Theology Pathfinder

Category: Theology

Views on Hell in Ancient Judaism

Beliefs about the nature of hell have always been diverse. This was the case even in ancient Judaism before and during the time of Jesus, as well as in early Christianity. For those who are curious, here’s a small sampling of some ancient Jewish writings on hell. These writings are from the time just before and during the ministry of Jesus and the writing of the NT (c. 200 BCE to 100 CE), so they can help give us a bit of a window into the cultural context and show us what prevailing opinions might lie behind what the NT authors wrote.

This list is far from exhaustive, as I’m by no means an expert in this arena, but it should be enough to demonstrate that there wasn’t a unanimous tradition on the subject even in those early days other than that God would, in fact, judge unrepentant sinners with some kind of fiery punishment in the afterlife. Opinions differed on the nature of the punishments in hell, as well as their duration (eternal torment vs. eventual annihilation).

Second-Temple Jewish literature on hell: [1]

The popular Jewish book of 1 Enoch (compiled in parts from around 200 BCE until around 100 CE) speaks a lot about the bad fate coming to sinners on the day of God’s judgment. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the book as a whole envisions the wicked suffering torment forever after the final judgment, or merely suffering for a time and then being annihilated, but the balance seems to me to skew toward the latter.

For instance, 1 Enoch 22:10-11 might suggest eternal torment: “in like manner, the sinners are set apart when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed upon them in their lifetime, upon this great pain, until the great day of judgment–and to those who curse (there will be) plague and pain forever, and the retribution of their spirits. They will bind them there forever…”

But other passages suggest annihilation, such as 1 Enoch 38:1, 5-6: “When the congregation of the righteous shall appear, sinners shall be judged for their sins, they shall be driven from the face of the earth…. At that moment, kings and rulers shall perish, they shall be delivered into the hands of the righteous and holy ones, and from thenceforth no one shall be able to induce the Lord of the Spirits to show them mercy, for their life is annihilated.” Similarly, 1 Enoch 91:14 speaks of the wicked being “written off for eternal destruction.”

Still other passages in the middle of 1 Enoch speak of the wicked being led away from God’s presence and destroyed on the day of judgment, with language like the wicked “vanishing away from before [God’s] face,” being chained and imprisoned, and being “cast into the furnace of fire” (1 Enoch 53:2-3; 54:1-6; 62:11-13; 63:1-12).

Then in 1 Enoch 108:3-4, the wicked are presented as spiritually perishing in fire, crying and lamenting as they burn away: “As for you, wait patiently until sin passes away, for the names of (the sinners) shall be blotted out from the Book of Life and the books of the Holy One; their seeds shall be destroyed forever and their spirits shall perish and die; they shall cry and lament in a place that is a chaotic wilderness and burn in the fire…” This final statement on hell in 1 Enoch sounds pretty annihilationist to me, but I suppose it could be debated.

Later on, in a separate work by a different author called 2 Enoch (late 1st century CE), eternal torment is very clearly expected for the wicked. See 2 Enoch 10:2-3 — “every kind of torture and torment is in that place, and darkness and gloom. And there is no light there, but a black fire that blazes up perpetually, and a river of fire is coming out over the whole place, with cold ice; and places of detention and cruel angels and carriers of torture implements, tormenting without pity.”

Going back to the first century before Christ, the apocryphal book of Judith also promotes eternal conscious torment: “Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever“ (Judith 16:17, NRSV).

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QS 4:11-14 (2nd century BCE?) puzzlingly describes the fate of the wicked as both eternal torment and extinction or annihilation: “And the visitation of all who walk in this spirit shall be a multitude of plagues by the hand of all the destroying angels, everlasting damnation by the avenging wrath of the fury of God, eternal torment and endless disgrace together with shameful extinction in the fire of the dark regions. The times of all their generations shall be spent in sorrowful mourning and in bitter misery and in calamities of darkness until they are destroyed without remnant or survivor” (source). Perhaps we should understand “eternal torment” here more along the lines of “torment in the future age,” culminating in annihilation? (If you happen to be a Qumran expert reading this, please weigh in.)

Turning to the years in which the NT was being written, a Jewish writer called Pseudo-Philo (70-100 CE?) argues that the wicked dead will waste away in the underworld until the final judgment, where they will be annihilated forever: “And their dwelling place will be in darkness and the place of destruction; and they will not die but melt away until I remember the world and renew the earth. And then they will die and not live, and their life will be taken away from the number of all men” (L.A.B. 16:3).

In a passage that’s dated to around the end of the first century CE, the Ascension of Isaiah 4:14-18 depicts unbelievers (followers of Beliar, aka Satan) as being blasted by fire from the Lord which “will consume all the impious, and they will become as if they had not been created.” Sounds pretty clearly like annihilation to me.

But another first century work, 4 Maccabees, expects eternal conscious torment. A martyr declares to his murderers, “In return for this, justice will hold you in store for a fiercer and an everlasting fire and for torments which will never let you go for all time” (4 Macc 12:12).

And in 100 CE, the book of 4 Ezra 7:32-38 describes “the furnace of Hell” into which the ungodly are cast into “fire and torment” that never end. 4 Ezra 7:80-87 details these torments, including their jealousy over the delight that righteous people experience in heaven, and their shame for rejecting God.

So what’s the upshot of all this?

Well, this look at early Jewish views on hell, while brief and incomplete, is at least enough to show that there were proponents of both annihilationist and eternal conscious torment views in the Second-Temple period (when Jesus and the apostles ministered). Thus, it doesn’t seem to be the case that we can say, authoritatively, that one or the other of these views was the dominant or prevailing view at the time — at least, not from what I can see.

