Theology

« Previous Entries

Helping Jehovah’s Witnesses - 14 October 2009

There are a fair number of Jehovah’s Witnesses in North London. It’s often quite hard to talk to them about the teaching of the Bible, since they generally seem to respond with ‘standard answers’ when facing biblical challenges to their doctrinal positions.

There are few things more tragic than seeing someone trapped by institutionalised spiritual blindness.

The problem is compounded by the fact that JWs have their own Bible translation, the New World Translation, which translates away many of the clearest biblical proofs for key biblical doctrines denied by JW theology, such as the deity of Christ.

However, we’ve got to begin somewhere, and the deity of Christ is a sensible place to open a conversation. Here, with thanks to Louis Berkhof (Systematic Theology, pp. 94-95), are some useful places to turn. The underlined references are (I think) likely to be most effective at helping a JW to see the inadequacy of the teaching they’ve received from their organisation.

Jesus is explicitly described as divine

John 1:1; John 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; Titus 2:13; 1 John 5:20

Jesus is given divine names

Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 40:3, cf. Matthew 3:3; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Joel 2:32, cf. Acts 2:21

Divine attributes are ascribed to Jesus

Eternal existence

Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-2

Omniscience

John 2:24-25; John 21:17; Revelation 2:23

Omnipotence

Isaiah 9:6; Philippians 3:21

Immutability

Hebrews 1:10-12; Hebrews 13:8

Every attribute belonging to the Father

Colossians 2:9

Jesus does divine works

Creation

John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, 10

Providence

Luke 10:22; John 3:35; John 17:2; Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3

Forgiveness of sins

Matthew 9:2-7; Mark 2:7-10

Resurrection and judgment

Matthew 25:31-32; John 5:19-29; Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31; Philippians 3:21; 2 Timothy 4:1

The final renewal of all things

Hebrews 1:10-12; Philippians 3:21; Revelation 21:5

Jesus receives divine honours

John 5:22-23; John 14:1; Hebrews 1:6; Matthew 28:19

Practical preterism (2) - 3 August 2009

We’ve already looked at three passages in 1 Thessalonians to try to figure out whether or not the context supports a preterist reading. Next on the list is a longer passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Several considerations suggest that Paul is talking here about the final judgment, not AD 70.

The presenting issue is what will happen to believers who have ‘fallen asleep’ (i.e. died, 4:13-15; cf. 1 Cor 11:30). It’s hard to imagine how a reply about Jesus coming in judgment on the Temple would address this concern.
Paul answers this concern by drawing a parallel between Jesus’ death and resurrection, on the one hand, and the way in which God will bring with Jesus those believers who have died (4:14), on the other. Just as Jesus died and was raised, the argument runs, so also these brothers and sisters who have died will be raised. Again, this points to the general resurrection.
The reference to the general resurrection becomes explicit in 4:16: ‘the dead in Christ will rise first’.

So far, so good. But there’s a fly in the ointment. Paul seems to anticipate that he and his hearers will still be alive at ‘the coming of the Lord’ (4:15) about which he has been speaking. ‘We who are alive’, he says twice (4:15, 17); not ‘those who are alive’. How can the text be about the general resurrection if Paul expected to still be alive when the great day came?

Some have attempted to solve this puzzle by suggesting that Paul was mistaken about the time of Jesus final coming. Others (e.g. C. H. Dodd) have argued that Paul changed his mind about the timing of the last day: near the beginning of his ministry (when he wrote 1 Thessalonians) he expected Jesus to return very soon, but later he had decided that the final judgment would be delayed.

I’m not sure how these solutions can be reconciled with an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. It’s one thing to say that Paul’s understanding of the gospel developed during his life – after all, he started out as a gospel denying, church-persecuting Pharisee. But it is quite another to claim that Paul expressed his early misunderstandings in his biblical writings, for this effectively undermines the truthfulness of the Bible.

A much better solution is found by looking closer at the Greek text. It turns out that the phrase ‘we who are alive’ doesn’t necessarily imply that Paul expected the parousia to occur before his death. Following I. H. Marshall and C. E. B. Cranfield, Paul Woodbridge[1] has pointed out that the ‘we’ may be hypothetical (i.e. ‘if we are alive’), or indeed it may ’signify nothing more that a general designation’ (i.e. ‘we, insofar as this will, as events turn out, apply to us’). Paul’s ‘we who are alive’ does not, in itself, indicate that Paul expected the day of resurrection to come before his death.

Taking all this together, it seems overwhelmingly likely that 1 Thess 4:13-18, like 2:19-20; 3:11-13 and 5:23-24, refers not to AD 70 but to the general resurrection.

