Category: Religion

Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

What a Hell !!

The Nature and Duration of Punishment

The Nature of Hell/ The Nature and Duration of Punishment

Russel, the founder of JW, was sixteen years old when he became a skeptic because he couldn’t accept the doctrine of hell. 1 In 1879 Russel attended a lecture on hell given by Advent Christian Church leader Jonas Wendell. Relieved that there was no eternal conscious punishment Russel’s faith in the Bible was restored. 2

Professor Allan Gomez says that the discussion on the annihilationist’s arguments against the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked revolves around only two main points:

Does the wicked experience conscious torment? and Do they suffer this torment eternally?

He says: “But I believe that there are two sets of texts that answer these two questions conclusively. One set of passages comes from Matthew 25; the other verses come from the Book of Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10 3

“The Nature of Hell (Matthew 25:41, 46)

[v. 41] “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire [to pur to aionion] which has been prepared for the devil and his angels….’ [v. 46] And these will go away into eternal punishment [kolasin aionion], but the righteous into life eternal [zoen aionion].” 4

We observe first of all that the wicked share the same fate as Satan and his demonic hosts. Indeed, this text tells us that hell was created specifically for Satan and his angels. As followers of Satan, impenitent men will meet the same fate as he. This is significant because when we look at other passages in the Book of Revelation that speak of the Devil’s fate (see below), we are fully justified in ascribing this same fate to unredeemed men.” Notice that this passage describes hell as a place of “eternal fire.” Should we understand this to mean literal, material, and physical fire? Or should we regard the expression as metaphorical language, designed to convey an awful spiritual reality through physical language? Most conservatives — who affirm the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment — would say that this is metaphorical language. For one thing, the rich man in Luke 16:24 is described as being in agony in the flames. He is also described as having a tongue, and Lazarus is said to have a finger. But this scene occurs in Hades, during the disembodied state between death and resurrection. It is therefore difficult to see how a nonphysical being could have a literal tongue, much less be tormented by literal, physical fire. The same would apply to the other physical metaphors used to describe hell, such as the undying worm (Mark 9:48) and the chains of darkness (Jude 6). 5

The Nature of Punishment (Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10)

[14:9] “…If anyone worships the beast and his image… [14:10] he will be tormented [basanisthesetai] with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. [14:11] And the smoke of their torment [basanismou] goes up forever and ever [eis aionas aionon]; and they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and his image,… [20:10] And the Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented [basanisthesontai] day and night forever and ever [eis tous aionas ton aionon].” 6

These texts describe the nature of the punishment as “torment.” The words used in these texts are forms of the Greek word basanizo. As Thayer states, basanizo means “to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment.” Likewise, Arndt and Gingrich say that basanizo means “to torture, torment,” and may apply to either physical or mental vexation. When we examine the uses of the verb basanizo and its various noun forms throughout the New Testament, we see that great pain and conscious misery are in view, not annihilation or cessation of consciousness. For example, the centurion’s sick servant is grievously tormented (deinos basanizomenos) by his palsy (Matt. 8:6). Revelation 12:2 uses the verb to describe the pains of childbirth. In 2 Peter 2:8, righteous Lot is described as tormented (ebasanizen) in his soul by the wicked deeds of the Sodomites. In Luke 16:23 and 28, the plural noun “torments” (basanoi) is used to describe the rich man’s conscious suffering in Hades. Indeed, in verse 28 Hades is described as “the place of torment” (ho topos tou basanou). 7

The Duration of Punishment in Revelation

When we considered Matthew 25:46 above, we noted that aionos can, in some contexts, qualify nouns of limited duration. (Though, as we also observed, the context of Matthew 25 demands that we take aionios in its unlimited signification there.) But here, we find the emphatic forms eis aionas aionon and eis tous aionas ton aionon (“unto the ages of the ages”). This construction is only used to describe unending duration. As Sasse points out, the “twofold use of the term [aionios]” is designed “to emphasize the concept of eternity.” The fact that the forms used are plural in number further reinforces the idea of never-ending duration. Speaking of the Greek construction in this verse, the great biblical commentator R. C. H. Lenski observes: “The strongest expression for our ‘forever’ is eis tous aionan ton aionon, ‘for the eons of eons’; many aeons, each of vast duration, are multiplied by many more, which we imitate by ‘forever and ever.’ Human language is able to use only temporal terms to express what is altogether beyond time and timeless. The Greek takes its greatest term for time, the eon, pluralizes this, and then multiplies it by its own plural, even using articles which make these eons the definite ones.” 8

This same emphatic construction is found in Revelation 1:6; 4:9; and 5:3, where it refers to the unending worship of God. Revelation 4:10 and 10:6 it is used to describe God’s own endless life. And in Revelation 22:5 the construction is employed to characterize the everlasting reign of the saints. 9

Note also that the unending nature of the torment is shown by the fact that the expression “day and night” is used to describe its duration. The expression “day and night” is indicative of ceaseless activity. This same phrase is used of the never-ending worship of God in Revelation 4:8 and 7:15. By juxtaposing the words “day and night” with “forever and ever” in 20:10, we have the most emphatic expression of unending, ceaseless activity possible in the Greek language. In summary, these verses from Matthew and Revelation are more than adequate to answer the two questions before us. The language is unambiguous, emphatic, and conclusive. These verses by themselves should be sufficient to settle the argument forever. 10

Jesus more than anyone annunciated the doctrine of everlasting torment for the lost. He was a perfect manifestation of love and justice and stooped to become one of us and bore the vengeance of God’s fire. If God should open our eyes to understand the terrible price He paid, we would in that instant comprehend the awful guilt of spurning that price. If those who scorned the old covenant were consumed with the fire of this present age, “how much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant” (Heb. 10:29)? 11

Professor Jones in his book “Why God Allows Evil” says that occupants of hell will remain eternally unrepentant and it is consistent with the Scriptures. Why should we think they will ever repent? When God’s wrath is poured out on the wicked in Revelation 16:9, we read that “they were seared with intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over the plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify Him” 12

It seems that Russel’s sentimentalism assumed that in heaven our feelings about others will be as present and our joy in the manifesting of God’s justice will be no greater than it is now, says Professor Gomez.  

These arguments clearly refute JW’s arguments. What do you think?

  1. Robert Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 9.[↩]
  2. Ibid., 10.[↩]
  3. http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell4.html[↩]
  4. Ibid.,[↩]
  5. Ibid.,[↩]
  6. http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell4.html[↩]
  7. Ibid.,[↩]
  8. Ibid.,[↩]
  9. Ibid.,[↩]
  10. http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell4.html[↩]
  11. Ibid.,[↩]
  12. Jones, Why God Allows Evil (Oregon: Harvest, 2017), 99[↩]
Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion World History

Understanding Inerrancy of Bible

The doctrine of Inerrancy has been long an emphatic affirmation of the Christian theological tradition in both Catholics and Protestants. 1 But it has been looked at with considerable suspicion starting from the first decades of the twenty-first century, many skeptics considered the doctrine as a shibboleth.

But if the Bible contains errors then Christians are faced with a bigger problem. What is true and what is not true in the Bible? What is at stake is the shipwreck of our faith. How can we trust Paul and the others when they wrote that God resurrected Jesus from the dead? How can we believe that God will keep his promises if he could not keep his Word true through the centuries?

I don’t think that the inerrancy was a theory that was developed through the centuries but Jesus and the apostles themselves looked upon the entire truthfulness and utter worthiness of the Scripture. 2 I understand that the inerrancy of the Bible is that the Bible does not contain errors.

The authors inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote exactly what God wanted. The text we have today is what the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write. God revealed Himself through special revelations that were given directly from Him. These revelations were recorded in books as God told his prophets to do so, like in Jeremiah 30:2. “Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you”. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed (Gk. theopneustos).

