Archive | Theology RSS feed for this section

The Canonicity of Scripture

This work seeks to cover a range of topics concerning the canon of Scripture. From historical to contemporary perspectives to get an in-depth look at both the Old and New Testament formation, which together as a whole constitute the whole canon of God’s eternal word. During the research for this project, a significant number of factors were examined at length to grasp the weight and concentration of activity and inspiration that went into the assembly of the Bible down through the centuries. The origination, delivery, and assembly of the Bible are placed into our hands today by providence from our all-merciful Lord and King. We have a debt of eternal gratitude for its place in our lives.

Introduction

Today, the Holy Bible is reportedly the best-selling book in the world.¹ With its deep and lasting influence upon individuals, society, governments, and institutions; it reaches deep into our common realm of existence to have an everlasting impact upon conduct, policy, culture, law, lifestyles, art, sciences, and everyday living. The word of God is venerable and represents a class of literary work of its own. Extending back for thousands of years, with the events of mankind upon the Earth, it has recorded the activity of creation and humanity to such an extent that it shapes the thinking and worldview of billions among both the living and the dead.

The weight and substance of Scripture’s authority are somewhat supported by its canonization. Through sovereign orchestration and ordained use of God’s word read publicly and privately, the selection of communicated texts was produced and distributed for the development and well-being of the Church throughout Christendom. As written, collected, and meticulously reproduced over thousands of years, a formative process to codify recognition, understanding, and acceptance of divinely inspired writings came about to shape what is today defined as the canon of Scripture. More specifically, the canon is the “list of all the books that belong in the Bible.”² Etymologically speaking, the term canon originates from the Greek word “kanōn” (κανών), which is translated as “rule” or “measuring stick” among other common terms as a way to size, quantify, or gauge dimensions of truth. This word is likely a derivative of the Hebrew term “kaneh” which means “reed’. To also mean from the Latin, the canon is the source of absolute divine authority in the lives of both Jew and Gentiles or peoples of the Earth for all time.

When God breathed out His word over a period of time, they were recorded through a series of events concerning His plan to restore creation throughout redemptive history. Both literally and theologically, the canon of Scripture gains acceptance in meaning through the recognition of root-word definitions over time and canonical discovery among Church fathers. Ultimately, God determines canonicity.³ Whereas canonization refers to the method by which sacred texts are brought together by their usage and authority.

The process of canonization involves recognizing what was always canonical. Where there is a canonical consciousness in Scripture, ecumenical fathers and councils come to recognize its authority and divine inspiration while in use among church gatherings. Scripture itself correlates to what is true from among its various separate authors. At a macro level, the entire body of Scripture is systematic and fixed as a single entity. It is not to be tampered with, appended, or redacted. From Deuteronomy to Malachi in the Old Testament, there is an expectation about a forthcoming prophet woven together in the text across various genres.

For example, the Pentateuch of Scripture is together sealed as a cohesive unit prior to covenants becoming the redemptive backstory of history. Long before the new covenant was developed and communicated in the New Testament, the formation of the Old Testament canon was recognized by the prophets and people throughout the centuries as having authority. It was self-declarative then as God’s word with support extending throughout the remaining Old Testament over time and all the way through the New Testament to communicate the new covenant and the work of Jesus, His apostles, and the early church. From beginning to end, the revelation of God was recorded throughout the New Testament, just as it was in the Old Testament.

God spoke through Scripture from Revelation all the way back to Genesis. As the prophetic activity began in Deuteronomy and extended throughout the Old Testament among major and minor prophets, the fulfillment of those prophesies come about with new prophetic meaning is formed through revelation as articulated in the book of the Apocalypse, or the book of Revelation. This range of revelation communicates God’s intent through His prophets and apostles to demonstrate the interwoven nature of Scriptural messaging. Where together they are spiritually and canonically synchronous and guided by providence to reach us today.

The interconnected nature of the Old and New Testaments are an eternal witness to the canonicity of Scripture. As God spoke through the apostles and prophets, they wrote and spoke what was revealed to them, the early church, and to us today. The cascading effect of reference among both Old and New Testament writers gives extraordinary weight to the authenticity of God’s word. There is the credibility of appointed and ordained people sequentially building upon one another to thread together coherent spiritual and supernatural meaning for generations. Without uncertainty, Scripture consists of these canonical writings to further reinforce its total authority as intended.⁴

The canon of Scripture is not a passive expression of interconnected texts. It is a binding testimony recognized by Church history concerning the revelation of God through the prophets and writings of the apostles. While the canonization process throughout history was messy, it has a formative background across large geographical distances, large spans of time, and human languages. As supported by its canonical status, the authority of Scripture transcends scrutiny to withstand social and cultural pressures across the same stretches of time, geography, and language. The Bible itself declares its canonicity, and as a living entity, without being sentient, it is self-aware.

Old Testament Canon

Three Old Testament categories are contained in the Bible that has a bearing on their formation and recognition within the Church. Within the Bible, the first books of the law include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Known as the Torah or Pentateuch, these are the beginning books of the Bible. Following the books of the law, there are thirteen total historical books of the Bible, including Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra Nehemiah, and Esther. There are additional apocryphal non-canonical books of history, including 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, and Judith. Continuing through the Bible, after the books of the law and historical writings, there are five books of wisdom and poetry. Namely, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Finally, the books of the Bible are separated in notoriety and substantive impact as Major and Minor prophets are a total of seven and twelve, respectively. The seven books of the Minor Prophets are Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The five books of the Major Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, and Daniel. All of these books of the Bible listed here are their English language renderings by name or title.

The historical development of the Old Testament canon involved three operative principles as a matter of process. They are an inspiration, recognition, and preservation. Together these principles concern the three steps of placement and delivery of the total canon of Scripture. Among all 39 books of the Old Testament, they were first introduced by God so as to exclude other writings that were not inspired. These are the closed canon of the Old Testament as progressively revealed and inspired truth originating from God. The recognition of revealed and inspired truth that became transmitted and circulated were thereafter preserved as a collection of interconnected writings on ancient media originating from the oral tradition and copied from texts produced by Old Testament authors.

Historical Developments

There is separate historicity to each area of Scripture. Specifically, concerning the books of the law, the prophets, and other writings. While it is recognized that the Antilegomena⁵ pertains to disputed New Testament books, there were contested books of the Old Testament also. Historical attestation of the Hebrew canon extends back to numerous influential people involved in church leadership, translation, textual analysis, and ecumenical policy. Also known as the Masoretic canon, the Hebrew bible was largely compartmentalized as separate books that were recognized as having informational validity, but it was necessary to recognize those which were divinely inspired. Through a lineage of lists, authors, and historians, Jewish people of long ago held a tripartite view of canonical Scripture as a total homogenous effort.

There is separate historicity to each area of Scripture. Specifically concerning the books of the law, the prophets, and other writings. While it is recognized that the Antilegomena5 pertains to disputed New Testament books, there were contested books of the Old Testament also. Historical attestation of the Hebrew canon extends back to numerous influential people involved in church leadership, translation, textual analysis, and ecumenical policy. Also known as the Masoretic canon, the Hebrew bible was largely compartmentalized as separate books that were recognized as having informational validity, but it was necessary to recognize those which were divinely inspired. Through a lineage of lists, authors, and historians, Jewish people of long ago held a tripartite view of canonical Scripture as a total homogenous effort.

It was Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, who concluded that after the closure of Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, there were no other prophetic books from about 424 B.C. that communicated revelation from God to the Jewish people. Therefore, while there was yet chronological prophetic activity, there was no other way to substantiate or safely conclude other writings outside the Masoretic canon to confirm they were authentic or even divinely inspired. The books listed by Bishop Melito of Sardis in A.D. 170 account for the earliest listing of all Old Testament books except for a few that were later recognized, among others. Nearly one hundred years later, Origen recognized the same 22 canonical books as Josephus. Even Hilary of Poitiers and Jerome recognized the 22 canonical books.

In contrast, for hundreds of years after about 425 B.C., the Old Testament remained understood as divinely inspired and the revealed word of Truth. Aside from the remaining books to follow within the tripartite of the modern Old Testament, it was Athanasius who confirmed that the Old Testament count was 22. These were the same as those in the Masoretic Text and were in roughly the same order of the Protestant Bible at the time. Athanasius died in A.D. 365.

From among the remaining books of today’s Old Testament, there were historical books named and collated differently. For example, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were 3, and 4 Kings or Jeremiah is thought to have included Lamentation. Of the total 39 books currently in the Old Testament, they are found among the 22 recognized by how they were kept in ancient times.⁷ With other writings and texts combined and later separated, few other books were recognizing other books of Wisdom and the writings aside from the minor prophets. The sequence of historical recognition included the law, the major and minor prophets, and finally, the Writings (Hagiographa). Not in chronological order within the Masoretic Text, or Hebrew Bible, then and from what we have today, but by a sequence of assembly and later recognition. By the time the first century Christians arrived, Hebrew canon was set as canonical and authoritative, and no one dared, or have been so bold to take, add, or change anything to them.⁸

Genre & Formation

As elaborated earlier, each of the three areas of the Old Testament has its own formative background. The law, the prophets, and the writings have their origins from divine inspiration and share commonality among the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, and Syriac traditions. All categorical types of faith use the same Protestant Old Testament, but their order is somewhat different from the Hebrew Bible. The story about their collection and formation originates from the idea that the listed books of the Old Testament are a catalog of sacred texts. Such that the modes of communication were of a large literary range. From a study of hermeneutics, a student of Scripture immediately sees this wide range to express meaning in a way that goes beyond type designations as “the law,” the prophets,” and “the writings.” Genre pertains to a style of communication presented within Scripture to include explicit instruction, poetry, apocalyptical, wisdom, narration, and revelatory, among others.

These types within the Old Testament are partitioned by book but can also be found at a passage level as well. Interwoven among stories, proverbs, prophecies, hymns, songs, poems, genealogies, and historical references, are separate types that interface with one another as spoken or written by the patriarchal fathers and prophets from within the Biblical text. As one Biblical author writes within an area of Scripture and refers to these explicit types of genre. Even further, the substance of meaning of specific stories involving people, places, and events is often brought into view by the reader or listener of Scripture. From one passage, and one book to another, a continuous interface is progressively formed at an increasingly granular level. The propagation of historical and spiritual meaning as guided by God gives Old Testament writers a foundation and certainty by which truth unfolds for delivery to people of the relevant time period and even people today.

With continued conviction among historical figures in the Bible, readers of Scripture observe the divinely authoritative status of the written word as the Old Testament. From Josiah in 2 Kings 22 to the readings of Nehemiah, we see the preeminent attention placed upon God’s word as it was in use for the safety and well-being of the Lord’s people. In fact, during the time when early Old Testament texts were collected, the Jews recognized the importance of Scriptural adherence. As written in 2 Kings 17:13, the Lord warned His people through every prophet and every seer “Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments and My statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” Their acknowledgment, comprehension, and compliance were necessary and made certain through oral tradition and what was read and circulated from the prophets. To illustrate and reinforce the authoritative nature of what was communicated to hold an enormous weight of meaning.

Along with the inspired canon of Scripture, there were various extra-biblical, or non-canonical writings read alongside the full canon. They were among peoples who inhabited Israel, Greece, Italy, the Middle East, and Ancient Mesopotamia. In addition to the authors of Scripture, there were numerous historical, philosophical, and deuterocanonical authors of similar genre that gained the attention of many among the Jewish people and Gentile nations beyond. Ingrained into religious and pagan cultures from about 400 B.C. to the second and third centuries A.D., the pseudepigrapha writings occupied the thoughts and activity of those who were also subject to the full counsel of God’s word. The works of the Apocrypha,⁹were also well-known and popular then as they are today. Recognized and accepted as ancient books of cultural and religious value, they were a substantial source of historical reference to deeper understand Biblical backgrounds.

While some within the Roman Catholic and Ethiopic Church systems accept the noncanonical apocryphal books alongside the canon, Protestant Christendom does not view them as carrying nearly the same weight. At least in terms of authority or inspiration as given to us by the Lord Most High in His revealed words through Scripture. To further elaborate on what the books of the Apocrypha were and where they were included, there is a virtual matrix to understand their noncanonical and widespread use. Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, to include the Peshitta, Vulgate, Roman Catholic Canon, Greek Orthodox Canon, and the Authorized King James Version (1611) all have a mix of different apocryphal books. However, generally, the inclusion of Apocryphal books is numerous across all texts.10 There are approximately 20 books of the Apocrypha including Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter to Jeremiah, additions to Daniel, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Odes.

Criticisms, Responses, & Implications

Liberal scholars of theology and the doctrine of Scripture advocate positions of authorial dating, origination, and content contrary to Scripture itself. In an effort to deconstruct the Biblical accounts of direct and indirect communication from Yahweh to His chosen people, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, and others, new dates of authorship are set, with authors other than what was written about in Scripture. For example, it is recorded in Joshua 1:8 that “this book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it in order to do all that is written in it.” If in context Joshua really could not have instructed the people of Israel to understand and know the Torah, or the first 5-books of the Bible, the books of the law because the text did not exist at the time, then deconstructionists are propagating error at best or a harmful lie. The contentious perspectives from those working against God’s word span across all three major divisions of the Old Testament.¹¹ It appears in every area of Scripture, it is dissected and with attempts to thereafter “prove” forgery, or unsubstantiated social contributions to the origination, recognition, and assembly of Scripture. Where the attack is not on the message of Scripture itself per se, but its inspiration and ultimate source.

The specific criticisms of the books of the Law of Moses, the books of the Prophets, and the Kethûbîm (Writings), concern anti-supernatural presuppositions that attempt to cast doubt on the authority and inspiration of Scripture to affect its validity among adherents negatively. Especially as an effort to damage its power to reveal the truth of God’s redemptive history and plan. By divine authority, the canon of Scripture is self-attested to demonstrate the valid substance of the Biblical authors at the time they wrote. The recognition and acceptance of intended readers were immediate down through the centuries, and contradictions otherwise are deceptive and likely nefarious to some extent. Speculative theories founded upon critical thought reveal a disconnect between dated times of authorship as compared to when actual events occurred or when the activity took place to give Scripture its content and meaning.

Canonical criticism concerning Old Testament canonicity was pioneered by Brevard S. Childs and James A. Sanders.¹² The term canonical criticism was coined by Sanders as it introduced challenges to traditional studies in Biblical Theology and as new perspectives on interpretive developments were occurring in the 1970s. There was disagreement between Childs and Sanders concerning critical methods of Biblical analysis because Sanders held the view that biblical authority is outside the province of historical study. Furthermore, canonical criticism, from Childs’ view, is that the community and final form of the Bible largely shape the canon and the authority of Scripture. A corresponding response from Sanders articulated a dispute to detail a valid method of interpretation itself from a historical and theological framework. A framework involving a process of prophetic hermeneutic of the writers of Scripture.¹³

Objections to Childs’ view of the community shaped canon began to form in defense of proper recognition of Biblical authority and historical accuracy. Christopher R. Seitz, in his work, “The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible, argues for an approach to canonical interpretation that takes into serious account the facts of history and its stages of development. In the context of original inspiration, an unbalanced and low view of Scripture must not rest too much on one testament at the expense of another.¹⁴ Others have argued for a canonical approach to interpretation where theological tension is somewhat relieved in favor of clarity and application through hermeneutics. For example, any perceived tension between Paul and James in the biblical record is eased as suggested. Such that the epistle of James is written in support of the canonical timeline of the gospels to balance what some may view as opposition to later Pauline epistles (see Robert W. Wall on James 4:13-5:6).

The debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics about the canon appears around the doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation. Where during the Reformation, the doctrine of “Solus Christus,” which means “in Jesus Christ and in Him alone the Divine has become man, in him alone the revelation of God appears to us, in him alone God speaks to us,” ¹⁵ we see a position of unmediated interpretation through the fallibility of people who were involved in the gathering and recognition of the canon. As everyone stands in a direct personal relationship with Christ, the doctrine of sola Scriptura then comes into view with its expression, “for through the word of Scripture alone can man meet Jesus Christ directly.” From the Roman Catholic perspective articulated by Nicolas Appel, the intermingling of the human condition bears a problem and somewhat accounts for the struggle in canonical acceptance and recognition. This somewhat explains why some books of the Apocrypha appear within the Catholic Bible. Specifically about how the interjection of the human condition affects the testimony of the Holy Spirit about the Word of God. Some would argue that this position remains unresolved.

