Human Sacrifice is Godly

Part 1 – The Sacrifice

After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.”  He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”  So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. Genesis 22:2-3

When reading this text I have often wondered why Abraham did not respond to God the way he did when God revealed to him that he was about to destroy Sodom. “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just” (Gen 18:25). Why did not Abraham appeal to God for his son like he did for Lot? God is asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac—would not Abraham appeal to God’s righteousness or at least question that doing such a thing would be wicked. These questions arose because of my misunderstanding of God’s view of human sacrifice. When viewing human sacrifice through God’s will and word I came to the conclusion that it is not in any way wicked or immoral or wrong; rather it is a holy requirement of God. Not only is it a requirement for man, but it is something that God himself engages in (a sacrificial life). I now understand Abraham was acting in pure faith and obedience to the will and nature of God.

When looking at the whole of scripture we find that human sacrifice is an essential element. One reason we miss the essentialness of human sacrifice is that it is overshadowed by the abundant amount of emphasis given to animal sacrifice. The bible is full of animal sacrifice. I believe it is a peripheral reading of these texts on our part, and a peripheral understanding of the act itself on some bible characters part (except Abraham) that causes us to miss the human element in the sacrifice. God does not require nor take pleasure in the sacrifice of animals, in and of themselves, “I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.” (Isaiah 11:11) Why then is animal sacrifice (the blood of bulls, lambs, goats) such a major part of God’s law? When we look at the story of Abraham and God’s requiring human sacrifice we can see that it is not the sacrifice of the animal that God is requiring or desiring in his law—rather it is the sacrifice of the worshipper himself that God wants.

In the Abraham story we come to find out that God ultimately provided the sacrifice. The sacrifice of Isaac was required, but God allowed an animal to be sacrificed in place of Isaac. This act does not negate the initial requirement of human sacrifice. It is not meant to negate, but to show ultimately the sacrificial nature of God himself; which we see clearly in the Christ event. Not only does God require human sacrifice, but he shows himself to be sacrificial. He requires us to be that way because he is that way (but more on this latter). When the ram took Isaac’s place on the altar of sacrifice it was not because God desired the ram itself. The Ram was not somehow a better sacrifice then Isaac was. God already owned that ram. He gave the ram to Abraham—He provided the sacrifice–so why the ram and the pouring out of its blood rather than Isaac (especially if God does not take pleasure in the blood of rams)?

If we look into the practice of animal sacrifice I think we will come to find out that it was to be a representative sacrifice of the worshipper himself, and not the mere sacrifice of an animal. I believe it is easy for us to import pagan ideas of sacrifice back into the biblical text rather than draw out the meaning of the text itself. The pagans sacrificed animals, as well as humans, in order to appease their gods. The gods were not only ‘needy’, but they were also easily angered and thus men had to give/perform sacrifices to appease them. This is not the God of the bible. He is neither needy nor appeasable. Sacrifice was not about these things. And when Israel practiced their sacrifices in this way, like the pagans, God condemns them for it and responds to them harshly (“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings” Isaiah 11:11). God does not want the animal, he wants the worshipper, and this was supposed to be seen in the sacrifice of the animal. The animal was to be a real representative of the worshipper himself. Let’s look at the process and this should become clearer.

When we look at the multiple commandments in the Torah where man is required by God ‘to offer’ a sacrifice or to present an ‘offering’ to the Lord we need to keep in mind what is being asked. The worshipper is first and foremost being asked to ‘draw near’ into the presence of God. The Hebrew words for ‘offering’ and ‘to offer’ are ‘qorban’ and ‘qarab’ which mean “that which is brought near” and the related verb ‘qrb’  means “to cause to draw near”. The worshipper is being called to draw near to God, into his presence. This is what God desires, not the simple giving up of an animal. It is in and through the sacrifice that the worshipper is to fulfill the requirement. God is calling the worshipper to come into his presence, resulting in communion between God and the worshipper (This is radically different than sacrifices being offered to appease an angry pagan god). God states this desire nationally when he commands all the men in Israel to ‘appear’ before him when summarizing the ceremonial law in the feast celebrations (Exodus 23:17). Sacrifice is the means to an end—entering God’s presence.

Looking at a few details on how animal sacrifice was performed we will begin to see how human sacrifice is pictured and entrance into the presence of God is accomplished. The worshipper brings the animal to the priest and lays his hands upon the head of the animal. This is picturing the transfer of the life of the worshipper to that of the animal. Then, the obvious, the animal is killed. The animal’s blood is shed and the priest throws the blood against the sides of the altar. This, the blood being poured out, is being done to show that the animal has in fact been slain. The animal is completely passive; being slain now it cannot fight or strain, it is wholly given up to be used for a holy work.  At this point the animal is cut up into separate pieces which are then arranged on the wood of the altar. This ‘arrangement of the pieces’ is a holy use; the animal has gone from being ordinary (common) to being set apart and used in the divine service of God. It has become fit for use by God. The animal, being holy in use, then becomes a burnt offering. The smoke of the animal ascends up into the presence of God and is a “pleasing aroma to the Lord.” The life of the worshipper, who laid his hands upon the animal to start, is tied into the whole process.

When the life of the worshipper is symbolically transferred to the life of the animal it is here that God’s requirement of human sacrifice takes place. Everything that happens to the animal happens to the life of the worshipper. The worshipper has been slain—now he can no longer struggle, strain, and selfishly fight against the will of God. He has died to selfish sin and is now passive and ready to be used for a holy use by God. The cutting up and arrangement of the animal pieces is symbolic of the holy use of the worshipper. He is fit to be used as a holly vessel for God. The arrangement of the pieces is the life of the worshipper in holy service to God. The pieces are then consumed and burned by the fire. At this point the life of the worshipper is entering the presence of God (Whose presence is a ‘consuming fire’). In the animals consumption by fire what is left is the ascending smoke. The life of the worshipper is now this ascending smoke. It enters up into the full presence of God and is a pleasing aroma to him. More than just a ‘human sacrifice’ of the life of the worshipper is taking place—a complete transformation has taken place. What is left for the ‘sacrificed’ transformed life? Communion with God is the result, and this is pictured when the worshipper and the priest together, in the presence of the lord, partake of a fellowship meal. This eating together, with God, is a perfect picture of communion—a complete fulfillment of God’s requirement/desire (communion with him).

From this quick look at sacrifice I believe we can see what God desires in his sacrificial institution. The biblical concept of human sacrifice is a beautiful and wonderful thing when we see the ‘communing’ ‘loving’ nature of the God who desires such. When we let ourselves be influenced by the pagan ideas of sacrifice, and introvert them back into the scriptures, we lose sight of the beauty of God’s will. We lose sight of what God is really wanting in his holy ordinances and we begin to question the validity of such institutions; just as I did when I questioned God’s request of Abraham for human sacrifice.

Part 2 of Romans 7 update

I have added part 2 of ‘the Romans 7 man’ into the original post.

The ‘Romans 7′ Man

The Romans 7 man is a man whom Paul refers to in the first person whose struggling with the law of God and with sin. Much debate has gone on throughout Christendom as to whether or not Paul in his example is referring to himself as a ‘saved’ man or as an ‘unsaved’ man. I believe most of these debates come from a sincere, but overly individualistic, comparison of one’s self with Paul. We force ourselves into this text because it is so easy to relate to Paul here. But the fact is that none of us can relate to Paul here except perhaps in a peripheral way.

First off Paul is not writing to us. Apart from the obvious that he was only writing to those who lived in 1^st century Rome; he was specifically at this point in Romans writing to his fellow Jewish brothers. Paul states in Romans 7:1 “Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law.” Not only does Paul state to whom he is speaking, but he also draws his fellow brothers into the Romans 7 man when he references their second temple Judaist soteriology. Romans 7:10 “The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.” The promise of life through the Torah was in Paul’s day the teaching of the Rabbis.

Here is a quote that promotes an idea that Paul and his audience would familiar with.

Why are the words of Torah compared to a Prince? To tell you that just as a prince has the power to put to death and to grant life, so do the words of Torah have the power to put to death and to grant life. – Talmud Shabbat 88b

 Paul and his Jewish brothers were soaked in the idea of ‘life through the Law/Torah’. Not ‘life’ in the idea of simple biological existence, but life in its fullest sense–life in its COVENANTAL sense. Their mode of existence was a covenantal mode of existence where they related to the whole world, and especially to God, through the Torah. There was covenantal relationship and life only through the Torah. The Romans 7 man is a man who lives in this mode of existence. We Gentile Christians have no idea what is like to live in ‘this world’ where God’s righteousness is based on his keeping Covenant with man and man’s righteousness is based on keeping covenant with God through Torah observance.

Paul then establishes from the Romans 7 man the fault of that mode of existence. He does this while still upholding the holiness and goodness of the law (which is fitting considering his audience). Without going into a verse by verse exegesis of this portion of scripture we can clearly draw out of the text that it is not the Torah that is the problem, but the sinful nature of man. Though the law of God is good, man is sinful and even though there is a desire to keep the law, there is along with that desire the desire to do evil.  At this point we modern day gentiles will want to jump in and try to personally relate. Though we may relate to the desire to do evil, this is not Paul’s purpose in speaking to his Jewish brothers, i.e., simply stating mankind’s general inclination towards evil.

Paul’s desire to do ‘good’ under the Torah, while giving way to the evil he does not want to do statements are consistent with Judaist teachings. This is a concept that Paul would have understood from his youth, having been taught under the Rabbi Gamaliel. The Rabbis taught the people that along with Torah, there is a God ordained “evil inclination” (their term). Through the Torah is life, but the ‘evil inclination’ is a harasser of those who pursue this life.

“A man’s inclination attacks him every day and seeks to put him to death, as it is said, “the wicked watches for the righteous; seeking to put him to death” (Psalm 37:32), and if it were not for the Holy One who helps him, he could not withstand it” B.Suk. 52b

In this midrash, the “wicked” who is on the lookout for an opportunity to kill the righteous is not another person, rather, the “wicked” is a person’s own nature continually waging war against him (that is the Rabbis interpretation of the Psalm). The help that comes from the Holy One is the Torah, but the ‘evil inclination’ is not taken away rather it is just soothed as medicine soothes a soar, but the soar will always remain.