Paul Wegner explains that this process is not just that God breathed life into the words of an author after he had written them; if this was the case, they would be primarily man’s words. 3 God was intimately involved in the lives of the authors that He knew what they would say and even how they would say it. 4 The individual personalities were thus combined with the indwelling, guiding work of the Holy Spirit to Create Scripture. 5

My understanding of the relationship of inerrancy to the doctrines of inspiration and infallibility is that the infallibility of Scripture does not rest on the infallibility of the human writers but on the integrity of God. 6 Because God is perfect, His Word is perfect and Scripture is perfect. It takes into account God’s character and the nature of his dealings with humans in the world. God used imperfect faulty men to write His Words but inspiration is not the elimination of all human involvement in the production of Scripture. Yet, the critical biblical affirmation of the inspiration is of the inspiration of the text. 7

So, God used fallible and faulty human beings and words as his own words. While inspiration and inerrancy are not synonyms, God is not a man that he should lie (Numbers 23:19). The text is God-breathed and it is the unfailing veracity of God that gives a truthful character to the text. 8 We don’t need to solve all difficulties in the Bible but it doesn’t mean it is not true, perhaps we need more time studying it.

The purpose of the Bible is to bring us in fellowship with Christ. 9 God created the human language and there is no reason why genuinely human language or a genuinely human text must be fallible or contain errors. 10 When difficulties arise, it is an invitation to engage in Scripture that is unfailingly true and always speaks and acts in accordance with the nature of God. 11

Joel M Stevao

  1. James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? (Illinois: Crossway, 2012),71.[↩]
  2. James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? (Illinois: Crossway, 2012),77.[↩]
  3. Paul G Wegner, The Journey from Text to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2004), 29.[↩]
  4. Ibid.,29.[↩]
  5. Ibid.,29.[↩]
  6. James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? (Illinois: Crossway, 2012),84.[↩]
  7. Ibid.,95.[↩]
  8. Ibid.,96.[↩]
  9. Ibid.,97.[↩]
  10. Ibid.,94.[↩]
  11. Ibid.,97.[↩]
Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

The Victory of the Cross

The Servant of God succeeded in His Mission

I wrote a text in 2015 criticizing the words of Pope Francis when he was visiting the United States. He said that because Jesus had failed on the cross, we can fail too in our daily actions. But that is not what the Bible says about Jesus’ death on the cross and I responded to Pope Francis by saying he was wrong.

Our failures and sins can be forgiven because Jesus did not fail on the cross.

Some criticized my text saying that maybe I had misunderstood him, and even some religious leaders agreed with the Pope, in an attempt to soften the pontiff’s words. The text is on the web “The Failure or the Victory of the Cross” and it is in Portuguese ” (O Fracasso da Cruz ou a Vitória da Cruz) 1

According to the Pope, Jesus, in his human nature, failed on the cross, because he died on the cross, so His death was a failure and thus we can fail too. In addition to the lack of biblical basis for such a position, as I have shown in my first text, I will show here what God said in relation to his “Servant” Jesus and His death on the cross.

In the first text “The Failure or the Victory of the Cross”, I used the New Testament to show that Jesus did not fail on the cross, in this text I will show through the Old Testament that Jesus succeeded in his mission and did not fail as Pope Francis implied.

When we do an exegesis of the text in Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12, which speaks of the suffering and glory of the Servant of the Lord, we find that God is saying that his Servant would be successful in his mission.

The Servant of the Lord introduced in Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 describes the suffering of the Messiah. This text speaks of how He was disfigured, had no beauty, was despised, took our iniquities upon Himself, and was oppressed, and humiliated, among other things.

When we read Isaiah 52:13 “Behold, my servant deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high” (NKJV) we have the perfect figure of the Messiah who is Jesus.

In the original Hebrew, the words “prudence” or “wisdom” is sakal which also means “to succeed, or to be successful”; then the text says He “shall be exalted” which in Hebrew is rum which means “to be lifted up, indicating beginning”; then text still says; “extolled” which is nasa in Hebrew indicating to ascend, in a continuation sense, and finally “very high” which is gabah, which indicates “highly exalted”. In Hebrew there is an “e” before the “highly exalted”, which is called “waw consecutive”, indicating sequence.

In the NIV translation, we have: “Behold, my servant will act wisely, He shall be raised and lifted up and highly exalted”.

So what we have here is God saying that his Servant will act with prudence or wisdom and be successful (sakal). And the result or proof of this is that He will be raised (rum), referring to His resurrection; He will then be lifted up (nasa), which refers to his ascension, and He will be highly exalted (gabah) which refers to his final state, at the climax of the sequence of events.

In verse 14 we find the word “shaman” which means to be “speechless or speechless” due to the terrible scene, for He did not seem human. In verse 15 we find the word “naza” or “sprinkle” which is the same word used in the Old Testament when the sacrifice was made and the blood was sprinkled for the remission of sins. Then the Servant should die, resurrect, suffer and sprinkle his blood for the nations, bringing salvation to the whole world, and finally, the Kings of the world will close their mouths and worship him because they will understand what the Servant accomplished. 2 In Jesus, we have the fulfillment of that prophecy.

In conclusion, we have God (Yahweh) saying that his Servant WOULD be successful and that he WAS successful in his mission. The Servant fulfilled the work God gave him, dying on the cross for our sins (Isaiah 53:10-12), the Servant will triumph (v10), because of his prudent act many will be justified (v11), and because he bore our sins He will be exalted. (v12).

We find in this text in Isaiah (52:13 – 53:12), not only the prophecy but the fulfillment of the prophecy written approximately 700 years earlier.

So with all certainty, we can say that Jesus did not fail on the cross, for God himself said that His Servant Jesus would not fail on the Cross.

And you will know the truth, and it will set you free. (John 8:32)

Joel Marcos Stevao
Christian Apologist

  1. https://apologian.blogspot.com/2015/09/o-fracasso-da-cruz-ou-vitoria-da-cruz.html[↩]
  2. Bruce Waltke, Ph.D. professor de Grego e Velho Testament no Biola University. (Understanding the Old Testament), 89 [↩]
Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

Application of the Mosaic Law to the life of the Christian

application of mosaic law in Christian life

By Joel Stevao

Since the inception of the Church Christians have faced the dilemma between the continuity and discontinuity of the Mosaic Law. Is the believer bound to keep the law? How do Christians relate to the Sabbath?  In this paper I will argue that the Mosaic Law and its regulatory purpose were intended for a period, for the people of Israel, to provide guidelines to their relationship with God under the Old Covenant and Christians are under a new covenant and subject to the Law of Christ, a law that is fulfilled by loving God and ones neighbor as oneself. (Mark 12:28-31).

The Purpose of the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament     

               The first purpose of the Mosaic Law was to show God’s graciousness to Israel, His people. Abraham was called from among the gentiles as the father of the nation of Israel because God chose to enter into a special relationship with them. Israel became God’s treasured possession (Ex.19.5) out of the nations of the world. The second purpose was for provision for approaching God which intended Israel to become a holy nation “a kingdom of priests” (Ex.19.6) and functioned as a blessing for those already redeemed. The third was to explain how to live the life of faith and please God. 1

The Law of Moses Cannot Save

Theologians agree that the Law had no salvific promise due to the sinful nature of men making them unable to keep the entire Law which is a requirement to be saved. The apostle Paul said that “The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.”  (Romans 8:3). The inability of the law to save is openly taught in the New Testament. Paul spoke to an audience in Antioch explaining that “through Him (Jesus), everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the Law of Moses” (Acts 13:39). 2 We see similar teachings in the New Testament where Peter speaking at a meeting in Jerusalem, reports his experience where a group of Pharisees wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses but Peter stood up and asked them: “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? And Peter responds to his own question by saying “No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:10-11).

We find further discussion in Romans 7 where Paul explains that even though the law was good, sin produced death because the law made him know what sin is. (Romans 7:7). It does not mean that the law was bad, on the contrary, it was holy, righteous, and good but unable to save.

