John and the Holy Spirit

INTRODUCTION

The Fourth Gospel, that is, the Gospel of John, is often viewed in light of the author’s stated purpose of documenting specific signs “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”[1] In addition, this Gospel is often viewed as providing great evidence of the hypostatic union of Jesus’ simultaneous deity and humanity. And Carson and Moo argue, “The elements of what came to be called the doctrine of the Trinity find their clearest articulation, within the New Testament, in the Gospel of John.”[2] However, while the Fourth Gospel’s main focus appears to be on Jesus, the Gospel also demonstrates the person, purpose, and deity of the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

John, the son of Zebedee, walked with Jesus and was his disciple for the duration of Jesus’ earthly ministry. The Synoptic Gospels often record that John was among Jesus’ inner-circle of disciples, regularly present for many special events as an eyewitness. And if John, the son of Zebedee, is the beloved disciple and author of the Fourth Gospel (as this author believes he is), there is clear evidence through the Gospel of John that John had a special relationship with Jesus. In addition, John was present in the upper room at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the small group.[3] And the remainder of the New Testament provides an indication that John experienced many aspects of the faith, being animated and moved by the Holy Spirit, which greatly aided him in his calling as an Apostle to teach the world. This post will examine one aspect of his teaching—the Holy Spirit. First, a discussion of many sections of the Gospel of John and one unique word choice will be offered. Next, this post will examine (and speculate) what John may have understood during the time of his narrative compared to what he understood at the point of authoring his Gospel. Then, before the conclusion, this post will look at what aspects of the Holy Spirit would be unknown without the Fourth Gospel.

A REVIEW OF THE SCRIPTURES

When attempting to understand what the beloved disciple’s Gospel teaches on the Holy Spirit, it is best to look at the evidence from John’s hand. John uses two words when referring to the Holy Spirit. The first is pneuma, which is the more common use for the Spirit throughout John, as well as throughout the New Testament. Fifteen times this word is used in reference to the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel. Eight times John’s Gospel uses pneuma in reference to the nonphysical part of a person or a person’s soul, and once it is in reference to wind. Looking to John’s other canonical writings, pneuma twice refers to breath, twice to a mood or intention, 12 times to demonic or angelic beings, and 20 times it is used in reference to the Holy Spirit. There are 319 uses of the same word outside the Johannine corpus, all being employed much in the same way as John’s usages. And considering that Klein Bloomberg and Hubbard argue, “[The Septuagint (LXX)] became the Bible of most of the early Christians during the writing of the NT,” there is a possibility that John knew the Hebrew Bible by way of the Septuagint (LXX); therefore, it may be worth noting that pneuma appears 350 times in the Septuagint (LXX).[4] The second word John uses in reference to the Holy Spirit is parakleōtos. This word is used significantly less, only by John, and will be discussed in greater detail below. Attention will now shift to specific passages in John where either one of these two words is used in reference to the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit on Jesus: 1:32-33. John the Baptist, the man who baptized Jesus in the Jordan river, declared that he did not know who the Lamb of God would be, but that God told him he would know when he saw the Spirit descend and remain on him. In addition, John said of Jesus, “I saw the Spirit descent from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.”[5] The Spirit served as an anointing sign to the Baptist. And through John the Baptist’s witness, John, the Gospel author, is able to provide a sign of Jesus’ anointing for his soon-coming ministry. “The descent of the Spirit on Jesus,” states Bruce, “marked him out as the Davidic ruler of Isa. 11:2ff, of whom it is written, ‘the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him’, as the Servant of whom God says in introducing him in Isa. 42:1, ‘I have put my Spirit upon him’, and as the prophet who announces in Isa. 61:1, ‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord as anointed me . . .’”[6]

Baptizing with the Spirit: 1:33. John the Baptist was baptizing with water, but the one who sent him to baptize reviled that another would be coming with a greater baptism. This baptism is different than anything the Baptist could offer, and in fact could only be given by the Son of God. Carson suggests that this Baptism in (or with) the Holy Spirit points forward to a new age when God will pour out the Spirit onto (or into) his people, alluding to Ezekiel 36:25-26 where following a water cleansing, God implants within the person a new heart and a new spirit.[7]

Born of the Spirit: 3:5-8. Jesus introduces and interesting concept to Nicodemus, a Pharisee. He tells Nicodemus that he must be born again and that rebirth is of water and Spirit. Morris suggests a couple meanings of this passage. The first is that the water represents a repentance baptism, such as John the Baptist was administering; and the Spirit is, “namely the totally new divine life that Jesus would impart.”[8] The second meaning of being born of water and Spirit could suggest that being born of water points to a natural birth and then being born of the Spirit is a birth of spiritual regeneration. Either way, Jesus is clear that one must be born of the Holy Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God, meaning that the Holy Spirit holds a significant role in this second birth and man’s ability to enter the kingdom of God.

Given without measure: 3:34. Fulfilling Isaiah’s prophetic words in Isaiah 11:2, 42:1, and 61:1, the Holy Spirit rests upon the Servant. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is suggested as having an empowering quality. Jamieson suggests that while some human-inspired teachers might have the Holy Spirit to some degree, God has bestowed the Holy Spirit upon Jesus in an unlimited measure.[9]

Giver of life: John 6:63. In this passage, Jesus gives credit to the Spirit as the giver of life. The Fourth Gospel has already shared the words of Jesus stating that the Holy Spirit plays a significant role in the new birth. Now he confirms that it is the Holy Spirit that gives life. Carson claims, “One of the clearest characteristics of the Spirit in the Old Testament is the giving of life.”[10] However, in this verse the Spirit as the giver of life is being sharply contrasted against the flesh. And in the very next sentence, Jesus says that it is the words that he speaks that are spirit and life. If it is in Jesus’ words that life and spirit are discovered, than there is a connection between the Spirit and the words of Jesus. To this idea, Morris suggests,

A woodenly literal, flesh-dominated manner of looking at Jesus’ words will not yield the correct interpretation. That is granted only to the spiritual man, the Spirit-dominated man. Such words cannot be comprehended by the fleshy, whose horizon is bound by this earth and its outlook. Only as the life-giving Spirit informs him may a man understand these words.[11]

Receive the Holy Spirit: 7:39; 20:22. At the Feast of Booths, Jesus declared that for anyone who believes in him, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”[12] John writes that this statement is in reference to the Spirit, “whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”[13] Marsh states, “This is written not only from the perspective of this particular narrative of the gospel, but also from the later perspective of the Church, in which every believer has received the Spirit (at baptism).”[14] The Spirit was not yet present in the form that Jesus was stating, but at a point after Jesus’ ascension, man would be in a position to receive the Holy Spirit. The Greek word behind the translation of receive, is lambanō, which means, “to take.”[15] There is an implication of some level of choice or action of willingness involved. Recorded in John 20:22, Jesus breathes on the disciples and commands them to “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

Spirit of Truth who dwells in you: 14:15-17. It is here for the first time that parakleōtos is used in reference to the Holy Spirit. Jesus is about do depart and he is preparing his disciples for the time when he is gone. But Jesus is not leaving them alone and without a helper or champion; he will ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit, the parakleōtos. But while this coming Helper will dwell among men just as Jesus did, he will also dwell within the disciples. Jesus also declares, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.”[16] John, it seems, has painted a picture of an amazing union between the Holy Trinity and the believer.

The Teacher: 14:25-26. Jesus has been with the disciples for some time, teaching and training them. He has taught them many things, and soon it will be their responsibility to teach others. However, it seems that at times, the disciples failed to understand what Jesus was attempting to teach them. Understanding did not come until after they received the Holy Spirit (see John 2:22 and 12:26, among many passages contained in the Synoptic Gospels.) But in this text, Jesus promises them a teacher who will “teach [them] all things and bring to [their] remembrance all that [Jesus had] said to [them].”[17] Bruce points out, “Now they are told that when the Paraclete comes, he will enable them to recall and understand when Jesus taught: he will serve them, in other words, as remembrancer and interpreter.”[18]

The Person and Witness: 15:26. There are two significant aspects about the Spirit in verse 26. First, as time moves forward, the Spirit will serve as a witness to testify about Jesus. Here, as elsewhere, the Spirit is given a purpose. (Subsequently, the disciples are also called upon the testify about what happened while they walked with Jesus.) Second, John says, “he will bare witness about me.”[19] Carson argues that it is no accident; John intentionally used the word ekeinos.[20] The Greek word, ekeinos, is a masculine pronoun and Carson demonstrates that its use is inconsistent with the “(formally) neuter status of the preceding relative pronoun.”[21] John is referring to the Holy Spirit in personal, male terms. He is thinking of the Holy Spirit as a person! Incidentally, John uses ekeinos for the Holy Spirit again in John 16:13-14.

The Guide who only speaks what he hears: 16:13-14. This passage specifically demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is not operating by his own authority, but is declaring what he hears, which glorifies Jesus. Theologically, this is one of many demonstrations of the Trinity’s simultaneous unity and equality of being in perfect submission to one another in the service of their unique purposes. “The Holy Spirit never magnifies Himself,” writes Duffield and Van Cleave, “nor the human vessel through whom He operates. He came to magnify the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. Whenever He is truly having His way, Christ, and none other, is exalted.”[22]

Parakleōtos: 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7. In addition to the summary of passages above, there is some value in looking at a special term only John uses for the Holy Spirit. The use of parakleōtos is found only five times in the New Testament—four times in the Gospel of John and once in First John (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1). Incidentally, it makes no appearance in the Septuagint (LXX). Köstenberger states “The translation of this term has proved particularly difficult, since there does not seem to be an exact equivalent in the English language.”[23]

English Bible translations each seem to handle the parakleōtos differently. For example, the English Standard Version (ESV) uses the word “Helper” in all of the Gospel uses and “Advocate” in John’s first Epistle. The American Standard Version (ASV) uses “Comforter” in the Gospel use and “Advocate” in the letter. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) uses “Counselor” in the Gospel, and once again, “Advocate” is used in First John; and the same is true for the King James Version (KJV). The New International Version (NIV) also selected “Counselor” in the Gospel and simply says “one” in the Epistle. “Helper” is the choice for the New American Standard Bible (NASB) except in the letter, where “Advocate” is the selected word. The New English Translation (NET) uses “Advocate” for every occurrence, as does the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New Living Translation (NLT).

Turning to dictionaries and lexicon a variety of meanings for parakleōtos are presented. Perschbacher defines it as, “one called or sent for to assist another; an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, [. . .] one present to render various beneficial service, and thus, the Paraclete, whose influence and operation were to compensate for the departure of Christ himself.”[24] Strong defines it as, “counselor, intercessor, helper, one who encourages and comforts; in the NT it refers exclusively to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus Christ.”[25]

WHAT DID JOHN KNOW AT THE TIME?

As mentioned above, there are clear indications in the Fourth Gospel that suggest that while John was with Jesus during his earthly ministry, there were many things John did not fully understand. John 2:22 states, “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” John 12:16 echoes this same idea. Both of these texts offer strong support for the development of John’s theology, and John 14:25-26 leaves the reader with the impression that the Holy Spirit likely had a profound impact upon John’s understanding sometime after the Pentecost. While it would only serve as speculation to attempt to determine what John learned from Jesus and what he learned from the Holy Spirit, a survey of John’s teaching on the Spirit can be juxtaposed against the Old Testament to determine how much John could have learned from Scripture. And what John teaches that has no counterpart in the Old Testament can then be assumed to have been taught to John either by Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Before an examination of John’s teaching is contrasted against the Old Testament, it should be noted that there is still a possibility that John was unaware of a specific scriptural teachings on the Holy Spirit; and in fact, it was still Jesus or the Holy Spirit that served to teach John about these things. However, by conducting this examination, it can at least be determined what knowledge might have been available to John prior to encountering Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

John’s knowledge from the Scriptures. Staring with the Spirit being upon Jesus as an anointing power, John may have understood the idea of empowerment of the Spirit upon a person by examples from David and Saul, such as the example in First Samuel 16:13. And he may have understood the idea of the Holy Spirit coming upon the Servant of God as Isaiah’s prophecies dictated (Isaiah 11:2, 42:1, 59:21, and 61:1). However as far as the Spirit dwelling within the believer, the Old Testament showed the Spirit coming on someone for a time to empower him, but there is no indication of the Holy Spirit actually dwelling within a person.