“Why is the Torah likened to life giving medicine? This can be compared to the case of a man who struck his son with a huge blow and put a compress on his wound. He said to him, “my son, so long as this compress is on your wound, eat whatever you like and drink, and bathe in hot or cold water, and you need not be afraid. But If you take it off, it will break into soars.” Thus the Holy One said to Israel, “My son, I created the evil inclination; I created Torah as its antidote. If you occupy yourselves with Torah, you will not be delivered into its power. . .”” b. Qidd. 30b

Now alongside this ‘evil inclination’ is also the ‘good inclination.’ Here is one more quote from the Rabbis.

“A person should always incite his Good Inclination against his Evil Inclination, as it is written, “So tremble and sin no more.” If he is victorious over it, well and good. If not, let him occupy himself with Torah.” B. Ber. 5a

Perhaps this Judaistic concept is precisely what Paul is referring to (which his audience would be familiar with) when he says “For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Rom. 7:18). Paul understands that he must ‘incite his Good inclination against his evil inclination’, but he just can’t do it. And even though he has the Torah as the antidote for the evil inclination, and even though he does occupy himself with Torah (delighting in it as he says), it is not working. In fact the Torah, which promises life, is proving to be death to him (Rom. 7:10). This is where Paul dramatically departs from the Rabbis. But Paul provides something much better in their place.

Part 2 -

From looking at Paul (within his Judaist worldview as the Romans 7 man), in part one, we may find ourselves asking the question “What sin or evil deed was Paul specifically struggling with?” The ‘evil inclination’ was clearly part of his life—he did not simply subdue it permanently with the Torah. So, what ‘evil inclinations’ under the life of the Torah did Paul struggle with, what was Paul’s sin(s)? Was he a habitual coveter, or perhaps he was once an adulterer or luster, maybe he was, as someone once suggested in a bible study I attended, a habitual ‘dog kicker’? One thing we do know is that Paul was not without sin, that he may have with his mind coveted his neighbor’s house, or possessions, but, as regards to the Law as covenant Paul was blameless. Paul was not a habitual Law breaker; in fact he had a righteousness of his own under the Law.

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. . . having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law. (Philippians 3:4-9)

Paul had reason to boast in the flesh (i.e., human will, power, and exertion). He, being blameless, had done everything right; sort of speak, under the Law. According to his own will and strength under the law he was righteous. This sounds a little different than the Romans 7 man on the surface, but I think if we get into it a little deeper we will see the connection. I believe the conduit for the connection is the ‘deceitfulness of sin.’ A surface reading of the Romans 7 text may lead us to believe that the law psychologically stimulates man to disobedience. There is in this the thought that the commandment which forbids a certain practice will actually stimulate a man’s desire to break that commandment. This though, which may in fact be true (especially as is seen in small children), is missing not only Paul’s point in Romans 7, but Paul’s entire gospel message as regarding the Law. Sin is much more deceitful than this.

I believe that the thrust of the problem here is not even the disobedience itself (though that should not be dismissed), but something much deeper as concerning Paul and his Jewish audience. At the heart of Paul’s gospel message is this statement “Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.” (Romans 9:31). Disobedience is not the problem here, but rather Israel’s striving after righteousness by means of Law observance, i.e., ‘works’. This is the ‘deceitfulness of sin’ which had deceived the Romans 7 man, who is really in a way a picture of Israel. We have already seen in part 1 that Torah observance was the way in which a Jew was to pursue life according to the Rabbis interpretation(s). This pursuit of life by works was not only brought about because of sin, but was condemned as sinful itself. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. In this is revealed the sinfulness of sin, that even in the pursuit of Law observance they became guilty of sin.

Thus the question “what was Paul’s evil inclination?”  is answered–not in a personal way for him alone, but for all of Israel. The Rabbis teaching, that the cure for the ‘evil inclination’ of man is Torah observance, has itself become the problem—it is actually the most deceitful part of the ‘evil inclination’  and causes the ‘sore’ of which they spoke to become gangrened rather than soothed. Paul’s (and the Rabbis and the Jews) perverted use of the Law of God was the sinfulness of sin (the great ‘evil inclination’). Not only did healing not take place through their use of the law, as they expected, but rather death. The Torah slew Paul (Romans 7:11) because the deceitfulness of sin lured him into a perverted use of the law, i.e., pursuing life by means of law observance based on human power and performance. The Romans 7 man now finds himself in a very big dilemma. He cannot disobey Torah, because this is sin, but he cannot obey Torah either, because of sin. He has found himself within a corporate body of death (sin) in which there does not seem to be a way a way of escape (i.e., resurrection).

Part 3 to follow soon

Why accusing ‘the Jews’ of killing Jesus is important

I find it interesting that many accuse western Christianity (especially medieval Christianity and Lutheranism) of being anti-Semitic for accusing the Jews of killing Jesus. Many will say that it was the Romans deed for political purposes and that the Jews cannot be blamed because they lived under Roman rule. But what do  the scriptures say about these matters?

 

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. Acts 2:22

Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk?  The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. Acts 3:12

 And when they had brought them, they set them before the [Jewish] council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name. . .” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. Acts 5:28

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” Acts 7:51

For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind. 1Thessalonians 2:14

Surely it is important to know that the Jews were guilty of murdering Jesus being the Scriptures clearly teach this, and surely it is not anti-Semitic to say so being it was fellow Jews that made that accusation in the first place, and fellow Jews that acknowledged their guilt (Acts 2). The second reason it is also important is because of covenant. The dominate soteriology in Palestinian Judaism was:

1. God has graciously chosen Israel as his people
2. He gave them the law, which implies …
3. God’s promise to maintain the election, and …
4. The requirement to obey
5. God rewards obedience and punishes transgression
6. The law provides for means of atonement, which results in …
7. Maintain or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship
8. All those who are kept in the covenant by God’s mercy, atonement, and [intended] obedience belong to the group which will be saved.

One of the problems with this soteriology is that it breaks down between 6-7. There are certain covenant sins that cannot be atoned for under the law to maintain covenantal relationship (eg. murder, idolatry, adultry, etc.). There was, for e.g., not a certain sacrifice that a murderer could follow in order to be atoned for; rather under the law the guilty party was to be put to death (cut off from his people—cut off from life/covenant). This shows the weakness of the law ‘as covenant’ for sinful Israel. A ‘new way’ had to be established. Jesus accused National Israel of murder (Matt 23:35). She was guilty, and there was no way of atonement under the law. She had to be ‘born anew’–to make the ‘Jews’ (i.e., national O.C. Israel) not guilty of murder is in a way to take away their need for the New Covenant and place them back under the contentment of the law (The very law that in fact witnesses to the nation that they are ‘cut off’ from life and the covenant).

In their own view of Soteriology proving their guilty sentence for murder shows them the inadequacy of their view (i.e., the salvific mode of Palestinian Judaism) and their need for a new covenant. This is precisely what happened in Acts 2 when 3000 repented of their sin of murder (in full view of the temple, when they asked ‘what can we do’ knowing full well that under the law they could do nothing but be cut off) and were baptized into the new covenant where there is everlasting atonement. Maintaining the accusation of the murder of Jesus by the Jews (i.e., Nationally Israel) is to be both consistent with the historicity of scripture and consistent with the distinction between the covenants.

Blog update

This blog was simply used to store some misc. writings of mine online (kind of an online back up). Thus, it is in serious need of an updating. I will try to reformat and organize this blog and will be posting on it more regulary (i.e., I will actually be using it as a blog). I will tbe moving my longer 20+ page papers to another web site being they do not fit well here and are burdensome to scroll through.

Letter to a friend concerning “THE RESURRECTION”

Pastor thanks for the reply and the response with Philippians.

This section of Philippians is a wonderful part of the scriptures. I will give you my take on it and perhaps that will give you an idea of why this “resurrection” debate is such an issue with me.

I find it interesting, but expected, that you said:

“Paul speaks so clearly about both Christ’s physical body and the fact that our lowly bodies will be transformed. . .”

You used the plural for “bodies” because of your view of the resurrection rather than using Paul’s word. The text reads:

Phil 3:21 who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory (Young’s Literal Greek Translation)

Paul does not say that “bodies” i.e. a plurality of bodies, will be transformed but that The Body (singular) will be transformed. Now this may not seem like much of a big deal, but when you go beyond a surface reading of the text Paul’s use of the singular body becomes clearer. Paul uses the singular “the body” elsewhere in regards to the resurrection. What is the difference between a transformation of multiple “bodies” and the transformation of “the body”? One emphasizes an individualistic view and the other a corporate view. Paul over and over again throughout his writings always places an emphasis on the corporate condition of man, not the individual condition. In fact the whole bible and the gospel message itself stress a federal/corporate view. To deny this would be to deny the fact that Christ died for the sins of his people. Christ’s representative death is “corporate” otherwise each man would have to die and atone for his own sins…but God deals with man corporately. If it were not so then Christ could not be your representative before God.

It is the singular corporate body (one body) that is to be raised out of its state of humiliation.

A few verses earlier here in Philippians Paul was speaking about his life as a Jew under the Law and how in forsaking the Law way of life (pursuit of righteousness) he was pursuing a life (righteousness) not his own, but of Christ. He then says:

Phil 3:10 to know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death,11 if anyhow I may attain to the resurrection of the dead.

(Again….he says this in the context of his Jewishness, old covenant life, that he was just talking about)

Paul’s being conformed to Christ’s death was a death to the Law life (i.e., the Old Covenant law way of life) so as to attain to “Resurrection” a new mode of life in Christ. (note: As other scriptures teach that Christ was born under the old Covenant Law life but in his death he died to that).

Surely it is not a future physical resurrection of Paul’s dead decayed body that he has in mind, because speaking of the resurrection he says next in Philippians:

Phil 3:12 Not that I did already obtain [the resurrection], or have been already perfected; but I pursue it

Of course Paul had not yet attained the raising of his own dead decayed corpse from the grave (aka, the resurrection) so why would he even have to mention this? Because the resurrection that he was pursuing was a resurrection of transformation; from one mode of existence under the law covenant way of life, to a new mode of existence under the new covenant way of life (which he had not as of yet fully attained)

Speaking of the incarnation the scriptures teach that Christ was born into the old covenant world (born under the law) and into a state of humiliation (phil 2).