            As professor Moo puts it this way “Paul summarizes in Romans 8:3, the law cannot rescue from the power of sin because the law is “weakened by the flesh (NIV ‘sinful nature”). Paul again here describes human sinfulness as the reason the law cannot bring salvation. 3

The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ

               The Apostle Paul teaches that Christians are not bound to the Law of Moses but bound the Law of the Spirit of Christ. Paul argues that the law given at Sinai makes no claim on those who believe in Christ, whether Gentile or Jew. We read in Galatians 2:15 that no one is justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ Jesus. Paul explains in Galatians 17-21 that the Law of Christ is not a license to live in sin or else someone would be a lawbreaker, but because righteousness was obtained not by the Mosaic Law but by faith in Christ through His death on the Cross.

            Paul makes claims vigorously in Galatians 3:10-14 that those who rely on the work of the law are cursed because it was impossible to do everything that the law requires. Someone would have to live by the law to be justified but because of our inability to keep it, one could not be justified. Faith in Christ is the central theme of Paul’s preaching and since the law was not based on faith (v.12) the law was a curse, but Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law becoming a curse for us. Paul goes on to say that “He redeemed us so that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.” (v.14) 

Freedom in Christ

            The Apostle Paul continues to admonish the Galatians in chapter five that Christ has set us free from the yoke of the law mentioning that being circumcised was going back to slavery and for those who were trying to be justified by the law had fallen away from grace since circumcision or not circumcision had no value. Paul makes no distinction from the Decalogue to the rest of the law when he says that “every man that allows himself to be circumcised was obligated to keep the whole law.”(v.3)

            For Paul, those who were trying to make the church go under the law were agitators and urged the church not to take any other view.

Moral Standards in the Mosaic Law and Law of Christ

               God’s moral law didn’t change in the new covenant. The Law of Christ is the counterpart to the Law of Moses and just as the Mosaic Law was normative for the Jews, the Law of Christ is binding for the Christian. Both are specific applications of God’s eternal moral standards. 4

            Paul appeals to the Gentiles to engage in ethical behavior by walking in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16) and being led by the Spirit and fulfilling the Law of Christ by bearing one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2). Paul explained that if we walk under the Law of the Spirit, we will not gratify the desires of the flesh, because they are in conflict with each other and one should not do whatever their flesh desire. Those who live according to the flesh will produce fruits of the flesh and will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21). There seems to be an apparent contradiction in the fact that again we are bound to a set of rules and regulations to obtain God’s approval but this is not the case. As I explained before, by obeying the entire law one could not be saved but obeying the Law of Christ results in Salvation which is done by faith alone in Christ. John wrote if we keep Jesus’ commandments, we know that we are in Him and if we are in Him we must live as Jesus did (1 John 2: 3-6).  The Law of Christ is fulfilled in loving God above all things (Mathew 22: 37) and your neighbor as yourself. (Gal. 6:2).

            Professor Strickland summarizes the Moral Law expressed in the Mosaic Law under the old covenant has its parallel to the Law of Christ under the new covenant, so the believer today may know God’s moral will. 5

The Fulfillment of the Law

               It is important to mention that the Mosaic Law was not just disposed of as a modem tossable, used once and discarded, it was still Scripture and although everything in it was no longer applicable, it could still instruct when used with a full understanding of its place and purpose. 6

Jesus denied any wish to abolish the Law or the prophets but instead He predicted their fulfillment (Mat. 5:17-18). Jesus fulfilled the Law in several ways: First, he fulfills the sacrificial system. The sacrifices in the Law could not take ways sins (Heb. 10:3), had to be continually repeated (Heb. 7:27), and were offered by an imperfect and finite priest. (Heb. 7:23-28). Second, Jesus fulfills the righteousness of the Law which no one could be considered righteous just observing the Law (Rom. 3:20). So in Christ, we are made righteous before God. (2 Cor. 5-21).

            The focus should not be on keeping the Law as a merit system but on Jesus Christ 7

The Mosaic Sabbath

               The Sabbath command was given to the Israelites in Exodus 20:8. “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy”. The main characteristic feature of this command was the absence of regular work on this day. Everyone should stop from their daily routine work, men or women, animals, and sojourners, equally had to stop and rest. Anyone who would desecrate it was to be put to death (Ex. 31:14). As part of the total obedience, there was a concern that all should share the benefits and privileges of release from daily labor for “humanitarian purposes (Ex.23:12) 8

The Sabbath was also given as a memorial of God’s redemptive activity in liberating the people from Egypt (Deut. 5:15).

The Fourth Commandment and the Decalogue

            The Christians who keep the Sabbath appeal to the fourth commandment as a valid eternal moral Law and should be normative for all peoples in the same way as the rest of the Decalogue. They accept that most of the Law was annulled or canceled as the sacrificial system but insist that the Decalogue still remains since it has a special status on the Covenant, but the Old Testament makes no distinction between the Mosaic Law and the Decalogue, they are seen as one. We find in Exodus 34:28 that the Ten Commandments were the words of the covenant, also Deuteronomy 4:13 speaks of the Ten Commandments as God’s covenant. The formulation of the Decalogue is itself covenantal and underlines the fact that it is a miniature of the whole Mosaic covenant. 9

Professor Kline explains that the Decalogue is the element used as pars pro toto, the “part taken or standing for the whole”. 10

Just as the Mosaic covenant as a whole is to be seen as a particular expression of God for His people for a time of their history, so the Decalogue must be viewed in the same light. 11

Professor A.T. Lincoln explains that the Ten Commandments have been given to a specific setting and reason must be seen as the regulation of Israel’s life under the Mosaic covenant. They provide an expression of God’s will for his people at that stage of their history. The continuing influence of these commandments will therefore depend, not on the status of the Decalogue but, on the relation to the later and fuller reflection of God’s character and fulfillment of God’s will for His people, both can be seen in Christ. It is this factor the only criterion for deciding whether the fourth commandment, in particular, has continuing force as moral law and not the fact that it is part of the Decalogue. 12

The Decalogue is part of the Mosaic Law and I believe that if any part should be kept as normative for all people, then all of the Old Covenant should be kept as well including the sacrificial system.

How Christians Relate to the Sabbath

               To answer the question of how Christians relate to the Sabbath, it is valuable to look at the church in the New Testament. The Pauline churches were following Paul’s teachings and didn’t keep the Sabbath. Some Jewish Christians were observing the seventh day as were also some Gentile Christians.  The passage in Galatians 4:8-11 provides evidence that Jewish Christians were keeping the Sabbath and teaching the Gentiles do to so. Paul writes “You observe days and months and season and years (4:10). The days almost certainly referred to the Sabbaths, months referred to the moons, and seasons to the great festivals. 13

It seems that they were preaching the whole Jewish legal system as required for salvation and Paul condemns it very harshly. Paul considers those observances as going back to slavery (Gal. 4:9) and that he might have wasted his efforts on them (Gal.4:10). His strongest reaction was to the fact that they were teaching the Sabbath observance as necessary for salvation.

            When the apostles met at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, there was a discussion raised by some Pharisees that circumcision should be imposed on the Gentiles for them to be saved. Peter and James spoke against such circumcision and a letter was sent to the Gentiles telling them to avoid certain sins but never mentioned keeping the Sabbath. In Romans 14:5 Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath to condemn those who do not. Paul recognized that some were observing the Sabbath but when the Gospel was not at stake, he showed acceptance and tolerance towards Jewish Christian Sabbath observance but considered them weaker brethren who had not fully understood the transition from the old economy to the new. 14

            The answer to the question, of how Christians relate to the Sabbath is that Christians are not bound to observance since this was a command given to Israel. It can be used as a day for physical rest as any other day of the week but it is not a commandment and is not necessary for salvation.

