal "power" of G ðod. This is just a simple example.
The main point is that typical reformed interpreters (like Ward, Ed, etc) never begin their study of scripture with the meaning of the original text. This is what really takes intelligence and logic. These guys think they are "wise" because they have a lot of knowledge (of what they want to believe, of course). Unfortunately, you can be "always learning" and "never come to the knowledge of the truth."
I hope this helps ... just remember that a "singular" noun (like "name") followed by "three" other nouns (like Father, Son, spirit) in no way requires the interpretation that the "3 are one being in essence and nature." This is reading way too much into the grammar.
The passage in Rev 1:4-7 is a good one because the "Father" the "Son" and the "seven spirits" are joined together in "one" salutation of "grace and peace" and yet no Trinitarian would argue that there are "nine" persons giving "one" salutation as co-equal and co-eternal beings. Yet, this preposterous argument is based upon the same weight of grammatical evidence as is supposedly found in Matt 28:19.
CHRIS
Bruce -
I know there's a lot of theology out there about "spiritual death," but I'm still inclined to think that "returning to dust" (physical death) is the meaning of "death" in scripture ... I've never found any explanation or explicit mention of a "spiritual" death anywhere in scripture.
Also, there are many passages that refer to the "spirit" as "returning to God" at death. Also, God is "spirit" and Jesus became a "life-giving spirit" so I have difficulty with the idea of associated "death" with "spirit."
In Gen 3:16-22, it is "returning to dust" that is explicitly pronounced as the judgement for Adam's transgression. This is what I think the elohim meant when He warned Adam not to eat of the fruit lest he "die."
Chris
Bruce -
Let me clarify what I am saying about "soul." As I understand the use of the biblical term, it refers to the "moving" creature that has "life" from God. Both the humans and the animals (creatures) in Gen 1-3 are called "souls" in the Hebrew text.
Also, you are right that there is the figurative use of "soul" with reference to God. The scripture says that "God is spirit." But, God also manifests himself in "angels" that seem to have corporeal bodies throughout scripture. In the many passages you quoted, the use of the word "soul" seems to be anthropathic, because God is a living "personality" like the men to whom He is communicating his "feelings."
More specifically, I would regard the "soul" as the "animation" of a living person (i.e. the personality). The "body" is the biological structure that is formed from the ground. The "spirit" is the "breath of life" (spirit) in the nostrils that indicates that God has given life. Notice in Gen 1-2 that God formed Adam's body from the dust, then "breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life" and then Adam "became a living soul."
Now look at what is said about Jesus. When he was dying on the cross, Jesus "commended his spirit (breath) to the Father" (presumably in heaven). At this time, the "soul" of Jesus went to Hades (literally, the "unseen"). His body was laid into a tomb (grave).
I think a light bulb is a good analogy of what I'm seeing in scripture ... the bulb itself is like the "body." The electricity that powers the bulb is like "spirit" (breath). The light that comes from a lit bulb is like the "soul." When the electricity is taken from the bulb (like the spirit leaving the body), the bulb has no "glow" (like the body has no "soul" when it has no spirit).
I hope this helps you better understand what I'm thinking ....
CHRIS
Ron -
I would understand "he that believes will never die" in this sense (to answer your question).
From the perspective of the OT, "death" (which is physical - returning to dust) in inevitable for all of Adam's descendants. The "grave" (death/SHeOL/hades) in the OT is perceived as a place of "darkness" and "unconsciousness." It is also feared by the OT writers because it is a place of "unknown" things. Their hope is to be "delivered" from the grave. I think that they had no concept of an "afterlife" as we do today. You don't find any passages in the OT that talk about an "afterlife."
I think that the Lord Jesus was simply saying that since he was "the resurrection and the life" (meaning that he was the one who would defeat death by rising from the grave) that those who believed in him and followed him would be also not be subject to the oblivion of the "grave." I don't think that Jesus meant that no believers would "die" physically (afterall, in many passages he talks about people being persecuted to death, and dying before the parousia), but rather the sense here is that they would not be "captive" to the realm of the grave. Jesus also died physically himself too!