As for a baptism of the Spirit, this concept is only alluded to in Ezekiel 36:25-26; but even with this allusion, it likely would have been difficult to formulate a solid understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role in the cleansing and regeneration of the heart. Joel 2:28 provides a picture of a pouring out of the God’s Spirit that leads to an empowerment, but this picture of empowerment is lacking in the regeneration suggested in Ezekiel. Without encountering Jesus or the Holy Spirit, it is unlikely John would understand the baptism of the Spirit as he writes about it in the first chapter of his Gospel. And if baptism of the Spirit was a difficult concept without Jesus or the Holy Spirit’s teaching, being born of the Spirit would have been even more so. Not even Nicodemus, an educated Pharisee understood what Jesus was teaching at the time.

As John came to understand that the Spirit is in some way the giver of life, his thoughts were likely contrasted against passages that declare that God is the giver of life (like Genesis 2:7 and Psalm 80:18, for example). But in reading these passages, one would probably not concluded that that the Holy Spirit is the giver of eternal life as Jesus was teaching. And John would not likely be alone in this lack of understanding because John’s sixth chapter of his Gospel shows many disciples turning away from following Jesus due to confusion of Jesus’ statements about the life found in the Spirit and the lack of life in the flesh.

Psalm 25:8-9 and Isaiah 54:13 are examples of God being the teacher and instructor to his people. It may have been difficult to understand this teacher as being the Holy Spirit, but it certainly would not be a stretch to know that God does want to teach and remind his people of his ways. In fact, Jeremiah 31:33-34 suggests that God would eventually write his law upon the hearts of the people.

WHAT IS AT STAKE WITHOUT JOHN?

The Fourth Gospel provides some unique contributions to the believer’s understanding of the Holy Spirit. Without John’s Gospel, we would not have the discourse with Nicodemus, which includes a unique picture of being born of water and the Spirit as a requirement to enter the kingdom of God. John is also the only one to use the term parakleōtos, offering a different understanding of the Holy Spirit. Yes, John does use this word once in First John, but that use has legal cogitations, where as the other four uses suggest that the Spirit is a helper, counselor, and assisting presence. John’s use of ekeinos clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is a person and not a thing or force. This is the most articulate argument for the personage of the Holy Spirit; without John, the other arguments may not have led the Church to the same conclusion. And John makes it clear that the Holy Spirit came because of Jesus’ death and glorification. He is present because Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father.

CONCLUSION

While John demonstrates the humanity and deity of Jesus, he also teaches a great deal on the Holy Spirit. After reviewing the ten passages of Scripture and reviewing John’s unique reference for the Holy Spirit, it should be clear that John held a strong understanding of the purpose and function of the Holy Spirit. Some of these characteristics of the Holy Spirit are found only in the Fourth Gospel, and given his understanding of the many aspects of Holy Spirit (some demonstrated only by John), the Fourth Gospel should be viewed as a valuable source for teaching on the Holy Spirit. It is the hope and prayer of this author that the readers of this post will be compelled to examine John’s articulation of the Holy Spirit for themselves, so that they will develop a stronger understanding of John’s written demonstration of the person, purpose, and power of the Holy Spirit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1994.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1991.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.
Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angles, Cali: Foursquare Media, 2008.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. OakTree Software, Inc., 1871. Version 2.4. [Acccessed by Accordance Bible Software 9.2.1, March 6, 2011.]
Klein, William W., Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2003.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
Marsh, John. Saint John. Philadelphia, Penn: Westminster Press, 1977.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1984.
Perschbacher, Wesley J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.


1. John 20:31, English Standard Version (ESV). Unless otherwise noted, all quotes from the Bible will be taken from the ESV.
2. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 278.
3. Acts 1:13ff.
4. William W. Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 253.
5. John 1:23b.
6. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1994), 53-54.
7. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1991), 152.
8. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans 1984), 216.
9. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (OakTree Software, Inc., 1871 Version 2.4.) [Acccessed by Accordance Bible Software 9.2.1, March 6, 2011.]
10. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 301.
11. Morris, 385.
12. John 7:38b.
13. John 7:39b.
14. John Marsh, Saint John (Philadelphia, Penn: Westminster Press, 1977), 344.
15. James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong (The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 2986.
16. John 14:20.
17. John 14:26.
18. Bruce, 305.
19. John 15:26
20. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 529.
21. Ibid.
22. Guy P. Duffield, and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Cali: Foursquare Media, 2008), 295.
23. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002), 157.
24. Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990), 308.
25. Strong, 3884. 

* "Ausgießung des Hl. Geistes" pictured in this post is in the public domain.
** This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.

The Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31

A sermon by Bryan Catherman.

Jesus often taught in parables; and on this night, I was blessed with the opportunity to preach about a story of two worlds as recorded in Luke 16:19-31.

This sermon was preached on July 17, 2011 at Risen Life Church.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

The Changing Landscape and The City

I was recently talking with my buddy, Pastor Sean, about changes in service and worship styles.  He was looking at it like new wine in old wine skins.  It was a great conversation!  After our lunch, my mind kept slow-churning the topic, bringing in other areas where the same thing may apply.

It occurred to me that as the church moves into the future, the tools are changing.  The gospel does not change, but how we engage with culture in a gospel-centric way is regularly on the move.  I can't help but think about those churches who apposed electric sound equipment.  Or how about churches who still put their sermons on cassette tape because they are apposed to upgrading to CD; or even those churches who are apposed to putting sermons on-line as podcasts or streaming audio?  How many churches still run ads in the Yellow Pages and refuse to get a website?

Today we find pastors and churches who still avoid Facebook and Twitter.  There's certainly nothing wrong with this if it's about time addiction or some other personal reason.  But if it is just to avoid the technology for the sake of avoidance, pastors are moving themselves to a back-burner with the culture.  Facebook is where many people communicate and many churches rightly view Facebook, Twitter, and other social media as the yet another marketplace of communication.  Paul took the gospel into the market place of ideas, where he could communicate.  The point is not the location but the approach.  As we follow this model, we shouldn't be afraid to use the tools around us.  Facebook, Twitter, blogs, podcasts, text-messaging, and many other technological tools should be used for the advancement of the Kingdom to the greater glory of God.

I've been looking at a tool specifically made for churches.  It's called The City.  It's not a Facebook or a Twitter or another social media vehicle.  Instead, it serves more as an administrative tool as well as a communication tool for church members and visitors.  It's over the internet and intended to make church work easier.  It's certainly not the traditional database system and I can imaging that some church are probably apposed to this kind of tool.  Here's a overview:  

I'm amazed by the tools available to the Church today.  We are indeed blessed.  Sure, there have been advances in technology in the past--just image the excitement over the microphone and amplification systems when that was new technology?  (And the excitement still exists in this area because I witnessed great joy in the previously mentioned pastor when our church upgraded to a new soundboard.  He's the worship leader; of course he'd be excited!) But we should see the rate of advancement today as something of a blessing.  Even now, I'm looking at G+ and how that may serve as another marketplace of communication.  Yes, at times it's daunting to keep up, but just think of the great need to advance the gospel and reach the culture wherever it may be.

If you're on The City, I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.  Good, bad?  Pros, cons?  Let's chat.

Mission Field: Utah

After a trip to New Mexico, I've been reflecting on what it is to be a Christian in Utah.  I've captured some of these thoughts about missionary work and church planting in this short cell-phone video:

As I've already stated, the above video was made on my cell phone. It was posted via free services, and embedded on this website. It was created by a production team of one.  (I held the camera, shot the video, wrote the content as I was shooting, and edited the footage.)  Most churches in Utah don't have amazing resources to make videos like churches in other parts of the country.  And if we are to be really honest, there are some church video production teams that have much bigger budgets than the total annual budgets of most churches in Salt Lake.  However, that shouldn't stop us in Utah from trying to reach our communities, to include those who first seek us out on-line. 

I bring this up because I keep hearing about one or two week mission trips to exotic, far-off lands.  There is nothing wrong with these missions if the intentions are rooted in the right place.  I wonder, however, how many of those people would be excited to come on a mission trip to Utah?  I'm curious how many churches would be thrilled to support a church plant in Salt Lake, Provo, or Logan.  How many churches are willing to fund a college campus missionary or church planting pastor?  How many big churches would be willing to give just 1 or 2% of their budgets to support the harvesters in the much dryer parts of the vineyard?  Even if it is Utah. . . .

Not too long ago, I was blessed with the opportunity to take lunches to a bunch of kids from California, New Mexico, and elsewhere who came for World Changers.  They came to put roofs on houses and care for the less fortunate in my town.  They came to be missionaries to Utah.  They came to help us out here.  And while it wasn't sexy or exotic, it was ministry.  They prayed with families and we joined them.  They were the hands and feet of Jesus here, for all the right reasons.

Utah is a mission field.  While Utah has a very high rate of people who regularly attend a religious service, only 3.3% of them attend one that is Christian, according to ARDA. (By Christian, I mean those who hold to a trinitarian view of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit; believe that salvation is by grace alone, and confirm that the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God and the only source of scriptural divine authority.)  Compare that to Texas at 32.2% or Alabama at 50.4%.  The national average is 23.5%.  Utah County, which includes the city of Provo records only 0.82% Christians and there are three counties in Utah that are so low they are statistically reported at 0%.  If Utah were its own nation, the number of Christians per capita would rank below China (8.2%), and the United Arab Emirates (12.6%).

Therefore, it is my hope that churches will recognize Utah as a mission field.  Nobody has to eat bugs, there is a great airport, and there's hardly any language barrier.  The cost to come to Utah is significantly less expensive than flying overseas and there's no passport required.  Send your missionaries and church planters.  Send resources and support.  And please, be praying for Utah.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.

Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Southern Rockies Discipleship Camp 2011

This year I was blessed with the opportunity to serve as Camp Pastor for the 2011 Southern Rockies Discipleship Camp.  Lisa and I sent our boys to grandma's house in Boise and launched what would eventually be a 1,700-mile round-trip adventure to the El Porvenir Christian Camp in New Mexico in order to minister and pastor 98 junior and high school-aged campers and 16 staff.  I was responsible for preaching 7 nights of sermons while Lisa's duties included inspecting the cabins.  But as it turns out, we did so much more.  And God's hand in teaching and growing us far surpassed our expectations.

After spending the day driving south to New Mexico, we stopped at the Glorieta Conference Center to spend the night.  We really didn't know what to expected and we certainly were not ready for what we found.  Glorieta is an enormous campus and there was a huge youth camp in full swing when we arrived. Coming from Utah, where there are very few Christians, we were somewhat overwhelmed.  "I've entered another universe," Lisa expressed as she exited the car.  I struggled to count the number of vans with "First Baptist Church" painted on the sides. The vans and their corresponding passengers had come from cities all over the United States.   

The next morning we packed and headed up into the mountains.  The camp was a great little destination on the side of a hill.  About 1/2 mile from our main gathering place (at the dining facility) was Lisa's and my little isolated cabin.  It sits atop a rock bluff with a back patio overlooking a small pond and stream.

Many of the youth that came to this particular camp come year after year; and in order to come, they've had to accomplish some Awana related tasks even though the camp is not officially associated with the Awana program. As the campers were arriving, it quickly became clear to me that this was a great group of young men and women.  It also became apparent that I would be doing far more than preaching each night.

The days started at 6:30am when some of the counselors and staff would meet to pray for day's work and for specific needs of the youth.  The days would end around 10:00pm when Lisa and I would finally return to the cabin to process that day's activities and doze off to a comatose state.  In between, we would sit and chat with campers at meals.  We counseled with the campers and even some of the counselors.  Lisa would inspect the cabins and pick daily winners.  We played games with the campers.  I offered a George Paton-style call to Christian arms on "Millitary Appreciation Day," which was outside my comfort zone as I played a character; however, it was rather fun and served as another opportunity to talk about Jesus with the campers.  Mid-week, I developed an object-lesson teaching opportunity and team building exercise for three days that culminated in a campers verses counselors paintball match (resulting in the camp pastor looking like a polka-dotted mess of welts).  I also participated in a three-day mortification of sin project with the JV Men and their counselors.  The result was a powerful experience that I pray was taken home with the guys and will be remembered for a long time to come.

Lisa and I spent lots of time in prayer with the campers.  When we weren't praying or counseling, we were just hanging out with them, getting to know them.  Oh, and I preached for 30 to 40 minutes each night. (It's my hope that the sermons will be available on this website soon.)  The days were long, but were well worth it.

On the first night, I set the stage for camp.  The camp was to be seen like a mountain top experience.  Like James, John, and Peter who were invited to see Jesus' glory on the mountain during his transfiguration, we too were seeking to see Jesus' glory.  But we also recognized that life is lived in the valley, so the remainder of the time at camp was used to prepare and equip us for life after descending the mountain. I pray it was well received.

