***DISCLAIMER:  THIS POST WILL TAKE 15-20 MINUTES TO READ SO TAKE SOME TIME TO DO SO AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS IN ADVANCE***

Of all the chapters in Bell’s book the chapter I am discussing today is the most controversial and, from my perspective, Bell’s weakest theologically.  He begins with a story about someone in San Francisco who was standing on the sidewalks shouting, “turn or burn” (a theme he discussed in his nooma video Bullhorn) and he then moves to some difficult questions about the fate of mankind as it related to hell.  He posits the questions in a manner that surely God does not create people only to send them to hell.

“That’s how it is—because that’s what God is like, correct?  God is loving and kind and full of grace and mercy—unless there isn’t confession and repentance and salvation in this lifetime, at which point God punishes forever.  That’s the Christian story right?”[1]

Right away you get a sense of Bell’s methodology in asking the tough question but as my friend noted in a blog post, “the ideas and reasons that he [Rob Bell] expressed during the questions and answers over the book leave me shaking my head as to why he wrote what he did about the subject of hell.”[2]  More on that in bit.

Bell then shows every occurrence of the word “hell” in Scriptures starting with the Old Testament then moving towards the New.[3]  He talked about the Hebrew word sheol (sh^e’ol) as “a dark mysterious, murky place people go when they die.”[4]  Bell gives seven instances where the word sheol is used and then (quickly) gives lessons on the word death and summarizes, “…simply put, the Hebrew commentary on what happens after a person dies isn’t very articulated or defined.  For whatever reasons, the precise details of who goes where, when, how, with what, and for how long simply aren’t things the Hebrew writers were terribly concerned with.”[5]

Bell then moves to the New Testament word for hell, Gehenna (γέεννα).  He gives the typical definition I have heard (and preached) as, “Gehenna, in Jesus’ day, was the city dump.”[6] He briefly discusses the usages of the word in the New Testament and says, “Gehenna, the town garbage pile.  And that’s it.”[7]  Finally, Bell discusses the Greek term Hades (ᾍδης) and essentially says that it is the New Testament form of sheol.

The rest of the chapter Bell does something very interesting in that he seeks to show that while most people think of hell in after-life terms he wants to show that people are living a “hell” right here on earth.  He then talks about the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) as a story of rich and poor not about heaven and hell.  The rich man is in torment and wants Lazarus to give him water and this is a metaphor for the rich and the poor and the rich not understanding Jesus’ abolition of hierarchical systems. Bell then moves on to talk about the need to abolish peoples “individual hells, communal, society-wise hells” and his now-famous statement, “There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously.”[8]

He also talks about the concept that there will not be punishment forever (second chance?) as he alludes to Matthew 10:15 and says that since Jesus said it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah than the religious people then there must still be hope for Sodom and Gomorrah and if there is hope for Sodom and Gomorrah then what does that say for other Sodoms and Gomorrahs?[9]  He closes by discussing the aion of kolazo which was, in Matthew 25, about the period of pruning for the goats but it does not mean, in Matthew 25, eternal punishment.

MY RESPONSE:

As I stated, this was the toughest chapter but my reasons are serious for disagreement on a number of different levels.

1.      First of all, it has been widely attested that there is much uncertainty that Gehenna was the town dump. 

G. R. Beasley-Murray (reknown scholar) in Jesus and the Kingdom of God, said this: “Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.”[10]

Let’s say it was, for the sake of argument, the town rubbish, what was Jesus trying to say?  Wasn’t it a metaphor for something greater than the supposed town rubbish?  Furthermore, Bell ignores all the other passages in Scripture that discuss concepts like judgment (2 Cor. 5:10), not inheriting the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and even of a conscious eternal fire pointed by John in Revelation 21:8.  Revelation 21:8 indicates an ongoing punishment (“burns” present passive participle….ongoing).  What about all of the verses in Scripture discussing God’s judgment for all wrong-doers?

2.      Bell does make a valid point in that people do suffer tremendously on earth.

This does not mean the church should remove our focus but we should be even more cognizant of righting wrongs and of evoking God’s justice.  That does not mean there is no hell afterwards and that there is no punishment for evildoers.

3.      His summary of sheol, hades, gehenna (tartarus?) all need polishing. 

If he is going to say, “that’s it” he better have some scholarly evidence to back it up other than his simple word.  I understand this makes it more accessible to a broad range of readership but this leaves people (who trust everything everyone says) at a loss for the biblical words.  At least footnote your research and discuss what people say about it.  For example, why is it that Sheol in the Old Testament is a place where both good men (Jacob, Gen. 37:35) and bad men (Korah, Num 16:30) end up?[11]  More needs to be discussed about this and even more about the terms for dead and death in the Old Testament and New Testament.

4.      Bell messes up in the Greek…again. 

He said that the goats, in Matthew 25:46, are sent to an aion of kolazo when the Greek actually says they went to an aiwnion (αἰώνιον) of kolasin (κόλασιν).  Kolasin is the noun form which actually occurs in the verse but kolazo is the verb form which does not occur.[12]  Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich define kolasis as, “the infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement or (as is the case in Matt. 25:46) transcendent retribution.”[13]  Furthermore, as noted in yesterday’s post, aion is a different word than aiwnion, so it actually does mean forever (unless the scholarship of Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich is erroneous.)

5.      Whatever you think about the chapter the questions Bell raises have to be answered. 

So who does get in?  If hell is a conscious, eternal suffering then who gets it?  Is it enough to say that all people get in through Jesus (soft universalism) or is there a specific way (i.e. pattern/formula/creed) where people get in to heaven and avoid hell.  All of these are valid questions and it seems we must come down hard on what we believe the Scriptures say about this.