Differences between a theological and historical process in canonical recognition stem from the doctrine of incarnation specifically through Christ (Solus Christus; Protestant) as compared to Christ and the Church (Christus Totus; Catholic) as Christ inhabits His body by the Holy Spirit within the Church. Christus Totus in Latin means “The Whole of Christ.” The incarnation of Christ in bodily form through Himself as Jesus the Messiah and the incarnation of the Holy Spirit through His body, the Church. It is concluded that since the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth concerning canonical Scripture, its pertinent recognition and acceptance come from the Catholic Church. Not exclusively through canonical consciousness by the Holy Spirit’s work in Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). This view about the incarnation of Christ throughout Protestant and Catholic Christendom, therefore, has significant implications for the recognition, acceptance, and authority of Scripture which would affect worship and practice.

New Testament Canon

The canon of the New Testament parallels that of the Old Testament. In the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., the New Testament was closed, and the consciousness of the canon was made clear through exegetical interpretation and sound hermeneutical practices. The work of the Holy Spirit began in the Scriptures to communicate the inspired word of the Lord. As the Old Testament was already canonized and in use among first-century Jewish peoples, it continued to gain acceptance and wider use among the Gentiles throughout the Greco-Roman world. As the writings, teachings, and oral traditions of the Apostles were making their way through the early church; there is little doubt that fledgling believers and followers of Christ were presented with the Old Testament subject matter as well. Details about the old and new covenants that concern the revelation and witness of the Gospel completed the full counsel of God’s word.

Historical Developments

The underlying strength and authority of Scripture are supported by its canonicity. From the interconnected relationships within itself and throughout the Old and New Testaments, Scripture affirms its meaning across books or writings by genre. Historically, the Lord chose to use numerous authors over time to communicate revealed meaning about Himself, His plan, and what He has done through Creation. His activity to originate, configure, and maintain Creation in perfect order is accomplished through His word. Just as His word brings together all of Creation to accomplish His purposes, by God’s sovereign and perfect will, He is able to originate and inspire His written word where it is brought into existence and formed to accomplish His objectives. To demonstrate how our Lord accomplishes this, He uses means among fallible and sinful yet redeemed people through the work of the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:12, Luke 24:49).

Notice in Paul’s letter to Timothy that he refers to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18). Incredibly, the work of Luke that records the words of Jesus, “The laborer deserves his wages,” is referred to by Paul as Scripture. Outside the Old Testament, the biblical text itself within the New Testament begins to form a historical perspective. Modeled for immediate church fathers to follow with the help of the Spirit of grace, no doubt (Zechariah 12:10). So down through time, over the course of history, we see the beginning of Scriptural meaning communicated in an interconnected way to stitch together both ancient codices and modern texts that serve as Holy documents that bring hope, wisdom, virtue, but most of all the revelatory intent of Yahweh.

We further see Paul’s letters referenced as “Scripture” by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:16). Paul was endowed “according to the wisdom given him” to demonstrate that just as our God spoke through the prophets, He did so through Paul, and here we have the apostle Peter in acknowledgment of that in truth and love. So first, we have Paul to Jesus, the second person of the Lord God incarnate referenced in Scripture as recorded in the book of Luke. Now we have Peter referring to Paul. As the communicative changes continue, we have Polycarp (125 A.D.), a disciple of John,¹⁶ as corroborated by Irenaeus and Tertullian, quoting Ephesians, 2 Timothy, and 1 John as Scriptures destined to the New Testament canon.¹⁷Further along in time, Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) refers to the gospels as “Memoirs of the Apostles” in his First Apology discourse.¹⁸ Irenaeus (180 A.D.) refers to the fourfold form of the written gospels to indicate that there was a quantity of four written accounts of Jesus’ ancient biography and record as Scripture.¹⁹

Given there was a cascading sequence of Scriptural use occurrences in public life, and in personal study among the early church fathers, there were lists that began to form in forthcoming centuries that gave birth to the canon that the Church has today. From papyri to manuscripts, scrolls, and codices, the inspired content of the canon selected itself by various intertestamental references, and what belongs in the New Testament books were not originated from a human source. As various Gnostic and Montanist writings were rejected as formative lists were assembled, a clearer view of what the full counsel of God should look like in the form of the Holy Bible in the world today. To further elaborate on the genres and formation of the canon, various additional historical perspectives appear in antiquity. This was to demonstrate that there was a selection process concerning books of the whole Bible involving recognition, council review, affirmation, and acceptance. Not selection per se according to some vetting criteria, but by simple recognition of how Scripture held inherent value due to its subject matter as written by the inspiration of God and the Holy Spirit at work in the church at the time.

Genre & Formation

Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen, were largely responsible for establishing a canonical view of Scripture within the early church. As recounted by Eusebius of Caesarea (260 – 340 A.D.), there was again a tripartite grouping of Scripture as outlined and written about. All three categories constituted a body of writings that were produced after the revelation of Christ through His apostles by their witness, testimonies, oral traditions, and written work. Within these categories were the two separate second and third-hand series of recorded events within the first and second centuries. Standing among them in the first category were the homologoumena, later recognized as the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline letters, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John. The second category was that of the Antilegomena, recognized as the questionable books of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Finally, the books that were not authentic, or accepted were The Acts of Paul, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Teachings of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John. One would notice that the book of Revelation was both in the homologoumena camp and the Antilegomena camp at the same time. Eusebius was, at times, uncertain about the canonical status of the book of Revelation, but he eventually recognized its acceptance and valid use within the Church as inspired Scripture.

The genres of the New Testament are varied as they are for the Old Testament. While there are no books of the law, wisdom, or poetry, produced within the New Testament, it consists of the Gospels of Christ, historical narratives, letters from apostolic fathers, and prophetic writings. As the term gospel translates from the Greek term euangelion,²⁰its definition corresponds to “good news.” Prior to the use of the term in the New Testament, it was a word applied in another era concerning a victory of military conquest or political achievement. The gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are narrative stories loaded with deep theological meaning and significance. They are ancient biographical stories of good news for people during the time of apostolic ministry. “To the ends of the Earth,” they are good news to everyone today.

The book of Acts is a narrative story, like the gospels. It is a story of theological history with deep and meaningful significance. It traces the events and activities of the apostles throughout geographical regions in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Canonically, the book of Luke interfaces with the book of Acts as described within their content between Luke 24:49 and Acts 1 – 2. Specifically, instructions to remain in the city for power to follow from the Lord as written in Luke and then the follow-up fulfillment of the promise. To include Christ’s ascension and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at the occurrence of Pentecost. The church’s growth, its persecution, Paul’s missionary journeys, and his encounters with culture, including political and legal systems, provide a clear and natural transition from the gospels. Peter shared the gospel and built the church within Jerusalem, while Paul also obeyed Christ’s commission to bring the same good news to Gentiles outside of Israel.

The New Testament canon includes the apostle’s letters produced from the early church. These were all of a correspondence genre that was read and circulated throughout the church at the time. Even today, this subject matter’s spiritual and theological development was regarded as Scripture as it is today (2 Pet 3:16, 2 Tim 3:16). Between Acts and the apostolic letters written to the churches in Asia Minor and to the Hebrews and Romans, there were disputes about their validity through the centuries and still remain today with objections surrounding authenticity, dating, and historical validity.

As its own New Testament genre, the book of Revelation consists of three different literary types combined into one. It is a letter from John to seven churches in Asia Minor concerning prophecy and apocalyptic events to come. The three literary types of correspondence, prophecy, and apocalypse concern the revelation of Jesus involving judgment and events to come during the last days prior to His return.

Recognition of what books belonged in the New Testament canon was not obvious to the early church. There were numerous early lists that cataloged the written work of the apostles and authors to gather a full view of the inspired word of God as authoritative Scripture. Traditional dating from about 160 – 200 A.D., the earliest list was the Muratorian Fragment or the Muratorian Canon.²¹ While written in Latin, it was probably translated from an original Greek copy, and it still resides today in Milan, Italy. It consists of all the books of our New Testament today except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John. This canon identified forgeries excluded from Scripture, and it accepted the Apocalypse of Peter for private reading.²²

All the way from the first and second centuries, there were additional listings that formed up to the fourth and fifth centuries. Namely, formations from Origen of Alexandria (215 – 250 A.D.), Eusebius of Caesarea (311 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.), Cheltenham canon (359 A.D.), Athanasius of Alexandria (367 A.D.), Amphilochius of Iconium (375 – 394 A.D.), and the Third Synod of Carthage (393 A.D.). The pattern of recognition among all of these formative canons was by iteration and successive approximation among different individuals to get to a final and closed New Testament canon. With all of these lists, the final recognized canon at the Third Synod of Carthage was that of Athanasius. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were then formed, recognized, and accepted. From the Synod of Carthage, the canon of Athanasius was locked in place.

As these lists were produced separately and independently, a number of observations and suggestions are offered about what revealed the canon’s selected books of Scripture.²³Specifically, among the canonical lists and later all books in the New Testament, a pattern or criteria emerges to discount any idea that selection was arbitrary, incoherent, or without a sensible human rationale. Together the criteria or selectivity pattern included apostolicity, orthodoxy, relevance, widespread, and longstanding use.

Criticisms, Responses, & Implications

Defending the canon from critics entailed quite a bit of effort against liberal scholars’ objections to the process of recognition and affirmation from councils long ago on ideological grounds. Namely, Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code is founded upon philosophies originating back to the emerging Gnostic era during the time of early church fathers. Bart D. Ehrman’s written work of “Jesus Interrupted” claims that the canon was the arbitrary selection of people among councils that did not put written works of the apostolic era up to vote.²⁴ Where others were left out of the selection or recognition process of the canon. Others who produced lists of writings from among early Christians and church leaders were left out as they objected to the transpired formation of the canon to recognize and affirm God’s revealed word. Additional modern critics that object to the formation of the canon, inerrancy, authority, or tradition of Scripture include John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong.

Each critic that presents objections to the validity of Scripture or the value and necessity of redemption, worship, service, and a life of faith generally comes from a storied period of time in academic work who have had life experiences or hardships in their faith that caused a departure of orthodox critical thought. Their work in finding other books outside the canon, or to champion socially liberal worldviews more palatable to the culture of scholars inevitably makes detailed, thorough, and self-justifiable efforts to work against Scripture and not with it to validate its meaning and truth. To apply a standard of humanistic rationale from presuppositions somewhat rooted in naturalism or unreconciled contradictions without explanation, assertions are concluded about errors in Scripture that remain unaccounted for to their satisfaction. Whether or not there are satisfactory explanations, or that there are no explanations whatsoever, in the view of the critical liberal scholar, there must be valid explanations answerable to human thought and reason as necessary to justify confidence or belief in Christ with or without the help of the Holy Spirit through the inspired Word of God as provided within the canon. There can be no justifiable or viable rationale about variances or errors among manuscripts found within the formation of the canon. Aside from the self-affirming nature of the canonical books of the Bible, there is an inferred insistence that all facts and details about revelatory writings line up according to the standards of scholars or liberal academic leaders that must abide by the requirements and social, behavioral, philosophical, and economical preferences of social pressures and personal inclinations even if they run contrary to the truth of Scripture.

Naturally, as false teachers, liberal academics, secular scholars, or apostates who learn about Scripture have an influence among the formative minds of people who seek the truth of God’s revealed word, critical observations, hasty conclusions, and obfuscation can have a deep and lasting negative effect on morality and the salvific status of individuals. Reminiscent of Bildad, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Elihu in the book of Job, even objective efforts among critics to understand and recognize the truth of Scripture can surface erroneous or deceptive conclusions. Propagated by lectures, written work, and social interaction that have implications of serious personal and social consequences. Unfavorable outcomes that break down social, government, family, and spiritual order inevitably bring about the demise of people at an unimaginable scale. Not due to an inability to recognize and understand Truth, but to accept and abide by it without causing harm to others. The absence of a commitment to Truth according to Scripture as revealed through the Holy Spirit by the work of the apostles and prophets lead to enslavement and misery in one form or another.

Conclusion

Throughout this project, a substantial effort was made to research and communicate background, formation, development, and criticism details concerning the canon of God’s Word as revealed to the world throughout Scripture. Involving a wide-spread set of resources to get a topical yet comprehensive view of what occurred over the centuries to bring us the teachings and theological principles of the prophets, apostles, and God Most-High through our Lord Jesus. The Old and New Testaments together represent the full counsel of God’s Word. Just as the words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and genres convey substantial and everlasting meaning, the stitching together of books by various authors adds a progressive and revelatory way of recognizing what is necessary for the explicit will of God in Creation to include His redemptive work for humanity.

The fundamentals of the canon are necessary to understand across all eras throughout the Middle East, from the far reaches of Mesopotamia through Asia Minor and into modern Europe. With the earliest writings conveyed through the Pentateuch or the Mosaic Law, we see the beginning of what it is to recognize God’s written word from His hand (Exodus 31:18). His message beginning with the people of Israel initiated a process of revelatory instruction that extends through a series of covenants across a timeline that reaches us today. From promises made to promises kept, we see the writings of numerous people of the Lord bring to humanity the stories, psalms, and songs of meaning from the mind of God. Book by book, authenticated by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, we have confidence that people can find Him by their time and effort spent engaged in His word.

The composite nature of Scripture is developed such that its modularity is coherent with overlapping, interlinking, and interwoven messages by narration and various types of suitable expression. It is a self-authenticating work of the Spirit of God, through His people to originate its substance as a recording of texts and their assembly. Beneath what was written about in historical activity and events of the Bible that testify to what occurred as prophesied and fulfilled. All the way from the garden to the ascension, we have an end-to-end view of what Truth is providentially given to us through the canon of God’s Word.

Citations

1. Guinness World Records. Guinness World Records. 2020. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction (accessed March 10, 2020).
2. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology, Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 54.
3. Norman Geisler, William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1986), 221.
Van Pelt, Blomberg & Schreiner, Lecture 7: Seams in the Canonical and
4. Covenantal Structure, (2020) accessed March 11, 2020, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/seams-canonical-covenantal-structure/biblical-theology/van-pelt-blomberg-schreiner.
5. Dictionary.com, Antilegomena, 2020, accessed March 12^th, 2020, www.dictionary.com/browse/antilegomena.
6. Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 64.
7. Sumner, Tracy Macron. How Did We Get the Bible (Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishing, 2009), 65.
8. Josephus, The Works of Josephus – Against Apion 1.8 (Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 776.
9. Easton, M.G. Easton’s Bible Dictionary, 1893, (Logos Systems, Inc.).
10. Estes, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Apocrypha (Logos Systems, Lexham Press, Bellingham, 2016).
11. Meeks, “Overview of the Canon,” Lexham Bible Dictionary / Encyclopedia, Canonical Criticism.
12. Ibid., Central Concepts and Practitioners.
13. Ibid., Critics and Criticisms.
14. Carson, Woodbridge, “Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon,” Four Approaches to Canon History.
15. Ibid. Carson, Woodbridge.
16. Pierce, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Polycarp, Life. (Logos Systems, Lexham Press, Bellingham), 2016.
17. Ibid. Pierce. Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians.
18. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), Volume 2, 222-223.
19. Wood, Marshal, The New Bible Dictionary, 430.
20. Duvall, Hays, Grasping God’s Word, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2012), 270.
21. Strong, Systematic Theology, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1970), 146.
22. Powell, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, (New York: Harper, 2011).
23. Licona, How the Canon of the Bible Was Formed – (YouTube, March 31, 2016), accessed March 08, 2020, https://youtu.be/s0BCm2cRx9w?t=317.
24. Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, (New York, HarperOne), 190.

Continue Reading ·

The Way of Balaam

By James Austin in Theology

Introduction

In obedience to the great commission, the formative Church in Asia Minor was developing through missions, evangelism, and discipleship. As people recently in the faith of our Lord Jesus, there were numerous people in the region susceptible to predatory false teachers who were steeped in the culture of the time. Heavily influenced by Greco-Roman philosophical thought, people were thoroughly committed to self-indulgence and all forms of personal interest centered on pleasure, consumption, and sensuality. Whether intentional or unintentional among people who sought to corrupt people within the Church, the reach of harmful influences and outright instruction they advocated was harmful and damaging. Subtle intruders who cause a significant error by false ideas contradictory to the truth of Scripture are called out by Peter. With specifics about who they were by their behavioral attributes.