Gal 4:4-5 God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law , 5 to redeem those under law , that we might receive the full rights of sons

In Christ’s death and resurrection he died to the old mode of life (that all Israel was under) and rose to a new mode of life. He was born under the old covenant system and was born of a woman, born into the state of humiliation, but by his resurrection from the dead (old life) he was declared to be the Son of God (the state of exaltation).

Rom 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Note the “the body of our humiliation” in philippians and compare to Christ’s body of humiliation. Both “humiliations” are being born under the law.

Back to the Philippians text that teaches “the resurrection”

Phil 3:21 who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory

“The Body” is a single corporate body that is born under the law, born of the flesh (of woman), and born in a state of humiliation. The body needs to die a cross determined (Christ like) death. A death to the old Covenant mode of existence, and its transformation is a “rasing up” (aka, resurrection) from a lowly position to that of an exalted position (a body of glory). The new covenant mode of life is Life in its fullest sense. This is what Paul strived forward and pressed on towards. Dying to his former mode of life of the flesh (flesh means under the law) and pursuing a new mode of life in Christ. Now Paul, as he said, had not YET attained the resurrection, i.e., this new mode of life/existence in a state of covenantal perfection. Why not? Because the Old Covenant was still binding. In the first century it was in the process of passing away (Heb 8:13), but would not be completed until the Parousia (when Christ destroys the old covenant temple, which happened in 70ad). It is thus the complete destruction of the “administration of death” (2Cor 3:7) that consummates and completes the transformation, from death to life, from old covenant to new covenant. The administration of death, the strength of sin, the power of death, death itslef etc. Paul’s states several times is The Law (i.e., the Law as covenant, or the old covenant way of life). When the old covenant passes away, so does death. This speaks to the “resurrection” and the defeat of death, I.e., the destruction of the ministration of death, the old covenant.

The “Body of death” is a “body” under the Old Covenant way of life, as described in Romans 7. At the resurrection this body is delivered from death to life, from old covenant mode to new covenant mode.

I should probably clarify a little more the corporate aspect of “Body” and why Paul speaks of “the Body” in regards to transformation/resurrection rather than a change of “bodies.”

2 Cor 5:2 For in this [Body] we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is out of heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed

This “Tent” is singular. It is one “Tent” and one “body” not several tents or bodies. Those who are ‘clothed’ in this one Body/Tent desire to be further clothed with a better (i.e., heavenly) body/tent which is “out of” heaven or “from” heaven. Note: Scripture teaches that it is the New Jerusalem (habitation) which is out of heaven, or the Bride of Christ (one body) which is out of heaven, it is the Corpes Christi which is out of heaven, it is the New covenant which is out of heaven (Hebrews, Revelation, etc.). While it is Paul’s current “house” “tent” “body” which is earthly.

There is a lot more to this then I have time to go into right now. But to just jump right to the point. Paul, in his time frame, is in the “body” and is “clothed in that body” but desires to be further clothed in “the body” which is out of heaven rather than one which is of the earth. This is covenantal language. The earthly is essentially the ‘body of moses’ (the old covenant) and the heavenly is the ‘body of Christ’ (the new covenant) (See Hewbrews 9….the “body” made with hands is the old covenant…the body made without hands is the new covenant and it is this body that comes out of heaven) Both bodies are CLOTHED. Paul does not want to be found naked, i.e., without a covenant/relationship with God. God called Israel “naked” when she was in a state of sin and covenant breaking. Paul does not want to be naked, but further clothed with better clothing, i.e., a better covenant.

It does not take much digging in scripture to show that “clothing” and “nakedness” are covenantal terms.

Ezek 16:8 “When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,”…I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin; I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk

When God founded Israel he “covered her nakedness” and “entered into a covenant” with her. This language is all over the OT scriptures. Ever wonder why Adam and Eve were in the garden and were ‘naked’ and not ashamed? They were not ashamed before God. They walked with God. They were without sin and had no need of clothing, i.e., a covenant in order to relate to God. But when they sinned they were ashamed before God and they saw their nakedness. God then clothed them with animal skins. By the shedding of blood their nakedness was covered. Thus, in covenant relationship with God Adam, and his offspring, related to God by animal sacrifice, the shedding of blood. Because of sin no longer could they be naked and not ashamed. The animal skin clothing (covenant) has its fullest meaning in the Old Covenant; relating to God, clothed, in and under the
law. But in the new covenant we are ‘further clothed’ with better clothes and a better covenant in Christ. We relate to (covenant with) God through Christ. The body of Moses is clothed in animal skins and the body of Christ is clothed in ‘white robes’ of righteousness. But in either case we can never go back to being “naked” and not ashamed like Adam and eve because we have all sinned….we have to relate to God in clothing (through a covenant). Adams sin affected all, it was corporate. The body is a single body, a corporate body. The single Tent or tabernacle is the earthly tabernacle and body of the Old Covenant, the Tent from out of heaven is the new body in Christ, the new Jerusalem, the new covenant (which during Pauls life had not yet been consumated….he was waiting for it still. The body of moses, the temple, the law, etc. was still fully functioning and had not yet “died”. In the book of Revelation, when the earthly temple is destroyed in 70ad, what appears from out of heaven? The
new jerusalem, the bride and body of Christ. The destruct ion of the one brings in the manifestation of the other. The destruction of the earthly body (of moses) reveals that which is out of heaven (body of Christ).

In my opinion it is the comparing scripture with scripture that I come to an understanding that Resurrection is COVENANTAL TRANSFORMATION from one body to a new, better and heavenly body. As I said before, I in no way deny a ‘bodily’ resurrection…in fact my understanding is that “the body” is of upmost importance. But being scripturally minded we most see these things as scripture does, corporately and covenantally. It is a single corporate body. This is a quote from an article I wrote:

“Scripture records redemptive history, not world history or profane/secular history. Scriptures terminology (e.g., “age,” “age to come,” “eternal”) must be defined within its context. From beginning to end scripture records the redemptive history of Israel. The Hebrew Moses begins the story and the Hebrew Apostle John ends the story. The bible contains a completed redemptive historical narrative. The narrative is set within a covenantal framework.”

Also, in my opinion seeing only the “fleshly” side of things limits the work of Christ. For example when Christ forgave a paralyzed man’s sins (which is a spiritual thing) the Pharisee’s said that that was not possible. To prove that the spiritual truth was in fact true, Jesus then healed the paralyzed man. But, it is the forgiveness of sins, the spiritual truth, that should be in the forefront. Also, I believe it is this way with Christ’s physical bodily resurrection. That was the one sign given; he calls it the sign of Jonah. But we can’t miss what the sign signifies…it is not just the resurrection of a corpse.

Let me quote a respected conservative bible scholar whose work “the theology of the New Testament” is used in a lot of seminaries and bible schools:

“The NT does not picture the resurrection of Jesus in terms of [only] the resuscitation of a corpse, but as the emergence within time and space of a [whole] new order [mode] of life”  G.E. Ladd 

 This is my understanding, thus far, of the Philippians passages you brought up and perhaps you can see why I don’t see dead decayed corpse(s) coming out of the ground in these passages. Upon further study maybe I will come to that conclusion. I am open and willing to learn.

You said:

I can’t help but think that you might be making this more difficult than it needs to be

Perhaps, but I hope you get an idea from what I wrote above that I am not “kicking against the goads” or simply being “hard headed” against the mainstream view of ‘resurrection’ but that I am sincerely trying to understand resurrection within the framework of the scriptures as a whole.

Divine Dilemma: Incarnation

 

The Divine Dilemma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Athanasiun Thought on the Incarnation of the Word of God

By

Shawn Atkins

 

 

Part 1

Why is it that the word of God, so great and high, has become manifest in bodily form? He did not assume a body that was proper to his own nature, because as the word, very God of very God, he is wholly apart from the need of a physical body. As the word of God he is the creator, celestial and divine, eternal and everlasting, infinite in being and perfection, a most holy and pure spirit, and clearly distinct from his own creation; being without body, parts, or human passions. Surely he has chosen to have been manifested in a human body for one marvelous reason alone; that being his love, goodness, and desire for the salvation of man.

    This being the reason, we must begin with the creation of man and his world and of God his maker. And in view of man’s creation and salvation we shall begin to understand that: The renewal of creation has come about by the exact same Word who made it in the beginning. There is no inconsistency between creation and salvation, for the one Father has used the same person for both works, saving man (renewing creation) by the very one who made man.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. . . . Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let him have dominion” . . . So God created man in his own image. Genesis 1:1, 26-27

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-4, 14

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. . . For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:15-17, 19

God created all things (i.e., heaven and earth) “ex nihilo,” out of nothing, as the book of Genesis records it, “God said, let there be light, and there was light” and “God said, let the land produce living creatures and it was so.” God spoke and it was so. All things were created through the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was with God, the son of God in the beginning. And in his creation God reserved special grace and glory for one creature. Upon the human race God bestowed a grace which all other creatures lacked, namely, the impress of God’s own image. The race of Man was privileged in sharing in the reasonable being of God himself, not only reflecting him, but also becoming capable of expressing the mind of God.(1)(

Being man was created with a reasonable and immortal soul, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and freedom of will (which was subject to change); God secured this grace in man with two things, a place and a law. He set man in his own paradise (or sanctuary) and gave him kingship over the world, and he gave a law and prohibition to go with it. If man would guard the grace within this sanctuary, exercise his dominion over the world as king, and retain the beauty of his original innocence, then the life of incorruptible virtue in covenantal union with the glorious God would remain and be manifested throughout the whole world, without sorrow, pain, or spoil. But if man went astray and became depraved, disregarding his birthright, then he would by consequence come under a law of death and corruption, unable to dwell in the sanctuary of paradise, instead dying outside of it, stripped of his glory and kingdom.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:15-17

The woman saw that the [forbidden] tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. . . And [then] they heard the sound of the Lord God . . . and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God(2). Genesis 3:6, 8

And to Adam God said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the earth because of you . . . you [shall] return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3:17, 19

Understanding the nature of man, his created graces and his subsequent fall, is beneficial towards grasping the reason (and mystery) for the incarnation. It is man’s miserable state that moved the Word to come down to us. It was man’s transgression that revealed what great love God has for us, so that he was pleased to hurry to our help. It is because of man that the Word would take human form, for man’s salvation the Word was both born and manifested in a human body. For God had made man in incorruption and had desired that he should remain that way. But Adam (representing mankind), having turned from the reflection of God to sin, had come indefinitely under the law and condemnation of death. Having willingly submitted himself to a new master, by heeding his voice,(3) man was completely under the dominion of death. Under this new slave master, this then was the predicament of man:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-17