[1] Paul Woodbridge, ‘Did Paul Change His Mind? An Examination of Some Aspects of Pauline Eschatology,’ Themelios 28.3 (2008), p. 10. Online www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_paul_woodbridge.html

Practical preterism (1) - 25 July 2009

In a previous post, we looked at preterism in general terms – what it is, what it isn’t, and so on. In this and a few later posts, we’ll be thinking about how this works out in practice. In particular, we’ll be looking at 1 Thessalonians as a case study to work out what kinds of exegetical factors might incline us towards or against a preterist reading of a given passage.

We’ll begin with 1 Th 2:19-20; 3:11-13 and 5:23-24.

19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? 20 For you are our glory and joy. (1 Th 2:19-20)

11 Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you, 12 and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, 13 so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (1 Th 3:11-13)

23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. (1 Th 5:23-24)

It’s tempting, when reading these texts, simply to assume that the ‘coming’ (parousia) spoken of is the final coming of Jesus at the last judgment. After all, we all believe in the second coming. Well, it’s true that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead on the last day, but to assume that ‘coming’ means this here comes dangerously close to begging the question about their referent. After all, the purpose of the present discussion is precisely to work out whether or not the text might actually be referring to Jesus’ ‘coming’ in judgment on apostate Israel in AD 70. It’s at least possible for parousia to be used in this latter sense, as in Matthew 24:3, 27 (so R. T. France, Matthew). So what does it mean here?

1 Th 2:19 says that the Thessalonians will be the ‘crown [stephanos] of boasting’ for Paul and his companions at Jesus’ coming. The term stephanos appears in only three other places in Paul’s letters – 1 Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 2 Tim 4:8. Phil 4:1 is especially relevant, because here Paul refers to his believing readers as his stephanos, just as in 1 Th 2:19. The context plainly has to do with the bodily resurrection, when Christ ‘will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body’ (Phil 3:21).

2 Tim 4:8 points in the same direction, for here Paul is contemplating his own death: ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race’ (2 Tim 4:7). This being the case, clearly the next event in world history with particular significance for him would be the day of resurrection, not the destruction of the Jewish Temple. Again, the stephanos is the reward received at the final judgment.

Similarly, 1 Cor 9:25 speaks of an ‘imperishable’ staphanos, which must surely be understood as a picture of the everlasting blessings of the resurrection age.

Thus 1 Th 2:19 seems to refer to the final coming of Christ at the last judgment.

The use of the same word for ‘coming’ (parousia) in both 1 Th 3:11-13 and 5:23-24 might make us think that these texts also refer to the day of resurrection. But we shouldn’t be too hasty, for the same word can mean different things in different contexts. As it happens, though, the context in each of these two texts does in fact support a final judgment referent.

The two passages are remarkably similar. Both are prayers for the sanctification of the Thessalonians, and as prayers go they are pretty ambitious. Paul prays not just that they would ‘increase and abound in love’, but that they would be ‘blameless … at the coming of our Lord Jesus’ (3:13; 5:23). More than this, he appears confident that God ‘will surely do it’ (5:24). This can only refer to the final judgment on the day of resurrection, for only then (and not before) will God’s people be ‘blameless in holiness’ before him.

Thus a preterist reading of 1 Th 2:19-20; 3:11-13 and 5:23-24 would be mistaken. These texts refer to Jesus’ ‘coming’ to judge the living and the dead at the general resurrection.

What is preterism? - 25 July 2009

Following this post on the subject of preterism, perhaps a few more comments on the subject might be worthwhile. In this post we’ll take a step back and clarify in a bit more detail what preterism is. In some later posts we’ll take a step forward and see what it looks like in practice.

‘Preterism’, in the most general sense, refers to the view that a given future-oriented biblical text refers to an event that now lies in the past. All orthodox Christians are therefore preterists on some texts but not on others. We’re all preterists on Mark 10:45 (Christ came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’, and the ransom has now been paid) but not 1 Corinthians 15:52 (the dead ‘will be raised imperishable’, but they haven’t been yet). However, although this is what preterist / preterism means in the most general sense, it’s not how the term is normally used.

Preterism most commonly refers to the view that a given future-oriented biblical text, which might be (and often is) thought to refer to the general resurrection / final judgment, in fact refers to the events surrounding the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. The texts most often debated include Mark 13, Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and the book of Revelation, but many others could be (and often are) thrown into the discussion, such as 1 Corinthians 7:26 (what is ‘the present distress’?), the book of Hebrews (what is ‘the world to come’ in 2:5, for example?) and a whole pile more besides. The term is normally used to describe a interpretation of these texts that relates them to AD 70, rather than the final judgment.