Remember, that in Acts 2, Peter refers to the Psalms passage about "death and hades" not being able to "hold" Jesus. I think this idea of being "hopelessly" anticipating a future in the "grave" is what Jesus was getting at. He was saying that the believers could look to the fulfillment of resurrection rather than the despair of the inevitability of a long time in the grave like the OT believers feared.
CHRIS
Ron -
In response to your other question ... I would say that the "sense" in which Jesus is talking about "dying" is anticipatory. He is talking about the inevitability of death (which is similar to the curse in Gen 3:16-17 where God told Adam that he would "toil" all his life only to inevitably "return to dust" at some point).
I don't think his point is to be taken to mean that people will never "die" physically (as this would contradict his other predictions mentioned in my previous response). Jesus is saying that since resurrection is inevitable now that he has come, there is no need to consider death as the "end" anymore. The hope of deliverance from the grave has been fulfilled in Christ.
Chris
Hi Don -
I thought I'd give you some thoughts on the "resurrection of the wicked" and the "post AD 70" stuff that Ward is struggling with ...
First, I think you are on the right track with believing that all of the "wrath" passages pertain to the Israelites of the covenant only. You are also right about "death" being the "returning to dust" and not "spiritual death." Keep thinking in biblical words, and not those of Calvinism. Ward is having problems because of his Calvinism (post-apostolic medieval philosophy), not because of the preterist hermeneutic.
You must not forget that Ward needs the "immortality of the soul" in order to make his philosophical (Reformed/Calvinistic) assumptions work. Without the "immortality of the soul" doctrine, Calvinism doesn't work.
This is what he is afraid of, and not "annihilationism" (which he probably doesn't understand the scriptural basis for anyway).
In the same way that Ed Stevens has to come up with an "intermediate state" by taking the "Lazarus/Rich Man" parable out of context, so Ward must also force a literalistic interpretation upon certain figurative "resurrection" passages in order to come up with a single proof-text for the "immortality of the soul."
Furthermore, Don, you don't need to concern yourself with Ward's suggestion that "if there's no eternal punishment, there is no eternal (post AD 73) life." This problem arises in Ward's mind because he is stumbling over his own apriori assumptions about the "immortality of the soul" and "spiritual death" that he got from Reformed theology. Ward is reasoning in circles ...
The very reason that there has to be the figurative notion of "resurrection of the wicked" is because the OT explicitly teaches that "death" is "returning to dust" and final for both "righteous" and "wicked. Since the OT writers explicitly teach that BOTH the "righteous" and the "wicked" share in the same "death," it is necessary for the NT writers to "separate" them again in the "resurrection" because the very "judgment" must determine that certain ones would not continue in "death."
In other words, before biological "death," there are both righteous and wicked separate on the Earth. At biological "death," they are no longer "separate" because they both go to the same "grave." The "resurrection" is the figure of speech used to explain how the future "judgment" (AD 73) can distinguish (bring to light) who will continue "living" with the Messiah when His kingdom comes and there is no more "death."
After AD 73, there is no more "sheol" because there is now an eternal distinction between "righteous" and "wicked" that is determined before biological "death" since there is no "future" judgment. As the scripture teaches, where there is no Law, there is no "sin" imputed. Thus, there is no "death" because "sin is the power of death" and now there is no common "grave" in which "all men" have to wait for "immortality" to come to light.
I hope this helps ... wish I could discuss these things with you in person!
CHRIS
All -
The identity of "Gog and Magog" has always been of particular interest to me in my preterist studies. Here is a suggestion for your consideration ... My comments allude to Ezek 38-39 and Rev 20 and I'm assuming you are all familiar with the passages ....
"Gog and Magog" is a prophecy of the great "dispersion" of Israelites living in Asia Minor ("Magog") at the time of the end. Paul was sent to preach to the "nations" before the end could come (AD 67-73). Those among the "nations" who believed in Christ (through the preaching of the apostles) were raised with Christ in the "heavenlies."
Those who did not believe were "gathered" together in Judea to be destroyed in the Jewish wars. This is the "resurrection of the wicked." Notice that the "resurrection" of the "dry bones" (tribes of Israel) is described in Ezek 37. Then comes the "appearance" of "Gog and Magog" for the purpose of destruction by "fire" from God.