The Responsibilities of the New Testament believer

               The believer is to present his body as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12-1), walk in the Spirit (Eph. 5-9), reject godless ways and worldly desires, and live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, (Titus 2:12), and the reasons believers should seek to live with the precepts of grace is because it pleases God (Heb. 13:16), it demonstrates our love for Christ (John 14:15); it will help others (Matt 5:16);  it will bring true joy and blessing to our own hearts (John 15:10-11). 15

Conclusion

               The Old Covenant or the Mosaic Law was given to the people of Israel for a time and a New Covenant was inaugurated by Christ that is called the Law of Christ. The Mosaic Law ceased and was described by Paul as the ministry of death, it was transitory and no longer remains, but the New Covenant has greater glory and will last. (2 Cor. 3:7-11). The believer is now governed by the Law of Christ that brings salvation through faith in Jesus and no supervision of the law is necessary anymore. (Gal. 3:25).  The Mosaic Law was good but unable to save due to our inability to keep all the commandments. The Law was fulfilled in Christ. The Mosaic Law in itself is no longer binding on Christians. The observance of the Sabbath was also discontinued since it was part of the law. I have demonstrated that God’s moral standards were not changed in the New Covenant, as God was able to sufficiently implement his moral standards without the Mosaic moral legislation prior to the Mosaic economy, he can communicate and enforce his ethic without the Mosaic covenant after the end of the Mosaic economy. 16

The Mosaic Law does not apply to the life of the believer today because believers are under a new Law which is the Law of Christ.                   

 Works Cited

  1. Greg L. Bahsen, Walter C Kaiser Jr, Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 236-405
  2. Albert H. Baylis, From Creation to the Cross (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 199), 138.
  3. Luck, G. Coleman, Christian Ethics, Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas: July, 1961), 118 – 471, Theological Electronic Library.
  4. M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 23-26
  1. Greg L. Bahsen, Walter C Kaiser Jr, Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 236-238.[↩]
  2. Greg L. Bahsen, Walter C Kaiser Jr, Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 328.[↩]
  3. Ibid, p. 334.[↩]
  4. Greg L. Bahsen, Walter C Kaiser Jr, Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 276-277.[↩]
  5. Greg L. Bahsen, Walter C Kaiser Jr, Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 277.[↩]
  6. Albert H. Baylis, From Creation to the Cross (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 199), 138.[↩]
  7. Ibid, p. 139.[↩]
  8. D.A.Carson, From the Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Oregon: Zondervan, 1982), 351-354.[↩]
  9. Ibid, p. 356.[↩]
  10. M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 23-26[↩]
  11. D.A.Carson, From the Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Oregon: Zondervan, 1982), 356.[↩]
  12. Ibid, p. 358.[↩]
  13. Ibid, p. 366.[↩]
  14. D.A.Carson, From the Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Oregon: Zondervan, 1982), 367.[↩]
  15. Luck, G. Coleman, Christian Ethics, Bibliotheca Sacra, Dallas: 1961, 118 – 471, Theological Electronic Library.[↩]
  16. Greg L. Bahsen, Walter C Kaiser Jr, Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 405.[↩]
Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion World History

A Falácia da Doutrina Unitária

Ao ler Shedd e Steve Jefferey, chamou-me a atenção a importância dessa doutrina Cristã fundamental chamada Substituição Penal.

Essa doutrina é claramente ensinada nas Escrituras, mas negada pelo Unitarianistas e outros.

Muitas vezes não pensamos que Deus, o Pai, sofreu também e que somente Deus, o Filho, foi o único a sofrer com o sacrificio na Cruz.

Mas o teólogo Shedd (Teologia Dogmática) explica que “o auto-sacrifício que é feito pelo Filho ao se entregar para morrer pelos pecadores, envolve um auto-sacrifício feito pelo Pai na entrega do Filho para esse fim.”

A unidade do ser e da natureza entre o Pai e o Filho (Pai e Filho tem a mesma essência), faz com que os atos de auto-sacrifício na salvação do homem sejam comuns a ambos.

Shedd explica que se o Filho de Deus que sofre no lugar do pecador não for Deus, mas uma criatura, é claro que Deus Pai não se sacrifica para salvar o homem por meio da expiação vicária.

Se Deus, o Pai, e Jesus Cristo são dois seres tão diferentes entre si quanto dois homens o são, como ensina a doutrina Unitária, então de fato, a expiação vicária não exige misericórdia de Deus, o Pai.

A Doutrina Unitária é portanto uma falácia.

Nesse caso a doutrina da substituição penal se torna um ato bárbarico, injusto ou tolo.

Mas a Biblia ensina que o Filho de Deus é Deus e que quando Ele voluntariamente se torna o substituto do pecador para fins de expiação, é o próprio Deus que satisfaz a justiça de Deus.

Shedd escreveu: “Quando Deus deu o seu único filho a humiliação e morte, Ele não estava totalmente indiferente e não afetado pelo ato. Foi um verdadeiro sacrificio para o Pai entregar o filho amado como foi para o Filho entregar a si mesmo.” (Shedd- Dogmatic Theology page 694)

Dai entendemos melhor João 3:16 “Por que Deus amou o mundo de tal maneira que deu o seu filho unigênito para que todo aquele que nele crê não perece mas tenha a vida Eterna”  .

O Pai também sofreu o sacrificio do Filho na Cruz, portanto a crucificação não foi um ato barbárico, injusto ou tolo como dizem alguns, mas foi o próprio Deus tomando o nosso lugar para nos resgatar e trazer até a Ele.  

A Jesus nosso Salvador seja toda Honra e Glória pelos séculos dos séculos.

Amém.

Joel Marcos Stevão

Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

Belief in God as a Rational Position

By Joel M Stevao

Belief in God as a Rational Position

Atheists deny the existence of God but in this essay, I will explain why the belief in God is a rational position. There are four basic arguments used to prove God’s existence. They are called cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments. I am going to use the cosmological or from creation and teleological or from design arguments in this paper.

Argument from Creation or Cosmological

            This argument asserts that since there is a universe, something outside the universe caused it into existence. There are two different forms, the first is a universe that needed a cause and the second argues that it needs a right cause to continue existing. It can be stated like this: The universe had a beginning, anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else, and therefore the Universe was caused by something else which we call “God.” 1

Skeptics reject this idea of God and believe the universe is eternal called the Steady State theory which claims that the universe is spontaneously producing hydrogen atoms from nothing. 2 But this idea is easily dismissed since scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that the universe had a beginning, like the “Big Bang” which is a widely accepted theory among scientists. Also, the second law of thermodynamics says the universe is running out of usable energy and thus cannot be eternal.

Another argument is the philosophical argument. This argument shows that you cannot go back in time forever and believe the world had a starting time. Norman Geisler explains it in this way: You might be able to imagine passing through an infinite number of abstract dimensionless points on a line by moving your finger from one to another, but time is not abstract or imaginary. Time changes are real and each moment uses real-time and we can’t go back. It is likely moving your finger across an endless number of books in a library. You would never get back to the last book.  You can never finish an infinite series of real things, “If the universe had always existed without a beginning we would never have passed through the time to get to today. 3 The second form states that the Universe needs a cause for its continuing existence. Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1275) uses five ways to prove God’s existence, four of them are cosmological arguments. In the first way, he argued for the observable movement or change to the existence of an unmoved Mover. In the second way, Aquinas argued from the effects in the Universe which cannot for their own present existence to their uncaused cause). In the third way, Aquinas argues for the existence of beings that have the possibility of nonexistence must have their existence grounded by a Being that has no possibility of non-existence.  Fourth, Aquinas reasoned since there are different degrees of perfections, there must be a most perfect being. 4

Argument from Design or Teleological

               This argument argues from complex design to an intelligent designer. First, all complex design implies a designer. Second, the universe including life has a complex design, there, the universe must have had a designer. 5

            Norman Geisler and Ronalds Brooks explain it this way:  Anytime we see a complex design we know from previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watch imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; Likewise the greater the design, the greater the designer, a thousand monkeys sitting in typewriters would not write Hamlet, but Shakespeare did on a first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it. 6

Ray Comforter in his blog, puts it this way:

“First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn’t believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don’t build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that. Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there is a painter. Paintings don’t paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that. Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. Creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that’s what the atheist believes–that nothing created everything from nothing. That’s a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that.” 7

The design we see in the universe is complex. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins admits in his Book Blind Watchmaker, that the DNA information in a single-cell animal equals that in a thousand sets of an encyclopedia! 8

            Carl Sagan admits that the information content of a human brain expressed in bits would be comparable to the total number of connections among neurons, about a trillion, 10 to the 14 power bits. If written out in English it would be the equivalent of twenty million books inside of our heads. The brain is a very big place in a very small space. The neurochemistry of a brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans. 9

            Some skeptics object to this argument on a basis of chance, saying when you roll a dice any combination can occur. This is not convincing as is explained by Professor Norman below.