    God originally made man upright, perfect, and righteous, then man, turning from noble things to corruptible things, by the counsel of the Devil, had corrupted himself. Ultimately, Adam had failed to live under God’s grace, in faith, and willfully subjected himself under the law of sin and death. For “the righteous man shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17), and “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin,” (Rom. 14:23) and so it was with Adam. He willfully failed to live by faith and trust in the Word of God, he no longer desired that wonderful union and blessedness that God’s word obeyed brings. Adam, in transgressing God’s law, failed to believe and trust in God; rather, Adam believed and trusted in another, that is the Devil. Adam set aside his faith in the word of God and submitted himself to a new master.(4)

[The serpent] said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-5

    The Word of God was to be sufficient for man (for how could it not be being all things are created by him), but man departed from that which is sufficient and beheld as desirable that which is by nature corruptible and wanton. When this happened, men began to die physically,(5) and corruption was rampant among them, having power over them because it was the penalty of which God had fore-warned them about. In fact, men in their sinning had surpassed all limits of what could ever have even been imagined at the beginning; having transgressed a single command at the start, they went from bad to worse. Men, not stopping at just one kind of evil, continually sinned, as with an insatiable appetite, devising new kinds of sin and evil. Adultery and theft everywhere, murder and rape filling the earth, law disregarded in place of corruption and injustice, nations warring with nations, the earth being filled with factions, while men attempt to outdo one another in wickedness. An even unimaginable crime contrary to nature, as Paul says:

“For their women even exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:26-27

 

This then, God’s desire for man’s incorruption, glory, and kingship over the world, and man’s failure to do so because of his fall into gross sin (which corruption God had justly prescribed by law), is what constitutes a DIVINE DILLEMA.

 

 

 

 

 

PART 2

From the last section one can see that, because death and corruption was gaining an increasingly violent hold on man, the whole human race was indefinitely in the process of complete destruction. Man, who was created in God’s image for the purpose of reflecting that image, became utterly depraved and the glorious image of God was disappearing as the work of God was seemingly becoming undone. The law of death, which followed from the transgression as just penalty, prevailed upon man and from it there was no escape. This thing that was happening (had happened) to man was both atrocious and unfitting, in view of God’s intended glory and image that was set upon him. But, despite God’s initial desire, it would have been unthinkable that he would go back against his law/word, and that man having transgressed it should not die. Equally unthinkable is that God’s desire (or will) should not be obtained, and that man, bearing God’s image, should ultimately corrupt himself and all of creation in spite of God’s intended purpose.

It would seem to be unworthy of the glory of God if the creature he made, in his own image, should be brought to ultimate corruption and the dominion given to it be taken through the deceit of the Devil. As the creature that God created, both reasonable and likened unto him, was in fact perishing, and such glorious work that God had originally done and intended, was fading, what then was God to do? Was he to let his desires be thwarted, and let corruption and death have their way with his special creature? If so, then what would have been the point in making man in the first place? Surely it would have been better to never of created man in God’s image in the first place than to have created him for corruption; and besides that, God, if so indifferent to the ruin of his own works taking place before his very presence, would seem to be weak and limited in glory and power (which would never be presumed, even by the heavenly host, had God simply not made man at all). It seems then that it would be ultimately impossible that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because, that would be unworthy of the glory God.(6)

As true as things may seem, these things are not sufficient to disclose the whole matter. Knowing that it is impossible for God to go against his own law/word regarding death, even in order to preserve his special creature, it still must be asked “what was God to do?” Perhaps; was he just to demand repentance from men for their transgression? Would man’s repentance be worthy of God? One might even argue that transgression brought corruption, in accordance with God’s law, therefore repentance may bring about incorruption (presumably through law as well). But repentance would not guarantee Divine consistency, because if death did not, in fact, ultimately corrupt man, then God’s word in the beginning would not have been true. If it had been that a trespass took place, a trespass that had no subsequent penalty of death and corruption, then repentance would be all that was needed. But Adam’s trespass contained the penalty of death and corruption, and once the trespass was committed so begun the power of corruption, stripping him of his original graces. Repentance could not satisfy justice in this case.(7)

What then was needed? Rather, who was it then that was needed to perform such a thing, making the divine dilemma seem as if it was nothing, restoring grace to man? Who, but the Word of God himself, who made all things in the beginning? It was his task then, his alone apart from the help of the creature; to not only bring corruption again to incorruption, but also to maintain the consistency of the glory and character of God the Father. It was the word of God alone, being the creator; he was able to recreate all things, enabling God to be both “just and the justifier.”

For this reason then the incorruptible, incorporeal, immaterial, Word of God entered the world. Actually, in one sense, he was not far from it before, because no part of creation had ever really been without him. But, in the incarnation, he entered the world in a new way, stooping to the creatures level in his self revelation to man. He saw the race of man, originally expressing the mind of God like himself, wasting away under corruption with death reigning over him. He saw too how unthinkable it would be that the law of God should be repealed, even the very law which sentenced man to this death and corruption. He saw how horrible it was that the very things of which he himself was the originator should be coming to corruption. He saw how the tyranny of Satan was reigning over them, and how liable man was to the evil one in death. All this he saw, and pitying man, moved with compassion towards him, knowing his limitations and bondage, the Word of God was not content that death should have mastery over his creatures. Nor was he content that his creatures should simply perish and the work of God should come to nothing.

So, the Word of God took to himself a body, a human body just like man’s body. He did not become embodied nor merely appear in human shape among men, for if that had been so, then surely he would have had an opportunity to appear in some better and nobler way. No, rather, he took man’s physical body as his own, and not only this, but he was born of a woman and even that in the lowest of conditions. Thus, taking the body of a man, because man was liable to corruption and death, he was able to surrender himself to death for man. This he did out of his love for us so that the justice of the law would be fulfilled in his body and we would be set free from the law of death. Also, turning man again from corruption to incorruption; making him alive, without setting aside the law/word or divine justice, through death, yet conquering death.

Destroying the law of death through death

The word of God perceived that the law of death could not be destroyed except through death, yet, he being of immortal substance could not die. For this reason then he assumed a body capable of death, in order that it might become in death a sufficient exchange for man in satisfaction of divine justice. Because the body assumed was incapable of corruption(8), via its union with the father and its indwelling deity, it was capable of triumphing over death and corruption. It was by willingly surrendering to death that the body which the word of God had taken was able to abolish death. For naturally, since the word of God was above all, when he offered his own incorruptible body as a substitute for his people he fulfilled all that was required; both satisfaction for divine justice (in his death) and perfect obedience to the law/word of God(10) (in his life).

Now man, in union with the word of God, is clothed with incorruption and is freed from the dominion of death and the tyranny of Satan.

 

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! Romans 11:33

 

Parts 3-4 forthcoming…

Footnotes___________________________________

This is not to assume that the creature partook of the divine nature in any way, no more than a mirror may partake of man’s nature when reflecting the image of a man’s face.

² Adam’s hearing the sound of the Lord was a terrifying experience that caused him to hide from the judgment of God. A romantic “stroll” of God in the garden in the evening, as many presume, is not an interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the “sound of the Lord” verses in scripture.

³ Romans 6:16 “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”

⁴ It can be said that Satan stole, by way of deception, Adam’s birthright and all that was given to Adam (i.e., the earth) being Satan became his master, and Adam his slave. A slave does not own anything, but all things belong to his master.

⁵ Though physical death was delayed, at the moment of Adam’s sin he died spiritually, having broken God’s covenant, the source of true life.

⁶ As Christians we can only speak this way because of hindsight, already knowing what God has done.

⁷ Some may argue, perhaps rightly, that repentance can never satisfy justice in the case of a trespass, for by nature a trespass demands (or comes with) a penalty, and a penalty must be paid in full, aside from repentance. Repentance is a ceasing or turning away from sin only and is not the payment of debt or satisfaction of justice.

⁸ For you [God] will not . . . let your Holy One see corruption. Psalm 16:10

⁹ A corruptible body is given over to death already by nature. Only an incorruptible body could have an advantage over corruption. It is nothing extraordinary or special that a corruptible body should die.

¹⁰ The author at this point believes that it was not just a dry obedience to the law of God that is to be in view, but a perfect relationship, union, faithfulness, and walking with God (as Adam was to originally of done) that should be emphasized.

 

Heavenly Pattern of Worship

The modern idea of “Charismatic” worship is not true worship. Also contemporary worship styles with its use of music are not true worship. We cannot say about a church “well their doctrine is weak, but their worship service is great”…or “I don’t quite agree with that church, but I like their worship style (or worship service or worship music)”. If the “Charismatic” or “Pentecostal” church is off on its doctrine, you can guarantee that they will be even farther off in worship.

Worship is not about music, or style. It’s about God, and he has only set one way and one pattern for him to be worshipped. Conducting a musical worship service, or simply singing some supposedly spiritual songs, is not following the pattern. What is the correct pattern? The heavenly pattern of worship is the only pattern given to us in scripture, and it is the one we must follow.

First this:

WCF 21

1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men…
   

 

We cannot devise our own method of worship. Thus it can be concluded that if all churches were biblical, then all would have the same “style” or pattern of worship, but men would rather devise their own styles, and the consequences are many.

We must reject all man made patterns of worship and follow the heavenly pattern. Here is that pattern as it is found in the scriptures.

Generic;

1. The people of God enter into his presence, but only after sin has been removed.
   
2. the word of God is proclaimed, reminding his people of what he has done for their redemption and calling upon them to live as his people
   
3. God’s people respond to his words with faith and obedience, asking him to continue do what he has promised
   
4. In a covenant meal, the people of God partake of the benefits of the sacrifice, and then go forth in peace.
   

 

Specific examples of this pattern;

Adam and eve (before the fall)

1. heard the word of God,
   
2. responded to it in faith and obedience, and
   
3. Partook of the tree of life (covenant meal).
   

 

Mt. Sinai (Exodus 24)

1. Israel offers burnt offerings and peace offerings
   
2. Moses read the book of the covenant to the people
   
3. The people respond in faith and obedience
   
4. Israel partakes of the peace offerings
   

 

More detail

Dedication of the temple (2Chronicles 5-7)

1. Israel assembled for worship
   
2. Sin is dealt with through burnt offerings
   
3. Israel enters God’s presence through the priests (mediator)
   
4. A psalm of praise is sung
   
5. The word of God is proclaimed
   
6. A prayer of intercession is made
   
7. Fire consumes the sacrifices; glory fill’s the temple
   
8. Another psalm of praise
   
9. Israel partakes of the peace offerings
   
10. Israel departs in peace
    

 

Heb 8:4-5

For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

NKJV

In the giving of the Law and construction of the tabernacle (for the purpose of worship), Moses was to follow the “Heavenly pattern”.