Interestingly, God used this camp experience to shape and mold Lisa and I.  Dare I say we were even rebuked a bit.  Before camp, I was unsure of the extent of which I am capable of working with youth.  Could I connect, teach, and foster growth in young people?  But after this camp, I realize that not only can I work with youth, but that I love working with youth!  I was also able to preach with no seminary class grading constraints.  Through others, I've learned that I'm somewhat gifted in this area (and thank God for that because there was more than one night when I had less than an hour to prepare!)  I actually enjoyed preaching and I was surprised how few notes I needed--on two nights I was blessed with the ability to use no notes what-so-ever.  On another night, the clock stopped five minutes after I started and not realizing it, I stretched my sermon out for twice as long as the sermon should have been and nobody noticed I was stretching.  I also was able to get right down in the dirt to minister to young people and adults alike.  I can think of no other thing in my life I would rather do than serve God ministering to his people!

And one more thing came about at this camp.  Lisa, who has been extremely supportive of my calling has herself been called of by God.  She and I now realize the magnitude of our service together, as a team and she is an outstanding support to me and an amazing minister to women.

The camp calendar for a the next few years already has camp pastors lined up, so at this point, it seems unlikely I will have the opportunity to return for some time to come.  I certainly would like to, but I trust that the Shepherd will lead me on the path of his choosing, and I will follow.  That being said, I would love to return to the camp in the future and I hope it's somewhere along the path.  And I truly hope I see some of these young men and women doing big things in the future because they are loved by an amazing God.


To the SRDC 2011 campers and staff:  I can't thank you enough for how much and in how many ways you supported and blessed Lisa and I.  It was a blessing to be your pastor for the week.  Thank you!  And as you walk in the valley be sure to listen for the Shepherd's voice. . . and then say "baaaa."  -- God bless,  Pastor C.

Where and When Did John Write John?

In understanding where and when John wrote his Gospel, it is first significant to understand his purpose. After writing about Jesus’ death, John writes, “He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe” (John 19:35, ESV). Regardless of the debate over the identity of this witness, it is clear that John is giving the account so the reader comes to believe. Believes what is the question? One logical conclusion is so that one believes that Jesus was actually killed and in the manor described, and also so one believes that the events were a fulfillment of Scripture. But John is much more direct roughly 700 words later when he writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written so that you my believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31, ESV). Not only is John writing so his readers may believe that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God, he is writing so that through that believe, they will have life. John’s purpose is clearly evangelistic.

There is much debate surrounding the date and location where John penned his book; however, I argue that while there is value in understanding a general date period of authorship (especially in academia), knowing the exact place does little more to change the content of the book then knowing that Hemmingway authored For Whom the Bell Tolls from a hotel room in Ketchum, Idaho. That being said, Köstenberger is content with Irenaus’s statement supporting that John published his Gospel while in Ephesus (1999, 25). This is the traditional view but Carson is quick to point out that there is debate around this view (2005, 254). There could be value in understanding what was going on around John at the time of the writing, but so little is known with certainty that much of this is speculation and there is little in the Gospel itself that seems to be addressing only local issues.

The time of authorship is more significant than the location. How much time had passed between the events themselves and the recording of them? Had some of Jesus prophetic words already come to pass or were they yet to be fulfilled at the time John was writing? The destruction of the temple is among the most significant examples. In addition, how much time did John had to reflect on the life of Jesus? And if one holds a very late date of authorship, then the question of authorship becomes even more significant. A wide variety of positions are argued for date, but Carson points out that “almost any date between about AD 55 and AD 95 is possible” (1991, 82). However, I find Carson’s argument convincing and am in agreement with him on a tentative date right around AD 80.

While date and place and providence are interesting and very useful for study, it is difficult to believe that John wrote his Gospel with this end result in mind. In addition, there is a divine author that must also be considered. The document is timeless and its purpose serves just as much today as it did the moment it was written—so that readers may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that belief in him offers life in his name. One seeking to understand God should be able to find him in the pages of the book of John. And reading John should (at a minimum) challenge one who does not know God or understand who Jesus is. This is likely why John seems to be the most popular single book of the Bible given out as supporting material in evangelistic efforts. The wonderful thing about the book of John is that readers today should have some ability to approach the book just as readers in the late first century did. The only difference might be the type and color of the baggage one brings with him on the journey through John’s claim that Jesus is who he claims he is.

___
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Encountering biblical studies. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
*Picture of "Altarpiece of John the Evangelist" by Hans Burgkmair der Ältere is in the public domain.

What, John is Not the Author?

While working on a paper, I came across a commentator that strongly argued that John was not likely the author of The Gospel According to John because this title was probably not a part of the original work.  He also argued that the book didn't contain any other indication of who the author could be.  I couldn't help but think about how this viewed seemed only to work in a bubble. 

Imagine a copy of the Gospel of John was dropped from an airplane into a tribe of remote people who had no other books of the Bible. Imagine that prior to the Gospel drop, they had never heard of Jesus, Christianity, or any other aspect associated with the Bible. Also imagine that the title was removed. It is impossible that they would identify the author as the disciple named "John." What reason would they have to do so when the only two “Johns” mentioned in the Gospel are John the Baptist who was killed and Peter’s father. They would have no reason what-so-ever to think Peter’s father wrote the account.

Now imagine the Gospel was dropped with the heading “According to John.” Would they draw the conclusion that John is the name of the beloved disciple? This is far more likely considering John 21:20-24. Verse 20 clearly identifies a man nearby as the disciple Jesus loved, who was reclining at the table in John 13. Peter asks Jesus about this nearby man and a brief discussion about the man transpires. Then verse 24 says, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written things, and we know that his testimony is true” (ESV). Given the title of the work, “According to John,” the tribe would likely only come to two possible conclusions. First, they would likely conclude that the beloved disciple wrote most if not all of the Gospel. Second, they would conclude that either, 1. John was the name of the beloved disciple, 2. John was the name of the editor that redacted the beloved disciple’s work and added the final few lines as a tribute; or 3. that John was the name of the beloved disciple who took notes which an editor or group of editors redacted, added a few lines at the end and named after him.

These two exercises demonstrate the significant evidence found in the of the title of the work. That being said, it is uncertain that this was the original title. However, Burge argues that the earliest Greek manuscripts known to us today do bare this title (1992, 40). In addition, these two exercises isolate the huge body of external evidence, which includes other works contained in the Bible as well as the writings of other people in the first and second centuries. Given this body of evidence, it is most likely that John was the name of the beloved disciple and did write all or nearly all the gospel that bares his name.

In light of the evidence, if the beloved disciple is John—as the external evidence demonstrates—but John is not the author of the Gospel of John as some scholars claim, a lie is present in the Book of John, seriously bringing question upon the credibility of the Gospel. However, there is substantial evidence (which is not discussed here) that supports that John is both the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel of John.

Therefore, I have to conclude that John, the son of Zebedee, who was also the beloved disciple, is the same John who wrote the Fourth Gospel. 

__
Burge, Gary M. Interpreting the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1992.

Theological Word: Hapax Legomena

Hapax Legomena is the technical way of identifying words that only appear once in a given writing.

It might be, for example, a word that only appears once in the New Testament, Old Testament, or maybe only once in all of Paul's work, or even in a specific book.  Obviously, we will find a higher persentage of hapax legomena if we only look at one of Paul's letters compared to examining all of the Greek in the New Testament in conjunction with the Septuagint (LXX), which is an early translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Koine Greek language used during the time of Jesus and the early Church.  The more limited the range, the greater the hapax legomena.  

It might seem silly that these words are significant, but at times they can raise interesting insight.  We might wonder why the author chose a specific less common word to express an idea.  Or it might be that the idea is wrapped up in the unique word itself.   This is especially true of words that only appear once in all of the Bible.

Hapax legomena might also raise translational challenges.  As one tries to understand how authors were using specific words, he or she can look at how the author used the word elsewhere.   Not so with hapax legomena. 

An example of a New Testament hapax legomena can be found in Matthew 17:27.  Here the word agkistron (translated 'hook') means a bent hook.  This is the only place this word is found in the New Testament.   Another example, much like the previous one, is agkos (translated 'arm') which means bent arm.  This word is found in Luke 2:28.  There are over 1,400 hapax legomena and most of them, like a bet hook, are of little concern to the meaning of the passage.

He is Alive! Confirmation on the Road to Emmaus

(And Exegetical Look at Luke 24:13-45)

INTRODUCTION

Jesus had been crucified. He was dead. Joseph of Arimathea had laid his beaten and lifeless body in a rock tomb. That was Friday. On Sunday, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and other women went to tend to Jesus’ body. But when they arrived at the tomb, Jesus was not there. Instead, they encountered two angels proclaiming that Jesus had risen—he was alive! The angels reminded the ladies of what Jesus had told them, saying, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise” (Luke 24:6b-7, ESV)¹.

The women returned and reported these things to the eleven—Jesus’ closest disciples—and “to all the rest” (Luke 24:9b). But the most of the men thought these women were spinning wild stories and they chose not to believe them. Peter however, ran to the tomb and looked in, first seeing that the stone had been rolled away and then that the only contents remaining were the linen cloths that once wrapped Jesus’ body. He returned to the others and reported what he had seen. On the same day, two people (one unnamed and the other identified as Cleopas) were walking and discussing the various events concerning Jesus when a stranger appeared to them. As it turned out, they encountered the risen Lord on the road to Emmaus.

Volumes of been penned about the Emmaus encounter. Generations have dissected Luke’s account of Christ’s revelation of himself to these two witnesses. Some, it seems, have hunted for clues and codes beyond the most significant and obvious story, while others cannot even seem to accept that two people walking to a nearby town encountered the risen Jesus on the third day. Luke however, makes it very clear—Jesus is raised and he presented himself to these two witnesses on the road and in a home, as they were about to eat.

This post will closely examine the Emmaus road encounter as recorded in Luke 24:13-35. First, the passage will be summarized. Following the summation, and introduction of the author will be provided along with some background of the time and audience in which he was writing. Then the purpose of the book of Luke will be surveyed, and the context of the passage will be discussed. Once this foundation is laid, the content of Luke 24:13-35 will be the focus, starting with the most obvious message of the text: Jesus is alive! This and other aspects of the text will be offered by way of synthesis of the various ideas from the passage itself and commentaries on the passage. But this is not the ending point of the post. A practical application for today’s students of the Bible (the ultimate reason for study) will serve as the conclusion.

SUMMARY OF LUKE 24:13-16

On the same day the women saw the angels, Cleopas and an unnamed person were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus, which is about seven miles from Jerusalem. (13, 18). They were talking about all the things that had recently happened, that is, likely the things concerning Jesus, to include his mighty works and teaching, his trial, his crucifixion, the report from the women about their experience with the angels at the tomb, and the men who found the tomb empty (14, 19-24). They had hoped Jesus was the one to redeem Israel (21). Just then, Jesus came near, likely from the direction of Jerusalem, but the two travelers were kept from recognizing him (15-16). He asked the two people what they had been discussing and they stopped walking and were visibly sad (17). Cleopas then responded, as if in shock or just wanting to push away the stranger, asking Jesus if he were a visitor that had not heard anything about what had been going on in and around Jerusalem (18). Jesus replied, “What things?” and they told him about the many things regarding Jesus and the women and the empty tomb and that it was, on that day, the third day since Jesus died (19-24). Jesus responded, calling them “foolish ones” and “slow of heart to believe” the prophets (25). He then began explaining how all of the Scriptures were about himself (26-27).

As they approached Emmaus, it seemed that Jesus was continuing on, but the two people encouraged Jesus to stay with them. It was almost evening so Jesus went in to stay with them (28-29). Sitting at the table, Jesus took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the other two (30). At that moment their eyes were open and they recognized Jesus; then he vanished (31). The two started talking about it and they realized that their hearts burned while they were talking with Jesus on the road as he opened up the Scriptures to them (32). Although it was getting dark, they returned to Jerusalem that same night and met with the eleven and the others gathered around. The eleven told the two, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Luke 24:34). After this proclamation, the two reported what they had witnessed on the road and how they recognized Jesus as he was breaking the bread (33-35).

BACKGROUND

Who is the Author? According to Carson and Moo, “Most scholars agree that Luke and Acts were written by the same individual.”² The strongest support comes from Theophilus, or rather, the author’s introduction to Theophilus found in both Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2. Morris states, “Tradition unanimously affirms this author to be Luke.”³ While Morris, Carson, and Moo deal with the convincing proof that Luke is the author of the book that bares his name and its sequel, this post will agree with tradition for the sake of space.