Preterism must be carefully distinguished from hyper-preterism (sometimes called ‘full preterism’ or ‘consistent preterism’), which wrongly claims that all such texts were fulfilled in AD 70. Hyper-preterism is heretical, not least because it denies such credal essentials as the future bodily return of Christ and the future general bodily resurrection.

Clearly, it is both possible (indeed, necessary) to be a preterist on some texts but not others. You could be a preterist on Revelation, but not Hebrews or 1 Corinthians 15; on Mark 13:1-31, but not 1 Corinthians 7:26, and so on. The question, ‘Are you a preterist?’ should therefore always be met with the reply, ‘On which text(s)?’

Moreover, the only way to answer the more specific question ‘Are you a preterist on text x’ is by careful exegesis of the text concerned. Taking a preterist reading of one text might incline us towards a similar reading of others – especially if they use similar imagery in similar ways, such as in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 – but it wouldn’t necessarily do so. Moreover, just knowing that it could be about AD 70 doesn’t by itself get us very far; it merely draws our attention to one possible interpretative option that we might otherwise overlook. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction, for it’s striking how many solid evangelical commentaries either dismiss preterist readings with a brief wave of the hand, or even don’t mention the possibility at all. Sadly, this often leaves them in a bit of a tangle. An awareness of preterism would often clear up the mess.

Theocentric sin - 21 July 2009

Ps 51:4 occasionally raises an eyebrow, because it seems odd that after the Bathsheba incident David should say to God, ‘against you, you only, have I sinned’. Yet this isn’t the only time in the Bible that God is identified as the one against whom person-to-person sin is ultimately directed.

When Potiphar’s wife keeps pestering Joseph to sleep with her, he replies at length about the privilege he enjoys at the hand of his Egyptian master. The obvious implication being that it would be an outrage to repay Potiphar’s kindness with such treachery (Gen 39:8-9). Yet at the climax of Joseph’s reply, his words echo David’s concern not to sin against the Lord: ‘how then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?’

Roberts on Bavinck on Calvin - 11 July 2009

In an article on Herman Bavinck in Ecclesia Reformanda, Matthew Roberts draws a comparison between the theology of John Calvin (happy 500th birthday) and that of Rome, Luther, Zwingli and the Anabaptists.

The issue concerns the relationship between fallen nature, on the one hand, and nature renewed in Christ, on the other (ER, 1.1, p. 80). Following Bavinck’s analysis, he observes that ‘Rome construes the natural as being good in itself, not necessarily evil’. Though this appears superficially to be ‘honouring to nature’, in fact it consigns nature to a second-class status, for in the end ‘grace can do nothing to nature other than allow it its own space … grace and nature have little to do with each other’.

Sadly, ‘Luther never attempted to overcome [this] Roman dualism’, nor did Zwingli or the Anabaptists. But Calvin understood the relationship between nature and grace far more clearly, with significant results for the scope of his theology, especially in the public sphere.

Re-creation is not a system that supplements creation, as in Catholicism, not a religious Reformation that leaves creation intact, as in Luther, much less a radically new creation as in Anabaptism, but a joyful tiding of the renewal of all creatures. (quoting Bavinck)

Consequently, ‘not only the church but also home, school, society and state are placed in the dominion of the principle of Christianity.’ The Bible was, for Calvin, not merely ‘a source of salvation truth,’ but ‘the norm for all of life’.

Objections to preterism - 3 June 2009

John Owen’s massive seven-volume commentary on Hebrews is hard to avoid if you’re spending much time on that book. It also has some surprises in store.

Owen’s interpretation differs from that of most modern evangelicals: in Owen’s view many of the future-oriented texts refer not the the general resurrection / final judgment / etc., but to the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Old Covenant order in AD 70. Such a view is called a preterist reading of the text, because it locates their referent in the past (hence preterist). Of course Owen still believes in the general resurrection / final judgment / etc; he just doesn’t think that’s what Hebrews is talking about.

As far as I can see, many of Owen’s exegetical judgments on this subject are pretty solid. But I think it would be fair to say that there’s an underlying anxiety about such a reading among many people, which is grounded not so much on exegetical conclusions but on fears about what such a conclusion might imply.

The same anxieties appear to be evident in relation to other future-oriented texts in the NT, such as Mark 13:1-31 and Matthew 24, which are commonly assumed to be about the final judgment / general resurrection, but which (according to at least some Reformed evangelicals) refer to the events surrounding AD 70.

Here are some of those anxieties, and some initial responses to them.

1. The ’stench of liberalism’ argument. ‘Some liberals have argued that future-oriented texts in the NT refer to AD 70, either because they think that predictive prophecy is impossible (the texts must therefore be written after AD 70), or because they deny a future general resurrection / final judgment, or possibly both. A preterist reading of these texts therefore puts us squarely on the road to Schleiermacher.’