So when it comes time to do the work of interpreting what the New Testament teaches about hell, we can’t just appeal to “the prevailing understanding of hell at the time” to settle the issue. People of faith had varying perspectives even then. We have to carefully exegete each text on its own terms. But we can talk more about that later.

See you down the path.

[1] For nerds like me who are interested, I’m using the translations and approximate dates of Jewish works from James H. Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols.

April 2, 2020
No One Can Come to Jesus Unless the Father Draws Them: Two Views on Election in John 6

(Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the CSB).

In John 6, Jesus makes a number of startling claims. He’s in the middle of a dialogue with a crowd of Jewish people who were denying the claims he was making about himself. Specifically, they struggled to accept that he truly had “come down from heaven” (6:41-42). In response to their unbelief, Jesus says, among other things:

“Everyone the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never cast out” (6:37).

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:44).

“He said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father’” (6:65).

Why does Jesus tell these people that only those who are drawn by the Father can come to him? Here I’ll do my best to briefly summarize two possible views on this topic.

Option 1: Unconditional, Individual Election

Here’s one way we could interpret Christ’s statements: We could see John 6 as teaching that God already decided (unconditionally) that certain people would believe and be saved — and only those people will come to Jesus. Calvinist interpreters, in particular, look to John 6 as a foundational passage for this doctrine of unconditional election. On this reading, people only choose to believe in Jesus because God the Father, before time began, predestined them to do so. And then, at some point during their earthly life, he draws them irresistibly to Jesus.

Among the details in the passage that might support such a reading are: 1) the intense emphasis on the inability of many in Jesus’ audience to accept his teaching, 2) the fact that Jesus’ words focus on individuals, and 3) the Greek term for “draw” (helkō), which in many contexts refers to a strong action like drawing in a net of fish (John 21:11) or actually dragging someone (Acts 16:19).

On the other hand, reading John 6 as a timeless affirmation of unconditional election does involve a few difficulties. One is the fact that elsewhere in John’s Gospel, Jesus teaches that every person’s eternal destiny will be based on whether or not they choose to put their faith in him (John 3:18; 5:24). Another is the question of how the “drawing” in John 6 relates to Jesus’ “drawing” (same Greek word) of all people in John 12:32.

We’re also told in John 3:16 that God loves the whole world (specifically referring, in John’s writings especially, to the world of unbelieving humanity). Holding to a doctrine of unconditional election raises the difficult question of how exactly God’s love extends to the unbelievers he chooses not to draw.

There have, of course, been numerous thoughtful answers to these questions by Calvinist scholars. Many of them point out that no one would choose salvation unless God first overpowered their rebellious wills, and that his decision to leave some in their sins is to display his just wrath against sin. This is all so that salvation is completely by God’s grace.

Option 2: The Drawing of Faithful Jews to Jesus as Their Messiah

Another way we could interpret John 6 is to see it as describing a unique situation in history — namely, the transfer of faithful Israelites under the Mosaic Covenant to their newly-arrived Messiah, Jesus. On this view, the people whom the Father was drawing to Jesus on that particular occasion were those Jewish people who were already faithfully responding to God’s revelation through the Torah and the Prophets.

Right after Jesus says that no one can come to him unless the Father draws them (6:44), he immediately gives an explanation of what he means: “It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to me ” (6:45, emphasis added).

Notice the parallel: the Father’s action of drawing people to Jesus is tied to the people’s action of heeding the words of the prophets. So the way Jesus himself explains it, God had already been preparing his people for their Messiah through the proclamation of his word. Those who were being drawn were those who were heeding what the Spirit of God was saying through the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus.

The problem is, not everyone in Israel was responsive; the majority were not receptive at all. But there was a faithful remnant — we see this exemplified in the disciples (well, except for Judas!) who remained with Jesus because they understood he had “the words of eternal life” and believed (6:68).

This minority of faithful Jews were the ones the Father drew to their Messiah. He ensured that no one who was responsive to his word missed out on its fulfillment in Jesus. Thus, when we read John 6, we shouldn’t see Jesus as offering philosophical speculations about eternity past; rather, he was addressing the issue of how only those who were receptive to the Father under the Old Covenant would be receptive to their promised Messiah, Jesus, now that he was finally on the scene.

John’s Gospel in particular is concerned with the question, “Now that the Messiah has come, why did so many Jewish people reject him?” This is a very important topic for John, as he makes clear in his prologue: “he [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11). On the other hand, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (1:12).

With the arrival of Messiah, a massive shift in history was taking place. God was drawing the faithful remnant of Jews to their Messiah. Related to the salvation of the believing remnant of Israel was the full inclusion of Gentiles, too, into God’s community. This is why Jesus later stresses that he has “other sheep that are not of this fold,” and he “must bring them also” (10:16). This refers to God-fearing Gentiles — those who, like the remnant of Israel, were already being taught by the Father and learning from him through the Jewish Scriptures.

Later on in John’s Gospel, Jesus says that he will draw “all people” to himself when he is “lifted up” (12:32). In other words, through Jesus’ atoning work on the cross, the drawing activity of God through his Word/Messiah would be radically extended to include the entire Gentile world (see also the “mystery” Paul refers to in Ephesians 3:1-13). [1]

In my opinion, this view does a better job of situating Jesus’ teaching firmly within its first-century Jewish context, and better accounts for how John’s Gospel describes the seismic salvation-historical shift that took place in Jesus’ ministry. That’s not to say it’s unquestionably the right view — one could still debate whether God decreed that the remnant would be receptive to the word, and of course other passages that touch on election/predestination have to be considered. But it does mean that John 6 can be faithfully interpreted in a way that coheres with a conditional view of election, without doing injustice to the text.