Thus, both the "righteous" and the "wicked" were gathered (resurrected) in the Land at the "end of the age," some to be "delivered" and some to be "destroyed." Remember that both the OC and NC were made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Thus, the judgment concerns these "nations."
Perhaps this is why the other "apostles to the circumcision" (like Peter and James) address their writings to the area we call Asia Minor. Historically, this was the location of "Magog" and the cities like "Tubal" and "Meshech" mentioned in the prophecies.
Also, note that in Ezek 38-39, that this great nation ("Gog and Magog") is existing but is "concealed" by God until the time of the end. Notice also, that this nation comes to its "own" land, and is destroyed in its "own" land.
I hope that this helps some of you handle the "resurrection of the wicked" question that so often arises among opponents of preterism.
CHRIS
Don -
I think that the confusion about "the resurrection of the wicked" lies in the tendency of most preterist interpreters to retain the concept of a "resurrection" of "individual" souls into an "afterlife" rather than keeping "resurrection" within the prophetic context of the nation(s) of Israel.
As Max King pointed out years ago, the resurrection passages in the prophets (Ezek 37; Isa 28) are concerned with the captivity and restoration of the nation Israel. This is part of the reason that he developed "covenant eschatology" as an explanation of the "resurrection" in 1 Cor 15. Of course, Max makes assumptions about "spiritual death" and "substitutionary atonement" that lead to difficulty when one considers the implications of his view.
Ezek 37 speaks of the "dead" nation receiving "spirit" (life) from God and "rising" again. Of course, this was being fulfilled when the "spirit" came from the Father after the resurrection of Jesus (through the laying on of the apostles' hands - Acts 8). In Ezek 38-39 there is the description of "Gog and Magog" being "called" up by God to be gathered into the Land and destroyed. These events are brought together in Rev 20.
Notice that much of the apocalyptic language associated with the final "judgement/parousia" in Matt 24-25 and Rev 19-20 is taken from these chapters in Ezek. Daniel 12 also speaks of many this "resurrection" at the time of the end.
Also notice that 2 Thes 2 has many parallels to Rev 20. The "man of sin" and "the apostasy" known to Paul and the Thessalonians appears at the same time and for the same purpose as "Gog and Magog." Notice that the restrainer, the restraining, the apostasy, the delusion, the parousia, the temple/city, and the fire are all mentioned in these parallel passages. I'm inclined to think that "Gog" is the "man of sin." God told Ezek that He would "Gog" would be concealed until the time of the end and then God would "call" him up to lead his evil army to destruction.
It seems that God brought up both the "righteous" and the "wicked" Israelites out of the midst of the nations to be gathered and judged in the Land. The righteous fled the city and were spared, the wicked remained in the Land and were destroyed by fire just as "Gog and Magog" were brought from the "far" regions of the "north" (Asia Minor) and then slaughtered in their own land. Thus, their gathering into the land turned out to be a "second death" as it were, and a final judgment for them.
Again, this is why I think that much of the later apostolic writers directed their letters to the "dispersed" in the Asia Minor area. I wonder if they made the connection to historic "Magog" (Asia Minor). Also, Peter mentions the "thousand years" in the context of God's final patience before the "fire" would consume the adversaries.
Chris
Don -
You had some good thoughts on "resurrection."
Remember that "resurrection" in OT prophecy is always discussed in the context of the captivity and restoration of the nations (tribes) of Israel. Ezek 37 and Isa 25-26 concern the gathering of the "nations" (tribes) of Israel together and returning them to the Land of Israel (restoration).
Ezek 37 describes the restoration of the whole nation by the "spirit" of life from God. This is the gathering of the "righteous" after the resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the spirit after the resurrection of Jesus. This is the "first resurrection."
Ezek 38-39 describes the "gathering" of the "unrighteous" people of Israel who are fit for destruction by "fire" at the "end of the age." This is the "rest of the dead" (Rev 20:5) who are "deceived" by "Satan" and are the "Gog and Magog" who are destroyed in the Land. The fascinating thingthat is often overlooked in Ezek 38-39 is that "Gog and Magog" is a "nation" that comes to its "own" land, and is destroyed in its "own" land. This also seems to be the scenario in Rev 20:9.