This is the only pattern. Moses did not make up his own pattern; he was to copy the heavenly one. The pattern remains the same in the NT.

Note: Some suggest that the NT pattern of worship followed the example of the synagogue, but this is not true.

In the Old Covenant worship had to be done at the temple. Worship was not performed in the synagogues; they were only there for instruction, not worship. The reason this is so is because of the heavenly pattern. The pattern calls for the remission of sins, and for a mediator; this was not able to be attained at any place but the temple.

The NT has the same requirement. So how is this accomplished? It is accomplished through the new temple, Jesus Christ. He is our mediator and our atonement for sin; he is also our peace offering that we partake of in the eating of the supper.

Revelation gives us an example of the heavenly pattern of worship from the NT.

1. Assembling for worship (Rev 4)
   
2. The sin offering (Rev 5:1-7)
   
3. Entering God’s presence (Rev 5:8)
   
4. Psalm of praise (Rev 5:9-14)
   
5. Reading the word of God (Rev 6-19)
   
6. The prayer of the covenant community (Rev 6-19)
   
7. Fire consuming the sacrifices and glory filling the temple (Rev 6-19)
   
8. The psalm of praise (Rev 6-8)
   
9. The peace offering (Rev 19) Invitation to the supper
   
10. Benediction (Rev 20)
    

 

Looking at the heavenly pattern of worship (which is the only worship prescribed), we should see how most modern and evangelical worship services fail. The overuse and focus upon worship styles and music miss this entire pattern, and thus miss worship itself.

A couple things to note:

1. Only those who are in covenant with God can worship. There is no worship for those who do not go to the temple (Christ) and receive remission of sins. There is no coming to God without a mediator.
   
2. Worship is never complete without the partaking of the peace offerings. The heavenly pattern requires the “partaking” or eating of the offering. The Lord’s Supper is essential to the heavenly pattern.
   

Dating the Book of Revelation Based on an Old Testament Witness for New Covenant fulfillment

A non-technical free-form rambling on by Shawn Atkins

 If the book or Revelation was written after 70ad (i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem) then Daniel chapter 9 becomes a “false-prophecy.” For the message of Daniel 9 states that all “Vision and Prophecy” will be sealed up (complete) by the end. And Daniel 9 describes that end as the destruction of the temple and the city. If Revelation, being apocalyptic as well as containing “Vision and Prophecy,” was written AFTER (e.g. 90ad) the destruction of the temple and the city, then either the prophecy in Daniel 9 is blatantly wrong, or the book of Revelation is a fake. Being neither the former nor the latter is true then an early dating of Revelation must be considered.

Dan 9:24
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. . . the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and THE END thereof shall be with a flood [of war]

The END is consummated with the destruction of the “sanctuary and the city;” both vision and prophecy would also have to of been finished, “sealed up,” at that time as well. The destruction of the city and sanctuary is directly connected to the sealing up of vision and prophecy (both come to an end together).

Objection: Some will say that sealing up vision and prophecy is only a reference to Christ’s work on the cross which occurs WITHIN the 70 weeks, not 40 years later at the destruction of the city and sanctuary. Or that vision and prophecy is sealed up in the person of Christ.

It is most certainly true that prophecy is sealed up in Christ, but you cannot separate Christ from his work, ministry, and kingship. Per Matthew 24 (as well as Daniel and Revelation) the destruction of the temple and city (70 ad) are certainly part of Christ’s work and are thus tied to the “sealing up vision and prophecy” As Luke also says:

Luke 21
20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Also, concerning the sealing up of vision and prophecy, besides Daniel, other OT passages speak about the ending of vision and prophecy at the end of the OC age. New revelation and prophecy are condemned after the sealing up.Zech 13:4
On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his prophetic vision.
And if anyone still prophesies [after this time] , his father and mother, to whom he was born, will say to him, ‘You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD’s name.’ When he prophesies, his own parents will stab him.

A post 70 ad prophecy or writing of “revelation” and “prophecy” would not be likely being such things were not to happen after the “sealing up”, and “fulfillment” of all things written which were to happen at the destruction of the city and temple. So, did John really prophesy AFTER the sealing up of vision and prophecy and the fulfillment of all things written? Or did he prophesy BEFORE the time was to come when vision and prophecy were to come to an end?

Objection: Some may argue that the sealing up of prophecy in the Daniel 9 passage has to happen within the 70 weeks (which came to an end 3.5 years after Christ’s work on the cross) because that is what the Angel says. And if this sealing up did take place within the 70 weeks, we no doubt know that further prophecy was written after this because the NT was written after this; thus it does not matter if John wrote Revelation after 70 ad, because all the NT was written after the “sealing up.”

The main thing I want to point out in this objection, as a mistake, is this: “WITHIN”Dan 9:25
5 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.

Some seem to want to keep confining things “within” the 70 weeks whereas the prophecy itself does not. This section of scripture makes a clear distinction as to what is going to be confined to the 70 weeks, and what is the RESULT of those things.

Here is a clear example of what is confined WITHIN the 70 weeks according to the prophecy.
Rebuilding Jerusalem, rebuilding the wall, troublesome times, the coming of Christ, etc. these are all WITHIN the 70 weeks.

Now, what is going to be the RESULT of the 70 weeks?

Dan 9:24
4 “Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,

All those For “TO(s)” are ‘ends‘ not ‘means,’ and the “to(s)” are a RESULT.
Bringing in everlasting righteousness was the result of the 70 weeks events. Sealing up vision and prophecy was the result of the 70 weeks events. As the critic and I may agree “vision and prophecy are sealed up in Christ” BUT NOT apart from Christ’s work and ministry and that includes:
Dan 9:26
And the people of the prince [messiah?] who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.Matt 22:7
But the king was furious; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. [The KING is Christ.]Dan 9:24
24 “Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city

Part of the work of Christ was to send fourth his armies and destroy the city and sanctuary.

And that destruction is the END (climax) of the prophecy; which end is included in the coming of Christ and the result of the ministry of Christ.

The end of all these things was complete at the destruction of the city and sanctuary. For that was what the decree was given unto. Again, what also was a result of these things? To seal up both vision and prophecy. Also, as Luke says concerning that same END: For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

A late dating of Revelation makes both “vision and prophecy” go past the appointed end. The “sealing up” is not within the 70 weeks, it is the result of it, which is ultimately concluded at the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

Does not Luke’s statement make this even clearer? That the destruction of the temple/city is the “fulfilling” and completion of all prophecy, which makes “vision and prophecy” sealed up.

I don’t make “seal up vision and prophecy” the CLIMAX of all things. It was one of many things that would result from the 70 weeks completed work. I make the “END” the climax, and the end is: “And the city and sanctuary will be destroyed” (Daniel 9:26)

That is the climax; once that happens there is nothing left to be fulfilled in the Daniel 9 prophecy. Why is this the end? Because the prophecy begins by saying what is decreed for “your people, and the holy city” The prophecy in Daniel 9 develops and ENDs with the destruction of the city.

Back to how this relates to the dating of Revelation.
Revelation details this SAME destruction of the holy city and the same results of the ministry and coming of Christ. Thus, also, in regards to the Daniel 9 prophecy, the “finishing” (sealing up) of vision and prophet, HAS to be done before the actual fulfillment of the “all things written” (i.e., the destruction of the city and sanctuary). Therefore revelation must be written BEFORE 70ad.

For, the (“For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled”.) fulfilling all “things written” parallels the “sealing up vision and prophecy” in Daniel 9, as Luke and Daniel also both reference the destruction of the city and temple.

So again, how is it that John, speaking of the same things, does so AFTER the fulfillment? How can John call his book (i.e, Revelation) a book of prophecy if it is after the “fulfillment of all things written” and it is after the “sealing up of vision and prophecy?”

Question: What about the “gap theory” within the 70 weeks? We know that dispensationalists will enter in a gap of time from the 69^th week to the 70^th week (2000+ years), but is it reasonable for a preterist to enter in a gap between the time in the last week, where Christ is cut off, to the destruction of the city and sanctuary (a gap of 40 years).

My above points are in no way based on a preterist “gap theory.” The dispensationalists have NO exegetical warrant to enter a 2000 year gap before the last week, and, so likewise neither does the preterists (even if it be a smaller 40 year one). One of my big emphasis’ on this topic is distinguishing between the EVENTS of the 70 weeks and the RESULTS of the 70 weeks. Also, there is what I would call an “Already/Not yet” paradigm, which is basically a spiritual truth which has not had a visible consummation. Example, Christ’s sacrifice did in essence (spiritually) put an end to sacrifice and offering, but, the visible reality of that was not realized (consummated) until 70ad. This would not constitute a “gap.” The event that happened WITHIN the 70 weeks was the “cutting off” of Christ (which spiritually put an end to sacrifice) BUT the RESULT, the physical visible consummation of that, was the destruction of the temple when the sacrifice was forever physically taken away. Hence, if Christ had not done his sacrificial work then the temple would have to of remained.
The EVENTS of the 3.5 year earthly ministry of Christ were put into place within the 70 weeks. But, the RESULTS were the spiritual truths becoming realities at the consummation of the kingdom.Matthew 16

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Christ inaugurated the kingdom in his death and resurrection, and consummated the kingdom (visible realities) at his coming. Again, there is no “gap,” simply a fulfillment of the events of the 70 weeks coming to an end with Christ, and the results of those things coming to fruition at the destruction of the city and sanctuary. This is why Luke say’s that it is the destruction of the temple and the city that is a FULFILLMENT OF ALL THINGS WRITTEN in Luke 21

Objection: Some may say that, for example, the atonement In Daniels prophecy was made by Christ at the cross, thus the atonement took place within the 70 weeks, not after. So too then must the sealing up of vision and prophecy; either the atonement was made by Christ or it wasn’t, if it was by Christ then it was during the 70 weeks not after. And so either the sealing up of vision and prophecy was done in Christ or it wasn’t.