Conclusion

No matter which of these two views you end up taking, they both affirm that God is the one who has made salvation possible — a salvation found only by his grace through Jesus Christ. Faithful Christians can (and should) continue to test their interpretations against Scripture, and hold those interpretations with a gracious and humble attitude.

Obviously, discussion about the interpretation of John 6 will continue. But I know that some people in my particular circles (within American evangelicalism) have only ever been exposed to Calvinist readings of John 6, so at the very least I hope this post will present a viable alternative they may not have considered.

What do you think? Which reading do you prefer, and why? Are there some aspects of the alternative view that you hadn’t considered? Let me know in the comments.

I close with this nice quote from Gerald Borchert’s commentary on John:

“Salvation is never achieved apart from the drawing power of God, and it is never consummated apart from the willingness of humans to hear and learn from God. To choose one or the other will ultimately end in unbalanced, unbiblical theology. . . . Rather than resolving the tension, the best resolution is learning to live with the tension and accepting those whose theological commitments differ from ours.” [2]

For more on the topic of election/predestination, check out my previous posts:
– Calvinism & Arminianism: What I Wish Everyone Knew About the Debate
– Recommended Resources on Calvinism & Arminianism

See you down the path.

[1] This statement in John 12 cautions against seeing the “drawing” activity of God as something that leads irresistibly to salvation, since not everyone among the Gentiles will inevitably be saved.

[2] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, NAC vol 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 268-69.

September 24, 2019
Why Have Women Traditionally Been Excluded from Ministry? And Other Objections to Women in Ministry Answered (Pt. 4)

So far in this series on women in ministry we’ve talked about my journey with the subject and why I interpret 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as not forbidding female pastors. In the last post I addressed some potential objections to women in ministry from other biblical passages. Now we’ll consider some broader theological questions about men and women, as well as what is the biggest stumbling block for some:

Why has the church traditionally barred women from the pastorate/clergy for so many centuries?

Let’s start with that. Because while I absolutely believe that Scripture takes priority over tradition, we should not ignore the importance of tradition for testing our interpretations. If we’re going to throw out a large chunk of historical precedence, we ought to have good reason. And to do so, we need to ask: Why did the tradition rise to prominence, and is it really reflecting biblical truth?

In this case, we’ve already seen that women held prominent leadership positions during the first century, when the New Testament was written. Junia was an apostle (Rom 16:7), Phoebe was a deaconess (Rom 16:1-2), and Paul considered Priscilla one of his coworkers (Rom 16:3; Acts 18:24-26). This means that any universal bans on women in ministry would have been postbiblical developments.

So did the earliest churches in the post-apostolic era include female ministers?

Turns out, many of them did! There is archaeological evidence for female deacons/ministers throughout the first several centuries of the church, as well as written evidence attesting to women in leadership positions.

In a letter to Emperor Trajan (111 C.E.), the Roman governor Pliny mentions that he obtained information by torturing two Christian women “called by them ‘deaconesses’ (Latin: ministrae).” In the 300s C.E., we find in a Christian letter a curious reference to a woman called “Madame Teacher.” In the fifth century, a woman named Olympias was lauded as a deaconess and founder of a monastery.[1]

Also in the fifth century, Theodoret of Cyrus makes this interesting comment on Romans 16:7, where the female apostle Junia is mentioned: “…[Paul] says that they are of note, not among the disciples, but the teachers; nor among ordinary teachers, but the Apostles.” In other words, it seems this ancient church father took Paul’s words to be affirming a very authoritative female teacher.

However, although women often ministered in the earliest churches, there is a noticeable movement toward male-only leadership by the third and fourth centuries that became overwhelmingly dominant throughout the Middle Ages. Why the change?

According to church historian William Witt, there is one key reason, which he lays out in this excellent article:

“Historically, there is a single argument that was used in the church against the ordaining of women. Women could not be ordained to the ministry (whether understood as Catholic priesthood or Protestant pastorate) because of an inherent ontological defect. Because of a lack of intelligence, or a tendency to irrationality or emotional instability, a greater susceptibility to temptation, or an inherent incapacity to lead, women were held to be inferior to men, and, thus, were not eligible for ordination. Moreover, this argument was used to exclude women not only from clerical ministry, but from all positions of leadership over men, and largely to confine women to the domestic sphere.”

Witt goes on to cite a number of comments from prominent church fathers and theologians (including Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, and several Reformers) that clearly exhibit their misogynistic assumptions. These men were deeply enmeshed in the prejudices of their times, so it’s hard to blame them too much.

But it’s also hard to follow them on this.

Because the major problem with their line of reasoning is that it is simply not true — women are not inherently intellectually inferior to men. Science doesn’t back it up, experience doesn’t back it up, and Scripture nowhere legitimates such a view (unless we take a wrong view of 1 Tim 2:13-15, as I’ve belabored already).

So the major flaw with the “argument from tradition” against women in ministry is that the reasoning behind the tradition is flawed. It relies on incorrect assumptions about women that, while common in the ancient and medieval periods, is not exactly in keeping with the truths we see in Scripture and in nature — that women and men are equally created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), equally redeemed and united in Christ (Galatians 3:28), and equally capable of leading, teaching, and stewarding authority.