Paul refers to Luke as a physician in his letter to the Colossians (4:14). Luke’s profession seems consistent with minor details of medical interest found throughout his writing. For example, when Luke discusses the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law, it is a “high fever” but Matthew and Mark only say it is a fever (Luke 4:38, Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30). In addition, Luke appears to be a meticulous, detail-oriented man as he claimed to have “undertaken to compile a narrative” of the “eyewitnesses” and “followed all things closely for some time past” so that he could then “write an orderly account” for Theophilus in which Theophilus could have “certainty” concerning the things he had already been taught (Luke 1:1-4). While only speculation, it seems logical that this would require meeting eyewitnesses for interviews, likely reading anything else written about Jesus, listening to stories, and traveling to places where the events happened. Notes would likely be taken and organization would be necessary. And in fact, it is seen in portions of Acts that Luke was along with Paul and others on parts of Paul’s journeys.

In addition to his profession and likely mental capabilities, there is also a possibility that Luke was a Gentile Christian. This support comes from Colossians 4:10-14, where first Paul lists the names of those with him who were circumcised (Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus) and then lists others to include Luke. It can be assumed that, Luke, not being among the circumcised list, would be a Gentile. And being a companion of Paul, along with writing a positive book about Jesus in order to show Theophilus the truth of the things he had already learned, there is great cause to think that Luke believe the content of his two books and was a Christian. And for what it is worth, Foxe recorded in his Book of Martyrs that Luke was “hanged on an olive tree, by the idolatrous priest of Greece.”⁴

The Time and Audience. Just as much can be said about the scholarly work of the authorship of Luke, so too is the case of the date of its composition. Two strong hypotheses exist—one for authorship some time in the early 60’s and the other for a time between AD75-85.⁵ Either way, the time of authorship is sometime in the first century between 60 and 85, which is close enough in regard to the passage being examined in this post. Although the time of the passage itself takes place sometime between AD30 and 33, the most significant aspect of these dates is that many of the people identified in Luke would have still been alive at the time of its authorship. And as Luke set out to write a theological historical narrative of the accounts, his book would have been greatly challenged if it misrepresented the facts.

Luke lived in a mix of Jews and Gentiles and was likely writing for an audience of both. Carson and Moo speculate that even though Theophilus was the singular, primary audience, “it is almost certain that Luke had a wider reading public in view.”⁶ But given that Luke ties Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam and assumes no Jewish tradition, it is likely that Luke was writing much more for the Gentiles than the Jews. In addition, much of Luke has a broader implication than just the Jewish people. And some of the cultural matters, such as including women in the narratives, suggest that Luke was writing from and to a culture other than the Jews. And if indeed Luke traveled with Paul, as this author believes, than it seems probably that Luke may have shared Paul’s desire to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

Purpose and Context. As already stated above, Luke’s purpose for his book was to provide and accurate account of the events of Jesus so Theophilus could have certainty in the things he was already taught. Considering the content of the book of Luke, it would seem that the things Theophilus was taught was likely the gospel of Jesus Christ and the way to salvation. The purpose of Chapter 24, of which the Emmaus road experience is a part, is to show that Christ has indeed risen and appeared to a variety of witnesses. It should be noted that of the three sections of this chapter (the angels’ declaration to the women, the Emmaus road experience, and Jesus’ appearance to the eleven and others) the Emmaus road event is the longest and vividly detailed.

The Emmaus road narrative is sandwiched between and account of the women, which the men did not believe, and Jesus’ climatic appearance to his group of disciples. In this context, the prospective of the two on the road serves as a bridge between the disbelief and the outright empirical testing of Christ’s resurrection. In the first panel (the story with the women), Jesus is not seen whatsoever. In the second, Jesus is seen but not recognized until the end. Here he must be heard and believed by faith more so than believed with the eyes. And finally, in the third panel, the disciples were able to touch and see Christ, and even witness him eat!

CONTENT

Jesus is Alive! As one reads Luke 24:13-35, it is easy to get sidetracked. Why were the two people restricted from recognizing Jesus? Was the breaking of the bread a communion service or just a meal, and why was Jesus serving it rather than the host? Where exactly did this event happen; can we pinpoint it on a map? Was the other witness Luke, or maybe Cleopas’ wife, or some other disciple? Why does Luke withhold the name of the second person? If the two disciples had not insisted on having Jesus stay, where would he have gone? Was Jesus presenting some kind of falsehood or lie by acting as if he was going on? All of these are interesting questions, but no other question from this text is worth anything if Luke’s most important and obvious point is not understood and accepted. The Lord is risen! Through the entire twenty-forth chapter, Luke is presenting accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, in detail, locations pointed out, witnesses named (mostly).

The Emmaus road account opens with two people discussing recent events, trying to make since of them. It is unknown why they were going to Emmaus, but it is possible that they lived there and were returning home from Passover as Culpepper and O’Day suggest.⁷ Regardless of their reason for travel, it is clear from verse 24 that these people were with the group that heard the account from the women. And they knew of Peter’s finding of an empty tomb; yet they did not remain in Jerusalem with the eleven and the rest of the disciples.

From the perspective of the two, a stranger came along side them. This stranger could see that they were carrying on a conversation and asked them about it. “The two disciples,” writes Geldenhuys, “would no doubt at first have felt offended at the obtrusiveness of the unknown Stranger, especially since they were talking so earnestly while they were walking and were so sorrowful and despondent.”⁸ But the stranger asks them another question; “What things?” he asks, showing that he genuinely is interested in the matter causing them such grief. And at this, these two confess their love of Jesus. They believed he was going to redeem Israel according to verse 21. Not knowing this man, they even take a risky position by placing blame for Jesus’ crucifixion on the Jews. To this Morris writes, “Notice that it is not the Romans but our chief priests and rulers who both delivered him up and crucified him. The reference to his being condemned to death implicates the Romans, but the chief blame is put squarely on the Jews.”⁹ They continue to express that this is not simply a matter of a prophet being put to death, but the one in which they had placed their hope.

A curious addition is the mention that this was the third day since Christ’s death. This would be of no value to the stranger unless they also told him what Jesus had taught and what the angles had reminded the women in verses 6-7: “that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise” (Luke 24:6b-7). It seems it must, at least at that moment, have been on the minds of these travelers. John Calvin argues, “For it is probable that he mentions the third day for no other reason that that the Lord had promised that after three days, he would rise again. When he afterwards relates that the women had not found the body, and that they had seen a vision of angels, and that what the women had said about the empty grave was likewise confirmed by the testimony of the men, the whole amounts to this, that Christ had risen. That the holy man, hesitating between faith and fear, employs what is adapted to nourish faith, and struggles against fear to the utmost of his power.”¹⁰

The stranger rebukes them for not trusting in what the Scriptures taught about the Messiah and the stranger begins to take them through the Law and Prophets showing them how these things were about him, about Jesus. As this was happening, the men experienced a burning within, according to verse 32, but this was still not enough for them to recognize Jesus. Verse 16 says, “But their eyes were kept from recognizing him” (Luke 24:16). Barclay argues that they were blinded and could not recognize Jesus because they were walking west toward the sunset and therefore blinded by the brilliance of the sun.¹¹ While Barclay attempts to focus on the how, Morris simply points out, “On this occasion the implication appears to be that the disciples were somehow prevented from recognizing Jesus. It was in God’s providence that only later should they come to know who he was. Perhaps Luke wants us to gather, as Ford suggests, ‘that we cannot see the risen Christ, although he be walking with us, unless he wills to disclose himself’.”¹² Once the three of them were inside and sharing bread, their eyes were opened and the recognized Jesus as their resurrected Lord. Duffield and Van Cleave see this scripture as pointing to the “uniqueness” of Christ’s resurrected body in that “it was not recognizable at times.”¹³ However, most commentators and theologians, even including Duffield and Van Cleave are in agreement with Driscoll and Breshears, who use verse 31, when the disciples’ eyes were opened to argue, “Jesus’ resurrected body was the same as his pre-resurrection body. His disciples recognized him as the same person who had been crucified.”¹⁴ The most important thing is not how or why the people on the road did not initially recognize Jesus, instead, it is that when they eventually did, Luke presents it as a proof of Jesus’ resurrection.

The reaction of the two disciples was so great that despite that evening was near, they absolutely had to go back to the eleven and others in Jerusalem and testify that Jesus has risen, he was alive and they had encountered him. Their conviction was overwhelming. This was not a specter or spirit they walked and talked with. It was not a vision that broke bread and gave it to them. It was the alive and physical Jesus. These two witnesses were excited to tell others and Luke used this event to convince his audience that Jesus was and is alive.

Jesus Revealed Himself. While the primary point of the passage, the most significant aspect that should be preached above all else, is that Jesus is risen, there are some other significant aspects of this passage worth investigation. The first is that Jesus revealed himself. The two people were walking together when Jesus came upon them. Verse 15 says he “drew near and went with them” (Luke 24:15b). He asked them the first question. He could have chosen not to reveal himself. He could have chosen not to ask them the first question. Instead, he not only chose to reveal himself to the two travelers, he chose to use them as witnesses to others.

The Reaction of the Witnesses. The next point worth a brief mention is the reaction of the two people once they recognized Jesus. Jesus had just handed them bread and this in some way helped them recognize him (Luke 24:35). But then he vanished. At that moment, the two quickly reflected on their encounter with him on the road; however, they did not remain in discussion about the past for very long. That very hour, they went back to their friends to testify that they had encountered Jesus. This was an event that must be shared. And just as they had shared what they understood about Christ with a man they believed was a stranger, their initial reaction was to share their experiences and encounters with this stranger.

Who Were These Witnesses? Luke names one of the witnesses, Cleopas, lending more credibility to the account as Culpepper an O’Day point out.¹⁵ Many commentators have offered different speculation as to the identities of the unidentified traveling companion in route to Emmaus. Some, including Morris, say the unnamed person was Luke because the detail is so vivid.¹⁶ Another suggestion is that the other traveler is the wife of Cleopas. Still another idea from liberal arguments is that the particular witness no longer would testify that he saw the risen Christ so Luke left him unnamed. However, if this were the case, why would Luke include the account at all? There is the possibility that these two where the two disciples mentioned in Mark 16:12-13, but in that account, the rest did not believe the two disciples. How could these be the same accounts with such a discrepancy? In any case, it is significant to see that Cleopas is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. The other person is not even named. These two are likely regular people; and although there is no solid indication of such, most commentators address them both as men. In light of the larger point, it might be best to let the unnamed disciple remain unidentified as Luke intended.

Breaking the Bread. Some commentators, especially of much older publications, cast a light of communion upon the breaking of bread in this text. This author believes Morris best addresses this aspect of the text, writing,

Bread was commonly broken at the prayer of thanksgiving before a meal. Some have seen here a reference to the breaking of bread in the communion service, but this seems far-fetched. It would have been a very curious communion service, broken off in the opening action and as far as we can see never completed. And it would have been quite out of place. In any case the two were not present at the Last Supper (cf. 22:14; Mark 14:17) so they could not have recalled Jesus’ actions then.¹⁷

However, there may have been something significant about the breaking of bread or it may have simply been the timing because Luke 24:35 says, “Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was know to them in the breaking of the bread.”¹⁸ There is also the possibility that the disciples were present at another meal with Jesus or that something else unique to Jesus—maybe a mannerism—had something to do with their eyes being opened. However, this author is inclined to think that it was in the teaching of Jesus, which may have culminated at that moment, to a point where faith came through hearing.

APPLICATION FOR TODAY

While there is much to examine in this vivid text, it is important that the primary point Luke presents is addressed. Without seeing this point, the other points will offer nothing of value. Christ revealed himself to two travelers on the road after he had been crucified and buried. It was on the third day, just as he had promised. Jesus is alive, indeed!

As present day readers examine this passage of Luke 24, they, like the travelers, are faced with the decision to examine both the Old and New Testament Scriptures, see the accounts of Jesus, and answer the question, Is he the Savior? Readers must ask themselves if they believe if Jesus is risen? Are the accounts of the witnesses true? The travelers on the road were contemplating the testimony of the women and the report that Peter found the tomb empty. As they were contemplating, Jesus met them on the road. While it may not be that Jesus will physically manifest himself to those contemplating Christ, he does meet us where we are to reveal himself to us. He opens our eyes. The remaining question then, is will we believe; and if so, will we share our encounters with Jesus with others?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries. Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Vol. XVII. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Crossway Bibles. ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Bibles,

2008.

Culpepper, R. Alan, and Gail R. O'Day. The New Interpreter's Bible. The Gospel of Luke, the

Gospel of John. Volume IX. Nashville, Tenn: Abingdon, 1995.

Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton, Ill:

Crossway, 2010.

Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los

Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008.

Foxe, John. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Edited by William Byron. Accordance 9.1.1. OakTree

Software, Inc, Version 1.4.