This objection misses what I said earlier about the “already/not yet” and “spiritual realized/earthly realized” paradigms. The 40 year time was unique in this aspect. The sacrifice and offering was really stopped when Christ offered his one sacrifice, but the earthly enforcement, or realization of that came in 70ad when the sacrifices stopped visibly for everyone in the whole world to see.

Same with atonement; Christ really did make atonement, but, as we know, the world, while the temple still stood, saw animal sacrifice and atonement for sin as valid, by it still happening and appearing to be made every day in the temple (so the atonement of Christ was not fully visibly realized). Even some of the 1^st century Jewish Christians partook of communion (the Lord ‘s Supper) as well as the ceremonial system in going to the temple and participating in the rituals and offerings. BUT, once the temple atonements were put away, in the flesh, in the physical reality, by being destroyed, there remained ONLY ONE atonement left to be realized by the people of God, both Jew and gentile—the once for all atonement of Christ. There was no longer an appearance of the two, but just the ONE. And in this way it can be said that the atonement was made by Christ, at the cross, but was realized and put in full effect and force, once the temple was destroyed.

If this is true of the atonement, which is the more difficult to address in regards to the objection, then the sealing up of vision and prophecy should be easily understood as “consummated” in the destruction of the city and sanctuary as well.

Concluding thoughts:

Since the Temple and sacrifice is the typology of the Old Covenant, which points to Christ, then that system and its infrastructure is done away with, or rather consummated, in the anti-types Advent. The system was spiritually consummated in the earthly ministry of Christ during the last part of Daniel’s 70 weeks, but the physical/visible consummation, the destruction of the infrastructure for that system, wasn’t completed until 70 A.D. Hence, judgment or desolations were determined to be poured out on Israel for a generation (40 years) and the infrastructure of their system was finally destroyed in 70 A.D.

What is being said is that Daniel’s prophecy covers and includes the end of revelation in the sealing up the vision and prophecy. I have started with Daniel and doctrinally moved from O.T. system to N.T. system and argued that the continuity in these systems requires the dating of Revelation’s writing to be prior to 70 A.D.

My thinking is, in my opinion, consistent with Reformed theology in general, applying the principle of covenantal continuity forward into a doctrinal argument defining text-critical issues concerning the date of Revelation’s writing. If structured covenantal continuity is sufficient to base ones theology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, etc. (i.e., reformed orthodoxy) on, then surely it is more than sufficient to aid one in determining the written date of a biblical text.

Damning Assumptions: What Advocates of Endless Torment Take For Granted

A Critical Analysis of Various Teachings Found in the Book “Damning Assumptions” Authored by Max H. Sotac Th.D.

Analysis written by

Shawn W. Atkins

Section 1 – Dealing with doctrinal presumptions

Section 2 – Comments on various parts of the book

 

Section 1

Doctrinal Presumption

Matthew 18:8-9 talks about the end of the wicked being thrown into “eternal fire.” Fudge states:

“Gehenna is the “eternal” fire for two reasons. First, it is not part of the present age but the age to come. It does not belong to time but to eternity. Second, those who go into it suffer everlasting destruction. When the unquenchable fire finally destroys the lost, they will be gone forever.”

The presumption here is that “this age” is historical ‘created’ time and the “age to come” is non-historical, timeless eternity. The former is the ‘dimension’ where physical life takes place, for a time until it ends, the latter is the ‘dimension’ where “eternity” or eternal life takes place, for an unlimited amount of time, i.e., not having an end. Built into the above presumption is the thought that “time” will end, i.e., “this age” will end. Time is thought to have a beginning and an ending, but the “age to come” is thought to be eternal. Thus many look for the supposed end of the world, or the end of history (and time). Time and history are said to end at the “final judgment” or “last judgment” of the world.

Mr. Sotak’s book is built heavily upon the above presumption and view of time and eternity. I believe the above presumption to be false and any doctrine that is built on it should be reformulated on either a stronger foundation or scrapped. I will provide a brief alternative to this view.

When eternity is seen as unending time then the meaning of age (ages, this age, age to come, etc.) is made clearer, having a reference point within unending time. Rather than viewing “eternity” as an outer-worldly ‘dimension’ outside of time and space a more sober view should be taken. Defining eternity as time in its entire unending extension (unlimited in both backward and forward directions) is simple and precise. Now, to have a backward and forward direction to eternity means that at some point in unending time God acted in bringing something into time. Of course the first instance that we have recorded for us of God doing just such a thing is found in Genesis 1. The creation act was not the creation or beginning of time, but of something within time. God’s first words were not “and let there be time.”

Whatever is brought into time is limited in time in two possible ways. First, in being brought into endless time it is limited in one direction (the backward) but unlimited in the other direction (the forward). It has a beginning but not an end. Second, by design it could be limited in both directions; in the backward direction by having a beginning and in the forward direction by having an end. But in either case, it is NOT time itself that begins and ends, but rather that which has entered into time or which has ceased to exist in time.

The scriptures speak of “this age” and the “age to come,” but only in respect to redemptive (biblical) history. Both ages enter into time itself. Both ages have a beginning point. One age has a beginning and ending, “this age.” We know that “this age” has an end because it is replaced by “the age to come.” We also know that “the age to come” has a beginning because it ‘comes’ (begins) and replaces the former age. Thus both ages enter into time and eternity, and thus one age CANNOT be time and the other age eternity as is proposed in the presumption.

Scripture records redemptive history, not world history or profane/secular history. Scriptures terminology (e.g., “age,” “age to come,” “eternal”) must be defined within its context. From beginning to end scripture records the redemptive history of Israel. The Hebrew Moses begins the story and the Hebrew Apostle John ends the story. The bible contains a completed redemptive historical narrative. The narrative is set within a covenantal framework. Within this redemptive historical context we find the biblical author’s meaning of the terms “this age” and “the age to come.”

Jesus came at the end of the age, i.e, the end of “this age.” Within the redemptive historical narrative we find Jesus entering the scene at the end of a certain history, a history based within the framework of a certain covenant. The (what we call) “old covenant” world, or age, was coming to an end, and the work and ministry of Christ was to bring in a “new covenant” world, or age. The apostles not only lived at the end of this age, but preached the message of its soon coming end. The end of the age, i.e., the passing away of the old-covenant way of life, is that time from Christ’s announcement of the new covenant way of life (his gospel proclamation and invitation) until Christ’s Parousia when the old covenant way of life is completely destroyed (in 70 A.D.). The N.T. was written with this time frame and its authors lived and preached within this time frame (the transition from “this age” to “the age to come” or from “old covenant life” to “new covenant life”). Going back to the original author’s context we arrive at their meaning of words and terms used within their history. It was their age that was ending and it was them that looked for the age to come. This “age to come” was about to come to them in time and history, it had a beginning point (within time) which logically disqualifies it from being eternity, eternal, or the “eternal state” (as some say).

Engaging the Above Argument with Mr. Sotac’s “Damning Assumptions”

On page 31 of the book Mr. Sotac introduces the traditionalist argument, from Matthew 12:31-32, that not forgiven means never forgiven, because this age and the age to come covers both time and eternity; meaning the un-forgiven are eternally guilty. The traditionalists use that scripture to say that guilt lasts forever (and consequentially the punishment of the guilty). But rather then engaging the traditionalist exegetically here Mr. Sotac grants the traditionalists their false presumption and then agrees with it. He says “Conditionalists agree with these verses too, which is why they believe that once a person is punished and destroyed, he will never be forgiven by God or brought back to life” in the context of “the age to come” being a sort of eternal state. BUT the traditionalist argument on this scripture has no exegetical warrant anyhow, and now, neither does the conditionalists who agrees with these scriptures too. Mr. Sotac is engaging the traditionalist within the traditionalists faulty ‘box’ at this point, rather than crushing the box.

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”  Knowing their thoughts, [Jesus] said to them. . . But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. . .  Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:24-32)

Where is the exegetical warrant in bringing out the eternal state, the after-life, punishment in the after-life, etc. from this scripture? The context is set when Jesus heals a demon possessed man and the Pharisee’s accuse Jesus of essentially using sorcery, the power of Satan, to perform such miracles. These same Phairsee’s who are big on accusing Jesus and others of blasphemy against God have just attributed the power of God, i.e., the Holy Spirit, to that of Satan; they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. They have rebelled against God and all that is good.

There is/was no forgiveness for these men in the age in which they lived for blasphamey. There was no sacrifice, offering, restitution, etc. under the law-covenant way of life. Just like the murderer, the law provided no forgiveness for them, as could be found for other sins under the law (e.g., speaking a word against your neighbor. In the Phairisee’s case here their neighbor is Jesus; there was a way of forgiveness in the law age when speaking against your neighbor which the Pharisee’s could have pursued and thus received forgiveness.). And LIKEWISE in the age to come, i.e., the new covenant way of life, there is no way of forgiveness set up for the blasphemer of the Holy Spirit. There is no atonement/forgiveness (under the N.C. blood of Christ) for the one who rejects the work of Christ as it was wrought by the power of God, and the Holy Spirit. In the new covenant age to come the blasphemer remains un-forgiven just like the blasphemer in the old covenant age, because in both ages (covenants) there is no sacrifice/atonement to pursue for such a one.

Eternal un-forgiveness, eternal guilt, eternal punishment, etc. is not being taught in this scripture. The traditionalist tries to use this scripture to support eternal guilt and punishment of the un-forgiven because of his false presumption that “the age to come” is equivalent to the “eternal state.” And the conditionalist errs in debating the traditionalist on this scripture when he does so based on the same false presumption.

Doctrinal Presumption

“[Sinners] are justly punished for the sins of that one life [in hell] and then mercifully terminated.”

The assumption here, which is held by traditionalists as well, is that there is more than one justice of God to be served upon the guilty party. In this conditionalist statement we find 3 justices to be served out to the guilty party. Here is an example related to the statement: An adulterer is found guilty of his crime in accordance with the law of God. God’s law demands that justice be served upon the guilty party. The adulterer is then stoned (the means) to death (the ends, i.e., the punishment). The adulterer now ‘goes to hell’ where he will have another justice sentence served upon him. He will be punished in hell for some duration of time. After the adulterer is finished with this punishment a third phase of justice is served upon him. The adulterer is destroyed completely.