This has been a brief summary of the chapter and probably his worst chapter as he makes broad sweeping assumptions.  He does ask some difficult questions but it still is not our job to speak for those whom God will judge.  Our task is to bring the kingdom of God across the world to right wrongs, disciple people and to pass on the legacy to our children’s children.  I do not want to say that the entire chapter was horrible as Bell does make some valid points about people suffering right here and right now while we sit in air-conditioned rooms, with our thousand dollar computers and a our cool looking shirt and tie.  That does step on some toes a little.  However, the chapter should be revised and polished.[14]

This post is about chapter 2 in his book which is entitled, “Here is the new there.”  He begins by discussing the typical images of heaven and then he asks questions about “what it will be like.”  Bell’s desire in the entire chapter is to get people to focus on the proleptic sense of the heaven in which Jesus’ invitation to heaven is not for us to experience sometime in the future but to experience it right now (sometimes this is called in scholarly circles as realized eschatology).  He talks about various passages from the gospels like Matthew 24, Luke 20, Matthew 13, Luke 21 and Luke 18 where the word “age” is used.

The word for age is the word “aiwn” (he says aion but it is actually an omega [w] not an omicron [o]…picky picky…I know).  Bell says this about aiwn:

One meaning of aion refers to a period of time as in ‘the spirit of the age’ or ‘they were gone for ages’.  When we use the word like this we are referring less to a precise measurement of time, like an hour or a day or a year, and more to a period or era of time.  This is crucial to our understanding of the word aion, because it doesn’t mean ‘forever’ as we think of forever…The first meaning of this word aion refers to a period of time with a beginning and an end (31-32).

He bases his whole chapter on this definition which has some bearing on or theology but is that what was meant by Jesus in Luke 18?

I do not want to spoil the chapter for you so I just want to summarize what  I think he is trying to get at.  First he wants to dismiss evacuation theologies that says this world will be burned up and we will go (i.e. evacuate) somewhere else.  He says that in believing this we tend to not want to do anything with the plight of this present world (see 44-45).  I agree with Bell here in that I believe God will take everything that is old and make everything new in a New Heavens and New Earth but it will be filled with surprises of which I think are crucial (read Isaiah 25; Revelation 20-22).  Second, his desire is to discuss the need for us to make a difference right here and right now.  He is right in that “eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts now” (p. 59).  There are serious implications in how we approach our lives now that has effects on the future.  That was a principle in the deuteronomic codes and it seems to have carried over into the New Testament with moral codes specifically in the Pauline epistles.  So far Bell is saying the right things in that heaven is proletpically experienced now but not specifically yet.

I do have a major issue with this chapter though (Scot McKnight points it out as well here) in that the story of Luke 18 is about a future, endless period of time that bears implications right here and now.  Bell, as quoted above, says that the Greek word for age (aion) is employed in Luke 18:30 but he missed it…let me show you…

Here is the text in Greek:  ὃς οὐχὶ μὴ [ἀπο]λάβῃ πολλαπλασίονα ἐν τῷκαιρῷ τούτῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Notice the highlighted (in red) words…they are aiwni (from aiwn) AND aiwnion (from aiwnios).  The second word is crucial because that word, according to Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich’s A Greek-Engligh Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed), means “a period of time without beginning or end” or, “a period of time of unending duration” (p. 33).  It’s in the Matthew 25 passage Bell alluded to (51-52) and Jesus speaks about a future point in time that is endless.  Bell missed it here and should have sharpened his Greek better.

However, the point is valid in that we should not be concerned with saying who get’s in and who does not as God is the judge of all things but we should also be very concerned about what is required of us in Scripture and seek to follow what the Lord wants for us to do.  In summary, I agree with the concept of the New Heavens and New Earth (much like N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope alludes to) in that we should be very concerned about all people right here and right now.  I disagree with Bell’s sweeping assumption that everyone who believes in evacuation are least concerned about helping those right here and right now.  I have personally met with people otherwise.

We will look next about his chapter on hell…

[Read: Psalm 29 & Notes on Psalm 29 (Pts. 1 & 2)

V. May the Lord Give/May the Lord Bless [v.11]

God’s Sovereignty over all things, as He reigns eternally over all of creation, is mentioned first in vv.1-10, and then is followed by a prayer to the Lord to give peace and blessing to His people. David’s recognition of God’s Sovereignty over all of what He has created does not exclude humanity. It is the Lord who gives peace and blessing, and He gives it to His people. In the nationalistic context of this psalm, this is an immediate reference to the physical nation of Israel. However, for the church this reference is to all whom God has elected unto salvation, for as the Old Testament revelation teaches that God chose those over whom He would rule and reign by His Word spoken through His mediator (i.e. Moses),[1] so He has also chosen all those over whom He reigns in the Person of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.[2] Our Lord’s election of the physical descendents of Israel, therefore, is a picture, if you will, of His election of a people unto Himself from all nations and tribes and tongues.[3]

Note that the Lord is the One who gives and who blesses and who possesses, not the creature. Man is subject to the rule and eternal reign of God, He is not subject to man’s delusions of grandeur. God is shown to not be under obligation to (a.)choose a particular people for Himself (chosen from out of all the nations of the earth), (b.)to grant them strength in their time of need, or (c.)to bless them in any way at all. Rather, God is the Sovereign Creator King who righteously sits as Elector, the One who Decrees all things whatsoever that come to pass,  who retains the right to Judge, for He is absolutely perfect, and whose kingship will never be shaken, although all things may shake.[4]

VI. May…[v.11]

Creation is under obligation to give unto the Lord the glory and strength due His Name, and God is not under any obligation whatsoever to bless any of His rebellious creatures, as I’ve already mentioned. However, one small word in this psalm speaks volumes about the character of our Lord. That word is the word: “May.” It at once declares that God is Sovereign and retains the right to do whatever He wishes with His creation, while simultaneously teaching us that our Lord may be approached in prayer. He is Almighty and eternal, Omnipotent and Just, but He is also our Father who has loved us with an everlasting love, and who invites us to ask, in faith, for strength and peace. Christ’s church, the children of God, are taught in this one word to have confidence in Him to whom all things render obeisance, who is glorified in the destruction of the wicked as well as in bestowing His unmerited favor upon vile sinners who deserve only His everlasting fury and wrath.