But there were always outliers, in spite of the larger consensus on male priesthood that built up during the medieval period. It simply isn’t true to say that arguments in favor of female ministers only show up after the feminist movement of the modern era. As New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg points out,

“Some of this history has, in fact, been suppressed during the last century by those who have wanted to pretend that it was only with the rise of modern, secular women’s liberation in the 1960s and 1970s that any churches have opened all leadership doors to both genders. . . . E.g., the facts that the Evangelical Free Church of America ordained women and Moody Bible Institute supported the ordination of women before the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1910s and 1920s.” — Craig L. Blomberg, A New Testament Theology (Baylor University Press, 2018), pg. 286.

And as Witt concludes in his article,

“It is all to the good that Catholics and Protestants have embraced the inherent ontological equality of men and women and no longer argue against women’s ordination based on an inherent inferiority, irrationality, or sinfulness of women. However, in so doing, they can no longer argue that they are simply adhering to the church’s historic stance against the ordination of women.”

In other words, if you don’t think that women are inherently inferior to men, but you still want to exclude women from ministry, then your position technically isn’t the “traditional” one; rather, it’s a quite recent innovation!

Let’s turn now from the “tradition” issue to some other theological arguments commonly brought up against women in church leadership.

Broader Theological Arguments Briefly Considered

#1: God is identified in male terms throughout Scripture, so shouldn’t his representatives be male?

This potential objection seems incredibly beside the point, since Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created all humanity, male and female, in his image:

“So God created humankind in his image,
in the likeness of God he created him,
male and female he created them.” (LEB)

Thus, it would seem appropriate that both men and women be able to serve as God’s ministers. I only mention this objection preemptively, as I’ve never found it to be a good support for an all-male pastorate.

#2: The Old Testament priesthood was restricted to males, so shouldn’t the pastorate be, too?

Perhaps this question is a little less beside the point, but at the same time, there is considerable discontinuity between the levitical priesthood and the “priesthood of all believers” we see in the New Testament. For example, 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6 refer to all Christians (whether male or female) as priests now.

Plus, when one considers the importance of ritual purity for priesthood in the ancient Near East, you can see a very practical reason why women were barred from the Israelite priesthood: they would be ritually unclean (and therefore unable to officiate) due to menstruation for an entire week out of every month!

Under the New Covenant that Christ initiated, such concerns for ritual purity were replaced by an emphasis on moral purity — a purity of the heart. And with that change there is no reason to restrict priesthood in the new temple of God (=the church community; see 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21-22) — on the basis of gender.

#3: So then why did Christ only appoint men to be his twelve apostles?

Jesus certainly took a big step forward from his Jewish contemporaries when he allowed women to follow him and learn as his disciples. That much is largely undisputed. But when it came time for him to choose his primary successors — the twelve apostles — he chose all men. Why not include a woman or two, if he wanted to truly show equality? Doesn’t it mean he wouldn’t support female church leaders?

Why Jesus chose twelve men is a good question to ask, but as an objection to female pastors it’s actually a flawed argument. Consider how I could turn it on its head by saying, “Well, the twelve apostles were also all Jewish men, so therefore we should never have any non-Jewish church pastors, right??” It’s a non-sequitur.

This kind of argumentation can also be dismissed when you keep in mind that there is a very important historical reason why Jesus chose men to comprise the Twelve: they were to be a symbolic reenactment of the original twelve patriarchs of Israel, who founded the twelve tribes. By choosing twelve Jewish men in particular to be his inner circle, Jesus was symbolically showing that he was founding the new people of God — the new Zion, the restored Israel — around himself. This action was a powerful messianic claim in and of itself.

In light of this, it should be clear that the choosing of twelve male apostles was a very unique situation in history — one that shouldn’t factor in to the discussion of whether we can have female pastors today.

We’re almost done with the topic of women in ministry for now. In my next post I’ll offer a few parting thoughts regarding my change in perspective on the matter, as well as some recommendations for further research in case you’re still wanting to do some more digging.

Let me know if you’ve found these posts helpful! Have I answered your pressing questions, or do you have others I haven’t covered? Let me know in the comments.

See you down the path.

[1] References are from Ruth A. Tucker & Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Zondervan: 2010), 91, 94, 120.

July 18, 2019
“You Have Christ In Your Neighbor”: The Significance of Being Made in the Image of God

I’ve been seeing this quote about Christmas from the reformer/theologian Martin Luther floating around lately, and it resonated with some things God’s been putting on my mind these past few weeks.

Luther was preaching about how the Lord Jesus was born in poverty, in a humble and dirty manger. And Luther challenged his listeners with these words:

“There are many of you in this congregation who think to yourselves: ‘If only I had been there! How quick I would have been to help the baby! I would have washed his linen! How happy I would have been to go with the shepherds to see the Lord lying in the manger!’ Yes you would! You say that because you know how great Christ is, but if you had been there at that time you would have done no better than the people of Bethlehem. Childish and silly thoughts are these! Why don’t you do it now? You have Christ in your neighbor. You ought to serve him, for what you do to your neighbor in need you do to the Lord Christ himself.”

What you do to your neighbor in need, you do to the Lord Christ himself.

Luther’s statement brings up two theological themes I’ve been pondering lately and ties them together quite nicely: God’s concern for the needy, and the fact that humans are made in God’s image.

There’s a powerful connection between the two in Scripture. Let’s take a look.

Let Justice Flow Like Water

I’ve been spending some time going back and studying the Old Testament prophets this month, and they speak much and often about God’s concern for those in need. They convey, in no uncertain terms, God’s hatred of injustice and his desire that all people — especially those who claim to know him! — would love their neighbor and ease the burden of the oppressed.

As God announced through the prophet Isaiah, “Learn to do what is good. Pursue justice. Correct the oppressor. Defend the rights of the fatherless. Plead the widow’s cause” (Isaiah 1:17 CSB).