Formally, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Less formally, just because some liberals believe some right things for some of the wrong reasons, that doesn’t stop evangelicals believing those same right things for right reasons. For example, you could believe that Hebrews was written before AD 70 (not least because the Temple appears still to be in operation at the time it was written, cf. 10:2, 11), and you could believe in a future general resurrection / final judgment etc (because of 1 Cor 15, for example), and you could at the same time without the slightest shred of contradiction believe that Hebrews is talking about AD 70.

2. The ’slippery slope’ argument. ‘Once you start interpreting Hebrews like that, pretty soon you’ll end up doing the same with every future-oriented passage in the NT, with the result that you’ll end up denying the general resurrection / final judgment.’

Not so. Though some espouse the heresy of hyper-preterism (affirming that every future-oriented text in the NT has been fulfilled, and thus denying the classical orthodox doctrine of a future bodily resurrection), this is not an inevitable result of affirming that some NT texts have already been fulfilled. Each text must be addressed individually.

Indeed, if a preterist wanted to be provocative (perish the thought), (s)he could deploy the same (fallacious) argument the other way: ‘So, you deny that Mark 13 has already been fulfilled? Wow, that’s really dangerous. You carry on like that, and pretty soon you’ll be saying the same about Isaiah 53.’

3. The ‘implied irrelevance’ argument. ‘If the text has already been fulfilled, then it’s not relevant for us, because the future judgment about which it warns lies in the past.’

But it doesn’t follow that a text is irrelevant for us just because its referent lies in the past. True, it might not have the relevance which some think it has, but it will be relevant in other ways. After all, everyone believes that some NT texts have already been fulfilled, right? Like Mark 10:45? Does that make them irrelevant for us today?

The lovely law - 20 May 2009

According to Jesus, the two greatest commandments are both about love – love for God and love for neighbour (Matthew 22:36-40).

People sometimes misunderstand what Jesus is saying here. They wrongly imagine that he is doing away with the category of law as such, and replacing it with love: ‘The Old Testament taught about law; Jesus taught about love.’

The problem with this ought to be obvious. The Bible commands us to love. Consequently, if commandments as a category are now to be abandoned, then by the same token love is lost as well. Listen to John Frame:

Scripture clearly makes love a command of God. That fact immediately rules out any opposition or antithesis between love and commandments in general. Any arguments directed against the keeping of commandments in general carry equal weight against the keeping of the love commandment specifically. But in an ethic governed by Scripture, such arguments carry no weight at all. (Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, pp. 194-195)

The relationship between law and love works equally the other way. Not only does the Bible command us to love; it also tells us that true love is necessarily expressed in obedience to God’s commands. For example:

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. (Deuteronomy 6:5-6)

Frame again: ‘Jesus says that those who love him will keep his commands’ (p. 195; cf. John 14; 1 John 2; 5; 2 John).

An extraordinary man - 4 May 2009

Last Saturday I had the privilege of spending 6 hours in the company of a small crowd of enthusiastic Christians talking about the life and work of Jonathan Edwards.

Many thanks to all who came for a warm welcome and a wonderfully thought-provoking day.

Here’s an outline of what I meant to say.

And here are a few very brief tasters:

Edwards was extraordinary. By many estimates, he was the most acute early American philosopher and the most brilliant of all American theologians. At least three of his many works – Religious Affections, Freedom of the Will, and The Nature of True Virtue – stand as masterpieces in the larger history of Christian literature. (George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life, p. 1)

I think the notion of liberty, consisting in a contingent self-determination of the will, as necessary to the morality of men’s dispositions and actions [...] almost inconceivably pernicious. (Edwards to John Erskine, 1757)

Thus it appears, if we consider matters strictly, there is no such thing as any identity or oneness in created objects, existing at different times, but what depends on God’s sovereign constitution. And so it appears, that the objection [...] is built on a false hypothesis: for it appears, that a divine constitution is the thing which makes truth, in affairs of this nature. (Edwards, Original Sin, p. 404)

If it be so, that true religion lies much in the affections, hence we may infer, that such means are to be desired, as have much of a tendency to move the affections. Such books, and such a way of preaching the Word, and administration of ordinances, and such a way of worshiping God in prayer, and singing praises, is much to be desired, as has a tendency deeply to affect the hearts of those who attend these means. (Edwards, Religious Affections, p. 121)

The inadequacy of law - 23 April 2009

The every-insightful Jam Cary speaks a lot of sense about the inadequacy of law, and the corresponding necessity of the gospel, to restrain evil and promote the good.