Authenticity, Canon, Dating, & Purpose

The Epistle of 2 Peter was a contested book of the Bible as it was not recognized in the canon among some early Church manuscripts. Some Church fathers also dismissed its status as having divinely inspired authority. From scholars centuries ago, to professional academics today, the authorship, date of writing, literary style, and content is disputed as authentically from Peter, an Apostle of Christ. To call into doubt its origin and the substance of its message. Early Church historian Eusebius once wrote, “Of Peter, one epistle, named as his First, is accepted, and the early Fathers used this as undisputed in their own writings. But the so-called Second epistle [of Peter] we have not regarded as canonical, yet many have thought it useful and have studied it with the other Scriptures.”¹ While Eusebius of Caesarea was of the 4^th century, much later Guerike acknowledged its authenticity within the external testimonies.² Where the second epistle was ecclesiastically acknowledged as part of the Canon during the 4^th century.³From Jerome to Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Justin, Irenœus, Theophilus of Antioch, Hermas, Barnabas, and finally to Dietlein (1851), with whom its authenticity was proven from before the destruction of the second temple. The Church ultimately accepted the epistle within the Canon of Scripture with its authenticity recognized by the end of the fourth century.

During the Apostolic period between Paul’s ministry to John’s writing of the apocalyptic book of Revelation, it is recognized that Peter wrote his second letter to the Church in Asia minor. Just prior to his death in about A.D. 65, Peter’s letter is dated after Paul’s letters were written to the Church. Likely after the completion of Paul’s and his ministry and travels. Scholars who dismiss the authenticity of Peter’s epistle, date the letter to about the second century.

“Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing,..;” – 2 Peter 2:15

Delivery, Literary Style, and Audience

Structurally, the letter is in a chiastic form of literary delivery. There is a synchronous and coherent form of meaning that contributes to the letter’s overall purpose. While there is some uncertainty among scholars about the epistle’s intended audience during the approximated time of writing, the substance and relevance of Peter’s message is directed to the Church in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). For centuries thereafter, the letter has been contemplated, studied, and applied rigorously by Godly people who love the Lord and remained committed to His word as Scripture. For generations to follow, the first epistle of Peter becomes recognized as having exhortations and warnings from people external to the Church, while the second epistle concerns warnings about false teachers internal to the Church. From Gentiles to authorities, masters, spouses, members of the Church body, Peter urges his readers to honor God in their conduct. Later, in his second epistle, Peter warned about false teachers who secretly destructive heresies into the body of believers (2 Pet. 2:1).

Peter’s message concerning false teachers corresponds to Scriptural texts across genres and authors. Namely, the book of Jude is another well-known written work concerning false teachers. In fact, much of its substance corresponds to the core of overall warnings read within Peter’s letter. Church members susceptible to false instruction about principles of their faith were exposed to harmful ideas and practices that ran contrary to the teachings of Christ himself as often delivered by His Apostles. Condemnation and warnings from Jeremiah (Jer. 23:9), John (2 Jn. 7), to Paul (Rm. 16:17-18), and others also indicate a widespread presence of false teachers and false prophets over long periods of time. One might conclude there began a continuing presence of this spirit of deception behind pagan and gnostic thought. With repeated and continuing patterns of deception with the typical layers of idolatry accompanied by untruthful, heretical, and immoral practices, the “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4:1 NKJV) remain sustained across humanity. Throughout Peter’s second epistle, there are numerous past and present-tense participles that indicate an active and historical nature of teaching false principles within the early Church. The specifics were not articulated about what false teachings were occurring, but the inevitable outcomes attributed to those propagating ideas and nonsense centered around personal gain and error were marked by a licentious lifestyle common during that period. For example, within chapter two concerning the rise of false teachers and rebellion, to express causes and consequences, a reader sees terms such as “denying” (2:1), “daring” (2:10), “reviling” (2:12), “maligned” (2:2), “condemned”, “reducing” (2:6), and “oppressed” (2:7) as ideas and various others to reveal corrupt thought and historically condemned activity. Taken together, these terms constituted a sense of harmful disruption alarming to Peter. Where there was a clear Epicurean worldview threat of division as compared to historical and Scriptural truth about our Lord, who He is, what He has done, and what He is doing as revealed among the authentic apostles and prophets.

Background, Historical Perspectives

During the time of Peter’s letter to the Church in Asia Minor, Gentiles were immersed in secular culture involving trade, social gatherings, protests, travel, paying taxes, court cases, work, and daily family life. The various geographic areas within the territory of Asia Minor are well known throughout the New Testament. Specifically, within the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles, and the prophetic work of Revelation. The cities and towns throughout Asia minor surround the Mediterranean Sea with numerous references to their significance throughout the Bible in the New Testament. As a springboard of the Church beyond Israel, the great commission going forward among the Gentiles extended beyond the Jewish people as planned throughout redemptive history.

As the area was thoroughly influenced by the adjacent nations of Greece and Italy, the people were steeped in Greco-Roman culture during the time.⁴ The larger ancient world of Gentiles was distributed throughout the developing world, beginning in Rome and Athens continuing Westward. A growing Christendom heading into Europa with the early Church was sovereignly and geographically positioned to flood the Earth with the gospel. Even with the corrupt beliefs and practices of idolatry involving false pagan gods, and the cultural focus on self-pleasure attributed to society within Greece, the Church was incubating with impurities affecting its overall health and purpose. Whether by Roman gods or Greek gods, the spiritual condition of people throughout the area was infected by self-deception likely reinforced by cultural and societal pressures. Not to mention supernatural forces of darkness, the Apostle writes to the Church in Ephesus about (Eph. 6:12).

Social, Cultural, and Philosophical Influences

The historical onset of Gnosticism appears to have placed undue pressures upon the early Church and Christ’s ministry through His Apostles. Gnosticism at the time was recognized as a collection of teachings as they represented a combination of ideas taken from mysticism, Greek philosophy, and Christianity. In contrast, the justification was achieved through knowledge (the Greek word for “knowledge” is gnosis) and not by faith, as articulated by Paul in his letter to the Ephesian church (Eph 2:8-9). To understand the adverse effects of Gnostics at the time, a careful look at their cultural practices and chosen lifestyles gives an in-reverse look at the root of those influencing believers at the time of Peter’s letter (and that of Jude). From about the second century, looking backward, there is sufficient explanation about the errors in conduct that came about to contradict our Lord’s instructions to the Church through Peter. With cultural influences of philosophical thought from Roman paganism to later growing Gnosticism, as the source of false teaching alluded to by its pernicious outcomes and inevitable lifestyles by those who fall away from the faith.

Not only were the egregious lifestyles of Gnostic influence upon formative Christendom alarming to Peter, but their false systems of belief were setting in. It was entirely necessary to call out the heretical and sinful problems that were occurring. Within the congregations in Asia Minor, they were to understand that both subtle and overt contradictions were upon them, and it was necessary to recognize the errors, reject false teachings, and uphold Truth. The outcomes explicitly contradictory to Scripture and apostolic instructions for the Church were evidence of the types of erroneous beliefs upon them at the time.

In Scripture, the coming of the false teachers was predicted (Acts 20:29, 1 Tim. 4:1, 2 Tim. 3:2) with their worldview firmly systemic as Epicurean and Antinomian. Hostile to Christ, they were as fierce wolves, deceitful, disloyal, committed to doctrines of demons, lovers of self, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. Having an appearance of godliness but denying its power (2 Tim. 3:2-5). The worldview of Epicureanism, as originated by Greek philosopher Epicurus around 300 BC, was characterized by a philosophy of pleasure. They were living for the flesh through a means of carnality involving a delight in physical appetites such as sensuality, passions, material satisfaction, and sexual pursuit. It was and is a form of hedonism. A form of antinomianism also accompanied Epicureanism at the time of Peter’s warning. A term which originates from the Greek ἀντί (anti “against”) and νόμος (nomos “law”). Whereas Gnostics were against religious or spiritual influences upon the lives of their adherents. Particularly concerning the Mosaic law and early Christianity (i.e., “living by the Spirit”). Scriptural teaching from the Prophets and Apostles was therefore rejected by some within Hellenistic society, which identified with an Epicurean and Antinomian worldview developing at the time. With a backdrop of historical paganism and Roman influences during the first and second centuries, Peter’s warnings against people who teach from a foundation of these assertions and premises were charged as false and summarily required full rejection. Not only of the ideas and principles but of the people themselves who carried them and somewhat occupied the Church (2 Tim 3:1-5).

Content Analysis and Genre

Peter’s second letter to the churches in Asia Minor was likely circulated. To provide instruction, guidance, hope, and warnings concerning the erroneous philosophical worldview that has made its way among congregations. This was a form of correspondence that carried significant weight as members of the body of Christ were attentive to its meaning. Specifically, concerning the harm brought to individuals that accept instructions and beliefs contrary to their training, time with the leaders of the Church, and the Scriptures. While the Holy Spirit at the time was active in the Church, individuals deceived and given over to the lifestyle characteristics of false teachers were susceptible to highly destructive outcomes. Notwithstanding the intentions of God’s sovereign will, there were genuine impediments to the promises of the Lord imperiled. The growth of the churches at risk of becoming stunted with their effectiveness diluted in terms of discipleship and furtherance of the gospel.

The literary parallels between 2 Peter and Jude are apparent to the casual reader of these two epistles.⁵ Particularly among those who desire to make passage-by-passage comparisons.⁶ The following table of comparisons is assembled to highlight the commonality between the two authors of Scripture to reinforce the warnings to the Church during the first century. These two letters placed side by side correspond to separate yet interrelated meanings. Taken together, it is easy to see commonly translated verbiage. So, there is substantial speculation among historical and modern Biblical scholars about their sources.

About one letter borrowing from another, an amanuensis relationship between authors, yet there is no actual proof or historical certainty about the nature of their relationship to one another.⁷As presented earlier, both letters are intended for readership throughout Asia Minor. This is the broader context of churches identified by geographical names in Scripture. The same locations Apostle Paul wrote about and among those to Galatia, Colossae, Philippi, and Thessalonica. A little further to the West in Rome and throughout the islands off the coast of Greece. It is in this area that New Testament authors wrote to the early churches concerning many ecclesiastical and theological matters of interest. Moreover, Paul’s letters to the Galatians indicate a common moral decay of social and cultural conditions among the population who influenced false teachers that Peter and others wrote about.⁸ As an underlying body of corruption, Paul’s “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19) correspond to the types of depravity, Peter wrote about to the churches in Asia minor.

2 PETER	JUDE	PASSAGE
2:1	4	Denial of the "Sovereign Lord"
2:3	4	False teachers' "condemnation" from the past
2:4	6	Angels confined for judgment
2:6	7	Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of judgment of gross evil
2:10	8	Rejected or Despised Authority.
2:11	9	The angel Michael did not condemn for slander, or angels did not heap abuse.
2:13	12	False teachers are blemishes.
2:17	12	Clouds without rain, blown along by the wind.
3:3	18	Ungodly desires or "scoffers" following their own evil.

		Table 1. – Literary affinities between 2 Peter and Jude

Exegetical and Critical Review

The destructive nature of false doctrines within the Church is explicitly narrated at the outset of chapter two, whereas there is a distinction made between false prophets and false teachers. Specifically, a difference in the method of introduction concerning destructive ideas, concepts, and principles. One could surmise that the heretical teachings introduced were incremental, subtle, and persistent. With the compelling character of interpersonal influence among heretics, they were becoming seductive while appealing to the nature of common people growing in their faith. Namely, false teachers blaspheme the way of the truth (2 Pet. 2:2 NASB) with persistence (2 Pet. 2:2 NASB). The motivation of such efforts is detectable through a covetousness or greed corresponding to the motives of culture and society at the time. As Peter warned, their ruin is inevitable along with those who follow their teachings contrary to Scripture and their development shepherded by the Lord through the Apostles (2 Pet. 2:1-3 NASB).

Compared to the judgments that befell the people of ancient Israel, the fate of false teachers was assuredly common. As written by Peter to recount prior calamities that devasted and doomed the rebellious and wicked enemies of truth. This reminder in Peter’s letter is not arbitrary but fitting to the types of conduct coming from people who were quietly bringing destructive heresies into the Church. The angels who sinned (1 Enoch 15:1-12), the ancient population of the world at the time of Noah (Gen. 6:11-13), and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:13) were explicitly characterized as people to brought judgment upon themselves because of their specific sins common to the false teachers Peter warns about. False teachers among those within the Church were described as those who possessed “eyes full of adultery” who “cannot cease from sinning and entice unstable souls.” Likely Gnostics who held an Epicurean worldview and lived according to the flesh, they were covetous of the people within the early Church to fulfill their sensual desires.

Specifically identified as people who seek to corrupt the truth by deception to gain further pleasure and satisfy short-term desires. They were people who “indulge the lust of defiling passion and despise authority (2 Pet. 2:10).” Some became people in the church unable to stop sinning as having an insatiable appetite for physical pleasure. Familiar with what Paul wrote about the churches, Peter goes somewhat further to indicate a criterion by which people today can detect, recognize, and counter teaching that surfaces from the same or similar root causes. Namely, materialism, self-indulgence for personal gain, and numerous additional characteristics identified by Peter, Paul, Jude, and others.

The lifestyles of people who are in the Church today are very much relevant to their roles involving teaching, counseling, preaching, discipleship, and even general fellowship in a leadership or mentoring capacity. If in an uninhibited way, people in the Church are living as described by Peter in his letter (2 Pet. 2:18-22), these Scriptural attributes are an indicator that a pattern of false or corrupted influences can make their way into congregations, or the hearts and minds of individuals. They were causing the further error to deepen corruption and a polluted walk with Christ and fellowship with others. It is within Peter’s second letter that today we can identify from a collection of meaningful attributes to understand where there are risks involving unbiblical conduct to place a spotlight upon false teaching. In an effort to expose what separation exists between our Lord’s cardinal expectations and the entanglements of sin. Moreover, this condition appears punctuated by the harmful lifestyles recognized among those who profess a sincere relationship and commitment with Christ but refuse to abide by what He requires of His followers (Matt 5:21-45).

As interpersonal relationships are formed among people within congregations, or even by the social conduct of people within Christendom as a whole, we can begin to understand how or where there are heretical teachings, or at minimum social ideas and principles that run contrary to the objective truth of Scripture. For example, one could encounter outright unbiblical opinions and proposals within a local church. Conversely, within social media, or among Progressive Christian circles, there are more substantial theological and philosophical challenges that emerge as a historical backdrop. From the first-century period of the church throughout Asia Minor—where the “Way of Balaam” (2 Pet. 2:15) becomes held out as a higher standard because of the pursuit of personal self-interest and gain.⁹ Rather than to seek the well-being of others, love them, and the Lord to honor what conduct, learning, and commitment to the truth He expects of us.

With numerous perspectives, opinions, and educational backgrounds among people in society today, there is a critical need for those in Christ to search for truth and understand it according to Scripture. This effort requires a commitment to the Biblical principles that withstand cultural pressures, especially within the Church. Across all denominations, confessions of faith, academic institutions, and local fellowships, there must be a developed and sustained effort to comprehend and accept the truth of Scripture according to what is intended by its authors. The truth is not according to subjective preferences or interpretations as an effort to force an outcome outside what the Lord has decreed and revealed by His grace. Too often there are leaders and individuals who are not grounded well enough to instruct and guide others in the truth, much less their own personal spiritual walk.¹⁰

To highlight explicit lifestyle attributes among false teachers, we can refer to an outline of their underlying conduct and spiritual condition. Where there is smoke, there is fire so if this becomes a severe problem in terms of Scriptural and theological subject matter, we have Biblical guidelines To highlight explicit lifestyle attributes among false teachers, we can refer to an outline of their underlying conduct and spiritual condition. Where there is smoke, there is fire so if this becomes a severe problem in terms of Scriptural and theological subject matter, we have Biblical guidelines¹¹ to give reference to Table 2 as we seek safety in the truth of Scripture. To safeguard the Spiritual well-being of we and others to preserve truth among all followers of Christ. to give referrals to in Table 2 as we seek safety in the truth of Scripture. To safeguard the Spiritual well-being of us and others to preserve truth among all followers of Christ.