Geldenhuys, Norval. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. The Gospel of

Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): W.B. Eerdmans, 1979.

Morris, Leon. Luke. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008.

___

1  Unless otherwise noted, all scripture references in this post are taken from the ESV. Crossway Bibles, ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Bibles, 2008).

2  D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 203.

3 Leon Morris, Luke (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008), 19.

4 John Foxe, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Edited by William Byron (Accordance 9.1.1. OakTree Software, Inc, Version 1.4), Ch I, xiv.

5 Another argument places the authorship sometime in the early second century, but the evidence is not convincing and therefore will exclude this date hypothesis from this post.

6 Carson, 210.

7 Alan R. Culpepper and Gail R. O'Day, The New Interpreter's Bible. The Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John. Volume IX (Nashville, Tenn: Abingdon, 1995), 476.

8 Norval Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary On the New Testament. The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids (Mich.): W.B. Eerdmans, 1979), 633.

9 Morris, 356.

10 John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. XVII (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 358.

11 William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 294-295.

12 Morris, 356.

13 Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008), 203.

14 Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010), 289.

15 Culpepper, 477.

16 Morris, 355.

17 Morris, 358-359.

18 Italics added for emphasis. 


*The painting by Carl Heinrich Bloch is in the public domain.
This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.   

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Conclusion)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

I've finished the book and my chapter-by-chapter review of Rob Bell's newest book, Love Wins.  It feels like it has been a long journey, one that I now wish I had not set out on.  It started when I watched a video of Bell promoting his book.  Here's the video again:

I was intrigued, but then I stared thinking about how many people in my past would regularly bring up one of Bell's other books, especially Velvet Elvis.  I remember watching as words Bell said in Velvet Elvis would be repeated, often with the echoing voice not even aware from where the information came.  (I think I may have even done this a time or two.)  But the challenge was that those of us repeating Bell never took the time to research the information, we just repeated it as fact.  We thought Rob Bell was cool and therefore must be right.  And looking back, I can see how what was often reverberated could have been a subtle twist on good information, skewing it to the point that it skipped beyond correct into the realm of just another twisted idea.  And this is not just information on the latest music or directions to the subway station; this is information about God.  This is information we must pray to get right!  So with that in mind, I decided to read Bell's newest book, Love Wins and chronicle my journey. And as I have been on this journey, I have already heard multiple people echo ideas from Love Wins.  I have received encouraging e-mails and positive comments, and I have also received the opposite.  I've seen people both stand to support and attack to tear down Rob Bell--not his book or ideas, but the man himself.  (And that's not really too productive, and yet that's the direction part of this conclusion must go.)  I have no doubt that Bell will have an impact upon the American Church, for good and bad, for a long time to come.

What I found in Love Wins was more than 280 question marks.  The book is only 198 pages and much of each page is consumed by blank space and large margins.  I also found claims and counter claims.  And I discovered an angry Rob Bell.  From his book, he is clearly mad at the Church.  He's critical of the Bride of Christ, but he makes his criticisms in such a way that he appeals to others who are also mad at the Church.   From what he as written, he can't seem to understand or see why Jesus loves the Church.  So it seems to me that Love Wins is not looking for God's way, but his own, so Bell can define what the Bible says and shape God into a god that he's comfortable with.  

In the promotional video Bell asks if Gandhi is in hell.  He asks if we can know for sure and if it is a person's duty to tell others.  I find this interesting because Bell apparently feels that it is his duty (through the publication of his book) to tell his readers that we can't know where Gandhi is at the moment, but eventually he, like all people, will ultimately end up redeemed and in heaven.  This appears an awful lot like universalism with Christ being the mechanism through which this happens.

Another idea I found rather pervasive throughout the book is the sugar-coating of hell.  It's a state of mind or an attitude or even the way a victim feels, but it's not an everlasting punishment according to Bell.  It can't be according to his argument or nobody would like God.  But in my opinion, that's really not how we should approach something so serious as God or hell.

Bell often seems to offer only partial information.  There were places where he neglected a Greek word in his argument and it seems he often neglected the entire body and context of Scripture.  If anything, it seems that Bell appeals to emotion and anecdotal examples.  He builds a great argument through his very artistic writing style, but his argument usually starts on the wrong foundation.  I found this rather problematic.

I kept waiting for Bell to answer some of his own questions.  I was expecting him to act as an expert on "heaven and hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived," but in the end I didn't see it.  I saw lots of questions and much criticism directed toward other Christians and what they are doing.  I saw a man thinking out loud, and that is fine except his thoughts are finding their way in to places they aught not go until the thoughts have been fully developed.

All-in-all, I feel Bell failed to deliver on the claims he made about this book.  And for that reason (among others addressed through out this chapter-by-chapter review), I would not recommend his book, Love Wins to anyone. My recommendation for anybody wanting to understand more about heaven and hell is the Bible.  Pick it up and starting reading.  It is THE SOURCE, not Rob Bell, not Bryan Catherman, not SaltyBeliever.com.  Go to the source.  Spend lots of time there.  Read, study, learn, enjoy, and know God better.  Love God more!  That is the journey worth a lifetime. 

If you're still with me though this lengthy review, thanks.  May God bless you abundantly.

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 8)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

"And so we arrive at the last chapter," writes Bell, "The end is here" (193).  He continues: "We've explored a fairly vast expanse of topics, from heaven to hell to God, Jesus, joy, violence, and the good news that is better than that, among other things" (193).

Here, at the very end of a book so full of questions, so full of stinging criticism of how most people understand Christianity, we find a chapter that does not fit.  Rob Bell offers his story, that is, his testimony.  He also shares the Good News of Jesus, but it seems to run counter to many claims he has made or implied.  Was this chapter written by one author while the previous chapters were written by another?  (This chapter is even assembled into paragraphs more so than any other chapter.)

First, Bell shares the story of the night as a young boy, he knelt beside his bed and said a prayer. "With my parents on either side of me," writes Bell," I invited Jesus into my heart. I told God that I believe that I was a sinner and that Jesus came to save me and I wanted to be a Christian" (193).  He knows that something happened in him.  He argues that this was real, not something to please his parents or a desire for a religious experience.  I applaud the opening of the chapter.  It seems honest and real.  But I can't help but wonder if this event is not unlike the prayers and events Bell seems critical of in earlier chapters.

I wish Bell would have explained his thoughts of his prayer.  Saved?  From what or who?  Repent?  And what does (or did) Bell understand of what it is to be a sinner?  What specifically happened in him?  And how did this change his life? 

Next, Bell writes of Jesus in such a way that one might think of it as a the opening of good ol' fashioned alter call.  He writes,

Jesus invites us to trust that the love we fear is too good to be true is actually good enough to be true.  It's written in one of John's letters in the scriptures that 'what we will be has not yet been made know.'  Jesus invites us to become, to be drawn into his love as it shapes us and forms us and takes over every square inch of our lives.  Jesus calls us to repent, to have our minds and hearts transformed so that we see everything differently.  It will require a death, a humbling, a leaving behind of the old mind, and at that same time it will require opening up, loosening our hold, and letting go, so that we can receive, expand, find, hear, see, and enjoy" (196). 

Then comes something that seems so counter to the rest of the book.  Through multiple chapters Bell worked to demonstrate that heaven and hell were in the same place, a state of mind, and that people could one day leave the state of hell and enter the state of heaven. Remember his take on the parable of the Prodigal Son?  Bell has argued against the idea of and in and out of heaven.  Yet, now Bell is saying it is important to trust Jesus, right now.  He reminds his readers of the the five foolish wedding attendants who are unprepared.  He talks about the guy who buries his treasure instead of doing something with it.  He shows that the Bible uses ideas such as "thrown outside into darkness," and the idea that the goats are sent away, to a different place than the sheep (196).  Bell also shares the parable of the weeds and wheat that grew along side each other until the harvest and at the harvest, the weeds were "tied up in bundles to be burned" (196-197).   Now it seems that there is an in and an out.  There is something more significant than enjoying the party or choosing to be miserable.  This doesn't sound like the universalism Bell seems to promote. This seems contradictory until one hits the next paragraph.

The reason it is important to accept Jesus invitation now, according to Bell, is that we don't want to miss out on the "rewards and celebrations and opportunities" of now (197).  Bell never indicates that there will be a time (even in the afterlife) when it will be too late to accept Jesus, just that we'll miss out longer than we have to.  It's strange however, Bell draws a contrast of future time when he looks at God's judgement, but he doesn't want to admit that there is judgement.  He doesn't think it's fair of an infinite God to punish a person for eternity for the sins of just a speck of a lifetime (and therefore does not believe that God would do this), but he is concerned that in the scope of infinity, one might miss out on a few days of reward and celebration?  If one can accept Jesus at anytime, what's a few days?  Bell is trying to say this is urgent, but his idea doesn't seem to match his words.

And then the book ends.  That's it.  That's what Rob Bell has to say about "heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived."

The thing that hit me as I read this last chapter is that Rob Bell is a product of everything he seems so critical of.  He shares his story in the last chapter. He said a prayer, with specific words.  He felt he had to repent.  He asked to be saved by Jesus.  And he believed that this changed something deep inside him.  He has grown up in in the community of believers, of which most of them he does not care for.  He says God is love and that is why Jesus came.  He says Jesus is longing to redeem all people, even thought he seems to neglect the cross and many aspects of who Jesus is.

Through this last chapter, it is clear the Rob Bell has a passion for others.  He is calling them to enjoy the reward and celebration offered through Jesus.  But I'm still left wondering if he has completed the objective he claims to have set out with this book.  Has he really explained heaven and hell as the Bible does?  Has he really addressed the fate of every person who has ever lived?  I'm still left unsure.  The final chapter did not provide answers to the many, many questions Bell offered in the book. For a conclusion, it didn't seem to conclude anything.


Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Conclusion)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Blue Like Jazz and Other Stuff

There is this book by a guy named Donald Miller that is now going to be a movie.  Here's the trailer:

Not only has this book been significant in the life of Don Miller, this book as been instrumental in the lives of many Christians.  I can say it was for me.  But the more I look back on my life--where I was when I first read the book--the more I wonder about what the commentary of Blue Like Jazz is actually saying and what it was actually saying to me.

I remember a time in my life when I held in my mind a picture of what the Church was, or what I thought it was.  This picture was greatly tainted by my own life.  My observations were colored by confusion, anger, and who knows what else.  I believed my problem as not with Jesus, but instead with the Church.  I looked at the Church that I saw and it didn't fit within my definition of cool or anything worth much of my time.  I didn't like the music I heard on the radio.  The people seemed to annoy me.  And I really didn't like the sermons I heard that said I might have something wrong with me or that God was something I didn't want him to be.  I held some kind of grudge against the Church, the very Bride of Christ.  You see, I didn't understand that Jesus loves the Church.  I was like the guy who tells his friend, "I like hanging out with you, but I can't stand your wife." 

Like so many other people, when I read Blue Like Jazz, it was as if I found a like-minded person that gave me permission to continue feeling the the way I was.  But the funny thing is I was only reading what I wanted to read.  I was finding agreement with what I liked and tossing out the rest, and I don't believe I was alone in this practice of selective reading.  And I'm sure I was not alone in my frustration and anger toward the Church.

As the years have gone by, I've starting realizing that it's not about me.  Nothing is about me.  It's about Jesus, and he loves the Church.  Seeing this, I've started to understand God's people and I've started to see some good in what I once was so bitter toward.  There are lots of good intentions in the Church.  There is lots of love in the Church.  It's easy to have patience with people and love them when the grudge is lifted and forgotten.  It's easy to find freedom in Christ and in his love and passion and community.  He's the head of this thing we call Church.  He describes the Church (and that includes all believers) as his bride, so to know Jesus is to understand what he sees in his bride and why he has so much love for the Church.  And as we let go of the self and our desire to run counter to the Jesus and his Church, we actually discover ourselves and the person Jesus is calling us to be.  And we see why Jesus loves the Church as much as he does.

Today, I know a guy who is angry at the Church.  I see that there has always been people who are angry at the Church, and I believe there always will be angry people in my life. I hope so because at the point that I don't see angry people, there is a good chance that I've enclosed a safety bubble around me and that's not what God as called us to do.  So I am thankful for this angry guy.  I also hope that one day he won't be angry anymore.  

For angry people, the Church people can't seem to do anything right and it seems I can't seem to say anything my angry friend is willing to hear.  He is angry.  I get that.  He likes the commentaries that run counter to what the Church tends to think.  I too used to like those commentaries.  He likes fighting with God's people.  I used to be a fighter.  He likes fighting with me.  And I see myself in him.  I often think it's people like my friend, and even the me of my past, that so quickly gravitate to books like Blue Like Jazz.  Why?