-h.

[Read: Psalm 29 & Notes on Psalm 29 (Pt.1)]

III. Ascribing Glory to God for Creation & Redemption

            This psalm, I think, is capable of being divided into three main parts, viz. (i.)commanding the angels to worship God (vv.1-2), (ii.)description of the majesty, holiness, and power of God’s Word/Voice (vv.3-9), and (iii.)prayer consisting of two parts, viz. (a.)acknowledgment of God’s Sovereignty and (b.)petition for the Lord’s strength and peace to be granted to His elect (vv.10-11). However, it is also to see the psalm as centering around the worship of the Lord for (a.)Creation by His Voice who provides (b.)Redemption for His elect people. The angels are called to worship the Lord and to ascribe to Him, among other things, strength; the people of God, on the other hand, are the recipients of strength. In the former case, the angels bow before the God of Glory, the Lord Jesus Christ, in subservient acknowledgment of power and majesty. Why? He is their Lord, Creator, Perfect and Holy and Omnipotent and Sovereign.[1] In the latter case, God grants strength and peace to His people; the Lord condescends in infinite mercy to show grace to His elect by strengthening them and granting them peace – i.e. by saving them.

The worship of our Lord is twofold, therefore, always acknowledging that He is our Creator and our Redeemer, the Lord to whom we must bow and give our own strength, and the Lord who provides us with strength to cast before His feet. The Blessed Lord Jesus is the Voice of the Lord who orders all of Creation and Redeems all of His elect people. Praise to the Lord Jesus Christ! Praise to the Spirit! Praise to the Father! Amen.

IV. The Voice of the Lord/The Voice of His People [v.9]

God’s Voice/Word is not met with human words of criticism or correction or rebellion, for the only true response is “Glory!” There are three spheres over which God exercises Sovereignty by His Voice/Word, viz.(i.)the heavenly creatures (vv.1-2), (ii.)creation as a whole (vv.3-9a), and (iii.)humanity (vv.3b-11). The angels are commanded to worship the Lord, creation is pictured as obeying the Voice of the Lord, and humanity is shown as responding in worship of the Lord of Glory. What is evident, then, is that our words are to speak God’s praises, to shout forth “glory!” for the very fact that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, wrathful, just, merciful, compassionate, loving, and infinitely majestic. Our words are to follow upon our observation of all that He does, echoing the praises that all of the hosts of heaven sing eternally.

-h

[Continued in Part 3]

[Read: Psalm 29]

I. The Perfect Voice of the Lord

While stating that God’s Voice/Word is perfect is really an exercise in stating the obvious, it serves us well to be reminded of this truth. Beginning in verse 3, we are given seven statements regarding the power and majesty of God’s Voice/Word. The number seven, therefore, typifying perfection or completion, points us to remember the perfect Voice of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous. Christ was in the beginning with the Father and the Spirit, the Agent of God’s Creation, the Creator Himself, by whom and through whom and for whom all things came into existence. Is there any blemish in Christ? Then there is no blemish in God’s Word. Is there a contradiction in Christ? Then there is no contradiction in Christ. Which one of us can accuse Christ of sin? Then none of us can accuse His Word of containing a single error.

The interesting parallel, at least in content, I think may be found in Psalm 12, specifically in vv.2-6, which contrasts the impure words of sinners with the perfectly pure Word of God which is “like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.” God’s Word is perfect, David is saying, not only in His power over all of creation, but He is also morally perfect, not containing a single imperfection, and revealing perfectly what God has chosen to disclose to us about Himself.

II. The Trinity in Psalm 29

However, while this psalm is primarily about Christ, the Voice of God exercising omnipotence over all of creation from His throne, verse 3 strikes me as being Trinitarian in nature. There is a threefold repetition of Divine appellatives which leads me to believe that David is differentiating between Three Co-equal and Co-eternal Persons of the Godhead. He first mentions the Voice of the Lord, which is Christ Himself;[1] then the God of glory who thunders (i.e. the Father),[2] and, finally, the Lord (i.e. the Holy Spirit).[3] Note that the Voice of the Lord and the Lord are both mentioned over the waters, while “the God of glory” is said to thunder,” i.e. to speak. This verse is very reminiscent of Genesis 1:1-3, where God the Father’s Word is sent forth to create as the Holy Spirit hovers over the face of the waters.

The passage seems to me to indicate that David’s reference here is not primarily to Christ but to the Triune God of Scripture who is revealed in His Word/Voice. The Divinity of the Voice of the Lord, moreover, is seen throughout this text as David parallels “the Voice of the Lord” with “the Lord,”[4] and transitions from speaking of “the Voice of the Lord” to using personal pronouns like “He” and “His.”[5] We find this same transition elsewhere in Scripture, but probably most prominently in Hebrews 4:12-13,[6]where Christ is equated with the Word of God. The function of the word of God in Hebrews 4:12-13 is still omnipotent; however, as it is related to the judgment of the thoughts and intentions of the heart and mind of man, the emphasis is not on His sheer power over creation as Omnipotent Lord God. There is, nevertheless, a very evident continuity of revelational content. Christ is the Voice/Word of God who is both Creator and Redeemer.

There is a new world coming, a new creation, a new heavens and a new earth. In that coming world God will be all in all, and Jesus Christ will be honored forever and ever. And the paradise that was lost will be regained—and more than regained, it will be surpassed.

And we will see His face (Rev. 22:4), and His glory will be magnified through Christ forever and ever.”

–Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 866.