Outline of Underlying Conduct Among False Teachers in 2 Peter:

VERSE	KEY TERM(S)	MODES OF BEHAVIOR (FRUIT)
2:1	ἀρνέομαι δεσπότης (aparneomai despotēs)	Denial of the Lord. - Who purchased or acquired them through His atonement.
2:2	ἀσέλγεια (aselgeia)	Indulges in sensual pleasures. - Unrestrained by convention or morality. Licentiousness.
2:2	ἀλήθεια βλασφημέω (alētheia blasphēmeomai)	Slanders and dishonors of sacred truth.
2:3	πλεονεξία (pleonexia)	Possesses an excessive desire of acquiring more and more (wealth).
2:3	ἐμπορεύομαι πλαστός λόγος (emporeuomai plastos logos)	Using false words, deprives others of something valued by their deceit.
2:10	σάρξ πορεύομαι (sarx poreuomai)	Walk and live in a physical appetite for lust of the flesh.
2:10	ἐπιθυμία μιασμός (epithymia miasmos)	Possesses an inordinate, self-indulgent evil craving that displaces proper affections for God.
2:10	καταφρονέω κυριότης (kataphroneō kyriotēs)	Looks down upon authority with contempt.
2:10	τολμητής αὐθάδης (tolmētēs authadēs)	Improperly forward, presumptuous, or bold.
2:10	αὐθάδης βλασφημέω (authadēs blasphēmeō)	They are self-important or primarily concerned about one's own interests without fear.
2:13	ἐντρυφάω ἀπάτη (entryphaō apatē)	Reveling to cause others to believe untruth.
2:14	μοιχαλίς δελεάζω ἀστήρικτος ψυχή (moichalis deleazō astēriktos psychē)	They continuously perceive people as objects of adultery against the truth of God.
2:15	ἀγαπάω μισθός ἀδικία (agapaō misthos adikia)	They follow the way of Balaam, where their "prophecy" is used to legitimize their claims of authority. An exploitation of "prophecy," or the "prophetic word" to override the truth of Scripture and valid apostolic teaching from original and direct Apostles. Loves unjust gain from wrongdoing.

		Table 2. – Underlying Conduct of False Teachers

Conclusion

Even with historical and contemporary contention among scholars about the origin and authenticity of 2 Peter, it is today an accepted apostolic epistle within the canon of Scripture. It is inspired and inerrant as a contribution to the all-sufficient word of God. The content and style of writing that occurred corresponded to the inspired material produced by Apostle Paul, Jude, and others as well. While Peter’s letters were unique to him as an eyewitness to Messianic events that occurred, the authenticity of his overall work is recognized and lived out by those faithful to the truth of Scripture.

A core and significant value of Peter’s letter concerns were warnings about false teachers. As the early Church grew throughout Asia Minor, there were cultural philosophies emergent within society that brought about underlying and corrupt behaviors. As provident throughout early Christendom, the Lord’s work through Peter’s second letter gave clear specifics about how to detect false teaching through the conduct of people who were in error, or altogether defiant while condemned for their betrayal of the truth, rejection of Scripture, and defiance of apostolic instruction.

Citations

1. Eusebius, “The Church History: A New Translation with Commentary,” 93.
2. Guerike, “Gesammtgeschichte des Neuen Testaments,” p. 477. 615.
3. Lange, “A Commentary of the Holy Scriptures: 2 Peter,” Genuineness of the Epistle, Logos Systems.
4. Jones, “The Cities of the Eastern Roman Province” 28-95.
5. Elwell, Yarbrough, “Encountering the New Testament,” 366.
6. Carson, Moo, “An Introduction to the New Testament,” 655-656.
7. Ibid., Carson, Moo, 655-656.
8. Sproul, “Ligonier Study Bible,” 1820.
9. Hunt, “The Way of Balaam,” 1995, accessed March 08, 2020, www.thebereancall.org/content/way-balaam.
10. MacArthur, “The Gospel According to Jesus,” 127-131.
11. Lockman Foundation, “Greek Dictionary of the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance”

Bibliography

Guericke, Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand. Gesammtgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. n.d.
Hunt, Dave. The Berean Call. September 1, 1995. https://www.thebereancall.org/content/way-balaam (accessed March 08, 2020).
Jones, A. H. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Province. Pliny: Oxford University Press, 1937.
Lange, John Peter, Phillip Schaff, G.F.C. Fronmüller, and J. Isidor Mombert. A Commentary of the Holy Scriptures: 2 Peter. n.d.
MacArthur, John. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Mounce, Robert H. A Living Hope: A Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter. Eugene: Eerdmans Publishing, 1982.
Pamphili, Eusebius. Eusebius – The Church History: A New Translation with Commentary. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Sproul, R.C. The Reformation Study Bible. Lake Mary: Ligonier Ministries, 2005.
The Lockman Foundation. Greek Dictionary of the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. La Habra, 1998.
Walter A. Elwell, Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament. A Historical and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.

Continue Reading ·

The Lens of Inerrancy

By James Austin in Theology

Too often, while professors, scholars, and students claim inerrancy of Scripture, they will advocate that it says something else other than Biblical authors intended. Where there is a denial to recognize what Scripture says, they can claim or say anything they want and yet hold on to an inerrantist view or conviction. Scholars and others will deny the historicity of certain events, and the authorship of certain books with excuses always the same. The thought process runs like this: “Inerrancy deals with what the Bible claims” and “I” am saying it claims something else. So whatever you bring up, another person could reject your way of interpretation because they choose to believe the Bible says something else.

Consequently, through the denial of authorial intent, skeptics can assert that inerrancy becomes meaningless. People begin to claim that the Bible is in contradiction with itself and history while still insisting they are inerrantists. Scholars and skeptics proclaim that inerrancy is dead, and hermeneutics has killed it.

By comparison to this type of thought, the Bible itself informs us about how Scripture is used to communicate and reinforce meaning. Biblical authors used this intertextuality to apply a hermeneutic to faithful communicate the truth of God’s word. The way biblical writers read Scripture is how they wrote according to a high hermeneutical standard. This is to serve as an example for us today. How prophets and apostles read under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, shows us how we are to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible comes with its hermeneutic included.

The biblical writers are the first inerrantists. To codify the fact that inerrancy is not a recently developed doctrine.

There are three main points about the New Testament’s use of the Old. They are literal, grammatical, and historical. These are points of observation traditionally associated with both inerrancy and hermeneutics. We received these points to identify and describe what is involved in both inerrancy and hermeneutics because that is what the apostles and prophets believed.

The Apostle’s Literal Hermeneutic

A literal hermeneutic is about the interpretation of meaning from an author’s original intent, context, and purpose. In this sense, there is a direct correlation to the issue of truth. Where we can conclude if there is error or mishandling among the apostle’s use of the Old Testament, what they had to say is less than truthful, consistent, or authoritative.

As an example of scholars that dispute the apostle’s literal hermeneutic, consider common assumptions made by Matthew among other New Testament authors. That there is the authoritative weight with Scripture to assure confidence and truth in what is written. With Jesus’s use of “have you not read” in Mt 12:5 and Mt 19:4, He appeals to the use of Scripture as authoritative. He believed Scripture settled issues relevant to readers.

In the New Testament, from Matthew’s (Mt 2:15) use of Hosea (Hos 11:1) in the Old Testament, we see from close examination “what was spoken by the Lord” (NASB). The first exodus referenced in Matthew from our deliverer Christ Jesus is a correlation to the second exodus of Israel written about in Hosea. Whereas we can understand and accept an introductory statement from Matthew that the reference concerns God’s word as authoritative. To support and build context among New Testament writers, biblical writers used the Old Testament to demonstrate meaning and authority and show their confidence in its inerrancy. This occurs numerous times throughout Scripture in various books, chapters, contexts, across genres and authors. Everything is connected.

How the New Testament uses the Old can be illustrated as a chain of reasoning where the prophetic hermeneutic is drawn out and applied by the apostolic hermeneutic. The literal hermeneutic Matthew chose from the book of Hosea factually illustrates a chain of extended authority. As Hosea references the book of Exodus and thereafter, Mathew references Hosea. Whereas, by comparison, Matthew could have appealed to Exodus directly. Scripture interprets Scripture, it is consistent with itself, and it is not contradictory over the centuries. This is a corollary to the doctrine of inerrancy.

The Apostle’s Grammatical Hermeneutic

The apostles knew that Scripture is truth word by word in structure and syntax. Disputes among Scholars attempt to show that this is not so as proof texted by Galatians 3:16. Where there is a seemingly errant contradiction between the plural and singular use of seed (NASB) or offspring (ESV). However, with further examination elsewhere in Genesis 22 and Psalm 72, both Abraham and David respectively recognize that there is one promised seed (singular) as again reference in the Galatians 3:16 verse.

Apostle Paul picks up what David references in Psalm 72 to concentrate on the word and grammar of “seed.” Whereas by comparison, modern scholars too often get it wrong. Making use of Galatians 3:16 in isolation without the application of a biblical hermeneutic to grasp a coherent and reliable meaning confirmed as truth.

What Paul refers to in Galatians 3:16 is exceptional evidence of the rule concerning effective sequential linkages in Scripture that correspond compellingly.

The Apostle’s Historical Hermeneutic

Scholars allege that in certain historical narratives, details might never have happened. That certain stories are entirely fictional. Objections to surface with reason about whether or not the apostles viewed historical events within Scripture as truthful and accurate. As evidence, Galatians chapter 4 is relied upon by scholars to make a case of allegory by Paul to show that not even the apostle accepted Scriptural truth within its historical detail.

Since it is demonstrated in Scripture elsewhere and overall that Paul is saturated in historical facts pertaining to numerous events, stories, and covenants across time, we are confident about his use and attention to detail as he writes his letter to the Galatians and even to us today. So Paul’s idea and purpose of allegory are not as we recognize and apply it today. We make sketchy allegorical use of spiritual symbology or principles drawn from Scripture while downplaying history. Paul uses history to make theological points. He argues theology from historical fact to demonstrate it is actualized by it. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does the same thing concerning the historical resurrection of Jesus. To say, if you don’t have a historical resurrection, you don’t have a gospel. History is the foundation of theology. In Romans 4:25, the resurrection is necessary for our justification to make again the point that history actualizes theology.

How Paul uses the principle of allegory is demonstrated by what is written in 1 Corinthians 10. Just as Israel was blessed and tempted, we are blessed and tempted. There are these two separate categories from a historical perspective, blessed and tempted. Israel blessed and tempted, the church blessed and tempted as they are categorically the same between both, but allegorical in contrast. Two items grouped and compared in contrast having different categories. So as other authors refer to events or circumstances in Scripture using different categories, by allegory, Paul does the same to connect corresponding theology to historical facts. Not to draw symbolic, vague, or spiritual inferences.

While there is an overall biblical hermeneutic standard, as demonstrated in Scripture, we do not always hit that standard. There is a difference in wrestling with the text as compared to wrestling against the text. We must apply the standard the apostles set for us as much as we can. The Prophetic hermeneutic is the Apostolic hermeneutic, and they, in turn, are the Christian hermeneutic. Inerrancy demands a hermeneutic of surrender as Scripture is the inspired, infallible, and all-sufficient word of God.

Continue Reading ·

Exegetical Rules of Engagement

By James Austin in Theology

This posting is about the rules of engagement concerning Biblical exegesis according to the four levels of theological study. To go about conducting research and forming our presuppositions and convictions to articulate a purpose or end-goal clearly. Where this is to arrive at true and rigorous results, honoring to God, there are two major doctrines of research about what God has revealed. Specifically, these are fundamental doctrines of inspiration and translation.

These are course lecture notes on inspiration and translation concerning Biblical studies.

Inspiration

Here is the idea that God moved human writers exactly how He intended to communicate. To recognize and accept a verbal plenary inspiration. Not merely thoughts of inspiration, rather by what was said and written in Scripture. The plenary (full, complete, or without any limit) words of Scripture without exception are inspired or God-breathed. As it is written, “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21), their message was sourced from God.

Verbal plenary inspiration is what is written in our Bibles — every word articulated as God intended. What the human authors of Scripture meant is exactly what He said.

Dictation Theory

The debates concerning inspiration consist of dictation theory and accommodation. Whereas between God and the text of Scripture, communication, and meaning are transparent. Dictation theory is to say God is in control of the entire process, and the human author is a scribe with no input on his own. Conversely, while God guided the process perfectly, “men spoke from God,” specifies that they spoke and not that God spoke through them. This is their conscious effort to act upon their thoughts by what they wrote in an active way. Their intent was God’s intent (2 Peter 1:21).

This clarity dismisses the possibility of hidden meaning in Scripture, because of the literal, grammatical, and historical issues derived from Biblical hermeneutics.

Accommodation Theory

Accommodation theory represents an idea that God formed and communicated meaning in such a simple and understandable way even if principles or concepts were not necessarily or precisely true. Specifically, ideas and meaning people become led to believe as valid for a time. Explanations that are not entirely true, and we are allowed to think about a concept or truth for a specific purpose. Liberal scholars are of this view that the Bible accommodated. Whereby from accommodation, stories become told to people who could not understand advanced concepts and could not understand science and then were given a lie. Yet a nice lie because Biblical or Theological truth is illustrated in a comprehensible fashion. To infer that when people get caught up in what is really true, you don’t need the myths anymore. This is the Theory of Accommodation in a nutshell.

In contrast to this way of thinking, God is a God of truth. Not a God of deception as it is written, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Moreover, throughout the Epistles, we are warned by the Apostles against the influence of myths. Scripture prizes truth as reinforced in both Old and New Testaments.

Inspiration is a vital doctrine because it warns us against the fallacies of dictation theory and accommodation theory. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” we are reminded that His inspired words within the Bible are profitable. His articulated message is categorically relevant to all generations.

The hermeneutical principle of authorial intent specifies that the author (God and human authors) are in total control of meaning. Not the text, or readers across generations. Liberal scholars, or progressives (deconstructionists), do not control or shape meaning to fit preferences or ideology.

The Bible is not an experiment, an academic playground, or where we dabble with intellectual philosophy to please ourselves. This is not our book; it is God’s book. He is the source of it, and these are the fundamental rules of engagement. We surrender to the word of God.

Translation

Within the original autographs of manuscript texts among human authors, God communicates His precise meaning. Written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, Biblical languages are expressed and translated into different languages (such as English) questions arise about the suitability and justification of using translations. So during the course of study, discipleship, counseling, and so forth, is it acceptable or sufficient to use a translation that satisfies God’s intended purpose of His Word? The answer is a resounding, Yes!

Every time the New Testament references the Old Testament, there is a translation in a language that is in use. Specifically, and most typically, from Hebrew to Greek. We see this throughout Scripture as referenced by human authors to support and reinforce their intended meaning or biblical and theological principles. When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it cites a translation.

There is a derived inspiration of Scripture when it comes to translation from the Old Testament to the New Testament. The inspired quality of translations bears out God’s intended meaning and authority. This ancient practice of derived communication from one language to another gives us a precedent of inspired translation. To reinforce this notion that a translated copy of Scripture to a modern language is derived inspiration. Your Bible is okay to use. It contains authoritative and binding truth insofar as it corresponds to what the original text has said.

Every tongue, tribe, and nation is to know God (Revelation 7:9, 14 NKJV). So the Bible’s advocacy of translation is evident and intended because there is a global mission of the Church to fulfill the great commission (Matthew 28:16-20). So translation is Biblically justified.

Spectrum of Translations

There are different categories of translation as follows:

Formal Equivalents

KJV – King James Version
ASV – American Standard Version

NASB – New American Standard Bible
NKJV – New King James Version
ESV – English Standard Version

RSV – Revised Standard Version
HCSB – Holman Christian Standard Bible
NRSV – New Revised Standard Version
NET – New English Translation

Dynamic Equivalents

NAB – New American Bible (Catholic)
NIV – New International Version
TNIV – Today’s New International Version

Paraphrases / Functional

GNB – Good News Bible
NLT – New Living Translation
The Message

As a reader goes from formal equivalency to paraphrase, inspiration becomes more derived as a more loose idea of original manuscripts. The closer a reader gets to formal equivalents, the more inspired the Bible as God originally intended. Where formal equivalents might not be as readable as compared to paraphrase translations or versions.

So translations correspond to a “right tool for the right job” in terms of purpose. To either get a general idea of a passage, or for study. For the close and careful study of Scripture, it will become necessary to get closer to the KJV or NASB and yet even further to original languages Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. This is because we want to know exactly what God has said in His original word.

To bridge the gap between formal and dynamic equivalents (precision and readability), the New Testament will sometimes provide an explanation of language translation that occurs from the Old Testament. As illustrated in Matthew 15, Mark 5, Mark 15, Acts 1, and Acts 4, there are additional examples. Such as “Talitha Kum!” or translated “Little girl, I say to you get up!” (Mark 5:41). With this explanation given within Scripture itself.

King James Only Controversy

Some people advocate that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the new autographa (“original writings”). It is the new original manuscript as it corrects any errors of the past and that it is essentially what Apostle Paul wrote. The controversy stems from the notion that the KJV is the only word-inspired and preserved word of God and that all other versions or translations are corrupted. In contradiction to the intent of translation into every tribe, tongue, and nation as given by precedent and examples presented within Scripture itself.