First, we design argument is not an argument from chance but from design, which we know from repeated observation to have an intelligent cause. Second science is based on repeated observation, not on chance, so this objection to the design argument is not scientific. Even if there is a probability chance, the changes are a lot higher if there is a designer. One scientist figured the odds for once-cell animal to emerge by pure chance at 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. The odds for an infinitely more complex human being to emerge by chance are too high to calculate! 10 So it is reasonable to conclude that there must be a designer behind the design of this world.

Conclusion

               Based on the arguments presented and explained in this paper I can definitely say that belief in God is a rational position.

  1. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences ( Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Books, 2013), 9-10[↩]
  2. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (Toronto: George J. Mcleod Limited, 1992), 99[↩]
  3. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences ( Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Books, 2013), [↩]
  4. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1989),12-14[↩]
  5. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Books, 2013, 14[↩]
  6. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences ( Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Books, 2013), 14.[↩]
  7. Ray Comfort, Words of Comfort blog, July 23, 2008.[↩]
  8. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist ( Wheaton: CrossWay Books, 2004), 116-118.[↩]
  9. Carl Sagan, Cosmos ( New York: Random House Publishing Group, 1980), 230.[↩]
  10. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences ( Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Books, 2013), 16[↩]
Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

Public Reading of the Scriptures

By Joel Stevao

Public reading of Scripture in the early church was an essential part of the service. We find in Paul’s letters a series of recommendations for the public reading of his epistles. In Colossians 4:16, Paul declares, ” After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” (NIV). In 1 Thessalonians 5:27, Paul again reinforces the reading of the letters, ” I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers ” (NVI). Also in 2 Corinthians 10: 9, in the context that Paul is defending his apostleship he mentions the public reading of the two letters and expresses concern about their impact on them: “I don’t want it to appear to be frightening you with my letters ”.[1]

The practice of reading Scriptures worship in worship can be traced back to the Jewish synagogue where portions from the Old Testament were routinely read aloud to the congregation (Luke 4: 17-20, Acts 13:15, Acts 15:21).

Some claim that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written with a liturgical structure that indicated that they were used for public reading throughout the year in worship.[2]

Early Jewish Christians converted in the church, it was common to read the Torah in synagogues, as Paul’s gospel and letters also being regarded as sacred Scriptures as the writings of the Old Testament prophets were.

Justin Martin, apologist of the second century wrote the following:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in the cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as the time permits; when the readers has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.[3]

These memoirs of the apostles were a reference to the gospels and the Old Testament was also read. It is interesting to note how Justin first mentions reading the apostles’ memories before reading the Torah, showing that reading the Gospels preceded in importance to reading the Torah.[4]

Köstenberger says that this Christian community had a disposition toward the written texts, recognized the authority of the apostles’ writings, and the operation of the Holy Spirit.[5]

In our churches today, the Bible is not read in worship in the way taught by Paul and done in the early church, in some churches it is barely read during the services. The early church also sang hymns, a practice also brought in from synagogues. But Bible reading and teaching took precedence over other things. Paul exhorted Timothy saying: “Dedicate yourself to public reading of the Scriptures, exhortation and teaching. (Tim. 4:13).

We don’t need to copy everything exactly as the early church did, but I think we need to bring back Bible reading in worship as worshiping God. This lack of Bible reading has led Christians to a “lack of biblical knowledge”.

We are living in a time when we are getting hungry for the Word of God and little by little we are dying spiritually. If this sounds like an exaggeration, here are some data from some scholars on the subject.

Wheaton College professor Timothy Larsen comments that “Bible literacy has been shown to continue to decline.” Gallup research confirms the statistical descendant.

In “The 9 Most Important Issues Facing the Evangelical Church,” theologian Michael Vlach cites “Biblical Illiteracy in the Church” as his final concern. He agrees with George Barna’s assessment that “the Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy.”[6]

New Testament scholar David Nienhuis summarizes his understanding of the situation in an article titled “The Problem of Evangelical Biblical Illiteracy: A View from the Classroom”:

 “For well over twenty years now, Christian leaders have been lamenting the loss of general biblical literacy in America. … Some among us may be tempted to seek odd solace in the recognition that our culture is increasingly post-Christian. … Much to our embarrassment, however, it has become increasingly clear that the situation is really no better among confessing Christians, even those who claim to hold the Bible in high regard.”[7]

Lack of Bible reading can lead to a weakening of faith, it can lead to idolatry, to being deceived by the enemy, deceived by false religious leaders, false teachers, and other charlatans.

Most importantly, God has commanded us to know his word (Joshua 1: 8), because it brings light to our path (Psalm 119: 105), because it is in it that we know God (Jeremiah 9: 23-24 ), because man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4: 4), because only in Scripture we do have hope (Romans 15: 4), because it makes us grow for salvation ( 1 Peter 2: 2), because it helps us not to sin against God (Psalm 119: 10-11), because we have nothing to be ashamed of (2 Timothy 2:15), because it makes us grow in faith (Romans 10:17), because it sanctifies us (John 17:17), because God’s word is the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), because the Scriptures will not pass away (Matthew 24:35) because in it we find eternal life (John 5: 39-40).

[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 133.

[2] Ibid.,114.

[3]  1 Apol, 67,3.

[4] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 134.

[5] Ibid., 136.

[6] http://magazine.biola.edu/article/14-spring/the-crisis-of-biblical-illiteracy/ accessed on 9/1/2020

[7] https://thebattlecry49.com/2013/07/24/the-problem-of-evangelical-biblical-illiteracy-a-view-from-the-classroom-david-r-nienhuis/ accessed on 9/1/2020.

Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

Should we pray for the Dead in Purgatory?

By Joel M Stevao

The idea of praying for the dead came from the book of 2 Maccabees 12:44-45. The book of Maccabees is an Apocryphal book, which is not part of the Hebrew canon but was eventually accepted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trend in 1545. Luther fought against the acceptance of this book by showing that the New Testament disagreed with the doctrines written in the book of Maccabeus, showing that the fathers of the Church in the first century did not regard this book as divinely inspired including Origen, considered one of the greatest Biblical theologians, in addition to Melito, Athanasius, Jerome, and others.

The Jews were the guardians of their holy books and claimed that the prophecies were over 400 years before Christ. His last prophets were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit had departed Israel since their death claimed the Jews. They knew exactly which of their books were part of the canon. Maccabees was written at the end of the 19th century BC in this period that there was no divine inspiration anymore. The Old Testament canon was closed.

The evidence that the Canon of the Old Testament does not contain the book of Maccabees, is found in the very fathers of the Church of the first century, who listed the books of the Old Testament in Josephus historian of the first century who also listed the books, Philo of Alexandria, Jew of high education in the first century quoted the Hebrew canon distinguishing the Apocrypha’s books as uninspired and in the words of Jesus himself in Luke 24:44.

“And he said unto them, These are the words which I said unto you, and i was still with you: That all that was written in the law of Moses should be fulfilled in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets and in the Psalms.”

This three-part division of the Hebrew canon was used by the Jews in the first century and is cited as Divine Scripture by Jesus himself. No New Testament writer has quoted any Apocryphal books but almost all have cited books that were part of the Hebrew canon, which is the same canon we have today except the Catholic Church that included the Apocryphal books.

But the book of Maccabees not only contains historical errors but mainly theological errors such as praying for the dead 2 Maccabees 12:43-45. In Hebrews 9:27, he states that the eternal destiny that one can only be made before his death.