The Heavens Declare/Declare Me Innocent [v.1]/[v.12]

We often point to this psalm to underscore the truth that God has revealed Himself to all men in a manner sufficient to reveal their animosity toward Him and their condemnation for making the Invisible and All Powerful Creator into something like the creature, worshiping the creature instead of the Creator.[1] We often neglect, however, to consider the running theme throughout this psalm: Declaration. The heavens declare the glory of God, but David, although part of creation, nonetheless prays that his own words would be acceptable in the sight of God. Why? All of Adam’s descendents are born in sin and are guilty of “not honoring Him as God or giving Him thanks” although they know Him.[2] The sky above “proclaims His handiwork,” but we all “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”[3] Night to night reveals knowledge, but professing ourselves to be wise, we have become fools.

Hence, David’s prayer is an implicit declaration of the true condition of man. “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib, but [men do not] know, [they] do not understand.”[4] That is to say: The wind and the waves obey the Creator, but man does not. The donkey is wiser than man is in this sense, therefore, in his obedience to God’s commands. David’s prayer for God’s Word to cleanse him, to make him what he ought to be – viz. a morally upright image of God bearer – underscores at once the dissimilarity between creation and redeemed man as well as their similarity as being caused to be by the Word of God. The Lord made the heavens and the earth by His Word just as He makes us new creatures by His Word.[5] This is why the apostle Paul tells us that “God, who said ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ…Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”[6]

And this is why our Lord Jesus tells His disciples: “Already you are clean because of the Word that I have spoken to you.”[7] The Word of God at the cross says: “It is finished!” And to our hearts, the Word of God now says: “There is, therefore, now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus.” There is nothing else upon which we may cast our hopes. There is no other source of mercy and grace and help in our time of need than the Word of God which tells us that God justifies the wicked. God declares them to be just on the basis of the absolutely pure and perfect merits of Jesus Christ His Son. The antichrists who oppose the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ our Lord should at this point stop to think of the ramifications of David’s prayer, for there is no crying out for covenantal obedience. Rather, David prays first for the declaration of innocence (which is the forensic act of justification by grace alone through faith alone), and then prays for continued obedience and, in the end, blamelessness. And such should be our prayer as well, knowing that only God can declare us righteous by the Word of Truth and sanctify us by the same means.

Amen.

Six Types of Soil

We are accustomed to seeing in the parable of the sower only the four types of soil that are presented by our Lord Jesus, but there are in fact six types of soil mentioned here, three bad and three good. These stand in diametrical opposition to one another, as the bad soils bear (i.)no crops, (ii.)crops that have no roots, and (iii.)thorns that grow up and choke the seed that was sown; and the good soils bear (i.)thirtyfold crops, (ii.)sixtyfold crops, and (iii.)a hundredfold crop. The significance of giving emphasis to this bad/good soil dichotomy is that Arminians and other conditionalists try to make use of this parable to support the idea that an individual can truly believe the Gospel and yet fall away. With this dichotomy, however, between those who bore absolutely no crops and those who bore crops in different quantities, we learn that those who have never yielded a single crop are to be classed with unregenerate and not the regenerate; those who bear fruit/foliage in keeping with repentance are, therefore, the sons of Abraham/sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, those who are without crops, or who produce crops that shrivel away under persecution, or who produce thorns that choke the word out before it even gets a chance to yield crops are those who are dead in their sins.

What makes this parable even stronger is the metaphor itself of the human heart which is likened to soil. This analogy of such a passive part of God’s creation is given to us by the Holy Spirit as a picture of our own hearts that are either good for receiving the word and bearing crops/foliage/fruit, or bad and devoid of God’s Word, self-deceived and bearing false fruit, or bearing thorns that choke out the word of God. Soil is first mentioned in Genesis 1:11-13, and it is the recipient of God’s Word of blessing. The Lord commands that the land bring forth vegetation and it does, since God’s purpose is to bring forth life from it. Prior to the fall of Adam, the ground was blessed by God when it was created,[1] and was in a condition to yield vegetation, plants, and fruit trees at the life giving command of God.[2] Note that it is the Lord who is control here, creating blessed soil that will receive the Word and grow accordingly. Subsequent to the fall, however, it is the Lord who curses the soil/ground in response to Adam’s sin.[3] Because our natural father Adam sinned, all of the earth was placed under God’s curse. In fact, the entire universe is subject to corruption now, as Paul later will tell us.[4] Yet, we read here only of the earth, from which Adam himself was taken and formed.[5]

To limit the function of this close relationship of Adam to the earth as being merely one of historical significance is to miss what is clearly presented in our Lord’s parable: We are the dirt and we are either blessed of God and given the ability to be fruitful or we are under the curse and can, by the Lord’s judgment upon us, only bear thorns and thistles.[6] God is Sovereign over what land He makes useful and blesses with fruitfulness, as He is Sovereign over what land He curses with barrenness and thorns and thistles. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 3:5-9, as he states in no uncertain terms that his and Apollos’ work is not in and of itself effectual, for God alone gives the growth. It is God who causes the ground to bear crops, literally and metaphorically.

Similarities to 1 Corinthians 1-3

To the dismay of liberals throughout professing Christendom, there is no opposition between our Lord Jesus Christ and our brother Paul the apostle. This is evidenced in many places and very powerfully illustrated in this instance if we compare the teachings of our Lord in this parable and the teachings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-3. Below is table of comparison between the teachings in the parable of the Sower and the teachings in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians.

What is lacking from our Lord’s parable is one element that Paul makes abundantly clear: The powerful working of the Holy Spirit in regenerating us, granting us faith and repentance, and sanctifying us, causing us to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Those who deny that Christ and Paul taught the same doctrines are indicted here very strongly, seeing as Paul doesn’t contradict our Lord but only adds another element to the propositional truths relayed to us in Christ’s parables, further expounding on what Christ Himself would teach His eleven disciples later in the Upper Room discourse of John 14-16. The imagery used in our Lord’s parable, as I noted earlier, is derived from the Old Testament and cannot be properly understood apart from that context.