Where in the law/word of God does it teach that multiple phases of justice are required? Was not the law of God and justice perfectly served when the adulterer was stoned per the law’s requirement? Or for the traditionalist, where is it taught in the law of God that an infinite number of punishments, or justice services, are required? Whether you have 3 justice services like the conditionalist, or infinite justice services like the traditionalists, both are based on the assumption of multiple justice services.

One thing should be noted about Mr. Sotak’s above statement. He says that the sinner is “mercifully terminated”, but earlier in his book he argues that the “fires of hell” consume the sinner (unto destruction) and he does so in the context of these fires representing God’s wrath. This seems like a contradiction. Is this consumption (termination) God’s wrath or God’s mercy? It surely cannot be both. Does God mercifully inflict his wrath? If the consumption and termination of the sinner by the fires of hell is God’s wrath then it is not done mercifully. The term “mercifully terminated” in its fullest sense is “mercifully consumed by God’s wrath in the fires of hell” when the conditionalist argument on the nature of the fires of hell is seen. The term is an oxymoron unless the conditionalist changes his argument on the consuming fires of hell in relation to God’s wrath.

Doctrinal Presumption

“His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:12)

Mr. Sotak say’s the following about this verse:

“John the Baptist is speaking here of the Messiah’s salvation and judgment. John says that the chaff, referring to the wicked, will be burned up. To conditionalists, this clearly suggests the termination of the wicked, since fire disintegrates what it burns. . . We would conclude that the final judgment will result in ultimate annihilation.”

He then dives into explaining “the controversy about hell” in relation to John’s judgment language of “unquenchable fire.” The presumption here, for both the traditionalist and conditionalist, is that the bible’s judgment language or “consuming fire” language is usually a reference to “hell” itself; this “hell” being a place or state in some ‘dimension’ of the after-life, i.e., a place for the soul to endure some form of punishment. I believe this presumption is based on tradition and that the belief is inserted into these texts (eisegesis) rather than drawn out of the texts (exegesis). I find fault with the traditionalist and conditionalists interpretation of scripture again. The conditionalist errs in debating the traditionalist within the traditionalist’s ‘box’ rather than crushing the ‘box’. I will provide a brief alternative to the “traditional” view of these judgment texts.

Rather than preaching the message of a fiery judgment for the soul in the ‘after-life’ John the Baptist is speaking, as the last of the OT prophets, to Israel about future judgment. It is extremely common for the prophets of Israel to speak about the coming judgment and wrath of God upon apostate Israel. The final judgment comes when the Messiah comes, hence John’s words “he who is coming after me. . . HE will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.” The word ‘final’ in “final judgment” presupposes a series of judgments. This series of judgments, in biblical history, was against apostate Israel time and time again. John is announcing the fiery wrath of God that will consume apostate Israel once and for all. This is not a judgment against secular world history, the end of time, or a dimension of the after-life—again, the bible narrates the history of Israel.

The “fiery judgment” of the “last days” is the final judgment that was poured out upon apostate Israel when Israel was utterly consumed at the ‘appearing’ of the messiah in the year 70 A.D. Much of the scriptures that traditionalists use as a reference for an eternal hell are actually a reference to the eternal judgment that was brought against Israel. For example in the explanation of the “parable of the weeds” Jesus says:

He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace; In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:36-42)

The age that was ending was the old covenant age. At the close of that age apostate Israel would be judged. The chaff is gathered into the barn to be burned. When Judgment was poured out upon Israel in 70 A.D. apostate Jews were gathered from all over Judea and brought into Jerusalem. Jerusalem was then closed off and shut up as in a prison by the Roman armies and the Jews were trapped inside as the Romans made their siege. The historian Josephus records how a fire was set which consumed the temple and the priests and how a great slaughter of the apostate Jews was taking place, he also records an awful noise, the “weeping and gnashing of teeth”, from the flames as the apostates were consumed by the fire and put to death by the sword. The fiery furnace is Jerusalem in its final judgment.

We should not take the flaming, consuming, fires of God’s wrath in final judgment outside of its historical context. Jesus was sent to Israel and taught and warned Israel about her final judgment in the fires of hell. Even the eternal nature of the fire is better understood in the historical context. The judgment against apostate Israel was final, it was eternal. The fires that consumed her were unquenchable and eternal in the sense that it completely destroyed her—never to rise again. Her eternal judgment was a permanent judgment.

“her plagues will come in a single day, death and mourning and famine,
and she will be burned up with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her. . . The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.” (Revelation 18:8, 19:3)

 

Doctrinal Presumption

    Mr. Sotak agrees with traditionalists when saying that “The sufferings [punishments] of hell will be justly proportional to the sins committed in this life” and “most conditionalists believe in degrees of punishment [in hell].” Both the traditionalist and the conditionalist presume that a sinner needs to go to a place, they call hell, in order to receive God’s wrath, fulfilling justice. Both may disagree on the nature and duration of this wrath, but that there are degrees of punishment and that actual punishment will take place for at least some time is promoted by both views. I was unable to find any exegetical support for this presumption in Mr. Sotak’s book. The closest thing I found was a reference to Luke 12:47-48 where the “few blows” and “many blows” given to a servant in a parable was laxly seen as degrees of punishment in this place called hell. A brief look at the context of this parable will show that levels of punishment in the after-life is not being taught.

“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant
whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:35-48)

First and foremost this is a parable not a didactic teaching on hell. The “few blows” and “many blows” is a detail given in the parable highlighting two different consequences of the actions of the two characters (also details of the parable). A Detail given in a parable is designed to add colorful practicality to the meaning of a teaching, but is not the meaning itself. Jesus is teaching his disciples to prepare themselves for his parousia. Jesus is the master and the disciples are the servants. While Jesus is away he wants his disciples to be good stewards of all that he has given them. This is made clear at the conclusion of the teaching “to much is given much is required.” Though the master is delayed in his coming his disciples must still remain faithful, and still remain good stewards. If they fall away they will be counted among the unfaithful and judged accordingly.

We find this warning of Jesus having extreme significance just prior to the 70 A.D. parousia. Many disciples were questioning the coming of Christ to end the old covenant, many were falling away from the new covenant way of life and going back to the old, and many failed to be faithful and heed Christ’s warning of coming judgment. Those who fell away and did not come outside of the camp of the unfaithful were counted among the unfaithful and punished with them, just like a servant who did not heed his master’s words and was beaten accordingly.

The historical context of the faithful is those who left the old covenant and entered the new covenant and remained there. The falling away that occurred during Christ’s 40 year departure was that of the “once enlightened” going back to the old covenant law way of life (You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. Galatians 5:4). Christ was teaching his disciples to remain faithful to the new covenant and to be good stewards of its promises; he was not teaching degrees of punishment for the souls of all sinners (through-out world history) in the after-life or hell. If a traditionalist or conditionalist is going to teach that there are degrees of punishment in hell, then it is going to have to be on much more solid ground then the minor details of a parable concerning the 1^st century disciples faithfulness and stewardship requirements.

Mr. Sotak makes a (in my opinion great) simple, biblical, and precise, statement when he says “the justice of God is fully satisfied when the wrath of God is propitiated” in the context of perfect or complete justice. Unfortunately Mr. Sotak departs from this truth when he goes along with the traditionalist in bringing justices’ satisfaction beyond the wrath of God in teaching that hell is where levels of punishments take place. In Romans 13 Paul makes a simple and precise statement as well regarding the propitiation of God’s wrath:

whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:2-4)

We see that the “incurring judgment” and the “carrying out of God’s wrath” are done by the sword in this world. Justice is satisfied and the wrath of God propitiated in the flesh, or rather, by the destruction of the flesh, and not by some sort of levels of punishment to the soul in some other nether-world dimension. Paul also makes it clear earlier in Romans when the wrath of God is revealed from heaven by the consequences (judgments) that take place in the flesh:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. . . they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. . . God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. . . receiving in their flesh the due penalty for their error (Romans 1)

If the wrath of God is carried out by the sword (whether by stoning, burning, hanging, etc.), and the sword is designed to destroy the flesh, then the wrath of God is complete in the destruction of the flesh. The conditionalist accuses the traditionalist of going beyond what is required by divine justice in the traditionalist view of eternal punishment, but the conditionalist does the same; extending punishment beyond the infliction of God’s wrath.

Was the unquenchable fire, wrath, and final judgment that came upon apostate Israel something that also takes place in hell? Is, or was, Israel sent to a nether-world dimension to be further punished for her sins, or did the destruction of her flesh by the eternal fire satisfy divine justice and propitiate God’s wrath? I believe the latter to have more biblical warrant. We also have the same example in the true Israel of God, Jesus Christ. Paul says:

By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, God condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3).

God’s wrath upon sin, the sin of the elect, was fully propitiated upon the death of Christ, i.e., the death of his flesh. No further punishments, levels of punishments, justice services, tortures, etc. were required…ONLY the destruction (death) of the flesh as is plainly required in the Law of God. According to the bible God operates and interacts with man in time and in history, and numerous examples are given that show that God inflicts his wrath and satisfies his justice in time and in history as well.

Doctrinal Presumptions Conclusion

I believe that Mr. Sotak’s doctrinal presumptions are essentially equivalent to those of his opponent, the traditionalist, in his book “Damning Assumptions.” Or, to state it simply, I believe Mr. Sotak is too much of a traditionalist himself. As I mentioned a couple times above, instead of Mr. Sotak crushing the traditionalist’s ‘box’ he argues with the traditionalists within the same ‘box’. I do praise his courage and biblical (rather than traditional) commitment in questioning the traditionalist’s unearned monopoly on the subject of eternal punishment and hell and his efforts towards bringing that monopoly down. The Berean spirit is alive and well in the Church today.