It is also interesting to note that "Meschech" and "Tubal" (cities in the land of "Magog" - Ezek 38) were probably located in Asia Minor. This is the region where the apostles directed their final writings to the "diaspora" Israelites who resided there from the captivities, and where Paul went to preach in the synagogues during his travels. It is also the location of the churches mentioned in Rev 2-3.
It is also probable that Luke sent the Hebrews epistle (a collection of Paul's "reasonings with the Jews" - Acts 28) to this region since Peter mentions that Paul had "written" (2 Pet 3:16) to the same Israelites that Peter was writing to (compare 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 2:1; 2 Pet 3:16). Paul taught things "difficult" for the law-zealous Israelites (Hebrews) to understand (compare Heb 5:12-14; 2 Pet 3:16).
CHRIS
Karen -
I would suggest that the references to "all" and "all men" in these texts is simply a reference to "all nations (of men)" that are decended from Adam and Abraham.
The Lord Jesus came to make a "new covenant" with "the house of Judah and the house of Israel" (Jer 31; Heb 8). The "elect" (descendants of Abraham) were living among all the "nations" of the Roman Empire by virtue of the "dispersion" (1 Pet 1:1) and "scattering" (James 1:1) that had occurred when God was judging the Israelites according to the Law. Many of the Israelites taken into captivity by Assyria and Babylon remained among the "nations" until the time of Jesus and the apostles, and others were living in Judea, Samaria, and the other "nations" around Jerusalem.
This is evident in Acts 2 when Luke explains that the "men of Israel" who came to Jerusalem for Pentecost were from "every nation and language." Of course, Jesus had sent the twelve "circumcision" apostles to "disciple all the nations" (Matt 28:19), which is a reference to the "nations" (or "tribes") living in Judea, Samaria, and the "uttermost parts of the earth (land of Israel). Remember, Jesus had told the "twelve" that they would not "finish going through the cities of Israel" before the "parousia" occurred.
This is why Peter, James, John and the other "circumcision" apostles had difficulty with the salvation of Cornelius (Acts 10) and Paul's preaching to the "uncircumcised" nations (see Gal 2:1-16). Descendants of Abraham who were "uncircumcised" were thought to be "cut off" from the covenants (according to the Law), so these Israelites who were living outside of Judea and Galilee were considered "non-elect" by the "circumcised" Jews living in the Land.
Throughout his epistles, Paul seeks to demonstrate that "righteousness" came even to Abraham by "faith" before "circumcision" was required by Law. Thus, "all men" who are descended from Adam may "believe" like Abraham did (apart from circumcision) and inherit the promises made to Abraham. Indeed, "all men (nations)" are "elect" because the promise is not limited to those who are bound by the "Law of Moses" which came many years after the "faith" of Abraham.
CHRIS
Don -
With regard to Karen's verses (from Colossians) ...
Remember that the "dead in tresspasses and sins" is a reference to the inevitability of biological death (returning to dust) that happens to "all men (tribes/nations)." The "nations" who were "uncircumcised" were "dead" in the sense that the Law declared the "uncircumcised" to be "cut off" (dead) as far as the covenant with Yahweh is concerned.
Paul is simply saying that the Colossian Israelites were "strangers to the covenant" because they were excluded by virtue of not being "circumcised" according to the Law. Since Christ made the Law "void" for righteousness, there was no longer any penalty for "uncircumcision."
God "forgave the debt" by not bringing judgment upon those who "believe the gospel of Christ." This is an act of forgiveness, and not "retribution." God "forgave" us "for the sake of" Christ, and not because Christ (an innocent man) was somehow "punished" for everyone's "sins." This "substitutionary" atonement idea is contrary to the Law, because the Law does not prescribe any "penalties" for "sinless" men, nor does God ever require "retribution" as a condition for forgiveness.
Jesus taught that "forgiveness" was unconditional, and that "vengeance" and "retribution" were unnecessary. Why then would God require this of Christ?
CHRIS
Back to Home Page
Go to Posts Part 1
Go to Posts Part 2
Go to Posts Part 3
Go to Posts Part 4