Might it be that in these kinds of books we find permission to continue placing our definitions and desires in a position of higher righteousness than the Church?  Or maybe we go beyond the Church and we even like to place ourselves over God?  But please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this was Miller's intention.  (He offers some insight into his own intentions for writing the book in the video below.)  It is just that with books like his, we can pluck out the cool stuff we like and gloss over the stuff we don't.  For example, I've met people over the years who love Blue Like Jazz and have seemed to define their Christianity as a Lone Ranger experience.  But if they were to turn to Chapter 12 of Miller's book, they would find that Miller is encouraging his readers to find a church and go to it, to become part of its community. I wonder if the movie will be like the book in this regard?

I am thankful for this book.  It was right where I needed it, when I needed it.  But it's just one book.  It's not some masterpiece of theology or philosophy.   It's just the well written thoughts of one ordinary guy.  For me, I found it was only the start of a journey that led me back to God.  It got me thinking.  Now I daily meet God on the road as I read his Word.  Long since reading Miller's book, I've come to find a reunification with my Heavenly Father and the community he has for his people and the commission he has given us all.  I've put aside the bitterness and anger.  I'm no longer jaded with Christianity or the Church; now I only reserve the feeling of 'jaded' for politics.  I hope Blue Like Jazz is this way for other readers too, but I fear for many, it is the end. . . the place where one stops.  It is license and nothing more. 

I confess, I'm kind of excited for this movie.  Maybe not for the movie itself (because books are always better than the films), but for the conversations this may bring into the light.  I'm thrilled for more opportunities to talk about the life that Jesus offers us, even if we are not granted the control to define or shape it.  I'm excited to point people on a journey of discovery, well beyond the jaded feeling this book helps brings to the surface, which likely the movie will do as well. 

It is an interesting book and it will likely be an interesting movie.  Donald Miller is also the author of Through Painted Deserts, To Own a Dragon, Searching for God Knows What, and A Thousand Miles in a Million Years. 

*I have no monetary connection to this book; however, I have written for and supported Burnside Writers Collective, a website with a connection to Don Miller and his friends.  

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 7)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

The book is wrapping up.  All those questions, it seems, will either be answered in the last two chapters or they will be left unanswered.  The funnel is getting narrow and at some point everything needs to flow through.

Rob Bell's seventh chapter is titled, "The Good News is Better Than That."  Going into the chapter, I was unsure if the Good News is better than the previous six chapters or better something new this chapter would present to its readers. 

As I started the chapter, I found it thought provoking and enjoyable.  Bell starts with a story of a woman who cuts herself (this idea is not enjoyable, but the point Bell is making is good).  She dates men that hit her.  Her life is hard and her understanding of love is a twisted mess.  She's not really sure what love is so it is very difficult for her to understand the unconditional love God offers to her.  She is faced with a choice between two realities--two stories.  Her's or God's.

To understand how we see ourselves juxtaposed against how God sees us, Bell shifts to the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15.  Most of us know the story, but Bell presents it in a way that I have never seen before.  He demonstrates that both the brothers have a story to tell.  The story is their perspective of reality.  They each tell their own story through warped lenses.

The younger son feels worthless as he comes home with his tail between his legs.  He sees himself no more worthy than a hired hand on his father's property, if he's lucky.  But the father has another story to tell about this son.  It's a much different story.  And the same is true of the older brother.  Bell, seeing the contrast between what the boys believe about themselves and what the father has to say about them, says they have a choice to make.  Which story will they believe? Bell writes,

"The younger son has to decide whose version of his story he's going to trust: his or his father's.  One in which he is no longer worthy to be called a son or one in which he's a robe-, ring-, and sandal-wearing son who was dead but is alive again, who was lost but has now been found.  There are two versions of his story.  His. And his father's" (165-166). 

What insight!  As many times as I have read and studied this parable, I had never compared the two stories presented in each son. I've always seen only two stories when really there are four.

But then things start to get squirrely. Bell uses this story to make his point about hell.


A parable is often Jesus' method of explaining something in a way that is memorable and easy to relate to.  It is safe because people will either see a story about a farmer or virgins or brothers; or, if they are given sight, they will see a story about something so much more significant.  But trouble comes when a student of the Bible tries to make the parable say more than Jesus intended for it to say.  At times, we push parables too far.  This seems like one of those times.

Following this discussion of how we see our selves in these two stories, Bell says, "The difference between the two stories is, after all, the difference between heaven . . . and hell" (169).  For the next few pages, the question marks are put away and some serious statements about hell come out using this parable as a launching pad.

Bell writes, "Now most images and understandings people have of heaven and hell are conceived in terms of separation" (169).  He goes on to provide some examples of these distinctions.  Up and down. Two places far apart from each other.  Here and over there.  Interestingly, Bell fails to include the biblical parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke Chapter 16, where there is a great chasm fixed between one man and the other (Luke 16:26).  Lazarus is at Abraham's side (or Abraham's bosom) and the rich man is in Hades. Separation.

In arguing against the idea of a separation (to include the image Jesus provides in his parable about Lazarus and the rich man), Bell writes,

"This makes what Jesus does in his story about the man with two sons particularly compelling. Jesus puts the older brother right there at the party, but refusing to trust the father's version of his story.  Refusing to join in the celebration.  Hell is being at the party. That's what make is so hellish.  It's not an image of separation, but one of integration.  In this story, heaven and hell are within each other, intertwined, interwoven, bumping up against each other" (169-170). 

As I read Bell's argument, I have to wonder if this specific teaching was the purpose of Jesus' parable.  I also wonder how this understanding of the parable fits within the rest of Jesus' teaching.  I highly recommend reading the parable of the prodigal son again, but read in in light of the entire chapter.  Could it be that this parable--coming right after two other parables about being lost and found--has something to do with the father's love more so than having to do with heaven and hell?  And how does Bell's reading of the prodigal son parable line up with the parable of Lazarus and the rich man found in the very next chapter of Luke?  I leave this for you to examine.

Bell argues that "we create hell whenever we fail to trust God's retelling of our story" (173).  "Hell," he writes, "is our refusal to trust God's retelling of our story" (170).

Are we really so powerful as to create hell?  Do we really have that much control over God?  The problem here, is that there are many people who feel that they understand God's love and God's justice better than God does. Maybe this is why the book has such an appeal with people--it allows them to feel justified in remaining in the driver's seat.

Bell then shifts to God's justice, or better put, to our understanding of God's justice.  An example is given that if one has not accepted God in his lifetime and then dies in a car crash, God would have no choice but to send this person to an eternal conscious state of torment in hell.  Bells says this god would instantly be different, like flipping a switch, and Bell can't accept that God might be like this.  He argues that this would be unacceptable behavior for an earthly father implying that it is unaccetable for our Heavenly Father (174).  Bell questions how a loving God who goes to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with his creation could become so different and so mean in an instant (170-177).  Does Rob Bell refuse to believe that this could be God.  Is that option off the table?  Or might it be that the understand of God before the car crash is not correct?  Could Bell be unwilling to realize that God is who God is regardless of how Bell wants to create him?  Maybe it could be that God's understanding of his story is so much better than our understanding, that we have a choice to accept God's story or our own.  Bell continues, "Because if something is wrong with your God, if your God is loving one second and cruel the next, if your God will punish people for all eternity for sins committed in a few short years, no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or great coffee will be able to disguise what one, true glaring, untenable unacceptable, awful reality" (175).

Standing on this foundation, the chapter moves through a series of statements.  Still, no questions.  Bell argues that God is about love, God is love.  Interestingly, throughout most of this argument, God is made out to be void of justice.  (Which if we argue away justice, there can be no grace.)  Here is no balance.

He continually says "We shape our God, and then our God shapes us" (182, 183, and 184).  I'm not sure I understand this statement.  Bell seems to be implying that we actually can shape our God, but this only leaves me thinking about idol making and I'm not comfortable with that.

In addition, Bell spends a few pages attacking the Church again, or at least those among the Church who operate and believe differently than does Bell.  He swings at those who present the gospel as a  way "just to get into heaven" (179).  Of these people he says, "An entrance understanding of the gospel rarely creates good art.  Or innovation.  Or a number of other things.  It's a cheap view of the world, because it's a cheap view of God.  It's a shriveled imagination.  It's the gospel of goats" (179-180).  He also attacks the understanding that "you're not doing enough" and he harps on ministry that leads to exhaustion and burnout.  Yes, most of these statements are true in many ways; the gospel is more and better.  Many would agree with Bell about some of his criticism of the Church today and some of these misunderstandings about the gospel; but the interesting thing is this:  Bell fails to realize that he too is taking a stand, making a claim, and presenting a gospel.  His position has its flaws and problems just as much as any other that he has problems with, maybe even more.  But he doesn't seem to see this.  Directed at them, he writes, "For some, the highest from of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame, and slander others who don't articulate matters of faith as they do" (183).  Is this not a fair statement for Bell as well? 
 
Throughout this chapter Bell makes some "very clear" statements, as he puts it (182).  Good statements.  "We do not need to be rescued from God.  God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction.  God is the rescuer" (182).   Bell says the God forgives us "Before we could be good enough or right enough, before we could even believe in the right things" (189).  On another page we find the statement, "It's only when you lose your life that you find it, Jesus says" (190).  And, "Jesus meets and redeems us in all the ways we have it together and in all the ways we don't, in all the times we proudly display for the world our goodness, greatness, and rightness, and in all of the ways we fall flat on our faces" (190).  The challenge however, is that through this chapter and most of the previous chapters, these statements are mixed with some rather problematic claims, assumptions, and passive allusions.  There's a twist.  We hear things that sound good, right, biblical, and we almost miss the twist.  The next thing we know, we miss that there is a father running to his son, happy he has come home.  Instead, we see a story of heaven and hell hanging out at a party together.


Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 8)," the final chapter.

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
** Photo of son running to his father is by Sherif Salama and is registered under a creative commons license.

Francis Chan on Hell and Humility

Francis Chan is working on his newest book, Erasing Hell.  It could be a response to Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, but that may not actually be the case.  Hell, it seems, tends to be a topic of conversation inside and outside the Church lately.  In one of his promotional videos, Chan discusses the importance of having the humility to sit under the magnitude, authority, and truth of Scripture.  And he's right.

As I watch this video, I realize that at times I could certainly stand to have some humility.  But I also realize that as we are lumps of clay telling other lumps of clay about the Potter, we can and should do so boldly, with confidence derived from the Word of God.  Acts 13 shows Barnabas and Paul speaking boldly to the Jews in Antioch in Pisidia (specifically Acts 13:46).  And again, Barnabas and Paul spoke the Word of God "boldly for the Lord" in Iconium (Acts 14:3, ESV).  Peter and John, ordinary men, were seen as bold, having been with Jesus (Acts 4:13ff).

But please don't get me wrong; I feel Chan is representing this kind of boldness in his video.  It takes boldness to say, "Hey, we need to approach this with some humility to submit to a God that's bigger than ourselves." That being said, there are many who feel that saying an idea may be wrong because it does not line up with the biblical teaching is a bad thing.  Some may feel that this is what Chan is saying.  But I don't think that's Chan's point.  These days, some will defend their claim by arguing that the counter-claim maker is not humble.  Some may desire that all ideas dwell equally in a state of coexistence and that's also not Chan's claim.  Chan is rightly claiming that we need to make a careful study of the entire Word of God and then submit ourselves to its teaching.  This is the humility Chan seems to be getting at. This is the humility we should all desire to seek.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 6)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Bell opens his chapter, "There are Rocks Everywhere," with some seemingly strange stories of people encountering Jesus in supernatural ways.  Rooms filled with peaceful feelings and white light kind of stuff.  He admits that these sound bizarre, but while he often hears accounts the that seem so unexplainable, he recognizes that many are very real.  In an effort to understand what these strange stories have to do with Jesus, Bells shifts gears and discusses a rock that Moses strikes to get water for his people.  In the provisions of that rock, Paul claims we can see Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4, although Bell only gives the chapter).

In this discussion, an interesting thing has happened in Bells' presentation.  It seems he is shifting away from the radical and shocking approach and slipping into a soft teaching style about Jesus.  It starts on page 144, just past the line that marks the coming of a new section.  There are almost no question marks for four pages!  Bell is starting to make a claim, a proclamation.  He's telling, not asking.  And it is not far from what most Christian preachers and teachers would preach and teach on any given Sunday.  And then on page 150 there's another line, a clear indicator of the end of the section.  What could possibly follow what Bell calls the "Jesus story" (150)?