In a time when the ancient Israelites were thinking they could get away with whatever selfish and immoral things they wanted so long as they kept up their religious rituals, God made clear he would have none of it:

“I hate, I despise your feasts!
I can’t stand the stench of your solemn assemblies.
Even if you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them;
I will have no regard for your fellowship offerings of fattened cattle.
Take away from me the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
But let justice flow like water,
and righteousness, like an unfailing stream”
— Amos 5:21-24 (CSB).

When those who claim to be God’s people live in a way that’s completely contrary to the loving, just, self-giving character of God, it essentially makes God sick to his stomach. He doesn’t even want “worship” services from people who pay him lip-service but then refuse to do what he’s told them to do.

From people who say they love God, but then deny it by failing to love people made in his image.

This is why Luther is so bold as to say, “You have Christ in your neighbor.” What he meant was that if you say you really want to serve the Lord Jesus with your life, then here’s your opportunity: serve the people in need around you. After all, they’re made in his image.

“What you do to the image, you do to the god.”

The very first statement the Bible ever makes about human beings is that we all are made “in God’s image” and according to his “likeness” (Genesis 1:26-27) Unlike anything else in the physical universe, humans alone bear the image of God.

This is a profound truth that’s impossible to unpack completely, and scholars have spilled much ink trying to define what all it means to be made in God’s image.

Some have tried defining it in terms of how we differ from animals — leading many medieval theologians to say that the “image of God” is our capacity for rational thought. The problem with this explanation is that it raises the question of whether people whose mental faculties are diminished still bear the image of God, leading most scholars to reject this definition as inadequate.

A better definition comes from examining the Hebrew word for “image” that appears in Genesis — tselem. Interestingly, it’s a term that most often referred to statues or idols. When an ancient king conquered a foreign land, he would have tselem (statues, monuments) put in place as reminders of who was in charge. Coins, likewise, were stamped with the images of the rulers whose authority lay behind them.

And though we don’t see them as often in the modern West, idols were very commonplace in the ancient Near East. Idols served as image-bearers of pagan gods and goddesses, and it was often assumed by the idol-worshipers that whatever you did to the image, you did to the god.

To the Israelites, trying to make an idol to represent God was forbidden for two very important reasons: 1) The true God is too great to ever be adequately represented by a man-made, inanimate object, and 2) He doesn’t need images to be made for him, because he already has them. People are his images!

Simply by being what we are as humans, we serve as pointers to God’s presence in this world. We are icons of his rule and dominion, created to reign alongside him and carry out his purposes as his ambassadors here in creation. We are like statues pointing the world to its true King.

Only, because of sin, we’re also broken statues. The image is there, but it’s tarnished; it’s obscured by our sins, our selfishness, our injustice, and our evil. Or by the evil that has been done to us.

But the image is never totally removed. This is why every human being who’s ever lived is of the utmost value and dignity. How you treat them (or neglect them) matters deeply to God.

Because what you do to the image, you’ve done to God.

This is why Proverbs 19:17 (NLT) tells us that “If you help the poor, you are lending to the Lord— and he will repay you!”

It’s why, in the New Testament, James warns us against the absurd hypocrisy of praising God one moment but then cursing people made in his image the next (see James 3:9-10).

And ultimately, it’s why Jesus tells us these powerful words: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40 CSB).

This Christmas, consider the impact of how you treat those around you — those people who, no matter how much they may rub you the wrong way, are nonetheless made in the image of God.

When you serve them, you serve Christ. When you bless them, you bring joy to Christ. When you mistreat or neglect them, you’ve mistreated the One whose image they bear.

For you have Christ in your neighbor. Will you serve him today?

December 21, 2018
Recommended Resources on Calvinism & Arminianism

Following up on my last post, I figured it would be good to give some recommend material for those who want to dig deeper into the topic of election/predestination, or into the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism in general.
If you’ve been a Christian for any length of time, you’ve probably already given this subject some thought. And maybe you’ve even taken an stance on it – whether Calvinist, Arminian, or something else altogether!
But whether you’ve settled on a position or you’re just now setting out into these deep waters, it’s good to consider each side of the debate. To help with that, here are a few books that I’ve found to be the most helpful. Each of these has had an impact on my own thinking — even the ones where I disagreed with the author’s conclusions. They’ve helped me to clarify my own position and challenged me to keep exploring Scripture.
Along that same line, I want to issue a personal challenge to you, dear reader: If you already identify with a particular position, read a work arguing for the other side!
Two reasons I encourage this. Firstly, it’s important that you hear the best arguments your opponents have to offer, out of respect for them. Make sure you really know what it is you disagree with. And secondly, seeing that other Christians have logical reasons for their views helps keep you humble. It fosters greater unity when you can at least understand where folks of different theological persuasions are coming from.
Without further ado, here are my top recommended resources on election/predestination!

Chosen By God by R. C. Sproul
Sproul’s short book is a classic primer on the Calvinist understanding of election (that God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation or damnation). It’s concise, thorough, and readable. Even though it’s the one on this list that I find the most disagreement with (for example, at one point he implies that Calvinism is the only truly Protestant view, which is very much incorrect), it’s still worth reading to get a quick introduction to and defense of Calvinism.

hand in Hand: The Beauty of God’s Sovereignty and Meaningful Human Choice by Randy Alcorn.
Alcorn’s book is a great example of moderate Calvinism, and he goes more in-depth than Sproul in his discussion of how God’s providence intersects with human choice from a compatibilist perspective. Alcorn examines a great number of Scripture passages, while also covering the philosophical elements, all without getting overly technical. What I appreciate most is Alcorn’s tone – he’s a great example of how to defend your view with fairness and charity. Also, his first chapter gives some fantastic perspective on the Calvinist/Arminian debate as a whole.

Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology by Roger Olson.
I think Olson’s book is one that every Christian should read at least once, whether you end up agreeing with him or not. The reason it’s so good is that he begins by defining and explaining Calvinism thoroughly before he explains why he disagrees with it, so you’ll get clear definitions of both sides. It’s a great model for how debate should happen. Olson never sets up straw-man arguments – he extensively quotes the best exponents of Calvinism, articulates clearly the challenges to their views, and provides a well-written and passionate case for Arminianism.

Grace, Faith, Free Will by Robert Picirilli.
Just as Sproul’s Chosen by God is a good primer on Calvinism, Picirilli’s book is an excellent introduction to classical Arminian thought. He defends the view that election is tied to God’s foreknowledge of people’s faith-decision. Picirilli also covers a great deal of Scripture, although with certain Bible passages his book could have benefitted from more extensive exegesis and discussion.

The New Chosen People (Revised & Expanded Edition): A Corporate View of Election by William Klein.
Klein’s work is probably the best modern treatment of the corporate view of election. He examines Scripture in-depth to argue that election is far more about group identity than about an individual’s personal destiny. If that idea alone sounds new to you, you need to pick up Klein’s book! He explores the Old Testament, intertestamental Jewish literature, and the New Testament, and his coverage of “election” terminology in Scripture is itself worth the price of the book.

The Chosen People: Election, Paul, and Second Temple Judaism by A. Chadwick Thornhill.
I add this as a bonus, as it also supports the corporate view of election and complements Klein’s book nicely. Where Thornhill’s book differs from Klein’s is that it focuses more attention on what Jewish thinkers were saying about election and predestination in the days shortly before the New Testament was written. In other words, you’ll learn more about how the apostle Paul and other New Testament writers were joining a conversation that was already underway. You’ll get deeper background on how the imagery of election and predestination was being understood in the first century, and learn how Scripture develops that conversation.

I hope you’ll read at least one (if not more) of these, and that they’ll help sharpen your thinking on this controversial and challenging topic!
Let me know what you think! Have I left out any of your favorites? Drop me a comment!
See you down the path.

November 21, 2018
God’s Sovereignty & Human Choice in Proverbs

One of the core teachings of Scripture (and something that really should go without saying) is that God is sovereign. He is in control of the world He has made. Nothing is outside of His power or authority. He calls the shots. After all, if he’s powerful enough to create this universe, it would make sense that he could do anything he wanted with it.

This concept of God’s sovereignty is something that Proverbs emphasizes a lot, because Solomon knew that only a foolish person would deny God’s power over his creation. A wise person, on the other hand, would submit to God’s rule. (And remember, Proverbs is intended to help us become wise.)

But it’s also a concept that can easily be pressed too far beyond what the Bible states. It’s all too easy to pick out a handful of verses, read them in a wooden manner outside their context, and string together the notion that God predetermines everything that happens — including people’s decisions! (The technical name for this philosophy is determinism; you also may have heard it called fatalism.)

But lest we begin blaming God for our own evil actions and throw human responsibility out of the window, we need to look at some of the strongest statements on divine sovereignty in Proverbs and examine what they’re really saying.

What’s really the point when we say God is “in control”? And how should that impact our decision-making?

Solomon the Fatalist?

Let’s look first at what are arguably the strongest statements on God’s sovereignty in Proverbs.

Proverbs 16:4 (CSB) — “The Lord has prepared everything for his purpose— even the wicked for the day of disaster.”

One might get the impression this verse is saying that God actually creates people wicked; that he purposefully authors evil. He makes some people be bad, but it’s okay because it’s all part of the plan.

But that’s not what this verse is saying, for two reasons. One is that this would make nonsense out of all the verses in Proverbs (and the rest of Scripture) that speak of God’s judgment of evil (Prov 11:19, 21; 16:5; 21:12), his hatred of sin (Prov 6:16-19; 12:22; James 1:13-14), and his desire that people choose wisdom and righteousness (Prov 1:29-31; 3:31-33; 8:1-21; Ezekiel 18:21-32).

And two, this interpretation doesn’t fit the original Hebrew of the verse. If we translate it literally, it says everything is made to correspond “to its answer” (לַֽמַּעֲנֵ֑הוּ). In other words, God sovereignly makes sure that everyone and everything reaches an appropriate outcome. The second line gives a specific illustration: namely, the wicked will certainly receive the “day of disaster” their actions merit.

Let me say it this way: This is not a statement about predetermination, but about retribution! It’s saying God will ensure that each life’s outcome corresponds to its deeds. Compare the NET translation: “The Lord works everything for its own ends— even the wicked for the day of disaster,” or the GNT: “Everything the Lord has made has its destiny; and the destiny of the wicked is destruction.”

Indeed, elsewhere Solomon points out how foolish it is to blame God for people’s wicked choices: “A person’s own foolishness leads him astray, yet his heart rages against the Lord” (Proverbs 19:3, CSB).

God’s purpose is not to create evil, but to allow it, work it into a greater good, and ultimately judge it.

Proverbs 21:1 (CSB) – “A king’s heart is like channeled water in the Lord’s hand: He directs it wherever he chooses.”

Here we are reminded that even though we may think that human rulers are in control, God is actually the King of kings. He sets boundaries on what human leaders can do.

Again, we need to be careful not to take this verse in an overly deterministic manner, as if God dictates every choice human leaders make. That would mean that God specifically directed Hitler to order the murder of millions of Jews, for example (yikes!). But this is not at all what is implied by the imagery of this proverb.