The KJV only perspective of God’s word also runs counter to derived inspiration in that a translation is only as good as its original. Scripture itself doesn’t specify a new original manuscript. It instead only points to what original Scripture itself says elsewhere as compared to what it will say in terms of a final expression in meaning. There is no such inference in Scripture. Fellow believers in the Lord, who are King James Version or King Jame Bible only are nervous and concerned about a faulty, inaccurate, or corrupted translation where they become at risk of not knowing God.

King James Only individuals care very deeply about doctrine, inspiration, and inerrancy. However, it should be recognized that translations are a window to original manuscripts from Biblical authors as intended by God Himself. Patience and careful discussion about Scripture should, therefore, involve encouragement. To show how Scripture deals with translation. That Scripture translates into a variety of languages, and it has within itself a philosophy of translation. There does not exist within it a theology of perfect translation or a forthcoming rendering in the future.

Continue Reading ·

The Sequence of Articulation

By James Austin in Theology

A method of ordered thought more suitable toward study, inquiry, and objections concerning Scriptural truth follows the four-tiered model of biblical studies introduced earlier. Whereas biblical languages, bible backgrounds, and hermeneutics together support competent exegesis. Initially, as two levels of effort to understand Scripture in its original, literary, and historical context. From our exegetical efforts, we bring together interconnected text as a biblical theology to further build reasoned conclusions and assertions about what God’s word reveals. Combined texts and concepts demonstrated within Scripture then become assembled to form a systematic theology concerning various doctrines that emerge with a foundational and ordered method of support.

Active use of this model involves matching the right discipline with the questions that arise from concerns in life, or from people that have an interest in a subject area. So questions that become posed often get applied to another area in an approach to respond in a coherent way that fully satisfies questions with answers directly applicable to the matter at hand. In so doing, we maximize the likelihood of interpersonal confidence in the reliability of truth derived from the biblical text, biblical theology, and historical theology as originated from God’s revealed and inspired truth (2 Timothy 3:16).

For people who seek answers or challenge us for specific and reliable reasons for truth, it is not enough to rest upon a platitude that says, “the bible says it, and that settles it.” To borrow on the authority of God’s word in an opaque way doesn’t address the specifics in a detailed and articulate manner. Normally, this effort places our attention upon the level one category of biblical, historical, cultural, and interpretive understanding. While the authority of God’s word is unquestionably true and final, that does not necessarily get to questions of interest and resolve them. It is even better to get a clear understanding of what is otherwise left to confusion, exploitation, or personal economic gain.

As questions, concerns, or objections arise and become addressed, the Biblical Studies model here provides a way to step through each suitable and relevant area that matches our interests. It just isn’t responsive to make an end-run toward conclusions in the realm of systematic theology, or elsewhere. If along the way matching what we understand among biblical languages, biblical backgrounds, hermeneutics, and proper exegetical interpretation, there is a misunderstanding, confusion, or disagreement, then the overall view of the whole Bible comes into view in terms of the doctrine of inerrancy. Until finally, there is acceptance of the truth or willful rejection of God’s word and what it proclaims in terms of authorial intent.

As we match the right subject matter with pertinent questions, we assertively balance advocacy with inquiry to walk through an issue. To build a case in such a way where there is no room for misunderstanding and continued skepticism or Biblical illiteracy. So fluency in Biblical disciplines provides the certainty and confidence necessary for us to articulate the correct responses in areas that come about. Not as through successive approximation across Scripture, but by process of elimination among adjacent disciplines or categories of thought and persuasion. Applying effective use of this model provides a way to quickly get to the root of questions and beneath them to disprove presuppositions and together arrive at correct reasoning and truth.

It is one thing to enlighten people and bring them to recognize the truth. It is quite another that it should be accepted. Either way, we look to a principle as written by the Apostle Paul, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). Hopefully and prayerfully, people who are laden by the influence of culture and its darkness, become receptive, take courage, and set aside selfish interests contrary to their well-being.

Continue Reading ·

Points of Order

By James Austin in Theology

Introduction

As a sequence of increasing levels of study, there are four tiers of learning development and theological understanding. For many decades, this model has existed to support a linear learning path for Bible students, pastors, theologians, and many in ministry. To serve as an outline and a general framework to learn each area of study. To be a resource to others and help the Church grow in the knowledge of Christ.

With this model of learning Biblical Studies, we move our way up as an approach to our advancement and more in-depth knowledge of theology. In contrast, we can arrive at correct conclusions without bad habits or wasted time. While we put effort and time into each subject area of interest, we expect to yield fruit or arrive at new levels to build upon.

These areas are segmented and partitioned to indicate what thinking and issues require our attention to defend or rely upon. To take a stand for the truth of God’s word, we need a structured method of understanding and study.

Foundations – Level 1

There is a hierarchy of subject matter relevant to topics of Biblical studies. Taken together, they are a group of subjects that serve as a foundation for further research concerning Scripture and associated issues. As a student advances further upward along with the four-level model, the supremacy of Scripture remains of utmost and pressing interest as it is the revered word of the LORD. This model is an ordered way of studying, understanding, and applying concepts and principles centered around God, His Church, His Word, and numerous additional doctrines.

Biblical Languages

Scripture is written in the languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. From word definitions to grammar, punctuation, and phrases or sentences and their relationships to one another. The meaning of conjunctive terms gets close attention as well. The organization of paragraphs, chapters, and books are areas of interest and analysis.

The functional activity and operation of literary context rely upon the language in use throughout an entire book or genre. Theoretical components of constructed meaning, such as verbs, nouns, adverbs, and adjectives, have a significant role in the use of biblical languages.

Bible Backgrounds

Background details concerning culture, geography, mannerisms, etc. This area is the who, what, where, when, and why of Scripture. This concentration of study helps us to seek what was occurring at the time of events in Scripture. To recognize and study the purpose and rationale about why a book was written to coincide with proclaimed truth among their various authors. This is a support area of background for students to articulate what it is we believe and why. Examples include cultural factors, traditions, mannerisms, lifestyle, trade, transportation, vocation, law, military, heritage, tradition, and so forth.

Hermeneutics

These are the principles of studying Scripture. To recognize and understand theoretical hermeneutics or how and why we know the rules of Scripture. Or separately to follow theological hermeneutics in how we understand connections between the text of Scripture, their applications, and how we draw inferences. Sound hermeneutics then include word studies, paragraph studies, to affect an overall theological framework.

So hermeneutics pertains to how we study scripture to form theological principles. Without unfounded conclusions or errors by allegory, spiritualization, or logical fallacies while adhering to authorial intent by Scriptural genre.

Exegesis – Level 2

The application of the three disciplines of biblical languages, biblical backgrounds, and hermeneutics together contribute to the study and practice of exegesis. This is the study of grasping authorial intent within Scripture, where we see passages connect and allude to other passages. Connections that interface with Scripture can span vast areas of text. The scope of Scripture scales across themes and ideas that support one another in relevant and intentional ways between Old and New Testaments, or among covenants throughout history.

Biblical commentaries are often helpful with the practice of exegesis with the foundation of languages, backgrounds, and hermeneutical methods to support research or outcome-based learning.

More technically, this is the study of Scripture in original languages with good hermeneutic and associated background information.

Biblical Theology – Level 3

Biblical Theology is the connectivity that extends from the discipline and practice of exegesis and further advances to an area of Scriptural Theology as the third level of interest. This is an area of chronological study along a timeline of redemptive history. More specifically, as the events and truths of Scripture are traced over time. From the Patriarchs and covenants within both the Old and New Testaments to subjects or concerns beyond that. Biblical theology shows the progress of revelation and what God is doing at a given time from Genesis to Revelation.

Biblical theology informs our worldview, and it reveals to us the significance of our efforts. It is a theology that allows us to apply Scripture as God intends. Through Biblical Theology, the text of Scripture provides us specifics about how we ought to live. It pertains to the details. This is the depth of Scripture.

Systematic Theology – Level 4

Chains or groupings of text come together into the larger or macro-level subject matter. As categories of Scripture, we see them as individual ideas that develop into details and interrelate with an over-arching message. This form of theology can include areas such as historical theology or counseling.

This is a systematic effort to go through the entire Bible and define what it teaches us about a topic or doctrine in an exhaustive way. This is the breadth of Scripture. The large topics of Scripture are covered as major doctrines such as the Word of God, Doctrine of God, Doctrine of Man, Doctrines of Christ and the Holy Spirit, Doctrine of Redemption, Doctrine of the Church, and Doctrine of the Future. These together are an expression of what the Bible says as a whole. Biblical Theology gives us the parts to assemble an overall and composite Systematic Theology concerning the whole counsel of God.

Continue Reading ·

Imagine Heaven

By James Austin in Monographs

I just finished reading “Imagine Heaven” by John Burke. While there were numerous Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) reported from clinical studies, the author does well at recounting some of them in explicit detail. The unique stories of individuals who passed away came from a variety of causes, as recorded from testimony accounts. Each of these pertains to what happened immediately after the death of individuals as collected and interpreted by Burke coming from his research across various studies.

Book Review

The book is structured in a way to give a reader a sense of tangibility about heaven; the spiritual domain of God in terms of encounters, place, beauty, occupants, and well-being. It is acknowledged and reviewed by reputable philosophy and theology authors (and professors) Moreland, Strobel, and Habermas. While the book is stimulating, it often references scripture concerning the necessity of Jesus Christ for eternal salvation.

While there is sufficient reason to dismiss some experiences as having no evidentiary value, a reader is further served by looking at what the subconscious mind is and does as a point of reference and comparison. The book doesn’t cover enough of that to separate dream-state conditions, from actual out-of-body experiences that occurred. More attention could have been placed upon valid skepticisms touched on in the book.

Two qualified and quantified considerations are presented within the book to capture a reader’s attention. The relevance of these areas has significance as the population of participants offers aggregated detail about their experiences.

States of Transition

What happens with a person during the transition from life to “death?” There were 1300 participants in a clinical study of qualified members with controlled eligibility. Percentages reported were from among the total participants written about in the book.

1. Out-of-body experience: separation of consciousness from the physical body (75.4%)
2. Heightened senses: (74.4% said “more conscious and alert than normal”)
3. Intense and generally positive emotions or feelings (76.2% “incredible peace”)
4. Passing into or through a tunnel (33.8%)
5. Encountering a mystical or brilliant light (64.6%)
6. Encountering other beings, either mystical beings or deceased relatives or friends (57.3%)
7. A sense of alteration of time or space (60.5%)
8. Life review (22.2%)
9. Encountering unworldly (“heavenly”) realms (52.2%)
10. Encountering or learning special knowledge (56%)
11. Encountering a boundary or barrier (31%)
12. A return to the body (58.5% were aware of a decision to return)

The Core NDE Experience (pg 46); [1]

Hellish Conditions & Encounters

Twelve different studies involving 1,369 participants reported NDEs that were disturbing, terrifying, or of despair/distress. Among this population of participants, there were three general categories of experience grouped to understand distribution and frequency.

Familiar Spaces

A high density of discarnate people jammed together. Abuses, writhing, gouging, punching, etc., but unable to destroy. Creatures are generally locked into habits of mind and emotion into hatred, lust, and destructive thought/behavior patterns — individuals who “welcome” newcomers seem kind at first.

A Void

Surrounding profound darkness with a continued falling sensation.

A Pit

Involves a locked-in or trapped-in awareness. An enclosure of sorts such as a cave, a bottomless pit, or a large wide hole. Consists of grotesque evil creatures that accompany a perception or smell of death, feces, vomit, and putrid substances. Individuals are exposed to either extreme heat or cold.

All three NDE groups were concerned about a sense of a barrier that wasn’t crossed. Where to go across would be to “eternalize” their placement.

The participants were individuals who experienced fatal accidents, trauma, cardiac arrest, etc. Each involves clinical death for a short duration.

Hellish NDEs (pg 215); General type categories as cited: [2]

Citations

Throughout the book, there are cited references with an exhaustive bibliography to support your own personal research. There are two I touch on in this posting as given here.

1] John Burke and Don Piper, Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God’s Promises, and the Exhilarating Future That Awaits You (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2015). Reference to Long and Perry, “Evidence of the Afterlife”, 6-7.
[2] Holden, Greyson, and James, etc., Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, 70, cited in Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence, 170. Miller gives many other studies on hellish NDEs in notes 30-31 on p. 170.

Continue Reading ·

The Road to Ruin

By James Austin in Theology

We are given clear specifics about why it is highly important to be mature and thoughtful people committed to Scripture as necessary to serve the Church and love its people well. The framework we are given is as follows:

We must be devoted to truth and thinking.
We must declare answers from the whole counsel of God.
We must defend against inerrancy.

These are three demands of Scriptural inerrancy in support of the Church. To understand and accept the truth at its sole source. The Bible is the exclusive repository of truth, and by knowing it, we begin to understand the wisdom of God throughout redemptive history. It has the power to answer the toughest questions and issues associated with cultural decay, post-modernism, and social rot. More importantly, God’s word provides us a means by which we proclaim His love and glory from Scripture without error. Through our engagement and devotion to His Word, we share and drive a conviction about what it does. Our dedication to thinking and Scripture in the presence of the Church erodes and removes Biblical illiteracy where possible. As answers are sought and shared according to the whole counsel of God to change from a post-modern mindset to a Biblical mindset.

In a practical sense, to understand suffering, and give reliable answers rooted in Scripture. It is through the use of depth and intertextuality that we remind people that they do not know better than God’s word. We become a theological and biblical resource to people.

On a personal level, my view of Scripture has been about spiritual well-being and survival. Especially within this world of relativistic confusion, disorder, and chaos. Verses I learned and memorized long ago about the necessity of Scripture for justification (James 1:21) and sanctification (Joshua 1:8) serve as examples. Still, there are very many principles centered on the truth of God’s word that extends to people who affirm the Bible as Scripture. Even to some outside the faith who are searching for meaning, or relief in personal circumstances.

Well-developed inductive or deductive reasoning skills are not enough to perceive, understand, and apply the truth of Scripture as the LORD intends. A surface-level humanistic view of Scripture does not adequately recognize the revelation of God’s word. Such a view often comes from anthropomorphic or cultural and worldview assumptions. The Canon of Scripture is supernatural, and in my view, it is the real sustenance of the spirit breathed within us. Intellectual reach and understanding do not fully yield the truest and more meaningful purpose of God’s word.

Even in the pulpit among some churches both at a national and local level, I have noticed the persistent absence of the word of God. And many members in pews are solely relying upon the leavened placement of God’s word on tablets and phones. Outside of church, the word of God too often goes neglected while it is a treasure to memorize and desperately search for. It pierces the heart with its affections, and it eviscerates with hostility the arrogance among us. It is a treasure, and both leadership and many church members are often in full dismissal of it and its significance. At best, there is a passive acceptance of it.

So a perversion of the gospel inevitability comes about. Such as gospel plus works, or gospel plus prosperity, or gospel plus “tongues,” or gospel plus traditionalism, or gospel plus social justice. No, it is the gospel and nothing else purely according to Scripture. To accept or advocate another gospel according to Scripture is to bring a curse upon oneself.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” – Galatians 1:6-9

“You cannot be right with God and be wrong about the gospel. This is a fundamental issue. You cannot go to heaven and be wrong about the gospel. And if you’re wrong about the gospel I promise you you’re wrong about a hundred other places in whatever it is you believe about the Bible. This gospel is the plan of salvation that is found in the man of salvation Jesus Christ and it is offered as a free gift that we must receive by personal faith by the act of our will a decisive act of our will to commit our life to Jesus Christ. ”
– Steven J. Lawson. One Passion Ministries

Through inattention to truth and consistent Biblical studies (or their outright rejection), more severe theological errors come about from assumptions or guesswork that get propagated in both harmful and deadly ways.

The word of God is inerrant, infallible, and sufficient. With forbearance, we MUST drive that conviction to others through our engagement and love of truth, Scripture, and the church.

Continue Reading ·

The Lens of Perspicuity

By James Austin in Theology

We are entrusted with the legacy of truth. To reclaim our position and function as Christian thinkers and pastor-theologians. To defend the faith. To encourge us and challenge us. To proclaim the unique and exclusive God of the Word. This post concerns a presentation entitled “Reaffirming Inerrancy, Christian Thought, and Pastor as Theologian” at the 2016 Shepherd’s Conference by Abner Chou (https://www.gracechurch.org/sermons/11849).