-h.

Only Sinners Need to Be/Can Be Born Again

Although He was a Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered.

-Hebrews 5:8

False teacher Bill Johnson and many others in the Word of Faith movement believe, teach, and confess that Christ was the first Man to be born again. This is both blasphemous and stupid, and I will show why in this short essay. The text that they use to support their heretical claims is Acts 13:32-33, where we read:

“And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this He has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus,[1] as also it is written in the second Psalm,

‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’”

Johnson attempts to tie Paul’s quotation of Psalm 2:7 to Christ’s resurrection in order to say that Paul is here referencing Christ’s “second birth.” Besides the major theological error of saying that Christ, the sinless One from Heaven who alone has seen Heaven, had to be born again (something which is only necessary for those who are not sinless and who cannot otherwise see the kingdom of Heaven), the problem with Johnson’s twisting of this passage is that Paul differentiates between two types of passages of Scripture,[2] viz. the one which speaks of the Sonship of Christ mentioned in vv. 22-23,[3] and two which speak of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.[4] One doesn’t have to read anything into the text to see this very clearly, seeing as Paul explains his reason for quoting from Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10 when he says: “…as for the fact that He raised Him from the dead, no more to see corruption, He has thus spoken in this way…”[5]

And we can go just a step further. You see, for Johnson it is upon the basis of Christ’s resurrection that God says “Today I have begotten You.” Bill is interpreting “begetting” to mean “begetting from the dead.” The problem is that such a begetting from the dead would involve God declaring Christ to be His Son after the resurrection, which we know from Hebrews 5:8 is impossible, seeing as the Holy Spirit says that Christ “was a Son” who learned obedience by what He suffered – prior to His resurrection. Bill needs to repent of his blasphemy. Christ could  not be born again, nor had He any need to be born again. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of the truth (and in that case should NOT be masquerading in public as a teacher and prophet and pastor) or is trying to sell you a bill of goods in order to take money from you. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked.

-h.

[Foreword: I've been very busy lately, with trying to get back into school, preparing myself intellectually by studying as much as possible,and  preparing for another baby (!) So, needless to say, I haven't been able to post as frequently as I have in the past. Also, I've recently been granted the incredible opportunity to write for the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry's (CARM) blog. CARM is an apologetics ministry founded and overseen by apologist Matt Slick. The ministry tackles a broad range of subjects related to the Christian faith including heretical "Christian" cults, non-Christian religions, philosophical arguments against the existence of God, questions about the Bible's logical consistency, questions about the Bible's textual integrity, and many practical questions of Christian ethics as well. CARM's website has been a great help to me. I'd also recommend Faith and Reason, Matt Slick's one hour podcast/broadcast usually covering the same broad range of subjects aforementioned. The following is an excerpt of my first blog post, hopefully of many, over at the blog. God bless :)]

Arguments Against the Existence of God? Think Again…

When I was an atheist, the thought that my unbelief was the result of some grudge that I was holding against God infuriated me. My mother, best friend, and other people who were constantly trying to get me to see my own errors would often reduce my grand, philosophically impregnable, common sense atheism down to nothing but my own disliking of God’s Sovereign rule over the affairs of His creation. No, I wasn’t one of those unbelievers. I had “good reasons” for rejecting Christianity.

Moreover, my reasons, I’d argue, were solely the by-product of existential reflection, philosophical rumination, and a thorough investigation of all available data that was being put forth as evidence in support of Christianity. I didn’t have any personal issues with the way in which God chose to run the universe. After all, how could I have been offended by a God I didn’t even believe in? Isn’t it arrogant for a Christian to claim to know why I have refused to believe what they believe?

I. The “Argument” from Gratuitous Evil

It wasn’t until I came to know Christ personally as my Savior and Lord that I began to see all of the atheistic arguments against the existence of God for what they were: Accusations of sin, attempts at indicting the very Creator of the Universe as having acted immorally, or as presently acting in a manner that is immoral.

The most obvious example of accusing God of having behaved/behaving in a manner that is immoral is seen in the so called “Argument from Evil against the Existence of God.”

[Read More @ The Official CARM Blog]

“Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number ‘make it to a better place’ and every single other person suffer torment and punishment forever?  Is this acceptable to God?  Has God created millions of people over tens of thousands of years who are going to spend eternity in anguish?”[1]

The point of the rows of questions is to get you to think about the larger questions like: What is heaven?  What is hell?  Who goes to heaven?  Who goes to hell?  Who decides?  Those are the larger questions at hand.  Bell is concerned that some people equate certain rituals and rites as THE process for getting into this place called heaven.[2] So do you say a specific prayer to get there or do you get baptized or does someone get baptized for you when you die which brings another question of where do those people go when they die?  All of these questions Bell introduces yet, and a big yet at that, he offers (at this point) no real answers.  On pages 6-7 I think Bell is on to something when he says that the problem with people who want to be “somewhere else” (escapist view of heaven) when they die is that leaves less concern about what we are doing right here and right now.  For instance, those who believe in leaving the world and going to heaven could care less about creation-care (environmental concerns, reforestation, etc.) because at the end of the day (or time) God is going to destroy this world and take us all up “somewhere else.”

Let me pause here and say that I believe this is too broad of an assumption on Bell’s part because there are many people I know who believe in creation-care who also believe that God will destroy this earth and start with a new one.  An analogy may help: Why sweep the floor if it is going to get dirty again?  Well, because it makes things better and you treat the floor because it has been entrusted to you.  I believe Bell is making broad assumptions at this point however, he does point to a deep issue that I believe we need to be concerned about: If God will destroy this earth then why should we bother taking care of it?