The illustration used here is of a farmer setting irrigation channels to steer water in his fields. It’s an image suggesting oversight, direction, and setting boundaries. This verse isn’t saying that God overrides or predetermines the will of human leaders; rather, it means that he guides and sets limits. And it’s a reminder that God’s power is to be respected more than that of human kings.[1]

The Proper Response to God’s Sovereignty is Humility

Proverbs 20:24 (ESV) – “A man’s steps are from the Lord; how then can man understand his way?”

Here is a verse that gives a strong statement of God’s sovereign influence over human lives. It’s also tricky to translate, and the meaning depends on the two different Hebrew words for “man” that are used.

Here’s a closer approximation of the Hebrew: “The Lord guides the course of life of even a mighty man (gever), so how can a mere mortal (adam) hope to fully comprehend his life?”

The rhetorical intent seems to be to remind us not to get too overwhelmed by trying to figure out all there is to know of life, or to be jealous of seemingly powerful or influential people. Even the “mighty” don’t have it all figured out, and indeed they should be humbled by the fact that it is not they but God who is ultimately the master of their fate.

On the other hand, the faithful can rest easy knowing that God is the one who manages the circumstances of their lives. We don’t have to have it all figured out before we can trust him.

Proverbs 16:9 (NET) – “A person plans his course, but the Lord directs his steps.”

Here the sovereignty of God is contrasted with the will of man. Make sure you notice that God’s involvement and human decisions are placed side-by-side and compared as regards their extent; the former does not remove the latter. God’s rule does not cancel out human decision-making.

Far from saying that your every decision is predetermined by God, this proverb is telling us that we can and should make decisions and have plans, but we should also humbly recognize that the particular outcomes are subject to God’s sovereignty and the circumstances he allows.

But before we make those plans and decisions, we should consider one more important feature of God’s sovereignty Proverbs reminds us of — and that’s that God will hold us accountable for our decisions. He is even able to examine our motives:

Proverbs 21:2 (CSB) — “All a person’s ways seem right to him, but the Lord weighs hearts.”

Proverbs 24:12 (CSB) — “If you say, “But we didn’t know about this,” won’t he who weighs hearts consider it? Won’t he who protects your life know? Won’t he repay a person according to his work?”

There’s no pulling a fast one on the Ruler of all, so be sure to act and think accordingly!

Some Practical Implications

This emphasis on God’s sovereignty throughout Proverbs is meant to enforce several ideas in our minds:

1. We ought to be humble and fear the Lord when it comes to making choices in our lives. Since he’s in charge, we should seek to honor him.

2. We can find encouragement in the fact that God, not humanity, is ultimately in control of our destinies. God’s sovereignty is a good thing. Notice Proverbs 18:10 (NLT) – “The name of the Lord is a strong fortress; the godly run to him and are safe.”

Because Jesus is on the throne of the universe, we don’t have to be fearful when we make decisions, and we don’t have to be fearful of current events. He’s still in control, and he doesn’t feel threatened by the dilemmas we so often fixate on.

But it’s also because he’s on the throne that we should seek him for guidance in our lives. Ultimately he alone knows what’s best.

How do we seek the sovereign Lord’s guidance for our lives?

As we look at that topic, I want to stress that Proverbs (and the rest of Scripture, with it) teaches us a balance between several ideas. Think of these like three tennis balls we constantly have to juggle when we make choices in our lives:

1) We have a will of our own to make decisions. God created us to be personal beings who can make choices so that we can genuinely relate to him and to others.

2) We ought to submit our will first and foremost to what God has already revealed in his word. That’s the ultimate source of direction.

3) We can and should also ask God for personal guidance and wisdom for our unique life situations, but keeping (1) and (2) in mind.

So for example, God isn’t necessarily going to tell you what to eat for lunch every day. No doubt he could, but it isn’t exactly high on heaven’s priority list whether you choose the burger or the taco!

But even still, you can follow biblical principles like avoiding gluttony and being a wise steward of your money and relationships. Those still count as God’s directions for your life.

We’ll talk more about direction in the book of Proverbs in the next post — should the sovereign Lord allow! 😉

See you down the path.

[1] Of course, the question of why God allows some human leaders to carry out such horrible atrocities like the genocides of the twentieth century is a difficult one no matter how one understands God’s sovereignty. We might ask why he didn’t set some much stricter limits on, for example, the Nazi regime’s choices. It’s a question worthy of bigger discussion, but for now suffice it to say that I trust God has his reasons, his perspective is far bigger than ours, and all evil and suffering ultimately come to a resolution on the cross where God himself suffered.

July 28, 2018
What Are Scholars Saying About the Holy Spirit? (Reading Reflections on Thiselton)
I recently finished reading Anthony Thiselton’s book, The Holy Spirit – In Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today. It was a fun coincidence that I stumbled across this book when I did. My church had just concluded a sermon series on the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts, and my wife and I were desiring to dig a little deeper into what scholars are saying about the subject. So of course when I saw this tome sitting on the sale table at my seminary’s bookstore I snatched it up. And I was not disappointed!

Thiselton is a prominent British theologian famous for his commentary on 1 Corinthians and his books on biblical interpretation, so I already knew this book on the Holy Spirit would reflect a lifetime of serious scholarship. Throughout church history, theologians and ministers have often wrestled with how to understand the person and work of the Holy Spirit, as well as the nature and role of spiritual gifts. Thiselton helps lay a foundation by examining what the Bible says about the Spirit of God before surveying in detail the scholarly conversations about the Spirit from the early church to today. Anyone who wants to become familiar with academic discussions on the Holy Spirit would do well to start here.