Introduction

An apathy of scriptural truth leads to a crisis among the youth and churchgoers. Truth and thinking is not important or relevant among churches. Sunday school teachers do not place much importance on this. Consequently, there is immense biblical illiteracy. We are in a crisis of truth.

Inerrancy is a thinking man’s doctrine. It claims that whatever the Bible asserts is true, so we must find the truth in terms of thought and its consequences. Such as its sufficiency, purpose, application, etc.

The Church refuses to think, and they do not want to think. Their preferences are elsewhere, so they reject inerrancy. We are in a crisis of truth. Society at one time respected Christianity, but now it has changed. Because it no longer recognizes the supernatural, but only the natural. Only science and their own thinking to redefine the values we have. They are on a campaign to change every single value that the Bible upholds. Society has chosen to upend the truth.

Society views those who value truth by the inerrancy of Scripture as crazy, wrong, and evil. They want to remove us from society, and people in the Church want the same. Especially young people in Church and among those who leave. In general, people of the Church do not believe that the Bible is the exclusive truth. They doubt the sufficiency of Scripture. They are skeptical. They do not believe that truth matters. They don’t care, and it is irrelevant to them. This is the crisis of truth.

It is necessary to take a stand now. Otherwise, the Church is relegated to nothing with catastrophic results for the American churches and everywhere. So we must show our devotion to truth and think by declaring sophisticated answers on the whole counsel of God and defending against error.

We must live up to what inerrancy demands to help people recover the doctrine of inerrancy. To help our people value the necessity and beauty of the doctrine of inerrancy.

The Three Demands of Scriptural Inerrancy:

If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to be devoted to truth and thinking.
If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to declare answers from the whole counsel of God’s word.
If we affirm the Bible is truth, we must defend against inerrancy.

If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to be devoted to truth and thinking.

We need to be equipped to have answers and make the case where others will have conviction. To study it and develop a passion for it. Necessary to regain the compelling importance of inerrancy.

Two important questions we must answer:

Is the truth powerful? Is the Bible authoritative?

It is necessary to debunk the idea that truth is merely information. Truth goes far beyond that as it acts upon a person’s life, will, and intentions. Truth includes information, but it is more than that. Scripture itself proclaims that Jesus is truth, and the truth shall set us free. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). The truth through His word is the extension of Christ, His activity, power, and effectiveness.

John 1:14, Jesus is declared full of grace and truth. He speaks a message of truth in John 8:40 & 45, “because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” Truth causes people to walk in the truth (3 John 1:4), worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23), and have life (John 14:6). Truth sanctifies (John 17:17), and it sets people free (John 8:32).

Toward the end of Jesus’s ministry, He appears before Pilate to testify to the truth. This is what He said before His sacrifice. Everything made right by His redemptive plan of the gospel is linked with truth. Truth is powerful, dynamic, it saves, and it gives life. Moreover, truth is liked to God’s definitional authority (Genesis 1 -3). In that knowledge, wisdom, and truth is an issue. There God established in the garden “the knowledge of good and evil.” God alone has the right to define what is right and wrong.

As depicted by Solomon, truth is linked with the culmination of God’s plan as people sought his wisdom. In Isaiah 11:6-9, Eden is regained when truth prevails.

We need to remind people about the origin of truth and its reality. If you want to make a difference and have an impact on people’s lives, then preach the word and proclaim the truth. Truth is not just information.

Truth is exclusively found in Scripture alone.

Contradictions from a culture that proclaims otherwise about social issues are not valid. Culture does not know better than the truth of Scripture. We need to remind our people of this and make a case for it. In Job 28, God Himself argues for the supremacy and exclusivity of His word. As Job was written as the first book written of the Bible, the design and purpose of Scripture is recorded to introduce the need for His word.

Suffering provides a window into greater questions. It destroys your sense of understanding this life and that you can handle it.

Truth is a matter of life or death, heaven or hell. Key verses of Job 28:12-13 articulates this meaning, “But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? Man does not know its value, nor is it found in the land of the living.” It is impossible for humanity to know the full picture or answers of truth and wisdom in life. Wealth and riches cannot manage life adequately enough to assuage suffering. Nor can skill, or competencies as further proven in Job 28. –Man doesn’t have the capability of originating or deriving wisdom.

God says in Job 28:23, He alone understands its way, and He knows its place. God is the only source of wisdom. When Solomon said, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” he was referring back to Job. Where this phrase is found in Psalm 111:10 and Proverbs 9:10, so to remind people that they don’t know better is necessary in light of Scripture. It is impossible. It needs to be repeatedly paraded before the Lord’s people, that they do not know better than what is given in Scripture, or the wisdom of God by His word.

The first written book of the Bible in Job establishes the wisdom of God by His word and how the world works because He has seen and defined it all.

Is truth what we do? To think about the truth?

Thinking about truth is what drives the Church. It is a sacred task sent by God throughout redemptive history. As given by examples of the prophets, who were adept at God’s word as Scripture, they were immersed in the meaning of what God’ revealed throughout history.

Various books of the Old Testament are interconnected where there is an understanding of God’s word and His revealed wisdom. It reveals that God cares, and we anchor our soul in that for significant shepherding applications. Theologically speaking, we have highlights of examples given by an illustration of a vine over the course of millennia. Whereas the vine represents the Lord’s people, Israel.

Walking back from the parable of the vine that illustrates and assesses the state of Israel’s spiritual state of existence:

Psalm 80: Strong Vine
Isaiah 5: Vine Produces Bad Fruit
Jeremiah 2: Vine that is Degenerate
Ezekiel 15: Vine that is Useless Except as Fuel for the Fire

Whereas thereafter in John 15:1, Jesus says, “I am the true vine.” Do not lose hope, but rely upon trust in Him. So the prophets were theologians who saw the truth of Scripture. What’s more, Jesus Himself was far more advanced in His use and understanding of Scripture. For example, after example, He makes the point about the truth of Scripture to condemn, teach, and enlighten.

Thinking drives the Church forward. That’s what we do. Just as we see from Paul, the Apostle in the Epistles is proclaiming the word of truth. For the entire Church everywhere and for all time (2 Tim 4:19-22). Grace be with you as written in 2 Timothy 4:22 is stated in Greek as plural. Paul’s prayer was for us. He prayed that we would communicate the truth as He did and just as our Lord Jesus did.

So our objective is the share and drives a conviction about the truth of God’s word and what it does. About what it is for and its power, that by doing so, we erode and eliminate Biblical illiteracy. From cover to cover, we all understand and have convictions about the word of God.

As theologians, we are not marketeers, therapists, or CEOs. We need to remain deeply engaged in Scripture. We need to know the original languages, find exegetical insights, and become adept at intertextuality. Furthermore, our reach should extend to systematics and issues. Aggressive reading beyond practical ministry (while important) is necessary in the areas of deeper theology. That results in greater breadth and depth surrounding Scripture. By doing so, we become a major theological resource to people (i.e., truth, wisdom, scriptural points of interest). This is the nature of being a Christian thinker and theologian.

Practical Implications:

If you aren’t shepherding people to love truth, you’ll never be a pastor-theologian. Because your people will not understand what you’re doing. They must develop and have an appreciation of Scripture.
Reach for and attain a deep engagement with the Scriptures. Necessary to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Otherwise, without this engagement and devotion, our inerrancy is meaningless.

Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 says that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth. So it is hypercritical that the Church has substantive engagement and thinking about the word of God. This is our role.

If the Church doesn’t do its job, it loses its testimony. So when people see and not just hear our devotion and dedication to Scripture, they will conclude there is nothing like the Bible. It is the exclusive repository of the truth. It is powerful and produces history.

If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to declare answers from the whole counsel of God’s word.

The Bible is consistent and interconnective. There is a compounding depth to it. So we should have answers that reflect this reality.

If, in our answers or use of Scripture, we say, “Because the Bible says so,” that is not good enough. If we do not show the depth of Scripture, we do not demonstrate the whole counsel of God’s word. Where if there is a crisis of truth, life results are harmful and deadly. So as without providing depth, we confirm skepticism among people who already struggle to believe if at all.

The whole of Scripture entails the entire counsel of God’s word. All the way down to single individual words or terms. As examples, to reveal and affirm terms such as deity, resurrection, rest, hope, theology, and shepherd — every word matters.

The apostles and prophets quote from a wide expanse of Scripture to demonstrate that they knew God’s word. Every passage is connected in Scripture. We use it to demonstrate that ordinary faithfulness is profound.

Why should we go to church? Why should we serve in the church? For fellowship and to exercise our gifts in support of the church. In that, we are the new humanity after the fall, according to the full counsel of God’s word. The extent of social issues is spoken to about marriage, incest, sexuality, at full depth, and breadth to reflect God, His love, and the identity of Christ.

So to engage and share the word of God, we are to articulate and demonstrate its truth as it pertains to the gospel, God’s covenants, His love, and the status of people according to their life circumstances. We need to give profound answers from the enormous facility of the text. So in that the Bible is sourced to do that, we teach others that the Scripture is truth. This is what inerrancy demands.

If we affirm the Bible is truth, we must defend against inerrancy.

This is what Scripture asserts as the difference between error and truth (1 John 4:6). The Scripture often attacks error, and as such, we use what it reveals to do the same. To walk through the errors that surface, we recognize that evangelicals have become post-modern (i.e., it’s all relative, pluralistic, & unclear). To accompany platitudes of “we just need to tolerate and love each other.” The descent goes further from among leaders such as “well, there are a lot of views,” or “there are a lot of interpretations,” and “the Bible is not clear, or that’s just not essential.” So with post-modernism comes confusion through the proliferation of subjective views. As Christian thinkers and theologians, we need to cut through all of that and provide clarity with reasons arising from the depth and breadth of Scripture.

As recovery goes from a post-modern attitude to a Biblical attitude, we remind people that truth is not relative. God’s word is the exclusive repository of truth. The Bible defines truth and error, and it is clear. God’s revelation is something that was hidden but has now been made accessible. It is literal, historical, and grammatical. The Bible is clear. We don’t advocate tolerance, but forbearance with gentleness and enduring harm (2 Tim 2:22-26). This is what we do with other people. Tolerance is a lie as we are called to forbearance. It is the gospel that is at stake.

Now it is our turn where we think about the truth and pass that legacy on. We devote our time to truth to defend against error.

Continue Reading ·

The Cardinal Antitheses

By James Austin in Theology

There are often pronounced and significant differences between the external impressions of success, spiritual maturity, purity, and Godly living as compared to the inward condition of the heart. We see that in what Jesus had to say in condemnation of Pharisees written about in Matthew 23:25-26. The Pharisees were a Jewish religious order of strict piety and adherence to the Mosaic law. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, they formed to promote, build, and follow Jewish legalism and nationalism. Their opposition to Rome, the Herods, and Jesus was rooted in fierce loyalty to each other, society, and strict views about ceremonial purity, traditions, and their perceived exclusivity to God’s word. ¹

Introduction

So in the New Testament, it is natural that Jesus would have harsh words for the Pharisees.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.” – Matthew 23:25-26 NASB

Jesus had severe criticisms of the Pharisees during His time with us. He called out their lawlessness, hypocrisy, and self-indulgence because of the harm it was doing to others and themselves. Their practice of the law and expectations from others was merciless. Under false pretenses, they eventually went as far as accusing Jesus of drawing His power from Satan (Matthew 12:24). They also persistently sought to put Jesus to death.

In a separate conversation with His apostles and others, after confrontations with the Pharisees, He spoke these words:

“For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” – Matt. 5:20

To reveal what and how God thinks, Jesus informs His disciples, and those down through the ages, what it is to exceed the righteousness of religious leaders (Pharisees). To be more specific, according to Piper, “He gives six examples of how an external reading of the law must become driven inwardly until the demand of God penetrates the heart and lays claim on the heart’s deepest affections.” ²

The Cardinal Antitheses

The righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees includes these specifics. The six antitheses Piper outlines are as follows:

From Murder to No Anger (Matt. 5:21-26)
From No Adultery to No Lust (Matt. 5:28)
From Divorce to Faithfulness (Matt. 5:32)
From Oath-Keeping to Simple Honesty (Matt. 5:34-37)
From Retaliation to Loving Contentment (Matt. 5:39-42)
From Limited Love to Loving Our Enemies (Matt. 5:43-45)

From Murder to No Anger

“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ (Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17) and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent. ” ³ – Matt. 5:21-26 NASB

As compared to expected recognition and entitlements among Pharisees, we shall not let anger set in and grow in our hearts even when others give us legitimate reasons otherwise. Even if you’re wronged, insulted, or when injustice comes against you or those you love. As anger can grow within to become something much worse, the root of it explains a sinful desire to harm others. Either in the ultimate form of violence or by words and evil yet subtle acts of opposition or omission.

From No Adultery to No Lust

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’ (Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18)‘ “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ³ – Matt. 5:28 NASB

While Jesus affirms the Mosaic law by way of the commandment, “you shall not commit adultery,” He also calls attention to the thought life of every person who hears and understands what it means. That which leads to temptation can already be predicated upon sinful desires to act upon them. Jesus informs us that the intent of scripture points to a condition of the heart and thought life that should have our attention. Specifically, to guard our purity from illicit sexual desires and activity. The righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees requires us to fight and “overcome the heart’s bondage to our sexual desires.” ⁴

From Divorce to Faithfulness

“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’ (Deut 24:1-3; Jer 3:1; Matt 19:7; Mark 10:4); I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” ³ – Matt. 5:32 NASB

Even with the hardships that can come with marriage, as the covenant between a man and a woman, Jesus again gets to the root intent of what God has given in His law. If by leaving your spouse for another reason besides “fornication” (KJV), you’re causing your spouse to commit adultery, and the person who marries that divorced spouse commits adultery.

From Oath-Keeping to Simple Honesty

“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’ (Lev 19:12; Num 30:2; Deut 23:21,23); But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.” ³ – Matt. 5:34-37 NASB

The absence of deception in the heart and mind helps with telling fewer intentional or off-the-cuff lies. Setting a commitment and practice of complete honesty makes a rash oath unnecessary.

From Retaliation to Loving Contentment

“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ (Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21); But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” ³ – Matt. 5:38-42 NASB

Getting back at someone out of spite doesn’t demonstrate an acceptance of what Jesus said about exacting retaliation on someone. If you have been wronged, you have an opportunity and choice to forgive the matter and let it go. To have the heart right about it speaks to where Jesus wants His followers — having settled within Godly contentment to behave at a higher standard by loving your enemies (Pr 25:21).

From Limited Love to Loving Our Enemies

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ (Lev 19:18; Deut 23:3-6); “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” ³ – Matt. 5:43-45

Just as God’s love extends to His enemies, we are to love those who are in enmity with us as well. His love is apparent in what blessings He provides through providence and nature. This is a common grace modeled for us as it is bestowed on all people. If we are to have or produce righteousness greater than the Pharisees, we must love our enemies.

Citations

¹ The New International Dictionary of the Bible – Pictorial Edition. 1987. (Zondervan Publishing House), 778
² John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World. 2006. First Printing (Desiring God Foundation, Crossway), 201
³ New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
⁴ John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World. 2006. First Printing (Desiring God Foundation, Crossway), 202

Continue Reading ·

The Sheep & The Goats

By James Austin in Theology

Introduction

Jesus speaks a message of hope and warning about the coming judgment of believers and unbelievers, both righteous and unrighteous among the nations. This is a meticulous verse by verse walk-through of Matthew 25:31-46.

For many centuries Jesus’s words have echoed among readers of Scripture. As they contemplate parables and biblical passages to make distinctions between two types of people that Jesus our Messiah spoke about. They are both Jews and Gentiles, those who believe and accept Christ and those who do not. They are those who have embraced Him in faith and repentance and choose to live a life of service and mercy toward others who are suffering or in need. As Jesus spoke of the Sheep and Goats in our exegetical passage, it is a lasting source of motivation and warning about judgment to come. This verbal illustration is an urgent message to readers of Scripture who listen in on what Jesus told His disciples about what is to happen at the “end of the age.” It is urgent because it is a preview of what impending judgment looks like. It is what will happen as also written about during the life of Jesus. In the gospel of John, Jesus spoke these words to the religious leaders during the second temple period who were critical of Him:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment (John 5:25-29 ESV).”

As a matter of theological principle and inescapable reality, this is the glory or the pressure to comprehend and act upon. It is especially concerning the Lord’s judgment upon people, depending upon your perspective. These are the circumstances Jesus informs us about concerning coming judgment. His message in Scripture pertains to everyone as each of us will one day pass into eternity.