The passage in Luke 16:19-31 is quite clear that the rich cannot return to his brethren to warn them to repent and not go where he is. The implication is that if the brethren could spend time in Purgatory then there would be no reason for the rich to want to come back and warn their brethren, they would be saved with prayers to the dead. But that’s not what scripture teaches.

If Jesus, the Apostles, the Jews, and secular writers of the first century never affirmed the inspiration of the Apocrypha books including Maccabees, Luther was correct in his assertion that there was no evidence to accept that Maccabees was a book of Divine inspiration.

Luther fought against the acceptance of this book by quoting the New Testament, the early fathers of the Church, and the Jewish leaders. The Catholic Church responded by canonizing the book of Maccabees and the Apocrypha books in 1545. Luther left the Catholic Church convinced that the Apocryphal books were not part of the canon, were not inspired and contained errors that would imply eternal destiny in people.

There is no basis in scripture for the teaching of Purgatory, nor prayer for the dead, these teachings contradict all the Holy Scriptures in both the Old and the New Testament.


Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

Orthodoxy, Heresy and Diversity in the Church

By Joel Stevao

We live in a time fascinated by “diversity”. We want diversity in restaurants, shopping malls, and even in churches and places of worship. What people are looking for is a variety of options, and if they don’t like what they’re seeing or hearing they transfer their “business” or their “worship” elsewhere.[1]

No one can tell anyone what to do, everyone has the truth – their truth. We live in a time when people pride themselves on their independence, their rejection of authority and for embracing pluralism.  

They preach: the truth is dead, long live to diversity!

The big problem is that pluralism is entering the Churches and distorting or denying what the Church had already adopted as Orthodoxy in the first century. This word in the original Greek is the junction of orthos (straight, correct) and doxa (opinion, glory) literally correct opinion or belief.

Walter Bauer, a German theologian who was born in Prussia in 1877, in his work called “Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church,” [2]states that the Church in the first century comprised a miscellany of theologies and ideas and that it was only at the Council of Nicaea that the Roman Church defined what orthodoxy would be, also establishing the books that would be included in the biblical canon.

A group of theologians responded to Bauer’s thesis by showing the historical errors he made and his erroneous conclusions, claiming that his conjectures and arguments are mostly disproportionate and entirely based on the lack of evidence, that is, on their silence. Another alleged issue is that he denied the historical evidence of the New Testament, using second-century data to describe the nature of the first century.[3]

Bauer denied there were theological patterns in the early Church, and grossly simplified the figure of the Church in the first century.[4]  Bauer aimed to fight the Church, and ultimately did not present a scientific work based on data and research, but one that housed a flawed interpretive model.

Recently the skeptical theologian Bart Ehrman, a fierce opponent of Christianity and the Bible, taking advantage of the fascination with the diversity of present times, resurrected Bauer’s thesis. Bart dishonestly does not respond to criticisms made as early as the last century to Bauer, yet he takes advantage of the fascination with the diversity of our time to try to point out that the Books of the Bible that are part of the biblical canon were the result of random choices determined by the Church for its own benefit and convenience. According to these theologians, at the beginning of the Church there was theological “diversity,” that is, each had its own beliefs, coming only after “Orthodoxy.” However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Before proceeding I would like to say that the objective of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. was to establish and document officially the sacred books which the Church already believed and had been using from the beginning in her theological convictions about Jesus. And this is what happened: The Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. made official the books that form the biblical canon that we use today, but this was not organized by the Roman Church, but by Constantine I, who saw the need to make official and identify what had actually been transmitted and taught by Jesus and his disciples. There were representatives of the Church from all over the world. 

And of course the Church Fathers as Irenaus (c.130–200), Tertullian (160–224), Clement of Alexandria (c.150–215), Origen (c.185–254), Hippolytus (c.170–236), Novation (c.200–258), Athanasios, (c. 296–373) had already fought countless heresies of the second century, but it took the church to come together to formalize the teachings of Jesus transmitted through the apostles  and exclude what was not correct. Thus, “the Church took her first great step in defining revealed doctrine more accurately, in response to a challenge of heretical theology.”[5] 

One of the central themes was to fight Arius, whose teachings stated that the Son was created by the Father’s permission and power and that he did not possess eternity or the true divinity of the Father; and the Son being god’s first creation and the most perfect of his creatures.[6]

It is important to note that this doctrine is taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses, who added the undefined article “one” in John 1:1 before the noun God, in lower case “a god”. They also added in the next verse (John 1:2), a definite article: as “the” God. The Jesus of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims is not the same as the Bible and therefore cannot save. Jesus wanted his disciples to really know who He was. (Matthew 16:16).

Athanasius bishop of North Africa fought Arius strongly by showing that scripture defined exactly the nature of Christ, reinforcing what the Church already created and preached from the beginning. Athanasius argued within scripture that the Son is in itself the nature of the Father, who is eternal. God has always been the Father, and both this and the Son have always existed together, eternally and consubstantially together with the Holy Spirit.[7] The argument against the Arians stated that the Logos (the “Verb”) was “eternally generated”, therefore without beginning. Athanasius believed that following the Arian theology destroyed the unity of divinity and made the Son unequal to the Father and insisting on such a theology transgressed the Scriptures, which state that “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The bishops of the council declared, as Athanasius did,[8] that the Son was not created, He already existed, so he had an “eternal derivation” of the Father and therefore was co-eternal with him and equal to God in all respects.[9]  There was a consensus in the fathers of the Church and concern to pass on the correct teachings about the doctrine of Christ, whose main points were already common to Christians so that all would fix the essential message of the gospel in the structure of Christian belief in one God, achieving salvation in Jesus Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit.[10] 

Apostolic parents believed that it was their mission to convey this unified and unifying message of theological patterns. Irenaus (Haer.3.3.3) reinforced the idea that it was their role to pass on to later generations, which they had received from the apostles. The father of the Ignacio Church (Magn, 13.1; 6.1; Phld. 6.3; c A.D. 110) encourages its readers to remain in the teachings of Christ and his apostles (c.f.Pol. Phil 6:3). Irenaus says, “Such is the teaching of truth, the prophets announced, Christ established, the apostles transmitted, and everywhere the Church presents it to her children.” (Epid. 98; cf. Haer.3.1.1; 3.3.1).[11]   They had a rule of faith, not officially written, but a consensus of a common faith of the church. What happened to this article of faith after the death of the fathers of the Church? It was passed on to the third and fourth century as formulas or creeds, yet it was the heart of the message of Scripture.

The gospel message that we have today is the same as in the first century, the one the Church believed even before Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 we find the oldest creed of the Church. Paul says: “For what I first transmitted to you was that which I also received that Christ died for our sins, according to scripture, was buried and risen on the third day, according to the Scriptures.” Everyone believed that Christ had been killed and resurrected according to scripture. Remember that this creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 was only recorded by Paul approximately two decades after the resurrection, but Paul was sure it was true, for he claimed that Christ “… appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom still live, although some have already fallen asleep” I Color. 15:5-6. Scholars believe that Paul wrote this creed 20 years after Christ’s death, so Paul mentions the 500 brethren, for most still lived and could confirm such events. But Paul’s conviction came from the fact that Jesus himself appeared to him as well, so it was not only those who testified that Jesus had risen, but Paul had also seen Jesus face to face.