Within only a two sentences, Bell moves back to what many may see as universalism.  Bell writes, "Within this proper, larger understanding of just what the Jesus story even is, we see that Jesus himself, again and again, demonstrates how seriously he takes his role in saving and rescuing and redeeming not just everything, but everybody" (150-151).  He uses a verse from John 12 that states that all people will be drawn to Jesus and then makes a point to say, "All people, to himself" (151).

But there is, mixed in, some good in this first part of the chapter.  Jesus is for everybody, every culture, every people, as Bell argues.  Clearly Bell wants people to see that they need Jesus.  He has a strong desire for all to find him, now.  But there's also some mixed indications that Rob Bell is not pleased with some of the Church's behavior.  He writes,

"When people use the word 'Jesus,' then, it's important for us to ask who they're talking about.  Are they referring to a token of tribal membership, a tamed, domesticated Jesus who waves the flag and promotes whatever values they have decided their nation needs to return to?  Are they referring to the supposed source of the imperial impulse of their group, which wants to conquer other groups 'in the name of Jesus'? Are they referring to the logo or slogan of their political, economic, or military system through which they sanctify their greed and lust for power?" (156).  

He challenges the 'them' Christians about which he passive-aggressively writes.  And the challenge is not off based, it's just that there are strong hints that Bell is angry at any within Christianity that don't look like him and his flavor.  In this chapter (and others) we can see that Bell loves the lost and wants to see people turn to Jesus, but for those tribes, cultures, families, and individuals that have turned to Christ but still maintain was might be considered an immature understanding of the gospel, Bell offers very little love or compassion.  Instead, throughout the book, these people seem to be on his hit list. He appears unwilling to extent any grace to this group of Christians.  So he draws a contrast, showing this reader how he defines what a church that follows Jesus looks like.  He continues,

"Jesus is both near and intimate and personal, and big and wide and transcendent.  One of the many things people in a church do, then, is name, honor, and orient themselves round this mystery.  A church is a community of people who enact specific rituals and create specific experiences to keep this word alive in their own hearts, a gathering of believers who help provide language and symbols and experiences for this mystery" (156).

With the argument he is presenting, Bell discusses these rituals and continually states that nobody is excluded from the need of Jesus.  The extent of that need however, is unclear considering his chapter on hell (Chapter 3).  Does everybody need Jesus to avoid a longer time in a purgatory-style hell, or is there some other reason?  The question about why everybody needs Jesus goes unanswered in favor of the idea that Jesus is for everybody and he will eventually get them all. 

And then, on page 158, there's another section dividing line.  Following the line, 158 pages into the book, is a question that most the readers are likely asking.  After a 157 pages, Bell has asked how the premise that's printed on the cover of his book relates to Jesus.  He asks, "So how does any of this explanation of who Jesus is and what he's doing connect with heaven, hell, and the fate of every single person who has ever lived?" (158).  But before I continue, I have to wonder what Bell means by "this explanation"? Is he referring to the previous page, section, chapter, or even the previous 157 pages?  And about "what he is doing"? Does this refer to saving everybody or something else?

With the exception of Bell's hint that worship in names other than Jesus could still be worshiping Jesus, Bell provides a pretty explanation of Jesus.  Unfortunately, he doesn't answer the question.  He says nothing about how 'who Jesus is' and 'what he is doing' relates to heaven or hell.  He only focuses on the idea that Jesus is for everybody.   And that's where the chapter ends.

I had very little notes written in the margins and between the sentences. This chapter is one that a Christian can read and say, "Ah, that's nice," without really seeing any glaring differences about what they know and love about Jesus.  Bell seems to be cooling off after the previous few chapters. However, for those who only spend 2 hours a week in Church and nothing more (that's only 4 and a half days communing with God), and maybe for those that spend no time in church, no time reading the Bible, and no time praying but claim to be 'spiritual,' one might feel differently.  And maybe it is this person that Bell had in mind while writing Chapter 6.   
   

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 7)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Don't Neglect Salvation? Hebrews 2 & 3

Hebrews 2:2-3 provides a warning against neglecting such a great salvation, that is, neglecting the great message the author and his readers have heard, which is being introduced in the previous chapter of Hebrews. This is the message of the gospel and the author of Hebrews says, “don’t overlook it.” The word the ESV translates as ‘neglecting’ comes from the Greek word amelesantes (a transliteration), which is derived from ameleo (also a transliteration). Strong’s states that its meaning is to neglect, make light of, ignore, and even be negligent of (Strongs 2001, 1590). The word appears four times in the New Testament—in Matthew 22:5, 1 Timothy 4:14, Hebrews 2:3, and again in Hebrews 8:9.

In 1 Timothy 4:14, the warning is to avoid neglecting the gift that was given to the reader. In Hebrews 8:9 the neglect or ignorance was God’s approach to the people of the exodus who did not continue in his covenant. Matthew 22:5 however, seems to shed some light on the Hebrews 2:3 passage where there is a picture of a neglectful attitude toward salvation. In this passage, Jesus shares a parable of a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. Everything was ready, but when the servants went out with the invitation, the people paid them no attention—the messengers were rejected, turned away, treated poorly, and in some cases even killed. The king was angered by this reaction so he sent his troops to kill those who murdered his messengers and then he had their cities burned. Eventually, the king sent his messengers into the streets to invite anybody the messengers could find.

The author of Hebrews is cautioning his readers not to neglect this message for he knows the consequences are grave. But he is not acting as if he has received this invitation and that is the end of it. He includes himself in the warning saying, “We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Hebrews 2:1, ESV). It seems that paying much closer attention is to understand the details. And it also seems that we need to follow this warning to the extent that the author takes it, later writing, “Take care, brothers, lest there be any of you of an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Hebrews 3:12-3, ESV). Paying much closer attention would appear to be an ongoing thing; and being an ongoing thing, it seems that neglecting the message of salvation and the blessing that come from it is a very serious matter.

This warning in Hebrews 3:12, is a warning to be cautious and even avoid having an unbelieving heart. This unbelieving heart the author warns about, it seems, is evil and can cause one to fall away from, or even rebel against the Living God. In verse 13, the reader is encouraged to exhort one another daily to avoid the hardening of the heart caused by sin. Genesis 8:21 says, “ the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (ESV) and Deuteronomy 11:6 warns “Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them” (ESV). Therefore, it seems that the default or natural desire of the human heart is toward this hardened state, and this hardness causes our faith in, and love for God to be less than our 'all' as Deuteronomy 6, 10, 13, and 30 instruct (which Jesus teaches as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.)

Hebrews 3:13 shows that the way to avoid this frightful hardening is to engage in daily exhortation with, and among other Christian believers of the living God. (In light of Hebrews 1 and 2, this faith should be in Jesus, to be more specific.) It is a daily effort in study, prayer, discussion, openness, honesty, and accountability with the other believers that fights the natural desire of the ever-hardening, sinful heart. This will hopefully help the reader follow the instruction of Hebrews 3:14 to “hold our original confidence firm to the end” (ESV).

In addition, this message was written to believers so while it could be a discussion about completely forfeiting salvation after one is regenerated (or born again), it is a strong possibly that is is about missing out on the many good things God has for his people.

While verses 12 and 13 are counted in Chapter 3, they seem to fit better heading into Chapter 4 because the call to take courage and keep the heart soft and faithful is compared to God’s people who stepped in faith to leave Egypt but eventually sinned by turning from God. They eventually took their faith and placed it elsewhere, in other words, they allowed their hearts to return to the default hardness and unbelief of all God was doing for them. While they still counted themselves as God's people, they did not trust that he had their best interests in mind. The result of this sin was a prohibition of the blessings and rest found in the Promised Land. The author continues to compare rest (or lack thereof) to the condition of the heart, and those with no rest had hard hearts. The author is encouraging the readers (then and now) to take caution and avoid the same pitfalls of those who did not remain completely faithful to the end.

___
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Word Study: Parakletos

I've always been a champion of reading and studying from multiple translations of the Bible.  But as I'm learning Koine Greek and studying the New Testament in the original language, I've come to believe this even more.  Because words in one language tend not to translate perfectly into another, looking at how multiple translation teams handled specific words helps us see the complexity of the word.  (And if you don't know the original languages, there are a number of resources--in print, on-line, and computer software) to make this much easier.

Recent research and study on John's understanding of the Holy Spirit led me to a word study of Parakletos.  I ran across its use a few times and felt it was worth deeper study.  (I've excluded  the technical study of the word's construction.)  

Parakletos appears only five times in the New Testament—four times in the Gospel of John and once in First John (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1). Incidentally, it makes no appearance in the LXX, the first translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Koine Greek. Köstenberger states, “The translation of this term has proved particularly difficult, since there does not seem to be an exact equivalent in the English language” (1999, 157). Most English Bible translations seem to handle the word differently. For example, the English Standard Version (ESV) uses the word “Helper” in all of the Gospel accounts and uses and “Advocate” in John’s epistle. The American Standard Version (ASV) uses “Comforter” in the Gospel uses, and “ Advocate” in the letter. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) uses “Counselor” in the Gospel, and once again, “Advocate” is used in First John; and the same is true for the King James Version (KJV). The New International Version (NIV) also selected “Counselor” in the Gospel and simply says “one” in the Epistle. “Helper” is the choice for the New American Standard Bible (NASB) except in the Letter, where “ Advocate” is the selected word. The New English Translation (NET) uses “Advocate” for every occurrence, as does the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New Living Translation (NLT). But which English translation should be considered best?

Turning to dictionaries and lexicons a variety of meanings are presented. Perschbacher defines parakletos as, “one called or sent for to assist another; an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, [. . .] one present to render various beneficial service, and thus, the Paraclete, whose influence and operation were to compensate for the departure of Christ himself” (1990, 308.) Strong defines the word as, “counselor, intercessor, helper, one who encourages and comforts; in the NT it refers exclusively to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus Christ” (2001, 3884).

Köstenberger feels that the best translation is “helping Presence” because it “captures the importance of the term better than any others” (1999, 157). His reasons are three fold: because this translation best mirrors Jesus’ earthly ministry, it best outlines the Spirit’s functions as outlined in John 14-16, and it seems to avoid the legal concepts other words get marred down in. (1999, 157). The challenge in simply accepting Köstenberger’s translation however is that it brings in theology with the translation—something that might stretch beyond the necessary theological under-girding that is inherent with most biblical translations.

When read in context, the use of “Advocate” in 1 John 2:1 seem to make good sense. But it may not be the correct idea in the Gospel of John. But for what reason should the same work be translated differently in two different works? Likely because it has no perfect match in the English. That being said, I wonder if two English words might do a better job at capturing the meaning? Maybe Helping Comforter or Comforting Helper? Helping Counselor?

Regardless of the best translation, I can say this with certainty: if I bring my theological ideas into the translation, I am not as comfortable with Köstenberger’s “helping presence.” If we are to believe that the Holy Spirit is a person (as Jesus is), and is engaged in a function (also as Jesus is), then only using the idea of “Presence” seems to introduce ideas that may be worse than only using the the idea of an Advocate.  Indeed, the Holy Spirit has come to be present with us; but "Presence" opens the door for ideas such as a force or energy, which is an incorrect way to view the Holy Spirit. 

___
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
Perschbacher, Wesley J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Eternity is a Long Time

There is an idea cropping up among some Christians that I think is worth some discussion.  It's a thought that the biblical concept of eternity is not actually an idea of forever, or a time without end.  Just recently in fact, I read a statement by a controversial author that actually argued that eternity is not a concept found in the Bible.  And these arguments are almost always centered on the doctrine of hell.

Now, to be fair, this is not the same argument as annihilationism.  Annihilationism is the idea that God is merciful and allows a person in hell to eventually be snuffed out rather than suffering forever, enduring eternal flames and being eaten by the worm that never dies (Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:48 for example).  The person is just no more, completely consumed by fire and the worm, and is eventually without suffering.  Dr. Clark Pinnock was a champion of this view.

But this recent argument is not annihilationism.  No, this other argument addresses the idea that eternity is not really forever, but maybe just for a long time, implying that there is something after the punishment.  And both annihilationism and this other argument are based in the stand that God is not worth worshiping if he is willing to punish his enemies without end.

But before this 'eternity is not forever' conversation runs wild, there are at least a couple problems we should examine. 

First, if eternity does not apply to hell because eternity is not a biblical concept, than neither can it apply to heaven.  It's just that simple.

Second, eternity is a biblical concept.  Those who argue against it might discuss the New Testament Greek word aion without having considered another New Testament Greek word, aionios. 