Historical and Scriptural Context

This section of Scripture is referred to as the Eschatological Discourse, or more popularly as the Olivet Discourse. It is the second half of a full discourse beginning in chapter 24 just before this section. It references Jesus’s end times messages about the destruction of the temple, His second coming, and exhortations to remain ready (Mt. 24:1-31) for His return. To set up the scene, we must go back to the time and location to get a fuller sense of meaning in this passage. Just before the Lord’s death between 27-30 AD,¹ He met with His apostles on the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem while just across from the Kidron valley. From their vantage point, they could see across the valley and into Jerusalem. In full view of the temple, they were together listening to Jesus speak about the end times and His parables.

Matthew was present during the time of Jesus’s teaching with His followers. Matthew was an eyewitness and direct listener of what Jesus said. As recorded in the book of Matthew from that time period, we have a first-person account of what was spoken by Jesus. Once He and His disciples came up to the Mount of Olives, they saw the temple and the surrounding buildings within Jerusalem. Without inquiry, Jesus proclaims that the temple will undergo destruction as “not one stone shall be left here upon another (Mt. 24:1-2).” Jesus was apparently in distress from Matthew 23 during His interaction with the religious leaders of Jerusalem. More specifically, Matthew 23:1-33 gives precise detail about why Jesus was rightfully upset. His people, the Lord’s people, had rejected Him as prophesied (Ps. 118:22, Is. 53:3) when He had longed to gather them to Himself. He, in turn, proclaimed, “your house is left to you desolate,” and worse yet, “you shall see Me no more.” The glory of the Lord has left the temple, and the people of Israel shall see it (Him) no more.

The conflict with the Jewish people leading up to their confrontations with Jesus involved His claims that He is equal with God (Jn 5:18). These claims were contradictory to their expectations and view of who and what the Messiah should be. He was expected to be a normal man of great stature and power, but not divine in origin to redeem people from their sins and usher the Kingdom of God to the world. The religious, political, and social tensions between the Jews, the Romans, and Christ were recorded in contrast to Jesus’s continuing mission and their prophetic assertions made over thousands of years prior.

The parables immediately spoken after Jesus’s final encounter in the temple with religious leaders were about the end times. As asked by His apostles, they wanted Jesus to inform them about when destruction would come, what signs to watch, and when He will return (Mt. 24:3). With very little time before Jesus is taken to trial and crucifixion, He sets forward instructions and warnings that will remain permanently forged into the minds of millions of people. People who have not rejected Him but have accepted His words with gratitude, love, and due humility as He is worthy of all worship, honor, and glory.

This is the backdrop by which Jesus delivers a series of parables after He left the temple and ascended the Mount of Olives. He laments over Jerusalem (Mt. 23:37-39), He predicts the destruction of the temple (Mt. 24:1-2), He informs His disciples about the end of the age (Mt. 24:3-14), He warns of the Great Tribulation and false messiahs (Mt. 24:15-28), He reveals the details about His second coming (Mt. 24:29-31), and He exhorts His followers to be fruitful and wait for His return with their good work for the Kingdom (Mt. 24:32-25:30). While He was likely hurt and felt rejected by His people, His extraordinary love, mercy, and grace came through the clear detail of how His people should prepare for the times ahead.

Exegetical Content

Jesus arrives in His glory to separate all nations before Him (v. 31-33).

³¹ “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. ³² “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; ³³ and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

The parable begins with the conjunction “But when” in the NASB to indicate that what Jesus said just prior is of relevance to the forthcoming message. Nearly all other translations exclude the conjunction word “But” as a transitional expression. Namely, the primary particle term “δέ” does not translate to English except for a rendering in Strong’s dictionary as a connective, continuative, or adversative term.² So while the ESV, NIV, KJV, NKJV, NET, RSV, NRSV, and NCV translations do not indicate a transition from the prior parables Jesus spoke, the NASB, NLT, and ASV translations do. Therefore, the definitive authority by which the Greek term is conjunctive as “δέ” for “But when” is uncertain without substantial analysis among manuscripts. This means that the transition from prior parables on the Mount of Olives is tentative if we are to accept the weight of meaning in the NASB, ASV, or NLT over the other translations.

The prior context favors the conjunctive transition of this parable in Matthew 25:31-46 as a way to get a fuller meaning of what Jesus said. Then more critically, the outcomes or consequences of what He meant as Matthew gave his firsthand eyewitness account. The Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30 just before also spoke of a comparative scenario between those who were entrusted by the Lord’s literary proxy and what happens when there is favor or disfavor. In a natural setting between a man and his servants (Mt. 25:14-30) as compared to the Lord and His servants (Mt. 25:31-46). Therefore, in the pure meaning of Jesus’s words, taken in context as a whole, we are given confidence about what He was speaking during His continued eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives. We are then free to understand and live out the connected truth of the remaining verses found in this passage.

As recorded in the gospel of Matthew, the Apostles asked Jesus about signs about the end times. What will occur, what they were to watch for, and what shall happen at the time they were concerned about (Mt. 24:3). In response, Jesus elaborates with His remarkable and concrete revelation about His return. He has said, when He returns to the earth at His second coming, He will reign as King. He will return in His glory accompanied by angels with Him. Jesus, the Son of Man, to assume His seat of power and judge individuals separately among all the nations that appear before Him. All nations of people gathered in voluntary or involuntary acknowledgment and submission before Him (Phil. 2:10). All together, they are gathered and become separated into two groups as a Shepherd separates His sheep and His goats.

Notice the translated words reference a separation of sheep from goats. After all the people are assembled, the sheep among them become extracted or removed and set apart as a specific group before Jesus. The wicked people were unbelievers represented as goats and the Lord’s people as sheep that were “the sheep from the goats.” The sheep as submissive, gentle, and easily persuaded as compared to the stubborn, egotistical, and wild nature of goats. Positionally, the goats will go to the left while the sheep will go to the right of the Judge and King of nations. The right side to which represents favor and honor.³

Righteous and blessed people of the Father are accepted into the Kingdom (v. 34-36).

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; ³⁶ naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’

Once the separation is made between the people of nations, Jesus as King begins to communicate in the judgment of both believers who accept Him and unbelievers who reject Him. As by evidence in what they did and didn’t do. Evidence that indicates the nature of their relationship with Jesus and the Father. Just as this discourse follows the rejection of Jesus by religious leaders (Mt. 23:1-36), they are condemned among the wicked as those who were people seemingly in a right relationship with God but were not. The goats in total were a people who are outright unbelievers and those who are not authentic believers at His second coming. By comparison, genuine believers are depicted as sheep in Scripture called to inherit the blessing of the King’s kingdom (Mt 9:36, 10:6, 15:24, 18:12, 26:31).⁴

The righteous and wicked people were made to stand in the presence of Jesus upon His second coming as foretold (Dan. 7:13-14). Jesus will speak judgment while the Holy angels are with Him, while the goats and creation shall witness the decree of Jesus as King of all that is His. All shall recognize and understand the blessings of the sheep. That genuine believers as sheep were those “blessed of My Father,” the subjects of the Lord’s doing. They are people who have bestowed a spiritual blessing in Christ as written about by the Apostle Paul (Eph. 1:3). These people are those who were brought into the Kingdom as their access was pre-planned before the beginning of the world. The passage doesn’t provide specific identities of people, but rather a people as a whole who would believe and accept Jesus (i.e., sheep) by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9).

The phrase in this passage, “prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” has far-reaching theological significance. A keyword here is “foundation,” which transliterates as the root Greek word “katabolē.” It is a word reference with the root meaning to “conceive of” with a “foundation.” To lay an initial plan, especially concerning a creative effort. The term “refers to the basis God has established, upon which all people can know Him. This was laid down before the first ray of sunshine or drop of water touched the earth.”⁵ What is incredibly astonishing is that this foundation plan was designed and set before the world was formed.

Moreover, the inheritance was then prepared for His people, the sheep in this passage, at the setting of this foundation Jesus spoke about to His disciples. That there is this path of access to the kingdom of God. It is through belief, as evidenced by what His people do to care for others.

Righteous believers are surprised by their good works for the Lord (v. 37-39).

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ³⁸ ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ³⁹ ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

The closest in context meaning of the term “righteous” in this passage articulates the idea of a person characterized with righteous actions and morals. Yet, in this sense, the righteous are represented as a group of people and not only a single person. Even though each person is judged individually, they together answer the King with questions about when He was helped and cared about. The repeated word in this verse is the term “when.” Comparatively, not as “how” or “where,” but “when” to indicate a desire for a specific time reference. The time interest suggests that if they knew each specific instance in their past, the details about who, where, what and how should follow.

Of substantial theological relevance, Dr. John MacArthur wrote by a commentary of this section in Matthew as follows, “The deeds are not the basis for their entrance into the kingdom, but merely manifestations of God’s grace in their lives. They are the objective criteria for judgment because they are evidence of saving faith (Js 2:14-26).”⁶ The fact that the righteous did not have specifics about when their good works were performed, they were not relied upon for their justification and salvation. What they did without conscious effort did not justify themselves. Instead, they became rewarded for their efforts as an outcome of the faith that saved them. By so much that their identity in Scripture was “the righteous.”

What righteous believers did for the Lord’s people is what they did for Jesus (v.40).

⁴⁰ “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

Jesus, as Judge and King, answers the questions of His people. With a response about who it was, they as the righteous had helped. It was not a response about “when” they helped people with their charity and good works. So, in responding this way, Jesus answered the question of the righteous sheep more directly and in no uncertain terms. By the King’s volition, He explains, in a surprising way. Those who were there among them, the sheep set apart, were His brothers. They loved and cared for one another — even those who were of the least in social stature, notoriety, or economic status. When there was a need for help among them, they were in unity; they were loved and looked after. The word given in the Greek for “brothers” is ἀδελφός or ho adelphon or adelphoi which is to mean, a believing brother or siblings (brothers and sisters) (Mt. 28:10, Jn. 20:17, Rom 8:29, Heb 2:11). Remarkably, Jesus reveals that their righteousness applied to others was to Him as well.

Wicked unbelievers before the Lord are condemned to eternal fire (v. 41-43).

⁴¹“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; ⁴² for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; ⁴³ I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’

In full view of what Jesus said will transpire, the wicked and unbelieving people shall hear what is to befall them in judgment. Jesus speaks to the people, or goats as they are called, and He tells them to depart from His presence. This is the same phrase that appears in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus earlier tells the workers of lawlessness to depart from him. While the phrase “Depart from Me” appears in this passage (v.41), it also appears in Matthew 7:23 as having a further reference to Psalm 6:8. Jesus quotes Scripture in the Matthew 7:23 instance to reference the Psalm, but not here in verse 41. As it is written in the Psalm of David, “Depart from me, all you who do iniquity.”

So, it is explicit that by knowing Jesus in Matthew 7:23, He was loved by helping, comforting, serving, and relieving others of pain and suffering. Specifically, those affected who were His adelphoi (believer siblings) as spoken earlier in this passage.

It is necessary to reiterate that the nations spoken about in this passage are those who are in the Tribulation. They are present as Jesus again returns to earth in His glory. While the context here is concerning specific individuals among all the nations, the theological principle of accountability holds for believers and unbelievers throughout history. As there will be a separate Great White Throne judgment that takes place according to Scripture (Rev. 20:11-15), this prior judgment of the nations is an indication of what is to come among all people both dead and alive. Not just those who are present in judgment at the Lord’s second coming (the sheep & the goats). This judgment at the Lord’s second coming is a glimpse of the final judgment in the distant future. Everyone, according to Scripture, shall be judged by what he or she has done. That is, specifically, those who believe in Jesus, love Him, and by faith act upon what He has commanded. As compared to those who get judged by their actions and do not believe in Christ to simply live for themselves.

The reference of condemnation here pertains to accursed individuals. Notice as compared to verse 34, the “of My Father” phrase is absent from the condemnation to suggest their eternal demise is self-inflicted. Their destination is everlasting punishment. In contrast to what the prophet Daniel wrote about the end times, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2).” So, both in the Old Testament and the New, there is a difference between the destination of people groups as reiterated with specificity from Jesus in His discourse on the Mount of Olives.

In 2 Peter 2:4, the Apostle Peter makes a remarkable and punctuated point about how God did not spare the devil and his angels, but instead, He cast them into hell. They became bound by the chains of darkness as a place committed to them due to their sin. It is this place that Jesus refers to in His illustration about the sheep and the goats (v.41). A form of due punishment expressed as a place of fire, this is a place of an eternal burning, or an everlasting consuming fire as again spoken about in many places throughout Scripture (Mk. 9:48, Lk. 16:24, Jude 7). Those who became separated to the left of Jesus for judgment get condemned in the presence of everyone there. It is speculative, but inferential that the angels who arrived with Jesus (v.31) have a role in gathering the people together, setting up the separation, with finally the removal and placement of people at their destination of either heaven (the kingdom) or hell (eternal fire).

As the wicked are driven into darkness and eternal torment, Jesus declares the reasons for their destruction. There were sins of omission and rejection of Christ together committed during a lifetime period of grace. His specifics made plain the absence of what the righteous did by explicit communication. Jesus intended to mean what He said in verses 35-36. Jesus exacted the right and effective judgment against the wicked because they did not demonstrate a love for people. To care for the sick, feed His sheep (Jn 21:17), and visit the persecuted, or captive in prison. These were the specifics that communicate the necessity of loving and caring for those who are in need. To the eternal condemnation of those who do not, they are permanently and eternally separated as they leave the Lord or depart the King’s presence.

Wicked unbelievers are surprised by their lack of good works for the Lord (v. 44-45).

⁴⁴ “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’⁴⁵ “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

It is incredible that verses 44-45 are a mirror image of 35-36 yet were spoken together precisely about what explains the judgment and eternal demise of the wicked. These pronouncements of Jesus were a testimony of what the people would not do to care, help, and serve others. More specifically, these are the people who would not extend mercy to the remnant population of Jewish believers during the Tribulation.⁷ They are not the “brothers of Mine” that Jesus spoke about in verse 40. Their condemnation was unambiguous as Jesus made His comparison before everyone present in the coming judgment. The sheep population helped others as those who are righteous, while it is the very same thing that the goats would not or did not do. Since it was the nations gathered before Jesus, they were not just professing believers who became separated from genuine believers. It is everyone who appears in judgment at the second coming of Jesus, the Messiah.

Wicked unbelievers enter punishment. Righteous believers enter eternal life (v. 46).

⁴⁶ “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

After the rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities and by the people in the town of His upbringing (Luke 4:14-30), He spoke of ultimate end-time acceptance and condemnation of everyone who are witnesses of Him, His work, and His glory throughout their lives. Everyone is to face judgment, either from His second coming (Matt 25:31-46) or at an end in the final gathering (Rev 20:11-15) before Him.

As prophesied by the prophet Isaiah (Is 53:1), we see through the course of history, a divine decree about what is to become of those who accept Him, repent and bear the fruit of their faith. Conversely, those who profess that they belong to Christ without receiving Him in faith will perish. In either case, where their works reveal redemption or a lack thereof. Both groups shall “go away” to a destination and state of being due to their temporal condition and circumstances. Either to an eternity of punishment, or reward.

The reward for the righteous is more specific as it is a life of far better quality with Jesus in His kingdom. In contrast, the punishment of wicked unbelievers who reject Jesus becomes driven to where the Devil and his angels are. Two outcomes, two domains, with God in everlasting happiness, satisfaction, contentment, joy, and glory (Mt. 19:29; Jn.3:15f, 36; 5:24; 6:27, 40, 47, 54; 17:2f; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:23; Gal. 6:8, 1 Jn. 5:11). While the other, according to Jesus, the prophets, and apostles, is unspeakable misery, pain, and torment (Dan. 12:2, John 5:29, Acts 24:15).

Application

Where the gospel is shared, believers and unbelievers today have an unmistakable and clear opportunity to accept Christ and serve Him well by caring for others who are in need. Most notably, by caring for those who are of the faith, those He considers His siblings (Heb 2:11). This is an imperative given to us in Jesus’s answer to His apostles on the Mount of Olives. His words must resonate with us today to act upon them. As Scripture speaks to us about the sheep and the goats, we understand the true meaning of judgment to come. What is to come when we all appear before the Lord to account for our actions or omissions. This specific theological principle explicitly informs us that we are each accountable. For our relationship to and acceptance of Jesus and what it is we do to help, comfort, and serve others.