There were times when heretics wanted to distort the gospel message as early as the first century, as in Galatians 6:12, where there were those who believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Also, in Colossians came heretics who wanted to incorporate elements of Judaism, because Paul mentions circumcision, laws, Saturdays, and regulations (Col. 2-11, 13, 16, 20-11). In Colossians 2:1-3:4 Paul uses a rare vocabulary including words such as “philosophy” (philosophia Col 2:8), “fullness” (pleroma; Col. 2:9), “affirming in things he has seen” (he struck; Col: 2:18), and “knowledge” (gnosis; Col:18).[12]  Perhaps these words were taken directly from the theology of heretics, but it is not known for sure.[13] False teachers also appeared in Crete (Titus 1:10), where Paul tells Titus to rebuke them harshly so that they should not detain themselves to “Jewish Myths” (Titus 1:14). Paul’s letters to Timothy contain a considerable portion of information about the heretics who distorted the gospel (1 Tim. 1:7-11; Titus 1:10-14; 3:9; Col. 2:16-17). Some heretics are also mentioned in Judas (verse 4), in 2 Peter 2:1, 13), and also false teachers are mentioned in 1 John 2:19 and finally in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are directed to a series of congregations in Asia Minor referencing many heresies.[14] 

Therefore, there were heresies early in the Church, which distorted Christ’s message and the gospel revealed to the apostles, but they knew what they had received from Jesus and fought vehemently these false teachings. The writings of the New Testament reveal the presence of several opponents who have been denounced in a variety of ways, but these groups were not the majority, in fact there is no literature any of these heretical groups to truly reconstruct what they believe.

Professor Köstenberger wrote: “In the end, the only group of early Christians who possessed theological unity, about the essential and central message that dated back to Jesus and was rooted in the Old Testament was the movement represented by the writers of the New Testament.”[15]  There were, however, legitimate distinctions of diversity in the way of focusing on theological emphasis and perspectives that were mutually complete, but not that they affected the Christological statements made by the Apostles and other New Testament writers.

There is legitimate diversity that does not prejudice the presence of fundamental beliefs of early Christianity; it simply testifies to the presence of different personalities and perspectives among New Testament writers (such as the Synoptic and John, Paul, Peter, and James).

Illegitimate diversity differs in Jesus’ critical central statement as crucified, buried, and risen according to scripture, and of Jesus as Messiah, Savior, Lord, and Son of God (see the teachings propagated by the opponents in Colossians, 2 Peter, Judas, and 1 John). This kind of “diversity” while claiming to be “Christian” by its adherents, is deeply denounced and renounced in the pages of the New Testament. In essence, the gospel became a way of reading and understanding the Hebrew Scriptures in light of the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah and exalted Lord.

The Old Testament message, the preaching, and messianic consciousness of Jesus, and the gospel of the apostles, including Paul, were fully related and were in close continuity with each other.[16] Another fundamental element in this discussion was the notion of apostolic authority. Paul said he had apostolic authority not only concerning the issues of local Church policies but also on matters related to doctrines. Paul had been commissioned directly by Jesus, as he also did to the other twelve apostles. Paul’s authority came not from an ecclesiastical body (as the Roman Catholic Church claims), but in the quality of the Christological confession made through divine revelation. (See Mat. 16:13-19).[17]   So the theological diversity alleged by Bauer and then Bart never existed. Not only are the interpretation of the data wrong, but it also comes from a false interpretive model.[18] 

The conclusion we have reached is that there will always be this attempt by those who oppose scripture to try to discredit their nature and divine inspiration as god’s direct word and try to interpret the Bible in modern human tendencies as “diversity.” The distortion of the fundamental Biblical teachings of Christianity as those cited in the text above has spread even in churches considered historical, which subtly begin to distort the truth of the Gospel by judging that diversity also applies in Biblical teachings and therefore each has its truth and way of interpreting the Bible. In favor of diversity, it can be said that the interpretation of doctrines such as “gift of tongues”, “baptism in the waters as essential for salvation” are secondary and their interpretation does not affect the central or essential message of Christianity. Essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the fall and guilt of man, salvation by grace through faith in the substitutive atonement of Jesus Christ are non-negotiable, for in them the fullness of the gospel is grounded.

Soli Gloria 

[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 15.

[2] Ibid.,24.

[4] Ibid.,33.

[5] Warren Carrol, The Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1985), 12.

[6] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978), Chapter 9

[3] Ibid.,33.

[7] Leo Donald Davis (1983), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1983), 60. 

[8] St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, chapter 2, section 9.

[9] St. Athanasius, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians, Volume 3 (Longmans: Green and CO., 1920), 51. 

[10] Everest Ferguson, The Rule of Faith (Eugene: Cascade Books, 1933), 53.

[11] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 55.

[12] Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 13

[13]Morna D. Hooker, “Were There False Teachers in Colossae? In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honor of Charles Francis Digby. E.d Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 315-31.

[14] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 97.

[15] Ibid., 99.

[16] Ibid.,101.

[17] Ibid.,101.

[18] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 101.

Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion

The Prophecy of Isaiah about Jesus

By Joel Stevao

The prophecy in Isaiah (52:13 – 53:12) talks about God’s Servant that will bring worldwide salvation. The Servant will succeed in his mission, He would be extolled, exalted, and be very high. He will sprinkle his blood for the Salvation of the Nations and the kings of the world will recognize Jesus as Savior. We can confirm the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus by looking at the evidences. There are two lines of evidences, one external and one internal.

The external evidences are the witness of the Apostles. The apostolic community of the Apostles unanimously interpreted Jesus the Nazareth as the Servant mentioned in Isaiah 52:13. We find this oracle mentioned in the New Testament more than in the Old Testament. An example is found in Acts 8:26-40 when an Ethiopian that was reading this passage in Isaiah 53:7. Philip led by God to meet and overtake the chariot, questioned the Eunuch if he was understanding what he was reading. The Ethiopian asked of whom the prophet was speaking about him or someone else, then Philip preached Jesus him, he believed and was baptized.

The internal line of evidences are the predictions made about the Servant and only one person satisfied these predicts, Jesus. We find in Isaiah 53:13 that the Servant “succeeded” in the work God told him to do. We read “My Servant shall deal prudently”, the word prudently or wise in Hebrew “sakal” also has the meaning of being successful. God’s servant didn’t fail but was successful. The proof is that He shall be exalted, extolled, and be very high. The “and” here in Hebrew uses a waw-consecutives indicating chronological sequence indicating that the passage should be read “He shall be exalted and then extolled and then He shall very high.

 The word in Hebrew rum means “to raise”, then he will nasa which means “to lift up” then he will gabah meaning “to be very high”. The first word speaks of the commencement, (resurrection) the second word speaks of the continuation (ascension) and the third word speaks of the climax, He shall be very high (exaltation).  The proof that the servant was successful in his mission is his resurrection. In verse 14 the Hebrew word saman means handed speechless by a horrible sight, he no longer looked human due to the work he did.

In verse 15 we see the aim of his work. The text says “He shall sprinkle many nations”. The word “sprinkle” in Hebrew is Naza which is the same word used many times in the Old Testament when the sacrifice was made and the blood was “sprinkle” for the atonement of sin. This Servant would die, resurrect, suffer and sprinkle his blood for the cleansing of the nations, bringing salvation to the entire world, and finally, the Kings of the world will shut their mouths and will adore the King when they understand what the servant had achieved.  Jesus Christ is the one who fulfilled this prophecy.   

 Joel Stevao

 

 

                                                               

 

Facebook Twitter Instagram
Categories
Christian Apologetics Faith Religion World History

Evidences Outside the New Testament for the Historical Jesus

Introduction

Skeptics have always challenged the authenticity of historical documents related to Jesus. Some of them have argue that the references to Jesus in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus fail to provide sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus. In this paper I will argue that Tacitus’s Annals and Josephus’s Testimonium provide strong evidences that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. Taken together, the combined weight of the accounts found in The Annals and The Testimonium makes a much stronger case for the historicity of Jesus than either document could on its own. 

Tacitus, The Annals, and Jesus

Cornelius Tacitus was a Senator and historian of the Roman Empire and is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians.[1] Tacitus wrote a historical account from the reign of Tiberius to Nero, titled The Annals. These writings are an important source of Roman history of the first Century.[2] In them, Tacitus makes the following claims about Jesus:

    “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus”.      