Bell also introduces the McLaren-like idea that people have been purporting different types of Jesuses all of which must be rejected.[3] I agree with Bell if what he means is that the Jesus that needs to be followed is the Jesus that comes from Scripture which comes from careful exegesis.

In the end, chapter one I thought was helpful in asking questions that perhaps we have ignored or, worse yet, we have assumed we understood.  Bell is right in that our eschatology informs our ecclesiology, christology and our soteriology.

What did I just say?

Bell is right in that what we think about life after death effects how we are the church but also it affects how we believe we get in the church.  Tough chapter…but filled with a bunch of answer-less questions…but a good chapter.

My request for you is that you comment freely but doing so with Scriptures like Colossians 4:6 and Ephesians 4:15 in the back, front and middle of your mind.  I have seen a lot of hateful banter that I am afraid has given Christianity a bad rapport with the unchurched community.  If we continue to bite each other like this what does that say to those on the outside looking in?

Much blood has been spilled in church splits, heresy trials, and raging debates over issues that are, in the end, not that essential.  (Rob Bell, Love Wins, x).

Strive/Rest [Read: Hebrews 3-4:11]

What appears to be a contradiction, viz. “striving” to enter the promised “rest” of God, is not at all contradictory when we consider that our Lord used the same terminology in Luke 13:24, where He tells us: “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and not be able.” The Lord Jesus is not speaking here of works, but of the object of saving faith. Judgment would come to Israel for their unbelief in Messiah, the Christ, and Christ was warning them of this coming judgment by urging them to place their faith in Him now, before the door was closed. This is a call to faith and repentance, but it does not mean that all who are being outwardly called will be effectually called. This passage in Luke runs exactly parallel, I think, to Hebrews 4:11 in that (i.)both address Jews, (ii.)both groups of Jews have seen Christ personally and have had personal interactions with Him that proved His supernatural power and confirmed that He was indeed a Man sent from God, (iii.)both groups are told to strive, and (iv.)the striving mentioned, in both passages, is an entering into something else – in Luke it is the narrow door, while in Hebrews it is the rest that God has provided for sinners.

Is this a merely accidental parallel? Or do we have here evidence of the apostle’s intimate knowledge of our Lord Jesus’ teaching? On His way to Jerusalem, our Lord teaches men that He is the Way into the kingdom, the only Way to the Father,[1] and by so doing shows us that the Jews were shown great mercy by God who gave them time after time to repent of their sin and believe on the Messiah, and yet did not. There are some valuable things to glean from this parallel.

i. Those who artificially create a distinction between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith” would be hard pressed to reconcile the fact that the writer of Hebrews is arguing much in the same manner as our Lord Jesus does in Luke 13:22-35.

ii. Although the Greek terms translated as “strive”/”striving” (ESV) are different, what is being conveyed in both instances is the same: Taking heed to the Gospel before the time is over. While the Greek word our Lord uses in Luke 13:24 is agōnizomai (ἀγωνίζομαι), and signifies a battle, fight, endeavor, and is different than spoudazō (σπουδάζω), which signifies promptness and diligence to perform a certain task, they do not present entirely different teachings, but harmonize with one another quite beautifully. Adding to the above similarities, we should take note that in both instances the nationality of the persons who are to be saved is not limited to just the Jews. Rather, salvation is limited to those who will call upon the name of Christ and rest in Him, ceasing from their own labors.

The Lord Jesus’ admonition to the Jews of His day, as He traveled to the cross was the same as the apostle’s message to the Jews after Christ had already ascended, and that was simply:

Apart from Christ there is no salvation. Believe on the name of Lord Jesus Christ before it is too late and judgment takes away the opportunity of anyone who professes to be a believer to actually begin believing in Christ. One must strive to enter through the narrow door, i.e. one must strive to enter into the rest given freely in His Son Jesus.

There may be something else that is implied here, viz. self-examination in light of the Gospel promises. Peter speaks this way in 2 Pet 3:14, where he uses the same Greek word as Hebrews 4:11, and the context is very similar. Peter, writing to Jews, is speaking of the return of our Lord Jesus Christ and is urging his hearers to continue in the faith and to be “diligent” (Gr. Spoudazō) to make sure their calling and election sure. The apostle is writing in a similar fashion to those who think they are Christians but may not be, and he is doing so in light of the Lord’s soon return.

[Read: Ruth]

The title of this short entry is taken from Ruth 2:14, where Boaz, the Kinsman Redeemer, gives bread and wine to Ruth, a widow to an Israelite who converted to faith in the Lord God of the Jews, YHWH. “Come here and eat some bread,” Boaz says, “and dip your morsel in the wine.” As I read through Ruth the other night, I was struck by how many times I had read over this exchange between Boaz and Ruth, never once stopping to meditate on the significance of what is happening here. Ruth, a believer in YHWH,[1] goes out in faith to glean the fields and is approached by Boaz who bestows grace upon grace upon her, showing her kindness above others who were gleaning in his field.[2] When we reach verse 14, therefore, Boaz’s offer of bread and wine emphasizes the blessing that he was pouring out upon her, including her in communion with him and his servants, although she was not a servant. Boaz, the redeemer of Ruth and Naomi,[3] of the widowed Jew and widowed Gentile, who has come from Bethlehem[4] is gracious, compassionate, and gives of his bread and wine to Ruth, the non-Jew who has come to faith in YHWH.