Section 2

Definition of Terms

Throughout Mr. Sotak’s book I found a lack of the definition of terms as well as an assumption that the terms used by traditionalists were correct. Rather than biblically defining, for example “hell,” the traditional thought is assumed. The traditionalist view is the view that is being questioned and presented as wrong; why assume that the ideas behind the terms they employ are biblical (or at the least, why are they not questioned)? Things such as “death,” “torment,” “eternal punishment,” “justice,” “wrath,” and “the soul” are all, in my opinion, defined through the traditionalist’s pre-determined paradigm. It is not these terms and concepts that determine, or help determine, the traditionalist view on hell, rather it is the traditionalist view on hell that determines the definition of these terms and concepts. It seems that both the traditionalist and the conditionalist start at the same basic definition of the terms involved in this topic. Whose paradigm is being employed?

When writing about “the resurrection,” for example, it would need to be defined especially when engaging someone whose paradigm is in question. Then, even after defining the term, more definition is likely going to need to be done. If two opponents agree that “resurrection” is raising (life) from the dead (death) then surely an understanding of “the dead” is going to need to be pursued. If it is not pursued, and one person sees the dead as physical corpses and the other sees the dead as unregenerate living persons, then though resurrection is talked about by both opponents the debate will not progress. Likewise, in Mr. Sotak’s book I find a lack of progression due primarily to the “taking for granted” some of the biblical terms and concepts employed.

Immortality and the soul

Mr. Sotak does a good job in chapter 1 showing that immortality is not a natural endowment of the soul, but is rather supernatural, i.e., coming outside of one’s-self from God, in Christ, as a gift. Several of the traditionalist’s arguments on the natural immortality of the soul are brought out and then easily refuted. But one thing that was left un-answered at the end of the chapter was the nature of the soul, and the “other side of the coin,” sort of speak, towards eternal consciousness. Mr. Sotak says that “God alone has immortality because only God is immortal by nature” and with that statement, being true, the natural immortality of Man goes out the window–but what about “consciousness” (the other side of the coin)?

With Mr. Sotak’s biblical view of immortality, something to be sought in Christ, eternal consciousness is swept under the rug, i.e., he attempts to refute his opponent in one fell swoop without dealing with the other aspect. I will try to clarify how this seems to be done. Eternal consciousness is being equated (in a round-about way) with the immortality of the soul. Mr. Sotak is proving (rightly) that the immortality of the soul is not a natural aspect of man and that it is something that belongs to God alone. Man therefore does not have an immortal soul. Eternal consciousness is now left untouched and dismissed. In this way Mr. Sotak now does not have to deal with the nature of the soul nor the nature of consciousness. But without dealing with these things the insightful traditionalist will remain un-refuted.

Is “consciousness” the “soul”? Is the “soul” “consciousness”? Are they both one and the same? Is an animal conscious of its surroundings? If so does an animal then have a soul? Most dictionary definitions on consciousness do not include or even mention the soul. Eternal consciousness cannot be refuted by a refutation of the immortality of the soul. If the immortality of the soul is, biblically speaking, eternal life in Jesus Christ then we would all have to agree that the soul is not naturally immortal, but rather is naturally mortal. But are those who do not have eternal life in Christ conscience? Of course they are. The unregenerate possess just as much consciousness as the regenerate. Especially if Mr. Sotak maintains the biblical definition of immortality (which he should), consciousness remains an entirely separate topic to be debated.

 

Miscellaneous Comments and Questions

-Speaking on immortality Mr. Sotak says: “Adam and Eve were dependent on the tree of life before they fell and could have continued to live without death even after they fell. . . the tree of life, not some immortal quality, was responsible for the sustenance of their earthly lives.” What I gather from this statement is that Mr. Sotak believes that some sort of physical fruit, on planet earth, has innate power to provide man, fallen or un-fallen, with everlasting physical life. From the natural realm, science, and biblical teaching, I find it hard to believe that such super-natural fruit exists (or existed). What if I ate this fruit just before jumping out of an air plane with no parachute; would I just get back up after all my bones break and my internal organs explode? Can man obtain “incorruption” outside of Christ by finding this magical fruit and eating it? In my opinion Mr. Sotak loses a little bit of credibility in his argument at this point by bringing in such mysticism.

-Throughout the book Mr. Sotak interchanges his terminology in regards to his opposition to the traditionalist view of the after-life. He uses the terms “eternal consciousness,” “eternal punishment,” “eternal torment” and then “endless conscious torment” interchangeably; applying them to his opponent’s view. But which one are you specifically arguing against? “Eternal consciousness” of the unregenerate is not necessarily “eternal punishment” and “eternal torment” is not necessarily “eternal punishment” and “punishment” and “torment” are not the same thing. If I stub my toe and am in torment all night because of it, neither my toe nor my conscience is being punished. One can hold to “conscious torment” without holding to the traditionalist view of “eternal/everlasting punishment(s).”

Along the same lines Mr. Sotak equates “torment” with “torture;” he says, in the context of the traditionalist’s poor view of God’s mercy and justice: “The concept of mercy is difficult to learn when we are seeking to imitate a God who torments his enemies without mercy forever.” I believe that this statement paints with too broad a brush. Perhaps some traditionalists believe that God does torture his enemies forever, but it is unlikely that all who hold to an “eternal consciousness” position would believe that God inflicts the torment/torture himself. As was shown in the “stubbed toe” example, one may find himself in a state of torment without that state of torment being the direct result of God’s punishment or torture. One can be in a state of torment without being in a state of torture or punishment. The “tormented” person may be tormented solely because of the results of his circumstances and not the imposition of an outside force.

-In regards to the “tortures” of hell that Mr. Sotak accuses the traditionalist as having, resulting in a lack of mercy; does he forget that his conditionalist view also has the same hell, torture, and punishment going on as well? Only his view is restricted in the “eternal state” by some condition or duration of “time.” Both the traditionalist and the conditionalist church must equally teach the torture of God’s enemies, being it is only the condition of time (in the supposed timeless eternal state) that separates the two positions and NOT the punishments in hell.

-On page 72 Mr. Sotak informs his readers that the conditionalist is often accussed of being to lenient or “letting people of easy” in their view of punishment for sin. I’m curious if some ever accuse the conditionalist of being too harsh. The conditionalist takes the traditionalist’s whole doctrine on hell (its tortures, punishments, torments, etc.) and then adds to it a whole new level of retribution (punishment), i.e., utter destruction. Again, taking all the negative connotations that come with the traditional doctrine on hell (besides the “time” factor), the conditionalist simply adds to it.

Footnotes_____________________________________

[1] Fudge, Edward William. The Fire that Consumes page 44

[1] “Eternal life” here is meant to convey one’s existence (life) in the so called ‘eternal state’, not eternal life in a salvation sense. It is one’s state in eternity; whether in hell, annihilated, in the grave, or in heaven.

[1] Damning Assumptions page 81 (and elsewhere)

[1] The alternative view is being mostly taken from another author who I am leaving un-named at this time.

[1]  This limitation may fit well in the conditionalist’s view of the soul.

[1] Given by inspiration of God of course which sets it apart from any other historical narrative.

[1] When Jesus was teaching on the Law of God he said: “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23)

[1] Damning Assumptions page 79 footnote.

[1] Damning Assumptions pages 39-44

[1] I think the conditionalist argument on the “unstoppable-consuming” nature of the fires of hell is fine, but it is the attaching of “mercy” to God’s consuming wrath that causes the problem. I would dump the term “mercifully terminated” and replace it with the language of the bible—“consuming fire” or consumed (destroyed) in the fire.

[1] Ibid page 11

[1] Ibid page 12

[1] “the entire nation [of Israel] was shut up by fate as in a prison, and the Roman Army encompassed the city” Josephus, The Wars of the Jews 6.9.4

[1] “The flames were also carried a long way, and made an echo, together with the groans of the slain…One cannot imagine anything greater or more terrible than this noise…the people made sad moans at the calamity that they were under…the multitude in the city joined in the outcry…they broke out into groans and outcries again: Perea did also return the echo as well as the mountains round about the city and augmented the force of the entire noise. Yet was the misery itself more terrible then the disorder, seeming that the hill itself, on which the temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part” Josephus, The Wars of the Jews 6.5.1

[1] Damning Assumptions page 73

[1] Ibid page 35

[1] “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the [Jewish] fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing [in the old covenant] as they were from the beginning of [its] creation.” 2Peter 3:4

[1] “For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again” Hebrews 6:4-6

“we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” 1John 2

[1] And then many will fall away. . . And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” Matthew 24:10-11

[1] Damning Assumptions page 73-74

[1] Ibid page 73

[1] At this time it should be noted that the author of this paper does not deny that there are eternal consequences for sin, nor “after-death” consequences for the unregenerate sinner. But there is a difference between consequences and punishment. There is a difference between torment and torture. The author also does not deny the existence, or rather the significance, of “hell” as described in scripture; but one must be committed to the biblical-historical (redemptive-historical) use of such terminology in oriental literature rather than using the terminology for a modern (western) spiritualist idea or concept of the after-life.

[1] Of course not all of Mr. Sotak’s doctrinal presumptions found in his book are traditionalist; I, in this short review, have only brought out a few that I thought were.

[1] Mr. Sotak does question some of the traditionalist’s terms and the ideas and concepts behind the terms, for example “eternal fires,” but I think even the more basic terms need to be questioned and then defined.

[1] Surely “Daming Assumptions” is not intended to be an exhaustive work on any one particular subject, but rather a short introduction to the idea that there are problems in traditionalist teachings. So, it is understandable why Mr. Sotak did not break down each and every term employed.

[1] Damning Assumptions page 17

[1] Mr. Sotak barely touches on the point I’m making here when he say’s on page 18 “Even if God were to sustain the conscious existence of the damned in hell, there would be no reason, biblically speaking, to refer to them as immortal souls.” But why is there not just as much time, or even more time, devoted to consciousness as there is to the immortality of the soul?

[1] I don’t mean to say that he loses credibility as an author, only that his argument as it fits into this section of the book loses credibility.

[1] This is understandable being some modern dictionaries also define the two words similarly.

[1] This brings up another problem based on what was said earlier on in this paper about time and the eternal state. In Mr. Sotak’s presupositional leanings he has “the age to come” being the “eternal state” (consequently the end of time) and that state is entered into upon death. . . yet somehow in the conditionalist schema there is a duration of “time” in the eternal state which warrants their view of “limited” punishment. How is this duration of time regulated in the timeless eternal state when the (false) presupposition, the “age to come=eternal state,” is upheld?

[1] The reviewer had planned on continuing his work, but, this last sentence seemed to be a good concluding point.