Tacitus recorded what is probably the most important  reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, says Scholar Yamauchi.[3] But, skeptics have made several arguments against the reliability of this text as a reference to the historical Jesus. D.M. Murdock, member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, says the entire passage is a forgery since there is no record of the quotation by the early Church Fathers, attributing the reference to a later edition.[4]
However, this argument is less than convincing. There wouldn’t be any reason for the Fathers to mention such a negative quote against Jesus and Christians, so its absence in their writings is expected. Furthermore, Tacitus’s works were lost to posterity until the 11th century, so it is likely that the Church Fathers may not have known of him. And despite Murdock’s skepticism, the fact remains that most scholars today accept Tacitus’s reference to Christ’s crucifixion to be describing a true event.[5] Cicero, who was a Roman statesman, called it the cruelest, disgusting and extreme penalty.[6] Nevertheless, it was the capital punishment for those condemned to death in Ancient Roman Empire.

A second objection, argued for by skeptics like Kraus and Woodman, is the accusation that Tacitus was a biased writer who often manipulated materials for his own purpose.[7] However, there are no evidences to validate such accusation. Tacitus wrote a great deal of Roman history that matches other historical sources, including the gospel accounts. He was admired by his contemporaries like Pliny the Younger, who congratulated him for the above-average precision in his Histories, asserting this work would be immortal. As Professor Van Voorst writes, Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians[8]. Furthermore, when one reads The Annals, one can see clearly that Tacitus wanted to expose the tyranny and total moral decrepitude of the emperors, probably exposing his own life at great peril, is not likely to make things up on a whim.

A third objection raised against the reliability of the passage in question is raise by Wells, who says that Tacitus was merely repeating what Christians were then saying, and that ” the context of Tacitus’ remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants.”[9] He was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was a recent religion, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults, says Wells.

However, there is no evident reason for Tacitus to repeat information from Christians, whom he clearly hated, as shown in The Annals. Professor Ronald Martin recognizes that “there were difficulties discerning Tacitus’ exact sources, but was clear that Tacitus read widely and that the idea that he was an uncritical follower of a single source is quite untenable.”[10] The weight of Tacitus’s writings concerning Jesus, is that we have a testimony by an unsympathetic witness to the success and spread of Christianity, based on a historical figure – Jesus, which was crucified under Pontius Pilate, said Professor Yamauchi.[11]


Josephus, The Testimonium, and Jesus

Josephus was a very important Jewish historian of the first century. He was born in AD, 37 and wrote most of his works toward the end of the first century. In his work Antiquities of the Jews, which was a history of the Jewish people from Creation until his time, Flavius Josephus wrote the following about Jesus in a section that has now come to be known simply as The Testimonium:

 
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.”[12]

In response to this excerpt, Wells argues that parts of the Testimonium are interpolations or forgery, claiming that the phrases “if it be lawful to call him a man,” or “He was the Christ,” and “for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him,” were added to the text by someone other than Josephus, long after the original text was written.[13] Scholars agree that those passages are probably interpolations, since Josephus wasn’t a Christian. Recently, Professor Shlomo Pines found an Arabic Version of the Testimonium dated from the 10th Century.[14] In this version the supposed additions are not present which confirm some interpolations. However, Professor James Tabor says “we are more than fortunate that those passages seems blatant and obvious, in both placement and phrasing”.[15] Because, even without the interpolations, Josephus corroborates important information about the historical Jesus: that he was a wise leader, a miracle worker, was crucified by the religious and political authorities and established a movement that continued after his death.
While the passages offer important independent verification about Jesus, skeptic Michael Martin, philosopher at Boston University critiques the passage saying “if Jesus did exist, one would expect Josephus to have said more about him.”[16] In the same way, Murdock critiques the entire Testimonium saying if Josephus had such a regard for Jesus, to call him “a wise man”, he would have written more about him”.[17] One of the skeptic objections is that the Testimonium refers to Jesus as a “wise man”, phrase used by Josephus only when referring to David and Solomon. But, Professor France believes the phrase “a wise man” was in fact written by Josephus. He writes, “Thus the clause ‘if indeed one should call him a man’ makes good sense as a Christian response to Josephus’ description of Jesus as (merely) a ‘wise man’, but is hardly the sort of language a Christian would have used if writing from scratch.”[18] Also, the Jewish Scholar Geza Vermes agrees that “a wise man” was written by Josephus, since he sees a connection for the use of the term between Daniel and Solomon and the Testimonium description of Jesus.[19] Professor Yamauchi’s response to such statement “one expected Josephus to have written more about Jesus” is this: “There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus did exist, and these hypothetical questions are really very vacuous and fallacious, Josephus was interested in political matters and struggle against Rome …Jesus didn’t pose a great political threat”[20]

Josephus’s reference to James, brother of Jesus

In the second mention of Jesus in the Antiquities, Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, writing: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”[21] Is this passage Josephus records the existence of Jesus, who had a brother called James. But, skeptic Wells says the passage was interpolated because Josephus as an orthodox Jew would write something like “called Christ by some” but not “who was called Christ ”which was a Christian use of the phase at that time.[22] As convincing as Wells argument might seems, this passage is widely accepted by most scholars as authentic.[23]
The reason it is widely accepted is presented by Mc Dowell and Bill Wilson. “The phrase ‘James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ’ is too noncommittal to have been inserted by a later Christian interpolator who would have desired to assert the messiahship of Jesus more definitely as well as to deny the charges against James.” Also, if the passage is an interpolation why so little is said about Jesus and James.[24] A second argument against the authenticity of the passage is that Josephus wrote “the brother of the Lord” but not “the brother of Jesus”, as a sect they may have been known as “brothers of the Lord” said Earl Doherty.[25] The skeptic Earl admits that it is difficult to explain why and how it was changed, but Christian copyists may have felt otherwise, and regarded “brother of the Lord” as an inadequate identification of the new historical Jesus for the general reader. In response to Earl, I say that this argument is very improbable and fallacious. Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been “almost universally acknowledged”.[26] “I know of no scholar that has disputed this passage successfully” affirms Professor Yamauchi.[27]

Conclusion 

            The first century historians Tacitus and Josephus references to Jesus in the Annals and in the Testimonium are extremely important. The weight of the evidences presented in them, strongly favors that Tacitus and Josephus references to Jesus are authentic. These non-Christian evidences have gone under extensive scrutiny through the centuries and survived as reliable accounts, and as strong and stunning corroboration for a historical Jesus.

Joel Stevao

[1] Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 39-42.
[2] Ronald H. Martin, Tacitus and the Writing of History (California: University of California, 1981), 104–105.
[3] Lee Strobel, The case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 86.
[4] http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm > accessed February 28, 2015.
[5] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 127.
[6] Marcus Tullio Cicero: Verrem 2:5.165, 168.
[7] C.S.Kraus and A.J. Woodman, Latin Historians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 97-100.
[8] Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 39-42.
[9] George Albert Wells, Who was Jesus? A Critique of the New Testament (La Salle: Open Court Publishing, 1989), 20.
[10] Ronaldo H. Martin, Tacitus and the Writing of History (California: University of California, 1981), 211.
[11] Lee Strobel, The case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 87-88.
[12] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18:3.
[13] George Wells, The Jesus Legend (Illinois: Open Court Publishing, 1996), 48.
[14] Shlomo Pines, An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971).
[15] http://jamestabor.com/2012/08/12/josephus-on-john-the-baptizer-jesus-and-james/#identifier_2_2977 accessed on 3/06/2015
[16] Michael Martin, The case against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1991), 49.
[17] Acharya Murdock, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled (Kempton: Stellar House Publishing, 2004) http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm accessed on 2/27/2015.
[18] R.T.France, The Evidence for Jesus (Regent College Publishing, 2006), 30.
[19] Geza Vermes, Jesus in his Jewish Context: The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-Examined (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 97.
[20] Lee Strobel, The case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 85.
[21] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1.
[22] George Wells, Who was Jesus? A Critique of the New Testament Record (La Salle: Open Court), 22.
[23] Paul L. Maier, Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 1995), 284-285.
[24] Evans 1995, p. 106.
[25] http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm#What did Josephus accessed on 3/7/2015.
[26] Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 55-57.
[27] Lee Strobel, The case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 83.

Facebook Twitter Instagram
en_USEnglish
pt_BRPortuguese en_USEnglish