Let's start with aion.  According to Strong, aion means, "properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): — age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end).  And Thayer says it can be both an age and "an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity," among other things.  Here are the New Testament passages where the word aion appears (some are in the negated form often translated as 'never'): Matthew 12:32; 13:22, 39–40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 3:29; 4:19; 10:30; Luke 1:33, 55, 70; 16:8; 18:30; 20:34–35; John 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51–52; 9:32; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; Acts 3:21; 15:18; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 12:2; 16:27; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6–8; 3:18; 8:13; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 9:9; 11:31; Gal 1:4–5; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9, 11, 21; Philippians 4:20; Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10, 18; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 1:2, 8; 5:6; 6:5, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21; 1 Peter 1:25; 4:11; 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 1:2; Jude 1:13, 25; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9–10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; and 22:5.  Look at these passages and note the context and translational use.

But wait, there's that other word that gets completely neglected when people want to downgrade eternity, especially an eternity in hell.  The word is aionios. Aionios has that has the eternal, forever, time marching on without end aspect.  Regarding this word, Strong says it means, "perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): — eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began)."  But you don't have to know Greek to see this.  Look at where this word appears in the New Testament, and notice its context, usage, and English translation: Matthew 18:8; 19:16, 29; 25:41, 46; Mark 3:29; 10:17, 30; Luke 10:25; 16:9; 18:18, 30; John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; Acts 13:46, 48; Romans 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; 16:25–26; 2 Corinthians 4:17–5:1; Galatians 6:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2:16; 1 Timothy 1:16; 6:12, 16; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2:10; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Philemon 1:15; Hebrews 5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14–15; 13:20; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:11; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 1:7, 21; and Revelation 14:6.  Aion and aionios are not the same word and they each carry their own meaning.  Notice that these two different words appear in the same books by the same authors.  Sometimes they appear in the same paragraphs, and in a couple cases, even in the same sentence! (See Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 for example).

It is easy to understand why someone would want to think of hell as something temporary, but this is not what the Bible claims.  And what value is a god that we create with doctrines we control?  Certainly it is the God of the Bible that saves, not one of our own making. And God has reveled in his own Word to us that both heaven AND hell have an aspect of eternity, forever, time marching on without end, regardless of how we would otherwise want to think of it.

When I Teach Heresy

I co-teach an adult class on Sunday mornings that is presently dealing with the Synoptic Gospels from an exegetical perspective.  I'd like to think it's a good class, and both myself and the other teacher work hard to challenge the students while also rightly teaching the Word of God.  But I would be grossly fooling myself if I believed that I always get it right.

On this particular Sunday, I was given Matthew 10:17-42 and the subsequent parallel passages found in the Synoptics.  This text is larger than the selections we typically teach in the 30 to 40 minutes we have for class, depending on how fast the students trickle in.   Throughout the week, I had been reading and re-reading the passage, as well as looking at it in the Greek.  My Greek skills are certainly not fantastic, so this large text was a lot of work.  And I had prayed for illumination and understanding. 

On Saturday morning, sitting before my computer, books and Bibles open on the desk, I started feeling the magnitude of teaching God's Word.  Visions of standing before God to give an account of my teaching often weigh heavily upon me as I prepare to teach.  I think about verses like Hebrews 13:17 and James 3:1.  It was even worse on this day because there was just so much material; therefore, I opted to deal with the passage in themes.  

Approaching the text thematically, rather than working through it line by line would help me with the limited time but it would also mean that some of the verses that did not greatly impact the themes would get far less attention.  Even still, I carefully read through each verse and paragraph seeking to understand. Again, I prayed for guidance and understanding.  Occasionally I would deal with a word study as specific questions came up.  And then I examined some commentaries to see if I was on track or if maybe I had missed the mark.  (I go here last, but this often means I return to my study for more and then another return to the commentaries.)  I tried to prepare for potential questions that might be asked, especially considering there are a variety of study Bibles used by the students ranging from the NIV Study Bible to the ESV Study Bible to the Ryrie Study Bible, and these always seem to bring up a wide range of questions and comments.  But as it turns out, I did not prepare well for the questions that came at me about Matthew 10:28.

When I looked at verse 28 during my preparation, I noticed that Jesus was saying to fear 'him' (or 'the one'; ton, transliterated from the Greek) who is able to destroy the body and soul in gehenna.  I made a note that in this specific passage the ton does not seem to be clearly identified.  There seems to be some ambiguity.  I questioned if this was God who the Twelve (Jesus' specific audience at the time) should fear because he has the ability to kill and then destroy the soul, or if it was the devil.  Then I wondered how either of these ideas worked in light of the next few sentences about God placing such a high value on his children, even knowing the number of hairs on their head (Matthew 10:29-31).  I was thinking about 1 Peter 5:8 which reads, "Be sober-minded; be watchful.  Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (ESV).  Looking at just verse 28, it seemed that the ambiguity might be pointing to the adversary.

But having already spent a few hours on this lesson and still having much to do, I decided to move on.  I wish I hadn't because a systematic study as well as additional work with the specific passage may have yielded different ideas.  Then, to make matters more complicated, I misread the commentary I was looking at when taking my ideas to the scholars.  Yes, Carson's discussion has something about Satan, but in rereading it, I now see that while Satan is powerful, only God can ultimately destroy souls (understood from a systematic approach and clearly outlined by Carson).  It is clear now that I was skimming through the commentary on the passages that were not the primary focus of the class. For the texts I wanted to deal with in class, I was consulting multiple commentaries.  And I was using four different translations.  For those verses, I was putting in the work; for the others, it is apparent I didn't give them proper attention.

One of the students using the NIV quickly pointed out that this translation reads, "the One," with the One (ton) being capitalized.  The NIV--notorious for removing any ambiguity and filling in the gaps--might have actually better prepared me had I noticed the capitalized One as I was looking at the passage in a parallel format with other translations.  But I missed it, likely pressing on toward other verses.  And during class, I couldn't remember the extent of the ambiguity.  Then I heard, "My study Bible says. . . ."  Sadly, I grew defensive.  Over eight hours of study and work for the 30-minute lesson suddenly went down the drain as the class shutdown. 

The lesson I take away from this experience (and hope others may learn from my mistake) is this:  All teachers are heretics on some level.  We are never going to get it right every time.  I once had a professor that would end most of his classes by saying, "Well, that's probably enough heresy for today."  But this is not an excuse to try less.  We should not hide behind the reality that we will fumble the ball.  If anything, it should push us teachers of God's Word to work even harder and pray all the more.  We are obligated to teach God's word well.  It is my prayer that God will fill me even more so my teaching will actually not be from me, but instead from his outpouring to his class.

And that's probably enough heresy for one blog post.


*Painting, "Jun Hus at the Stake" is in the public domain.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 5)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

If you've ever seen old video footage from a bomber squadron just after the the payload has dropped and the bombardier doors are closing, you get a gimps of a unique feeling in the brief moment before the bombs explode.  The planes are now turning back and the bombs are out of their control.  The crew is probably hoping the bombs find their target; but in reality, they are more likely hoping to get safely home and put another bombing run behind them.  Still, in that moment, the bombs haven't yet unleashed their intended destruction.  Chapter 5 of Rob Bell's book Love Wins feels like that moment.

Bell has made his theological bombing run for over half the book now.  The target--his understanding of Christianity and the Church's understanding of heaven and hell.  The Church is looking skyward as Bell's bombs are coming right for them.  The payload doors are closing now.  Bell is arcing his plane around and heading back to the safety of home.  Another bombing run is almost complete.  This is Chapter 5.  I can imagine that if Bell and I were discussing this over a cup of coffee, he might argue that he wasn't dropping bombs, only asking questions.  However, the way his questions come across, he's really only painting flowers and "Love Wins" on the nosecones of his deadly payload.  The truth however, is that there is no amount of paint that can change the purpose of his explosives.

Chapter 5, titled "Dying to Live," is fairly flat after the previous three chapters.  It seems as if Bell is letting his readers take a few minutes to rest.  He knows he has been unloading his theology and now needs to turn a corner and head for safety.

The focus of this chapter is the gospel of Jesus and the reconciliation God with his creation.  He asks, "When Jesus died on the cross, was it the end of the sacrificial system or was it the reconciling of all things?" (126).  While this is not an either or proposition, Bell takes his argument in the direction of reconciliation (which is fine).  He points out that reconciliation required Jesus' death AND the resurrection.  And this is the model Bell uses to demonstrate that new life comes through death.  God is "rescuing all of creation" (134).  Very few Christians would read this chapter and feel like bombs were falling.  In fact, it's a fairly safe chapter.  It's not likely one to be discussed in reviews or on the promotion circuit.  There are far fewer questions (although still enough to keep the question mark well employed).

Bell seems to shift away from his early arguments and starts to come back to sharing the gospel as most preachers would.  For example, he writes,

Jesus talks about death and rebirth constantly, his and ours.  He calls us to let go, turn away, renounce, confess, repent, and leave behind the old ways.  He talks of the life that will come from his own death, and he promises that life will flow to use in thousands of small ways as we die to our egos, our pride, our need to be right, our self-sufficiency, our rebellion, and our stubborn insistence that we deserve to get our way.  When we cling with white knuckles to our sins and our hostility, we're like a tree that won't let it's leaves go.  There can't be a spring if we're still stuck in the fall" (136). 

What Christian would disagree with this statement?  This is the gospel.  Chapter 5 is fairly easy to read and enjoyable.  But wait a minute. . . .  Between this chapter and the last there are falling bombs.  Unanswered questions are still suspended in the air.  Is this chapter Bell's way of moving away from those questions?  Is this his way of saying he's not going to answer any of the questions he has presented?  Is he now headed home, not looking to see which bombs hit the mark?

I'm looking for some answers.  Can we let go of our metaphorical leaves at some point after we've been found fruitless, hacked down, and cast into the fire? (Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9, 13:6-9; John 15:2-6.)  Can spring come somewhere in the eternal punishment of hell?   If at some post-life point, we decide to turn to God, from hell, can we go to the great new city and be with our creator as his child?  At some point will God force those clinging dead leaves to drop them so they can finally see spring?  Will everybody eventually let go of leaves, all people, because that's what God wants?  These are only a few unanswered question bombs from previous chapters.  Are we moving on?  Is this presentation of the gospel, although very important, actually being employed to move away from the explosives?  Is Bell using the gospel as a smoke screen? (See, a question can be a bomb.)

Not long ago I attended a clinical presentation about family dynamics.  A question and answer time was reserved for the end.  The first question was a practical, real, applicable question about a specific aspect of dealing with extreme verbal child abuse.  The speaker, an expert in the field, seemed to squirm and then froze as the question was being presented. He looked stumped and slightly afraid, but after an a moment it was obvious that his mind was going into overdrive as he was formulating an answer. After an awkward amount of time he spoke.  We were all on the edge of our seats waiting to hear what this expert would say.  His answer:  "What to you think?"

The crowd quickly turned on the expert. One man raised his hand and asked, "So, is this really just a question and question time?"  We were there to find some answers, from an expert, not just witness him asking more questions.  And if this man's position was to say that we can't know or that there are no answers (like Bell's defense), why offer the presentation in the first place? Why waste everybody's time? Or was it a ploy for the ability to stand as a star in front of a crowd or maybe make a few bucks?  (See, more bombs hidden as questions.) 

On Ash Wednesday I watched a man ask a question of a conflicted Catholic Priest (who is employed as a Catholic Chaplain/Priest but lives counter to his employment and doesn't seem to want to offer Catholic rites to Catholics).  The inquiring man, clearly not a Catholic, asked, "What does the ash on the forehead represent; what's it for?"  A fair question.  The priest looked confused or unwilling to answer.  The man, really wanting to learn something about Catholicism and Ash Wednesday dug some more:  "What does it mean?"  Then the priest answered, "What does it mean to you?" 

There may have been a recent time in Christianity when it was vogue or hip to ask questions without actually seeking answers; but it's time for answers.  People are looking for answers; and if they're not, they are just asking endless questions in an attempt to be cool. Even worse, they keep asking questions because they are unwilling to accept the Truth.

When I think about about both of these examples, I can't help but think that Bell is doing the same thing.  The dust jacket of Love Wins presents Bell as an expert.  Publishing a book about a specific topic generally shouts, "I'm an expert on this topic. I know something and want to tell you about it. I have some answers."  But I keep finding myself wondering if Bell is going to provide any tangible information or continue to hide behind the question mark, followed by an easy, agreeable chapter?  Is he going to get back to the payload this book came to deliver or is he flying away without looking back?
   

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 6)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
**Photo of dead leaves taken by Flickr.com user Antaean (Ricky) and is registered under a Creative Commons License.