Are you seeing the similarities between this and what our Lord Jesus has done for His people? Is it not the Lord Jesus who is our Redeemer? Did He not come from Bethlehem?[5] Is He not the Redeemer of the remnant of elect Jews[6] and of His elect Gentiles?[7] Is He not the Redeemer of whom it is written: “…Jesus took bread…and gave it to His disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat’…And He took a cup…saying, ‘Drink it…’”?[8] Is it not the Lord Jesus who will clear His threshing floor,[9] as Boaz did,[10] and take His church to Himself at the time of the harvest[11] so that their eternal union would be fulfilled,[12] as Boaz took Ruth to be his wife after the time of the harvest had passed and he had finished winnowing the barley on his threshing floor?[13] Is Jesus not the One who Redeemed us and made us a fruitful bride,[14] just as Boaz redeemed Ruth and made her a fruitful bride?[15]

We would hardly be doing the text justice if we were to pass by it and not recognize the significance of Boaz’s giving of bread and wine to Ruth (as Christ gave His Bread/Body and Wine/Blood for His bride), and of Ruth’s desire to be brought under the wings of Boaz[16] (as the church is healed by the wings of the Sun of Righteousness).[17] Boaz is a striking type of our Redeemer, our Bridegroom, the Lord Jesus Christ. And as Boaz showed grace upon grace to Ruth, inviting her to sup with him, so our Lord Jesus has shown us grace upon grace, and invites us to taste and see that the Lord is good. And in so doing we remember our Lord until He returns, spreads His wings over us and brings us to glory with Him, that we may dwell with Him as a bride dwells with her husband – even as Ruth dwelt with Boaz, her redeemer.

Amen.

-h.

The Problem of Unitarian Monotheism

One of the principal doctrines of the Christian faith that sets it apart from every other conceivable religion is its doctrine of God. By this I mean our understanding of God as a Triune Being, and not our understanding of God as ontologically One (i.e. One in being). There are countless varieties of Unitarian Monotheism that exist and which some would like to say contain their own ontological monotheistic equivalents to our One True God, but these religious beliefs, while correct in ascribing all power and majesty and holiness to only one being, fail once we begin to scrutinize their conceptions of the Deity’s Being (all of which are mono-personal, and not, as the Bible teaches clearly, Tri-personal).

In his Dogmatic Theology, William G.T. Shedd explains why Unitarian Monotheism is ontologically impossible. His brilliant analysis and critique of Unitarian Monotheism not only demolishes all the varieties of forms that it presently takes (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc), but also contributes to the demolition of any attempts to construct a Pantheistic theology in order to make up for the ontological impossibilities Unitarian Monotheism entails. He writes:

“A subject [viz. God] without an object could not know. What is there to be known? Could not love. What is there to be  loved? Could not rejoice. What is there to rejoice over?

And the object cannot be the created universe. The infinite and eternal object of God’s infinite and eternal knowledge, love, and joy, cannot be His creation because this neither eternal nor infinite. There was a time when the universe was not and if God’s self-consciousness depended upon the universe, there was a time when He was neither self-conscious nor blessed. The objective God for the subjective God, therefore, must be very God of very God, begotten not made, the eternal Son of the eternal Father.

…In the Christian scheme of the Trinity, the media to self-consciousness are all within the divine essence, and are wholly separate from, and independent of, the finite universe of mind and matter. The divine nature has all the requisites to personality in its own trinal constitution. God makes use of His own eternal and primary essence, and not the secondary substance of the world, as the object from which to distinguish Himself, and thereby be self-knowing and self-communing. God distinguishes Himself from Himself, not from something that is not Himself. This latter [i.e. something that is not God, viz. anything that He has created] would yield consciousness only, not self-consciousness.

…The divine self-contemplation is the beholding and loving of one divine person by another divine person, and not God’s beholding of the universe and loving and communing with it…. ‘The first love of God the Father to the Son is that which we call ad intra, where the divine persons are the object’s of each other’s actings. The Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father; the Father loves the Son, and the son loves the Father; and so consequently of the Holy Ghost, the medium of all these actings’ Owen : Sacramental Discourse, XXII.’”[1]

This argument can, and should, be leveled against both Unitarian Monotheism and Pantheism in order to show that while the conception of an Almighty God is right and good, it cannot obtain ontologically if one denies the Trinitarian ontological constitution of that God. In other words, Monotheism only makes sense if it is Trinitarian Monotheism. In fact, we can go so far as to say that there is no true Monotheism apart from Trinitarian Monotheism. There is only One God who is, and He is eternally existent in Three Co-Equal Persons: Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

Amen.

-h.

…No Creature is Hidden…All Are Naked… [v.13]

[Compare: Genesis 3:1-10, 21 & Hebrews 4:11-13, 14-16]

This passage recalls Genesis 3:1-10, where Adam and Eve, after sinning against the Lord’s command, hear the voice of the Lord walking in the garden and hide themselves because they are afraid. The ESV translates the Hebrew word for “Voice” as “sound” in Genesis 3:8 and 10, this seems to smooth out the KJV’s rendering; however, I don’t see either translation of the term to be problematic, seeing as the “sound of the Lord God walking” and “the Voice of the Lord God walking” would both refer to Christ, pre-incarnate, walking alongside His creatures. From the context of Hebrews 4:11-13, however, I think it is more likely that “Voice” is the appropriate translation, seeing as the themes of (i.)God’s Word, (ii.)man’s guiltiness, (iii.)man’s spiritual nakedness, (iv.)man’s inability to hide himself from God, and (v.)the necessity of man giving an account to God for his sin, are all present in Genesis 3:1-10 and Hebrews 4:12-13.

I think that the Holy Spirit is here alluding to Genesis 3:1-10 in this short section of the chapter, and if that is the case then the illustration vividly depicts the concrete nature of God’s presence in His Voice/Word, that is to say – it illustrates very vividly that Christ is that Word who sees through our shameful fig leaf coverings, who cannot be deceived by our even our best outwardly righteous garments sewn together in anxiety and pride and rebellion and fear. Christ is that Word of God who knows the very intentions of our hearts in all that we say and do, and who calls to us “Where are you?” not because He doesn’t know where we are, but because He is calling all men to repent of their sin, to come out from the trees, in other words, and come clean.