Now, I have to give one important disclaimer! Clocking in at 500 pages and jam-packed with advanced scholarly interaction, Thiselton’s book is not for the faint of heart! Thankfully, though, he has also produced a condensed, reader-friendly version (link below)!

Definitely check out the abridged version if you’re interested in learning more about the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, or views on the Spirit in church history, and especially if you’re going to be teaching on these topics. It’s a great resource. (I’d only recommend the original version if you’ve already had some exposure to seminary-level research.)

A Call for Dialogue

The thing I appreciated most about Thiselton’s book was his commitment to fostering open and respectful dialogue on this controversial topic. Considering how heated the conversations can get when people discuss the nature and role of the Spirit, I loved seeing such a gifted scholar as Thiselton calling for balance and dialogue.

Among the other things I appreciated in Thiselton’s book:
- He constantly called for a focus on what Scripture teaches as being of central importance.
- He was willing to critique the weak points of both cessationists (those who think that the more “showy” gifts like miracles and tongues ceased, either after the first generation of apostles died or after the canon of Scripture was closed), as well as of continuationists/charismatics (like myself) with a gracious attitude. Thiselton shows us all where we need to clarify our thinking, but without vilifying either side.
- He referenced and quoted from a broad range of voices from all across the theological spectrum and from every era of church history. You get the usual greats – Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Luther, Calvin, etc., but you also get to hear from lesser-known figures like Hilary of Poitiers, Philoxenus of Syria, and Bonaventure, to name a few. Thiselton also interacts heavily with modern writers like Karl Barth, James D. G. Dunn, Gordon Fee, and many others. This allowed for multiple perspectives to be heard.
Key Insights I Gleaned

Here are some of Thiselton’s main points that I think are worth pondering deeply:

1) The Spirit’s goal is to glorify Christ.

So, if you want to be more Spirit-led, focus more on Christ (see pp. 70-71).

2) Your spiritual gifts are not about you.

Spiritual gifts are not primarily for us as individuals or for our self-fulfillment. They are for the purpose of building up the community of God. “It is not so much a matter of having a gift as of being a gift” (Jean-Jacques Suurmond, quoted on p. 85).

3) The biblical concept of prophecy can include both “on-the-spot” words from God AND prepared proclamations of the gospel message.

In Thiselton’s words, “The ‘where and when’ of prophecy, I believe, should not exclude either charismatic spontaneity or prepared, reflective preaching” (p. 176). This means we shouldn’t limit our concept of “prophecy” only to spontaneous utterances, and we should never undervalue the importance of preparation and study in ministry. Dependence upon the Holy Spirit should never be an excuse for such unspiritual qualities as laziness or neglect of learning. At the same time, though, Thiselton rightly affirms that the Lord indeed still speaks fresh words to his people through his Spirit – it’s not an “either/or” situation.

4) The “gift of healing” is not just miraculous, but also includes giftedness at treating others medically.

When Paul talks about the gift of healing in 1 Corinthians 12, he specifically mentions (in the Greek) “gifts of healings” (plural!). Thiselton points out that for the majority of church history this has been understood to mean both spontaneous, miraculous recoveries and/or God gifting people with medical skill to treat others (pp. 102-03, 114-20). We shouldn’t make a big divide between God working through more mundane natural processes and God working dramatically or “supernaturally.” Again, it’s not “either/or.”

5) Being Spirit-led should not be confused with doing what’s new.

It’s true enough that many churches are unhealthy because they’re tied to dry, religious formalism and rejecting fresh moves of the Spirit. But there’s an equal and opposite danger of being too obsessed with “new” and “fresh,” to the neglect of our past heritage (pp. 484-85). A healthy church learns from the past while being attuned to God’s will for the present. Perhaps you could say we need solid roots in the past along with fresh winds from the Spirit.

6) A biblical understanding of the Kingdom of God helps us understand why prayers for healing are not always answered the way we might hope.

This is a complex but important point. Let me try to explain briefly: Through the Spirit’s presence in believers, the Kingdom of God is already present to a degree, and this is why miraculous healings can and should be sought. To deny that God ever miraculously heals in response to prayer is to deny the current inbreaking of God’s Kingdom. But on the other hand, the Kingdom is not yet here in its fullest form – that will only be when Christ returns. It is only then that we will be delivered from all sickness and all death forever. It is not on this side of Christ’s return that we will experience complete and total healing in all cases.

As Thiselton writes, this concept of the “already/not-yet” of the Kingdom “explains the ambiguity of expectancy and prayer in relation to healings.”

“Sometimes God allows, as it were, the opening of Christmas presents before Christmas, and heals as if the End were already here. But clearly the end is not yet. . . . It seems a distraction from this important eschatological question to browbeat us with the question: Is it the will of God to heal? Of course it is; but when and where?” (p. 487).

This last point is a powerful one, and cuts through a lot of the false expectancy taught in so many Pentecostal circles. Again Thiselton hits the nail on the head:

“If expectancy is raised to a high pitch, there must be a degree of depression and misplaced self-recrimination from those for whom it is claimed that their Christian faith and trust was somehow deficient. If healing were a uniform and universal phenomenon, in cases of disappointment this would make the problem of suffering and evil much more acute” (p. 487).

In other words, for those who sincerely expected a healing that did not occur, the feeling that their faith was insufficient can cause horrible disillusionment and self-doubt. Yes, God desires to heal – but in some cases that healing only comes on the other side of eternity.

Those are a few of the many thought-provoking nuggets of wisdom Thiselton offers. What do you think of his observations? Do you disagree with any of them?

What are your favorite books on the Holy Spirit?

Let me know in the comments!
March 30, 2018