As a practical matter, to reflect God’s love upon us, we are to love one another by what we do in terms of charity, giving, selflessness, volunteer work, missions, ministry, how we conduct ourselves during employment, in family life, and so forth. Take an interest in sharing your faith with strangers. Encourage your family members with words of Scripture. Give money to causes that support the Lord’s kingdom. Give money to those in poverty, in prison, or who are homeless because you may not know who belongs to the Lord and who does not. Pray about what you can do with conviction which testifies of your love and faith in Christ. Make it your practice to love others well. Not only because of the reward Jesus speaks to us about, but because as He loved us, we are to love others. By doing so, we demonstrate in full assurance that it is He who recognizes our love for Him.

If you are looking for an opportunity to care for others, in one of many innumerable ways, please consider Compassion International. This is an organization that teaches a Christ-centered life while alleviating poverty in numerous locations. You can sponsor a child, or give as desired as your heart leads.

Citations

¹ Rose Book of Bible & Christian History Timelines. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers)
² A Concise Dictionary of the Words in The Greek New Testament and The Hebrew Bible with their Renderings in the Authorized English Version. (2009) (Logos Research Systems, Inc.), term #1161
³ John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew. (Logos Research Systems, Inc.), Part 5, Section 5, Exegetical and Critical
⁴ English Standard Version, Classic Reference Bible: 2016. (Crossway Bibles, Good News Publishers). Footnotes: Matthew 25:31-46
⁵ Helps^TM Word Studies, 2011. Helps Ministries, Inc. (https://biblehub.com/greek/2602.htm)
⁶ John MacArthur, MacArthur Study Bible 2^nd Edition NKJV, 2019. (Thomas Nelson Publishers), 1310
⁷ John F. Walvoord and Roy B Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Sixth Printing, 1986. (Victor Books, SP Publications), 81

Continue Reading ·

The Apostolic Triangulation

By James Austin in Theology

Book Review

The book entitled “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Writers” details the notion that Prophets and Apostles from both the New and Old Testaments saturated themselves in Scripture. Specifically, that they had a hermeneutical method of interpretation that produced both meaning and significance. The book’s author Abner Chou sets out on a quest to account for both authorial intent and authorial logic using principles of intertextuality.

Throughout the pages of the book, there are various examples of the use of Scripture involving biblical characters to highlight the specifics about their methods of interpretation. Often where it is necessary to go beyond the surface of Scriptural references elsewhere. Such as with allusions in language, or with word-by-word comparisons from one account of a biblical matter to another. The author uses numerous specifics with precision to demonstrate the interconnectedness and authorial logic to reveal to us how to draw upon Scripture to understand what the word of God says. As a Bible student, this is crucial to understand the word as the biblical authors intended as we seek its significance and ramifications to follow it.

Introduction

Early in my reading of this book, I was fascinated by the idea of “authorial logic” as compared to “authorial intent.” Nearly dismissive of the idea because I had come to recognize that God is not logical or illogical, but alogical. Since logic or critical thinking is a human framework of thought, and God is the Creator of such a framework, God is an alogical being. It is currently my view that the explanation of the LORD’s ways and thoughts rest within His aseity. After all, as we see in Scripture, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, either is your ways my ways (Isaiah 55:8).” So, I have concluded that the LORD must be alogical, in the sense that the LORD is beyond or outside the bounds of logic itself. Not illogical, or contrary to logic, but separate or distinct. Where, more pointedly, logic and reason are subordinate to the LORD.

Upon further reading and understanding Chou’s perspective, I became reminded about authorial intent and that the primary Author is divine who chooses to communicate through His created people. We are created in His image to include some of His attributes. If He wants to structure our way of thinking within a cause-and-effect framework for His glory and purposes, I want to make it my priority to embrace and honor that in the field of hermeneutics. So, reading on into the book, I was more tentatively open to see what Chou had to say. Specifically, I spent many hours with his work as he set about the quest of authorial logic, which is integral to both prophetic and apostolic hermeneutics. Toward the end of his book, Chou’s conclusion was to claim the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic as the Christian hermeneutic and, ultimately, our hermeneutic.

The Prophetic Hermeneutic

It is with numerous references that Chou makes the case that prophets were not only scholars of Scripture, but also exegetes and theologians. They were steeped in the word of God as their writings and conduct reflected an immersion of understanding among biblical authors from before their time. Prophets were not unintelligent or biblically illiterate people. As Old Testament authors, they referenced numerous earlier Old Testament writings. A practice today understood as intertextuality to affirm and build upon new revelation.

By various examples, theological development becomes written among Old Testament books to highlight the nature of the prophetic hermeneutic. Whereas precise exegesis of texts naturally flows into theological progression down through the centuries.

As demonstrated that the prophetic hermeneutic is widespread, prophets pay close attention to general ideas in addition to precise verses, phrases, and words. Indeed, this occurs throughout the entire canon. In just one example, Chou refers to the eagle metaphor in the language of Exodus. Israel’s corresponding delivery from exile was much later referenced by David and Isaiah. Such prophetic hermeneutical recognition applies to wisdom literature and law, along with major and minor prophets. In Chou’s words, “The evidence for exegetical accuracy is in the text not only in general tenor but also in its details.”

While I do not fully understand or agree with the counterpoint objections presented in the book, Chou makes Scripturally sound arguments to mitigate them — centered on the progressive revelation that stem from ramifications of the text. The prophets knew “the what” of historical Scripture to further convey meaning in their writings. Prophets of old were also concerned with the “now what” or “what do we do with this” implications of what they understood. Redemptive history unfolded through the use of their hermeneutical outcomes.

Chou considerably enhances my view of the prophets and their role in the development of Systematic Theology in contrast to Biblical Theology. Due to the prophets’ overall composite view of Israel’s eschatological history. That is, they knew the theological implications from both a systematic and biblical perspective. They knew the development and advancement of God’s redemptive plan through the replacement of one covenant to another.

The Spirit of God’s influence toward directionality and revelation appears sparsely placed. Particularly from Chou’s prophetic hermeneutic rationale and arguments against objections. Did the prophets and apostles write more than they knew? My view is both yes and no, rather than only “no.” Yes, in the sense that God inspires all Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). No, in the sense that they were well studied in Scripture to support Chou’s view of authorial logic. My view is ambidextrous in thinking this way since two conditions can overlap or hold at once from an alogical perspective.

To walk through the examples below, further theological development among prophets shows how they are theologians with accurate hermeneutical capabilities. They are said to set a trajectory about how God’s plan develops to achieve His promises and aims.

The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants become intertwined into the Davidic covenant. While the Davidic covenant brings into it some attributes of the Noahic covenant, meaning, Noah can plant a vineyard as God restrains the effects of the Fall to move creation back toward its original sabbath rest. No longer does the earth yield thorns, thistles, and weeds. At least to the written extent and pronouncement at the curse of the Fall.

The Davidic covenant obtains rest from the Mosaic conquest of Canaan through Joshua. As incorporated by the promises of Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Noahic covenants, “God has made the weight of redemptive history fall upon the Davidic dynasty.” All covenants converge into one Davidic covenant that, in turn, extends to an eschatological prophecy and reality in fulfillment of God’s promise to restore His people and creation.

Chou’s rationale is understood, accepted, and appreciated, but it concerns me that the Spirit of God does not get explicit theological treatment of this to understand the prophetic hermeneutic. That, in my mind, limits a full understanding and credibility of the prophetic hermeneutic as described and advocated. Let us know and interpret what the Lord is doing and is going to do as a continuing revelation as the canon becomes formed. The prophets were uniquely placed participants as vessels of the Lord. Interpreted revelation does not just sit with the people of God to figure things out within Scripture by their developed capabilities. When it comes to God’s purposes, they were not well developed among themselves. Without question, there is certain enlightenment that has occurred by divine involvement (1 Cor 1:27).

Theological development goes further as prophetic hermeneutic recognition extends into the apostolic hermeneutic. Through the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Micah. Amos clarifies that God will keep His promises while the house of David has collapsed. Hosea affirms a new, or a second David by God’s promises to fulfill His Davidic covenant. In time, Micah prophesies that the Messiah shall be born in Bethlehem as a second King since David was born there. The Messiah will enter the wilderness to be tempted to fulfill David’s role and restore his royal house. Again, theological principles are derived from the wisdom literature, and law, to include major and minor prophetic contributions.

Accordingly, Chou wrote that the prophetic hermeneutic came through the great intellectual insight of people who excelled at exegesis with profound capabilities. The hermeneutic of biblical prophets were from their depth of understanding to rightfully interpret meaning and significance. Cast, as they were, profound biblical thinkers and writers. Exceptional exegetes and theologians were due in part to their accuracy in handling Scripture. Intertextual precision characterizes their hermeneutic exceptionalism as necessary for careful application and theological formation.

In contrast, I would observe, this was their specific intertextual methodology of interpretation. While Chou articulates his view by compelling examples, it becomes demonstrated that the “what-of” their hermeneutical process has relevance. Yet not the “how-to” at this point per se as he continues in further depth during his treatment of the apostolic hermeneutic.

While the LORD informs Moses that He would speak through him before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:10-12), that situation occurred out of concern that Moses was “slow of speech and tongue.” Moreover, it intuitively feels somewhat out of character that prophets would confidently make pronouncements from exegetical advancements because of verbiage such as “thus saith the Lord.” So, I am a bit nervous about the confidence Chou has in the prophetic hermeneutic he claims. Certainly, no quarrel about prophetic hermeneutic recognition and its support of an apostolic hermeneutic. It only appears that specific methodology that involves the Spirit of God according to His plan and trajectory seems missing or too distant.

It is my conviction that hermeneutics is a practice and process of exegetical interpretation. It is a “how-to” effort to understand the meaning and significance of biblical authors fully. It is a labor to understand Scriptural ramifications with suitable applicability to our life context. It is not solely a result or outcome of intuitive and meticulous effect or performance, but the practice of it with specific custodial methods (or gifts) with Spiritual guidance along an individual’s process. Yes, prophetic hermeneutic, but how? Not what, by naming it as intertextuality with examples along with intervals of new revelation. How did their relationship with the Lord affect their interpretation? With others? What were the theological bridges they had to cross, and how did they pass them? I suggest that in the absence of theological criteria formed for eligibility and use, the LORD was an active participant to shape the thinking of His prophets. Without too much freestanding credit on their own, prophets and patriarchal fathers had an extraordinary and unique role in serving the LORD’s purposes. They are exceptional for more reasons than their ability to exegete and produce theological continuity. As well-read and articulate as they were, they were chosen and loved by YHWH with His influence upon them to set theological depth, revelation, and directionality. It is that which significantly contributed to the results we see. So, the question is about how it is they performed their hermeneutic and not what their hermeneutical outcome was through intertextual analysis. Not what we discover in the original languages for them, but instead by what it was that they were doing in terms of methodology. If prophets were proof-texting cross-references throughout the Old Testament to build theological relevance to demonstrate meaning and significance, is that then a valid and acceptable hermeneutic or methodology of interpretation?

Intent to write is not an explanation about how to abide by the law, recognize the propagation of covenant promises, or follow revelation and communicate accordingly. Neither is the perception about intended meaning from prior Scriptural authors. The methodology is about the process, not an identification of facts or the presence and acknowledgment of exceptional performance.

It is my limited view that apostles and prophets were not ignorant but understood Scripture and wrote beyond natural understanding to deliver the meaning that they intended under the inspiration of YHWH. They were not on their own to derive Scriptural and theological truth. Not by an individual effort by their exceptionalism as exegetes or theologians. They were not empty vessels or as everyday people, but unique individuals of their being. Anthropomorphically speaking, set apart in the hands of the Lord while steeped in God’s word.

The Apostolic Hermeneutic

Continuing through this section, I reset my perspective with a fresh outlook. It became necessary to begin combing through Chou’s book in a nonlinear way and to skip back and forth between section conclusions and examples he provided. Primarily to come to grips with the legitimacy of authorial logic and most notably by the intertextual practices as led by the Spirit. I found this was necessary because much less emphasis was placed upon the role of the Spirit toward prophetic interpretation. It was through my apprehension about the accolades placed upon the stature prophets and apostles that I was entirely cautious and picky about what I accepted.

Especially while in the Old Testament since it serves as grounds for the apostles’ reasoning. As Chou wrote, due to introductory formulas like “it is written,” or “because of,” it is natural to make comparisons among segments of Scripture. Then afterward, to conclude a basis of formed rationale without error as the identified formulae claimed the foundation of legitimacy toward the apostle’s understanding. All leading to the recognized intent and developed logic of their Old Testament predecessors. Ultimately, the same authorial logic as continued in the New Testament as they were readers of Scripture and those who revealed Scripture by new revelation.

Chou advocates prophetic intertextuality within the Old Testament. As a setup and projection of an apostolic hermeneutic. Eventually, he takes a reader through the apostolic hermeneutic as a foundation of new revelation and exegetical discovery from the Old Testament. Where it so appears from Chou, authorial intent between human and divine contribution is made distinct and separate from his following affirmation of the Lord’s work and involvement.

As such, a human author was not always fully aware of what the divine author intended backward and forward in time. From the prophetic hermeneutic to the apostolic hermeneutic, new and continuous revelation unfolded over the course of history. Even with adopted authorial logic through prophetic intertextuality, the apostolic author did not on their own have the insight or clarity of view about the Lord’s near or long-term redemptive intentions. So, New Testament authors who read and wrote did so generally by instruction and inspiration as the new revelation came to them by the work of Christ while the hermeneutical examples of Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles further revealed the truth of God’s word.

According to Chou, apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament came from study and exegesis by the prophetic hermeneutic made their own. Moreover, what theological principles developed by Old Testament prophets discovered through their hermeneutic is what the apostles did as well to inform their authorial logic. Yet it is my view that it is not studying or analytical methods alone that brought about a trajectory for overall directionality and later interpretation or theological development. God was at work in the lives of those who were interpreting and writing Scripture to communicate His intentions and redemptive plan.

From observations among the many examples given in Chou’s book, I sought to identify contributing factors of authorial logic. Here is an outline I noted during reading time to see if there is a more concrete outline of practical advice to think through and use.

Contributors to Authorial Logic

Consistent and Ongoing Immersion
Comprehensive Cross-Referencing Activity
Meticulous Attention to Languages
Use of Inductive Non-Linear Thinking
In Context Proof Texting
Chronologically Independent Correlations
Use of Root Translations (LXX, MT)
Recognition of Prophetic Speech-Acts
Detection of Divine Inference
Apostolic Consistency of Application

The Christian Hermeneutic

Chou makes the point that we are more than cross-referencers. That the intertextuality modeled for us is more than that. We should look to imitate the hermeneutic of the apostles. Look to the reading quality of their rationale and direct our efforts to standard hermeneutic textbooks. Chou asserts that what we learn in standard hermeneutical textbooks is similar to what biblical writers read in their Bible. As Chou wrote, “the prophetic hermeneutic and the apostolic hermeneutic becomes the Christian hermeneutic.” Much of which comes through the adoption of modern, conventional, and proven hermeneutical methods.

Moving from meaning to significance, we consistently set a course toward application as we understand biblical implications and theology from Scripture. Just as biblical writers cared about the cultural, historical, and literary backgrounds of prior Scriptural authors, they serve as an example to us to derive meaning. Through interconnectedness or connecting dots to understand application as they did. Not only to clearly understand what they wrote and meant to follow them but also to recognize what they thought and what their motivations were. To get into their minds, so to speak.

To help us arrive at specifics about the intended significance for application purposes, Chou concludes his work by giving us four areas to frame our approach in applying Scripture. (1.) Worship God for His Works, (2.) Learn Theology, (3.) Morally Respond, and (4.) Adopt a Worldview in Light of Redemptive History. All taken together, these areas represent a body of effort that Christians use to get a practical application from the meaning and significance derived from biblical authors. By connecting the dots throughout Scripture to form an interconnectedness of authorial logic, we obtain an inspired way of getting to the significance and meaning of God’s word. This is the prophetic hermeneutic that the apostolic hermeneutic reaches into while we make them both our own.

Continue Reading ·

← Previous 1 … 20 21 22 … 30 Next →

Search

More results...

Random Posts

Believers & Saints
November 5, 2017
“Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God…
Road of Redemption
October 17, 2019
Along Israel’s coastal plain, adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea, there is an ancient geological route formation from Egypt to Mesopotamia. A route through the Fertile Crescent and into Iraq between…
The Kerygma of Desideratum
November 13, 2021
The legacy of modernity and its challenges toward historical theology has brought a sense of relief and clarity as to the developments that have come about as a result. The…