What is beautiful is that just as the Voice of God called out to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:1-10, exposing their sin and bringing judgment upon them, but then covered their nakedness with the skin of an animal slain in their place, so too we read in Hebrews 4:12-13 of the Word of God exposing our nakedness and vile wickedness, but then covering us with His righteousness and intercession as our High Priest before God. The correlation here is amazing, and it leads me to think that the KJV did not mistranslate Genesis 3:8 & 10, but that the more modern versions seem to have done so in an attempt to make a smoother narrative flow. It would be interesting to find sound theologians who write about the exegetical/theological reasons as to why the Hebrew word translated as “sound” in the ESV seems to be better translated as “Voice.”

Solus Christus!

-h.

Law/Gospel [vv.11-13]/[vv.14-16] (Judgment/Salvation)

{Law/Gospel is defined by Martin Luther, here.}

[Read: Hebrews 4]

These two sections of Hebrews 4 are beautiful illustrations of Law/Gospel distinction (for more resources, some more technical than others, see Resources on the Law/Gospel Distinction at the Heidelblog) . Verses 11-13 show us the absolutely piercing, penetrating, and, quite honestly, terrifying nature of the Law which peers past all appearances into the very constitution of our intentions, and exposes us for what we are: Liars, thieves, adulterers, faithless, rebels, and God-hating blasphemers. We are filled with dread to know that God’s Word, and in fact Christ, sees the fibers of which even our intentions are made, and we tremble! We know that we, like Israel, have gone astray in our hearts, have disobeyed God, and have sought carnal satisfaction and not the satisfaction that comes from obeying the Lord who made us in His image.

In contrast to this, however, verses 14-16 show us that although Christ is the Word who stands as Judge of the quick and the dead, He is also our High Priest, who is not unfamiliar with the frailties of being human. And for all who hear His voice, we can draw near to the throne of grace in our time of need, and we can do so with full confidence that we will find that mercy. These two sections of Scripture stand in contrast to one another insofar as they show us God’s Word as Condemning Judge (vv.11-13) and God’s Word as our Savior/High Priest (vv.14-16).

Amen!

Gospel/Law [v.14a/v.14b] (Indicative/Imperative)

There is, however, another instance of Law/Gospel distinction here, found in verse 14. Whereas the first Law/Gospel distinction is a declaration of Law (Judgment) followed by Gospel (Salvation), this second instance is Gospel (Indicatives) followed by Law (Imperatives). It is only because of the finished work of Christ that we can approach God with boldness and confidence as children who are weak, destitute in themselves, and in need of mercy and grace daily. Because the Holy Spirit humbled us with His Law, and then granted us faith to believe His Gospel, we who now believe the Gospel can be given commands which we want to obey because of our gratitude for what He has done for us in Christ. This is a powerful and beautiful truth that can be seen when we break the verse down in this way:

God Spoke to Our Fathers/Declared by the Lord/Today if You Hear His Voice [1:1]/[2:3]/[3:7]

The book of Hebrews places great emphasis upon the work of the Trinity in the redemption of sinners. In this particular instance, we see that God speaks as a Trinity: the Father is portrayed as declaring the Son’s advent through the prophets and speaking to us through His Son; the Son is described as declaring the Gospel to us; and the Holy Spirit is shown to be calling sinners to repent, to trust and rest in Christ. The economic interrelations within the Godhead are here, I think, beautifully placed on display, as the Father speaks of the Son (1:1-6, 8-13), the Son speaks of the Father (2:12-13), and the Holy Spirit speaks of the rest that is offered to us in Christ our Lord (3:7-11).

But this isn’t the only place where we see this occur. Throughout the book of Hebrews, we encounter each Person of the Godhead speaking in a manner that corresponds to the economical function/role He exhibits in relation to the Other Two. Here is a brief summary table:

• Who can receive forgiveness?
• How does forgiveness work?
• How often do I receive forgiveness?
• How do I get forgiveness?
• Is there such a thing as something being unforgivable?

Those are the questions that we are usually concerned about and we frame our spirituality or our relationship with God based on the idea of forgiveness.  But it is so much more than asking God to release our sins and receiving that release.  Matthew 22:37-39 teaches us the vertical relationship with God (Love God with all all your…) but it also teaches us the reciprocal nature of our relationship with humanity (Love your neighbor…).  With this type of relationship comes questions of forgiveness that maybe we do not concern ourselves with as often.

• Why can’t I forgive that person?
• If a person is forgiven does that mean we welcome them into the fellowship even if it is a “grave” sin (e.g. adultery, rape, etc.)?
• Why won’t that person forgive me?  I have done everything I possibly could and they still harbor ill-will towards me…what do I do?

These questions any many more I hope to at least address either directly or indirectly in this series of blog posts on forgiveness.  Why the posts about forgiveness?  Why not spend time on something that is a little more relevant?  Perhaps I would argue that there is nothing more relevant than the idea of forgiveness.  If a person truly grasped the concept of forgiveness and the price that was paid to obtain that release would they still continue in sin like they do?  If we really grasped the importance of forgiveness to our neighbor and brother would we not have better relationships in the church and in turn be a more welcoming fellowship?  And if we are a more welcoming fellowship that forgives sin because (news flash) WE ARE SINNERS would that not increase our numbers dramatically?  So I am going to spend some time in thought about forgiveness but I am not going to hit every nook and cranny about the topic.  Just the highlights.  Here is an outline of what I plan on doing.

1. Aphesis 1 (Introduction)
2. Aphesis 2 (Old Testament and Forgiveness)
3. Aphesis 3 (New Testament and Forgiveness)
4. Aphesis 4 (Early Church Fathers and Forgiveness)
5. Aphesis 5 (Letting God)
6. Aphesis 6 (Letting Go)
7. Aphesis 7 (Some Roadblocks)
8. Aphesis 8 (Fruits of Forgiveness)